Africa's carbon deals and the hidden tenure challenge

A data story by the Land Portal, International Land Coalition, Prindex, and Land Matrix

I. New pressure on land?

Observers marked 2023 as a “make-or-break” year for voluntary carbon markets and a key “ inflection point ” for their role in addressing climate change and global deforestation. Proponents highlight that forest carbon projects channel  much-needed funds  towards forest protection and are pivotal to climate change mitigation. On the other hand, critics emphasize that carbon deals set incentives for overcrediting. Moreover, carbon offsetting allows the biggest emitters to simply outsource their climate mitigation efforts with potentially  adverse impacts  for  affected communities .

The debate was fueled when several large-scale carbon offset projects were reported in Sub-Saharan Africa just before the UN Climate Change Conference COP 28 took place in Dubai in 2023. The sheer dimensions of the planned projects bring back memories of the last major wave of large-scale land deals in 2011 -- notably, memories of evictions of local communities and Indigenous Peoples, loss of livelihoods and a lack of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) practices. 

2007/2008

The global financial crisis unleashed.

2010/2011

A major wave of land investments for food and biofuel production in across Africa and the Global South.

2022/2023

Seventeen years on, the pressure on land never eased with a  new wave of deals  related to carbon offsets, green hydrogen schemes, and other “green investments”

 Since 2015, fewer deals have been concluded due to factors like stricter land policies and declining support for biofuels. Based on Land Matrix data, the number of concluded and failed deals is under-reported in this illustration because deals with no information about the year of negotiation are excluded. On the other hand, intended deals are slightly over-reported, as some concluded deals with unknown dates are included as 'intended.' 

 Picture: Demonstrators at COP 25 in Madrid, December 2019, against carbon offsetting schemes, advocating for equitable climate solutions and rejecting market-based approaches. 

In 2023, four land-sector organizations came together, with support from the European Commission, to strengthen the central role of data in securing equitable land rights for sustainable development, poverty eradication, peace and the protection of human rights. The  Land Data Partnership , which includes the  International Land Coalition , the  Land Portal Foundation , the  Land Matrix Initiative , and  Prindex , aims to improve the complementarity of global land data initiatives and to identify opportunities to hold key actors responsible.

Organisations collaborating in the Land Data Partnership

At first glance, carbon offsetting projects appear to be win-win-win deals for local communities, governments, and the environment, and a key strategy in mitigating climate change. Yet, if we look more closely the question arises: how much can communities benefit if they face insecure land rights and weak land governance systems? 

This data story explores in detail the consequences of climate change mitigation for land tenure, and vice versa. Zooming into several case studies in East and West Africa, it highlights the dimensions of tenure security and how people-centered, inclusive and effective land governance systems can help manage the influx of carbon offset projects.

A group of women in Kenya's Kasigau Corridor, supported by the REDD+ Project manager Wildlife Works, gathers to create sustainable crafts and strengthen their community livelihoods

Civil society organizations, as well as policymakers, are concerned about the pressures exerted by large-scale carbon deals and the corresponding threats to the land rights of local populations. In this context, Kenya provides an important example. According to Land Matrix and LANDex data, conflicts were reported in 57% of all large-scale land acquisition deals in Kenya.

“The Mau is Kenya’s biggest forest. The Ogiek people are on the front line of a climate solution that is used to justify ongoing evictions and emission. In our view it’s clear that the interest shown by offsetting companies is prompting the Kenyan Government to assert its control.”

Justin Kendrick, Forest Peoples Programme

The recent rise of the voluntary carbon markets (VCM) for land-based carbon removal and avoidance to offset countries’ own emissions was commented on by prominent headlines, such as “the new scramble for Africa” and “carbon cowboys”. On the other hand, supporters emphasize that the voluntary mechanism has  begun to “mature”  and provides much needed funding for forest conservation in places where government support and protection failed. 

What is the Voluntary Carbon Market?

Emissions abatement in the land sector, mostly pledged beyond 2030. Source: Land Gap Report Briefing Note, November 2023 Update.

