Carbon markets, designed as pivotal mechanisms to incentivize climate action by monetizing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, are increasingly under scrutiny for inadvertently disadvantaging Indigenous stewardship of land. A coalition of experts has recently brought to light significant concerns regarding the structural biases embedded in current carbon market frameworks—particularly how these economic systems penalize long-term Indigenous care by rewarding environmental restoration activities predominantly on previously degraded lands. This revelation emerges from a comprehensive commentary published in Nature Climate Change, underscoring urgent calls for a paradigm shift in how carbon markets recognize and value ecosystem management.
At the heart of this controversy lies the principle of “additionality,” a cornerstone of carbon market integrity that demands credited interventions produce climate benefits exceeding a baseline scenario of what would have happened without intervention. Traditional interpretations of additionality categorize intact ecosystems—often under continuous Indigenous custodianship—as baseline conditions that do not warrant carbon crediting. Conversely, lands suffering from historical damage, which are later restored, become eligible for lucrative awards. This dichotomy unintentionally marginalizes Indigenous landowners who have prevented degradation over centuries, thus receiving no financial acknowledgement or reward for their proactive protection efforts.
Professor Peter Macreadie, Director of RMIT’s Centre for Nature Positive Solutions and lead author of the publication, articulates the unintended consequences of such market designs. He emphasizes that while carbon markets aim to promote climate action, they risk deepening existing inequities by privileging parties who damaged ecosystems historically, while excluding Indigenous custodians who have maintained these ecosystems. This structural flaw not only jeopardizes the fairness of carbon finance but also threatens the overall credibility and efficacy of climate mitigation strategies reliant on these financial mechanisms.
This issue is poignantly illustrated by the experiences of the Yirrganydji people of tropical northern Australia. Brian Singleton, a Yirrganydji Aboriginal Bama and Land Manager, highlights how his community’s millennia-old stewardship is rendered invisible and uncompensated in carbon markets. Singleton underscores the persistent ecological challenges faced even in intact mangrove systems, such as dieback, erosion, pollution, and altered hydrology, which demand ongoing care and active management. These vital practices, critical for resilience and adaptation to climate change, are essentially disregarded under current crediting mechanisms that fail to accommodate Indigenous models of land governance.
The exclusion of Indigenous voices and experiences during the establishment of carbon market frameworks further exacerbates this problem. Singleton stresses that the lack of authentic consultation with traditional owners has resulted in a system misaligned with Indigenous realities and priorities. The work of Indigenous custodians—physical, cultural, and ecological—is thus not legitimized or financially supported, creating a barrier to sustaining crucial conservation efforts and inhibiting the intergenerational transmission of environmental knowledge and stewardship practices.
From a legal and policy standpoint, RMIT legal scholar Dr. Vanessa Johnston advocates for integrative reforms that explicitly recognize Indigenous stewardship as a legitimate and critical form of climate action. Such reforms would recalibrate additionality criteria to accommodate active, ongoing ecosystem management, particularly in ecosystems at risk from factors such as invasive species, altered fire regimens, and hydrological disruptions. Johnston asserts that this approach is not a dilution of carbon market rigor but an essential correction that aligns these systems with broader conservation obligations implicit in Indigenous land tenure and governance.
Recognizing stewardship in carbon markets entails broadening the definition of climate action beyond restoration projects to include sustained ecosystem protection and management activities. This involves acknowledging the complex socio-ecological dynamics of Indigenous lands, where conservation outcomes depend intimately on continuous human intervention rather than passive non-degradation. Legal frameworks would need to facilitate Indigenous leadership in project ownership and guarantee equitable participation, moving beyond treating Indigenous groups as ancillary stakeholders.
Such transformations necessitate a convergence of environmental science, legal scholarship, and Indigenous knowledge systems. Professor Macreadie’s interdisciplinary approach underscores the nuanced tensions between carbon market mechanisms and Indigenous land management values. The findings suggest that current integrity rules, while well-intentioned, are misaligned with the realities of conservation as practiced by many Indigenous communities globally, risking systemic exclusion and underinvestment in lands that are vital for climate resilience.
Furthermore, this conversation highlights broader issues in environmental economics concerning the measurement and monetization of ecosystem services. The conventional focus on restoration metrics inadvertently overlooks preventative care and maintenance, which often yield equally significant, albeit less quantifiable, climate benefits. Carbon market models must evolve to incorporate sophisticated ecological indicators that capture the multifaceted nature of ecosystem health and recognize ongoing Indigenous contributions to carbon sequestration and biodiversity preservation.
Ultimately, addressing these shortcomings is critical for leveraging carbon finance as a tool for both climate mitigation and social justice. By embedding Indigenous stewardship into the architecture of carbon markets, these systems can better honor the custodial relationship Indigenous peoples hold with their lands, ensuring their knowledge and efforts are not only acknowledged but incentivized. This move would underpin more equitable and effective climate solutions, fostering durable partnerships between Indigenous custodians, policymakers, and market actors.
The article, titled “Additionality requirements of carbon markets could penalise Indigenous stewardship,” was published in Nature Climate Change on March 4, 2026. It signals a call to action to reimagine carbon market protocols in ways that are inclusive, scientifically grounded, and legally sound, ultimately fostering a more just and sustainable climate future.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Additionality requirements of carbon markets could penalise Indigenous stewardship
News Publication Date: 4-Mar-2026
Web References: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02576-2
References: DOI: 10.1038/s41558-026-02576-2
Image Credits: Through The Looking Glass Studio
Keywords: Carbon capture, Indigenous peoples, Conservation policies, Environmental economics
