Ecological Colonialism and the Case for Environmental Reparations in Africa
Sonwabile Gingqishe
10/8/20262 min read
A New Dimension in Africa’s Reparations Debate
A report unveiled at the University of Lagos has introduced a potentially significant dimension to Africa’s reparations campaign: the ecological damage caused by British colonial rule. Titled CO2lonialism, Ecocide and Reparations, the report argues that environmental destruction should be recognised as a distinct category of colonial harm and assessed alongside economic, political and social losses.
The authors contend that colonial systems were built on the systematic appropriation of land, natural resources and energy. These policies did not merely transfer wealth from African territories to Britain and other imperial centres; they also disrupted ecosystems, altered patterns of land use and created environmental consequences that continue to affect communities today.
Putting a Monetary Value on Environmental Harm
Presenting the report, its lead author, Professor J. G. Nkem Onyekpe, said existing approaches to reparations had not adequately accounted for the environmental dimension of colonial extraction. He called for rigorous historical, scientific and monetary assessments of the damage associated with colonial rule.
Professor Onyekpe referred to comparable valuation exercises demonstrating that structurally unequal appropriation of resources can be monetised. He cited a peer-reviewed estimate published in 2022, which valued resources appropriated from the Global South through unequal exchange at more than $10 trillion in 2015 alone. Extending this type of analysis across the full duration of colonial rule and the affected African states, he argued, could produce a figure reaching hundreds of trillions of dollars.
Such calculations would not reduce environmental loss to a simple financial transaction. Rather, they could provide a framework for measuring the scale of historical extraction, clarifying responsibility and supporting demands for restoration, compensation and institutional reform.
Legal Responsibility and Continuing States
The legal implications of the report were also examined during its launch. Dr. Asikia Karibi-Whyte, a scholar of jurisprudence and international law, challenged the argument that present-day governments cannot be held responsible for wrongdoing committed by earlier administrations.
She noted that the United Kingdom remains recognised in law as a continuing state entity, regardless of changes in government or political leadership. From this perspective, a change in political administration does not automatically erase obligations arising from conduct undertaken by the state in the past.
Dr. Karibi-Whyte also identified the Nauru case before the International Court of Justice as an important precedent. In that dispute, a formerly colonised state brought a claim against its former colonial administrator over environmental devastation linked to colonial-era phosphate mining.
Why Environmental Evidence Matters
Professor Nnagugwu Oscar Uluocha of the University of Lagos described the ecological damage inflicted on Nigeria during British colonial rule as “colossal.” He stressed the need to examine colonial land-use, agricultural and resource-extraction policies through scientific evidence, historical research and environmental analysis.
The report places these concerns within the growing international conversation about ecocide and environmental accountability. It argues that ecological repair should become part of the broader African reparations framework, including efforts to restore damaged landscapes, protect affected communities and establish a more complete record of colonial harm.
By connecting historical justice with environmental responsibility, the report calls for reparations debates to move beyond narrow financial settlements. Its central proposition is that a meaningful response to colonialism must account not only for what was taken from Africa, but also for the ecosystems and communities transformed in the process.