The VCM is projected to grow to USD  3,230.29 billion  by 2032 despite growing concerns that voluntary carbon offset projects do not deliver. A 2023 investigation by the  Guardian  shows that over 90% of the projects of the biggest certifier Verra were  not achieving  their climate change mitigation claims.

The  Land Gap Report  shows the distribution of pledges made globally by countries to offset carbon emissions, which requires a total area of 910-1,060 million hectares.

Land area needed for country climate pledges to the UNFCCC. Note: Grey indicates countries excluding land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in their pledges. Source: Land Gap Report Briefing Note, November 2023 Update.

While the voluntary carbon market brings in new powerful actors, acquiring land for green purposes is part of a longer trajectory. They all have in common that a wide range of actors including smallholders, governments, international conservation organizations, fossil fuel companies, and others renegotiate and/or change existing land governance dynamics. There is much research on the drawbacks of  REDD and REDD+  projects which are largely funded by the World Bank and private investors. Although REDD+ set out to achieve climate mitigation while improving forest-based livelihoods, these projects largely had a  negative impact on communities  with insecure land rights in weak land governance contexts. In so doing, local people with insecure and/or unclear land rights are denied access to the lands and forests they manage and depend on.

These resources address key challenges in forest conservation and restoration, focusing on specific obstacles to success. They highlight how REDD faces difficulties in aligning forest conservation with market mechanisms, the critical role of resolving land tenure insecurity—where untitled and contested lands often hinder restoration efforts—and the risk of REDD+ initiatives reinforcing inequalities through uneven benefit distribution. Together, they emphasize the need to address these socio-legal and equity issues to achieve sustainable and effective forest management.

Negotiation status

The Land Matrix currently lists 122 carbon sequestration/REDD projects that involve large-scale land purchases or concessions since 2000 in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the Caribbean, including four failed deals over 1,1 million hectares. All intended and concluded deals. cover nearly 8 million hectares, a staggering figure that does not yet account for the recently proposed projects by developers, which could span millions more hectares across Africa but lack sufficient information to classify them as large-scale land acquisitions.

 Distribution of REDD Projects (graduated symbology) and their respective areas (labels). Data sourced from the ID-RECCO Database. Labels indicate project areas in square kilometers (km²), while the layer data (accessible by clicking on specific countries) is provided in hectares (ha). 

While the dimensions of the investments, its  credibility  issues, and the who is who of the voluntary carbon market are widely discussed, the issues of weak land governance and land rights takes a backseat in current reporting and analysis. Like with other large-scale land deals, market-driven carbon offsetting through afforestation, reforestation, or payments for environmental services largely interferes with local tenure and practices. As Samuel Ade Ndasi of  Minority Rights Group  International points out in the case of the Mau forest:

“It is difficult not to link the evictions of the Ogiek to the government of Kenya’s recent romance with carbon credit funding.”

Samuel Ade Ndasi

II. Land tenure insecurity and weak land governance meet climate mitigation

Perceived Land Tenure Insecurity in SSA

In Africa, land-intensive climate change mitigation projects intended to safeguard our planet are often perceived as a  continuation of colonial-era  land grabs and dispossession of local communities. In line with the historic trajectory and (post-)colonial dependencies of most African countries, carbon deals tend to favor foreign interests over the needs of the Global South. What is more, large-scale carbon projects frequently happen in contexts with weak land governance institutions or where governments fail to adopt legal and policy reforms to  recognize and protect  the land and carbon rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is among the most insecure regions in the world. According to the latest  Prindex data , more than 1 in 4 people feel it is likely they will be pushed off their land or lose their homes in the next five years.

In SSA 26% of the adult population feels tenure insecure.

Across the region, the level of insecurity varies as does the legal protection of community lands. An analysis of data collected through  LANDex  reflects these concerns. Across seven African countries - Cameroon, Kenya, Liberia, Senegal, South Africa, Togo and Uganda - only in three were local teams able to identify rural administrative districts with sustainable land use plans in place that account for the rights and interests of local land users and owners. In Senegal, Liberia and Kenya, where this data was available, such plans covered an estimated 56% of all rural areas.

