Special

Oil and carbon credits

Who uses the credits issued over our forests, to which the Inga People never consented.

The figures

168.492credits retired from the project

70 %in the name of Organización Terpel, wholesale fuel distributor (2023–2026)

30 %in the name of Frontera Energy Colombia Corp., Colombia branch, an oil company, retired from the account of Terra Commodities S.A., trader of the project's credits (18 Jul. 2023)

Source: ACIMVIP's own research (25 Sep. 2026), based on public retirement reports and the project's registry records.

The map

Map of Putumayo with Terpel-branded service stations, hydrocarbon areas and the area of the carbon project — Terpel, oil and the Putumayo REDD+ Project: service stations, hydrocarbon areas and the area of the carbon project in the department (ACIMVIP, 25 Sep. 2026). Download the map (PDF)

What they say and what happens

What they say

What happens in the territory

In its response to the tutela (9 Sep. 2026), the distributor states that it uses the credits so as not to incur the national carbon tax, as the law permits, and that its role is «strictly documentary».

We maintain before the judges that those credits were issued over the forests of the Ancestral Territory without the consent of the Inga People, their collective holder.

The 106 service stations in Putumayo listed in the official fuel registry appear under its brand (2017–2018 records).

The same company that supplies the service stations of Putumayo uses credits issued over the forests of Putumayo so as not to incur the carbon tax.

The oil company retired its credits in 2023. In the Caguán and Putumayo basin it had only two exploration contracts, suspended without being developed, according to the official list of contracts of the National Hydrocarbons Agency (Dec. 2022).

An oil company retired 50.000 credits issued over the forests of a People that has spent decades defending its territory against oil activity.

What we do not claim: the connection is sectoral and legal, not physical. There is no source proving that Putumayo crude is the fuel sold there. Terpel was joined to the tutela and removed from it in the first-instance ruling.

What a credit buys

Surrendering carbon credits makes it possible not to incur the national carbon tax. Public investigations have questioned whether some projects overestimate the reductions they declare. When that happens, or when credits are issued without the consent of the Peoples who hold the territory, the offset does not correspond to a real reduction in emissions. The Inga People already said so in their 2024 and 2025 mandates against green markets: the territory is not negotiable.

Sources: the journalistic investigations «Carbono opaco» and InfoAmazonia; Early Warning 007 of 2024 of the Ombudsman's Office, for the Amazon biome, which includes Putumayo; judgment T-248 of 2024: the Constitutional Court protected the free, prior and informed consent of communities of Vaupés in relation to a REDD+ project (precedent); Mandate of the Elders of 4 May 2024, Regulations of the Reserve of 7 December 2024 (Mandate 46) and Mandate No. 01 of the Minga of 25 October 2025.

How they connect

Forests of the Ancestral Territorycarbon project we did not consent to

168.492 credits retiredpublic registry of the project

Use of the creditscarbon tax and offsetting · 70 % distributor · 30 % oil company

Our research

The report «The new carbon certificate boom of the Putumayo REDD+ Project» (4 Sep. 2026) and our research on the retirements (25 Sep. 2026) are based on public records and on the journalistic investigation «Carbono opaco».

ACIMVIP report (public version in preparation) Terpel, Frontera Energy and the REDD+ credits of Putumayo (PDF)

What we demand

That the autonomous decision of the authorities of the Inga People to suspend all relations with the companies involved in the project be recognised, without a new consultation, agreement or renegotiation being imposed on us.
That it be recognised that the 2021 mandate contract never came into legal existence with respect to the Inga People, for lack of free, prior and informed consent, or, in the alternative, that it does not bind them or produce effects with respect to them; and that leaving the project not give rise to penalty clauses, compensation or financial burdens for them.
That the project's actions over the territory cease: the verification of new periods and the issuance and sale of new certificates; that the validation and verification body withdraw its opinions; that the certifying entity remove from the registry the references to the Inga People and the unretired certificates from the area of the Reserve; and that this be communicated to the public, to the DIAN and to those who used the certificates.
That the project's companies hand over full information to our authorities: sales, prices, buyers, revenues and their distribution.

The struggles it connects

A1 · Our forests are not for sale without our consent · A2 · The long-standing struggle against extractive industries

All our struggles