Brazil’s agency for Indigenous affairs Funai has asked federal authorities to consider opening an investigation and voiding all contracts for the sale of carbon credits signed by Indigenous communities in the Amazon in which companies owned or controlled by US businessman Michael Greene participate. A report published by SUMAÚMA in late June revealed that Indigenous people and the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office had raised questions about carbon credit projects drawn up by companies linked to Greene and involving Brazilian Indigenous associations. Funai has also requested that authorities consider measures to keep Greene and his employees from entering Indigenous territories “for any and all purposes.”

On June 19 of this year, Funai’s Department of Sustainable Development sent the requests to the Environment and Climate Change Ministry, Indigenous Peoples Ministry, Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, Federal Police, and Funai’s own Specialized Federal Prosecutor’s Office. In the documents, Funai—the government agency tasked with defending the interests of Indigenous peoples in Brazil—says there are “strong indications that Indigenous rights have been violated” in the contracts negotiated between the firm Agfor Empreendimentos, of which Greene is a partner, and representatives of the Parintintin Indigenous people in the territories of Ipixuna and Nove de Janeiro, in Amazonas state. According to Funai, the contracts are “unduly disadvantageous” to the Indigenous communities and problematic enough to call the company’s “conduct and good faith into question.”

The contracts with Agfor were signed by the Organization of the Parintintin Indigenous People of Amazonas, or Opipam, in June 2022. Six months later, in December 2022, two carbon projects in the Ipixuna and Nove de Janeiro territories were registered with the Colombian certifier Cercarbono as part of the requirements for selling credits. However, the company listed on the registration documents was no longer Agfor Empreendimentos but Indigenous Carbon, another firm linked to Greene, who began serving as an “advisor” to the projects in Indigenous territories.

Agfor Empreendimentos and Brazil Agfor—a third company with ties to Michael Greene—are currently the targets of public civil lawsuits brought by the Public Prosecutor’s Office of Pará in July 2023 against four carbon projects in the town of Portel, Pará. In Brazil, this type of lawsuit aims to protect collective interests by suing for damages to public and social assets, the environment, or consumers. According to the Pará state prosecutor’s office, these projects supposedly used invalid land deeds as well as invalid registrations with the national rural property database, or CAR, to register the carbon projects on state land designated for agro-extractive settlements. Greene is contesting the lawsuits, which are still in progress, with no court rulings handed down as yet.

In a technical report concluded on June 5, 2024, which underpins the information sent to the various federal agencies, Funai classifies the use of another company “previously unknown to the public”—to wit, Indigenous Carbon—to register projects in Indigenous territories as a “maneuver” that constitutes “an indication of an attempt to hide Agfor’s questionable business dealings with Indigenous and traditional communities.”

As stated in the earlier SUMAÚMA report, Indigenous Carbon registered a total of 18 projects in Indigenous territories in the Brazilian Amazon with the certifier Cercarbono from late 2022 to early 2023. In addition to their dealings with the Parintintin, the company has also registered carbon projects with the Munduruku, Cinta Larga, and Kayapó peoples. Four projects with the Kayapó of the Baú Indigenous Territory, in Pará, were later withdrawn from the certification process with Cercarbono. Of the 18 projects, six have already been certified, meaning they can now sell carbon credits; two of these are located in the Ipixuna and Nove de Janeiro territories, one in the Munduruku Indigenous Territory, two in Aripuanã Indigenous Park (Cinta Larga people), and one in the Roosevelt Indigenous Territory (Cinta Larga people).

Indigenous Carbon was opened in July 2022 in the state of Delaware. The company’s available registration papers do not name its owners. According to the contracts with Indigenous Carbon presented to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office in Rondônia by the Cinta Larga, Michael Greene is defined as this company’s “administrator.” The documents submitted in March 2023 to the Funai regional office in the Madeira River area by a representative of Agfor and Opipam, the Parintintin organization in Amazonas, state that Indigenous Carbon belongs to Grupo Agfor.

During the internal process that led to the technical report and the request to consider opening investigations against the companies linked to Michael Greene, Funai analyzed four contracts between Agfor and the Parintintin. They were evaluated by technical staff at the agency’s Department of Sustainable Development. The analysis was prompted by a request for guidance received in September 2022 from the agency’s regional Madeira River office, which is responsible for the area where the Ipixuna and Nove de Janeiro territories lie. In the request, Domingos de Souza dos Santos, substitute regional coordinator of the Funai office at the time, said the carbon projects had been initiated “without [Funai’s] prior consent.”

US businessman Michael Greene, currently the target of public civil lawsuits involving carbon projects in Portel, Pará. Photo: Reproduced from LinkedIn

The technical analysis concluded on June 5 was conducted by Rafael Campos Martins Marques, then an Indigenist  specialist at Funai. He found everything from formal errors, such as duplicate pages of the contract with differing content, to problems like attributing responsibility to Indigenous peoples for impeding illegal activities in their territories. Marques also did a general analysis of other projects registered by Indigenous Carbon. He suggested that Funai’s Specialized Federal Prosecutor’s Office, staffed by personnel from the federal Attorney-General’s Office, consider filing suit “to halt and repair systematic and ongoing harm to Indigenous peoples whose territories have been misappropriated by third parties on the voluntary carbon market.”

The Funai expert also suggested that a possible lawsuit could ask “the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office and Federal Police to investigate the Agfor group, Indigenous Carbon, and their directors regarding their activities on the voluntary carbon market for credits sourced from Indigenous territories.” Among  measures suggested by Marques as part of a possible lawsuit is that Michael Greene and his companies “publicly admit to” possible harm to Indigenous peoples, compensate them for “collective damage caused to Indigenous communities”, and repair harms. Through the Access to Information Law, SUMAÚMA obtained full copies of the Funai analysis and the requests for investigation submitted to public agencies.

The director of Funai’s Department of Sustainable Development, Lucia Alberta Andrade de Oliveira, accepted the conclusions of the technical report. On June 19, the report on companies linked to Greene was forwarded to Officer Humberto Freire de Barros, director of the Federal Police’s Amazon and Environment section; to federal prosecutor Eliana Torelly, head of the area within the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office that oversees Indigenous peoples’ rights; and to Matheus Antunes Oliveira, head of Funai’s Specialized Federal Prosecutor’s Office, which is attached to the Attorney-General’s Office.

The Funai analysis also claims the Colombian company Cercarbono was “complicit” with evidence of rights violations. According to the agency, Cercarbono failed to put in place “adequate and/or sufficient control measures and safeguards to protect Indigenous rights in its carbon credit certification chain.”

In email messages and letters sent to SUMAÚMA in response to requests for comments on Funai’s technical report and conclusions, the Indigenous associations that signed contracts with Michael Greene’s companies defended the carbon projects. They say they have the autonomy to implement the projects and intend to invest earnings from credit sales in improvements to their territories. “[Funai’s] recommendations ignore the substantial benefits that the project has brought our community and the sustainable development goals we have achieved,” says an open letter by Opipam, which was sent to SUMAÚMA by Greene and confirmed by the Parintintin organization.

In an interview with SUMAÚMA on July 8, Thiago Castelano, coordinator of the Association of the Parintintin People of the Ipixuna Indigenous Territory, and Karen Roberta Falcão, the association’s attorney, said Indigenous communities have the right to implement these projects without the need for Funai’s consent and they reject what they call the agency’s “tutelage.” Funai, in response, pointed out that “while Indigenous peoples have exclusive usufruct of Indigenous territories, the latter constitute real estate owned by the State of Brazil.”

In the interview, Falcão and Castelano said the Indigenous of the Ipixuna territory are not Michael Greene’s “victims” nor were they deceived by him. They said these Indigenous people, “abandoned by the government,” are already planning improvements to their land using the funds they hope to obtain from carbon credit sales. Therefore, they said, the Indigenous communities should not suffer harm as a result of investigations against the US businessman.

“We don’t have anything to do with what [Michael Greene’s] company did or didn’t do. Even if something happens to [Greene], it shouldn’t affect us. Our project is fair; it’s legal. We’ve been developing it for years,” argued Thiago Castelano. “I’m not Michael’s lawyer. I don’t know exactly how things unfolded with his company and other projects. All I know is that, from the moment he became an advisor to the Indigenous, this has had a direct impact on the Indigenous, including on [credit] sales. They’re counting heavily on the projects,” Falcão said. “Michael might be the subject of some kind of investigation, but he’ll never be punished in Brazil, because he’s a US citizen. And it’s the Indigenous who are here, and the Indigenous will be harmed. This concern about what Michael did or failed to do isn’t going to hurt him. He’s going to remain in his castle of money in the United States,” said the attorney.

