The effective participation of Indigenous Peoples in nature markets could mean introducing initiatives other than biodiversity credits for boosting finance, a specialist on the topic said Thursday.
The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), agreed in 2022, set out the need for “innovative schemes” including biodiversity credits, under Target 19 part d.
“Such ‘innovative schemes’ could also include Indigenous Peoples’ own initiatives, which may comprise totally different mechanisms than those explicitly laid out in Target 19 (d),” Emil Siren Gualinga, a sustainable finance and indigenous rights specialist, said in a briefing note.
The implementation of the target “must include the possibility of Indigenous Peoples to develop their own initiatives”, he said.
Indigenous Peoples should be able to determine how the target should be implemented on their territories, under what conditions, and in which areas, he said.
Target 19 (d) set out the need for “innovative schemes such as payment for ecosystem services, green bonds, biodiversity offsets and credits, and benefit-sharing mechanisms, with environmental and social safeguards”.
Gualinga said this line “does not dictate that biodiversity credits or offsets must be included in national biodiversity strategies and action plans, but are merely named as examples of innovative schemes that could contribute to the implementation of the target”.
In March, the Community Advisory Panel of the UN-backed Biodiversity Credit Alliance said a biodiversity crediting mechanism might be “incompatible” with the priorities of Indigenous Peoples.
Past experiences of involving Indigenous Peoples in nature-related initiatives have involved perverse incentives, land grabbing, and ineffective safeguards, Gualinga said.
TOTAL PARTICIPATION
Indigenous Peoples should be included in discussions on Target 19 in the GBF in “its totality”, including whether biodiversity markets should be “developed, or prioritised or not”.
Biodiversity credit and offset initiatives have emerged following the agreement GBF in 2022, often emphasising the need for Indigenous participation in developing such markets, he said.
However, the meaning of “participation” seems to “often be misunderstood, or mischaracterised”, he wrote on LinkedIn.
“Simply limiting Indigenous Peoples’ participation to proposals that have already been predetermined, or at the point of saying ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a project does not constitute effective participation in decision-making,” he said.
“The participation of Indigenous Peoples should be guaranteed in all matters affecting their rights, lands, territories, and resources, and should not be limited e.g., to participation in the development of benefit-sharing mechanisms,” he said.
The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples should be central to decision-making at all levels, he said.
Gualinga recommended biodiversity offset markets “be strictly avoided, given their poor human rights track record, their ineffectiveness, and given that they often work to create a social license to operate for projects in biodiversity-rich or sensitive areas, including on Indigenous lands without their free, prior, and informed consent”.
Biodiversity credits usually mean units representing quantifiable nature uplift over time, without offsetting harm elsewhere – unlike biodiversity offsets.
Governments must not establish biodiversity credit markets without first consulting with Indigenous Peoples’ representatives in order to obtain their free, prior, and informed consent, Gualinga stressed.
Under Target 19, GBF signatory countries committed to ensuring that Indigenous Peoples’ rights to lands, knowledge, and self-determination are respected.
In November, Pollination Foundation launched a voluntary nature credit development framework led by Indigenous Peoples.
By Thomas Cox – t.cox@carbon-pulse.com
*** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter ***
