Marudi Indigenous communities oppose Samling’s carbon project in Sarawak, Malaysia
“This is a new method of land grabbing for us.”
Samling, the notoriously destructive Malaysian logging company, is developing a carbon project in Sarawak. The project developer is SaraCarbon, a subsidiary of Samling.
In December 1998, Samling obtained a license for an industrial tree plantation covering an area of 39,000 hectares. Under the Marudi Forest Conservation and Restoration Project, the company promises not to plant acacia trees on 31,707 hectares of logged over forest. It will also reforest 608 hectares .
Carbon credits for doing next to nothing, in other words.
On 22 February 2025, villagers from Logan Entasan, Lobang Kompeni, and Sungai Brit protested against the carbon project. They complain that that Samling’s carbon project is abusing their Native Customary Land Rights (NCR).
A Sarawak Report writer was at the protest and reports that,
Holding banners in protest, they expressed their strong dissatisfaction with SaraCarbon and the Sarawak government’s interpretation of customary land rights. Losing their customary land would mean losing their farmland, orchards, and hunting grounds, directly impacting their livelihoods.
REDD-Monitor wrote about this proposed project in April 2024:
Encroachment on Native Customary Land Rights
One villager told Sarawak Report that,
“The community believes that this carbon credit project does not benefit the indigenous people, does not solve climate change issues, and is instead an encroachment on NCR land.”
Sahabat Alam Malaysia and SAVE Rivers put out a press statement in support of the Indigenous communities. Both organisations have also submitted comments to Verra highlighting their “objections and concerns about the proposed forest carbon credits project”. The project is currently under validation by Verra.
Another public comment to Verra comes from 319 people in the district of Marudi. They write that they “reject this carbon project in our customary territories”.
We oppose this project because it will very clearly lead to the risk of violation of our native customary rights (NCR) and this is a new method of land grabbing for us. Among other things, we understand that if this project goes on, we will not be able to practice our traditional way of life in our customary territories such as hunting, harvesting forest products and cultivating the land. In fact, the company involved is the same company that has destroyed our forests and is now looking to profit from this carbon project.
No free, prior informed consent
Communities told Sahabat Alam Malaysia that they were confused by the consultations and surveys carried out in preparation for the project. A statement released at the recent protest explains that, “Villagers did not understand the company's explanation of the true meaning and purpose of the carbon credit project.”
Sarawak Report writes that, “the local people complain that [SaraCarbon’s] ‘outreach meetings’ have consistently failed to address and explain the concept and purpose of the carbon credits”.
The project therefore does not have the free, prior and informed consent of the Indigenous peoples whose territory is encroached by the carbon project.
On 24 January 2025, Logan Entasan villagers filed a police report because SaraCarbon entered native customary land to conduct surveys without villagers’ consent.
On 8 February 2025, Lobang Kompeni villagers found that SaraCarbon had posted a sign on their territory reading “Forest Carbon Area”. Villagers covered the sign with a wooden board and put up a their own sign with the words, “This is the villagers’ customary land. No trespassing,” painted on it.
On 11 February 2025 Lobang Kompeni villagers submitted a complaint to the police.
No benefits
On 23 February 2025, SaraCarbon organised a two-day seminar in Marudi. Sarawak Report writes that the aim of the seminar was to promote the carbon projects and raise awareness about climate change. Government officials, academics, and Samling executives took part in the event.
Roy Edimund from Lobang Kompeni told Sarawak Report that the village chief asked SaraCarbon what benefits the villagers would receive from the project. “None!” a SaraCarbon representative replied.
When SaraCarbon tried to access customary land, villagers blocked the road. The company has since used waterways to conduct surveys and studies.
Celine Lim of SAVE Rivers comments that,
“It is a forest carbon credit project that will allow big polluters who purchase the carbon credit units to continue polluting and perpetuate the climate crisis. A carbon credit unit essentially is a permit to pollute. It gives the buyer the right to pollute and to release a certain amount of carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.”
Sahabat Alam Malaysia and SAVE Rivers raise the issue of permanence. A recent paper in Nature finds that, “A CO₂ storage period of less than 1,000 years is insufficient for neutralising remaining fossil CO₂ emissions”. Obviously, there is no possible way to ensure that a forest will remain standing for anything like that period of time.
“The only way to stop global warming is to stop the continued release of carbon dioxide,” Sahabat Alam Malaysia and SAVE Rivers write. “This is why carbon offsetting projects serve to only perpetuate the climate crisis while benefiting big polluters.”
And Meenakshi Raman of Sahabat Alam Malaysia concludes that,
“Carbon markets are not a solution to the climate crisis. They are fraught with fundamental problems that can never guarantee environmental integrity and violate the rights of indigenous peoples.”
Yes, all attempts to financialize Nature must be blocked, regardless of the weasel-words used by the promoters. Otherwise, the financial elite will continue to overrun every inch of the planet in their final conquest to extract all remaining wealth, accruing of course, to themselves. All peoples, territories, countries in their way are relegated to road-kill. Resist!
When we frame conservation primarily through economic lenses, we risk perpetuating the same extractive mindset that created our environmental challenges.
Property boundaries and financial instruments already exist, but extending these constructs further into natural systems assumes that market incentives will protect what market forces have historically exploited. The history of commodification suggests otherwise.