Missing an important point?

Why should DRC have to pay the price for saving the planet on its own? One article, only one of many, made reference to how “the auction highlights a double standard that many political leaders across the African continent have called out: how can Western countries, which built their prosperity on fossil fuels that emit poisonous, planet-warming fumes, demand that Africa forgo their reserves of coal, oil and gas in order to protect everyone else?” And as rightly said by DRC’s representative on climate issues and advisor of the Minister of hydrocarbon, Tosi Mpanu Mpanu: “Maybe it’s time we get a level playing field and be compensated”.

Why is it so difficult for most mainstream media and environmental NGOs to discuss the co-responsibility of African national governments and Western countries. Of course we totally disapprove that countries, including DRC, are opening up their protected areas and pushing for fossil fuel exploitation and other destructive activities, with a flagrant disregard of national laws and violating the rights of nature and communities. However, these countries do have a point when they say that we can not work with double standards.

Double standards?

There are global outcries against the pushing for oil blocks in protected areas by national governments but we hear little about the fact that nearly none of the Western countries contributed to the Yasuni initiative. As a result, the Ecuadorian government allowed oil exploration in this critical habitat.

Also, why are there so many empty promises from western governments about climate commitments? This is not about prioritizing the needs of one country above another but it is about the failure of the world to take “the principle of co-responsibility in the battle against climate change.”

Quote from The Guardian: “This failure of the international community touches on the wider issue of justice in the battle against climate change. What level of responsibility should be taken by the developed nations that have most contributed to the problem of climate change and are most able to tackle it? And what is the responsibility of the less developed nations? Clearly, a just solution would see the more developed nations bare proportionally more of the responsibility?”

The global “debt” of Western countries by building their economies on fossil fuels, and at the continued expense of the Global South, is a critical point, but seems to be ignored by the international community.

Yasuni

In 2013 former Ecuadorian ambassador to the UK regretted to see how on Yasuní the world failed to show the will needed, and explained that we could not afford the world to fail on other proposals. This was a little less than ten years ago. One can only wonder how much we have learned from our mistakes and what is the international community going to do with Congo’s nature?

At the same time UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, warns of climate emergency and prompts for the creation of “climate coalitions, made up of developed countries, multilateral development banks, private financial institutions and corporations, supporting major emerging economies in making this shift.”

Maybe the awaited departure of the UN peacekeeping mission, MONUSCO, from the DRC could be a good start. An opportunity for the UN to show strong climate leadership, not only in words, but by reinvesting the current MONUSCO annual budget of $1 billion into something that the Congolese people really need and want. The UN could lead in the creation of a climate coalition for DRC and be the first pledging a $1 billion per year to protect DRC’s natural heritage in order to save the planet.

“The Monusco is one of the largest and most expensive UN missions in the world, Monusco has been in the DRC since 1999. It currently has more than 14,000 peacekeepers, with an annual budget of $1 billion.” 

Debt or investment?

While global debt could be a tool in specific situations, this option is still based on old thinking: that fossil fuels have a value and that developing countries have a right to exploit their resources. Times are changing. Through “progressive insights” we are now aware that carbon emissions from fossil fuels lead to global warming. Reality has changed.

We can not build future-proof societies based on old insights. Achieving sustainable, equitable development in a complex and dynamic world will require new ways of thinking and practice.

From a perspective of fairness, do African countries need to be compensated for leaving their focal fuels into the ground? Not directly, because that would sustain dependency, but indirectly: African countries could benefit from investments in sustainable (energy) sectors. In that way, Africa can skip a generation of old technologies, as well as old power structures, get a head start, develop and capitalise on new green technologies.

Instead of making fossil fuels the focus and compensation the means to achieve something, it would be more impactful to divert investments, and invest in green (energy) solutions in African countries and in carbon credits based on intact ecosystems. That will help countries right now by providing the means, while mobilising companies in economically better developed countries (and Asia etc) to reduce their emissions. That will spur real change at a global scale.

