Conservation Projects, Measures & Policies: Question 11

[ISCCLAdmin Brabec]

#5082

Please identify and share examples of how cultural rights are accounted for and protected in the scope of carbon markets and carbon offsetting schemes designed to protect biodiversity.

[Alda Azevedo Ferreira]

#5113

To understand how cultural rights are considered and protected within carbon markets and biodiversity offset systems in Brazil, it is necessary to examine both successful experiences and the safeguards developed in recent years.
The Suruí Forest Carbon Project, created by the Paiter-Suruí people in Rondônia, was initiated by the Indigenous community itself, not by external organizations. During the first general assembly in 2009, 95% of the participants approved the continuation of the project; each clan and village participated in the discussions, and all decisions were made by consensus. External partners emphasized that carbon credits were not the sole path to development but should integrate with the Suruí people’s broader territorial and cultural management plan. This case shows how self-determination and free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) can be effectively embedded in carbon initiatives, ensuring that benefits align with cultural and environmental priorities.
Another relevant example is the Juma Sustainable Development Reserve (RDS) REDD+ Project in Amazonas. Validated under the Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA) standard, the project was implemented by the Amazonas Sustainable Foundation (FAS) with private-sector partners. Revenue from carbon credit sales has funded activities in environmental monitoring, sustainable livelihoods, community empowerment, scientific research, and education, in addition to direct payments for environmental services through the “Standing Forest” program. This demonstrates that voluntary carbon markets can channel resources toward education, capacity building, and the preservation of local cultural practices.
At the institutional level, Brazil’s Attorney General’s Office and FUNAI (the National Indigenous Foundation) recognize that Indigenous peoples are entitled to all economic benefits generated by REDD+ projects within their territories. Representation must follow Indigenous social organization, and payments can be made either in cash or through ethnodevelopment initiatives. Contracts must respect collective will and customary law, or they risk nullification. FUNAI further requires that projects be located only on officially demarcated Indigenous lands and include a participatory territorial management plan detailing benefit-sharing and social control mechanisms. These measures aim to protect cultural continuity and territorial autonomy.
Civil society organizations have echoed these principles. The Terra de Direitos technical note warns that carbon contracts may interfere with traditional livelihoods if they impose restrictions on ancestral practices such as farming, housing construction, or vegetation use. It stresses that communities must have the right to define their economic, social, and cultural development priorities and participate in the design, implementation, and evaluation of any project affecting them. The document highlights that consultations must occur during the planning phase and assess social, spiritual, and cultural impacts, following precedents set by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Respect for Indigenous consultation protocols is a binding requirement under ILO Convention No. 169.
Among extractivist communities, the National Council of Extractive Populations (CNS) published Guidelines for REDD+ Projects in Extractive Reserves (2023). The document mandates that proponents begin dialogue with local associations and present a preliminary proposal to the community to initiate the FPIC process. It also requires that all management tools (e.g., management plans and consultation protocols) be respected and that the identity and traditional lifestyles of the community be safeguarded through fair and equitable benefit-sharing models.
Indigenous organizations have also mobilized around this issue. In its 2023 COIAB (Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon) climate statement, Indigenous leaders called for continuous training on carbon markets and implementation of the Cancun Safeguards, aimed at preventing risks to Indigenous sovereignty, autonomy, and well-being. The document urges full participation in REDD+ governance and climate negotiations, accessible information campaigns in Indigenous languages, and support for the development of life plans and consultation protocols.
Academic institutions and policy think tanks, such as the FGV/EAESP (Fundação Getúlio Vargas – São Paulo School of Business Administration), also highlight the social dimension of carbon markets. Their 2025 report on carbon markets in collective territories argues that FPIC, information symmetry, and equitable benefit-sharing are essential for protecting rights and ensuring the cultural and social reproduction of communities. The report recommends creating a public database of REDD+ initiatives, improving institutional coordination, and strengthening land tenure and environmental policies to promote meaningful participation.
Finally, a 2024 policy brief from the Amazon Environmental Research Institute (IPAM) stresses that social and environmental safeguards must ensure gender equity, and the inclusion of Indigenous, quilombola, and traditional peoples, while addressing socio-environmental risks. It recognizes that these groups have historically conserved the forest and should be fairly compensated, warning that persistent challenges include the lack of effective participation, absence of consultation protocols, unequal benefit-sharing, and insufficient territorial protection.
Taken together, these examples illustrate that carbon markets and biodiversity offset systems in Brazil can uphold cultural rights when they embed FPIC, ensure collective participation, promote fair benefit-sharing, and value traditional knowledge. However, as noted by Terra de Direitos and the CNS, carbon contracts that disregard community autonomy risk reproducing forms of “green colonialism.” Strengthening social oversight, transparency, and safeguards remains essential to ensure that climate and biodiversity goals advance hand in hand with the protection of the cultural identities and livelihoods that sustain Brazil’s forests.

[Author]

Posts