evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Ghost Carbon in the Mangroves — the Livelihoods/Océanium Restoration Programme in Senegal's Saloum & Casamance Deltas

Senegal · Dakar · See the Senegal profile · See the Dakar profile

Evidence: Quasi-experimental Top 96% 20/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2008, Océanium and the Livelihoods Carbon Fund replanted 79 million mangroves on 10,000+ hectares in Senegal; a 2020 peer-reviewed study found 96% of regrowth was natural, and ~168,000 of ~500,000 carbon credits sold were unsupported.

79 million
Mangrove propagules planted
96%
Regrowth attributable to natural regeneration
18.3-20.5%
Planted-tree survival rate
~168,000 credits
Carbon credits sold without supporting benefit
5.2%
Programme spending reaching local communities
Ghost Carbon in the Mangroves — the Livelihoods/Océanium Restoration Programme in Senegal's Saloum & Casamance Deltas

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Océanium de Dakar, Livelihoods Carbon Fund
Period
2008–2028 (20–30 year voluntary carbon-crediting period)
Keywords
blue carbon, mangrove restoration, carbon credit verification, coastal ecosystem services

Context

Since 2008, Océanium de Dakar and the Livelihoods Carbon Fund mobilised about 350 villages and 100,000 people to plant roughly 79 million mangrove propagules over 10,000+ hectares in Senegal's Saloum and Casamance deltas, selling about 500,000 carbon credits.

Results

A peer-reviewed satellite study (Andrieu et al. 2020) found 96% of regrowth was natural rather than planted, with only 18.3–20.5% survival among planted trees; subsequent investigation estimated about 168,000 of credits sold (roughly a third) lacked supporting environmental benefit, and only 5.2% of spending reached local communities.

Implementation
Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
Océanium de Dakar field/community teams, Livelihoods Carbon Fund monitoring contractor

Conditions for success

  • independent, field-verified survival monitoring rather than assumed 100% survival
  • transparent carbon-credit verification aligned with measured outcomes

Common failure modes

  • monitoring assumed full tree survival despite ~20% measured survival
  • soil-carbon assumptions raised ~40% without new field evidence
  • credit revenue mostly did not reach local communities

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful