Western countries insist on the need for the energy transition, but continue to extract oil and gas outside their borders, often in Africa. That is hypocritical, says Ugandan development economist Faith Lumonya in early November in a noisy hall of the World Forum building in The Hague. She is there for a Foreign Ministry conference on feminist foreign policy. “In addition, Western countries offset their emissions by purchasing forests that store carbon,” she says. “They paint the picture that this carbon credits [internationale handel in emissierechten] bring about socio-economic change. And unfortunately our governments fall for that. But the driving force remains capitalism. That’s sad, because we know it’s not our communities that are benefiting from it.” Critics warn that locals are being driven out of these places.
The terms anti-colonialism, anti-capitalism and feminism flow smoothly into each other in Lumonya’s eyes. “Feminism gives us the lens to understand why marginalized groups are not at the table or why they are hit hardest by crises,” she explains: through the critical view it offers on those in power. She readily links feminism to “decolonizing the ways in which institutions work and how countries relate to each other.” For example, she criticized the Africa Climate Change Summit last September, at which she wondered whether the many European and American lobbyists and government leaders present were representing the interests of the African population.
Lumonya raises similar questions about the agreement on ‘loss and damage’ reached last year at the climate summit in Egypt – a fund for developing countries suffering damage from climate change. Countries recently agreed that the World Bank will finance this fund. “Proponents of this say that the World Bank already has the necessary systems in place to implement such a fund. But my objection is that the World Bank does not have equal voting rights. There is only one person who represents all of sub-Saharan Africa. The United States, the Netherlands, Denmark: they all have their own representation.”
“We have learned from the Green Climate Fund (GCF), which falls under the World Bank, that accessing financing is extremely difficult. Countries need accreditation for this, which is a long and complicated process. Rwanda and Uganda had to hire expensive experts. And even after that, countries need experts to actually get the financing. These external intermediaries all come from the West and receive a commission for this support. No wonder that from a research from the International Institute for Environment and Development shows that only one in ten US dollars in climate finance reaches local communities. That is why I believe that the ‘loss and damage’ fund should be placed with the United Nations.”
How do you envision that? The UN does not yet have the infrastructure for this.
“There are various options for the decision mechanism. The contribution can be based on GDP, as is also the case with development aid. Another option is for countries’ contributions to be based on their share of global emissions. Naturally, historical emissions and emissions beyond our own national borders must be taken into account.”
Also read
Adapting to warming can save a lot of money – but it happens too little
Do you think Uganda can still extract gas itself?
“That is a sensitive issue, but I will give you my position, which may sound controversial. I think that as developing countries we should be able to use resources for development. We can do that while limiting the impact of our use of those resources. Through technology. And, for example, by banning old, polluting cars and only allowing cleaner cars with good filters.”
Wouldn’t it be better for Uganda to immediately switch to green energy?
“The truth is that ‘the colonizer’ does not leave the oil in the ground anyway. Then we can better benefit from it ourselves. There is an oil pipeline between Uganda and Tanzania, but those countries only get 15 percent of the profits. Total and CNOOC will divide the rest [een Chinees olie- en gasbedrijf]. While the oil is in our soil and our ecosystem is being damaged and our people are displaced. For me it is a matter of economic justice.”
But that is a deal that governments themselves make with those companies.
“Yes, but that decision was made ten years ago. We have long seen foreign investment as the panacea for our development. Many bilateral trade agreements with the West were signed shortly after our independence, at a time when we did not yet have the right infrastructure or manpower to negotiate them properly.
“That is why I am speaking out against it corporate capture [het verschijnsel dat bedrijven hun invloed aanwenden om de besluitvorming van de staat over te nemen]. We see that there is a lot of abuse of companies in our countries, including Dutch ones. Investment treaties protect the rights of foreign investors, but not the rights of citizens. Foreign companies can easily apply for compensation for all kinds of reasons. And they do. For example, there is no minimum wage in Uganda, because the law allows companies to file a lawsuit against the government to compensate for ‘lost income’. That is why, for me, the focus in climate policy is on fair compensation. To ensure that we are able to restore what has been destroyed.”
Also read
‘With climate plans now on the table, the earth will warm up by 2.5 to 2.9 degrees’