On July 16, in an interview with SUMAÚMA, the cacica, or chief, Maria de Lourdes Parintintin and vice-cacica Benedita Parintintin, both from Canavial Village in the Ipixuna Indigenous Territory, defended the carbon credit project and their ability to manage it. They said they have been working on this project for years by conserving their territory, including the implementation of an agro-forestry system for food crops. But the territory lacks basic sanitation, a high school, a basic healthcare unit, reliable electrical power, and decent internet service—things they intend to build through carbon credit sales. “We’re fighting for our children’s future, for a dream we’ve had for a long time. You can be sure we’ll be here fighting tooth and nail for our project,” cacica Maria said. “Everyone [in the community] is looking forward to a good quality of life.”

In this interview, at which Karen Falcão and Thiago Castelano were present, the leaders of the Ipixuna Indigenous Territory said they are going to meet with Funai, the Indigenous Peoples Ministry, and the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office in Amazonas to anticipate any decision against the project. They argue that an investigation like the one Funai recommended could take years, while the credits already being generated by the project need to be sold quickly. “Who’s going to pay for our losses?” the cacica asked.

Although the threat of deforestation is great in the Amazon, its conserved areas are coveted by projects that can generate carbon credits for sale on the so-called voluntary market, an international market not regulated by governments. Most of these projects use the framework known as REDD+, which stands for “reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries.”

In order to be certified and generate carbon credits, projects must prove they will contribute to reducing deforestation in comparison with what would happen if the project did not exist. As part of this process, projects are evaluated by an external auditor hired by project proponents and approved by a certifier. The companies that purchase the credits aim to offset their greenhouse gas emissions, which are responsible for global heating. In other words, polluters purchase the “right” to continue polluting from a traditional community that conserves the rainforest. Pollute there, offset here.

In theory, Indigenous communities are thus paid to keep the forest conserved. In practice, many projects are presented to Indigenous communities without the latter being informed of associated risks, including the possibility that no one will buy the credits or that the credits will be sold at a low price or even sold to an intermediary who then resells them at a higher price and keeps the profits. The fact that REDD+ projects on the voluntary market have been questioned internationally raises this risk. There are doubts about whether these carbon credits represent an additional reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, that is, whether they actually offset increased air pollution by the companies purchasing the credits.

The problem is aggravated in Brazil because there is no specific legislation consolidating the rules applicable to carbon projects on public lands to which Indigenous people have an exclusive usage right or on lands ceded to traditional communities. Given this legal uncertainty, in April 2024 Funai announced it was advising Indigenous peoples not to sign contracts “until criteria and guidelines are defined for the inclusion of Indigenous territories on the voluntary carbon market.”

“With regard to Indigenous territories, legally understood as collective territories owned by the State of Brazil, the development of REDD+ projects on the voluntary carbon  market has raised many questions, concerns, uncertainties, and insecurities, in both technical and legal terms, indicative of potential harm to the Indigenous communities and their associated rights,” according to the Funai statements issued to federal agencies.

In his technical analysis, Indigenous specialist Rafael Marques says they found no translations of the four contracts with the Parintintin into their Indigenous language, “raising doubts as to whether the Indigenous community had in fact grasped the content of the contracts.” He also said there is a “clear-cut disproportionality between the bonuses and burdens for each party in the analyzed contracts, which tend to be unduly advantageous to Agfor and unduly disadvantageous to communities in the Ipixuna and Nove de Janeiro Indigenous territories.” Marques concluded that the contracts are “unfair” to the Indigenous peoples, citing as one example a clause that forces them to bear financial costs related to “alterations/adaptations imposed by changes to current legislation and world market demands.”

This argument was refuted by Thiago Castelano, coordinator of the Parintintin association in the Ipixuna Indigenous Territory, and Karen Falcão, association attorney. “The Parintintin language is spoken only by the elders. […] What [good would] a contract do in a language that [the Indigenous] don’t thoroughly know, that they are trying to recover?” the attorney asks.

