Commodifying carbon between reconciliation, policies and market schemes: a case study from British Columbia, Canada

British Columbia implemented three large forest carbon projects between 2009 and 2015, all initiated and operated by First Nations in what is now called the Great Bear Rainforest. These projects are embedded in a complex web of reconciliation negotiations, climate policies, and fluctuating carbon market dynamics. This article analyzes these three factors of forest carbon embeddedness by drawing on the fundamental changes in land and resource decision-making strategies, regional, supra-regional, and national climate policies, and voluntary and compliance market dynamics. This paper argues that the commodification of forest carbon offsets (1) goes beyond the mere aim for environmental protection but is intrinsically connected to the colonial history, disputes over land and resources and aspirations of reconciliation, (2) depends not only on one policy but faces a complex assortment of political strategies, and (3) is highly interrelated with unstable market setups – both on the voluntary and compliance market. This study advances the relatively small body of literature about the embeddedness of forest carbon credits in the Global North.Key policy insightsWhen implementing carbon mitigation projects, the land on which the carbon credits are to be produced should be understood as a complex web of the local population, history, ecological condition, and knowledge systems in which many stakeholders (human and non-human) play their part. To reflect this perspective in the political process, it is paramount to involve this plurality in the project(s)'s approach and make the stakeholders the leaders in the creation and implementation process.Carbon Credits can be transferred and traded far beyond the ideal-typical ETS, positively impacting the environment and the local population's economic situation. Therefore, it is recommended that novel and unconventional market schemes catering local circumstances be envisioned to realize respective projects.Market developments have the potential to undermine environmental policies and vice versa. Therefore, policies should allow for correction and adjustment.