Prindex Tenure Insecurity Indicators Across Africa. This map uses 2024 data from the Prindex Report, highlighting that 1.1 billion adults across 108 countries—23% of the global adult population—feel insecure about their land or property rights, with significant increases observed in East Asia, the Pacific, and North America.

Africa at the forefront of new carbon deals

Against the backdrop of high levels of tenure insecurity and limited legal protection of community land, numerous African government representatives offered their forest and land resources to carbon schemes at COP28 in Dubai and the  Africa Climate Summit  in 2023. Kenya even  declared  to “drive a climate revolution from Africa” based on offset markets.

Studies on several of these large-scale carbon deals have shown that smallholders, Indigenous Peoples, and pastoralists have  lost control  over their land and  livelihoods  to make space for climate mitigation projects. Similar to recent land deal waves, this has led to increasing food and tenure insecurity, growing rural poverty, and inequality in Sub-Saharan Africa. What is more, climate change mitigation adds more pressure on rural communities, Indigenous Peoples, and pastoralists who already  bear the brunt  of climate stress.

In this story, we analyze three cases that highlight the complex relationship between land tenure security, indigenous rights, and carbon offset initiatives in Africa.

1

First, we examine the challenges faced by the Ogiek people of Kenya, an indigenous community striving to protect their ancestral land in the Mau Forest. Despite significant legal victories affirming their rights, recent evictions tied to a carbon credit initiative have sparked concerns over the balance between climate change mitigation efforts and the protection of indigenous rights.

2

Second, the Liberia case highlights tensions between carbon credit projects and indigenous rights, focusing on the 2023 MoU with Dubai-based Blue Carbon to lease out nearly 1 million hectares—10% of Liberia’s landmass, including Protected Areas and customary lands like the Gbi-Dorun rainforest. Local communities who rely on these forests were not consulted and raise concerns over displacement, land rights erosion, and transparency.

3

Third, we explore a contrasting example in Ghana, where Miro Forestry’s sustainable carbon offset project demonstrates how environmentally conscious practices can coexist with respect for community land rights. By engaging local farmers and fostering agroforestry, this initiative offers valuable lessons for creating equitable and inclusive solutions.

New players with big ambitions

In 2023, Blue Carbon - a little-known investor based in Dubai whose founder and chair is a member of Dubai’s royal family – secured more than 25 million hectares of land in five African countries to trade carbon offsets. Ratified under the  Paris climate agreement , this includes bilateral deals for 20% of  Zimbabwe’s  land, 10% of Liberia’s land, and huge tracts of land in  Kenya , Zambia, and Tanzania.

The sheer size of these projects sparked concern. In order to exemplify the risk of climate mitigation measures, we take a closer look at the cases of Blue Carbon in Liberia and Kenya.

Kenya: The struggle of the Ogiek people

A landmark ruling by the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights upheld the Ogiek community's land rights, marking a significant victory for indigenous peoples and progressive jurisprudence on human rights in Africa

In 2017, the Indigenous Ogiek communities could breathe a sigh of relief – or so they thought. Back then, the Ogiek won an important  land rights victory  when the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights ruled that the Ogiek have the right to live in the Mau Forest. This was followed in 2022 with a  reparations judgment  from the African Court. The judgment  ordered  the Kenyan government to “undertake a process of delimiting, demarcation and titling of Ogiek ancestral land, within which the Ogiek fully participate, within a timeframe of 1 year of notification of the reparations order.”

After Blue Carbon signed a Framework of Collaboration with Kenya’s State Department of Environment and Climate Change in October 2023, the government started evicting more than  700 indigenous Ogiek  from their homes in the Mau Forest. The Land Matrix database which promotes transparency and accountability in decisions over large-scale land acquisitions in low- and middle-income countries by capturing and sharing data about these deals offers some more details. Blue Carbon intends to invest in this carbon credit production deal in Kenya under the Paris Agreement’s Article 6. The Land Matrix also points out that this  deal  may exacerbate existing land conflicts and “clash with the traditional land use and rights of the local population”. Moreover, current evictions are linked to the government’s interests in carbon credits. However, the Ministry of Environment, Climate Change, and Forestry claims to only push back illegal encroachment and logging.

