Safaricom is considering a digital carbon credit marketplace that would connect businesses and communities seeking to sell emissions reduction credits with buyers, using M-Pesa to facilitate payments, as Kenya develops its regulatory framework for carbon trading. The telecommunications company is exploring an exchange modelled on the Nairobi Securities Exchange (NSE) but has ruled out direct participation in carbon trading in the immediate future, with any platform dependent on government regulations and the necessary approvals. The proposal, outlined by Safaricom’s Head of Sustainability, Karen Basiye, on 23 October, could widen access to carbon markets for smaller project developers, although its economic value will depend on credible verification, transparent pricing and the distribution of revenue to communities.
The proposed platform reflects a broader effort to use digital financial infrastructure to connect environmental projects with sources of climate finance. Carbon credits represent emissions reductions or removals, typically measured in tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, that can be sold to organisations seeking to meet voluntary climate commitments or fulfil applicable regulatory obligations. For projects involving forests, tree planting, clean cooking, agriculture and other nature-based activities, credit sales can provide an additional source of revenue, provided the claimed environmental benefits are independently demonstrated.
According to Eastleigh Voice, Safaricom is working with partners on a platform that would link carbon credit sellers and buyers, with M-Pesa providing a channel for payments. The company has not announced a launch date, transaction fees, trading volumes or the full operating structure of the proposed exchange. It remains a concept under consideration rather than an operational marketplace.
If developed, the platform could address some of the practical barriers that prevent smaller projects from accessing carbon markets. Community forest initiatives and other local environmental programmes can face high costs for project development, technical assessments, certification and monitoring. They may also lack direct access to international buyers or the financial intermediaries needed to negotiate sales. A digital marketplace could make it easier to connect sellers with potential purchasers and transfer payments, although it would not remove the underlying costs of producing and verifying credible credits.
The potential importance for communities lies in whether more accessible trading channels translate into a larger and more predictable share of revenue. Carbon projects can involve landowners, community organisations, project developers, technical service providers and buyers, each with different contractual rights and costs. The amount ultimately reaching local participants depends on those arrangements, as well as the price paid for credits and the fees charged along the transaction chain. Mobile payments may simplify the transfer of funds, but they cannot by themselves guarantee fair prices or equitable benefit-sharing.
Safaricom has drawn a distinction between its community environmental initiatives and activities intended to offset emissions from its own operations. Basiye said trees planted through community programmes, including the restoration of water towers, would not be used to generate carbon offsets for the company, and that trading opportunities associated with such projects should benefit the communities involved. She also said the company was not planning to buy carbon credits to offset its emissions in the immediate future.
That distinction is relevant to the credibility of corporate climate claims. Tree planting does not automatically generate tradable credits: projects must demonstrate that their activities deliver measurable emissions reductions or removals beyond what would otherwise have occurred. They must also account for risks such as fires, drought, changes in land use and the possibility that stored carbon may later be released. Weak accounting or poorly substantiated claims can undermine confidence in carbon markets and reduce the value of credits sold to buyers.
Kenya is working to establish rules governing carbon market participation, including the generation and trading of credits from tree-growing and other environmental activities. The government’s 2026 guide for strategic engagement in carbon markets identifies responsible investment, environmental integrity and community benefits as important considerations in the country’s approach. The proposed Safaricom platform would therefore need to operate within the applicable legal and regulatory framework, including requirements for project approval, credit standards and oversight of transactions.
The regulatory question is especially important if the platform is to function like a securities exchange. Carbon credits differ from conventional financial assets because their value depends partly on the credibility of the underlying environmental outcome, the methodology used to calculate it and the rules under which it can be transferred or used. A marketplace would need clear processes for confirming that credits are valid, preventing duplicate claims and disclosing the characteristics of the credits being traded. Without reliable information, digital access could increase the speed of transactions without resolving the risks associated with low-quality credits.
For Kenya, a credible carbon market could help mobilise private finance for projects in forestry, agriculture, waste management and clean energy, sectors where investment can support rural livelihoods and contribute to climate objectives. But revenue from carbon credits is uncertain and should not be treated as a substitute for stable project financing or public investment. Prices can fluctuate with demand, changes in corporate climate strategies and evolving standards, leaving projects exposed if they rely too heavily on credit sales.
Safaricom’s proposal also highlights the growing intersection between mobile money, digital platforms and environmental markets in Africa. M-Pesa has established a widely used channel for digital payments in Kenya, and its potential application to carbon trading could reduce some transaction frictions for participants already using mobile financial services. Yet the inclusion of smaller sellers will depend on whether they can meet the technical and legal requirements to generate credits, access buyers and understand the commercial terms of a transaction.
The proposed exchange is not yet evidence that community carbon projects will receive greater income, nor does it establish how much trading activity the platform could support. Its development will require cooperation among the company, its partners, regulators, project developers and credit buyers. It will also need safeguards to ensure that local communities understand the rights they grant over land and carbon benefits and can access clear information about payments and contractual obligations.
For Safaricom, the initiative offers a potential role in the infrastructure connecting environmental projects to climate finance without requiring the company to trade credits directly. For Kenya, the more consequential test will be whether a digital marketplace can support a transparent and credible market in which environmental outcomes are independently verified and revenue reaches those responsible for delivering them.
The proposal’s significance will ultimately depend less on the convenience of M-Pesa payments than on the rules and institutions behind each transaction. If verification, market oversight and benefit sharing are credible, digital infrastructure could help widen participation in carbon markets. Without those foundations, easier payments alone will not resolve the trust and accountability problems that continue to shape the value of carbon credits.
