THE relationship between nature and the process of accumulation is integral to understanding the current crisis of capitalism. This proposition has been advanced by Marxist ecologists from the late 1970s onwards when O’Connor advanced his central thesis of the ‘Second Contradiction’ of capitalism. While the ‘first contradiction’ was a crisis arising out of the rate of accumulation and exploitation, the ‘second contradiction’ refers largely to the degradation of the conditions of production (ie, nature used by human beings to produce commodities) that arises out of the processes of accumulation. Well known scholars like John Bellamy Foster further pointed out that both the economic and the ecological crisis were related to each other. In line with this analysis, it is possible to argue that the solutions to the ecological crisis could not be found under capitalism, for this the reorganisation of production processes and the redistribution of wealth were necessary conditions. The debate on climate change and the development of the green capitalism has to be seen in this context.

In April 2009, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) brought out a document entitled “Global Green New Deal” which outlined a new strategy for overcoming the economic crisis of 2008. The plan asked for an investment of about USD 32 million as the stimulus towards the development of green buildings, infrastructure and renewable energy. It also called upon national governments to carry out reforms which did away with non-green subsidies and also created incentives for environment friendly investments. The UNEP called on the 20 most advanced economies to engage in a Global Green New Deal by investing at least 1 percent of their total GDP in promoting green economic sectors by bringing about both national and international reforms where developed countries would provide foreign aid and support, both financial and in other forms such as technical assistance, to developing economies.

However such a proposition was based on the understanding that the burden of the maintenance of low carbon emissions would lie on the developing and emerging economies. In terms of the international policy architecture, the green economy refers to international arrangements that seek to develop regulations for trade in carbon credits and ecosystem services on the one hand and also investment in renewable energy on the other hand. Such a strategy also saw an important role for corporate sector, as investments in biofuels, conservation and other types of forestry projects could earn them carbon credits in one part of the world. These could be traded and sold for corporate profits in another part of the world, thus giving corporate houses the license to pay, harness and destroy natural resources. Thus the system of earning carbon credits is essentially based on an understanding that a value can be put on the destruction of nature and a system of accounting can be worked out to compensate this loss. Hence in one sense, the carbon credit system represents the corporatisation of work itself, a way of maintaining high profits at a time when the world capitalist system is in a crisis.

A case in the point is the operationalisation of the UNEP programme for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation or REDD as it is popularly known. The logic of this programme is simple: developing countries that are willing and able to reduce emissions from deforestation should be financially compensated for doing so. In practical terms, the operation of this is most clearly seen in Africa which has some of the richest natural forests in the world and is considered a hotspot for trade in carbon credits. Oil and Energy companies were the most important stake holders who brought lands on concessions from African governments (who made REDD compliant policies) to destroy natural plantations and create oil palm, biofuel and other commercial tree plantations. These plantations have been termed as ‘forestry’ and ‘conservation’ projects which are meant to be compensating local people for the services they provided them. The leaders in these projects are countries like Liberia, Cameroon, Democratic Republic of Congo and Ethiopia. Studies of the REDD+ projects in these countries show that ruling classes within the countries and International NGOs are the biggest beneficiaries of the grants being received from multi-lateral agencies, private industrial foundations and the World Bank. However, their funding is based on valuation of carbon emissions and eco-system services at very low rates.

One of the main initiatives of the UNEP has been an initiative to set up carbon trading markets. This, as one article in the Economist explains: “Although it (the carbon market) works like any commodity market, what is being bought and sold does not exist. The trade is not actually in carbon, but in not-carbon: in certificates establishing that so many tonnes of carbon dioxide (or the equivalent in other greenhouse gases) have not been emitted by the seller and may therefore be emitted by the buyer. The purpose of setting up the market was, first, to establish a price for carbon and, second, to encourage efficient emissions reductions by allowing companies which would find it expensive to cut emissions to buy credits more cheaply.” (Trading in Thin Air, Economist, 31 May, 2007). 

The terms of carbon trade clearly benefit corporations, who desperately need to earn credits to offset their destruction of nature in different parts of the world. As one study shows, in 2007 it cost Euro 1 to produce one carbon credit. The same credit was sold in the carbon market for Euro 11. Hence the big ‘dirty companies (ie, oil, power, paper, mining and building materials) earned profit which was ten times higher than the cost of compensation paid for ecosystem services to local people and institutions. Thus, it is cheaper to buy carbon credits than to make adjustments in the production process to actually reduce emissions and pollution by curtailing productivity and profits. Therefore the root cause of emissions remains unaddressed, instead nature is brought and sold through the medium of carbon credit certificates for a price that allows greater accumulation of wealth in corporate houses, without addressing the ecological crisis itself.

Uneven development and exploitation of nature-rich developing countries lies at the heart of this entire process. One of the responses from environmental and ‘indigenous peoples’ movements to the dominant conceptions of REDD+ and green projects has been, that the problem of ‘development’ and poverty eradication of these countries remains unaddressed. The advocates of policy makers supporting such a framework assume that payment for eco-services will benefit local institutions and communities, thus putting them on a path that will pull them out of poverty. But studies and advocacy by several movements and scholars has shown that this is only wishful thinking.

Several studies and documentation reports of REDD+ projects in Latin America and Africa have shown that carbon contracts and compensation will only be given to local people with land titles. This itself is a highly limiting factor because most forest dwellers do not possess land titles as documented by the World Rainforest Movement in Peru. Similarly in Uganda, another REDD+ Project in Mt Elgon was considered a total failure from the point of view of local people. The report 'Virtual Nature, Violent Accumulation: A Critical Political Ecology of Carbon Market Failure at Mt. Elgon, Uganda (2006) concluded that “the uncompensated dispossession of thousands of local residents was necessary for the project’s implementation. Indeed, these expropriations constitute one of the largest and bloodiest evictions for environmental protection in Uganda’s post-colonial history, effectively subsidising the UWA-FACE project’s participation in global ecosystem service markets”. Similarly  in another case in Uganda, over 22,000 people were violently evicted from the Mubende and Kiboga districts in Uganda to make way for the UK based New Forests Company to plant trees, to earn carbon credits and ultimately to sell the timber. According to The New York Times,  the New Forests Company (NFC), grows forests in African countries with the purpose of selling credits from the carbon dioxide its trees soak up to polluters abroad. The New Forests Company is 20 percent owned by the HSBC bank and investors in the project include the World Bank. Evicted successful farmers are reduced to becoming poorly paid plantation peons on the land which once belonged to them (New York Times, (2011) In Uganda, Losing Land to Planted Trees). Cases of lack of labour standards and decent jobs are also noted in other countries like Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo. The case studies show that the governments of the concerned countries have modified their laws and deregulated their labour and land markets to enable trans-national corporations to reap profits from the ecological crisis which we face today.

In conclusion, it is necessary to expose the interlinkages between multilateral funding agencies, transnational corporations and national governments by focusing on the impact of the current debates on working classes. The carbon markets and natural resource grab through REDD+ regulations is soon going to become yet another site of class struggle, one that is yet to be fully understood in our country.