The Scramble for African Carbon Credits: Is it Recolonization of Africa?

Print or Email This Article

The UAE firm Blue Carbon, chaired by Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook al-Maktoum, has signed agreements with the African governments to lease 20% of Zimbabwe, 10% of Liberia and Zambia, respectively, 8% of Tanzania, and undisclosed amounts of forests in Kenya.

In Kenya, the deal has sparked controversy, with concerns raised about the potential environmental impact and lack of consultation with local communities, such as the Ogiek community, who are facing eviction from their ancestral lands in the Mau Forest. The financial terms of the agreement have also been kept undisclosed.

Additionally, another development in the carbon credit market involves the UAE Carbon Alliance committing to buy $450 million worth of carbon credits from the African Carbon Markets Initiative (ACMI) by 2030. This move aims to foster integrated and efficient carbon market mechanisms between the UAE and Africa.

Strangely, the UAE firm Blue Carbon, lacks experience on forest management. Still Blue Carbon is exchanging lack of experience with money, and a lot of it. However, a lop-sided carbon credit is in place where Blue Carbon takes 70% leaving African governments receiving pennies of 30%.

The UAE firm Blue Carbon, led by Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook al-Maktoum, has indeed signed agreements with several African governments to lease large tracts of land for carbon credit production. Here’s a breakdown of the deals:

– Zimbabwe:

Blue Carbon has leased around 20% of the country’s landmass, approximately 7 million hectares, for forest protection and rehabilitation projects. The deal is worth $1.5 billion and aims to generate high-quality carbon credits.

– Liberia:

The company has signed an agreement to lease 10% of Liberia’s land, roughly 1 million hectares, for 30 years. Blue Carbon will receive 70% of the revenue from carbon credit sales, while the Liberian government will keep 30%.

– Zambia and Tanzania:

Blue Carbon has partnered with these countries to conserve 8 million hectares of forests in each country, generating carbon credits for sale on the global market. The exact percentage of land leased in Zambia and Tanzania is reported as 10% and 8% respectively in some sources.

– Kenya:

Although the exact amount of land leased is undisclosed, Blue Carbon has signed an agreement with the Kenyan government to develop carbon offset projects.

Regarding revenue distribution, in Zimbabwe, the government had initially sought to claim 50% of the revenue but later revised this to 30%, allowing project developers like Blue Carbon to keep 70% of the profit. A similar 70-30 split is mentioned in the context of Liberia. These deals have sparked controversy and debate about the impact on local communities and the environment.

What environmental and people displacement costs are caused by all this?

The Blue Carbon land deals in Africa have sparked significant controversy and concerns about environmental and social impacts. Some of the key issues include:

– Land grabs and displacement:

The deals have led to the displacement of local communities, such as the Ogiek people in Kenya’s Mau Forest, who were forcibly evicted from their ancestral lands. Hundreds of Ogiek community members were left homeless after their houses were demolished by armed forest rangers.

– Loss of livelihoods:

The projects jeopardize the lands millions of vulnerable communities depend on for their livelihoods, as highlighted by forest governance campaigner Alexandra Benjamin.

– Environmental concerns:

Critics argue that the carbon offsetting industry is flawed and may not lead to actual carbon reductions. Some studies suggest that up to 90% of rainforest carbon credits certified by Verra may be bogus and don’t represent actual carbon reductions.

– Human rights violations:

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has called for a global moratorium on carbon offset projects due to concerns about human rights violations.

– Lack of consultation:

 Local communities were not consulted prior to their governments signing the deals, leading to accusations of “new colonialism” and exploitation of Africa’s natural resources.

– Profit over people:

Critics argue that the deals prioritize profit over humanity, with the UAE firm Blue Carbon standing to make billions of dollars from these projects while local communities may not benefit.

– Questionable carbon accounting:

 The carbon credit system has been criticized for allowing polluters to hide their continued emissions behind misleading carbon accounting methodologies.

Some notable figures have spoken out against these deals, including:

– Bernard Kioko Ndaka, a conservationist, who describes the deals as “new colonialism for African land“.