Co-responsibility

There is a responsibility to repay environmental debt by economically developed nations; as well as a responsibility for the DRC government to make sure that the kleptocratic system that has been benefiting from the looting of country resources is fully dismantled. The last thing Congo needs is more billions of dollars pouring in and out of the country without benefiting its nature and people.

Rather than only warning about global climate catastrophe, endangered species and disappearing rainforests, we need to provide alternative solutions that work, that are acceptable and equitable. If we really want to change and save the world it’s time we start changing our own perspectives and take our share of responsibility. Let’s mobilise organisations and resources for a DRC Climate Fund and invest in new green energy solutions that will place the country and its people at the steering wheel (not a backseat) of our drive to a carbon neutral future.

—
Authors: Save Virunga & African Conservation Foundation

The post NO to oil drilling in Virunga and Upemba, YES to green investment in DRC appeared first on African Conservation Foundation.

The short film, which was launched during a webinar, highlights the dangers posed to the national park and local communities by oil exploration in the area. Together with Salonga National Park, the world’s second-biggest tropical rainforest reserve, these vulnerable areas may be auctioned in a new series of oil permits (https://reut.rs/3h8rGBJ) putting at risk not only endangered species, but also the source of income for many local communities.

Through this petition (https://bit.ly/3jB3Jo7), climate activists are appealing for support to bring oil exploration in the area to a stop, in order to avert the adverse effects on the communities and the environment.

Landry Ninteretse of 350.org said, “Virunga national park is one of the most biologically diverse areas in the world. Any oil activity in the park and its surrounding areas could permanently damage the rich ecosystems and biodiversity of the area and negatively impact hundreds of thousands of community members whose livelihoods depend on the park’s resources and activities. The government of DR Congo needs to put the environment and the people first, as opposed to furthering the interests of the companies that have been granted permits for exploration.”

Andre Moliro, Climate activist in DRC said, “The government should act in the interest of its citizens by protecting them and creating opportunities that benefit communities’ livelihoods and preserve the natural resources in the region. Access to clean energy is an integral part of sustainable development and commitments to mitigate climate change should be driving efforts to develop sources of alternative and renewable energy.”

Justin Mutabesha, Climate activist based in Goma, DRC said, “The need to hasten our efforts and support the drive for ecosystem preservation and clean energy access for all is critical. It should therefore be the government’s priority to ensure that no oil exploration or pollution occurs in Virunga and to accelerate sustainable livelihoods for the people and rich ecosystems of the area.”

Between 2005 – 2010, the Congolese government through the Ministry of Hydrocarbons approved licenses for oil concessions to foreign fossil fuel companies like Efora, Total, Socco, Dominion Petroleum to explore and operate seismic tests. This move is in violation of Ordinance-Law 69-041 of August 22, 1969, on nature conservation and international conventions ratified by the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

Watch the documentary: Fossil Free Virunga.

Distributed by APO Group on behalf of 350.org.

For interviews and additional information contact:
350Africa.org
Christine Mbithi
Email: christine.mbithi@350.org
Telephone: +254725906695

Featured Image: Oren Cohen/Scopio

The post Climate activists oppose oil exploration, call for a Fossil Free Virunga in new film appeared first on African Conservation Foundation.

The CSOs made the call following the launch of Uganda’s second competitive oil exploration licensing round on May 8, 2019.

At the launch in Mombasa, Kenya, Uganda’s Minister for Energy and Mineral Development, Hon. Irene Muloni, opened up five blocks for bidding.

Among the blocks is Ngaji oil block, which is located in the ecosensitive Lake Edward and Queen Elizabeth National Park (QENP) in Uganda. The above are shared and border DRC’s Virunga National Park (ViNP) in the Albertine Graben.

On the other hand, Hon. John Kwet-Mwen Kwet, the Minister of Hydrocarbons in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) also rolled out the call for bids for 21 oil blocks some of which are located within the Albertine Graben.