When asked about this, Funai said “we are unaware of any linguistic conclusion about the degree of vitality and/or use of the language of the Parintintin.” The agency added that “what the technical analysis found is that the records of the process contain no translation of the contracts into their Indigenous language, raising doubts as to whether the community as a whole truly grasped the content of the contracts, especially when the documents involve technical language and assign collective responsibilities, duties, and obligations from a long-term perspective.”

According to Funai’s analysis, Agfor may have violated the Parintintin people’s right to a free, prior, and informed consultation on the contracts they were about to sign, a mechanism provided for under Brazilian legislation and Convention 169 of the International Labor Organization. “Agfor provided the Indigenous people with very poor-quality information, which can in fact be considered untruthful. […] Considering that Agfor deliberately withheld all negative aspects of the carbon project, it calls into question whether the ‘consultation’ held by the company was actually in good faith. There is no evidence that the Indigenous community even had legal support,” the report says.

“We have a contractual addendum that was signed later, because at the time [the Indigenous community] signed the contract, they had no independent legal counsel,” the attorney admitted. She said the contract was addended to provide clarification on the Indigenous community’s freedom to hunt, fish, and build homes using timber from the territory and to not be used as a marketing tool without due compensation and prior notice. The attorney also said these amendments stipulate that the Indigenous community must give its express authorization before anyone from the company can enter their territory.

SUMAÚMA asked to see these documents but on July 16, Thiago Castelano said no decision had been made to share them. “We talked about it, together with the leadership, and we’re thinking it’s something confidential. […] Since it’s something internal of ours, we have the right [to not share it],” he argued.

As mentioned in SUMAÚMA’s earlier report, Funai’s analysis points out that only one meeting was reportedly held with people living in the Ipixuna and Nove de Janeiro territories and representatives of Agfor Empreendimentos. At the meeting, the contracts were approved and then signed, according to the minutes in the Funai file. During this meeting, held on June 23, 2022, “the information provided by Agfor was to a large extent uncertain, insufficient, and biased,” according to the Indigenous agency. Therefore, Funai concludes, “it can be inferred that the Indigenous community was indirectly pressured into signing because of promises of supposed advantages and huge economic and material benefits resulting from the carbon project. The pressure here was economic and materialized in the form of grandiose promises, without mentioning the project’s potential risks.”

Regarding the consultation, Thiago Castelano said meetings were held with the Indigenous populations in both territories prior to the meeting with Greene’s representatives. “We had free, prior, and informed consent in all the villages, before we had this meeting with them [from the company] just to wrap things up officially,” the Parintintin leader said.

The contracts with the Parintintin examined by Funai name the Indigenous people as the “owners” of their territories, when in fact these lands belong to the State of Brazil while Indigenous peoples have the exclusive right to use them. The contracts also contain a clause holding the Indigenous communities responsible for “preventing dispossession, deforestation, illegal logging, hunting, predatory fishing, fires, among others.” According to Funai, “the State is responsible for curbing and monitoring territorial and environmental crimes in Indigenous territories […]. It is absolutely reckless to encourage Indigenous communities to confront organized crime in their territories on their own.”

“The contracts sent to the Indigenous people before I came on [as an attorney] and even after that had real problems related to language on occasion,” attorney Karen Falcão admitted. “They were originally written in English and then the staff here did a literal translation. The matter of oversight was translated literally, [but] it doesn’t work like that in real life.” She said changes were made to this contract clause. The same attorney represents the Cinta Larga Indigenous People’s Development and Production Cooperative, known as Cooperbravo, and she said this association’s contracts with Michael Greene were likewise addended.

According to Karen Falcão and Thiago Castelano, in these updated contracts Greene’s companies no longer have the exclusive right to manage the sales of all carbon credits generated by the projects, including the 70% of the credits that belong to the Indigenous associations. According to the contracts seen by SUMAÚMA, 30% will go to companies linked to the US businessman in payment for his consultancy services. “What may happen is that Michael might arrange some buyer and introduce them to us, because we’re the ones who will close the contract, we’re the ones who are going to make the sale, we’re the ones who are going to receive the funds,” said Castelano. “We’ll manage our credits; they’re in our account,” said cacica Maria de Lourdes Parintintin in an interview on July 16.

