Does the Sabah carbon deal violate indigenous rights, according to civil society?

Question

Accepted Answer

Civil Society Claims Sabah Carbon Deal Violates Indigenous Rights

Eleven local and international organisations have submitted a letter and report to the United Nations (UN) asserting that Sabah's Nature Conservation Agreement (NCA) violates international law and disregards indigenous rights. These groups are concerned that the language used in the NCA suggests an alignment with UN treaties and mechanisms, which they argue is misleading or factually incorrect. Specifically, the agreement fails to mention Indigenous Peoples or Native Customary Rights, while repeatedly referencing the UN and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), leading to fears that Sabahans may be misled into believing the UN is involved in and legitimising the deal.
Concerns Over Misleading UN References

The organisations highlight that the NCA refers to the United Nations 12 times and the SDGs at least 18 times, yet makes no mention of Indigenous Peoples or Native Customary Rights. This extensive use of UN terminology, including claims of compliance with the Kyoto Protocol (which has been replaced by the Paris Agreement) and the SDGs as a tool for carbon trading, is seen as an attempt to create a false impression of UN endorsement. Civil society groups are seeking clarification from the UN regarding its actual engagement and oversight role in the NCA, and to ensure that any purported involvement does not imply legitimisation of a deal that may undermine fundamental rights.
Lack of Consent and Due Process Alleged

According to PACOS's Anne Lasimbang, proponents of the NCA have asserted legal claims over carbon and forest resources without proper due process or the consent of indigenous communities. Similarly, Beverly Joeman of CSO Platform for Reform stated that the election of a politician by indigenous voters does not equate to consent from communities across Sabah to relinquish their forest rights. These concerns point to a significant gap in the engagement process, where the rights and established customs of indigenous populations appear to have been overlooked in the pursuit of the carbon credit agreement.
Precedent for Privatisation of Common Heritage

The civil society coalition views the NCA as setting a dangerous international precedent by potentially privatising common heritage. The agreement encompasses significant protected areas, including a Unesco World Heritage Site (Kinabalu Park), a World Heritage Site undergoing evaluation (DaMaI), a Unesco Biosphere Reserve (Crocker Range), and a Ramsar site (Lower Kinabatangan Segama Wetlands). The organisations argue that handing over these vital natural and cultural resources to an unaccountable foreign company, without adequate consultation or adherence to established protocols like the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol, represents a profound failure to protect shared natural assets.
Contractual Terms and Transparency Issues

The civil societies have described the NCA as "legally impotent," characterised by "unfair and absurd contract terms" and a lack of rigorous due diligence. Key points of contention include a perceived lack of transparency surrounding the agreement's formation, the appointment of Hoch Standard, a little-known Singaporean firm, as the project manager, the financial terms of the deal, and the insufficient information provided to the communities directly or indirectly involved in conservation efforts. The initial scope of 600,000 hectares, with a potential expansion to two million hectares over 100 years, amplifies these concerns about the long-term implications of such an agreement.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

Does the Sabah carbon deal violate indigenous rights, according to civil society?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

2

0

0

Share with friends