Benefit Sharing in Indonesian Forest Carbon Projects

Updated 2026-11-02 · 4 min read · By the akar.earth specialist team

Benefit sharing in Indonesian carbon projects: what Permenhut 6/2026 and standards expect, how to design a fair split, and what buyers check.

Benefit sharing is how a carbon project divides its revenue and other benefits among the people who make it work: landholders, communities, developers, partners and sometimes the state. In Indonesia it is now an explicit expectation, because a Ministry of Forestry official has said that projects under Permenhut 6/2026 seeking international buyers must meet principles including benefit sharing, additionality and free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

What it is

Benefit sharing covers both money and non-money benefits:

• cash payments to households or groups, per tonne or per hectare;
• community funds for village priorities, such as water, schools or roads;
• livelihoods support, such as seedlings, training or market access for agroforestry products;
• jobs in nurseries, patrols, monitoring and planting;
• secure tenure or management support.

A good plan says who benefits, how much, in what form, when, and how people can check and challenge it.

Who it applies to

Benefit-sharing expectations reach:

• developers and registered partners who structure and run projects;
• permit holders, such as PBPH concession holders, whose projects affect nearby communities;
• social forestry groups and customary communities, who are both rights holders and beneficiaries (see social forestry carbon and customary forest carbon);
• buyers and investors, who increasingly ask for proof that benefits reach people.

What the rules require and change

Indonesian law. Permenhut 6/2026, socialised on 29 April 2026, frames forestry carbon as “carbon for the people”. It names social forestry, customary forests and communities as legitimate, equal participants. It requires community projects to work with registered partners, with stated aims that include social protection. Benefit sharing is listed among the principles for international market access.

We have not found a confirmed fixed national percentage for forest carbon benefit sharing in the sources we reviewed. Some permit conditions or programme rules may set their own terms. Read the regulation text and the permit itself.

Earlier practice. Indonesia has experience with benefit-sharing plans in jurisdictional results-based payment programmes, such as those under the World Bank’s forest carbon funds. Those plans show the main design choices: shares between government levels, communities and other actors, and performance-based payments. Use them as references, not as rules for private projects.

International standards. Plan Vivo puts community benefit at its core. Verra VCS with the CCB Standards and Gold Standard also require stakeholder consultation and transparent benefit arrangements. The ICVCM Core Carbon Principles include sustainable development safeguards.

What it means for developers and buyers

Design principles for developers:

1. Map rights first. Benefit sharing follows rights. Use our page on who owns the carbon to set the base.
2. Agree the split before issuance. Write the formula into the project agreement, including how costs are deducted before revenue is shared.
3. Be clear about risk. Explain to communities that credit volumes and prices vary. Indonesian credits still trade at a fraction of real abatement cost, so do not promise fixed incomes you cannot guarantee.
4. Pay transparently. Use bank or mobile transfers where possible, and publish summaries to the community.
5. Build a grievance route. People need a way to raise complaints that the developer cannot ignore. It should be easy to reach, free to use and answered within a stated time.
6. Record everything. Consent, meetings, payments and complaints should be documented. Field data systems can link payments to measured trees or plots, which helps both auditors and communities. Our community engagement guide covers the practice.

For buyers, ask for the benefit-sharing plan, evidence of payments made, and the grievance log. Projects with strong, documented benefit sharing face less social risk and tend to earn better ratings. Our due diligence service checks these documents.

Common mistakes

• Promising a per-tonne payment before the volume and price are known.
• Paying only the village head or a single group representative, without a record of how money reached members.
• Treating benefit sharing as a one-off payment at signing rather than a flow over the crediting period.
• Ignoring women, landless households or migrants who use the forest but hold no formal right.
• Not explaining deductions such as validation, verification, registry and partner costs.

Open questions

• National minimums. Whether implementing guidance under Permenhut 6/2026 will set minimum community shares is not known.
• State levies. The NEK framework includes a carbon levy instrument. How any levy affects net revenue available for sharing is not clear from the sources we reviewed.
• Partner role. The role and fees of registered partners in the benefit chain are not yet defined publicly.
• Verification of payments. Standards differ on how far auditors verify that benefits actually reached households.

For the wider regulatory picture, start at the Indonesia regulation hub.