IN the realm of environmental science, conservation and sustainability, there seems to be a unanimous agreement that environmental protection is a fundamental priority for the future of our planet. In fact, there are sometimes no opposing sides when the conversation surfaces. Why would anyone in their right mind want to oppose the protection of our biodiversity, saving our forests, the advocacy of renewable energy and combating climate change?

Climate change is actually viewed as a “security threat” to many nation-states. Yet behind diplomatic forums, advanced conservation vocabulary and walls of power, there is a serious and growing concern known as “green grabbing”. I initially came across this concept in a recent classroom discussion where a professor pointed out an overlooked aspect of conservation and protection. It is the appropriation of land and natural resources in the name of environmental protection, often at the expense of local and Indigenous communities.

There are reported instances of government bodies, local actors, and international organisations and corporations developing certain spaces and labelling them as “conservation”. Unfortunately, in these instances, there is little to no Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC) or consultation among Indigenous communities when lands are labelled for “green development”. In fact, a lack of consultation and discussion among Indigenous peoples goes against international guidelines and conventions such as those of the International Labour Organization. Forests are suddenly rebranded as carbon sinks, ancestral lands are turned into protected areas, and livelihoods that have sustained communities for generations are criminalised—all while communities are told it is for the greater global good.

There is also the issue of traditional practices being disrupted. Centuries-long practices such as fishing and farming within these communities can be severely affected when these areas are relabelled as “green spaces”. This also affects cultural ways of life and social order. There is a misconception that forests are “untouched” places. This is not true. Human beings have always interacted with and lived within forested regions.

What is often misunderstood is the sustainability of those interactions. Many Indigenous communities have protected our forests, and this is why much of our tree cover, soil health, and land fertility remain intact. There is also the issue of power imbalance during green grabbing. While conservation initiatives can protect ecosystems, they can also create structures determining who has access to land and resources—and who does not.

There is also a tendency to value forests for their carbon credits rather than for the people who live in and benefit from them. Climate finance is an important aspect of development projects, but it also raises critical questions: Who owns the forest? Who decides how it is used? And who benefits when nature is monetised?

Importantly, this is not an argument against environmental protection. Climate change is real, urgent and devastating—especially for vulnerable communities. But climate action that ignores social justice is not true sustainability. Protecting nature should not mean erasing people. Conservation models that exclude communities tend to fail in the long term, breeding resistance, conflict and mistrust.

As the world races to meet climate targets, we must ask uncomfortable questions about how those targets are achieved. If saving the planet requires sacrificing the rights and dignity of the most marginalised, then we are solving one crisis by deepening another.
Green solutions should heal—not dispossess. Climate justice demands nothing less.

Reference:
Greengrabbing1