Biodiversity credits and markets are not a new idea at all, having been promoted for more than a decade by a few economists, lobbies, and institutions. Academic literature has already amply demonstrated that biodiversity credits and markets are problematic concepts, as they rely on an alleged monetary valuation of nature using old contested methodologies, as they require a privatisation and reconceptualization of conservation policies into for profit activities and a transfer of sovereignty to financial markets that are incompatible with their public good nature, environmental integrity and with a just transition. The track record of existing schemes and projects is in addition one of significant failure.
We therefore understand the current political momentum for these old debunked ideas to be based on political and economic considerations, namely protecting vested interests and Global North’s unsustainable way of life, rather than on scientific considerations and the long-term public interest. In that, biodiversity politics are becoming aligned with climate politics and their unwavering political support for failed carbon offset markets, as a tool to delay domestic climate action.
We are also concerned that IPLCs are being increasingly perceived by market proponents as the new political prize, whose endorsement would shut all criticism. We fear that a rush to secure IPLCs endorsement might not necessarily translate into real FPIC and might lead instead to increased tensions and disputes within communities.