The IAPB, UN and WEF have just released the final version of their high integrity principles to guide the biodiversity credit market. We find that while the report includes many well-meaning boilerplate statements, many critical concerns remain unaddressed and several features contradict the high integrity claims.
We find that the allowance for offsetting, for the ex-ante sale of credits, for secondary market trading, the very weak definition of additionality, the lack of minimum duration of the projects, the inadequate safeguards against conflicts of interest, the lack of legal liability in case of project failure contradict the claim that the credits will have high integrity.
We find that potential buyers would be exposed to significant reputational, regulatory, and legal risks, and should carefully assess these exposures before joigning this market.