We find that IAPB/BCA/WEF’s vision of biodiversity credit markets, while not being the absolute worst possible one, still fails to address the well-documented environmental social issues of biodiversity offsetting. For this reason, it should be rejected.
Local offsetting, while not being as bad as global offsetting, is still defined far too broadly; secondary market trading is not truly excluded; and the allowance for ex ante sales of credits and avoided destruction means that the credits won’t have high integrity.
We note also the somewhat ambiguous position of the IAPB on the crucial issues of international offsetting and secondary market trading, and understand that the IAPB is in reality not opposed to either, despite claims to the contrary.
More fundamentally, there is no need for such a market to fund nature’s protection, as redirecting a fraction of harmful subsidies would more than suffice to meet GBF’s stated $200bn annual funding gap.