Ghana has invested more than most African countries in the sovereign infrastructure for carbon market participation. A dispute in Zimbabwe has now shown that having the infrastructure is not enough if the international framework does not recognise it.
Ghana has done more than most African countries to build the institutional foundations for sovereign participation in global carbon markets. The Ghana Carbon Registry, developed under the Environmental Protection Agency, is operational.
The Carbon Markets Office, established under the EPA Act 2025, provides a dedicated governance unit for carbon market oversight. Ghana has completed Africa’s first ITMO issuance under Article 6.2, in partnership with Switzerland. Its bilateral agreement architecture – with Singapore and other partners – is among the most active on the continent.
These are not aspirational achievements. They are operational ones. Ghana has built the systems that the Paris Agreement’s Article 6 framework says countries should have: a registry, an authorisation process, a governance structure, and the technical experience to issue Letters of Authorisation and apply Corresponding Adjustments.
A dispute now unfolding between Zimbabwe and Gold Standard Foundation raises a direct question for Accra: if Ghana routes credits through the Ghana Carbon Registry, completes the full Paris Agreement compliance cycle, and then seeks CORSIA eligibility — will the international aviation carbon market recognise that work? Based on what happened to Zimbabwe, the answer is not guaranteed.
What happened to Zimbabwe
In May 2026, Zimbabwe’s Ministry of Environment published a formal statement accusing Gold Standard Foundation of blocking CORSIA eligibility for 1.6 million tonnes of credits from a cookstoves project. Zimbabwe had done what the Paris Agreement requires: credits were transferred to its national registry, where they received a Letter of Authorisation and a Corresponding Adjustment, and were then transferred back to Gold Standard for trading.
Despite completing every required step, those credits were ruled ineligible for CORSIA labelling, citing the current CORSIA framework’s treatment of inter-registry transfers. Zimbabwe’s Minister Dr Evelyn Ndlovu called it an “open affront” to CORSIA’s objectives, warning that it “risks causing significant financial harm to innocent Zimbabwean communities” and calling Gold Standard’s conduct “deeply inappropriate – and legally questionable.” Gold Standard attributed the decision to ICAO’s Technical Advisory Body.
A credit that went through every required step now trades at US$3. A credit that did not, backed by insurance, trades at US$17. Ghana has built the infrastructure to do it the right way. The market is pricing that as a disadvantage.
The outcome is not a Zimbabwe-specific problem. It is a framework problem. And the framework applies equally to Ghana’s Carbon Registry.
Ghana’s specific exposure
Ghana’s carbon market is more export-oriented than most. The AfriPoli analysis of African carbon market readiness describes Ghana as an “export leader” — technically advanced, with operational Article 6.2 infrastructure, but with a market orientation driven primarily by bilateral export deals rather than domestic compliance demand. That orientation has produced real achievements. It has also meant that Ghana’s registry and authorisation infrastructure has been built to serve export transactions – precisely the pathway that Zimbabwe’s case shows can encounter CORSIA eligibility barriers.
As Ghana’s pipeline of Article 6.2 deals grows and CORSIA Phase II brings mandatory compliance obligations for all international aviation from 2027, the question of whether Ghana’s nationally authorised credits will receive CORSIA recognition becomes commercially significant. If they do not, Ghana’s investment in its Carbon Registry produces a governance benefit – but not a market premium. The credits that flow through the GCR and receive formal government authorisation will trade at US$3. The credits that bypass that system will trade at US$17.
The rules have not said no
The current CORSIA framework discourages inter-registry transfers but does not explicitly prohibit them. That means crediting programmes – including Gold Standard and Verra — have discretionary space, within existing rules, to approve credits from national registries that have completed the full compliance process.
Ghana’s government should be formally asking crediting programmes what specific conditions the Ghana Carbon Registry must meet, under current CORSIA rules, for credits routed through it to be eligible. If those conditions are not publicly codified – and they are not – Ghana should be demanding that they be. That is a question Gold Standard and Verra can answer today. The absence of a clear answer is itself a problem worth surfacing.
If a crediting programme approves GCR-routed credits and ICAO objects, a formal dispute is created on the record. If ICAO stays silent, silence in the face of a documented, compliant transaction is legally interpretable as consent. Either outcome produces movement and clarity. The current situation, where Ghana’s registry exists but its CORSIA eligibility status remains undefined, does not.Ghana Economic Forum
The coalition Ghana should be leading
A formal submission to ICAO requesting an update to CORSIA’s eligibility criteria – specifically, to codify a qualifying pathway for sovereign national registries, subject to strict, publicly defined technical conditions – is the kind of multilateral move that African carbon market leaders should be driving. Ghana has completed Africa’s first ITMO issuance, has an operational Carbon Markets Office, and sits at the table in every significant African climate governance forum. If any country can make the technical and institutional case for this framework update at ICAO, it is Ghana.
The qualifying conditions should be strict. Technical robustness, interoperability, blockchain-based audit trails, anti-double-counting mechanisms – exactly the standards Ghana’s registry is already being built to meet. Ghana does not need to argue for lower bars.
It needs to argue that the bars be defined, publicly stated, and consistently applied – rather than left to the discretion of private bodies whose commercial interests are not aligned with expanding sovereign participation. That argument needs to be made before CORSIA Phase II deepens Ghana’s dependence on a system that may not honour the infrastructure it has spent years building.
This article references the Ghana Carbon Registry and Carbon Markets Office (EPA Act 2025, Act 1124), Ghana’s first ITMO issuance under Article 6.2, the Zimbabwe government press statement of 6 May 2026, Quantum Commodity Intelligence reporting of 9 May 2026, and the AfriPoli analysis ‘Beyond the export reflex’ (Ebipere K. Clark, APRI, November 2025). The $3 vs $17 price differential is from Quantum market reporting. Quotes from Minister Ndlovu are from the published government press statement of 6 May 2026.
Source: businesspostonline