It is noteworthy that the copies of the contracts analyzed by Funai do not bear the signature of any Agfor representative. In practice, the absence of a fully signed copy could make it unfeasible for the Parintintin Indigenous community to take legal action if they felt harmed by the carbon projects. The fact that the signatures are missing is even more notable, according to the agency, given that two Agfor representatives attended the meeting in which the documents were signed, in Pupunha Village, in the Nove de Janeiro Indigenous Territory. Thiago Castelano and Karen Falcão claim they possess signed, updated copies of the contracts, but they had not shown them to SUMAÚMA at the time this article went to press.

The Funai technical report notes that “this is not the first time this type of situation has been detected in Agfor contracts involving the voluntary carbon market in Indigenous territories.” The analysis also says there is no signature of the Agfor representative on the contract with the Indigenous people of the Munduruku Indigenous Territory in Pará. There, Funai’s attention was also drawn to the fact that many Munduruku representatives signed the document with their fingerprints. Additionally, since no translation of the contract into the Munduruku language was found, the Funai report questions whether the signatories “fully grasp the content of the contract and its consequences.”

The five carbon projects in the Munduruku Indigenous Territory, registered by Indigenous Carbon with the certifier Cercarbono, are the subject of a civil inquiry by the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office. This investigation, explored in depth in SUMAÚMA’s earlier report, shows how the agreement with Agfor caused divisions the Indigenous community, with part of the Munduruku claiming there was no free, prior, and informed consultation with the territory’s population. Funai’s technical report also mentions some opposition to the project and concludes that Agfor “violated the Munduruku Consultation Protocol and, consequently, [the Munduruku people’s] right to free, prior, and informed consultation.”

In response to questions sent by SUMAÚMA, the Pusuru Indigenous Association, which appears as the “administrator” of the carbon project on the contract with Agfor mentioned in the Funai report, said they have no contracts “with Mr. Michael Greene, nor with Agfor or Indigenous Carbon. They added that the US entrepreneur and his companies “have in the past provided consultancy services during drafting and certification” of the carbon projects and that these services had been finalized. Asked if they had the contracts for these consultancy services and about the consultant’s share in the credits generated by the projects, the association had not replied at the time this article went to press.

In their response to Funai’s questions, the association also said all Munduruku meetings and assemblies are held in the Munduruku language, through interpreters when non-Indigenous speakers attend, but that all contracts with service providers are in Portuguese. Lastly, the Pusuru association said the carbon projects were approved by “a large majority” in the meetings, although “a certain percentage of the Indigenous people were against them, which is natural in any human activity.” Therefore, the association argued, the rules related to the right to a free, prior, and informed consultation “were observed.”

As SUMAÚMA pointed out in its June report, Funai found that some of the projects registered with Cercarbono by Indigenous Carbon had been modified, with only the Indigenous associations remaining as proponents. As the certifier told Sumaúma, this type of change can be made, and the supporting documents will be checked when the new credits are issued. Funai says it suspects this was “an attempt to hide Indigenous Carbon’s links to the projects, by not revealing the company’s name and trying to make it appear that the projects were being run [solely] by the communities.”

Lastly, the Funai technical report found no authorization allowing Michael Greene or any representative of either Agfor or Indigenous Carbon to enter the Ipixuna and Nove de Janeiro Indigenous territories, an authorization that would reportedly be mandatory under Funai regulations. In light of this, one of Funai’s requests to authorities is that they consider barring Greene and his staff and representatives from entering other Indigenous territories “for any and all purposes.”

SUMAÚMA has learned that the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office is expected to formally ask the Attorney General’s Office in Amazonas to open an investigation. In the case of the Federal Police, Funai mentions the recent Greenwashing Operation, which is investigating alleged fraud and crimes in carbon contracts on the voluntary market; the agency has asked the police to consider opening an investigation. SUMAÚMA contacted the Specialized Federal Prosecutor’s Office to request information on what measures will be taken, but there had been no reply at the time this article went to press.

On Wednesday, July 3, Michael Greene received an email from SUMAÚMA containing a summary, in English, of the conclusions of Funai’s technical analysis, along with a request for him to present his arguments and comments.

