REDD+ (Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries), an approach originally developed within the UN climate negotiations as a mechanism to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, has gradually evolved into a complex system involving private developers, conservation NGOs, certification bodies, financial intermediaries and state agencies.

This expansion is unfolding within a profoundly unequal global political economy. While international institutions warn of a massive “climate finance gap”, fossil fuel subsidies still amount to trillions of dollars annually, and wealthy countries continue to fall short of their historical responsibility and climate finance commitments. Within this context, carbon markets are promoted as a way to “mobilise private finance” without challenging the economic structures driving the climate crisis in the first place.

For Indigenous Peoples, the implications are enormous. Indigenous Peoples collectively steward vast areas of the world’s remaining biodiversity and carbon-rich ecosystems. Research consistently shows that forests under Indigenous governance tend to experience lower rates of deforestation and better ecological outcomes than state-managed protected areas. However, in many countries, Indigenous land rights, including customary land rights, remain weak, incomplete or entirely unrecognised. This creates the conditions for governments and private actors to claim authority over “forest carbon” while bypassing Indigenous Peoples’ governance and rights over their land and territories.

Article 6 of the Paris Agreement risks exacerbating this harm by allowing governments and private actors to generate jurisdictional carbon credits across vast territories without first guaranteeing the land rights of Indigenous Peoples, recognizing their customary institutions and authorities, or ensuring meaningful consent..

From Safeguards to Dispossession

While international safeguards are supposed to protect Indigenous Peoples’ rights in the context of carbon projects, in practice, these protections are frequently weak, non-binding or easily circumvented. In multiple regions, Indigenous Peoples’ organisations report recurring patterns: incomprehensible contracts, rushed consultation processes, unequal access to information, uninformed decisions, and growing restrictions over customary land tenure.

Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) is often reduced to a procedural formality or a simple verification requirement. Communities are approached through isolated meetings, technical presentations, or consultations conducted in foreign languages and under significant pressure. Contracts frequently involve highly complex legal and financial arrangements spanning decades, yet communities receive little independent legal or technical support to assess the long-term implications. This information gap leaves room for intermediaries — sometimes described as carbon pirates or cowboys — to secure exploitative contracts.

In many cases, the asymmetry of knowledge and power is profound. Carbon project developers, intermediaries, and certification bodies operate with specialised expertise, legal teams, and access to international finance. Communities, by contrast, are often compelled to make decisions about abstract financial instruments and future territorial-use obligations with limited information about pricing structures, contractual risks, or revenue distribution. The result is an environment in which Indigenous Peoples’ territories become incorporated into volatile global carbon markets without the rights-holders exercising informed and meaningful engagement over the process.

REDD+ pilot projects in sub-Saharan Africa have imposed strict controls on shifting cultivation and forest grazing, while communities report that conservation benefits fail to offset lost livelihoods, leading many to disengage.

REDD+ pilot projects in sub-Saharan Africa have imposed strict controls on shifting cultivation and forest grazing.

Restrictions imposed in the name of carbon conservation impact practices such as shifting cultivation, grazing, hunting, gathering or small-scale forest use. In some contexts, carbon projects replicate old models of “fortress conservation,” in which Indigenous people’s presence is viewed as a threat to environmental protection. For instance, REDD+ pilot projects in sub-Saharan Africa have imposed strict controls on shifting cultivation and forest grazing, while communities report that conservation benefits fail to offset lost livelihoods, leading many to withdraw from these programs. Research into a failed REDD+ initiative in Tanzania found that “wilderness” narratives were used to justify coercive enforcement, forced evictions, and the treatment of Indigenous residents as intruders in their own territories. In the Colombian Amazon, carbon offsetting has similarly been described as a “subtle green grab” that creates “de facto enclosures” on Indigenous lands and disciplines forest communities.

Furthermore, carbon projects reshape local governance systems, exacerbate internal inequalities and generate conflicts regarding representation, benefit-sharing and territorial authority. Benefit-sharing is often unclear, delayed, and minimal, with communities receiving only a small fraction of total revenues. Women, youth and traditional authorities are frequently excluded from negotiations — despite bearing much of the social and environmental burden — while project revenues, when they do materialize, may be captured by local elites or external intermediaries. As the “carbon rights” or the benefit share are often defined together with the land ownership, the carbon market has become another weapon for eliminating customary land rights of Indigenous Peoples due to the non-recognition of customary land rights by many governments. Recurring demands have included access to culturally appropriate and translated information, as well as independent facilitation of FPIC processes.

Phantom Credits and the Logic of Offsetting

Investigations into voluntary carbon markets have found that large numbers of forest-based credits — particularly within REDD+ schemes — are effectively “phantom credits”: credits issued for emissions reductions that either did not occur or cannot be reliably verified. Inflated baselines, weak additionality rules and the displacement of deforestation from one area to another undermine claims that these projects generate meaningful climate mitigation. Yet, these same credits are routinely used by major corporations to support “net zero” claims while they continue fossil fuel extraction and high-emission business models. Therefore, carbon offsetting does not function as a pathway beyond fossil fuels, but rather as a mechanism that allows emissions to continue elsewhere.

This contradiction highlights one of the central problems of carbon markets. There is simply not enough land on Earth to offset current levels of fossil fuel consumption while maintaining existing patterns of extraction and economic growth. The idea that ongoing emissions in the Global North can be balanced indefinitely through conservation projects in the Global South rests on increasingly unsustainable ecological assumptions.

The problem is also epistemic. Carbon markets benefit systems of measurement, verification and monitoring rooted in technocratic and financial logics: satellite imagery, biomass calculations, carbon accounting methodologies and digital registries.

The problem is also epistemic. Carbon markets benefit systems of measurement, verification and monitoring rooted in technocratic and financial logics.

For many Indigenous Peoples, this is not merely a technical failure but a continuation of colonial relations. Territories in the Global South become spaces tasked with absorbing the environmental costs of industrial economies – i.e., greenhouse gas emissions – generated elsewhere. Forests are reduced to carbon stocks registered in distant databases, while Indigenous Peoples are expected to shoulder the burden of climate mitigation for economies that remain dependent on oil, gas and mining.

The problem is also epistemological. Carbon markets benefit and prioritize systems of measurement, verification and monitoring rooted in technocratic and financial logics: satellite imagery, biomass calculations, carbon accounting methodologies and digital registries. These frameworks often marginalise Indigenous conceptions of territory grounded in reciprocity, relationality and responsibilities between human and non-human life.

Between Rejection and Strategic Engagement

Indigenous Peoples’ responses to carbon markets are neither uniform nor static. In various regions, numerous organisations and territorial movements reject carbon markets outright, arguing that they are false solutions that commodify nature while allowing major polluters to avoid meaningful emissions reductions at source.

At the same time, the reality on the ground is often more complex. Carbon markets are already expanding rapidly across Indigenous Peoples’ territories, frequently in contexts marked by simultaneous pressures from mining, agribusiness, logging, infrastructure expansion, and organised crime such as drug trafficking. For some communities, participation in carbon projects emerges not from endorsement, but rather from the need to navigate an increasingly restrictive political and economic environment.

Indigenous Peoples’ organisations are demanding stronger territorial protections, transparent contracts, independent legal support, community-controlled benefit-sharing mechanisms and prior consultation processes designed according to Indigenous Peoples’ governance systems.

Indigenous Peoples’ organisations are demanding stronger territorial protections, transparent contracts, independent legal support, community-controlled benefit-sharing mechanisms and prior consultation processes.

In certain cases, communities view carbon initiatives as a lesser threat compared to other forms of extractive development. Others seek to engage strategically in order to secure territorial recognition, strengthen collective governance or gain leverage within negotiations that are likely to proceed regardless of Indigenous Peoples’ opposition. In this sense, participation may function less as acceptance than as a strategy of defence and political survival.

This has given rise to forms of cautious, rights-based engagement focused on strengthening Indigenous Peoples’ decision-making power rather than legitimising carbon markets themselves. Across various regions, Indigenous Peoples’ organisations are demanding stronger territorial protections, transparent contracts, independent legal support, community-controlled benefit-sharing mechanisms and consultation processes designed according to Indigenous Peoples’ governance systems rather than project timelines.

Beyond Carbon Markets

Despite the diversity of Indigenous Peoples’ positions on carbon markets, one demand remains constant across contexts: self-determination. Whether communities choose rejection, negotiation, or selective engagement, the central issue is the right of Indigenous Peoples to determine what happens within their territories according to their own institutions, knowledge systems and political priorities. Secure collective land tenure must be a precondition for any legitimate form of engagement.

Increasingly, Indigenous Peoples’ organisations are advancing alternative approaches centred on territorial rights, direct access to climate finance and non-market forms of climate action. These proposals emphasise Indigenous governance and protocols, collective land rights, food sovereignty, ecological restoration and the defence of living territories.

The expansion of carbon markets suggests that the global economy is still searching for ways to manage the climate crisis without confronting the structures that produced it in the first place. Indigenous critiques expose the limits of that approach.

The expansion of carbon markets suggests that the global economy is still searching for ways to manage the climate crisis without confronting the structures that produced it in the first place.

These approaches also challenge the broader political economy underpinning carbon markets. Addressing climate change requires far more than new financial instruments. It demands a radical structural transformation of society and the economy, facilitating a rapid fossil fuel phase-out, strict regulation of extractive industries and supply chains linked to deforestation, cancellation of illegitimate debts, and large-scale public investment in Indigenous and community-led initiatives.

The expansion of carbon markets suggests that the global economy continues to seek ways to manage the climate crisis without confronting the structures that created it in the first place. Indigenous critiques expose the limits of that approach. They remind us that forests are not simply carbon reservoirs, and that climate justice cannot be reduced to accounting exercises conducted in distant financial centres.

The post Carbon Markets and Indigenous Peoples: Between False Solutions and Forced Choices appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Throughout the workshop, one message resonated strongly: carbon markets cannot be understood in isolation, but rather as part of a longer history of interventions in Indigenous territories. Participants drew a line connecting different historical periods, from colonization to the rubber boom and the expansion of oil extraction and mining, with contemporary climate initiatives. In each of these processes, Indigenous territories have become the focus of external interests, while the Peoples who inhabit them have had little decision-making power.

The New Face of Extractivism

From this perspective, carbon has become a new element within a familiar pattern. The issue is not simply about conserving forests or reducing emissions, but about who has the power to determine how territories are used and under what conditions. For many participants, these mechanisms serve global interests by helping to sustain prevailing economic models, allowing companies and corporations to continue polluting while claiming to offset their environmental impacts. In doing so, responsibility is increasingly shifted onto Indigenous Peoples, who have long protected and cared for their ancestral territories.

The experiences shared during the workshop reinforced this conclusion. Participants cited examples of conservation projects that have restricted the customary use of Indigenous territories. These restrictions include limiting traditional practices such as hunting, fishing and gathering. In other cases, protected areas or carbon projects were implemented in Indigenous territories without adequate consultation processes, giving rise to conflicts that continue to this day. These experiences also highlighted how conservation agendas can operate as mechanisms of control.

The problem is not only carbon markets. The language changes, but relationships of power remain intact. For this reason, beyond the technical discussion, this issue was highlighted as a political struggle over territory, autonomy, and rights.

The problem is not only carbon markets. Language changes, but relationships of power remain intact.

These processes do not occur in isolation. They are accompanied by narratives that promise economic benefits, local development and so-called “improvements in quality of life”, often reduced to health and education. These are basic rights that states should already be fully guaranteeing. Several participants recalled that similar promises have long been part of the story, particularly in the context of oil extraction, where the outcomes failed to match the expectations that had been created. This collective memory provides an important historical lens through which current carbon-related proposals are understood.

In this sense, the problem is not only the carbon market as an instrument, but also the way it is being introduced into territories marked by histories of dispossession. The language has changed, but the underlying power relations remain. For this reason, the issue was framed not simply as a technical debate, but as a political struggle over territory, autonomy, and rights. Through such disputes, Indigenous Peoples seek to avoid repeating the experiences of the past.

Unequal Decision-Making and Internal Conflicts

Another key theme was how decisions are made within these processes, given the profound power imbalances between the actors involved. While companies, NGOs and governments possess technical expertise, financial resources and institutional backing, local communities often engage in these processes with limited access to information and under starkly unequal conditions. In many cases, external actors arrive with pre-designed proposals and seek to secure rapid agreements that do not align with community timelines or decision-making processes. Negotiations are frequently conducted without going through collective mechanisms such as community assemblies, generating tensions and divisions within communities.

One of the issues most frequently highlighted was the lack of clear and accessible information. Communities do not always have access to complete information about the benefits, obligations and long-term implications of carbon projects. This problem increases the risk of decisions being made under pressure or on the basis of incomplete information, undermining the ability of Indigenous Peoples to fully exercise their right to self-determination.

The importance of free, prior, and informed consent was highlighted with the recognition that there exists a necessity to go beyond its formal application. For this, there was an emphasis on the need to strengthen community-owned decision-making mechanisms.

Decisions are made outside of territories and then they are taken to local communities to receive approval, many times, under fraudulent pretenses.

The role of the State was also called into question. Cases documented in countries such as Colombia and Bolivia showed that state laws and regulations do not necessarily guarantee transparent or equitable processes. In some instances, governments themselves have promoted the aforementioned mechanisms without ensuring the effective participation of Indigenous Peoples. This suggests that decisions are often shaped outside Indigenous territories and only later brought to communities for approval, in many cases under fraudulent pretenses.

In light of this information, participants highlighted the importance of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC), while stressing the need to move beyond a merely procedural application of this right. Particular emphasis was placed on strengthening Indigenous decision-making institutions. Such institutions include community assemblies, local statutes, and territorial governments, fortifying each as essential spaces for the assurance of collective decision-making processes and the prevention of imposed or even fragmented decision-making.

