A new report says carbon dioxide removal in Africa should follow a selective, location-specific approach rather than one continent-wide model. The report, titled The Future of Carbon Dioxide Removal in Africa: Feasibility, Opportunity, and the Choices Ahead, comes from the African Tech Futures Lab (ATFL), a network of African experts on emerging technologies. It states that “there is no single carbon removal approach suitable for the entire continent.”
The report argues carbon removal projects could draw climate finance into the region. They could also support agriculture, ecosystem restoration and waste management, while creating jobs and new industries. For farming communities, this could mean new income streams tied to soil health or degraded land brought back into use. These benefits are not guaranteed, the report cautions. They depend heavily on how individual projects are designed and run.
Project developers should show clearly who benefits from a scheme, the report says. They must also explain how those benefits will be measured over time. A further question matters for farming communities: whether carbon removal is a better use of land, water, energy, biomass and capital than other options available to them. For smallholders and pastoralist communities, that comparison is rarely abstract. Land committed to a removal scheme is land unavailable for grazing, food crops or local water use, so the trade-offs fall directly on rural livelihoods.
Early evidence remains patchy across countries
Carbon dioxide removal in Africa remains at an early stage, the report finds. Scientific evidence, infrastructure, technical capacity and monitoring systems vary widely between countries. The gap between countries with stronger institutions and those without is wide, the report suggests. Many of the technologies involved were developed outside Africa, along with the markets and standards that govern them. That gap matters for farmers and land managers asked to host projects whose rules were written elsewhere.
Voluntary carbon markets depend on a small number of buyers, the report notes. Prices for carbon credits remain uncertain and can shift quickly. African projects also have no guaranteed access to regulated carbon markets that may emerge in future. This leaves rural communities exposed to risks beyond their control, particularly where land has been set aside for restoration schemes rather than farming or grazing.
Biochar and rock weathering offer an early starting point
Biochar and enhanced rock weathering stand out as candidates for early experimentation, according to the report. Both require less infrastructure than other removal methods, which makes them easier to trial on working farms and smallholdings. Even so, the report says both still need stronger evidence, better monitoring and firmer quality controls before they scale up on farmland or degraded soils. Biochar production and the spreading of crushed rock on fields touch agricultural practice directly, which is why the report treats monitoring quality as inseparable from the technology itself.
Afforestation and reforestation schemes need safeguards for land rights, the report warns. Reliable carbon accounting is also essential, given how land tenure disputes can undermine restoration projects across the continent. Communities that depend on common land for grazing or fuelwood collection have the most at stake when such schemes are poorly designed.
Direct air carbon capture and storage depends heavily on local conditions. The report identifies Kenya’s Rift Valley as an early potential hub, citing its geothermal energy and geology. Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage needs a steady supply of sustainable biomass and supporting infrastructure. That raises questions about competition with food crops for land and water. Ocean alkalinity enhancement remains mostly confined to research settings for now, the report notes.
The report frames these as choices rather than conclusions. Each pathway carries different implications for farmland, water use and rural income, and African governments are being urged to weigh them case by case rather than copying approaches developed elsewhere. Getting that sequencing right, the report suggests, will matter as much as the technologies themselves.
