This study examines Mozambique’s growing engagement in carbon markets through integrity, transparency and accountability in a fragile and conflict-affected state. As carbon finance expands across Africa, Mozambique illustrates the opportunities and the significant governance risks that accompany market-based climate solutions shaped by weak institutions, entrenched corruption, political instability and deep social inequalities.
Using a political economy approach, the paper analyses how incentives, power relations and institutional weaknesses affect the credibility and fairness of carbon market initiatives, highlighting land-based projects such as reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD+) and blue carbon programmes. Mozambique’s historical trajectory, marked by post-independence conflict, structural adjustment–driven state weakening, extractive development and recurrent political violence, has produced a governance environment where integrity risks are systemic rather than incidental.
The analysis identifies several interlinked challenges. Weak state capacity and fragmented oversight undermine regulation, coordination and enforcement across sectors central to carbon markets, including land administration, environment and finance. Pervasive corruption and elite capture erode public trust, distort benefit-sharing, and heighten risks of land grabbing and fraudulent carbon claims. Ongoing conflict and political instability further disrupt oversight, displace communities, damage conservation areas and deter responsible investment. At the same time, shrinking civic space and restricted information flows limit civil society and communities from monitoring projects, defending land rights and demanding accountability.
High levels of inequality (regional, rural–urban, and gendered) shape who bears the costs and who captures the benefits of carbon initiatives. Marginalised communities often face dispossession, inadequate consultation and limited access to revenues, undermining both social legitimacy and environmental effectiveness. Financial exclusion compounds these challenges, as weak access to formal and digital financial services constrains transparent benefit-sharing, even where direct payments could reduce corruption risks.
The paper also assesses international integrity standards in voluntary carbon markets, noting that while certification and verification systems are necessary, they are insufficient in fragile contexts if they are not embedded in strong domestic governance and conflict-sensitive implementation. Experiences from Mozambique and elsewhere in Africa demonstrate that technically verified projects can still produce social harm when land rights, participation and accountability are weak.
The study concludes that integrity in Mozambique’s carbon markets cannot be treated as a narrow technical issue. Instead, it must be understood as a governance and political challenge closely linked to peace, development and social justice. Strengthening integrity requires inclusive and transparent institutions, secure land tenure, meaningful community participation, safeguarded civic space, reliable information systems, and equitable financial flows. Aligning carbon market development with the humanitarian–development–peace nexus is essential if carbon finance is to contribute to emissions reductions, as well as to legitimacy, trust and long-term stability in Mozambique.
