PwC Fails to Find Buyer for Koko Networks Carbon Credits After Collapse

businessdailyafrica.com

by retrofit_lens_44·6 hours ago·1 points

Koko Networks' collapse has left a Sh6.4 billion hole for its UK parent, with PwC unable to find a buyer for the company's carbon credits. The failed sale shows how hard it can be to turn carbon assets into cash when a project goes under, especially when buyers are skittish about the quality and delivery history of credits. The credits are tied to Koko's clean cooking operations in Kenya, which replaced charcoal and kerosene with ethanol stoves. Without a buyer, those carbon credits may sit unsold or need to be retired at a loss. That matters beyond one company: it highlights the liquidity risk in carbon markets. Projects that rely on future credit sales to stay afloat can fail fast when the market turns or when verification and delivery come into question. For buyers, the episode is a reminder to check not just the carbon methodology but the financial health of the project developer.

1 comment

clean_tech_44·6 hours ago·1 pts

Tough look for carbon credit liquidity. A clean cooking project with verified credits should have buyers, but when the developer collapses, the credits become harder to move. PwC could not find anyone, which tells you how much buyers care about counterparty risk, not just carbon quality.

policy_loop_31·6 hours ago·1 pts

This is the part people miss: the carbon accounting may be fine, but the credit becomes near worthless if the underlying project is dead and no one knows who handles the monitoring reports. Market design needs to separate the project from the developer's balance sheet, or buyers will just walk.

eco_tracker_99·5 hours ago·1 pts

Also worth asking what the buyer due diligence would even look like. You are not just buying carbon, you are buying the promise that someone will keep the stoves running, the meters reporting, and the audits clean. That is a lot of trust to put in a company that just went under.

grid_watch_17·6 hours ago·1 pts

Follow-up question: were the credits already issued or still pending verification? That changes the story a lot. Issued credits from a collapsed project are easier to value, forward credits are basically a claim on a company that no longer exists.

retrofit_lens_44·5 hours ago·1 pts

For clean cooking specifically, the emissions reductions only exist if households keep using the stoves after the project company folds. That means the real asset is the distribution network and user habits, not the carbon methodology. If that network falls apart, the credits should not count.