Block V, which is located in Virunga National Park in the Albertine Graben, is one of the blocks that could be put up for licensing.

TOURISM OVER OIL

Through a letter dated May 20, 2019, the CSOs remind the presidents of the ecological, economic and social importance of the sensitive ecosystems in the Albertine Graben and call on them to protect them from oil exploitation.

“The Albertine Graben harbors some of the most sensitive ecosystems of national and international importance.

For instance, it is home to Virunga National Park in the Eastern DRC which is classified as a UNESCO World Heritage site.

The park accommodates 43% of Africa’s bird species, 27% of Africa’s mammals and more than 10% of its reptiles, amphibians, and plants in addition to several rare and endangered species that exist nowhere else in the world.

The Albertine Graben is also home to Queen Elizabeth National Park and part of Lake Edward in Uganda.

Queen Elizabeth National Park in Uganda is classified a Humanity and Biosphere Reserve by UNESCO while Lake Edward is classified as a Ramsar site,” part of the CSOs’ letter to presidents Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and Felix Tshisekedi of Uganda and DRC respectively reads.

The CSOs remind the presidents that not only does the diverse ecosystem in the Albertine Graben generate huge revenues from tourism, agriculture, fisheries and others, more money could be made if investments in economic activities such as tourism were promoted.

“For instance, 2017 estimates from World Wildlife Fund (WWF) International indicate that if Virunga National Park is managed sustainably, it has the potential to generate over US$235 million per year for the DRC government. This is way beyond what the oil industry would generate.”

RESPECT INTERNATIONAL COMMITMENTS ON CONSERVATION, CLIMATE CHANGE

The CSOs further remind the presidents of the national and international obligations they have to protect ecosenstive areas of world importance.

“Both the Ugandan and DRC governments are signatories to the Ramsar and UNESCO Conventions on conservation.

These conventions make it mandatory for all signatory countries to commit to avoid any activities that might directly or indirectly degrade the cultural and natural heritage of Ramsar and World Heritage sites.

If oil exploration is undertaken in Lake Edward, Virunga national park, Queen Elizabeth national park and other sensitive ecosystems, it would be an abuse of our countries’ commitments,” the CSOs say.

They also remind the presidents of Uganda and the DRC that oil exploitation is against the 2015 Paris Climate Change Agreement.

“Both Uganda and DRC are signatory to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change which came into force during the 21st Conference of Parties (COP) meeting in Paris, France in 2015.

The agreement calls on all signatory countries to cut their Greenhouse Gas Emission [GHG] and limit the global temperature rises to less than 2 degrees Celsius or to pre-industrial levels of less than 1.5 degrees Celsius.

The commitments made by our countries under the Paris Climate Change Agreement mandate your excellencies to ensure that any activities that result in the generation and release of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere are limited. Fossil fuels are the biggest contributor to greenhouse gas emissions.

Moreover, oil exploitation itself contributes to the carbon footprint that our countries must limit per commitments under the Paris Climate Change Agreement,” the CSOs write.

DANGERS OF OIL EXPLOITATION

The CSOs, which warn of the dangers of oil exploitation in Africa including environmental degradation, state appropriation of natural resources at the expense of communities, human rights abuses, conflict and others call on the presidents to:

1. Immediately stop any plans to carry out oil exploration and exploitation activities in sensitive ecosystems of the Albertine Graben including Ngaji oil block, Block V in Virunga National Park, Salonga National Park, Ramsar sites such as the Lufira river basin and other UNESCO in addition to Ramsar sites.
2. Respect the national and international commitments including commitments made under the Paris Climate Change Agreement to address climate change.
3. Scale up national commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in line with global goals and commitments.
4. Promote tourism as an engine of sustainable economic development and promotion of community livelihoods.
5. Prioritize investments in renewable energy to promote sustainable development of our economies.
6. Adopt integrated management and cross-sectorial approaches that take into account the trade-offs of food and energy production, infrastructure, freshwater, and biodiversity conservation.

