The “dangerous illusion” of biodiversity offsets damages communities and ecosystems, as the value of nature cannot be numbered, said a report published on Thursday by a forest coalition.

At biodiversity conference COP16 later this month, governments and financial institutions must uphold the rights of Indigenous People, local communities, women, and Afro-descendant groups, the Global Forest Coalition (GFC) said in a report.

“Biodiversity offsets are a dangerous illusion – allowing corporations to profit while ecosystems are destroyed and communities pay the price. Nature’s value cannot be reduced to a balance sheet,” said the GFC.

Offsets disproportionately harm communities who rely on ecosystems for survival, often resulting in forced evictions, loss of essential resources, and rights violations, said the coalition. GFC is a Netherlands-based international group of 133 NGOs and Indigenous Peoples’ organisations.

“Often, it is women and girls who bear the brunt of these rights violations,” said Valentina Figuera Martinez, GFC’s gender justice and forests campaign coordinator.

“These schemes are simply perpetuating entrenched gender inequalities that we have been fighting to overcome,” she said.

For example, in Colombia, market-based environmental instruments are devastating communities, the report said. The Hidroituango mega-dam, which forced the displacement of locals, said it would restore 24,000 hectares of dry tropical forests to offset its forest loss, the report said.

“However, the concept of restoring one area while continuing environmental degradation and community destruction in another is fundamentally flawed from both an ethical and socio-environmental standpoint.”

Countries including Australia and the US have over the last year discussed introducing natural capital accounting as a way of understanding their biodiversity.

COP16

With COP 16 approaching in Colombia, governments have an opportunity to stop exploitation in the name of conservation, the report said.

“Governments must commit to tangible biodiversity targets rather than superficial offsetting schemes. This means addressing root causes of biodiversity loss like habitat destruction, unsustainable agriculture, and industrial exploitation.”

Biodiversity initiatives must respect local communities, prioritising community-led conservation that ensures equitable benefits, while acknowledging nature’s irreplaceable value, the report said.

GREENWASHING

Biodiversity offsets allow corporations to greenwash harmful projects, undermining authentic conservation efforts, the report said.

“Biodiversity offsets are repeating the same mistakes as carbon offsets – serving as a smokescreen for continued destruction and rights abuses,” said GFC.

“The so-called restored habitats often fail to match the biodiversity of the original areas, and uncertainty in ecological outcomes makes these schemes ineffective.”

Biodiversity offsetting programmes are in place in countries including Australia, the UK, and Latin American nations such as Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, and Peru.

A variety of perspectives have surrounded biodiversity offsets. One 2023 study on biodiversity offsetting in Australia found that the scheme delivered limited ecological benefits at best. Although the UK’s biodiversity net gain (BNG) legislation has been regularly criticised since it came into force this year, some have praised it as world leading.

By Thomas Cox – t.cox@carbon-pulse.com

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