Vanishing Promises: How Blue Carbon’s Billion-Hectare Claims in Africa Collapsed

In 2023 a Dubai-based firm called Blue Carbon announced a string of high-profile memoranda of understanding with several African governments, promising to protect millions of hectares of forest, create carbon credits and share revenues with communities. The most prominent pledge would have set aside roughly one million hectares in Liberia, about 10 percent of the country, under a REDD+ style framework that Blue Carbon said would help finance forest protection and generate tradable carbon offsets.

Bold claims, sparse follow-through

Blue Carbon, which the company said was led by Sheikh Ahmed Dalmook Al Maktoum, presented the agreements as a potential model for carbon trading under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. The company announced deals with Liberia, Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Nigeria's Niger state, and later signed an MOU with Papua New Guinea for mangrove protection. Some announcements touted coverage in the millions of hectares and benefits for local communities and partner governments.

Deals stalled and details questioned

Two years on, many of those MOUs have not advanced beyond preliminary documents or expressions of interest. Liberia halted progress after a review flagged inconsistencies with established procedures for carbon projects and concerns about land and community rights. As Elijah Whapoe, coordinator of Liberia’s National Climate Change Steering Committee, put it: ’It was stopped. As we speak, there is no attempt to my knowledge, anything, about trying to resuscitate it.’

Officials in several countries said Blue Carbon did not submit the follow-up project documents required to move from MOUs to implemented projects. Zimbabwe described the arrangement as an expression of interest; Zambia said its MOU lapsed without action; Papua New Guinea reported no progress; and a trading partner named by Blue Carbon later confirmed the agreement had lapsed with no active engagement.

Transparency, registration and an online disappearing act

Independent digital checks found no trace of Blue Carbon projects on the major independent carbon registries, and no public Article 6.4 notifications typically required for international carbon transactions. The firm’s social accounts went silent in late 2023, and its website was later taken offline. Attempts by journalists and investigators to reach the company by email, phone and at a listed Dubai address reportedly drew no substantive response.

Rights, governance and greenwashing concerns

Environmental advocates and community representatives warned that large-scale deals negotiated without robust consultation risked overruling customary and legal land rights. Saskia Ozinga, founder of the forest advocacy group Fern, described the proposals as unprecedented in scale and insufficiently consultative, saying they risked being used to greenwash the credentials of major fossil-fuel producing states or corporations.

’Blue Carbon was clearly aimed to greenwash,’ said Ozinga. ’It was a bizarre idea from many different perspectives, which would have never worked for the climate, for forests and for people.’

Wider lessons for carbon markets

Observers say the episode underscores persistent weaknesses in forest-based offsets and the need for clearer rules, transparency and accountability. Injy Johnstone, a research fellow who studies net-zero aligned offsetting, calls for stronger standards on environmental integrity, public disclosure of Article 6 transactions and accountability from both suppliers and buyers so projects do not evaporate into ’hot air.’

The Blue Carbon case highlights several recurring challenges for carbon-credit schemes: ensuring community consent and rights, securing verifiable registrations on recognised market systems, and maintaining transparent governance so that promised conservation and climate benefits actually materialise.

Where things stand now

At present the major Blue Carbon MOUs appear dormant or unimplemented, with no independent registry listings and limited public evidence of delivery. The agreements raise important questions about how governments and investors negotiate large conservation deals, the safeguards needed for affected communities, and what counts as a credible, enforceable climate outcome.

Names quoted and sources consulted in reporting and verification include government officials and civil-society representatives involved in the referenced countries, as well as independent researchers who track carbon-markets and project registries.