The Ugandan and DRC CSOs in addition to their international partners that have written to the Uganda and DRC presidents are shown below.

The post Local and international organisations call on Ugandan and DRC presidents to protect sensitive ecosystems in new oil licensing round appeared first on African Conservation Foundation.

They conclude by arguing that conservation initiatives can be a positive part of post conflict peacebuilding. This raises an important set of questions: how do we conserve wildlife effectively in a warzone? And what are the challenges of integrating wildlife conservation with a peacebuilding strategy?

Armed conflict puts wildlife at risk. Animals can be caught in the crossfire in a very direct sense, or they might be poached to feed armies and raise revenue to fund operations. But conflict also has more indirect effects, as parks departments crumble and enforcement efforts wane, leading to more poaching.

All this has meant that conservation has become part of post-conflict reconstruction strategies in several countries across the world, including in Colombia and Cambodia.

NGOs to the rescue?

One solution lies in the creation of public-private partnerships, in which governments (to a varying degree) transfer the management of a protected area “under threat” to an NGO. The new park directors will typically be from outside the country (often white men) and are presented as “neutral” actors merely “enforcing the law” in a volatile landscape. The assumption is that such approaches will lead to well-governed spaces, which will have a positive trickle-down effect on political and economic outcomes in the wider area.

For this reason Virunga, a national park in the Democratic Republic of Congo known for its rare mountain gorillas, is now managed by a British NGO, the Virunga Foundation, in a move part initiated and funded by the European Commission. Something similar has happened with Garamba (also DRC) and Chinko (Central African Republic) national parks which are now run by the NGO African Parks.

The idea is that these separated areas can function as peace sanctuaries, or islands of good governance. Virunga in particular is often hailed as a success story of a besieged park that has recovered since the Congolese state transferred management responsibilities to an NGO.

Conservation is political

Yet such transnational efforts to “save nature” have their problems. Though usually motivated by good intentions, they can become entangled within the complex dynamics of violent conflict. Conservation initiatives, including national parks and the wildlife within them, are not merely innocent victims of war, they are an inherent part of the warscape they are situated in.

As many national parks were created during colonisation, some rebel groups regard occupation of these spaces as a form of resistance, or a way to exercise and demonstrate sovereignty over territory and/or populations. Moreover, park guards and their managers are not politically-neutral agents. In the Central African Republic one park ranger who received paramilitary training funded by the European Union even became military leader of the country’s Séléka rebel movement and was joined by many other foreign-trained park guards.

In Virunga, the “new” management works together with the Congolese army, despite the fact the army has been accused of mass hippo poaching in the past and has facilitated the illegal production of charcoal in the park together with rebel groups. In order to protect the wildlife, local people were removed from the park in military-style operations. Not wanting to give up their livelihoods of fishing, agriculture or charcoal production, these people sought the protection of rebel groups to return into the park and as a result deadly battles between rebels and park guards became even more intense.

We also cannot assume that rebel groups are always hostile towards or “bad” for wildlife. While hippos have fared poorly at the hands of the national army, mountain gorillas have been relatively safe, even from rebel groups. In fact rebel groups in the DRC have offered their own gorilla tours for international visitors.

So, while the Nature study indicates that war is usually bad for wildlife, and that conservation should be part of post-conflict peacebuilding, this does not go far enough. We need to understand that wildlife protection is not a politically-neutral activity but rather something that should be seen in the context of the conflict. If this is not recognised then there is a risk that conservation will exacerbate armed conflicts and cause more harm to animals.

Esther Marijnen, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of Sheffield and Rosaleen Duffy, Professor of International Politics, University of Sheffield

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The post Animals are victims of human conflict, so can conservation help build peace in warzones? appeared first on African Conservation Foundation.