“Carbon: Africa asserts its right to collect its own contributions”
In an exclusive interview with us, Ahmed Araita Ali, Secretary General of the Africa Sovereign Carbon Registry Foundation, reacts to a recent press article reporting on letters that were allegedly sent by major international professional organizations of maritime transporters to the presidents of Djibouti and Gabon. This information, reported on July 29 by TradeWinds, a professional media outlet in the sector, conveys the concerns of international maritime transporters regarding the recent establishment of their own sovereign carbon contribution initiatives by Djibouti and then by Gabon, in accordance with the “Polluter Pays” principle.
What is the Africa Sovereign Carbon Registry Foundation and what is its role?
Ahmed Areita Ali: The Africa Sovereign Carbon Registry Foundation was created to ensure good governance of Sovereign Carbon Initiatives and associated Sovereign Carbon Registries, and their compliance with international standards. The Foundation promotes an innovative mechanism for financing sustainable development programs, ecological and energy transition through the collection of carbon contributions owed to them by air and maritime polluters. These contributions are owed to them under the “Polluter Pays” principle, confirmed by the 2015 Paris Agreement ratified by 194 countries. But almost no African country currently applies it due to the lack of sovereign carbon initiatives. The Foundation assists African States in addressing this gap by offering them a mechanism that complies with international standards, verified and certified by globally recognized organizations such as Forvis Mazars and AmSpec, and deployable in less than three months. Djibouti was the first country to adopt this model in 2023, followed by Gabon. The Foundation’s governance council is composed of representatives from member states (such as Djibouti and Gabon), international organizations, and independent experts.
How do you interpret the information regarding the initiative of the World Shipping Council (WSC), Bimco, the Asian Shipowners’ Association, the International Chamber of Shipping, Intercargo, and Intertanko?
AAA: These letters, which I have not personally seen, do not question the relevance and compliance of the mechanism promoted and developed by the Africa Sovereign Carbon Registry, but rather express the concerns of the maritime industry, represented by its main unions, about the proliferation of various carbon contribution collection initiatives. As the article states, “The associations have expressed concern that this effort could contribute to fragmented regulation of greenhouse gas emissions in the maritime transport sector.” These lobbies indeed promote the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) project to establish a global carbon tax on maritime activities at a much higher rate of $100/tCO2 compared to the $17/tCO2 currently practiced in Djibouti and Gabon. However, this tax would be collected by an IMO Fund managed by the industry. In contrast, Djibouti and Gabon believe they are legitimate and capable of directly collecting the contributions owed to them by polluters. While fully sharing the industry’s goal of promoting a harmonized and standardized mechanism in a pro-business approach, the Africa Sovereign Carbon Registry Foundation ensures the governance and compliance of Sovereign Carbon Initiatives with international and sectoral standards of the IMO.
So, are maritime lobbies holding a double discourse?
AAA: In May 2025, the ASCR Foundation met with Guy Platten, Secretary General of the International Chamber of Shipping. Mr. Platten confirmed to us that carbon initiatives are expected to multiply and are in line with ‘the direction of history’ – similar to the recent European EU ETS system, which Turkey has also adopted. He also acknowledged the industry-friendly approach of the Djibouti initiative and the importance of promoting a standardized mechanism on the continent to address the industry’s concerns about the proliferation of various mechanisms that – beyond cost – would greatly complicate maritime groups’ administrative and compliance processes. However, in reality, we are indeed faced with a double discourse from the industry, which, on the international stage, communicates its commitment to decarbonization and support for less developed countries, but locally denies the legitimacy of African countries to establish their own sovereign solutions based on mechanisms recognized elsewhere in the so-called ‘developed’ world. An approach that could be considered post-colonialist!
