At the June 2025 Suriname Energy, Oil and Gas Summit, the panel discussion on “Carbon Markets and Opportunities for Suriname” made one thing clear: the country’s forests are rich in value, but poor in returns.
Despite being over 93% forested and maintaining a carbon-negative status, Suriname has not earned a cent from carbon credits. Meanwhile, neighboring Guyana has brought in hundreds of millions.
“Suriname had the opportunity in 2009 to enter the REDD+ partnership backed by Norway. The deal was already made, but Suriname walked away, fearing it would lose sovereignty over its forests,” said John Goedschalk, Chief Executive Officer of Climate Change Advisory Services. “That same money allowed Guyana to build its National Forest Monitoring System, improve land titling, and strengthen institutions. They took the risk, and they are now the leader.”
Goedschalk described the current carbon market structure as fragmented. “You’ve got voluntary markets, compliance markets, and ITMOs—internationally transferable mitigation outcomes. ITMOs are part of the compliance market and regulated under the Paris Agreement,” he explained. “A carbon credit is like a soft drink. ITMOs are Coca-Cola; the voluntary ones are the diet drinks.”
He warned that although the Paris Agreement is not legally binding, countries that opt in must submit their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which can later be adjusted by trading mitigation outcomes. “If Suriname fails to reduce emissions in one sector, it can purchase results from another country under the UN registry. But these are sovereign-to-sovereign trades, not market tradable elements.”
Moderator Rudolf Elias pressed further: “With all this forest and potential, why haven’t we earned anything?”
Minu Parahoe, Regional Director of the Amazon Conservation Team Guianas, pointed to a lack of continuity. “We’ve had protocols and systems started, but not followed through. There is no enabling legislation, no land rights, no benefitsharing, and limited transparency. People are watching. Buyers want to know whether we’re being true to what we’re selling.”
Political will was another missing piece, he said. “Legislation aside, we’re struggling to decide what we want to be as a country,” Parahoe added. “Do we want to sell forest carbon? Are we going to develop a robust, inclusive carbon strategy? The longer we wait, the more complex these markets become.”
Gina Griffith, Executive Director at Conservation International Suriname, added a legal perspective. “There’s still no clarity on who owns the carbon credit in Suriname. Is it the state? The communities? The landowners? Until that’s defined, there’s uncertainty for anyone seeking to set up projects.”
She said that policy or legislation is essential for providing direction. “We’re now in the Paris era, where every country has to contribute. That changes the landscape. We have our NDCs, but the infrastructure to deliver on them is not in place.”
Still, Griffith said Suriname is far along in Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement, which would allow it to sell ITMOs. But she echoed that no revenue has been generated. “Even though we’re ready on paper, we’re not taking action.”
Elias asked whether this is just about the compliance market, or if the voluntary markets like Vera [Verified Carbon Standard] are also impacted. Suriname Must Take Bold Steps to Monetize Carbon Credit Potential ― Elite panel urges nation to maximize returns from vast forest resources Q3 2025 EDITION 41 Goedschalk responded bluntly. “We don’t need to wait for perfect legislation. We can and should be experimenting now. The voluntary market was designed for exactly that to test and prepare before national rollout. We can start with small community-led or corporateled projects. We can use policy tools like ministerial decrees to designate who can trade.”
He added, “Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Start, fail, learn, scale.”
According to Goedschalk, the 1992 Forest Management Law provides the Minister responsible for forests the authority over ecosystem services generated by that forest, which includes carbon. “That gives a legal basis for trading carbon credits,” he said.
Parahoe agreed the law might technically permit this, but raised another point: “We shouldn’t pass legislation only where the market demands it. We need laws that protect and empower the communities that’ve preserved these forests.”
Elias raised a critical issue of governance. “Does this authority lie with the Minister of Forests? Environment? Natural Resources?”
Griffith said the ambiguity is part of the problem. “All three ministries have a claim. It depends on how the government delegates mandates. But what’s missing is a clear, strategic choice. I’ve seen the Ministry of Environment take the lead, but once money enters the conversation, other ministries jump in.”
Parahoe echoed the sentiment: “As long as it’s about the environment, nobody notices. But the moment it’s about revenue, everyone wants a say. That’s holding us back.” The panel agreed that Suriname needs to determine its leadership structure quickly to move forward.
Asked about the potential price per ton for Suriname’s credits, Goedschalk offered a wide range. “It depends on the buyer and the type of credit. Biochar credits are already selling for €150 per ton. Forest-based credits can fetch more if there’s biodiversity, co-benefits, and strong monitoring.”
Parahoe said, “I don’t know the value, but Suriname’s forests offer more than carbon. They provide biodiversity, water, and habitat. These are added values.”
Griffith warned, “Credits are only as valuable as the robustness of your monitoring and verification. Buyers want permanence. Vera is already talking about 40-year commitments. If there’s no guarantee the forest will remain, buyers won’t pay premium prices.”
The discussion then turned to future opportunities. “Carbon is just the beginning,” Elias noted. “What about biodiversity credits? What about trading oxygen?”
Goedschalk said additional market instruments are coming. “But for now, let’s get the basics right. Good MRV, inclusive benefit-sharing, and clarity on who’s in charge. That’s the homework.”
Parahoe concluded with a warning. “Every day we wait, we’re losing value. Our carbon credits could become ‘burnt assets’, undervalued because we’ve delayed action. Suriname must move now or risk being left behind.”
The message from the panel was clear: Suriname has the natural capital to lead in the carbon market. What it lacks is coordination, clarity, and commitment. To unlock real revenue, the country must stop debating and start acting.
