• Download the statement in pdf - Sign the statement here

We, the undersigned, express our grave concerns about biodiversity crediting, offsetting, and related trading schemes. Biodiversity markets are being modelled on the carbon markets, which have serious failings. Additionally, there are insurmountable problems and dangers:

A wrong answer to the wrong question

• The justification for biodiversity offsets and credits is that there is a huge gap between the funding needed and what is available for biodiversity protection. Biodiversity offsets and credits build on a top-down, fortress conservation model, which is highly ineffective, costly, has often involved human rights abuses, and is the wrong response to address biodiversity loss.

• Instead, other proven forms of biodiversity protection, such as the legal designation of Indigenous Peoples’ territories, and environmental regulation and enforcement, should be implemented.

• There is a deficit in the prevention and regulation of biodiversity-destructive activities, which amounted to $7 trillion annually in 2023. Reforming and redirecting harmful subsidies, estimated to be $1.7 trillion in 2022 and providing public financing in the form of grants, are better ways to address the funding gap, avoiding the need for risky financing schemes.1

• Just as carbon offsetting delays climate ambition, biodiversity offsetting will only delay urgent action on addressing the root causes of biodiversity loss.  

Offsetting and greenwashing  

• Cumulative land-based carbon-removal pledges, before the new land-based biodiversity credits that are now being scaled up, added up to 1,200 million hectares globally, nearly as much as all agricultural land.²  There is no more land to offset carbon emissions or biodiversity loss without displacing peoples and undermining food systems.

• Based on the long experience with carbon credits, claims that biodiversity credits are ‘additional contributions’ to biodiversity protection and would not ultimately be used for offsetting purposes are either naïve or false.³ If biodiversity credits are purchased without the intention of using them for offsetting purposes, they are most likely purchased for greenwashing purposes.  

Failing on equity and rights

• International biodiversity markets could allow elites, especially in the Global North, to continue destroying ecosystems, whilst purchasing cheap and abundant credits from the Global South.

• Biodiversity offsetting can create conflicts over tenure rights and the use of lands, fisheries and forests, competing with agroecology and smallholder agriculture, undermining food sovereignty. It will likely drive land grabbing, community displacements, increasing land inequality⁴ and human rights abuses, just as carbon offsets do.⁵ 

• Indigenous Peoples, local communities, peasants and other small-scale food producers, women and youth, the guardians of most of the planet’s biodiversity, typically have received only a fraction of the proceeds of offset projects in their lands, whereas project developers and financial intermediaries receive the biggest share. Resources generated by market supply and demand are further unlikely to be equitably accessible for communities.

Perpetuating market-driven failures

• The commodification of nature through the monetary valuation of ecosystem functions and the creation of biodiversity markets runs fundamentally in opposition to the cosmovisions of many Indigenous Peoples and other communities, who understand Nature as our mother, not as a commodity.⁶  

• Biodiversity offsets and credits allow private markets to price and prioritize biodiversity actions, diminishing governments’ role in biodiversity protection as a public good. Market-based biodiversity protection, driven primarily by short-term financial considerations, cannot be consistent with scientific knowledge on species and ecosystem prioritization needs⁷.

• Offsetting schemes typically rely on creating a future scenario of what would have happened without the project. These ‘baseline’ scenarios have proven extremely easy to manipulate, resulting in false and worthless credits.

• Proving ‘additionality’ is difficult, as it is impossible to demonstrate that conservation outcomes would not have happened otherwise. Achieving ‘permanence’, i.e. demonstrating that the positive changes will last over time, is inherently impossible. ‘Leakage’, where the negative impacts on biodiversity will only be shifted elsewhere, is a tangible risk.

• The problems with additionality, permanence, leakage, and baseline manipulation will be much more severe and intractable in biodiversity markets than in carbon markets, where these problems already exist.

Weak measurement methodologies  

• Finding a common unit for biodiversity accounting purposes would involve serious over-simplification of ecosystem values and functioning. It is not possible to simplify millions of species and their complex web of interdependences into a few tradable assets⁸.

• Proposals to measure biodiversity gains are based on poor methodologies, many of which allow the cherry-picking of indicators, ignoring important and unique attributes of ecosystems.  

