The Hidden Cost of Carbon Credits: Land Grabs in the Global South

Let’s break down how carbon offset deals actually work. Imagine a company in Europe or North America that releases a lot of greenhouse gases—perhaps from a factory, a fleet of ships, or data centres constantly running AI systems. To balance this out, the company buys carbon credits from a project located in Africa, Asia, or Latin America, which claims to be capturing carbon through tree planting. On the surface, it looks like those emissions are being offset, and the company can proudly label itself as carbon-neutral in its annual report. But there’s a catch: while the corporation cleans up its image on paper, local communities in places like Tanzania, Zimbabwe, or Niger are getting pushed out of land they’ve relied on for generations. This scenario describes the carbon offset market, which, unfortunately, is not providing real solutions to climate change but instead is shifting the problem elsewhere. In September 2024, a nonprofit organisation called GRAIN released a report that examined the situation concerning communal lands across the Global South from 2016 onward. The numbers are staggering: about 9.1 million hectares—equivalent to roughly 22.5 million acres, or the size of Portugal—have been taken over by corporations for carbon offset projects. More than half of that land is in Africa. Examining 279 different projects, GRAIN found a troubling trend: foreign companies buy up large areas of land traditionally used for farming and grazing by local communities, turning them into fast-growing tree plantations like eucalyptus and acacia, then sell carbon credits to corporations that want to claim they’re offsetting their emissions. One of the largest single projects identified by GRAIN occupies an area of about 2.2 million hectares in Niger’s Sahel region, owned by a company called African Agriculture Holdings, which is listed on Nasdaq. As part of this deal, this company gained access to local underground water resources as well. This is particularly alarming because local communities in already stressed climates lost both their land and their water to a publicly traded company, allowing companies outside this area to claim they’re going green. In October 2025, another organisation, the Land Matrix Initiative, released its own independent research and reached a very similar conclusion: around 9 million hectares of land globally are tied up in carbon offset deals. This highlights an alarming consensus among research groups using varied methodologies. You might wonder who’s buying these carbon credits. GRAIN’s report highlighted major players like Meta, Microsoft, Amazon, BP, and TotalEnergies. These corporations are not struggling financially; they are among the most profitable in history. What they’re effectively purchasing through carbon credits is permission to keep operating as usual, such as running data centres or refining oil, while communities in countries like Niger, Tanzania, and Zimbabwe bear the financial burden of this arrangement. In Zimbabwe, a company called Blue Carbon struck a deal covering 7.5 million hectares —approximately one-fifth of the entire country’s land area. Similarly, in Liberia, a proposed carbon project covering a million hectares raised red flags among researchers who warned it could violate the land rights of around a million local residents. Governments in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Tanzania, and Zambia are entering agreements that hand over substantial carbon sequestration rights to foreign companies, often without properly consulting the affected communities. It’s important to recognise that this land wasn’t simply lying fallow. It’s often occupied by Indigenous peoples and local communities who depend on it for their livelihoods. The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) points out that many of these plots are critical to food security and local economies. When these areas are transformed into eucalyptus plantations or secured under lengthy contracts to prevent deforestation, the people relying on them don’t just vanish or disappear; rather, they lose access to essential resources for survival. What do these local communities receive in return? According to a 2025 Land Matrix report, projects designed to prevent deforestation—the most common type in Africa— generate, on average, only 0.08 jobs per 100 hectares. The rules around sharing benefits from carbon projects are often vague and depend on the project developers, leaving many communities with customary land rights, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, on the sidelines with little to no share in potential benefits. None of this would be a major issue if these carbon offsets were actually effective at reducing global emissions. However, research from various climate organisations indicates that carbon credits don’t lower emissions; they merely shift the accounting around. The carbon that companies like Meta or BP claim to prevent from entering the atmosphere is still contributing to global warming. The plantations set up in Niger to absorb this carbon are vulnerable to droughts, fires, and pest outbreaks, especially in regions already facing the brunt of climate change. Moreover, monoculture eucalyptus plantations lack the biodiversity and resilience of natural forests. When these plantations catch fire—and in a warming climate, they will—any carbon they stored is released back into the atmosphere. Many governments have proposed about 1 billion hectares of land designated for carbon removal under the national climate pledges established by the Paris Agreement. Just to give you some perspective, all of India measures around 330 million hectares. The plan, as it currently stands, would require converting three times the entire land area of India, much of it in the Global South and primarily belonging to communal groups, into storage sites for carbon on behalf of corporations based in the Global North. This is essentially a modern twist on colonialism wrapped in eco-friendly language. Historically, these regions provided raw materials like cotton and rubber to industrialise other continents; now they’re being asked to offer carbon storage to keep data centres and refineries running. The locals are the ones paying the price, while those buying the credits enjoy the benefits. The atmosphere isn’t being fooled; it’s still warming up. Real climate action means cutting emissions where they are produced. It means the corporations that built their profit on fossil fuels bear the cost of transition, not outsourcing it. What the carbon offset market offers instead is a financial instrument that lets the wealthy world continue as it is, while those who contributed least to the climate crisis pay for it in land, in livelihood, and in the quiet loss of places their communities have lived in for as long as anyone can remember. That is not a climate solution. It is just a climate crisis with better branding.