Are they an essential source of funding at a time when biodiversity is in alarming decline? Or are they a false solution? Biodiversity credits are the subject of lively debate at the 16th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (COP16), taking place in Colombia until November 1. Inspired by carbon credits granted in return for tons of CO2 avoided or absorbed, they aim to reward actions that benefit ecosystems.
In the crowded conference center, located north of Cali, where the official negotiations are being held, members of NGOs protested on Monday, October 28, to call for the abandonment of any initiatives on the subject. On the same day, an international panel, promoted by France, presented the conclusions of a long-awaited report on the issue.
Interest in this financial instrument has been growing since COP15, which was held in Canada in 2022. Among the 23 objectives of the Kunming-Montreal agreement, adopted at the end of this conference, the target devoted to mobilizing financial resources provides for "stimulating innovative schemes," such as "biodiversity offsets and credits."
At the Paris Summit For a New Global Financing Pact, in June 2023, the subject was brought back into the spotlight. In September, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in turn called for the creation of a market for "nature credits" to "reward those who serve our planet."
Following the Paris summit, France and the United Kingdom launched the International Advisory Panel on Biodiversity Credits (IAPB). Its mission is to make recommendations for the creation of "high integrity" biodiversity credits, at a time when numerous initiatives are emerging around the world. Or, to put it another way, to suggest ways of guaranteeing the real effectiveness of these tools and preventing them from falling into the same trap as carbon credits before them.
The discussion of biodiversity credits is weighed down by a heavy legacy: Investigations have shown that a large proportion of the carbon credits awarded by certification bodies do not in fact correspond to any reduction in emissions, and that they often have negative consequences for local populations.
For 18 months, the IAPB worked with a panel of 25 independent members, representing companies, major conservation NGOs and Indigenous peoples, and held consultations with several hundred people. "Our work lays the foundations for a relative consensus," said Sylvie Goulard, co-chair of the committee and former member of the European Parliament (Renaissance, President Emmanuel Macron's party).
You have 66.85% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.