AS pressure builds ahead of a key decision by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization, concerns are intensifying across Africa that the failure of the global aviation offsetting scheme could deal a significant blow to the continent’s emerging carbon economy.
At the centre of the controversy is the CORSIA Technical Advisory Body, the panel responsible for recommending which carbon credits qualify under the Carbon Offsetting and Reduction Scheme for International Aviation, known as CORSIA.
Originally conceived as a technical body to safeguard environmental integrity, the TAB is now facing sustained criticism from government officials and market participants who question both its credibility and its impartiality.
Several stakeholders allege that the panel has operated with limited transparency, citing clear violations of the organisation’s own procedures and UN rules. In some cases, they say, programmes with significant representation in developing regions have been excluded on what critics describe as narrow or inconsistently applied technical grounds.
Those concerns have fuelled a broader perception, particularly among African policymakers, that the body’s recommendations may be disproportionately disadvantaging projects on the continent.
“There is a growing sense that African countries are being held to a different standard,” said one regional carbon market adviser. “Whether intentional or not, the outcome is the same: reduced access to one of the world’s most important sources of climate finance.”
The implications are substantial. CORSIA was designed to generate demand for carbon credits, creating a revenue stream for emissions reduction projects in developing economies. Africa, with its large potential for nature-based and community-driven mitigation activities, has been widely viewed as a key beneficiary.
If the scheme falters the financial consequences could be severe. Governments and private developers across the continent have invested in project pipelines on the assumption that CORSIA would provide a stable market.
A breakdown in that market could leave those investments stranded.
Analysts warn that the risk is no longer theoretical. If airlines face limited credit availability or uncertain eligibility rules, compliance costs could rise sharply, prompting resistance from the industry and weakening support for the scheme. At the same time, developers facing unpredictable approval outcomes may delay or abandon projects altogether.
The result, they say, could be a gradual erosion of both supply and demand—undermining the mechanism from within.
Critics argue that the TAB bears significant responsibility for that risk. By failing to operate with sufficient transparency and consistency, they say, the panel has weakened trust in the system it was meant to uphold.
More serious allegations have also begun to circulate, with some stakeholders questioning whether institutional biases or competing interests may be influencing outcomes. In the absence of detailed disclosures, such concerns have proven difficult to dispel.
The ICAO Council now faces a consequential choice: whether to endorse the panel’s recommendations or to intervene to restore confidence in the process.
For African countries, the stakes extend far beyond aviation policy. At risk is a critical source of climate finance – and with it, a key pillar of the continent’s strategy for low-carbon development.