 Prindex Scores for Tenure Security and Insecurity in Kenya 

This leads to questions of how people perceive tenure security in Kenya. Prindex data shows that more than 1 in 3 adults think it is likely that they will lose their land or property in the next 5 years, and 1 in 10 think this could be because the government or a company could seize it, such as in the case of carbon deals. 

 LandMark’s  legal assessment score adds some more detail to existing legal protection for community land rights or customary landholding. While Kenya’s score indicates a relatively high level of protection, the assessment points out that there is a highly problematic overlap in the definition of public versus community lands. According to LandMark data, only 55% of all land held or managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities has been formally recognized by the government. 

Likewise, data collected through LANDex raises concerns about political, financial, and institutional support to implement the legal framework as it concerns the demarcation of Indigenous Peoples lands, territories, and natural resources. The country received a score of 7 out of a possible 100, the second lowest of all scores recorded in LANDex for this indicator. And despite relatively strong laws (scoring 78) calling for public input on decisions related to land, LANDex respondents questioned the extent to which such platforms are truly inclusive and whether decisions made in these spaces are acted upon and upheld (scoring 2). 

In addition, the Land Value (Amendment) 2019 fails to value undeveloped community land, such as pastures and woodlands. Both aspects are highly relevant in the Ogiek carbon deal case.

State of Land Information (SOLI) Index for Kenya

To be able to fight for their rights, the Ogiek communities need access to contracts, demarcation maps and other data. However, similar to other large-scale  land deals  information and decision-making often lack transparency which in turn weakens land governance. The  State of Land Information (SOLI) Index  pioneers in assessing governmental data on land and scoring the completeness and openness of information on legislation, land tenure, land use, land development, and land value.  Kenya’s SOLI score  is relatively low (12.5), showing that the provision of land data and information is only slightly complete and open. Notably, the availability of statistical and spatial information is limited.

Liberia: 1,000,000 hectares for carbon offsetting

"Their oil is releasing a lot of carbon, and they want to turn us into their cleaning ground," says  village chief Matthew Walley  in Liberia and adds confidently: "We will not be a part of this!"

Although a legally binding contract is yet to follow and little information is available, the Land Matrix offers more details on  Blue Carbon’s deal  in West Africa. In March 2023, the Government of Liberia signed a confidential Memorandum of Understanding with Blue Carbon LLC stipulating that 1 million hectares of forest - which is 10% of Liberia’s land - will be allocated to the company for 30 years. This allows Blue Carbon to generate and  sell carbon credits  to major polluters to offset their emissions by protecting and restoring forests in Liberia. The contract does not specify certification standards, verification methods, financing mechanisms or how much Blue Carbon will invest and in what areas.

The draft contract of the deal  violates  several of Liberia’s land laws which require free, prior, and informed consent negotiations with communities. In an  assessment carried out for LANDex , ILC members in Liberia noted that the Environmental Protection and Management Law (EPML) requires that every concession undergoes an environmental and social impact assessment and analysis to gauge the impact of the concession on communities. The EPML as well as the Community Rights Law and the Land Rights Act all demand that free, prior and informed consent of existing landowners be sought before any such concession would go ahead. Against this backdrop, Blue Carbon’s deal does not only conflict with existing land rights but with the very implementation of Liberia’s National Forestry Reform Law, the Community Rights Law, the Public Procurement and Concessions Act, and the Land Rights Act.

Local leaders like Matthew Walley criticize the lack of consultation and  demand transparency and participation  in the decision-making process. According to LandMark’s data, legal protection of community rights is limited in Liberia. It is estimated that 64.9% of land held and managed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities in Liberia has been acknowledged by the government. Not only does Liberia lack provisions for restitution to communities of wrongfully taken lands but communities have to earmark up to 10% of their land as public land – much of which has been acquired by carbon offsetting investors.

 Prindex Scores for Tenure Security and Insecurity in Liberia 

There are many parallels between the struggle of the Ogiek and the Liberian communities facing the Blue Carbon’s investments and their historic land struggles with the respective governments. In addition, both countries share striking similarities if we take a closer look at the perception of tenure security and the completeness and openness of land governance-related data.

