Subscribe
A coalition of civil society organisations has issued a statement on October 2, 2024, raising concerns over the promotions of biodiversity offsets and credits, just weeks before the 16th Conference of Parties (COP16) to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in Cali, Colombia. These mechanisms, touted as tools to fund biodiversity conservation, have been met with growing opposition from activists who warn they could harm communities and ecosystems, much like carbon markets.
The statement outlined fears of land grabs, community displacement, socio-economic consequences and human rights abuses, echoing the negative impacts already observed in carbon markets. It also emphasised the dangers these mechanisms pose to the environment, Indigenous Peoples, women, youth, small-scale food producers and local and Afro-descendant communities.
Biodiversity credits and offsets function similarly to carbon credits. When a company or government harms biodiversity, they can offset the damage by paying for conservation efforts elsewhere. The idea is to balance the overall loss to biodiversity through compensatory actions, with credits presented as a way to meet global biodiversity goals while attracting private funding for conservation.
However, critics have argued that this system is fundamentally flawed, focusing more on financial transactions than genuine nature protection. They claimed that instead of preventing damage, biodiversity credits merely shift the harm elsewhere, leaving ecosystems and vulnerable communities at risk.
Biodiversity markets are based on faulty ideas and could repeat the mistakes of carbon markets, stated Valentina Figuera Martínez from the Global Forest Coalition. “They may create even greater dangers for ecosystems and communities, especially affecting women and young people. We need urgent action for nature, but biodiversity markets won’t solve the problem,” she said.
Activists also warned that biodiversity credits could exacerbate global inequalities. Wealthy corporations and nations could purchase credits sourced from poorer countries in the Global South, leading to land grabs and displacement of Indigenous and local communities. These dynamics echo the harm caused by carbon markets, where communities have been displaced to make way for conservation projects that benefit distant investors rather than those most affected.
Gender-based violence and other socio-economic impacts are of particular concern, with women and marginalised groups facing disproportionate risks from displacement and loss of access to land and resources. Additionally, the technical challenges of accurately measuring biodiversity and ensuring long-term conservation are significant, raising questions about the reliability of these credits and the potential for mismanagement.
Another major concern is that biodiversity offsets and credits could delay the systemic changes urgently needed to address biodiversity loss. Like carbon offsetting, biodiversity credits may offer a temporary solution while allowing the root causes of environmental destruction to persist. Activists fear this could undermine long-term biodiversity protection efforts.
Instead of market-based solutions, activists argue that governments and international bodies should focus on real, transformative changes. These include strengthening environmental regulations, ending harmful subsidies, safeguarding Indigenous territories and tenure rights and securing equitable funding for community-led conservation initiatives.
With the COP16 set to take place from October 21, 2024 to November 1, 2024, the signatories of the statement called on global leaders to reject biodiversity offsets and credits. They urged a shift towards non-market approaches that genuinely address the root causes of biodiversity loss.
Yemi Katerere from the African CSOs Biodiversity Alliance stressed the need for real action, stating, “COP16 must deliver fair, rights-based and effective solutions to protect our planet’s biodiversity. Risky methods like biodiversity offsets and credits only postpone the necessary action.”