Autonomy, Memory and Indigenous-Led Alternatives

The discussions converged on a key point: decisions concerning Indigenous territories cannot be subordinated to external agendas. Autonomy and self-determination are not abstract principles but concrete conditions that enable Indigenous Peoples to decide under what terms they accept and reject decisions. Historical memory is central to this position. Experiences with oil extraction, mining and “conservation and development” policies have left enduring scars such as broken promises, damaged territories and casualties. Consequently, carbon markets are not viewed as isolated opportunities but as part of a broader continuum of external interventions imposed on Indigenous lands and peoples.

Rather than adopting a purely reactive stance, Indigenous leaders emphasized that viable alternatives are already being implemented. These include community forest management, Indigenous production systems, traditional medicine, community-based tourism and Indigenous knowledge systems. Far from being mere aspirations, these are living practices that sustain life in Indigenous territories. Strengthening these alternatives points towards a future that differs fundamentally from the offsetting schemes promoted by external actors.

In this regard, the workshop ended not only with critical reflections but also with a clear direction: strengthening Indigenous-led agendas. The emphasis is on consolidating territorial processes—including organization, economic initiatives, communication and political coordination—that can sustain autonomous decision-making over time. Rather than adapting to carbon markets, the goal is to advance an Indigenous path in which territory is not treated as a tradable asset but recognized as the foundation of collective life.

Communication, Coordination and the Struggle over Narratives

The discussions held during the workshop highlighted the need to contest not only what happens in Indigenous territories, but also the narratives through which these processes are understood and represented. Carbon markets do not advance solely through economic agreements or legal frameworks; they are also promoted through narratives that portray them as the only solution to the climate crisis. In this context, communication becomes a field of strategy, as there is a significant gap between how these projects are presented in international forums and how they are experienced in Indigenous territories. At the global level, they are described as mechanisms for sustainable conservation, yet within communities they are often experienced as processes that generate uncertainty, restrictions, conflict and violations of rights.

This disconnect reinforces the need for Indigenous Peoples to develop and disseminate their own narratives. Participants stressed the importance of strengthening Indigenous communication networks that can facilitate the sharing of information, the visibility of experiences and the production of analyses rooted in territorial realities. The aim is not merely to inform, but to build an autonomous voice capable of responding to narratives imposed from outside. In this way, communication becomes a key tool for territorial defense and political advocacy.

All in all, the debate regarding carbon markets is not only material, but also symbolic and political. It deals with who defines the problem, who proposes the solutions, and under whose terms such decisions are made.

The debate regarding carbon markets is both symbolic and political: who defines the problem, who proposes solutions, and under whose terms such decisions are made.

Coordination among Indigenous Peoples was another key theme. Although national contexts differ, many of the challenges they face are shared across the region. Exchanging experiences, lessons learned, and strategies helps strengthen collective positions and prevents these conversations from unfolding in isolation. Such coordination extends beyond local and national spaces to international arenas, where decision-making directly affects Indigenous territories.

Participants also highlighted the importance of identifying allies and mapping the actors involved in this landscape, recognizing that not all share the same interests. Such mapping enables more informed decision-making and helps Indigenous Peoples identify efforts to draw them into agendas that have not been shaped by their own realities. Taken together, the struggle surrounding carbon markets is not only material but, above all, political and symbolic. At stake are questions of who defines the problem, who proposes the solutions and on whose terms such decisions are made. In this context, communication and coordination are essential tools for sustaining processes of resistance and for building alternatives emerging from Indigenous territories.

A Contested Horizon: The Future of Indigenous Territories

The workshop did not result in a definitive conclusion; rather, it confirmed that a new arena of debate is emerging around Indigenous territories. Carbon markets have become one component within a broader global dynamic in which forms of control over nature, access to nature and decision-making power are being reconfigured. This is no longer solely a matter of direct extraction, but of more complex mechanisms that operate through regulations, certification schemes, financial instruments and climate-related discourses.

In this context, Indigenous Peoples face not only technical or economic challenges, but profoundly political ones. At stake are their territories, rights and autonomy. The discussions made clear that these processes are not being passively accepted. Instead, they reflect a critical reading that identifies in carbon markets a reconfiguration of earlier forms of dispossession, albeit expressed through new languages and justifications. At the same time, the debate went beyond outright rejection, opening space for reflection on what it means to care for and defend territories, how the climate crisis should be addressed, and what kind of future Indigenous Peoples seek to build.

What is at play is not simply a mechanism, but also the sense and feeling over the territory. Here, the message is clear: life, self-determination, and sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples cannot be negotiated.

The climate crisis cannot be resolved simply by placing responsibility in the hands of those  who have historically stewarded and cared for the forests.

