Project Overview

NAIROBI – A sprawling carbon credit scheme in northern Tanzania, backed by German automotive giant Volkswagen, is facing intense scrutiny and resistance from Maasai communities who fear it threatens their ancestral lands and traditional way of life. The project, run by Volkswagen's partner, Soils for the Future Tanzania (SftFTZ), covers approximately 970,000 hectares in the Longido and Monduli districts and aims to generate carbon credits by implementing "rapid rotational grazing" plans. The stated goal is to regenerate degraded soils, allowing grasslands to store more carbon, which Volkswagen can then use to offset its industrial emissions as part of its goal to be net carbon-neutral by 2050.

Community Concerns and Allegations

Despite promises of economic benefits, many Maasai leaders and community members view the project as a new form of land dispossession veiled in climate-friendly language. Critics, including the Maasai International Solidarity Alliance (MISA), an advocacy group, argue that the 40-year contracts are opaque, non-transparent, and have been pushed through without the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of the communities. There are widespread allegations that contracts are presented in English, not Swahili, and that decision-making processes have excluded women and youth. "This is not just a threat to our livelihoods – it is a threat to our very existence," said Timan Tina, a Maasai activist, expressing a common fear that the scheme will ultimately lead to the loss of their land. The project imposes rigid grazing structures managed by external coordinators, disrupting the traditional mobility that is essential for pastoralist survival, especially during droughts.

Accusations of 'Greenwashing'

The initiative has been widely condemned by international and local NGOs as "greenwashing," a practice where a company uses environmental messaging to mask its polluting activities. A March 2025 report by MISA detailed numerous alleged abuses, including a lack of transparency and the use of scientifically questionable soil carbon accounting methods. Organizations like Survival International have pointed to similar projects in Kenya, such as the Northern Kenya Rangelands Carbon Project (NKRCP), where they found it "highly implausible" that the new grazing regimes were being implemented or were having the claimed environmental benefits. These concerns echo broader global scrutiny of the voluntary carbon market, with a 2023 investigation finding that over 90% of rainforest offsets from a leading certifier were largely worthless.

Volkswagen's Defense

In response to the allegations, Volkswagen ClimatePartner issued a statement in March 2025, asserting its commitment to supporting Maasai livelihoods and promoting climate resilience. The company maintains that SftFTZ does not acquire or control any land and that all titles remain under the ownership of the Maasai villages. They argue the 40-year contract duration is necessary for the decades-long process of grassland restoration and that grazing plans are designed by each village committee and can be adjusted. "The project is designed to balance traditional pastoralist land use with sustainable land management while ensuring that Maasai communities retain full control over their land and benefit from participation," the company stated.

Relevance for Kenya and East Africa

The situation in Tanzania serves as a critical case study for Kenya, where the carbon market is rapidly expanding into pastoralist areas like Kajiado, Samburu, and Isiolo counties. The Northern Kenya Rangelands Carbon Project, while lauded by some for generating significant revenue for conservancies, has also faced criticism for interfering with traditional grazing practices and a lack of transparency in how benefits are shared. Proponents highlight that these projects can bring tangible benefits, such as funding for schools and boreholes. However, the Tanzanian experience underscores the profound risks: the potential for land alienation, the disruption of centuries-old cultural practices, and the possibility that communities are locked into long-term, inequitable deals. As foreign-owned firms increasingly look to East Africa's rangelands for carbon offsetting, the controversy in Longido and Monduli is a stark warning for Kenyan communities and policymakers to ensure robust legal safeguards, genuine community consent, and equitable benefit-sharing to avoid similar conflicts.