– Malcolm Fabiyi, a climate advocate, who questions the pricing of carbon credits in Africa and urges fairness and justice.

– David Obura, founding director of Cordio East Africa, who warns of the risks of exclusivity and denying access and rights to local communities.

Key Takeaways?

The UAE-based Blue Carbon’s carbon credit agreements across Africa represent a concerning convergence of environmental finance and neocolonial exploitation, characterized by inequitable terms, community displacement, and questionable ecological benefits. Below is a detailed analysis:

⚖️ 1. Structural Inequity and Economic Exploitation.

– Land Control:

Blue Carbon secured control over “20% of Zimbabwe”, “10% of Liberia and Zambia”, “8% of Tanzania”, and undisclosed Kenyan forests—totalling an area larger than the UK. These deals span 30 years, mirroring historical colonial concessions.

– Revenue Imbalance:

 In Liberia, Blue Carbon takes “70% of carbon credit revenues”, leaving only 30% for the host nation. Similar terms exist in Zimbabwe after government pressure. This echoes extractive colonial economics, where African resources generate wealth for foreign entities.

– UAE’s Motive:

As the world’s third-largest oil expander, the UAE uses these credits to offset its fossil fuel emissions while continuing extraction, undermining global climate goals.

👥 2. Community Displacement and Human Rights Violations.

– Forced Evictions:

 In Kenya, “700+ Ogiek people” were violently evicted from the Mau Forest in 2023 to “protect” land for carbon projects. Armed rangers burned homes, violating a 2017 African Court ruling recognizing Ogiek land rights.

– Lack of Consent:

Liberian communities discovered the deal through NGO leaks; no prior consultation occurred despite legal requirements . Zambia and Tanzania also excluded local stakeholders.

– Livelihood Loss:

 Forests provide food, medicine, and cultural sites for Indigenous groups. Denying access threatens subsistence and cultural survival.

Table: Documented Community Impacts.

🌳 3. Environmental Integrity Concerns.

– Dubious Carbon Accounting:

 Blue Carbon’s focus on “avoided deforestation” credits relies on inflated baselines. Studies show up to “90% of such credits lack real climate benefits”. Protecting forests already conserved (e.g., 40% of Liberia’s forests are *already* protected) yields no “additional” carbon savings.

– Biodiversity Risks:

Projects overlap with critical ecosystems like Liberia’s Upper Guinea Forest (home to pygmy hippos and forest elephants). No clear conservation plans exist.

– Permanence Issues:

Carbon stored in forests is vulnerable to fires, logging, or policy shifts—undermining the credits’ long-term value.

🏛️ 4. Governance and Power Imbalances.

– Blue Carbon’s Background:

  – Led by Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook al-Maktoum, with “no conservation experience” but ties to fossil fuels and controversial vaccine deals.

  – Advisor Samuele Landi is an “Italian fugitive” convicted of fraudulent bankruptcy.

– **African Governments’ Role**:

 Desperation for climate finance ($100B promised but undelivered) enables exploitation. Leaders like Kenya’s Ruto call forests an “economic goldmine,” ignoring community rights.

– Global Policy Failure:

Article 6 rules (Paris Agreement) remain vague, allowing opaque deals. Critics demand the UN reject such arrangements.

Table: Neocolonial Parallels.

💡 Conclusion: Recolonization in Green Guise?

Blue Carbon’s deals epitomize “carbon colonialism“:

wealthy polluters use financial power to control Global South resources, replicating colonial dynamics under climate rhetoric. The “displacement of Indigenous stewards” (who protect forests more effectively than corporations) and “phantom carbon credits” reveal a system prioritizing profit over people and planet . 

🔍 Recommendations: 

• ”Mandate Free, Prior, Informed Consent” for all projects. 

• “Audit Carbon Credit Integrity” using independent scientists. 

• “Redirect Finance” to community-led conservation. Africa’s climate solutions must empower—not erase—its people. As activist Bernard Kioko Ndaka warns: “A Dubai firm masquerading as a climate savior controlling African land is colonialism rebranded“.

Read more analysis by Rutashubanyuma Nestory