In July 2024, Colombia’s Constitutional Court issued a landmark decision: Ruling T-248, which reaffirmed the rights of Indigenous peoples to decide if and how REDD+ carbon projects occur on their lands. The case was brought by the Pirá Paraná Indigenous Council against the Baka Rokarire REDD+ project developers Masbosques, Soluciones Proambiente, and others, including the Standard Cercarbono and the Ministry of Environment of Colombia. The plaintiffs argued that REDD+ activities in their territory were launched without proper consent, violating their constitutional rights.
The Court sided with the community, stating that the project lacked a credible free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) and that existing legal safeguards were inadequate. It ordered the government to draft new rules to ensure REDD+ projects respect Indigenous autonomy, culture, and territory.
In response to the T-248 ruling, the Colombian government enacted the Decree 488 in May 2025, which adds a powerful new tool to Indigenous governance: the right of “cultural objection.”
This decree allows Indigenous communities to veto any project—including new and already existing REDD+ projects—if it is considered harmful to their spiritual, cultural, or territorial values. Crucially, this right applies even after FPIC has been granted. In practice, this means that even if a project has already completed the formal FPIC process and received community approval, it can still be blocked later if the Indigenous community determines that the project’s activities, impacts, or terms conflict with their cultural values, spiritual beliefs, or territorial rights.
This “cultural veto” is being hailed as a milestone for Indigenous rights. Advocates argue it strengthens the procedural and substantive protections of FPIC. However, from a project developer’s perspective, the new rule introduces a second layer of review—one that is potentially open-ended, subjective, and poorly defined in terms of how and when it must be applied.
Developers will now face higher legal and social risk, not only at the start of a project but throughout its lifespan. This is especially challenging in jurisdictions where REDD+ initiatives span vast areas and engage multiple Indigenous groups with different governance structures.
Colombia has been a regional leader in forest carbon projects for several years. The forestry and land use sector represents a large portion of the credit retirements, in fact 55% of the +268 million credits retired between 2020 and 2024 are from forestry and land use projects -mostly REDD- according to AlliedOffsets (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Colombia Retirements by Sector in the last 5 Years. Forestry and Land Use in green. Source: AlliedOffsets.
According to ASOCARBONO, a Colombian carbon market stakeholders association, REDD+ initiatives in the country helped avoid 40,000 hectares of deforestation per year between 2013 and 2021. Colombia's participation in carbon markets is also noteworthy as there are currently 103 REDD projects -mostly under Verra, Biocarbon and Cercarbono- that are or could potentially be affected by the Court's Ruling (Figure 2). As of 2025, Indigenous land represents 8.7 million hectares, or around 25% of Colombia’s territory.
While organizations like ASOCARBONO and the project developers Masbosques -who has 10 other projects in Colombia (Figure 3)- have welcomed the Court’s decision—stating it improves transparency and community trust—the market implications are complicated.
Figure 3: List of projects owned by Masbosques in Colombia. Source: AlliedOffsets.
Investors and project developers now face an environment of heightened regulatory uncertainty:
Until the Ministry of Environment releases its protocol—mandated by the Court—developers will have to navigate these questions in a legal grey zone. This adds risk, increases project timelines, and may reduce investor confidence in the local market.
Ruling T-248 and Decree 488 reflect a broader trend: national courts and local communities are exerting more influence over the voluntary carbon market (VCM). These moves strengthen social integrity—a critical dimension of high-quality carbon credits—but also expose the fragility of market frameworks when legal systems are in flux.
For Colombia, the message is clear: future REDD+ projects must be co-designed with Indigenous authorities, under both FPIC and cultural terms. But until the new legal protocol is defined, the VCM in Colombia may experience a period of slower project development, reduced foreign investment, and greater legal risk.
In the long run, better governance may benefit all parties. But in the short term, uncertainty is the price of progress.