Bolivia’s carbon-market expansion raises Indigenous land and consent concerns

Carbon becomes a contested asset

Indigenous leaders in Bolivia’s northern Pando region are challenging the terms on which companies and the government are opening the Amazon to carbon-credit projects. The Guardian’s September 14 investigation found that communities holding collective title over the Multi-ethnic Indigenous Territory II fear that long contracts and a proposed national law could weaken their practical control over forests, carbon rights and project revenues.

The immediate dispute follows Bolivia’s shift away from its earlier resistance to treating nature as a tradable commodity. After a constitutional ruling removed a barrier to carbon-market activity in 2024, private organisations pursued agreements covering extensive Indigenous territory. One reported contract assigned responsibility for creating, auditing and selling credits across 440,000 hectares for 30 years. Community representatives later rejected the arrangement, alleging inadequate explanation and pressure; the foundation involved disputes those allegations.

Consent is the central issue

The government is now developing rules for a national market. Supporters say a formal law could impose transparent and verifiable standards, while critics argue that consultation language without an effective right to refuse leaves communities exposed. The concern is not simply whether residents receive payments. It is who owns the underlying carbon claim, who controls project decisions, how benefits are divided and whether consent remains valid throughout a project’s life.

Dated European Union material supports the wider rights framework without independently confirming the disputed Bolivian contracts. An EU statement to the UN Permanent Forum in April said Indigenous perspectives must be meaningfully integrated into climate decisions. A European Parliament study published in May examined how international credits and other transition projects affect communities in lower-income countries, highlighting socio-environmental and political risks alongside possible benefits.

The next test is the legislation

Attention now shifts to the bill’s text, parliamentary handling and any consultation process before enactment. Provisions on free, prior and informed consent, cancellation rights, transparent registries, independent auditing and revenue allocation will determine whether the market strengthens conservation finance or reproduces older extractive relationships. Investors also face a durability problem: credits tied to contested authority or unclear consent may be challenged later, undermining both community trust and the environmental claims buyers expect to make.