By Henry Neondo, in Antalya, Turkey
Indigenous representatives and climate experts today in a side event during the ongoing COP31 in Turkey said carbon trading schemes risk reinforcing colonial land systems, excluding women from decision-making and undermining community control over ancestral territories.
Indigenous leaders and climate justice advocates have called on governments negotiating at COP31 to reconsider their reliance on international carbon markets, warning that the mechanisms risk undermining Indigenous peoples’ land rights, traditional livelihoods and self-determination.
During discussions at the Indigenous Peoples’ Pavilion, representatives from Africa, Asia and other regions questioned whether carbon markets are delivering meaningful climate action or creating new avenues for corporate control over Indigenous territories under the guise of environmental protection.
The discussions brought together Indigenous representatives and experts, including Edward Rockwaro from Tanzania, Tunga Rai from Nepal, Eliza Morguera, Rosalia Harmona and keynote speaker Stefan Torcel. The panel examined the implications of carbon trading, particularly under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement, and its effects on communities whose livelihoods and cultural identities are closely connected to land, forests and natural ecosystems.
At the centre of the debate was a fundamental concern: carbon markets increasingly measure the value of nature through its capacity to store carbon while overlooking the social, cultural, spiritual and ecological relationships Indigenous communities have maintained with their territories for generations.
Tunga Rai argued that carbon market discussions focus excessively on carbon storage while ignoring the displacement of Indigenous peoples and the erosion of their customary governance systems.
He warned that the frameworks being developed under international climate agreements are not adequately reflecting the principles of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, despite the decades of struggle and sacrifice by Indigenous elders and leaders that secured its recognition.
Carbon trading and the new pressures on Indigenous territories
The panel questioned the scientific credibility and economic rationale of carbon markets, with Torcel arguing that the mechanisms allow major polluters to purchase carbon credits rather than make substantial reductions in their own greenhouse gas emissions.
He cited research indicating that more than 90 per cent of certain voluntary carbon credits examined were considered ‘phantom credits’ because they represented forest protection that would have occurred even without the projects.
The concern, according to the panel, is that carbon offsets can create an illusion of climate responsibility, allowing companies to continue polluting while claiming carbon neutrality through purchased credits.
Eliza Morguera also highlighted structural weaknesses in carbon markets, including carbon leakage, inadequate transparency, fraud and the unequal distribution of financial benefits.
She argued that the economic model frequently fails to channel resources to developing countries and local communities, with a disproportionate share of profits captured by major technology companies and other actors in the Global North.
The panel further questioned a system that can reward countries with weaker legal protections rather than those demonstrating greater climate ambition.
Of particular concern is the growing pressure on Indigenous territories from carbon projects, mineral extraction and renewable energy developments. Participants warned that carbon-related investments could become another justification for land acquisition and resource exploitation, particularly where communities lack effective legal protection.
Pastoralist mobility and customary land rights under threat
For pastoralist communities, the consequences of carbon projects extend beyond questions of financial compensation.
Edward Rockwaro highlighted how carbon credit projects in Tanzania are affecting the traditional mobility of pastoralist communities, including the Maasai, whose livelihoods depend on seasonal movement in search of water and pasture.
He explained that carbon projects can introduce restrictions under the concept of carbon leakage, potentially penalising communities for moving livestock to access grazing land and water resources.
Such restrictions threaten traditional land management practices and the resilience of pastoralist livelihoods, particularly in environments where mobility is essential for adapting to changing climatic conditions.
Long-term carbon agreements, some extending to 30 years, also raise concerns about the ability of communities to retain control over their territories and respond to changing demographic and environmental needs.
Rockwaro questioned the transparency of arrangements involving carbon brokers, buyers and certification institutions, noting that communities often have limited information about who purchases their carbon credits, the prices involved and how the resulting revenue is distributed.
In Nepal, Rai raised similar concerns about the commercialisation of forests and Indigenous territories. He argued that forests should not be reduced to carbon assets because their value extends to cultural identity, spiritual relationships, biodiversity and customary systems of governance.
Women excluded from decisions as inequalities deepen
The discussion also exposed the gender inequalities embedded in carbon market arrangements.
Rosalia Harmona argued that communities frequently enter carbon agreements under conditions that undermine their ability to exercise free and informed choice. Economic insecurity, extractive pressures and the absence of effective state protection can leave communities vulnerable to agreements they may not fully understand or have the power to reject.
She identified the exclusion of women from decision-making, inadequate direct access to carbon revenues and limited transparency as major weaknesses in existing market arrangements.
These concerns raise broader questions about who benefits from climate investments and who bears the consequences when access to land, forests and other natural resources is restricted.
Harmona argued that carbon markets risk reproducing colonial conservation approaches developed over several decades, which often prioritised external control of natural resources over community rights and local knowledge.
The panel also heard concerns about the implications of carbon market documentation for nomadic communities in Chad. Alhaji Musa reported that some communities face land loss and exclusion from financial benefits generated through carbon documentation on their ancestral territories.
Participants called for critical project documents to be translated into local languages so that communities can understand the terms of agreements affecting their lands and livelihoods.
In Kenya, a participant raised concerns about changes to climate governance frameworks that removed criteria for Indigenous representation in the National Council on Climate Change, potentially weakening the participation of affected communities in national climate decision-making.
Should carbon markets be fixed or abandoned?
Beyond identifying the shortcomings of carbon markets, the panel debated whether civil society organisations should continue engaging in technical negotiations to improve their safeguards or redirect their efforts towards alternative climate finance models.
Anisa from Carbon Market Watch questioned whether participating in technical processes, including efforts to revise the sustainable development safeguards under Article 6.4, amounts to little more than damage control when the underlying system remains structurally unequal.
Tunga Rai explained that organisations such as LIF engage in carbon market coalitions to advocate for the recognition of customary governance institutions and meaningful benefit-sharing arrangements, rather than endorsing the market system in its entirety.
Harmona, however, argued that the focus should shift towards raising awareness and promoting alternatives rather than attempting to improve mechanisms fundamentally driven by profit.
Morguera suggested that technical knowledge gained through engagement could be used to strengthen legal challenges, public campaigns and parliamentary scrutiny of carbon market investments.
She also questioned the wisdom of attempting to repair mechanisms that continue to generate foreseeable risks to the human rights to food, water, health and a healthy environment.
Indigenous-led climate action as an alternative
A central message emerging from the discussions was the need to reconsider how climate finance is structured and who determines the priorities for protecting ecosystems.
Rai argued that the Paris Agreement’s negotiated climate finance commitments should be grounded in public, grant-based support rather than dependence on private-sector buyers seeking carbon offsets for their historical emissions.
Participants questioned whether carbon markets, which allow companies and countries to purchase credits to compensate for emissions, are consistent with the obligations of governments to reduce emissions and protect the climate system.
They called for greater investment in Indigenous-led environmental protection, recognising communities as custodians of ecosystems rather than treating them as beneficiaries of externally designed conservation projects.
Rockwaro further challenged the assumption that Indigenous communities need external actors to teach them how to manage their environments.
He argued that Indigenous peoples have maintained and governed their territories for centuries, and that climate science and policy should increasingly learn from traditional ecological knowledge instead of imposing externally developed management systems.
For the panellists, meaningful climate action requires recognising Indigenous self-determination, protecting customary land tenure, ensuring women’s participation and guaranteeing that communities have direct control over decisions and resources affecting their territories.
As COP31 negotiations continue, the panel’s message to governments is that climate solutions cannot be considered successful if they undermine the rights and livelihoods of the very communities protecting ecosystems.
The challenge for negotiators is therefore not simply to improve the integrity of carbon credits or strengthen market safeguards. It is to confront the deeper question of whether climate action can deliver justice while allowing the commercialisation of land, forests and community resources.
For Indigenous peoples, the credibility of COP31 will ultimately be measured not by the volume of carbon credits traded, but by whether governments defend their rights, recognise their knowledge and support their leadership in protecting the planet.