Against a global narrative that turns forests into market assets, it is necessary to adopt a different perspective in which territory is not a resource, but a space of life, relations and community. This contrast defines the current moment. For those who took part in the meeting, carbon markets do not represent a solution, but rather a new form of intervention in Indigenous territories that, under the language of conservation and climate action, reconfigure long-standing logics of control and seek to determine the use of spaces that do not belong to them.

In this context, the position is clear: territories are not for sale, nor can they be turned into compensation instruments to sustain economies that continue to pollute. The climate crisis will not be solved by shifting responsibility onto those who have historically cared for forests. What is at stake is not only a mechanism, but the very meaning of territory itself. At this point, the message is clear: life, self-determination and the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples cannot be negotiated or debated.

The post The Amazon at a Crossroads: Indigenous Peoples Confront the Expansion of Carbon Markets appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Bulari Lolki from Sesia in Northern Kenya

One community leader’s sentiments in Northern Kenya echo questions we have heard from hundreds of Indigenous and grassroots communities around the world. Carbon markets are intensifying pressure on land, particularly in places where collective tenure rights are weak or not formally recognized. This raises widespread concerns that carbon credit projects will lead to land grabs or will sideline communities in decision-making about what happens on their land. 

At the same time, many of the communities we work with welcome the revenue carbon projects can generate to support local livelihoods and conservation efforts — if they can set the terms under which projects move forward.

In practice, this remains difficult. Common challenges include:

• Highly technical language: Carbon projects often involve complex legal, financial, and scientific concepts (e.g., carbon accounting, the process of measuring and tracking how much carbon is stored or reduced by a project, and legal rights to emissions removals and reductions from project activities). This makes it difficult for communities to fully understand project terms, risks, and benefits and limits their ability to make informed decisions.

• Lack of transparency: Communities frequently have limited access to clear, timely, and complete information about project agreements, revenue flows, and safeguards. The lack of full disclosure during the project design and implementation creates uncertainty and can lead to mistrust or uninformed consent.

• Power imbalances in negotiations: Project developers and investors often have significantly greater resources, technical expertise, and legal support than the communities they engage with. Many of these communities are located in remote, underserved areas and have historically been marginalized by governments, with limited access to basic services. This makes it extremely difficult for communities to engage with developers on equal footing.  

As a result, communities find themselves at a crossroads: they seek the financial benefits that carbon projects promise to improve their livelihoods, while also striving to retain autonomy over their land and resources. In the context of uneven legal protections for their rights, communities struggle to negotiate fair agreements and often face pressure to accept unfavorable terms.

Organizing Collectively to Overcome Power Asymmetries

In the Northern Kenya Rangelands Carbon Project — the world’s largest soil carbon project encompassing Sesia, a Samburu pastoralist community in Northern Kenya — communities initially struggled to engage with the project proponent as equal partners. The first decade of the project brought many benefits, including improvements to grazing lands and more than 14 million USD in revenue for participating communities. But community members had concerns about how the project operated day to day. For example, they wanted full transparency about how much revenue the project generated. They also wanted greater autonomy to decide how the community share is used.  

In 2023, Maasai, Samburu, Turkana, Rendile, and Borana pastoralist communities began organizing collectively across the entire 2 million hectare project area. For the first time, community land management committees gained access to the project implementation agreement that defined grazing management, structures for project governance, and arrangements for revenue sharing. Together, they drafted a set of shared demands for a new agreement with the project proponent. 

Their demands included access to financial records and contracts with marketers of carbon credits; a dedicated project bank account with communities as signatories into which all revenue from carbon credit sales would be deposited; and a new revenue-sharing arrangement that gives communities the majority of the revenue from the project. They also proposed a new governance structure that would include representatives from all of the community land management committees and community conservancies involved in the project. 

Communities putting forward their demands catalyzed a renegotiation of the project implementation agreement. It also kick-started a process for renewing free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) with wide participation among all residents in deciding whether to approve the terms of the new agreement. Sesia and its neighboring communities believe carbon projects present an opportunity, but only if their rights are fully protected and the project is aligned with their vision for the future.

Practical Strategies for Protecting Community Rights

The strategies that pastoralist communities in northern Kenya used to overcome common challenges reflect key lessons we’ve learned alongside frontline communities across dozens of countries: 

1- Demystify the law. Before communities engage with a project developer, they should learn about their rights under national land laws. Conservation policies and legal frameworks for carbon trading may also include protections for community rights. If the community’s land rights are not formally recognized, carbon projects can pose significant risks and it may be harder to negotiate a fair agreement. 

In addition to national laws, there are also safeguards required by carbon certification standards that communities can use to protect themselves. These often include rights to access information, to give or refuse consent for the project to operate on community land, and the right to benefit from outside investment on the community’s land.

