The Community Advisory Panel (CAP) of the UN-backed Biodiversity Credit Alliance (BCA) has released draft recommendations on biodiversity credits for consultation, in a bid to bring attention to Indigenous People and local communities’ rights in the emerging voluntary market.
The 20-page document, authored by the independent body of over 40 Indigenous Peoples and local community members, will be open for comments until Apr. 10.
While the text does not openly endorse the establishment of a biodiversity market, it aims to establish a framework for guiding the early-stage development of the nature market.
“Since the matter of bonds and/or credits will be a reality, we, as Indigenous Peoples and local communities, advocate for these processes to be based on principles that guarantee the exercise of the rights that we hold as pre-existing peoples to the states,” the draft said.
CAP stressed that a biodiversity crediting mechanism might be “incompatible” with the worldviews and priorities of many Indigenous Peoples and local communities since market-based solutions have often fallen short of “including and ensuring” respect for their rights, leading to risks for projects and their viability, as in the case of several carbon offset projects around the world.
Notably, a recently published report by Human Rights Watch (HRW) investigating a Cambodian REDD+ project claimed that developers failed to obtain free, prior, and informed consent from Indigenous communities. According to HRW, some of them reported to have been arrested and had their livelihoods destroyed due to the scheme’s operations, though the developer strongly denies the findings.
Indigenous Peoples and local communities have long advocated for the biodiversity market not to replicate the errors of the carbon market, and several pilot initiatives, such as the jaguar conservation programme developed by Savimbo that is being rolled out several places in South America, have insisted upon active cooperation with communities when shaping the projects. However, scepticism remains.
DECISION MAKING
Indigenous communities safeguard 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity, and the recommendations required their role in stewardshipping nature to be recognised by actors in the nascent market.
According to CAP, businesses, investors, governments, and other organisations involved in the biodiversity credit sector should pursue a ‘do no harm’ approach in line with international human rights and environmental laws, including the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), among others.
The organisation demanded the respect of Indigenous People’s rights on lands, territories, and resources, the rights to family life, home, privacy, and correspondence, and the rights to participate in cultural life and enjoy benefits from scientific progress.
Furthermore, it highlighted that the rights to consultation and participation in decision-making, as well as the rights to give or withhold free, prior, and informed consent to each relevant aspect of a proposal, are key to ensuring the market is not harming local and Indigenous Peoples.
“Effective participation in decision-making requires that Indigenous Peoples and local communities are part of designing biodiversity credit programmes at the conceptualisation stage of a proposal and not just at the point of approval of a proposal or project, and that their social, cultural, and economic priorities are central to any decision-making,” the CAP said.
Self-determination, self-governance, and freedom of expression are also among the rights that the fledgling biodiversity market must observe.
OFFSET-FREE
The Global Biodiversity Framework agreed in Montreal in 2022 recognised biodiversity credits as a powerful means to channel private-sector investments for nature-positive outcomes, though it is widely acknowledged that a biodiversity credit market based on offsetting mechanisms is not viable.
“Concepts such as biodiversity offsets, which seek to justify the destruction of nature and violation of the rights of earth and nature by pretending to offset, or conserve it elsewhere, would be contrary to respect for the rights of nature,” CAP said.
“Respect for Earth’s and nature’s rights also means that biodiversity credits should not commodify nature by seeking to measure its economic value, but rather, seek to value the service provided to nature itself.”
RISKS AND IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Many of the recommendations focused on the need for actors in the biodiversity credit market – including buyers, exchanges, certifiers, and project developers – to conduct preliminary analyses of risks and impacts, and take adequate actions to prevent and mitigate them.
“Actors in the biodiversity credit market should actively reduce those risks by design in their initiatives, including in regulation, policies, standards, projects, and agreements with business partners,” CAP said.
Good practices include the development of protocols for free, prior, and informed consent and good faith negotiation before initiating a project.
CAP also underlined Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ ownership over data collected in their territories.
“[Players in the biodiversity market must] carry out due diligence to ensure that data collected from Indigenous territories and local lands or imparted by Indigenous Peoples and local communities is not distributed or transferred to actors that seek to exploit this information for unauthorised purposes, or actors that seek to exploit such information to weaken Indigenous Peoples and local communities’ control over their territories and lands, or to transfer ownership or control of such lands, territories and resources, or cultural, intellectual, religious, and spiritual property to external actors without the free, prior and informed consent of Indigenous Peoples,” it said.
By Giada Ferraglioni – giada@carbon-pulse.com
** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter **
