Mirna Ines Fernández Pradel, Third World Network
A lot of the discussions in SBI7 have revolved around the various biodiversity finance mechanisms that are proposed with the aim of closing the biodiversity finance gap.
While it is true that biodiversity conservation and restoradon are still underfunded, especially in countries in the Global South, global efforts to raise the finance is needed to achieve the global biodiversity targets cannot overlook the impacts that these finance mechanisms have on ecosystems and human rights.
Carbon and biodiversity offsetting have been used for decades to compensate for carbon emissions and biodiversity damage caused elsewhere, and then tied to claims such as “net zero” or “no net loss”. In the mitigation hierarchy approach, offsetting is the last step that should be pursued after all efforts to avoid, minimize and restore are exhausted. But in reality, companies that destroy biodiversity usually
jump straight to offsetting because it is cheaper than investing in cleaner technologies that cause less destruction.
Worldwide, offsetting projects have numerous documented problems concerning baseline-manipulation, additionality, leakage, and permanence; besides large scandals portraying phantom offsets and human rights violations. None of the major internationally agreed frameworks for payments for ecosystem services (PES), green bonds, nature-based solutions (NbS), nor biodiversity credits impose a blanket ban on offsetting. Therefore, all these financial mechanisms can potentially rely on the sale of permits to further destroy ecosystems.
Trillions of US dollars flow every year towards biodiversity-destructive activities. The main priority in the mobilization of global biodiversity finance should be based on the redirection of these perverse finance flows, not on the few millions committed to mechanisms that have proven ineffective for long enough.