2- Conduct fact-finding. There are several key pieces of information that communities need to consider when determining if they want to engage in carbon credit projects. They include the type of project proposed; the track record of the project proponent; the impacts on land use, local ecosystems, and communities’ livelihoods and locations with cultural or spiritual significance; and the potential revenue from credit sales.

The project proponent is obligated to share much of this information with communities as part of FPIC. Still, communities often struggle to access the information they need to make decisions. To get the information communities need, they can:

• Request information, in as specific terms as possible, directly from the proponent in writing.
• Check national and global registries, like this one from Verra — one of the global standards that sets rules for carbon projects and issues carbon credits. Two particularly important documents to look for are (a) the project design document (PDD) and (b) monitoring and verification reports. 
• File right to information requests with the government agency responsible for approving and monitoring carbon projects. 

3- Use collective bargaining. Most carbon projects affect multiple communities. This creates an opportunity to build collective power. Communities are in a stronger position if they negotiate together as a united front. We have found two practices to be particularly powerful for collective bargaining:

• Form a negotiating team to represent the community’s (or communities’) collective interests. A negotiating team can maintain collective action across the community (or communities) and push for better terms that represent the interests of the community as a whole. The negotiating team can also be tasked with regularly updating the wider community, gathering input, and ensuring collective agreement on key decisions. 
• Identify the communities’ most important demands and use them to propose the terms for an agreement. Communities often wait for project developers to make an offer, but whoever makes the first offer tends to have an advantage because the initial proposal acts as a point of reference or “anchor” that shapes how both sides approach the negotiations. When communities put forward a proposal proactively, they have more power to shape the negotiations. 

4- Get legal support. Communities can successfully negotiate on their own, but it can be helpful to get support from community paralegals or lawyers at key steps, particularly during fact-finding, when evaluating an offer, and for a final review of the draft contract to ensure it is enforceable and aligns with existing laws. Community paralegals or grassroots justice defenders can also walk with the community through the full process, from understanding the community’s rights to fact-finding to negotiations to monitoring and enforcing any agreement that is reached.  

Together, these strategies can help communities engage from a position of power while reinforcing broader ongoing struggles for self-determination, land rights, and climate justice.

Building a Global Movement for Carbon Justice

Drawing on experience supporting communities to respond to carbon projects in more than 20 countries, members of the Grassroots Justice Network have launched a global campaign to put community rights and leadership at the center of carbon markets. Together, we identified six principles necessary to make carbon projects fair. 

The first principle is that carbon credits cannot be a substitute for companies reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions. The other five principles focus on the people who live where projects take place: respecting land and water rights; ensuring the right to FPIC, including the right to say no to proposed projects; advocating for the majority of revenue from carbon sales to go to communities for any projects on community land; recognizing and honoring communities’ leadership as land stewards; and ensuring that safeguards are effectively enforced.

We are actively working to bring the Carbon Justice Principles to life at the community, national, and global levels through peer learning and collective action. First, we are creating practical tools and resources that Indigenous Peoples and frontline communities can use to overcome power imbalances with project developers. Members of our network distilled lessons from negotiations with carbon project developers through a nine-month series of learning circles. We recently compiled those insights in “How to Negotiate with Carbon Project Developers”, a practical toolkit that offers strategies communities can use to find key information about a project, negotiate from a place of power, and monitor and enforce the terms if an agreement is reached. It also includes case studies from Kenya, Liberia, Zambia, Brazil, Colombia, and the Philippines. 

We also developed Carbon Justice 101, an online course that provides a practical orientation to how carbon markets work and the risks and opportunities for communities. The course will be offered on a regular basis, with updates on how to enroll posted on the course webpage.

Second, we are advocating collectively to shape the rules that govern carbon markets. National laws on carbon trading can set crucial norms securing communities’ land rights, right to FPIC, and revenue sharing. We distilled practical guidance for civil society groups engaged in shaping national policy in a second toolkit: “How National Legislation Can Advance Carbon Justice”.

Global frameworks define standards for the wider carbon market. Guided by the carbon justice principles, Network members have advocated collectively for stricter rules under Verra and Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, the UN mechanism that will govern how countries and companies can trade international carbon credits while meeting their climate commitments. 

Join us in calling for stronger recognition of community leadership and protections for community rights. You can get involved in the carbon justice campaign by joining our WhatsApp community, signing up for our newsletter, or letting us know if you are planning to participate in key policy forums this year.

For more information on Carbon Justice 101.

Join our WhatsApp community.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

The post Putting the Leadership of Indigenous Peoples at the Center of Carbon Markets appeared first on Debates Indígenas.

Rather than delivering genuine emissions reductions at source, these mechanisms enable major polluters to continue their activities while purchasing carbon credits generated elsewhere, particularly in forested and biodiverse regions. Under this logic, forests, rivers and territories inhabited by Indigenous Peoples are no longer treated as spaces of life, memory and self-determination, but are instead reframed as tradable climate assets within a global market.