• The different ways of living from, in, with, and as, nature illustrate the challenges of taking into account the diverse values held by peoples, which are not comparable or interchangeable⁹.

Uncertain revenues

• ‘Investment’ through biodiversity markets will be unstable and changeable, leading to unpredictable revenue swings for recipients, and fickle economic incentives for conservation¹⁰.

• No major companies have confirmed their interest in purchasing biodiversity credits. Moreover, they are pulling out of the carbon markets after recent exposes of their inherent flaws. There is every reason to expect that the biodiversity market will follow the same path.

Poor governance and conflicts of interest

• There is an absence of effective regulation based on human rights and environmental law. Biodiversity offsets and credit schemes that create human rights violations, or do not live up to minimal environmental standards, are rarely sanctioned.  

• The central involvement of organizations such as Verra is highly problematic. They have been responsible for issuing hundreds of millions of phantom carbon credits and have been unable to prevent human rights abuses in projects audited in accordance with their standards¹¹.  

• The experience with carbon markets showed us that there is a conflict of interest when it is the same organization which is financially benefiting from the issuance of credits whilst overseeing the process of standard-setting and third-party validation and verification.

Biodiversity credits and offset schemes are false solutions to a false problem – there are much better ways to increase biodiversity financing, without recourse to these risky schemes. Biodiversity offsetting, like carbon offsetting, enables rich countries, corporate actors, financial institutions, and other actors to profit from the biodiversity crisis they have created and maintain the status quo, avoiding implementing politically difficult decisions to regulate destructive activities domestically, while creating a new asset class for their financial sectors.  

We call on governments, multilateral bodies, conservation organizations and other actors to stop the promotion, development and use of biodiversity offsetting and crediting schemes. Instead, we call on them to prioritize transformational change in tackling the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, including: promoting effective regulation of harmful corporate activity; recognizing, respecting, protecting and promoting the right to land of Indigenous Peoples, local communities, small-scale food producers and women; stopping financial flows and investments that are harmful to biodiversity and peoples; removing harmful government subsidies; changing production and consumption patterns especially of the rich; supporting a just transition, including the transformation of food systems toward agroecology; ensuring funds flow directly and fairly to Indigenous Peoples, local communities, small-scale food producers, women and youth for community-led approaches; pursuing effective and equitable means of conservation; and taking immediate steps to phase down the supply and use of fossil fuels.

SIGNATORIES (as of 29 September 2024) - See here the updated list of signatories.

Global Civil Society Organizations

1. A Growing Culture  
2. Association For Promotion Sustainable Development  
3. BankTrack  
4. CIDSE (Coopération internationale pour le développement et la solidarité)  
5. Community And Family Aid Foundation-Ghana  
6. Corporate Accountability  
7. Denkhausbremen  
8. EcoNexus  
9. ECOS  
10. Environmental Investigation Agency  
11. ETC Group  
12. Fern NGO  
13. FIAN International  
14. Friends of the Earth International  
15. Global Forest Coalition  
16. Global Justice Association  
17. Global Justice Ecology Project  
18. Global Youth Biodiversity Network  
19. GRAIN  
20. Green Global Future  
21. Habitat International Coalition- Housing and Land Rights Network  
22. Heinrich Böll Foundation  
23. HEKS/EPER Swiss Church Cooperation  
24. Indigenous Environmental Network  
25. Initiative for Equality (IfE)  
26. INSPIRIT Creatives  
27. International Accountability Project  
28. IUCN CEM Eastern Europe  
29. MOBILIZED NEWS NETWORK 
30. Navdanya International  
31. Profundo  
32. Rainforest Action Network  
33. Rainforest Foundation UK  
34. Rettet den Regenwald  
35. Schola Campesina Aps  
36. Smart Youth Network Initiative  
37. Society for International Development  
38. Survival International  
39. Third World Network  
40. Transnational Institute  
41. Tripla Difesa On lus Guardie Sicurezza Sociale ed Eco Zoofila  
42. Udaan Youth Club  
43. War on Want  
44. What Next?  
45. Women4Biodiversity  
46. Women's Earth and Climate Action Network (WECAN) International  
47. Women's Environment and Development Organization
48. WOMENVAI  
49. World Animal Protection  
50. World Rainforest Movement 