In his written response two days later, he said the projects were transferred to the Indigenous associations’ accounts, because the projects belong to the Indigenous: “All projects upon completion go into their account.” He also said the commission he charges (30% of the credits) is low by industry standards. Without naming names, he said one of his competitors leaves only 10% of the credits for the Indigenous communities.

“I get it, there is a movement to end the indigenous projects, so the government can have them,” the US entrepreneur wrote. “However this dream of the government to do REDD is not going to work in the end. A REDD market where only the government does REDD, yet deforestation still takes place in other regions is really not going to work and the international community will state REDD doesn’t work and when REDD doesn’t work the market is over.”

Greene is apparently referring to so-called jurisdictional REDD+ projects, a type of State-led program where governments sell or make agreements with companies and NGOs to generate and sell carbon credits from reduced deforestation. Most state-level governments in the Amazon have already launched or are negotiating this type of initiative. In Brazil, disputes about the REDD+ jurisdictional model and the voluntary market have surfaced during the debate on the bill now before Congress to create a regulated carbon market in Brazil. Under the version of the bill sent by the Chamber of Deputies to the Senate, areas where third-party projects currently exist would be withdrawn from jurisdictional REDD+ projects.

Karen Falcão, attorney for the Ipixuna Indigenous Territory association, presents an argument similar to Greene’s. “I know that the route Funai is taking, and the Indigenous Peoples Ministry itself, is to make the projects jurisdictional,” she said. Thiago Castelano, coordinator of the association in the same territory, also argued that government administrations want to establish jurisdictional REDD+ projects so they can pocket the bulk of the earnings from the credit sales and give a small percentage to the Indigenous and other populations who actually conserve the forest. According to him, this would hinder the economic autonomy sought by the Indigenous communities.

Asked about this criticism, Funai replied that it is “a State agency that operates according to current legislation.” The agency argued that the voluntary market is not yet regulated in Brazil, but that jurisdictional programs and payment mechanisms for the results of combating deforestation are, through resolutions by the National REDD+ Commission, which is part of the Environment and Climate Change Ministry. The agency also pointed out that these initiatives are based on data on emissions in forest areas that Brazil has officially submitted to the United Nations Convention on Climate Change. According to Funai, this is why they use an “internationally recognized methodology for accounting, monitoring, reporting, and verifying” the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

In its response, Funai said jurisdictional programs must provide information on their compliance with the UN-approved Cancun safeguards, which concern the rights and participation of Indigenous and traditional peoples in REDD+ projects. The Indigenous affairs agency added that it has been “working to guarantee the effective participation of Indigenous peoples” in jurisdictional programs in states of the Cerrado biome and the Legal Amazon. Lastly, Funai said the matter of private carbon projects will undergo “a broad consultation process” so that “guidelines and rules can be established.” The agency also pointed out that the guidelines it released in April called on communities to take part in this consultation.

Greene also sent SUMAÚMA an open letter signed by representatives of Opipam, the Parintintin’s organization in Amazonas, which appears as the signatory of the contracts with Agfor analyzed by Funai. The letter states that the carbon project was launched “owing to the serious threat” from illegal loggers and to the “lack of financial resources from Funai for basic social needs.” It also says Michael Greene and Agfor have afforded the Parintintin “a viable, sustainable alternative.” According to the letter, Agfor “demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the success of our projects” and did not interfere with Indigenous autonomy. Lastly, the letter states that it is “undeniable that Agfor and Michael Greene are facing unfair scrutiny.”

On July 18, Greene sent a new letter to SUMAÚMA, on Agfor letterhead, containing specific answers related to the Funai case. In the letter, he claimed there is no “legitimate grievance” against the projects with the Parintintin and once again denied any irregularities with the projects in Portel, Pará. He said his work with the Parintintin “ended months ago” and he is no longer “actively involved” in the projects. The US businessman also said he had offered to cancel the contract with the Parintintin on “amicable” terms, but they “expressed a strong desire to continue our partnership.” In the text, Greene argued that the obligation to hold a free, prior, and informed consultation does not fall to Agfor but to the Indigenous association that is developing the carbon project; the bill currently before Congress stipulates that this consultation should be supervised by Funai and other government agencies. Lastly, Greene argued that the carbon projects “are one of the few options” for the Indigenous to obtain income to finance their “essential needs.”