This process entails a renewed form of commodification of nature, whereby the carbon stored in these territories is assigned an economic value, typically determined outside the communities themselves. International studies on Ecuador warn that, alongside programmes such as Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and results-based payment schemes, a range of mechanisms has taken shape that draws territories into systems of control, monitoring and carbon-related conditionalities, without addressing the underlying structural drivers of deforestation and the climate crisis.

A sophisticated form of dispossession

Although framed as opportunities for conservation or finance, carbon credits tend to generate unequal power relations, opaque contractual arrangements, restrictions on customary territorial use and new pressures on community governance. Ecuador’s rapid opening to these markets has unfolded in a context marked by regulatory gaps, limited public debate and clear state contradictions—such as the persistence of fossil fuel subsidies alongside the promotion of climate offsetting mechanisms. This tension reveals that the aim is not to transform the model that drives territorial destruction, but rather to render it compatible with emerging “green” business opportunities.

In recent years, the Ecuadorian government has been putting in place a series of instruments to position the country within carbon market and climate offsetting frameworks. Notably, this includes the creation of the Ecuador Zero Carbon Programme (PECC) through a ministerial agreement, designed as a voluntary scheme enabling companies and institutions to measure, reduce and offset their carbon footprint. In parallel, the State maintains an official system for certifying carbon footprint reductions and has reinforced its technical framework through specific regulations governing the programme’s implementation, as well as the establishment of a Strategic Committee on Carbon Footprint.

Appropriation now extends beyond land, oil, minerals and timber to encompass the capacity of forests to absorb carbon. This represents a more sophisticated form of dispossession, in which the language of climate action and finance masks new forms of intervention in these territories.

Carbon markets do not constitute a just response to climate change, but rather an extension of the same colonial and extractive model.

This trend is further reinforced by the promotion of REDD+ mechanisms and results-based payments in forest areas, alongside regulatory steps enabling the national authority to register mitigation projects that generate carbon credits under market-based mechanisms linked to Article 6 of the Paris Agreement. From a critical standpoint, these measures suggest that the State is not only advancing climate governance policies, but also reconfiguring its institutional framework to facilitate the country’s integration into a carbon market that turns pollution, conservation and territories into objects of certification, offsetting and trade.

From this perspective, carbon markets do not constitute a just response to climate change, but rather an extension of the same colonial and extractive model. Appropriation now extends beyond land, oil, minerals and timber to encompass the capacity of forests to absorb carbon. This represents a more sophisticated form of dispossession, in which the language of climate action and finance masks new forms of intervention in these territories. For this reason, the debate on carbon must move beyond the economic benefits it promises and instead centre on its impacts on the autonomy, self-determination, collective rights and territorial sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples, who have historically safeguarded these ecosystems.

Debating carbon markets from the territory

These global dynamics take on concrete form within territories, where their impacts and tensions become increasingly visible. Although the issue features prominently in international climate forums—such as the Conferences of the Parties (COPs) and other spaces linked to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)—very little, if anything, is discussed at the territorial level, particularly with the communities that mitigate greenhouse gas emissions on the front lines. In response to this gap, in February 2026 representatives of grassroots communities from the Kichwa Nation of Pastaza convened a space for critical reflection on carbon markets in the city of Puyo, Pastaza Province, in the central Ecuadorian Amazon.

This international event was convened by Pastaza Kikin Kichwa Runakuna (PAKKIRU) and the Kichwa Institute of Biotechnology Sacha Supai (IQBSS), in coordination with the International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) and Paz y Solidaridad, and brought together Indigenous leaders who shared experiences from Bolivia, Guatemala, Costa Rica and Colombia. Through this exchange of knowledge among Indigenous Peoples and organisations from Mesoamerica and South America, the initiative sought to strengthen capacities to build and exercise sovereignty, while resisting alignment with colonial agendas that impose policies in contexts shaped by unequal power relations.

Carbon markets are seen as a form of contemporary extractivism that threatens forests, where more than 25,000 Kichwa inhabitants sustain an ancestral system of control and stewardship over the Amazonian lowlands.

Carbon markets are seen as a form of contemporary extractivism that threatens forests, where more than 25,000 Kichwa inhabitants sustain an ancestral system of control and stewardship over the Amazonian lowlands.

Among the key premises emerging from the meeting—which brought together more than 80 Indigenous leaders from across the territories—participants concluded that carbon markets constitute capitalist and hegemonic strategies that undermine territories and Indigenous ways of life. In the case of Ecuador, carbon markets are seen as a form of contemporary extractivism that threatens forests, where more than 25,000 Kichwa inhabitants sustain a long-standing, ancestral system of control and stewardship over the Amazonian lowlands. This perspective is politically and ideologically grounded in the philosophy of Sumak Kawsay and its four pillars: Sumak Ayllu [harmonious community life], Sumak Allpamma [balanced relationship with the land], Sumak Mirachina [collective flourishing] and Sacha Runa Yachay [forest-based knowledge].

