Additional context on Mongabay piece on Indigenous self-determination in the carbon market

Sharing this new co-authored opinion piece in Mongabay, written with esteemed colleagues Dr. Kanyinke Sena , PhD and Bariki Lesamana Lelya, MSc. We aim to nudge the present discourse on whether carbon market projects are “right or wrong” for Indigenous people in a more nuanced direction, centered on the right to self-determination.

While I am something of a newcomer to carbon projects/markets, select engagements in the last few years have increased my appreciation as to both opportunities and impacts. I recognize the need for a market component in any mandatory global emission reduction scheme, and the importance of testing standards and compliance mechanisms now, while we drive towards that mandatory market. And I have witnessed more interest by Indigenous peoples in market participation than one might think from the state and tone of the advocacy.

I am a strong proponent of accountability. Among other things, I am pushing on multiple fronts for the full establishment of Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) expectations and practice in the conservation and climate spaces. In a paper with leading scientists last year, I helped include HRDD as a core element of what counts as a “solution” for purposes defining legitimate Natural Climate Solutions, and I helped workshop the forthcoming Core Human Rights Principles for Private Conservation Organizations and Funders, which UNEP will launch at the upcoming CBD COP in Cali in October, and which also fully embed HRDD. HRDD doesn’t solve all problems, but it is a practical and scalable way to enter the human rights conversation with communities, to start generating knowledge and building trust, and to frame the responsibility to respect in ways that are less subject to avoidance, tick-box compliance, false guarantees, scandal, and resentment.

I fully recognize the need for loud voices to build momentum and disrupt conventional thinking rooted in impunity and inequity, I think my record reflects that quite a bit. ?? But tbh, I am not in love with the headline-focused, scandal-seeking mindset driving the current carbon market discussion. The science and supporting practice here is complex and evolving, rooted in delicate and conflicted political and economic contexts. See here for some issue-spotting of these kinds of complexities, in relation to a recent example of scandal reporting.

If/when we start to shift significantly to direct community financing and community-based implementation, a roughshod, scandal-focused mindset could become increasingly ill-suited and problematic. Without eschewing accountability, supporters of this transition must pay close attention to deeper challenges of genuinely equitable cultural dialogue and root their support fundamentally in self-determination. Support should be constructive, patient, and focused on learning—including the essential art of “failing forward.”

Is that shift happening? I was at Climate Week and felt a range of emotions and impressions, including both inspiration and fear of toxic positivity. I did note that many panels could and did make the shift from calls for action and discussion of hypotheticals to workshopping actual experience, and that there are signs of increase in both the transparency of the numbers and the numbers themselves. Genuine community-based conservation is on a similar trajectory. Worthy ambitions and promising steps. Leaning in.