<
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/nov/11/biodiversity-credits-framework-cop16-rules-out-global-offsetting-aoe>
"International biodiversity offsetting “doesn’t work”, according to experts
aiming to create a nature market that avoids the pitfalls of carbon offsets.
The biodiversity sector has been circling the idea of a credits market that
would allow companies to finance restoration and preservation of biodiversity,
deliver “net-positive” gains for nature, and help plug the $700bn (£540bn)
funding gap.
Currently there is little demand, with less than $1m of biodiversity credits
sold, according to a report by Bloomberg NEF. The UN’s Cop16 biodiversity
conference in Cali, Colombia, was an opportunity to drum up interest – but many
remain sceptical, with leading figures cautious about endorsing a nature
market.
In a packed room, organisers of a long-awaited framework led by the UK and
France released a new set of voluntary standards – and ruled out the
possibility of a global offsetting exchange, stating that biodiversity credits
should only be used locally to compensate for like-for-like habitat loss.
“Global offsetting in biodiversity doesn’t work and we do not support it,” said
Dame Amelia Fawcett, co-chair of the International Advisory Panel on
Biodiversity Credits (IAPB). “Local compensation – or local offsetting – for
residual harm in the same ecological ecosystem is appropriate.”
For example, if a wetland in Kent was destroyed, then a project to restore
wetlands nearby would be an appropriate “credit”. Chopping down a forest in
Brazil and replacing it with a forest in the Congo would not be acceptable."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
--
mailto:xanni@xanadu.net Andrew Pam
http://xanadu.com.au/ Chief Scientist, Xanadu
https://glasswings.com.au/ Partner, Glass Wings
https://sericyb.com.au/ Manager, Serious Cybernetics
