"Some funders struggle with this reality," Morland explains. "If they have invested hundreds of thousands of pounds, there can be an expectation that you must deliver something. But if a community can only say yes, then their voice is not genuine. They need to be able to refuse, and that means funders need to accept that possibility from the outset."

ACES has been fortunate to work with funders who recognise this principle. They understand that years of effort can result in a community decision not to proceed, and that outcome does not represent failure. It represents the community exercising the authority ACES claims they possess.

This connects to something funders often misunderstand about community engagement. When people talk about it in conservation, they often mean consultation meetings or hiring local labour. That is not what ACES means by genuine community ownership. The organisation's projects are established as community-based organisations with elected committees, formal grievance processes, and democratic decision-making over how funds are spent. The community has complete control over whether the project operates and what interventions take place.

Getting to that point with Mikoko Pamoja took about five years. Carbon projects operate under complicated frameworks, and communicating that framework to a community group of varied backgrounds represents a substantial challenge. When Morland budgets for new project design, the consultation line always appears unreasonably large. "We communicate that reality to funders: working with communities this way simply takes time."

Carbon Credits That Fund Systemic Change

ACES projects are excluded from some funding streams seeking forests of 10,000 hectares or more. In mangrove systems, that scale is often not physically possible. The organisation's projects range from 117 to 460 hectares—amongst the smallest certified blue carbon projects globally. The approach focuses on quality over quantity, using projects as proof of concept for intense community benefit rather than less concentrated benefit across larger scales.

ACES works to send as much carbon credit income back to communities as possible. Plan Vivo mandates that at least 60% returns to the community. ACES's average has been around 80%. The remaining 20% goes largely towards future verification rounds, which occur every five years. The organisation takes a very small amount for overhead related to selling the credits, but funds staff time through grants as much as possible. At present, 100% of staff time comes from grants rather than carbon income. That is the only reason ACES can send 80% back to communities.

Being a small operation allows ACES to occupy a particular segment of the market. The organisation sells to much smaller buyers, often individuals. Morland once sold three tonnes to someone offsetting a personal flight. ACES maintains no minimum sale amount. Many buyers view what they purchase less as an offset and more as a verified conservation contribution. They care as much about the social impact and biodiversity benefits as the carbon component. Some buyers have been with ACES for 13 years.

Buyers include individuals, universities, and small to medium businesses. About 50% of credits by volume go to brokers who sell to their own clients, but ACES only works with brokers sharing their values. Several buyers have visited the sites. "We very much see all our carbon buyers as part of the project journey," Morland says.

In this segment of the market, ACES has been somewhat buffered from recent market turbulence. Overall enquiries have dipped, but the organisation has not struggled to sell credits, partly because it has relatively few to sell. One broker client mentioned that the past couple of years have been difficult in terms of corporate retreat from carbon credit purchases, but ACES's smaller-scale, more personal approach has provided some insulation.

When buyers express concerns about negative press, Morland discusses the specific model: being rooted in community, addressing permanence through systemic change so communities are better equipped to live sustainably alongside these ecosystems long after the carbon crediting period ends. She also discusses the ethics of offsetting directly, framing this as the three Ps: tackling the climate crisis requires prioritising political change first, personal change second, and paying for offsets last.

Some clients have decided offsetting is not for them and stopped purchasing credits. Interestingly, one continued donating to ACES anyway, wanting the same impact under a different framework. "We balance obtaining a fair price for the community with ethical trading of carbon credits," Morland explains. "That means ruling out anyone actively contributing to the climate crisis—oil and gas companies are absolutely excluded."

Small scale enables long-term relationships and loyalty with funders. Whilst some funders exclude ACES based on size, others actively prefer the approach. ACES works with funders who want to visit projects not merely for formal oversight but because they genuinely want involvement on the ground.

We Are Small, But We Can Influence Policy

The key lies in enhancing impact beyond project boundaries. ACES projects alone will not make a meaningful dent in the climate crisis. Their value emerges from influence on policy, legislation, plans and strategies, and other projects elsewhere. The organisation frames the projects as proof of concept rather than large-scale solutions.

Funding comes from a mixture of carbon credits, grants, and donations. Grants currently make up the majority of income. Carbon credits account for roughly a third of total revenue. Because current grants have not been affected by recent cuts, ACES is sailing through relatively buffered for now. The impact will likely hit in the next 12 to 24 months as current grants expire and the organisation seeks new funding.

If We Are Selling Carbon Credits in 2050, We Have Failed

Morland remains cautiously optimistic about the future. Despite negative press, the carbon market experienced its downturn but remains operational with new projects still launching. That persistence provides grounds for optimism.

One of ACES's largest challenges will be determining the exit plan from carbon—how to genuinely withdraw from these projects and leave something sustainable behind. "We do not want projects running indefinitely," Morland says. "We want to transition the system towards something more truly sustainable. If by 2050 we are still selling carbon credits, the system will have failed to create systemic change."

Over the next decade, Morland wants to focus on developing that exit strategy. The measure of success will not be how many credits ACES sells or how long its projects operate. It will be whether the organisation leaves communities better equipped to manage these ecosystems sustainably without ACES, and whether it helps create policy and practice changes that make projects like ACES unnecessary.

"That is the definition of genuine community ownership," Morland concludes. "Building something strong enough that it no longer needs our involvement to survive. When a community says no to a project after years of our work, that is not failure. When we plan to make ourselves unnecessary, that is not abandonment. Both are recognition that the community voice and community capacity matter more than our organisational survival."