Africa is slowly stepping into the solar spotlight. According to the Africa Solar Industry Association (AFSIA) in 2024, the continent added 2.5 GW of new capacity, taking the total installed solar to 19.2 GWp. Yet, even with this growth, the divide between Africa and the rest of the world is still widening.
For decades, solar power has played a critical role across Africa—lighting rural homes, powering water pumps, running mini-grids, and keeping hospitals connected. Now, momentum is shifting from small-scale use to large-scale adoption. The question is no longer whether solar will expand, but how fast and how broadly it will spread.
China’s Solar Exports Drive Africa’s Growth
The clearest signal of Africa’s solar rise comes not from domestic capacity figures but from trade flows. According to new research, “The first evidence of a take-off in solar in Africa” by energy think tank Ember, in the 12 months ending June 2025, Africa imported 15,032 MW of solar panels from China—a 60% jump from the previous year.
Notably, over the past two years, imports outside South Africa have nearly tripled, soaring from 3,734 MW in 2023 to 11,248 MW in 2025. This marks a structural shift: solar demand is no longer concentrated in a handful of markets but is spreading across the continent.
-
20 countries set new import records in the last year.
-
25 countries imported at least 100 MW, up from 15 the year before.
-
Countries such as Algeria, Zambia, Botswana, and Sudan experienced explosive growth, with imports increasing several times over.
For countries with fragile electricity systems, the implications are enormous. In Sierra Leone, the panels imported in 2024 alone could supply 61% of the nation’s total 2023 electricity generation. In Chad, they could deliver nearly half of the annual demand.
Economics Now Favor Solar Over Diesel
The case for solar in Africa is no longer just environmental—it’s economic. Heavy reliance on diesel imports has left many countries vulnerable to price shocks and soaring fuel bills. Solar is fast becoming the cheaper, more resilient option.
In Nigeria, savings from avoiding diesel imports can pay off the cost of a solar panel in just six months. In several other countries, the payback is even quicker.
Despite the surge in solar imports, fossil fuels still dominate trade balances. In nine of the top ten solar panel importers, the value of imported refined petroleum outweighed solar panels by 30 to 107 times. This mismatch highlights the scale of opportunity: replacing even a fraction of fossil fuel imports with solar would transform energy security and economic resilience across Africa.
Installed Solar Capacity and The Concentration Challenge
While imports are spreading across the continent, installed capacity remains heavily concentrated. AFSIA says that of the 2.5 GW installed in 2024, a staggering 78% came from just two countries—South Africa and Egypt.
-
South Africa accounted for 50%.
-
Egypt added 29%, almost all from two mega-projects in Kom Ombo.
The dominance of these two nations reflects both their stronger policy frameworks and their ability to attract international finance. But it also underscores a challenge: outside of a few hotspots, large-scale solar development is still slow to take root.
Encouragingly, 2025 could change that narrative. A pipeline of landmark projects is now under construction in countries that have not traditionally led the solar charge. If delivered, these could shift the balance of Africa’s solar map in the coming years.
Utility-Scale Solar Makes a Comeback
After two years where commercial and industrial (C&I) projects led the way, utility-scale solar rebounded strongly in 2024, representing 72% of all new capacity.
This resurgence was powered by large, donor-backed projects, often financed by development finance institutions (DFIs) and built by international developers. National utilities, supported by governments, remain the primary off-takers.
Still, the C&I segment is far from disappearing. In South Africa, C&I accounted for 39% of new solar capacity, driven by both small embedded projects and larger wheeling initiatives that bypass strained grids.
By contrast, in Nigeria, weak transmission infrastructure makes utility-scale projects harder to sustain. Instead, C&I, residential rooftop systems, and mini-grids dominate the solar mix, with private companies and communities driving the transition from below.
Still China Remains Africa’s Solar Lifeline…
Africa’s solar boom would not be possible without China. In 2024, China produced 80% of the world’s solar panels and remains by far the largest exporter. Africa’s dependence on imports is heavy because local manufacturing capacity is still minimal.
