Courts as spaces of resistance against the offset industry

Legal victories against carbon offset projects in Kenya, Peru, and Colombia

While the European Commission pushes to weaken corporate due diligence laws, these legal victories demonstrate the growing role of the judiciary in fighting corporate impunity and ensuring access to justice for affected communities.

Breaking the offset industry’s cycle of impunity in Kenya

A major court(opens in new window) decision in Kenya recently stopped two conservancies involved in a carbon offset project covering 10% of the country’s land. Spanning 1.9 million hectares(opens in new window) and managed by Northern Rangelands Trust (NRT), the project is reportedly used by companies like Meta, Netflix, and British Airways(opens in new window) to offset their emissions. The Environment and Land Court in Isiolo(opens in new window) , Kenya, found that the project had acquired public land without the Indigenous pastoralists’ consent(opens in new window) . One of the conservancies alone generates about 20% of NRT’s carbon credits. The Court also ordered NRT’s armed rangers to leave the conservancies following allegations of human rights abuses(opens in new window) against Indigenous pastoralists.

This ruling casts further doubt on Verra, one of the world’s leading carbon credit certifiers, which approved the NRT project despite its questionable legal basis and previous allegations of human rights violations. A 2023 report(opens in new window) by Survival International (SI) explained that NRT allegedly inflated its emission reductions and violated Indigenous rights. While NRT denied(opens in new window) the claims and the project was briefly suspended(opens in new window) , it was later reinstated after a quality review(opens in new window) , which was also contested (opens in new window) by SI.

The Court in Kenya has now responded to the pastoralists’ grievances. NRT has filed a notice of appeal.

Land, legacy, and litigation: defending Indigenous Peoples in Peru

In 2024, the Kichwa community of Puerto Franco in Peru secured a historic legal victory(opens in new window) , obtaining full legal recognition of their territory, which was being encroached upon by a carbon offsetting project. The case concerns the Cordillera Azul REDD+ project, developed in 2008 within an existing national park and managed by the conservation NGO Centro de Conservación, Investigación y Manejo de Areas Naturales (CIMA(opens in new window) ). The project has reportedly generated tens of millions of dollars in carbon credits for major companies, including Total Energies, Shell, BHP, Procter and Gamble, and Delta Airlines.(opens in new window)  

The case is a milestone for Indigenous territorial rights, especially where their lands overlap with protected areas. Cristina Gavancho from the Institute of Legal Defence told SOMO that “the ruling reinforces the state’s duty to consult and obtain Indigenous Peoples’ free, prior, and informed consent” and “underscores the state’s obligation to ensure fair benefit-sharing in REDD+ projects located in areas whose traditional occupation has been proven in court.” 

The court ruling also validated an earlier report(opens in new window) by four Peruvian Indigenous organisations and the Forest Peoples Programme, which exposed alleged human rights abuses linked to the project. The ruling(opens in new window) strengthens Indigenous land rights and sets a precedent against offset projects that undermine local autonomy.

While Peruvian state entities such as the National Service of Natural Protected Areas and the Ministry of Environment and Agriculture have submitted an appeal against the ruling, Puerto Franco has received solidarity from other Indigenous Peoples and nations(opens in new window) across the Peruvian Amazon and Kenya in its “historic legal battle for a new social contract for conservation in the country(opens in new window) ”. Once again, Verra’s credibility is under scrutiny, as it repeatedly validated and approved the project despite the serious allegations. 

No offsets without consultation: Colombia’s court upholds community rights

These legal precedents add to a key development in Colombia, where a landmark ruling(opens in new window) in 2024 from the Constitutional Court challenged the REDD+ Baka Rokarire project developed by Masbosques and Soluciones Proambientes S.A.S. The project, established in the Amazon of Vaupés, lies within the Indigenous territory of Pirá Paraná, whose authorities filed the case. A 2022 journalistic investigation(opens in new window) had already exposed several issues with the project, including internal conflicts within the community and a lack of transparency. 

The court ruling stressed the importance of consulting Indigenous and local communities, a crucial step to prevent land dispossession under the guise of climate action. Legal experts have referred(opens in new window) to this case as key in ensuring that carbon markets are not used as tools for corporate land grabs and are subject to strict oversight. 

In September 2022, Delta Airlines reportedly(opens in new window) bought 1.3 million carbon credits from the project. The company recognised(opens in new window) that there was a dispute over the project. The ruling also raised concerns about the certification company, Cercarbono, due to its lack of due diligence according to national and international legislation for operating on Indigenous territories.

Exposing the lies: anti-greenwashing litigation as a growing legal front

Courts are also increasingly becoming spaces for resistance against misleading climate claims. As offset projects face scrutiny for human rights violations in courts of the Global South, anti-greenwashing litigation is gaining momentum, with a strong focus on protecting consumers from false environmental claims. 

Some examples include:

• Delta Airlines, a major buyer of carbon credits from Cordillera Azul in Peru, is now facing a greenwashing lawsuit(opens in new window) in the U.S. over allegedly making misleading claims about being carbon neutral. Delta filed a partial motion to dismiss the case, asserting it “lacks legal merit(opens in new window) ”, but the court denied it in December 2024, and the litigation continues.
• A court in The Netherlands ruled(opens in new window) in 2024 that airline KLM falsely advertised carbon offsetting as a legitimate way to achieve climate neutrality. KLM acknowledged the ruling and agreed that their communication about sustainability must be “honest and transparent.(opens in new window) ”
• In California, a newly filed greenwashing lawsuit alleges that Apple(opens in new window) falsely marketed certain Apple Watch models as “carbon neutral.” The plaintiffs claim that the two offset projects from which Apple buys credits fail to prove additionality – meaning the claimed emission reductions would have happened regardless of the offset projects. The lawsuit argues that Apple’s carbon neutrality claims are misleading. Apple stands by its assertions(opens in new window) , stating, “We are proud of our carbon-neutral products, which are the result of industry-leading innovation in clean energy and low-carbon design.” The case is ongoing. 

Meanwhile, Brazil is seeing its first greenwashing lawsuit(opens in new window) , filed by the Institute for Consumer Protection (IDEC) against Gol Airlines and Localiza (a car rental company). The case challenges allegedly misleading carbon offset claims and raises more critical questions about the legitimacy of offset programs. This legal action comes as Brazil’s legal system, led by the Public Prosecutor’s Office, is increasingly engaging with cases challenging the phenomenon of “carbon land grabs” by large forest-based offsetting projects. The Brazilian legal landscape is witnessing how many offset projects lack transparency, harm communities, and fail to deliver real emissions reductions.

Julia Catão from IDEC told SOMO this case is crucial to shedding light on how carbon credits are being sold to consumers as a solution while potentially fuelling human rights and socio-environmental violations.” Julia also stressed the importance of transparency in preventing misleading sustainability claims.

As the world’s attention turns to Brazil for the upcoming UN climate negotiations (COP30), legal scrutiny of offset projects highlights the urgent need for stricter enforcement of corporate accountability. 

Harnessing litigation for climate justice around the globe 

These legal victories are not isolated cases. They are shaping global climate accountability beyond their respective countries. They show that Global South courts are taking the lead in hearing the grievances of Indigenous and local communities on carbon offset projects. These cases also pave the way for the judicial system to help redefine corporate accountability and ensure that courts prioritise human rights over profit-driven climate schemes. 

When policy falls short, litigation is one of the most effective tools for change. While wealthy countries push to deregulate corporate accountability, global movements ensure that laws keep pace with judicial precedents prioritising people’s rights.