SUMAÚMA also sent questions to Cercarbono. The Columbian company replied by email that “at no time did Funai contact Cercarbono to request information on any certified project in Brazil.” They also said they had not received the Indigenous agency’s analysis, so they could not comment or make observations. Lastly, they said they “completely disagree” with the implication that they have been negligent or complicit with regard to possible violations of Indigenous rights, as suggested by Funai.

Cercarbono has already been recognized for negligence in certifying projects on Indigenous lands. A month ago, Colombia’s Constitutional Court issued a stern warning in a ruling on a project in Pirá Paraná, a territory near the Brazilian border. According to Colombia’s highest constitutional court, Cercarbono “did not demonstrate sufficient parameters for operation in Indigenous territories” and its certification protocols for REDD+ projects “are not sufficient to ensure the standards of respect intended by the Cancun safeguards, nor the constitutional mandates associated with the effective enjoyment of the rights of Indigenous peoples.”

The Funai technical report also mentions Greene’s agreements with the Cinta Larga and says “farfetched” promises of “exorbitant financial gain” were made and that these triggered “internal conflicts” within the community. The analysis cites complaints made to the Funai Ombudsman via the federal government Fala.Br platform by people calling for the Indigenous agency to intervene because there had been no free, prior, and informed consultation on the carbon projects in Cinta Larga territories, which are located in the states of Rondônia and Mato Grosso.

The Cinta Larga Indigenous People’s Development and Production Cooperative, or Cooperbravo, sent SUMAÚMA a response to the Funai report. According to the association, the reply was written jointly with two other Cinta Larga organizations that also signed contracts with Michael Greene’s companies: the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Cinta Larga People, or Patjamaaj, and the Indigenous Association of the Cinta Larga People–Eterepuya.  The message states that “the regional-level agency [of Funai] is not only aware of the [carbon] project but supports it, since it recognizes the potential economic support that communities will receive in the case of the sale of generated carbon credits and how this financial contribution will be decisive in putting an end to illegal activities in the Indigenous territories demarcated for the Cinta Larga People.”

SUMAÚMA asked Funai if they confirmed this support, but the agency had not responded at the time this story went to press. Funai’s internal case includes a letter dated November 2022 in which then-regional coordinator in Cacoal, Rondônia, Sidcley Sotele, told Indigenous Carbon he was aware of the carbon projects, which he said the Cinta Larga had started “on their own.” However, in a letter to the regional coordinator in Madeira, dated Cercarbono, Funai’s General Coordination Sector for Environmental Management disavowed sending a similar letter to Michael Greene’s companies about projects in Parintintin territories.

In their response, the Cinta Larga also said they have “minutes, photographs, and reports signed by the entire community” concerning activities related to the carbon projects and the destination of funds generated by them. These documents, however, were not included in the message forwarded by email. The Cinta Larga also said “there is no interest” in sending SUMAÚMA the amendments to initial contracts with the companies linked to the US businessman. They argued this is because “each association’s legal counsel is different and consequently the amendments contain specificities depending on the project” in question. Lastly, the message states that the Cinta Larga people protect “one of the richest mineral regions in our country and therefore this protection would not be feasible if our people did not remain united.”

In a letter sent separately, the Patjamaaj  association said Michael Greene played his consultancy role “in a correct, fair, and transparent manner” and that the US entrepreneur’s work “has been completed.” The letter also says that Greene never made “farfetched promises” and always “showed the reality of the market.” According to the text, “there were no internal disagreements” among the Cinta Larga about the project and “everyone worked together” to make it happen. “We have two thousand people desperate to escape poverty, and despair or carbon credits are the only ways to escape this,” the letter ends.

Before sending these replies, Michael Greene had forwarded SUMAÚMA letters from Cooperbravo and Patjamaaj defending the carbon projects in their territories; there are seven projects in all, three of which have been certified.

The Indigenous peoples who care for the Amazon Forest have legitimate aspirations to be compensated for this, but they face legal and economic uncertainties stemming from the fact that this is an unregulated market where projects are managed under private contracts. Added to this are the disputes that keep Congress from approving the bill to create a regulated carbon market in Brazil, which includes safeguards for populations in Indigenous and community territories. Funai’s conclusions, suggesting that contracts with Michael Greene’s companies be investigated, reinforce questions about the lack of transparency on the voluntary carbon market.