-
Morocco has doubled its annual production to 1 GW.
-
South Africa maintains a similar capacity.
-
Egypt and Nigeria host small manufacturing lines, but volumes are limited.
Larger projects are in the works. Egypt will soon add significant capacity through EliTe Solar (3 GW in 2025), Sunrev Solar (2 GW in 2026), and a Masdar plant (4 GW, start date unannounced). These projects could eventually reduce Africa’s reliance on imports, but until then, Chinese exports remain the backbone of growth.
Solar’s Ripple Effects Across Economies
The Ember report further highlights that in 16 African countries, the solar panels imported in just one year could boost electricity generation by more than 5%. That is a game-changer for economies plagued by power shortages.
The shift also has profound fiscal consequences. Every dollar spent on solar reduces exposure to volatile global fuel prices, strengthens local currencies, and frees up budgets for critical investments in health, education, and infrastructure.
At a household and business level, distributed solar is breaking new ground. From small rooftop panels to mini-grids, decentralized systems are enabling energy access where traditional utilities have failed. For rural communities, that means lights in schools, refrigeration in clinics, and power for small businesses—building blocks for broader economic growth.
Is Africa’s Solar at a Crossroads?
The surge in imports shows that solar is no longer a niche or donor-driven sector in Africa. Instead, it is becoming a mainstream energy choice. The question now is whether governments can harness this momentum, ensure fair distribution, and scale up both infrastructure and financing to meet demand.
The risk is that growth remains uneven. If capacity stays concentrated in just a few countries, much of Africa could remain locked into fossil fuel dependence, missing out on the economic and social benefits of clean power.
But the opportunity is vast. With costs falling, technology advancing, and local manufacturing beginning to scale, Africa could leapfrog into a solar-powered future faster than many expect.
Yet, despite more than ~20 GW of installed capacity, the region still trails far behind the global curve. Concentration in South Africa and Egypt highlights both progress and fragility. To close the gap, policymakers must support broader adoption, attract investment beyond the usual markets, and accelerate local manufacturing.
If that happens, Africa’s energy future could change a lot. It might move from relying on expensive fossil fuels to a solar-driven system. This new system could provide power, stability, and growth all over the continent.
The post Africa’s Solar Imports from China Surge 60% in 2025, Pushing Clean Energy Goals appeared first on Carbon Credits.
The accounting differences that decide whether your nature investment shows up in inventory, in BVCM, or nowhere at all.
The question reaches a procurement team about three weeks before the next sustainability committee meeting. Someone has read about insetting. Someone else has just signed off on an offset purchase. The CSO wants to know if the two are interchangeable. The answer is no, and the GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard is the reason why.
This article walks through what each term means at audit-grade specificity, what the standards actually say about how each gets counted, and how to decide which tool fits which target. The insetting vs offsetting question is one of the most-searched in corporate climate strategy, and one of the most poorly answered. By the end of this piece, you should be able to brief a committee on the difference without notes.
The two definitions, in plain English
Offsetting means buying carbon credits generated outside your value chain and retiring them against your residual emissions. The reduction happens somewhere else, financed by you, and the credit is the receipt.
Insetting means investing in emission reductions or removals inside your own value chain, typically with suppliers, where the reduction is directly linked to the products and services you buy. The reduction happens inside the boundary of your Scope 3 inventory, and the accounting treatment is fundamentally different.
The shorthand from the University of Oxford’s Nature-based Insetting Initiative is useful: insetting is what you do with the supply chain you have; offsetting is what you do with the supply chain you do not have.
What the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard actually says
The GHG Protocol Land Sector and Removals Standard, finalised in 2024 after a multi-year pilot, sets the rules for how land-based emission reductions and removals enter corporate inventories. The Standard distinguishes between inventory accounting (Scope 1, 2, and 3) and project or intervention accounting (a separate methodology for crediting).
For insetting, the practical implication is that supplier-level interventions, when properly measured and attributed, can reduce your Scope 3 category 1 (purchased goods and services) emissions in your inventory. The reduction is not a credit retired against the inventory; it is a lower inventory number, period.