This position brings into focus at least three central tensions: the struggle over territorial control, the imposition of market logics on Indigenous ways of life, and the persistence of power asymmetries in climate governance. Convened as a space for reflection to critically examine carbon markets and other forms of climate finance affecting territories, the meeting underscored the central role of Indigenous Peoples and organisations in strengthening and sustaining autonomous territorial agendas.

Indigenous voices

In Ecuador, agendas around carbon markets are being shaped through participatory processes grounded in ancestral knowledge and the philosophy of Sumak Kawsay. The Yanapak Kuraka (Vice-President) of the Kichwa Nation of Pastaza, Pashpanzhu Vitery, reflected at the close of the workshop: “It is essential, as our ancestors have done, to create spaces for dialogue where we can inform ourselves and listen to technical experts, in order to develop positions against these extractivist policies that seek to control and manage the resources of Indigenous territories.”

Linking current carbon market proposals to historical cycles of dispossession, and highlighting the continuity of extractive patterns in new forms, Pashpanzhu Vitery concluded: “Members of our ayllukuna [Indigenous kinship-based communities] have long heard how our grandparents had to survive, struggle and sustain resistance in the face of successive waves of plunder. I recall many stories of exploitation—from rubber to mining and oil—and we hope that carbon markets will not become a new strategy of neo-colonisation.”

“While 70 per cent of the best-preserved lands are Indigenous territories, the resources generated for climate change mitigation do not reach Indigenous Peoples”, said Leónidas Iza.

“While 70 per cent of the best-preserved lands are Indigenous territories, the resources generated for climate change mitigation do not reach Indigenous Peoples”, said Leónidas Iza.

Among the invited speakers and high-level participants was Leonidas Iza, former president of CONAIE and current president of Ecuarunari, the Andean regional branch of the Indigenous Movement representing Kichwa peoples of the highlands. “Those behind carbon markets are the very same industries responsible for pollution; it therefore becomes a closed circuit controlled by the same companies,” the leader stated, echoing the concerns raised by participants.

Throughout his intervention, Leonidas Iza underscored the contradiction between the central role of Indigenous Peoples in conserving territories and their exclusion from the economic benefits generated by climate mechanisms: “While 70 per cent of the best-preserved lands are Indigenous territories, and grassroots communities are those who best understand the care and protection of nature, the resources generated for climate change mitigation do not reach Indigenous Peoples. We are now discussing how to access financial resources and losing sight of the broader horizon of our struggles. We are no longer debating our collective rights, such as self-determination, but rather market logics imposed by capital.”

Beyond carbon: challenges for territorial autonomy

After three days of debate, a set of strategic lines emerged which, rather than forming a closed agenda, reflect evolving horizons shaped from within the territories: the need to strengthen community dialogue, political advocacy, organisational coordination, self-sustained economies and Indigenous communication.

Firstly, participants underscored the importance of sustaining spaces for dialogue rooted in community assemblies as the primary arenas for deliberation and decision-making, incorporating culturally grounded tools that ensure understanding, participation and ownership at the territorial level. At the same time, the need to reinforce alliances and coordination processes across different scales was emphasised, in order to consolidate shared positions among peoples and organisations, as well as to expand networks of collaboration beyond national borders.

The challenge lies not only in accessing the economic benefits of climate mechanisms, but in defining the conditions under which these do not undermine self-determination.

The challenge lies not only in accessing the economic benefits of climate mechanisms, but in defining the conditions under which these do not undermine self-determination.

In the sphere of political advocacy, participants emphasised the urgency of expanding Indigenous Peoples’ participation in decision-making spaces, both nationally and internationally, in order to advance their own agendas and demand compliance with collective rights recognised in international instruments. At the same time, the importance of consolidating self-sustained economies rooted in territorial practices—such as chakras (traditional Indigenous agroforestry system), community-based tourism and ancestral medicine—was reaffirmed as a foundation for self-governance and effective autonomy, independent of conditional financing schemes.

Finally, the need to strengthen Indigenous communication systems was highlighted, enabling the articulation of networks across territories, the visibility of key issues, and the continuity of processes of analysis and decision-making within Indigenous organisations themselves. In this context, the challenge lies not only in accessing the economic benefits of climate mechanisms, but in defining the conditions under which these do not undermine the autonomy, self-determination and the distinct ways of life of Indigenous Peoples.

The post Carbon markets in Ecuador: climate offsetting or territorial control? appeared first on Debates Indígenas.