At the June 2025 Suriname Energy, Oil and Gas Summit, the panel discussion on \u201cCarbon Markets and Opportunities for Suriname\u201d made one thing clear: the country\u2019s forests are rich in value, but poor in returns.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cSuriname 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,\u201d said John Goedschalk, Chief Executive Officer of Climate Change Advisory Services. \u201cThat 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Goedschalk described the current carbon market structure as fragmented. \u201cYou\u2019ve got voluntary markets, compliance markets, and ITMOs\u2014internationally transferable mitigation outcomes. ITMOs are part of the compliance market and regulated under the Paris Agreement,\u201d he explained. \u201cA carbon credit is like a soft drink. ITMOs are Coca-Cola; the voluntary ones are the diet drinks.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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. \u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Moderator Rudolf Elias pressed further: \u201cWith all this forest and potential, why haven\u2019t we earned anything?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Minu Parahoe, Regional Director of the Amazon Conservation Team Guianas, pointed to a lack of continuity. \u201cWe\u2019ve 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\u2019re being true to what we\u2019re selling.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Political will was another missing piece, he said. \u201cLegislation aside, we\u2019re struggling to decide what we want to be as a country,\u201d Parahoe added. \u201cDo 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Gina Griffith, Executive Director at Conservation International Suriname, added a legal perspective. \u201cThere\u2019s still no clarity on who owns the carbon credit in Suriname. Is it the state? The communities? The landowners? Until that\u2019s defined, there\u2019s uncertainty for anyone seeking to set up projects.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
She said that policy or legislation is essential for providing direction. \u201cWe\u2019re 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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. \u201cEven though we\u2019re ready on paper, we\u2019re not taking action.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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 \u2015 Elite panel urges nation to maximize returns from vast forest resources Q3 2025 EDITION 41 Goedschalk responded bluntly. \u201cWe don\u2019t 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.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
He added, \u201cDon\u2019t let perfect be the enemy of good. Start, fail, learn, scale.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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. \u201cThat gives a legal basis for trading carbon credits,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Parahoe agreed the law might technically permit this, but raised another point: \u201cWe shouldn\u2019t pass legislation only where the market demands it. We need laws that protect and empower the communities that\u2019ve preserved these forests.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Elias raised a critical issue of governance. \u201cDoes this authority lie with the Minister of Forests? Environment? Natural Resources?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Griffith said the ambiguity is part of the problem. \u201cAll three ministries have a claim. It depends on how the government delegates mandates. But what\u2019s missing is a clear, strategic choice. I\u2019ve seen the Ministry of Environment take the lead, but once money enters the conversation, other ministries jump in.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Parahoe echoed the sentiment: \u201cAs long as it\u2019s about the environment, nobody notices. But the moment it\u2019s about revenue, everyone wants a say. That\u2019s holding us back.\u201d The panel agreed that Suriname needs to determine its leadership structure quickly to move forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Asked about the potential price per ton for Suriname\u2019s credits, Goedschalk offered a wide range. \u201cIt depends on the buyer and the type of credit. Biochar credits are already selling for \u20ac150 per ton. Forest-based credits can fetch more if there\u2019s biodiversity, co-benefits, and strong monitoring.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Parahoe said, \u201cI don\u2019t know the value, but Suriname\u2019s forests offer more than carbon. They provide biodiversity, water, and habitat. These are added values.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Griffith warned, \u201cCredits 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\u2019s no guarantee the forest will remain, buyers won\u2019t pay premium prices.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The discussion then turned to future opportunities. \u201cCarbon is just the beginning,\u201d Elias noted. \u201cWhat about biodiversity credits? What about trading oxygen?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Goedschalk said additional market instruments are coming. \u201cBut for now, let\u2019s get the basics right. Good MRV, inclusive benefit-sharing, and clarity on who\u2019s in charge. That\u2019s the homework.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Parahoe concluded with a warning. \u201cEvery day we wait, we\u2019re losing value. Our carbon credits could become \u2018burnt assets\u2019, undervalued because we\u2019ve delayed action. Suriname must move now or risk being left behind.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
At the June 2025 Suriname Energy, Oil and Gas Summit, the panel discussion on \u201cCarbon Markets and Opportunities for Suriname\u201d made one thing clear: the country\u2019s 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, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1569,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":16,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,80],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-1568","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-featured","8":"category-suriname-updates"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/energyguyana.gy\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1568","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/energyguyana.gy\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/energyguyana.gy\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/energyguyana.gy\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/energyguyana.gy\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1568"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/energyguyana.gy\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1568\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1570,"href":"https:\/\/energyguyana.gy\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1568\/revisions\/1570"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/energyguyana.gy\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1569"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/energyguyana.gy\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1568"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/energyguyana.gy\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1568"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/energyguyana.gy\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1568"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}