A global non-profit has warned that the voluntary biodiversity market could be a big distraction for governments during the upcoming COP16 UN biodiversity summit, as global leaders need to prioritise public commitments to plug the financial gap on nature.

Brian O’Donnell, director at Campaign for Nature, said during an online press briefing on Friday that biodiversity credit markets had an “outsized” focus from media, governments, NGOs, and the business community, as they aren’t set to deliver significant finance towards biodiversity in the short and long term.

“We feel that biodiversity credits have distracted governments from their responsibility to meet the finance goals [set out under the Global Biodiversity Framework, GBF], which are mobilising $20 billion by 2025, and $30 billion by 2030,” O’Donnell said.

“We’re alarmed at the attention the biodiversity credit market is given. I think that it needs to be refocused on where the money has historically come from: the public sector.”

Since nature is a public good, O’Donnell stressed that it is the governments’ responsibility to address biodiversity loss.

“We need to treat it just like we treat healthcare, defence, and transportation.”

During the last two years, after the GBF carved out a role for biodiversity credits and highlighted the importance of private funding for halting and reversing biodiversity loss, nature markets have drawn global attention.

According to several organisations, including the World Economic Forum and the UN Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI), the nascent biodiversity credit market has the potential to become a key tool for meeting the GBF targets.

However, the role of biodiversity credits is still highly debated, with other organisations urging governments to prioritise more incisive solutions, such as reforming harmful subsidies, estimated at $1.7 trillion in 2022.

Sarah Colenbrander, climate and sustainability lead at London-based think tank ODI, agreed that credits are not effective enough.

“We are passing tipping points, and I don’t think that credits can be a credible way to achieve the long-term biodiversity protection that we need.”

FAIR SHARES

During the briefing, Colenbrander presented the second edition of ODI’s report on what each developed country’s fair share of the $20 bln target looks like.

Fair shares are calculated based on three metrics – the ability to pay, the historical responsibility for the depletion of biodiversity, and the equal per capita responsibility.

In 2022, only three countries met or exceeded their fair share – one more compared to 2021, with Germany joining Norway and Sweden among the best-performing countries.

In contrast, countries like Japan, the UK, Italy, Canada, and Spain are currently lagging behind.

Japan appears to be the worst performer in absolute terms, falling short by about $2.4 bln and needing to triple its biodiversity finance if it is to meet the target.

The UK and Italy fall short of their fair share by around $1 bln each, while Canada accounts for around $850 million of the biodiversity finance gap and Spain for around $760 mln.

Australia, which recently hosted the Global Nature Positive Summit, stands out for the decline in its biodiversity finance allocation, to $0.56 bln in 2022 from $0.59 bln in 2021.

ODI’s report also called on the US, which is not a party to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, to urgently and significantly increase its international nature finance.

Although the country has the most significant historical biodiversity footprint, the US falls short by about $11 bln, one of the poorest performers in relative terms.

By Giada Ferraglioni – giada@carbon-pulse.com

** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter **