Carbon markets: a new form of colonialism for Indigenous Peoples?

Abstract

The interconnected and compounding climate change and biodiversity crises have led to increased urgency in moving towards transformational change within how national and international sustainability efforts are viewed and operationalised. Despite the known benefit of carbon markets as part of these sustainability efforts, there has been increasing scrutiny of carbon market mechanisms, with warranted distrust present at the community level. Indigenous Peoples are key stewards of biodiverse landscapes, yet their exclusion within carbon market decision making is ongoing. With this exclusion, outstanding questions remain on the placement of Indigenous Peoples within current carbon market design and decision making and their roles have yet to be fully appreciated in wider policy and practice. Platformed on substantial inequities, marginalisation, and racism, we therefore query in this Personal View, are carbon markets a new form of colonialism? We further reflect on the challenges and the potential opportunities of carbon markets for Indigenous Peoples and anchor our reflections with examples from different regions.

Full text

www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 9 May 2025
e421
Personal View
Lancet Planet Health 2025;
9: e421–30
Schulich School of Medicine
and Dentistry, University of
Western Ontario, London,
ON, Canada (N Redvers DPhil,
J Chan BMSc); Arctic Indigenous
Wellness Foundation,
Yellowknife, NT, Canada
(N Redvers); Lazy Man
Coffee, Chiang Mai, Thailand
(S Odochao MA); The Hub at
Wellcome Collection, London,
UK (V Pratt BA, J Sim MA,
S Gougsa MSc); Invisible Flock,
West Bretton, UK (V Pratt,
J Sim); Minority Rights Group,
London, UK (S Gougsa);
Ogiek Peoples’ Development
Program, Egerton, Kenya
(D M Kobei MBA); Human
Health Thematic Group,
Commission on Ecosystem
Management, International
Union for Conservation of
Nature, Gland, Switzerland
(L Willetts MMSc)
Correspondence to:
Dr Nicole Redvers, Schulich
School of Medicine and
Dentistry, University of Western
Ontario, London, ON N6G 2M1,
Canada
nredvers@uwo.ca
Carbon markets: a new form of colonialism for Indigenous
Peoples?
Nicole Redvers, Josh Chan, Siwakorn Odochao, Victoria Pratt, Jessica Sim, Samrawit Gougsa, Daniel M Kobei, Liz Willetts
The interconnected and compounding climate change and biodiversity crises have led to increased urgency in moving
towards transformational change within how national and international sustainability eorts are viewed and
operationalised. Despite the known benefit of carbon markets as part of these sustainability eorts, there has been
increasing scrutiny of carbon market mechanisms, with warranted distrust present at the community level.
Indigenous Peoples are key stewards of biodiverse landscapes, yet their exclusion within carbon market decision
making is ongoing. With this exclusion, outstanding questions remain on the placement of Indigenous Peoples
within current carbon market design and decision making and their roles have yet to be fully appreciated in wider
policy and practice. Platformed on substantial inequities, marginalisation, and racism, we therefore query in this
Personal View, are carbon markets a new form of colonialism? We further reflect on the challenges and the potential
opportunities of carbon markets for Indigenous Peoples and anchor our reflections with examples from dierent
regions.
Introduction
The co-occurring and interconnected climate change and
biodiversity crises have led to more urgency in moving
towards transformational change within how national
and international sustainability eorts are viewed and
operationalised. The surging interest in carbon osetting
and marketable carbon credit permits (panel 1) is
projected to lead to the growth of the voluntary carbon-
oset market from US$2 billion in 2020 to approximately
$250 billion by 2050.3 Carbon pricing mechanisms aim,
in theory, to help shift the burden for the damage from
greenhouse gas emissions back to those who are
responsible for it (eg, individuals, organisations, and
industries).4 Approximately 70 national and subnational
governments have introduced a price on carbon
pollution,5 with a 2024 review noting “consistent evidence
that carbon pricing policies have caused emissions
reductions…with immediate and sustained reductions of
between –5% to –21% (–4% to –15% when correcting for
publication bias)”.6
Despite the known benefit of carbon markets with
regard to reducing emissions, these voluntary carbon
market mechanisms have incurred increasing scrutiny
due to the scarcity of appropriate safeguards being put
in place.7–9 Whether or not carbon markets themselves
serve as creative new modes of accumulation that are
unlikely to transform capitalist dynamics in ways that
might foster a more sustainable global economy has
also been questioned.7 In addition, several persistent
issues exist in some regions of the world, including the
issue of phantom credits (ie, when projects overstate
their greenhouse gas emission reductions),10 the
inadequate overall focus on ensuring that initiatives
reduce rather than oset emissions,11 inconsistent
involvement of local communities in the participation
and decision-making processes of mechanisms, and the
lack of core focus on cobenefits for local communities.
Warranted community-level distrust therefore
surrounds the current structure and operations within
which carbon markets have been designed and
implemented. The urgency of the converging crises that
humanity faces within the context of declining planetary
health should not supersede equitable practices, yet
ongoing human rights violations are commonly
accepted as the cost of doing business.12,13
Carbon markets are complex and imperfect
mechanisms with more attention needed on identifying
and determining acceptable social costs, if any, within
public and private sectors. Stakeholder participation in
these mechanisms is an area of weakness—for example,
with decision-making processes for the development and
implementation of carbon markets not generally
including Indigenous Peoples.14 Indigenous Peoples are
key stewards of biodiverse landscapes and planetary
health, yet their exclusion from many decision-making
arenas regarding national and international climate
change and biodiversity is ongoing. This exclusion is a
continuing consequence of entrenched high-income
country versus low-income and middle-income country
power dynamics and colonialism. Many outstanding
questions remain for the placement of Indigenous
Peoples within current carbon markets, and their roles
have yet to be fully appreciated in wider policy and
practice.
Platformed on substantial inequities, marginalisation,
and racism, in this Personal View, we examine whether
carbon markets are a new form of colonialism for
Indigenous Peoples. We further consider the challenges
and the potential opportunities of carbon markets for
Indigenous Peoples, using examples from dierent legal
and political contexts. Overall, we aim to provide insights
from Indigenous Peoples into the topic of carbon
markets that could diverge from current national and
international policy discourse.
Given the importance of positionality in writing with or
about Indigenous Peoples’ lived experience, we first
position ourselves here as a group of Indigenous Peoples
(NR, SO, and DMK) from Canada, Thailand, and Kenya;

e422
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 9 May 2025
Personal View
and a group of non-Indigenous allies supporting the work
(JC, VP, JS, SG, and LW) from Canada, the UK, and the
USA.
Indigenous Peoples’ rights violations and
carbon markets
There have been notable challenges, including rights
violations, for Indigenous Peoples working with or
against carbon markets and related mechanisms
worldwide (panel 2). Foremost are the substantial
geopolitical dierences in the level of recognition
aorded to Indigenous Peoples by national governments.
This inconsistent recognition of Indigenous Peoples
worldwide leads to a lack of Indigenous leadership
or involvement in discussions, design, and the
implementation of carbon markets. Additionally, when
Indigenous Peoples are not recognised as Indigenous
Peoples by national governments and state actors,
having a voice or decision-making power in regard to
Indigenous lands is dicult, if not impossible. Without
political recognition of Indigenous Peoples within a
respective region, there is often then an absence of
Indigenous land tenure rights, which puts Indigenous
Peoples at substantial risk of forced land eviction to
make room for conservation eorts. For example, in
November, 2023, Ogiek Indigenous Peoples from Kenya
were forcibly removed from their traditional territories
under a conservation agenda meant to make way for
carbon credits.15 Carbon-credit projects have the potential
to therefore interfere with Indigenous communities’
rights to their own land, aect their use of resources,
and aect their ability to pass on traditional ecological
knowledges, as well as impact their territorial governance
or rights—while additionally displacing communities
and impacting their livelihoods.16
Panel 1: Key terms within carbon markets
Carbon credits
“Carbon credits are marketable permits that each reflect one
metric ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions (or other
greenhouse gases) that a business is allowed to emit. Carbon
credits are commonly used in the context of emissions
trading in which companies are given a fixed amount of
credits depending on their emissions. They can later purchase
more credits or sell their extra[s]...Carbon credits are a
measurement unit to ‘cap’ emissions (meaning permitted
emissions).”1
Carbon offsets
“Carbon offsets are typically created when companies or
individuals finance projects that reduce greenhouse gas
emissions elsewhere. Projects to reduce carbon often fall into
one of two categories: mechanical or natural...Carbon offsets
can be considered a measurement unit to ‘compensate’ a
business for investing in green projects or initiatives
(whether natural or mechanical) that eliminate emissions.”1
Cap-and-trade system
“A cap-and-trade system establishes a cap on maximum
emissions in order to reduce aggregate emissions from a
group of emitters. This market-based approach promotes
lower pollutant emissions and promotes investment in
energy efficiency and fossil fuel alternatives.”1
Nature-based solutions
“Nature-based solutions to climate change [mitigation] use
plants to draw carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, either
by preserving and managing existing ecosystems or by
creating new carbon sinks to sequester additional carbon
from the atmosphere.”2
Types of nature-based solutions
For example, avoid deforestation, reforestation,
afforestation, managing forests, wetland and peatland
preservation, wetland and peatland restoration, agroforestry,
and soil carbon sequestration.
Technological offsets
The use of technologies to remove and reduce carbon.
Panel 2: Challenges for Indigenous Peoples in relation to
engagement with carbon markets
• Little to no recognition of Indigenous Peoples in many
countries
• Lack of Indigenous land tenure rights in many countries
• Insufficient decision-making power for Indigenous
Peoples regarding their lands
• Little to no capacity and inadequate availability of
technical resources on carbon markets within Indigenous
communities
• Unaddressed language barriers relevant for
communications, decision making, and informed consent
• Little to no awareness and respect for free, prior, and
informed consent
• Blatant exploitation from state and corporate actors
impacts trust and relationship building
• State or corporate actors disregarding already agreed-
upon community-based carbon market terms of
agreements, with no consequences
• Patriarchal and colonial approaches to community
engagement and policy creation (eg, top-down, high-
income country, and corporate domination of agenda
setting, funding arrangements, and decision making
centring those other than Indigenous communities)
• Direct Indigenous rights violations for Indigenous
Peoples, forced displacement, and conflict stemming
from projects related to carbon mitigation (eg,
conservation activities)
• The Eurocentric transactional view of the land as a
resource or commodity to serve humans (ie, natural
capital, ecosystem service, or nature’s contribution to
people)

www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 9 May 2025
e423
Personal View
Low capacity and inadequate technical resources, as
well as inequitable benefit distribution, additionally
hinder the participation of Indigenous Peoples in carbon
markets.17 Carbon markets and the paperwork that comes
with them (eg, osetting deals) are often technically
complex and dicult to navigate for non-experts.
Indigenous language barriers add complexity, putting
Indigenous Peoples at substantial risk for exploitation
and marginalisation. In turn, carbon market design
teams also then fail to incorporate Indigenous
knowledges due to the disregard of the importance of
language. Indigenous communities also face increasing
threats from so-called carbon pirates and unfair
agreements (ie, biased agreements towards corporate
actor benefits over Indigenous communities), leading to
land dispossession and unfulfilled financial promises.13
Weak regulation in carbon market mechanisms and a
lack of transparency exacerbate these issues where
anticipated or agreed upon financial benefits sometimes
do not end up reaching Indigenous communities.18
Blatant exploitation often leads to conflict between
communities and project developers or within
communities, with rights violations, displacement, and
conflict often stemming from failure to obtain the full
consent of communities or disregarding local governance
practices.16 These negative experiences with carbon
markets can also have the counter eect of decreasing
climate change resilience within communities, while
exacerbating negative health impacts and loss and
damage from concurrent global environmental changes.19
Direct violations to Indigenous Peoples’ free, prior,
and informed consent with carbon-related projects, or
blatant disregard of valid carbon-related agreements
with Indigenous Peoples have been increasingly
documented.14 These violations lead to valid scepticism
and outright rejection of carbon-related projects within
some Indigenous territories.13,20–23 Negative experiences
have also led to the development of some toolkits and
resources to support Indigenous Peoples in relating
with outside entities for carbon-related projects on
Indigenous lands.24,25 Regardless, available resources
and support for Indigenous Peoples to navigate the
complexities of carbon-based mechanisms are scarce in
many regions.
At a fundamental level, within many Indigenous
communities, there is often a strong rejection of the
carbon market concept existing that has not been
eectively appreciated or addressed. For example, many
Indigenous Peoples have great diculty putting a
monetary value on their lands and waters. Indigenous
lands and water are often seen to be living relatives, not
something to be owned or traded.26 Therefore, the
fundamental values underpinning carbon markets (or
the lack thereof) are often in direct opposition to how
Indigenous Peoples relate to the land, creating ethical
dilemmas that are not often appreciated by outside
entities. From an Indigenous relational worldview, the
Eurocentric view of the land as a resource or commodity
and an “ideology of independence has resulted in a sense
of entitled ownership, a kind of utilitarian perception of
the natural world that relates to it through transactional
relationships that do not have a sense of responsibility,
care, or love”.27 This Eurocentric worldview of humans
being disconnected from the land they walk on28,29
perpetuates climate solutions (eg, carbon markets) that
are also, themselves, devoid of relational connections to
the land. It has been stated that “[w]e cannot solve
complex problems from the same worldview that created
them in the first place, as it will continue to perpetuate a
disconnect between us and the planet as ‘relatives’.”30
Carbon markets derived from colonial systems therefore
diverge conceptually from how many Indigenous
communities relate to their landscapes. Along these
lines, from an Indigenous perspective,
“…[h]umans have [in many cases] lost their identity as
organisms within a larger system and thus have lost
awareness of how to live sustainably with Mother Earth.
Ecological demise points to an impaired human
relationship with its inner self (ie, humans are Nature
and not apart from it). In the broader sense, there is
evidence of the loss of an ecologically bound cultural
identity. The disconnect from Nature manifests as a
fragmented and dissociated identity that cannot
recognise itself as part of a system, making it easier to
project predatory and abusive impulses onto the
environment.”27
Overall, with Indigenous worldviews often diering
substantially from Eurocentric worldviews,28,29 there is a
fundamental incongruence between how carbon markets
have been formulated to value the land compared with
how Indigenous Peoples relate with the land. We present
an on-the-ground case example from Thailand to further
highlight the challenges for Indigenous Peoples related
to engagement with carbon markets.
Case example: Indigenous Peoples in Thailand
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework
has 23 action-oriented global targets for urgent action,
over the decade, to 203031 and includes the common
reference to the 30 × 30 target (ie, the protection and
management of 30% of the world’s terrestrial, inland
water, and coastal and marine areas being eectively
conserved and managed or restored by the year 2030).32
This target is an addition to other global initiatives, such
as the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration on Forests and Land
Use, which countries such as Thailand have signed with
the commitment to raise Thailand’s forest cover to
55% of the country’s total area, and achieve net
zero emissions and carbon neutrality.33 Market-based
conservation agendas are codeveloping alongside
international biodiversity protection movements, often
perpetuating so-called fortress conservation approaches
(ie, a conservation approach that separates people from
their landscapes) in some regions, particularly in some

e424
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 9 May 2025
Personal View
low-income and middle-income countries.34 This
approach has led to the false narrative (explicit or
implicit), often amplified through policy and discourse,
that to eectively conserve biodiversity, there can be no
Indigenous Peoples in the conserved areas. This idea has
led to violent conflicts, forced land evictions, and an
increasing number of Indigenous conservation refugees
worldwide,35,36 including in Thailand.20 It has also led to
ongoing tensions around the concept of conservation in
global governance.37
In Thailand, carbon credit policies and initiatives are at
a turning point. There is a current blend of ambitious
projects and the acknowledgment of substantial
challenges existing in the country. The overall
implementation of carbon credits aims to promote clean
energy and reduce emissions, yet it faces increasing
scrutiny in Thailand regarding its eectiveness and
integrity.14 Allegations of inflated and fabricated figures
for emission reduction have cast doubt on the legitimacy
of carbon-related projects, prompting calls for stricter
regulation and greater transparency.23 The lack of
accountability in the verification and certification
processes has further exacerbated concerns, potentially
harming the country’s reputation and undermining
genuine climate action eorts.38 The introduction of
Thailand’s new clean energy and carbon credit trading
platform is a key step towards bolstering the national
carbon market. Operating voluntarily and without
government regulation, this platform is designed to
facilitate Thai exporters in meeting international carbon
emission standards.38 Despite its potential to enhance
Thailand’s climate mitigation eorts, the unregulated
nature of the platform raises questions about the
long-term sustainability and eectiveness of such
initiatives.23
Thailand’s engagement with carbon credits as a strategy
for forest conservation and climate change mitigation has
had substantial implications for Indigenous Peoples in
the region. This situation is further complicated by the
fact that Thailand does not recognise its own Indigenous
Peoples,39 and therefore no formal complaints or
adjudication body to address land or human rights issues
specific to Indigenous Peoples exists in Thailand. The
Government of Thailand’s Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation programme aims
to incentivise the reduction of deforestation while
promoting sustainable forest management;40 however, the
implementation of carbon credit policies has led to the
restriction of Indigenous Peoples’ access to forests and
land, resulting in their marginalisation and displacement.
Traditional communities face forced relocations and
conflicts, with state and corporate interests often being
prioritised over communities’ rights and knowledges.23
These experiences in Thailand highlight the need for
more inclusive and rights-based approaches that platform
Indigenous rights and promote community-based
conservation eorts.
Additionally, the expansion of the carbon credit market
in Thailand and its implications for Indigenous lands
require careful consideration to avoid perpetuating
ongoing social injustices. Instances of exploitation and
inadequate consultation underscore the need for strict
regulations and genuine engagement with Indigenous
Peoples and their communities.14 The current situation
in the north of Thailand, for example, highlights the
complexity of Indigenous land management, especially
when examined through the lens of carbon markets.
Conservation, carbon markets, and the Ban Nong Tao
and Huay Ee Khang Indigenous Peoples
In Thailand, the National Land Policy Board is using
satellite assessments41 to re-categorise lands into
four zone types (based on land use since 2002),42,43 thus
threatening Indigenous communities’ traditional
farming practices. A law passed in 2014 (Ko To Cho คทช),
has since mandated that, depending on the zone,
between 20% and 70% of land must remain forested.
However, this new land categorisation is causing
confusion within Indigenous communities in Thailand.
For example, families in Karen communities, such as
Pgak’yau of Ban Nong Tao and Huay Ee Khang, struggle
to understand the implications of a land-use permit,
which in the Chiang Mai province (where they are
located), is granted for 30 years.44 The land lease, although
permitting the community to legally farm in certain
areas,41 does not provide ocial land titles, further
limiting how the land can be used. There is also concern
that this government land lease system will make it
dicult or impossible for Indigenous Peoples to claim
full land rights in the future.
Additionally, the government land lease system does
not consider the Indigenous and sustainable rotational
farming practices that have been done for generations in
the region, especially for land with more than a
30% inclined slope (key land for Indigenous traditional
farming practices). The Forestry Department in Thailand
does not recognise that farming practices can take place
on mountain slopes,45 and as such, these areas have been
categorised as conservation forest (ie, land that cannot be
used by Indigenous Peoples for traditional farming).
Traditionally, Pgak’yau have always farmed lowland and
mountain areas, rotating to dierent land plots so that
the same piece of land is not used for more than 7 years,
to allow the soil and plants to regenerate. However,
current government land policy contradicts the ecological
stewardship approach of Indigenous land use. Many
Indigenous farmers now feel pressed to over-farm these
re-categorised plots, clearing them every 2–3 years
instead of the traditional 7 years, to avoid the Forestry
Department reclassifying their plots as conservation
forest, and consequently losing their land. This
Indigenous community is therefore forced by
government conservation policy to abandon planetary
stewardship, a practice that, ironically, has many positive

www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 9 May 2025
e425
Personal View
impacts on long-term soil health and biodiversity in the
region.46
In addition to biodiversity concerns, there is also
confusion about how these new government land policies
intersect with carbon credit schemes. The Forest Carbon
Credit Management Project for Sustainable Development
in Thailand47 provides a model for fostering collaboration
between local communities and the private sector to
enhance forest conservation while reducing carbon
emissions. Through this project, communities gain
financial support for sustainable land management,
while private sectors receive carbon credits, which
promotes Thailand’s eorts towards carbon neutrality. In
areas of Thailand, such as Mae Chaem, monoculture
farming dominates the landscape; however, not all
Indigenous regions use this method; some traditionally
have thrived on sustainable rotational farming.
Indigenous communities, such as the Pgak’yau, argue
that the current carbon credit structure in Thailand is
more suited to large-scale monoculture, and not to the
diverse Indigenous practices including rotational
farming on mountain slopes. For Pgak’yau, carbon credit
schemes are often seen to go against their fundamental
beliefs and culture about how to live in balance with
nature, seeing the land as not something that can be
owned. As local communities advocate for land rights
and more sustainable farming alternatives, the challenge
remains to integrate these eorts with broader policies,
ensuring that Indigenous knowledges and practices are
recognised and supported.
Broader conservation policies in Thailand link back
to 2021 when the country pledged at the UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
26th Conference of the Parties (COP) to increase forest
cover to at least 55% by 2030.33 However, this pledge,
although seemingly beneficial for the environment, risks
marginalising Indigenous communities in the region
who have cared for their land sustainably for generations.
Without acknowledging Indigenous Peoples and their
knowledge systems and land management practices,
Thailand’s national policies are doing more harm than
good, creating a one-size-fits-all solution that fails
to consider local contexts and Indigenous rights. The
complex land-use systems in mountain Indigenous
communities in Thailand, which include managed
forests and shifting cultivation, provide crucial ecological
services in carbon storage and highlight the substantial
role of Indigenous Peoples and their knowledges in
sustaining both livelihoods and the environment.
In 2024, Thailand’s Ministry of Natural Resources and
Environment launched a carbon credit exchange for
121 community forests, aiming to support sustainable
forest management as part of Thailand’s carbon
neutrality goal by 2050.48 Although the carbon market
could oer a potential revenue stream for Indigenous
communities in the region, a new marketplace is needed
that prioritises Indigenous values and incorporates
Indigenous indicators of land management. A new
marketplace is particularly important for communities,
such as the Pgak’yau of Ban Nong Tao, as although
Thailand is a signatory of the UN Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Peoples are
not ocially recognised by the Thai Government. In
2024, the National Assembly of Thailand voted to remove
the words Indigenous People from Thailand’s first ethnic
rights bill.39 Indigenous Peoples in Thailand therefore
remain unprotected by the UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples or other Indigenous rights
mechanisms and are subjected to land management
policies without consent or mechanisms to contest them.
If carbon crediting is to continue to take root in Thailand,
there is a need to cocreate a system that generates income
for Indigenous communities without eroding the
cultural and environmental integrity of Indigenous
lands.
Potential opportunities with carbon markets for
Indigenous Peoples
Ensuring that carbon credit schemes avoid exacerbating
existing inequalities and do not violate Indigenous rights,
while supporting the self-determination and economic
self-suciency of Indigenous Peoples, is crucial for
achieving both environmental and social justice in
climate change mitigation and conservation eorts.
There are increasing carbon market opportunities for
interested Indigenous nations, which could lead to
economic benefits (eg, economic self-suciency), and a
potentially increased ability to protect some land bases
despite drawbacks (panel 3).49 Economic benefits for
Indigenous Peoples from traditional land management
practices have been consistently cited as a potential
incentive for Indigenous participation in such carbon
market activities. These programmes could also help to
preserve intergenerational knowledge and traditional
land stewardship practices through funded mechanisms
led by Indigenous Peoples. Despite these potential
benefits, based on the many challenges noted in panel 2
(eg, Indigenous rights violations, forced displacement,
and an absence of free, prior, and informed consent),
ensuring that Indigenous communities are key leaders
in any decision-making processes is crucial, while also
ensuring that free, prior, and informed consent is a
requirement for outside entities. Additionally, ensuring
interested Indigenous nations are fairly compensated
through appropriate and rights-based cobenefit agree-
ments is paramount.14,40
The importance of stringent regulation to hold
governments and corporate entities to account with
carbon market initiatives is essential. Additionally, the
upholding of human and Indigenous rights, and the
respect for genuine participation and decision making,
needs to be firmly underscored to restore credibility and
better ensure the success of carbon-oset initiatives
within interested Indigenous territories. Some

e426
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 9 May 2025
Personal View
Indigenous leaders have advocated for equitable benefit
distribution, respect for Indigenous knowledges, and
appropriate and respectful consultation in carbon-oset
projects. Meaningful engagement and capacity building
for Indigenous communities to be better able to navigate
carbon market complexities successfully and ensure
projects align with their values and rights are sorely
needed.17,50 For instance, the case of Kalpowar Station in
Australia highlights how traditional owners can negotiate
fairer carbon credit agreements, ensuring their rights
and knowledge are respected, while also benefiting
economically from sustainable land management
practices.51 Additionally, in Australia, Indigenous-led
carbon credit projects emphasise the value of traditional
knowledges and environmental stewardship, with eorts
focused on both economic gain and sustainable land
management (panel 4).51
Various carbon credit agreements and initiatives have
also been developed to assist Indigenous communities
economically. For example, in British Columbia, Canada,
Indigenous communities are leveraging carbon credits to
protect their lands, foster economic independence, and
combat climate change. The Atmospheric Benefit Sharing
Agreement in British Columbia allows Coastal First
Nations to own and sell carbon osets, thus reducing
industrial logging and generating revenue.58 Although
there are important nuances that create jurisdictional
complexities on so-called crown lands, the benefit sharing
agreement is a start for “First Nations to negotiate carbon
rights on a government-to-government basis through
negotiated treaties and reconciliation agreements”.49
Similarly, the agreement between Mosaic Forest
Management and Indigenous communities in British
Columbia defers logging and allows substantial earnings
through carbon credit sales. This project showcases the
potential for Indigenous rights recognition and
profitability in forest preservation.59 Specifically, Mosaic
Forest Management’s 25-year deferral of logging on
100 000 acres of land in Vancouver Island and Haida Gwaii
oers Indigenous Peoples up to CA$300 million from
carbon credits. By supporting Indigenous rights, land
management, and environmental stewardship, this
approach has the potential to strengthen conservation,
provide Indigenous communities with a source of
revenue, and reduce atmospheric carbon.
Multilateral environmental agreements
Several national and international platforms and
advocacy eorts have emerged to advance carbon market
mechanisms. Multilateral environmental agreements for
both climate change and biodiversity continue to
consider and operationalise elements of this work, and
have been said to have made some advancement in social
safeguards in 2024. However, from an Indigenous
perspective these stated social safeguards are not often
seen to be adequate for appropriate community
protections, as outlined in this Personal View.
Panel 4: Conservation, carbon markets, and Aboriginal Peoples in Australia
The Carbon Farming Initiative enables Aboriginal communities in Australia to leverage
traditional knowledges in carbon-offset projects. These projects inform practices that
enhance biodiversity alongside carbon sequestration.52 They reflect a holistic approach to
land management that prioritises both carbon mitigation and cultural goals. In southern
and eastern Australia, successful projects contribute to carbon mitigation and restore
Indigenous stewardship over traditional lands. Many of these projects involve planting
trees in areas that are identified as suitable for high carbon sequestration.17 These projects
have been instrumental in fostering economic opportunities and restoring Aboriginal
Peoples’ stewardship over traditional lands in the region.17 By integrating Indigenous
knowledges and practices, carbon projects in the region have promoted intercultural
exchanges and supported socioeconomic development for Aboriginal communities.53
The projects have additionally provided avenues for local participation in managing
commercial activities and re-establishing a connection with their lands.53
Australia’s carbon credit programme has also been implemented to address wildfire
management while additionally providing socioeconomic and environmental benefits for
Aboriginal communities. The programmes have led to better fire management outcomes,
including reduced dry season wildfires and increased early season prescribed burns, which
has been shown to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.54,55 As of 2021, 32 Aboriginal-owned
and operated savanna fire projects were underway across 17·9 million hectares in
northern Australia, with their work having abated around 1 million tonnes of emissions
per year, and having generated around AUD$95 million in Australian Carbon Credit Units
since 2012.56
Aboriginal communities in the country have benefited from the Indigenous-led carbon
credit programme through financial gains, enhanced community engagement in fire
management practices, and improved social and ecological outcomes. Additionally, the
carbon credit programme has shown potential for positive biodiversity outcomes by
maintaining fire-vulnerable taxa and improving ecosystem health.54,57 Overall, Australia’s
carbon credit landscape, although regionally based, has provided a promising framework
for integrating Indigenous-led fire management with climate change mitigation efforts,
yielding direct benefits to communities. However, there is a continued need to
“understand the process of generating verifiable carbon credits to sustain these
Indigenous fire management programs” in other regions of the world.55 Regardless,
integrating Aboriginal Peoples into Australia’s carbon markets has been seen to help
foster a sustainable future that benefits both the environment and self-determination of
Indigenous communities.
Panel 3: Potential opportunities for Indigenous Peoples who are interested in
engagement with carbon markets (particularly markets that are Indigenous-led)
• Economic benefits including improving economic self-sufficiency and maintaining
livelihoods
• Potential opportunity to preserve key traditional territories
• Preservation of traditional land management practices through funded mechanisms
• Where enabled, greater respect and inclusion of Indigenous knowledges
• Where enabled, greater decision-making power for intergenerational land
stewardship
• Where enabled, Indigenous leadership in conservation strategies
• Capacity building within Indigenous communities
• Supporting land management activities that support existing environmental and
cultural and enterprises17
• Maintaining or improving the health of the land

www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 9 May 2025
e427
Personal View
Under the UNFCCC, a crediting mechanism for
voluntary cooperation and financing was developed
through the Paris Agreement (Article 6).60 The
mechanism essentially allows countries to transfer
carbon credits earned from the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions to help one or more countries meet their
climate targets. The mechanism is intended to guide
progress and its rules, modalities, and procedures
(Article 6.4) with appropriate controls and safeguards.
However, at UNFCCC COP29 the process advanced
without clear standards on social and environmental
safeguards, leaving room for weak consideration of
human and Indigenous rights violations.61 A decision
was also taken without clear standards on methodology,
such as for equitable sharing of benefits and for broad
stakeholder participation.62 The process also advanced
without clear standards on removals, which includes
“avoidance of other negative environmental and social
impacts and respecting human rights and the rights of
Indigenous Peoples”.62
These concerns were amplified during the UNFCCC
COP29 by the International Indian Treaty Council, who
joined with other participants of the International
Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change
(representing over 150 Indigenous Peoples worldwide)
warning that these market-based mechanisms threaten
Indigenous Peoples’ ecosystems and rights, and enable
continued pollution under the guise of climate action.63
This Indigenous coalition has asked for recognition of
Indigenous “time-tested methods and practices for
ecosystem protection, restoration and resiliency to
address and minimize the climate crisis…[instead of] the
fast-tracking of carbon market schemes that allow states
to evade accountability while putting Indigenous Peoples’
health, safety, and rights at risk”.63
1 month before COP29, the Convention on Biological
Diversity (CBD) adopted a decision on Biodiversity and
Climate Change at CBD COP16 in 2024 that urged
parties to implement eective social and environmental
safeguards that can be used in the design of these
mechanisms (panel 5).64
This newly adopted CBD decision took several years to
reach consensus, and the success of its implementation
will depend on concerted and integrated action at the
national level. It will also be most eective if it is used as
a tool by the UNFCCC and other multilateral
environmental agreements. The use of the CBD decision
can be reinforced by a new platform for participation,
also adopted at CBD COP16, the new subsidiary body for
engagement of Indigenous peoples and local
communities (Subsidiary Body on Article 8j).66 The new
body intends to provide a formal and permanent role to
Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and for
traditional and local knowledges to influence global
biodiversity governance.67 The agreement to establish a
new Indigenous Peoples caucus at the UN Convention to
Combat Desertification COP16 in December, 2024, is
also a step in the right direction for inclusive global
governance of land.68 However, the operation and ability
of these new bodies to implement key change within
international structures is yet to be seen. However, no
such body exists for the UNFCCC COP processes, which
is a crucial gap moving forward in the climate change
area and for eectively and equitably linking climate
change and conservation agendas.
The way forward
The current carbon market model undermines land-use
practices, limits contributions to planetary health, and
further marginalises particular groups of people,
including Indigenous Peoples. This situation needs to
change. The examples from Thailand, Australia, and
Canada highlighted in this Personal View show both the
challenges and opportunities going forward.
Ultimately, the interactions between Indigenous
Peoples and carbon markets are complex and nuanced,
and associated with the relevant legal and political
circumstances in a respective region. The interactions
will additionally vary based on levels of awareness,
respect, trust, and accountability, as well as levels of
inherent Indigenous decision-making power within a
respective region. Currently, most carbon-related
mechanisms are clearly operating in a colonial way
(ie, perpetuating a new form of colonialism), risking
ongoing and direct harm to Indigenous communities
Panel 5: Environmental and social safeguards in the Convention on Biological
Diversity decision 16/22 (Biodiversity and Climate Change)64 adopted in 2024
• To identify synergies between biodiversity and climate change for the full carbon cycle
• To promote positive impacts and minimise negative impacts of climate actions on
biodiversity and ecosystem integrity, particularly for Indigenous Peoples and local
communities that depend on biodiversity
• To consider integrating and promoting nature-based solutions or ecosystem-based
approaches, non-market-based approaches, and Mother Earth-centric actions, as
recognised by some countries, to climate change adaptation, mitigation and
disaster risk reduction, and relevant national plans under various multilateral
environmental agreements (ie, Convention on Biological Diversity and UN
Framework Convention on Climate Change)
• Inviting the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its parties to consider
use of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s voluntary guidelines65 on ecosystem-
based approaches to climate change to integrate biodiversity and social safeguards in
mitigation and adaptation measures
• To take into account the diversity of values, worldviews, and knowledge systems,
including traditional knowledge of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and
the intersectional approaches to ensure contextually relevant actions for respecting,
protecting, promoting, and fulfilling human rights and enhancing empowerment,
agency, and intergenerational equity and the protection of Indigenous Peoples’ and
local communities’ rights over their lands, territories, and resources, and that potential
synergies between biodiversity and climate actions that have a direct or indirect
impact on land rights or human rights, as well as the rights of Indigenous Peoples and
local communities, should only be undertaken with their free, prior, and informed
consent

e428
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 9 May 2025
Personal View
and the planet. Some other Indigenous-led carbon credit
projects are showcasing the importance of self-
determination and the ability of Indigenous Peoples to
be leaders within the space if they so choose. Therefore,
carbon markets could be seen as a potential revenue
source for Indigenous-led land management when
verification processes consider and respect diverse ways
of knowing (eg, Indigenous traditional knowledges).
Many Indigenous Peoples also strongly push back at
the notion that the land should have a monetary value,
with the concept of carbon markets themselves showing a
colonial de-valuing and disconnection from nature. This
worldview of humans being disconnected from the land
they walk on perpetuates climate solutions (ie, carbon
markets) that are also themselves devoid of connections
to the land. Indigenous views and perspectives must
therefore be respected and honoured to avoid further
harm and to ensure Indigenous rights are upheld.
For entities seeking to work with Indigenous nations
that do have an interest in carbon market participation,
new codesign carbon marketplaces are needed that
prioritise Indigenous values, with appropriate monitors
to prevent homogenisation of the market (ie, little to no
flexibility for bespoke preferences), and ensure buyer
adherence to Indigenous principles. To value traditional
knowledges and optimise land and soil conservation,
carbon markets and related mechanisms should also
equally value Indigenous-based indicators of land
management, and their rights to define such indicators.
Several elements of any carbon market initiative must be
made standard to ensure the chance of long-term
planetary health for all, including: free, prior, and
informed consent; respect for Indigenous self-
determination and land tenure rights; recognition of
Indigenous knowledges; recognition of the human right
to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment; and
alignment of carbon market structures with
the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Indigenous Peoples have been stated to be a key
determinant of planetary health, with the health of the
planet being intrinsically tied to the wellbeing of
Indigenous Peoples.27
“When Indigenous Peoples have their Land, culture, and
sovereignty, they are more likely to have greater
wellbeing. Thus, they will continue to sustainably care
for…the worlds old-growth forests and the most
biodiverse regions on the planet.”27
Whether carbon markets are a successful strategy for
non-Indigenous peoples in the context of environmental
management is less contested. From an Indigenous
perspective, whether the orientation towards market-
based solutions of nature will work to support the planet
could well be contested. Orienting the hearts and minds
of non-Indigenous peoples to appreciate themselves as
being interconnected within nature will, in our view, not
come through monetary-based policies.
“…it became clear that Mother Earth[’s health] is
dependent on the human capacity to understand
interconnectedness as a basic and fundamental reality.”27
Contributors
NR, SO, VP, and SG: conceptualisation and methodology. NR and JC:
data curation, writing—original draft preparation. All authors: reviewing
and editing. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Declaration of interests
We declare no competing interests.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Land Body Ecologies for their support for this
project. We also would like to respectfully honour Indigenous Peoples
worldwide who continue to stand up for their rights as well as the rights
of Mother Earth. This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust
(#220767/Z/20/Z to NR, VP, SG, and SO). The funders had no role in
study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or
preparation of the manuscript.
References
1 Morgan Stanley. Where the carbon oset market is poised to surge.
April 11, 2023. https://www.morganstanley.com/ideas/carbon-
oset-market-growth (accessed Nov 18, 2024).
2 World Bank Group. Climate countdown: carbon pricing. https://
carbonpricingdashboard.worldbank.org/what-carbon-pricing
(accessed Nov 18, 2024).
3 David Suzuki Foundation. Carbon pricing. https://davidsuzuki.org/
project/carbon-pricing/ (accessed Nov 18, 2024).
4 Döbbeling-Hildebrandt N, Miersch K, Khanna TM, et al. Systematic
review and meta-analysis of ex-post evaluations on the eectiveness
of carbon pricing. Nat Commun 2024; 15: 4147.
5 Ollendyke D. Understanding carbon credits and osets.
Feb 13, 2023. https://extension.psu.edu/understanding-carbon-
credits-and-osets (accessed Nov 18, 2024).
6 The Cambridge Zero Policy Forum. Carbon osetting & nature-
based solutions to climate change. University of Cambridge, 2021.
7 Böhm S, Misoczky MC, Moog S. Greening capitalism? A Marxist
critique of carbon markets. Organ Stud 2012; 33: 1617–38.
8 Bumpus AG, Liverman DM. Carbon colonialism? Osets,
greenhouse gas reductions, and sustainable development. In:
Peet R, Robbins P, Watts M, eds. Global Political Ecology.
Routledge, 2010: 203–24.
9 Bachram H. Climate fraud and carbon colonialism: the new trade
in greenhouse gases. New Social 2004; 15: 5–20.
10 Haya BK, Alford-Jones K, Anderegg WRL, et al. Quality
assessment of REDD+ carbon credit projects. Berkeley Carbon
Trading Project, 2023.
11 Harvey F. Greenwashing or a net zero necessity? Climate scientists
on carbon osetting. The Guardian, Jan 18, 2023. https://www.
theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/greenwashing-or-net-
zero-necessity-climate-scientists-on-carbon-osetting-aoe
(accessed Nov 18, 2024).
12 Survival International. COP28: the threat to Indigenous peoples.
https://assets.survivalinternational.org/documents/2504/COP28_
and_Indigenous_peoples_-_press_briefing.pdf
(accessed Nov 18, 2024).
13 Greenfield P. The ‘carbon pirates’ preying on Amazon’s
Indigenous communities. The Guardian, Jan 21, 2023. https://
www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/21/amazon-
indigenous-communities-carbon-osetting-pirates-aoe
(accessed Nov 18, 2024).
14 Havemann P. Ignoring the mercury in the climate change
barometer: denying Indigenous peoples’ rights.
Aust Indigen Law Rev 2009; 13: 2–26.
15 Marshall C. Kenya’s Ogiek people being evicted for carbon credits—
lawyers. BBC, Nov 9, 2023. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-
africa-67352067 (accessed Nov 18, 2024).
16 Streck C, Laughlin J, Dyck M, Nuñez P, Vetter T. Indigenous
peoples and local communities in the voluntary carbon market:
a tool for informed decision making. Climate Focus, 2024. https://
climatefocus.com/ips-and-lcs-vcm-decision-making-tool/
(accessed Nov 18, 2024).

www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 9 May 2025
e429
Personal View
17 Robinson CJ, Gerrard E, May T, Maclean K. Australia’s Indigenous
carbon economy: a national snapshot. Geogr Res 2014; 52: 123–32.
18 Chiengkul P. Thailand’s carbon oset policies may undermine
climate action. Fulcrum, Nov 28, 2023. https://fulcrum.sg/
thailands-carbon-oset-policies-may-undermine-climate-action/
(accessed Nov 19, 2024).
19 WHO. WHO policy brief: loss and damage. World Health
Organization, 2022. https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-
source/climate-change/who-unfccc-cop27-loss-and-damage.pdf?sfvr
sn=b8a652a0_4&download=true (accessed Nov 19, 2024).
20 Kuaycharoen P. Forest colonialism in Thailand. World rainforest
movement, March 23, 2022. https://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin-
articles/forest-colonialism-in-thailand (accessed Nov 19, 2024).
21 Survival International. Carbon credits fever “now as big a threat to
Indigenous lands as logging and mining”. Dec 1, 2023. https://
www.survivalinternational.org/news/13802 (accessed Nov 19, 2024).
22 Estrada M. The carbon-oset market’s broken promises. The Jordan
Times, Oct 25, 2023. https://jordantimes.com/opinion/mateo-
estrada/carbon-oset-markets-broken-promises
(accessed Nov 19, 2024).
23 Lachnitt J, Tilianaki M, Baldon C, et al. Carbon osetting at the cost
of human rights? The case of TotalEnergies’ BaCaSi project in
Congo. Secours Catholique—Caritas France, 2023. https://www.
secours-catholique.org/sites/default/files/03-Documents/BACASI_
EN-Web_0.pdf (accessed Nov 19, 2024).
24 Dyck M, Nuñez P, Vetter T, Conway D. La Guía de Toma de
Decisiones sobre el Mercado Voluntario de Carbono para los
Pueblos Indígenas y las Comunidades Locales. Climate Focus, 2024.
https://climatefocus.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Guia-de-
Toma-de-Decisiones-sobre-el-MVC-para-los-PIs-y-las-CLs-1.pdf
(accessed Nov 19, 2024).
25 Ecotrust Canada. First Nations forest carbon toolkit. https://ecotrust.
ca/toolkit/first-nations-forest-carbon-toolkit/ (accessed Nov 19, 2024).
26 Redvers N, Poelina A, Schultz C, et al. Indigenous natural and first
law in planetary health. Challenges (Basel) 2020; 11: 29.
27 Redvers N, Celidwen Y, Schultz C, et al. The determinants of
planetary health: an Indigenous consensus perspective.
Lancet Planet Health 2022; 6: e156–63.
28 UN. Indigenous determinants of health in the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development. United Nations Economic and Social
Council, 2023. E/C.19/2023/1. https://documents.un.org/doc/
undoc/gen/n23/029/12/pdf/n2302912.pdf (accessed Nov 19, 2024).
29 UN. Improving the health and wellness of Indigenous Peoples
globally: operationalization of Indigenous determinants of health.
United Nations Economic and Social Council, 2024.
30 Redvers N. The determinants of planetary health.
Lancet Planet Health 2021; 5: e111–12.
31 Convention on Biological Diversity. 2030 targets (with guidance
notes). https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets (accessed Nov 19, 2024).
32 The Nature Conservancy. Why we’re committing to 30x30. https://
www.nature.org/en-us/what-we-do/our-priorities/protect-water-and-
land/land-and-water-stories/committing-to-30x30/
(accessed Nov 19, 2024).
33 Bangkok Tribune. Thailand to take part in the global forest and land
use protection declaration, almost five-month delay in action.
Bangkok Tribune, April 21, 2022. https://bkktribune.com/thailand-
to-take-part-in-the-global-forest-and-land-use-protection-declaration-
almost-five-month-delay-in-action/ (accessed Nov 19, 2024).
34 Rai ND, Devy MS, Ganesh T, et al. Beyond fortress conservation:
the long-term integration of natural and social science research for
an inclusive conservation practice in India. Biol Conserv 2021;
254: 108888.
35 Douma A. Forest people forced o their land in the name of
conservation. Forest Peoples Programme. 2016. https://www.
forestpeoples.org/sites/fpp/files/news/2016/08/160831_publication_
Human%20Rights%20project_def.pdfv (accessed Nov 19, 2024).
36 Kokunda S, Nahabwe H, Nahamya J, et al. Batwa Indigenous
Peoples forced eviction for “conservation”: a qualitative examination
on community impacts. PLOS Glob Public Health 2023; 3: e0002129.
37 Jones B. World leaders are racing to protect nature—but the
definition of one word is tripping them up. Vox, Dec 15, 2022.
https://www.vox.com/down-to-earth/2022/12/15/23508857/cop15-
biodiversity-montreal-conservation-protected-areas
(accessed Nov 19, 2024).
38 Bullock S, Hudson A, Roach B, Sandberg L, Steiner JL. Carbon
markets update—Q4 2022. Gibson Dunn, 2022.
39 Wachpanich N. Thailand’s ethnic rights law hits roadblock over
terminology. HaRDstories, Sept 27, 2024. https://hardstories.org/
stories/minority-rights/a-battle-over- words-derails-ethnic-
recognition-in-thailand (accessed Nov 19, 2024).
40 Jackson S, Palmer L, McDonald F, Bumpus A. Cultures of carbon
and the logic of care: the possibilities for carbon enrichment and its
cultural signature. Ann Am Assoc Geogr 2017; 107: 867–82.
41 Centre for Agricultural Information. The Oce of the National
Land Policy Board (ONLB) has organized the workshop on the topic
of “laws with the government’s operation”. 2024. https://oaezone.
oae.go.th/view/22/News/News/482/EN-US (accessed Nov 19, 2024).
42 Oce of the National Land Policy Board. Land allocation manual in
land allocation for communities under the National Land Policy
Board (NLB) revised edition, 5th edn. Oce of the National Land
Policy Board, 2023 (in Thai).
43 The Royal Forest Department Thailand. Prime Minister’s Oce
Regulations on Resolving Problems of Encroachment on State
Land. The Royal Forest Department Thailand, 2002 (in Thai).
44 Hayward D. Community land titling in Thailand: the legal evolution
and piloting of titling policy. Mekong Land Research Forum – The
Center Regional Center for Social Science and Sustainable
Development, Chiang Mai University, and Mekong Region Land
Governance project, 2017.
45 Oce of the National Land Policy Board. การจัดที่ดินทำากินให้ชุมชน
บ้านแม่ทา อำาเภอแม่ออน จังหวัดเชียงใหม่. 2015. https://onlb.go.th/
nlb/112-การจัดที่ดินทำากิน-มอบหนังสืออนุญาต-แม่ทา-เชียงใหม่
(accessed Nov 20, 2024).
46 Pratt V, Odochao S, Gougsa S, Katanyoutanant J, Luoma C, Raj R.
Thailand: the link between mental health and ecosystem health in
Indigenous farming communities. In: Packer M, McGrath P, eds.
Climate and health: science-based policy solutions. InterAcademy
Partnership. 2024: 149–58.
47 Mae Fah Luang Foundation under Royal Patronage. Carbon Credit
from community forests for sustainability. https://www.
maefahluang.org/en/domestic-program-08/ (accessed Nov 20, 2024).
48 Kaohoon. “Ministry of National Resources and Environment” opens
trading of “Community Forest Carbon Credits” in 121 locations, to
achieve sustainable Net Zero. 2024. https://www.kaohoon.com/
news/700776 (accessed Nov 20, 2024).
49 Connolly M. First nations carbon: a BCAFN discussion paper.
BC Assembly of First Nations, 2022.
50 Peters N. Navigating Guyana’s carbon market dilemma. Stabroek
News, 2024. https://www.stabroeknews.com/2024/02/22/features/
navigating-guyanas-carbon-market-dilemma/
(accessed Nov 20, 2024).
51 Grieve C, Koob SF, South J. Carbon ‘sharks’: how private companies
are cashing in on ancient practices. The Age, Sept 15, 2024. https://
www.theage.com.au/interactive/2024/carbon-credits/
(accessed Nov 20, 2024).
52 Weir JK. Country, native title and ecology. ANU E Press and
Aboriginal History Incorporated, 2012.
53 Robinson CJ, Wallington T, Gerrard E, Griggs D, Walker D, May T.
Draft Indigenous co-benefit criteria and requirements to inform the
development of Australia’s Carbon Farming Initiative. CSIRO, 2011.
https://www.academia.edu/3420894/Draft_Indigenous_co_benefit_
criteria_and_requirements_to_inform_the (accessed Nov 20, 2024).
54 Russell-Smith J, Yates CP, Edwards AC, Whitehead PJ, Murphy BP,
Lawes MJ. Deriving multiple benefits from carbon market-based
savanna fire management: an Australian example. PLoS One 2015;
10: e0143426.
55 Nikolakis W, Welham C, Greene G. Diusion of Indigenous fire
management and carbon-credit programs: opportunities and
challenges for “scaling-up” to temperate ecosystems.
Front For Glob Change 2022; 5: 967653.
56 The Nature Conservancy. Bringing Indigenous fire back to
Northern Australia. https://www.nature.org/en-us/about-us/where-
we-work/asia-pacific/australia/stories-in-australia/bringing-
indigenous-fire-back-to-northern-australia/ (accessed Nov 21, 2024).
57 Edwards A, Archer R, De Bruyn P, et al. Transforming fire
management in northern Australia through successful
implementation of savanna burning emissions reductions projects.
J Environ Manage 2021; 290: 112568.

e430
www.thelancet.com/planetary-health Vol 9 May 2025
Personal View
58 Coastal First Nations. Great Bear Initiative. Carbon credits. https://
coastalfirstnations.ca/our-land/carbon-credits/
(accessed Nov 21, 2024).
59 Carbon Credits. Carbon credits end the war between Indigenous
peoples and loggers. Carbon Credits, July 29, 2022. https://
carboncredits.com/carbon-credits-end-the-war-between-indigenous-
peoples-and-loggers/ (accessed Nov 21, 2024).
60 UN. Paris Agreement crediting mechanism. https://unfccc.int/
process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/article-64-mechanism
(accessed Nov 21, 2024).
61 UNFCCC. Rules, modalities and procedures for the mechanism
established by Article 6, paragraph 4, of the Paris Agreement and
referred to in decision 3/CMA.3. United Nations, 2024. https://
unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2024_L01E.pdf
(accessed Nov 21, 2024).
62 UNFCCC. Application of the requirements of Chapter V.B
(Methodologies) for the development and assessment of Article 6.4
mechanism methodologies. United Nations, 2024. https://unfccc.
int/sites/default/files/resource/A6.4-SBM014-A05.pdf
(accessed Nov 21, 2024).
63 The International Indian Treaty Council. IITC condemns UNFCCC
COP 29’s approval of the carbon market as a direct threat to
Indigenous rights and climate justice. Nov 14, 2024. https://www.
iitc.org/iitc-condemns-unfccc-cop-29s-approval-of-the-carbon-
market-as-a-direct-threat-to-indigenous-rights-and-climate-justice/
(accessed Nov 21, 2024).
64 Convention on Biological Diversity. Biodiversity and climate
change. United Nations Environment Programme, 2024.
65 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Voluntary
guidelines for the design and eective implementation of
ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and
disaster risk reduction and supplementary information. Secretariat
of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2019. https://www.cbd.
int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-93-en.pdf (accessed Nov 21, 2024).
66 Convention on Biological Diversity. COP 16 in Cali: progress
towards making peace with nature. Convention on Biological
Diversity, 2024. https://www.cbd.int/article/agreement-reached-
cop-16 (accessed Nov 21, 2024).
67 UN. Biodiversity COP 16: important agreement reached towards
goal of “making peace with nature”. United Nations, 2024. https://
www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/blog/2024/11/biodiversity-
cop-16-important-agreement-reached-towards-goal-of-making-peace-
with-nature-2/ (accessed Nov 21, 2024).
68 UN. UNCCD Decision 5/COP.16: participation and involvement of
civil society organizations in meetings and processes of the United
Nations Convention to Combat Desertification. United Nations,
2024. https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/2025-03/5-cop16.pdf
(accessed March 29, 2025).
Copyright © 2025 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an
Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license