State of Land Information (SOLI) Index for Liberia

Like in Kenya, more than 1 in 3 adults feel tenure insecure in Liberia of which 19% are worried that the government or companies may seize their property. Liberia’s similarly low  SOLI score  of 15.8 results from the lack of cohesive land data collection and the destruction and loss of land records during the war.

Despite the peculiarities of each country and carbon offset deal, consulting the assessments and scores of the four introduced data initiatives is a valuable tool in analyzing blind spots of (not so) enabling investment environments. Together, they allow an overview of the general status quo of land rights and tenure security in a given country but also provide deep dives on promising and conflictive developments. In the case of Blue Carbon LLC. in Kenya and Liberia, a consultation of these data initiatives may have raised awareness for existing challenges and perhaps led to more sensitive investment approaches or setup of the projects. At the very least, they offer entry points for advocacy campaigns of affected communities.

Logs loaded onto a truck for transport, highlighting timber operations within a managed forest concession in Ghana.

III. What makes an inclusive and sustainable carbon deal

Same same but different? Miro Forestry in Ghana

Now, what will the data scores and assessments reveal about the context of a better practice example? Let’s take a closer look at Miro Forestry & Timber Products investment in the Ashanti region in Ghana. 

The  Land Matrix  offers a thorough overview of the deal history that started in 2009 with a lease contract for 50 years. Covering over 19,000 hectares, the deal mixes commercial plantation forestry with protection and regeneration of indigenous tree species and the promotion of biodiversity and environmentally sustainable land-use management. The company signed a commission agreement with South Pole to certify the plantation to the voluntary carbon standard. 

Miro works in close consultation with local subsistence farmers and promotes agro-forestry practices. In contrast to Blue Carbon, Miro Forestry is a leading low-cost producer and supplier of sustainable timber in West Africa operating on high social and environmental standards. For instance, Miro offers suggestions boxes and genuine feedback options for local communities and plantations workers with tight timelines to solve conflicts and  address grievances . Although this should be taken with a grain of salt, it is hard to find critical voices or voiced concerns from affected communities or civil society in - usually outspoken - media outlets.

 Prindex Scores for Tenure Security and Insecurity in Ghana 

According to Prindex, tenure security is higher than in Kenya and Liberia. 1 in 4 adults feel tenure insecure in Ghana but only around 2% feel this way because they think that the government or companies may seize their land or property. While Ghana’s  SOLI index score  of 13.0 is similar to Kenya and Liberia, Land Mark’s assessment highlights that community land is less protected as the law continues over-empowering chiefs and heads of clans and families in family matters. However, this does not affect carbon offset deals or other large-scale green investments. In the case of Miro Forestry, the land rights of the local communities were not affected, and nobody was evicted.

State of Land Information (SOLI) Index for Ghana

Comparing different cases and country settings shows that not only the scores but the more detailed assessments of these data initiatives are invaluable in analyzing how far an environment may enable sustainable and inclusive carbon deals. The assessment of land tenure-relevant factors will prove to be ever more important considering the up to 1 billion hectares countries have pledged for agroforestry, restoration, and afforestation.

What policies are needed to prevent the mistakes of the past? 

Behind the Scenes at COP29 - Day 1: Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Baku Stadium, Azerbaijan, 11 Nov 2024. COPs serve as the policy backbone for REDD+ and voluntary carbon compensation, shaping the extent of equitable and sustainable dimensions of climate solutions.

The original idea of carbon markets is that they channel money from richer countries to poorer countries in exchange for protecting and/or restoring nature. However, as highlighted in this data story, that does not mean supposedly green investments do not enclose, exclude, and disfranchise people from their land. In contrast to advocates placing trust in voluntary regulation and standard setting, the  Financial Times  titled in late 2023 that “there is a looming land grab in Africa for carbon credits”.

But how can the mistakes from past waves of large-scale land deals be prevented? What policies are needed and how can land governance-related data initiatives contribute?

