COP30: Zimbabwe’s forest and energy projects reveal the downside of carbon credits – Green Building Africa

Report on Carbon Offset Projects in Zimbabwe and Their Impact on Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

Carbon offsetting is a mechanism intended to support SDG 13 (Climate Action) by allowing entities to compensate for their carbon emissions by funding projects that reduce emissions elsewhere. This report analyzes two carbon offset projects in Zimbabwe, the Kariba REDD+ and the Cicada Holdings Project, to evaluate their effectiveness and alignment with the broader 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The analysis, based on research by Fadzai Chipato, reveals a complex relationship between climate mitigation efforts and local development outcomes, highlighting both positive contributions and significant challenges to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Case Study Analysis of Zimbabwean Carbon Offset Projects

The Kariba REDD+ Project

Initiated around 2011, the Kariba REDD+ (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) project aimed to regenerate 758,000 hectares of degraded forest. The project’s activities were designed to contribute to multiple SDGs:

• SDG 15 (Life on Land): Halting deforestation through conservation farming techniques.
• SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Funding community nutrition gardens.
• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 8 (Decent Work): Establishing beekeeping projects for income generation.
• SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy): Providing biogas digesters and fuel-efficient stoves to reduce reliance on firewood.

Despite these goals, the project operated under a top-down governance model, with limited participation from local communities. Operations were halted following the implementation of a new national carbon trading law in 2023, creating uncertainty for community beneficiaries.

The Cicada Holdings Project

The Cicada Holdings Project focused on planting 100 million indigenous trees and distributing 120,000 fuel-efficient cookstoves. This project demonstrated a more collaborative approach with local farmers. By December 2025, it had successfully distributed 160,000 stoves, directly contributing to SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being) by reducing household air pollution. However, like the Kariba project, its progress was impeded by administrative delays following the new national regulations.

Assessment of SDG Contributions and Setbacks

Positive Contributions to Sustainable Development

The projects yielded tangible benefits that align with several SDGs:

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): The Kariba project established 24 community gardens, providing food for 3,000 people and generating income used to support orphans and pay for household supplies. New conservation farming methods improved crop yields, enhancing food security and creating surplus for sale.
• SDG 4 (Quality Education): Income generated from project activities enabled families to pay for school fees.
• SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy): Biogas digesters at hospitals provided clean energy, while fuel-efficient stoves reduced the labor of collecting firewood.
• SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): Beekeeping and the sale of agricultural surplus provided additional income streams for local farmers.

Challenges and Negative Impacts on SDGs

The research identified significant negative impacts that undermine key development goals:

• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): A critical failure was the exclusion of local communities from decision-making processes. A lack of transparency regarding the financial revenues from carbon credits fostered mistrust. The top-down approach contradicts the principles of inclusive and participatory governance.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The projects resulted in “virtual dispossession” by restricting community access to communal forests for essential resources like firewood and grazing land. This disproportionately affected marginalized groups.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): Women and youth, who often rely on forest resources for their livelihoods, were severely impacted by the loss of access rights, exacerbating existing inequalities.
• SDG 1 (No Poverty): By restricting traditional livelihood activities without adequate and secure alternatives, the projects risked deepening poverty for some community members, a phenomenon described as “green grabbing.”

Recommendations for Just and Sustainable Carbon Offsetting

To ensure carbon offsetting projects contribute positively and equitably to the 2030 Agenda, the following measures are recommended:

Policy and Governance Frameworks

1. Ensure Fair Benefit Sharing: Global climate conferences, including the upcoming COP30, must establish and enforce frameworks that guarantee benefits from carbon markets are shared equitably, in line with SDG 10.
2. Fulfill Climate Finance Commitments: Developed nations must honor climate finance promises made at COP29, establishing clear channels for funds to reach climate-vulnerable communities, supporting SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals).
3. Strengthen Institutional Accountability: Governments and companies must be held accountable for project promises. Transparent financial tracking and robust grievance mechanisms are essential for building trust and achieving SDG 16.