For offsetting, the credit is retired separately. It can be reported as a contribution toward a net-zero claim under the SBTi Beyond Value Chain Mitigation framework or as part of a VCMI Carbon Integrity claim, but it does not lower the inventory number.
A practical consequence: if your Science Based Target requires a 50% absolute reduction in Scope 3 emissions by 2030, insetting moves you toward the target. Offsetting does not. This single point of difference reshapes the procurement decision.
When insetting counts toward Scope 3 (and when it does not)
Insetting counts toward Scope 3 only when several conditions are met:
- The intervention must occur with an entity in your value chain.
- The emissions reduction or removal must be measured against a defensible baseline.
- The reduction must be attributed to your share of that supplier’s output, not double-counted with other buyers.
- It must follow the inventory accounting rules in the GHG Protocol Land Sector Standard, not the project accounting rules used to generate credits.
The most common failure mode is double counting. If your supplier sells the same reduction as a credit on the voluntary market and also reports it to you as a Scope 3 reduction, the math breaks. The Standard requires you to address this risk, typically by purchasing and retiring the supplier-issued credit as part of your inventory or by contractual provisions that prevent the supplier from selling the reduction twice.
When insetting does not count toward Scope 3: when the intervention sits with a supplier you do not buy from, when the baseline is not defensible, when the attribution is unclear, or when the documentation does not survive audit. Those cases default to Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, which is still useful but operates on a different ledger.
The procurement and supplier engagement question
Insetting is harder than offsetting. That is the unfashionable truth most buyers eventually confront. Offsetting is a transaction; insetting is a relationship.
To run an insetting program, you need supplier mapping precise enough to know which farms or facilities sit at which Scope 3 boundary. You need an engagement model that gets suppliers to participate, which usually requires multi-year commitments and shared economics. You need an MRV architecture that measures the right things and produces audit-ready documentation. And you need a contractual structure that prevents double counting and protects both sides.
The trade-off you receive in return is significant. Reductions count against your inventory rather than your residual. Supplier relationships deepen, which protects sourcing continuity. Yield and quality improvements often follow regenerative interventions, which reduces your input cost over time. And the regulatory file, under CSRD, CSDDD, EUDR, and the SBTi FLAG Guidance, is materially stronger.
Choosing the right tool for the right target
A practical decision rule. If your target is a science-based Scope 3 reduction and you operate in a FLAG sector or source FLAG commodities, insetting is the structurally correct tool. If your target is a net-zero claim that includes neutralising hard-to-abate residual emissions outside your value chain, BVCM via high-integrity offsets is the structurally correct tool. Most companies with material Scope 3 exposure need both, in different proportions, sequenced over time.
The sequencing matters. Insetting takes longer to stand up but produces a permanent reduction in the inventory. Offsetting can be transacted faster but does not change the inventory and now sits under tighter claim restrictions. Treat them as complementary tools with different jobs, not as substitutes. The Accountability Framework Initiative and the IUCN Global Standard for Nature-based Solutions both provide useful guardrails for the insetting side, with biodiversity, human rights, and benefit-sharing requirements that go beyond carbon math.
If you are mapping a Scope 3 reduction roadmap and need to scope which interventions count toward your inventory versus which sit in Beyond Value Chain Mitigation, the carbon and sustainability experts at Carbon Credit Capital can help you structure a nature-based supply chain investment program that fits your FLAG exposure, your target architecture, and your audit horizon. Schedule a consultation.
Net zero is often described as a balancing act: cut what you can, account for the rest, and reach zero on the ledger. That framing is useful, but it leaves something out. It treats every tonne of carbon as interchangeable and every route to zero as equally sound, while the science tells a more specific story.
Malawi has lost a striking share of its forests over the past three decades. Woodlands that once covered well over a third of the country now cover less than a quarter, and the pressure on what remains is increasing. Behind those figures sit two practical questions: what is driving the loss, and what reverses it?
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits