Carbon markets rule change would harm mitigation and Indigenous peoples

A well-meaning proposal to recognise Indigenous stewardship in carbon markets could backfire, worsening climate change and harming the very communities it aims to protect.

That’s the warning in a new Nature Climate Change Correspondence out today, co-authored by our Senior Founding Partner Axel Michaelowa together with Phillip Williamson (University of East Anglia) and Sophia Johannessen (Fisheries and Oceans Canada).

While the authors don’t contest the value of Indigenous stewardship, which has protected natural carbon sinks over centuries or millennia, they argue that compromising additionality – the principle that credits can only be issued for emissions reductions that would not otherwise have occurred – is the wrong way to recognise it.

“Additionality is fundamental to the environmental integrity of carbon markets,” says Axel, who has worked on the concept of additionality in international carbon markets over the last 20 years. “If emission credits are awarded for activities that would have happened anyway — such as the continued existence of a natural carbon sink — new emissions are not truly offset, and net emissions increase.”

More non-additional credits means more climate change, falling the hardest on the same Indigenous communities the proposal seeks to support. The authors’ alternative: support Indigenous stewardship through dedicated mechanisms outside carbon markets, such as public programmes, philanthropy, blue and green bonds, or insurance products. For blue carbon ecosystems (like mangroves, salt marshes, and seagrass), they note that demonstrating additionality remains challenging, even for restoration.

Read the full Correspondence.