A Zimbabwe- and Dubai-based firm has formalized a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Zimbabwe, a move that grants the company, Blue Carbon, control over a substantial portion of the southern African nation’s landmass for the production of carbon credits. The agreement, announced in Harare on September 29, designates 7.5 million hectares of Zimbabwean forestland under Blue Carbon’s jurisdiction.
This development follows a series of similar and controversial MOUs signed by Blue Carbon with several African countries, including Liberia, where the firm secured a portion of the country’s territory, in contravention of existing land laws.
These developments unfold in anticipation of the UN Climate Summit Cop 28, scheduled to be held in Dubai in November, where carbon credits are set to be a prominent agenda item.
The global $2 billion voluntary carbon offset market enables carbon emitters to offset their emissions by acquiring credits from projects aimed primarily at reducing emissions, particularly through forest conservation efforts.
Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum, the chairman of Blue Carbon and a member of the UAE royal family, estimates that this deal could funnel $1.5 billion in climate finance into Zimbabwe. Notably, Blue Carbon, based in Dubai, was established just a year ago and lacks a track record in managing carbon offset projects.
However, campaigners have raised concerns about the potential “greenwashing risk” associated with these deals, given Al Maktoum’s familial ties to oil and gas infrastructure, suggesting that the harvested carbon credits might also be employed to offset the UAE’s own emissions.
The situation in Zimbabwe is further complicated by the country’s status as the third-largest carbon credit producer in Africa. The Kariba project, a significant forest protection initiative covering 785,000 hectares, is jointly managed by Zimbabwean entrepreneur Stephen Wentzel and the Swiss carbon credits trading company South Pole. Although attracting multinationals like Gucci and Volkswagen, South Pole faced scrutiny when it became apparent that profits intended for local communities largely remained unaccounted for.
In May, the Zimbabwean government modified its carbon regulations, reducing the government’s share of profits from carbon offset projects to 30 percent. Carbon trading developers are set to retain 70 percent but are required to invest a quarter of their profits in community projects.
Nevertheless, concerns persist about the actual flow of these funds to impacted communities. Tracy Mutowekuziva, an attorney for the Centre for Natural Resource Governance (CNRG), raises doubts, stating that the money frequently does not directly benefit the communities involved in forest preservation.
Customary land rights in Zimbabwe are not protected by law, and communal land is officially owned by the government. Shaun Matsheza, a communication specialist for Zimbabwe, points out that these practices stem from a colonial legacy that was not rectified upon gaining independence. These conditions raise concerns about land rights and the potential for displacement without compensation.
Furthermore, villages and local communities were often excluded from consultations regarding such deals, a practice that has been noted in multiple other government agreements.
Zimbabwe has a history of resource exploitation, with mining projects leading to land displacement and adverse social consequences. The pursuit of resources in the country has, at times, resulted in negative outcomes for local communities.
Blue Carbon claims to adhere to REDD+, an international initiative aimed at reducing emissions from deforestation. However, the scheme necessitates “additionality,” meaning projects should generate additional benefits, such as carbon reductions, beyond what would naturally occur without their intervention. Critics argue that by purchasing land that includes already protected areas, Blue Carbon may not deliver additional benefits.
Furthermore, mounting scientific evidence questions the effectiveness of carbon credits in reducing emissions. A recent study on Verra, the world’s largest carbon standard framework, found that 94 percent of the credits provided no climate benefit. Critics argue that such initiatives may inadvertently increase the environmental pollution license for developed countries. Shaun Matsheza suggests that Blue Carbon has identified an opportunity to position itself as a mediator between developed nations and developing countries that are yet to establish effective mechanisms for participating in the carbon credit market