Zooming into several case studies, the data story highlights the dimensions of tenure security and the challenges of land governance systems in effectively managing the influx of carbon offset projects. While land tenure security and the protection of land rights have significantly improved in many African countries, better access to information about land governance is needed to further enhance the efficiency of land administration, transparency around decision-making, and accountability. This will have a positive impact on the perceived tenure security and the legal protection for community land rights or customary landholding. 

The five data initiatives - Prindex, LandMark, LANDex, Land Matrix, and the SOLI index - provide a wide repertoire of data that can be utilized to increase transparency and accountability. Together, these data initiatives allow assessing to which degree carbon offset or other large-scale land deals are set out in a potentially enabling environment for communities. This will eventually contribute to more equitable and sustainable land governance and climate crisis responses in Sub-Saharan Africa and beyond.

From a policy point of view, we need to:

  • Remove speculative capital and financial actors from land markets;
  • Incorporate the Right to Land in countries’ constitutions and environmental and agricultural policies – including in climate plans such as the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and biodiversity strategies;
  • Ensure that the carbon crediting mechanism, regulated in Article 6.2 and 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, incorporates robust safeguards to protect land rights effectively;
  • Establish inclusive land and food systems governance to halt green grabs and re-center communities. Democratic spatial planning and accountable land agencies are essential for this;
  • Make community-managed land conservation systems the flagship tool of the Global Biodiversity Framework to meet global biodiversity goals while protecting local food production;

Policymakers must protect and include local communities as part of climate change mitigation and biodiversity protection, supporting them to steward the land, rather than displacing them. By empowering local communities and safeguarding their lands, we can pave the way for a sustainable and equitable future for all Africans. As the Land Matrix pointed out, we need to find ways to fight the  climate crisis with communities  rather than against them. In the meantime, the Ogiek’s struggle for their land rights continues as is the case for village chief Matthew Walley and many others once the final Blue Carbon contracts are signed.

Suggested citation

Hennings, A., Baquero, L. (2024).  Africa's Carbon Deals and the Hidden Tenure Challenge . Land Portal Foundation, International Land Coalition, Prindex, and Land Matrix.

 Sign up   to receive Land Portal's data stories

 a  Text & data analysis

Anne Hennings

 b  Design, maps & data analysis

Luis Baquero

Editing

Romy Sato

Acknowledgements

This data story has been developed in the frame of the  Land Data Partnership , a group effort funded by the European Commission and implemented by the International Land Coalition, the Land Portal Foundation, the Land Matrix Initiative, and Prindex to improve the complementarity of global land data initiatives and to identify opportunities to hold key actors responsible.

A group of women in Kenya's Kasigau Corridor, supported by the REDD+ Project manager Wildlife Works, gathers to create sustainable crafts and strengthen their community livelihoods

Emissions abatement in the land sector, mostly pledged beyond 2030. Source: Land Gap Report Briefing Note, November 2023 Update.

Land area needed for country climate pledges to the UNFCCC. Note: Grey indicates countries excluding land-based carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in their pledges. Source: Land Gap Report Briefing Note, November 2023 Update.

Negotiation status

In SSA 26% of the adult population feels tenure insecure.

A landmark ruling by the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights upheld the Ogiek community's land rights, marking a significant victory for indigenous peoples and progressive jurisprudence on human rights in Africa

 Prindex Scores for Tenure Security and Insecurity in Kenya 

 Prindex Scores for Tenure Security and Insecurity in Liberia 

Logs loaded onto a truck for transport, highlighting timber operations within a managed forest concession in Ghana.

 Prindex Scores for Tenure Security and Insecurity in Ghana 

Behind the Scenes at COP29 - Day 1: Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Baku Stadium, Azerbaijan, 11 Nov 2024. COPs serve as the policy backbone for REDD+ and voluntary carbon compensation, shaping the extent of equitable and sustainable dimensions of climate solutions.

 Since 2015, fewer deals have been concluded due to factors like stricter land policies and declining support for biofuels. Based on Land Matrix data, the number of concluded and failed deals is under-reported in this illustration because deals with no information about the year of negotiation are excluded. On the other hand, intended deals are slightly over-reported, as some concluded deals with unknown dates are included as 'intended.'