Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) is attracting growing attention and investment globally, but what does its emergence mean for Africa? In our recent report, The Future of Carbon Dioxide Removal in Africa: Feasibility, Opportunity, and the Choices Ahead, we examine the opportunities, risks, and trade-offs of different CDR approaches in African contexts. Drawing on desk research and consultations with practitioners and experts across Africa and internationally, here are ten key takeaways from our analysis.
1. Nearly all carbon removal today comes from forests and land management, not emerging CDR technologies.
Despite growing attention and investment in engineered carbon removal, approximately 99.9% of the 2.2 billion tonnes of CO₂ removed globally each year comes from conventional land-based methods. Novel CDR approaches, including DACCS, biochar, and enhanced rock weathering, still account for a tiny fraction of actual removals.
Why it matters: Scaling novel CDR is a major technical and commercial challenge. At the same time, strengthening the integrity and durability of established land-based removals, while protecting land and community rights, is an immediate priority. This is particularly true in Africa, where land-based approaches are likely to remain central to CDR efforts for the foreseeable future.
2. Biochar is emerging as one of Africa’s most promising near-term CDR pathways.
Biochar stands out for its comparatively modest capital and infrastructure requirements, its potential to turn agricultural residues into useful products, and its possible soil benefits. It was among the most favourably assessed pathways in our consultations and is a notable exception to the financing bottlenecks facing many early-stage African CDR ventures.
Why it matters: Targeted biochar deployment could offer near-term opportunities, but realizing its potential at scale will require projects to demonstrate sustainable feedstock sourcing, reliable carbon storage, clean production practices, and measurable agricultural benefits.
3. DACCS is costly and early-stage, but select African sites like Kenya’s Rift Valley make a case for investment as global testing grounds with local payoffs.
Direct air carbon capture and storage (DACCS) faces significant cost, energy, and infrastructure barriers, and is often dismissed as too speculative for Africa. Yet early projects in Kenya's Rift Valley are taking advantage of an unusual combination of abundant geothermal energy and potentially suitable basalt formations for permanent CO₂ storage.
Why it matters: Even high-risk CDR technologies may warrant targeted investment where local conditions offer distinctive advantages. The case for DACCS at a site like Kenya’s Rift doesn’t rest on near-term removals or commercial viability alone. Early demonstrations there can generate valuable learning for the global field, build high-skill local capacity, and position Kenya to help shape the technology’s development.
4. Enhanced rock weathering may help African farmers, although measuring how much CO₂ it removes is a challenge.
Enhanced rock weathering (ERW) uses reactive minerals, often crushed basalt, to accelerate natural carbon removal processes. Some applications may also improve soil conditions and crop productivity, but net removal depends on mineral composition, rainfall, soil chemistry, transport, and processing emissions.
Why it matters: Growing interest in ERW from global buyer groups and investors gives African sites a chance to become proving grounds for the method, while bringing in new funding for farmer-focused initiatives. But field trials and reliable measurement methods are essential before claims of large-scale removal or agricultural gains can be substantiated, and benefits to farmers should also be weighed against other agricultural investments.
5. BECCS plays a central role in modelled pathways for Africa, but its real-world prospects are far more constrained.
Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) is among the largest projected sources of future carbon removal in global climate models and features prominently in modelled African net-zero pathways. It also appeals to policymakers because it promises both carbon removal and energy production. Yet large-scale deployment faces significant barriers, including sustainable biomass supply, land and water competition, costly infrastructure, and access to geological storage.
Why it matters: Despite its prominence in models, BECCS’s near-term traction in Africa is likely to be limited. The strongest opportunities will come from selective niches that combine residues, existing biomass or bioenergy processing, local energy demand, and accessible geological storage, such as around existing point sources and industrial clusters.
6. Hosting a CDR project in Africa doesn’t guarantee that its economic value stays there.
A project may create local jobs and investment while ownership, intellectual property, technology, project data, and buyer relationships are controlled elsewhere. International partnerships can provide essential access to finance and expertise, but they can also shift economic value and decision-making power away from African countries.
Why it matters: Local value should be defined and secured through project agreements, including provisions for ownership, knowledge transfer, data access, and benefit-sharing, rather than measured by jobs and investment alone.
7. The corporate buyers building Africa’s CDR market are also a source of its fragility.
Early voluntary buyers have helped drive the growth of Africa’s nascent CDR market by paying premium prices and accepting risks associated with emerging technologies. Yet dependence on a small pool of international buyers exposes projects to shifting purchasing priorities, uncertain prices, and limited long-term commitments.
Why it matters: A more durable CDR market requires reliable, longer-term demand. Compliance markets and public procurement could provide more stable sources of demand, but are developing slowly, with eligibility and access uncertain across technologies and countries. For now, voluntary carbon markets remain the primary source of demand for African CDR projects, despite their limitations.
8. African CDR projects need patient capital and long-term buyers, but often face venture-style investment expectations.
Many CDR projects require substantial upfront investment, specialised infrastructure, and reliable purchasing agreements before they become financially viable. Yet early-stage developers often face venture-capital expectations for rapid growth and returns, even where project economics resemble longer-term infrastructure investments.
Why it matters: Financing models need to better reflect the capital requirements, development timelines, and risks of different CDR approaches, with patient finance and credible long-term purchasing commitments playing a larger role.
9. Investments in scientific and institutional capacity have value even if CDR markets don’t take off.
Despite differing views on CDR’s future, consulted practitioners converge on the importance of stronger local science, public data, technical skills, and institutions. Geological datasets, laboratories, soil baselines, and monitoring systems would also benefit agriculture, energy planning, resource management, and climate policy.
Why it matters: Governments and funders can prioritise these foundational investments without betting on the commercial success of specific CDR technologies or the future growth of carbon markets.
10. Making a strong case for CDR in Africa means putting development first.
CDR has risen to prominence through global climate mitigation and net-zero agendas. Yet for most African countries which have contributed little to global emissions, adaptation, resilience, and broader socio-economic development are more immediate priorities. CDR is therefore more likely to gain traction when it can meaningfully advance development outcomes, rather than when it is presented primarily as a climate solution.
Why it matters: CDR projects will appeal the most to African governments when they deliver on concrete development needs such as agricultural productivity, waste management, energy and industrial development. Projects should be assessed against alternative ways of achieving these objectives, while recognising that CDR’s added value may lie in unlocking new sources of finance for development activities.
