COLOMBIA · CARBON MARKET

Colombia’s Constitutional Court has ruled that an indigenous community in the Amazon can walk away from a forest carbon credit project. Consent, the court said, can be withdrawn when a project does not deliver.

What the Court Decided

On Friday 4 September 2026, Colombia’s Constitutional Court backed the Nonuya de Villazul reserve against carbon firm Oxigreen in Sentence T-283. It found that Oxigreen violated the community’s rights to self-government and to free, prior and informed consent.

The court ordered the company to recognise within 10 days that the reserve’s withdrawal was a legitimate use of those rights. Justice Vladimir Fernández Andrade wrote the ruling, and Justice Jorge Enrique Ibáñez Najar dissented.

How the Deal Began

The reserve lies at Puerto Santander in Amazonas, on the Caquetá River. On 20 September 2021 its leaders signed a 30-year carbon-credit alliance with Oxigreen.

The company counts about 260,933 hectares of forest in the project. The 30-year term is the community’s description, and the area is the company’s figure.

The project was a REDD+ scheme, a model that pays to keep forests standing and sells the saved carbon as credits. The community says it did not help draft the project design document and that promised payments never came.

The emblem of Colombia’s Constitutional Court, in a 2022 file image. It does not show the justices or the ruling. Image: Rivadeneira86 / Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 4.0)

What the Court Did Not Decide

The court sent money disputes, such as unpaid sums and damages, to arbitration or ordinary courts. It said the contract’s arbitration clause cannot protect fundamental rights.

Oxigreen argued that the dispute was commercial and that it had invested heavily. The ruling states that it does not settle those contract claims.

The Gap in State Oversight

The environment ministry told the court that no public body oversees every stage of a REDD+ project. The court also found no proof that the project reached validation, certification and issuance of credits.

It repeated its 2024 call, in Sentence T-248, for stronger rules on community participation. It also asked for independent technical help for communities.

What It Means for You

Companies in the US and Europe buy forest carbon credits to offset emissions. A ruling that consent can be withdrawn raises legal risk for projects on indigenous land in Colombia.

It does not ban carbon credits or change tax rules. It applies to this case, but it sets a clear reference point.

What Is Not Known

It is not known whether Oxigreen will comply or challenge the ruling. The court has not set the amount of any compensation, and the company’s money claims remain open.

It is unclear whether other Amazon communities will use the decision to leave their own contracts. No public response from Oxigreen was found.

What Comes Next

Oxigreen’s 10-day deadline runs from the date it is notified. Arbitration or a civil court will handle the money dispute.

On related policy, see Colombia Plans 19% Sales Tax on Gasoline. More is on the Colombia hub and the Bogotá city page.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did Colombia’s Constitutional Court rule?

In Sentence T-283 of 2026, it found that the Nonuya de Villazul community may withdraw consent. The project is run by Oxigreen.

What is a REDD+ project?

It is a scheme that pays to keep forests standing. The avoided emissions are sold as carbon credits.

Did the court settle the money dispute?

The court left those claims to arbitration or ordinary courts. It decided only on the community’s rights.

Why does it matter to US investors?

US and European companies buy forest carbon credits. The ruling raises consent risk for projects on indigenous land in Colombia.

Sources: Colombia’s Constitutional Court, Sentence T-283 of 2026; Colombia’s Constitutional Court; Colombia’s Ministry of Environment (filings quoted in the ruling) (all accessed 4 November 2026).