Community-Centric Implementation

1. Secure Land and Resource Rights: Communities must have legally secure rights to their land and forests to prevent dispossession when these areas are designated for carbon projects.
2. Mandate Community Consent: Projects must not proceed without the free, prior, and informed consent of affected communities, ensuring local voices are central to the development process.
3. Empower Women and Youth: Project governance structures must include women and young people in leadership roles to ensure equitable outcomes and advance SDG 5.
4. Adopt a Holistic Approach: Projects must move beyond a narrow focus on carbon reduction to protect and enhance local food security, cultural traditions, and overall well-being, ensuring alignment across all relevant SDGs.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 1: No Poverty
   • The article connects to this goal by highlighting how projects provided extra income for families, enabling them to pay for school fees and household supplies. For instance, one community garden generated enough income to support 10 orphans.
2. SDG 2: Zero Hunger
   • This goal is addressed through the establishment of 24 community gardens that provided food for 3,000 people, the introduction of conservation farming methods for drought-resistant crops like sorghum and millet, and beekeeping projects which served as a rich source of food.
3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • The article mentions the distribution of clean cookstoves, which “reduced smoke-related illnesses.” Additionally, biogas digesters were built at hospitals, providing clean energy and a system where villagers could sell cattle dung for medical treatments.
4. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The article touches on this goal by noting the negative impacts on women, who “were badly affected by having fewer rights to use their land” after forests became part of carbon projects. It also calls for women to “play leadership roles” in the management of carbon credit funds.
5. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • This is a central theme, with projects providing “biogas digesters and fuel-efficient stoves to reduce the number of trees cut down for firewood.” The Cicada project aimed to distribute 120,000 cookstoves that use less firewood.
6. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The article highlights significant inequalities, stating that projects were “run from the top down” and “local villagers had very little say.” It criticizes the lack of fair benefit sharing and how projects reshaped who benefits and who is “left out,” leading to “virtual dispossession.”
7. SDG 13: Climate Action
   • The entire article is framed around climate action, discussing carbon offsetting as a mechanism to “cancel out” carbon emissions. The Kariba REDD+ project’s purpose was “reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation.”
8. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • This goal is directly addressed through the projects’ aims to protect forests, halt deforestation, and plant trees. The Kariba REDD+ project leased 758,000 hectares of degraded forest for regrowth, and the Cicada project aimed to plant 100 million indigenous trees.
9. SDG 16: Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions
   • The article discusses institutional failures, such as the lack of transparency in how carbon credit money was spent, which “caused mistrust.” It also points to weak governance, where communities were excluded from decision-making and a new carbon trading law halted projects, creating uncertainty.
10. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals
    • The article describes partnerships between international polluters, a Zimbabwean company (Carbon Green Africa), local councils, and the government. It also calls for better global partnerships and frameworks at conferences like COP30 to ensure climate finance reaches local communities fairly.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 1.4: By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land.
   • The article directly relates to this target by describing how projects led to “virtual dispossession,” restricting traditional access to forests and land for women and youth, and calls for communities to have “secure rights to their land and forests.”
2. Target 2.3: By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers.
   • The introduction of “innovative agriculture practices to improve our yields” and conservation farming, which led to “better harvests” and the ability to sell “excess crops, generating financial income,” directly supports this target.
3. Target 7.1: By 2030, ensure universal access to affordable, reliable and modern energy services.
   • The provision of biogas digesters for clean energy and the distribution of 160,000 “environmentally friendly stoves” to reduce reliance on firewood are direct actions toward this target.
4. Target 13.b: Promote mechanisms for raising capacity for effective climate change-related planning and management… focusing on women, youth and local and marginalized communities.
   • The article critiques the failure to meet this target by explaining that projects were run “from the top down” and local communities were excluded. It calls for communities to be consulted and give consent before projects begin.
5. Target 15.2: By 2030, promote the implementation of sustainable management of all types of forests, halt deforestation, restore degraded forests and substantially increase afforestation and reforestation globally.
   • The Kariba REDD+ project, which aimed to reduce deforestation on 758,000 hectares, and the Cicada project’s goal of planting 100 million trees are explicit efforts to achieve this target.
6. Target 16.7: Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.
   • The article’s finding that “many communities were excluded from decision-making” and that villagers had “very little say” is a direct critique of the failure to meet this target. The call for community consultation and consent reinforces its relevance.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Food Security Indicators:
   • The article provides quantitative data that can serve as indicators, such as the “24 community gardens” established, “seven school gardens,” and the “3,000 people” who received food from them.
2. Clean Energy Access Indicators:
   • Progress towards clean energy access is measured by the number of clean cookstoves distributed. The article states the Cicada project “had given out 160,000 environmentally friendly stoves” by December 2025.
3. Forest Management and Reforestation Indicators:
   • Indicators for forest management are mentioned, including the “758,000 hectares of degraded forest” leased for the Kariba REDD+ project and the goal of planting “100 million indigenous trees” by the Cicada project.
4. Economic Benefit Indicators:
   • While often qualitative, the article implies economic indicators through anecdotes like a garden generating “enough income to support 10 orphans” and farmers “selling excess crops, generating financial income.”
5. Governance and Participation Indicators (Implied):
   • The article implies the need for indicators to measure participation and transparency. The lack of these is highlighted by statements that “villagers never knew how much money the carbon credits were generating” and some found out about projects “through the media.” A positive indicator would be the existence of transparent and participatory decision-making bodies.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: greenbuildingafrica.co.za