In a recent opinion piece published in La Tribune, Corinne Lepage, a French lawyer and former Minister of the Environment, expresses her support for you…
AAA: Yes, this opinion piece, titled “Sovereign Carbon Initiatives: a legitimate and urgent mechanism“, points out that Africa represents 17% of the world’s population and only 4% of greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is the continent most affected by climate change. According to the former government official, “it is becoming increasingly urgent to find financing solutions [for ecological transition] to allow the countries most affected by climate change to adapt, especially at a time when public funds have decreased drastically, and the United States is ending its development aid.” The sovereign carbon initiatives established with the assistance of ASCR in Djibouti and Gabon are fully compliant with international commitments (Article 6.8.b of the Paris Agreement). However, they are facing pressure, just days after Corinne Lepage’s opinion piece, through this article.
As she had anticipated in her text…
AAA: Indeed, she explained that “this system [ASCR’s] is not always appreciated by the so-called ‘developed’ countries, which would like to keep all the sums due for air and maritime transport to themselves.” Representatives of MSC and CMA CGM in Djibouti and Gabon have tried to pressure local governments against the implementation of sovereign carbon initiatives supported by ASCR. On CMA’s website, for example, it is stated that the group “has made it its mission to contribute to sustainable globalization through more balanced economic exchanges, allowing for both economic and social development, respecting the integrity of all men and the planet,” find the error…
Is the decarbonization of the maritime sector primarily a business that would benefit… the polluters?
AAA: MSC, CMA, Hapag, Maersk… have been criticized in a prominent study for overcharging the environmental cost of freight and generating significant profits at the expense of their clients. As Fanny Pointet, Head of Maritime Transport at T&E France and author of this study, explains, “the giants of maritime transport overcharge their clients using environmental standards to make them pay far too much. Whether it’s the conflict in the Red Sea or a new carbon market, maritime companies win every time.”
Let’s go back to the IMO and its project to establish a global carbon tax on maritime activities collected by an IMO Fund managed by the industry…
AAA: Under the influence of the World Shipping Council and the International Chamber of Shipping, the IMO is pushing for the establishment of this global maritime carbon tax mechanism starting in 2028. The principle is to tax a portion of maritime industry emissions (at $100/tCO2 and $380 for the most polluting vessels). However, the tax in question would be collected within an IMO Fund, managed by the industry, to finance R&D and the development of fuel-saving technologies. A portion of the funds would be allocated to emerging countries under conditions to be defined.
What concrete benefits do States derive from sovereign carbon initiatives?
AAA: Looking at the latest EU ETS data, it brought in €33 billion to Europe in 2023; and this does not include maritime activities, the first phase of which started in 2024, for which statistics are not yet available. Even though the rate is floating, we are talking about approximately $85/tCO2 in Europe in 2023. In Africa, the carbon contribution imposed on the maritime and air sectors can generate significant revenues for countries, depending on their maritime and air activities and, of course, the contribution rate decided by governments. At the European rate, the initiative could yield between $100 million and over $300 million per year per country. This estimate is based on simulations for certain countries using statistics provided by local authorities on their maritime and air activity volumes. For larger maritime countries with more developed port activities like Egypt, Morocco, or South Africa, carbon contributions could bring in over $1 billion per year per jurisdiction at the European rate. As the USAID allocated around $11.5 billion to African countries last year, and as the American agency is withdrawing, it is more crucial than ever that African countries exercise their climate sovereignty and directly receive the carbon contributions owed to them under the “Polluter Pays” principle. Especially since it is the continent most affected by climate change.
What do African countries say about this?
AAA: The IMO project was approved on April 11, 2025, but is expected to be ratified next October, hence the industry’s lobbying initiatives. Last April, many countries abstained: Pacific island states, Seychelles, Egypt, Ghana, Liberia, Madagascar, Nigeria, Uganda, etc., because the redistribution within countries is not clear. The United States is staunchly opposed to this initiative, as are Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Oman, Algeria, and Morocco, who voted against it. 63 voted in favor, including the European Union, even though this mechanism would conflict with the EU ETS. The final position of African countries could tip the balance in October.
In conclusion, the ASCR Foundation fully supports the principle of a global and harmonized carbon tax for the maritime sector, especially at the rate proposed by the industry. However, it recognizes above all the sovereign right of countries to collect these revenues themselves. A global carbon tax should not be administered by the industry itself, especially not in a model where it self-taxes to fund its own research and development.
