• With the expansion of government forest protection programs like REDD+ in recent years, Indigenous communities are increasingly asking if these initiatives boost their autonomy and benefits, or repeat old patterns of exclusion.
• These programs’ success will increasingly depend on the full participation of their peoples in the process that determines how benefits and revenues from these transactions are shared, three Indigenous and Afro-descendant leaders write in a new op-ed.
• “We believe the path forward is clear: climate policy must be built with communities, not for them,” they say.
• This article is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily of Mongabay.

See All Key Ideas

In recent years, we have seen clear signs that the global market for forest and nature-based carbon credits is gaining momentum. More and more companies and governments are turning to forests as part of their climate strategies, and analysts expect this trend to continue as demand grows for solutions that deliver real and verifiable benefits for the climate, nature and people. Recent market assessments show sustained activity in the voluntary carbon market in 2025 and project further growth toward 2026, particularly for high-integrity credits linked to nature and forests.

For those of us who live in and protect tropical forests, this is an important moment. As government forest protection programs, known as jurisdictional REDD+, begin to operate on a larger scale, covering entire forest countries or states, more funding will flow through systems that affect our territories, our livelihoods and our future. Whether this expansion strengthens our autonomy and benefits our communities or repeats old patterns of exclusion will depend, above all, on the full participation of our peoples in the process that determines how the benefits and revenues from these transactions are shared.

We write as Indigenous, Afro-descendant, and traditional forest harvesting community leaders. From our perspective, how benefits are shared is not a technical detail or a box to check for governments seeking to sell credits, or companies buying them. It is central to ensuring that transactions are fair and that our rights are respected, and central to the very survival of our way of life.

Indigenous people like this Kichwa guide in the Ecuadorian Amazon should help point the way on forest finance. Image by Rhett A. Butler for Mongabay.

Building climate finance with communities, not for them

For those of us who live in and protect tropical forests, meaningful participation in climate finance goes far beyond being invited to a process when the paths are already defined or decisions have already been made. It means having the information, time, space and resources necessary to participate in good-faith dialogue and make decisions without being at a disadvantage.

From a climate finance perspective, these principles are not abstract. Programs that incorporate meaningful participation and clear benefit-sharing arrangements will be more credible, more durable, and offer the integrity that buyers increasingly expect.

Our experiences across multiple continents demonstrate what this looks like in practice:

In the Brazilian state of Pará, traditional forest harvesting communities are participating in a jurisdictional REDD+ consultation process on an unprecedented scale. Nearly a thousand of these communities sustainably manage about one-fifth of the state’s forest area. Recognizing that REDD+ is complex and unfamiliar, community networks worked with civil society organizations and the state to strengthen understanding before consultations took place. This has resulted in one of the largest consultation efforts ever undertaken in Brazil, helping to ensure that discussions on benefit sharing are anchored in territorial realities and that our voices are heard. As we say: nothing for us, without us.

In Costa Rica, Indigenous organizations spent years in dialogue with the government to establish a framework that goes beyond one-off consultations, addressing underlying issues such as land tenure and legal security before defining benefit sharing. This careful approach led Indigenous governments to approve participation in a jurisdictional carbon market initiative linked to LEAF Coalition credits. The benefit-sharing framework is applied consistently to different sources of climate finance coming into the country and provides clarity on how resources will flow once credits are issued.

In northern Esmeraldas, Ecuador, through the Afro-Ecuadorian Comarca of Northern Esmeraldas (CANE), Afro-Ecuadorian communities are driving benefit-sharing processes rooted in ancestral territories that include forests, rivers and mangroves. By first securing documentation affirming territorial rights, communities created a basis for negotiating directly with the government. The resulting benefit-sharing plan reflects the communities’ knowledge, priorities and cultural practices, ensuring that the people who protect forest and mangrove ecosystems are fully recognized for their role.

What matters most to us are not promises, but the rules that determine how decisions are made and how resources should actually reach the communities that hold the land. When benefit sharing, governance and accountability are clearly defined, conflicts are reduced, risks are avoided, and greater trust is created for all parties involved.

Delegates from Indigenous, Quilombola, and other communities at a REDD+ consultation in Para, Brazil. Image courtesy of Kelly Souza / Ascom Semas.

Three lessons for 2026 and beyond

There are three key lessons from our experience that should guide how benefit sharing is approached as jurisdictional REDD+ programs scale up:

1. Partnerships are essential, and trust-building is critical. Agreements are only possible when governments and communities are willing to listen to each other and make serious commitments over time. Dialogue must be equitable, intercultural, institutionalized, and not symbolic. This involves early engagement, culturally appropriate information, and community-led processes that allow people to understand what is being proposed and shape decisions before they are finalized.
2. Equity cannot be reduced to a percentage. A fair distribution of benefits must reflect rights, territorial realities, and the different forms of long-term stewardship and contribution by communities. Currently, carbon markets tend to prioritize offsetting based on measured emissions reductions against recent deforestation baselines, favoring high-risk contexts, while undervaluing the historical contribution of communities that have ensured the conservation of forests and ecosystems for generations. Therefore, fair distribution should not be limited to establishing a percentage of benefits for communities but should ensure that allocation mechanisms equitably recognize both recent risk mitigation and sustained conservation over time.
3. Transparency is essential for credibility. Clear and publicly understood rules on how benefits are distributed help build trust across the market, for communities, governments and buyers. Transparency enables accountability and strengthens long-term credibility.

 

Rainforest tree in Costa Rica. Photo by Rhett Butler for Mongabay.

Recognizing the diverse guardians of the forest

Forest protection is carried out by many peoples, in many ways. No single group has all the answers. But Indigenous and Afro-descendant communities, traditional forest harvesting communities, small producers, and many other forest communities around the world contribute knowledge, governance systems and relationships with the land that have sustained forests for thousands of generations.

We do not all speak with one voice, and we have very diverse needs. What may be right for one community will not work for others. But what unites us is our shared responsibility for the forests that have been our home for centuries. Forests matter for the global climate, but they are more than a financial opportunity or a way for countries to meet their climate commitments. We know that when protected, the cultural, environmental and economic abundance these ecosystems offer in return is irreplaceable.

It is long overdue, but the world is beginning to recognize what we have known for centuries: a healthy planet needs healthy forests. The role our communities play must be recognized and rewarded, and now is the time to get it right.

As jurisdictional REDD+ programs expand in 2026 and beyond, how benefit-sharing arrangements are designed will determine whether forest financing builds trust and partnership, or deepens skepticism within forest communities.

We believe the path forward is clear: climate policy must be built with communities, not for them. When communities play a central role in decision-making and when benefit sharing is equitable and transparent, forests and communities and climate action are all strengthened. A win for people, a win for nature, and a win for the planet.

 

Inés Morales Lastra is Palenquera Mayor of the Confederación Comarca Afroecuatoriana del Norte de Esmeraldas (CANE); José Ivanildo Brilhante is director of CNS Pará in Brazil; and Levi Sucre is coordinator of the Mesoamerican Alliance of Peoples and Forests (AMPB) in Costa Rica.

Banner image: Emergent rainforest tree in the Ecuadorian Amazon. Drone photo by Rhett Ayers Butler for Mongabay.

See related coverage:

Indigenous governance key to protecting Amazon Basin connectivity, experts say

Nepal signs major carbon deal but community access remains challenging

In Brazil’s capital, Indigenous leaders rally as land disputes and mining pressures grow