Regional Civil Society Organizations  

51. Action for Climate and Environmental Sustainability ~ ACES  
52. Alianza Biodiversidad en América Latina  
53. Biofuelwatch  
54. Chirapaq/ECMIA  
55. Convergence Globale des Luttespour la Terre, eau et les semences paysannes CGLTE-OA  
56. Corporate Europe Observatory  
57. Earth Thrive  
58. Ecoropa  
59. FIDEPE (Fondation Internationale pour le Développement, l'Éducation, l'Entreprenariat et la
Protection de l'Environnement)  
60. Focus on the Global South  
61. Friends of the Earth Europe  
62. Gritode los Excluidos Continental  
63. Insituto Maíra  
64. Instituto Madeira Vivo  
65. JVE  
66. MAELA  
67. Mouvement d'Action Paysanne  
68. Natural Justice  
69. Ogiek Peoples' Development Program (OPDP)  
70. Pacto Ecosocial e Intercultural del Sur  
71. PAN Asia Pacific  
72. PELUM Association  
73. Pesticide Action Network Asia Pacific  
74. Redde Acción en Plaguicidas, RAP-AL  
75. Redde Cooperación Amazónica REDCAM  
76. Resilient40 (R40) Africa  
77. Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment 
78. TAFATAFA  
79. Tamil Nadu Land Rights Federation  
80. Youth Volunteers for Environment Ghana  

National Civil Society Organizations

81. Aalem for Orphan and Vulnerable Children, Inc.  
82. Abibi Nsroma Foundation  
83. Acción Ecológica  
84. Actions Sans Frontières  
85. ADJMOR  
86. Aksi! for gender, social and ecological justice  
87. Al-Haq  
88. Alliance for Sustainable and Holistic Agriculture (ASHA)  
89. Asociación Nacional de Empresas Comercializadoras de Productores del Campo AC  
90. Association for Farmers Rights Defense, AFRD  
91. Association Nigerienne des Scouts del’Environnement (ANSEN)  
92. Association of Young People for Environmental Protection in Guinea-Bissau  
93. Association pour la Conservation et laProtection des Écosystèmes des Lacs et l'Agriculture
Durable  
94. Association Pour la protection de l’Environnementet le Developpment Durable de Bizerte
(APEDDUB)  
95. Awaz CDS-Pakistan  
96. Awinakola Foundation  
97. Biodiversity Conservation Center  
98. Biowatch South Africa  
99. Broederlijk Delen  
100. Brot für die Welt  
101. Bruno Manser Fonds  
102. Build Peace and Development  
103. CAMBIUM  
104. Censat Agua Viva  
105. Center for Environment/FoE BiH  
106. Center for Peace Education and Community Development  
107. Centre for Citizens Conserving Environment &Management (CECIC)  
108. Centro de estudios Heñói  
109. Centro de Estudios y apoyo al Desarrollo Local  
110. Centro Ecosocial Latinoamericano  
111. Centro Eori de Investigación y Promoción Regional  
112. Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación y Desarrollo Alternativo U Yich Lu'um  
113. Chandra Jyoti Integrated Rural Development Society (CIRDS) Dhading Nepal  
114. Climate and Community Project  
115. Colectivo por la Autonomía  
116. Collectif pour la défensedesterres malgaches -TANY  
117. Collective Determination  
118. Consumers' Association of Penang  
119. Dejusticia - Centro de Estudios de Derecho, Justicia y Sociedad  
120. DKA Austria - Dreikönigsaktionder Katholischen Jungschar  
121. Don’t gas Indonesia  
122. DUKINGIRE ISI YACU (DIY)  
123. ECOLISE  
124. Ecologistas en Acción 
125. ECORE  
126. Ei polteta tulevaisuutta  
127. Enda Pronat  
128. ESG  
129. Family Farm Defenders  
130. FDCL-Center for Research and Documentation Chile-Latin America  
131. FIAN Belgium  
132. FIAN Brasil  
133. FIAN Deutschland  
134. FIAN Ecuador
135. FIAN India  
136. FIAN Indonesia  
137. FIAN Paraguay  
138. FIAN Sri Lanka  
139. FIAN Switzerland  
140. FIAN UGANDA  
141. FIAN ZAMBIA  
142. FIAN, NEPAL  
143. FOCSIV Italian Federation Christian NGOs  
144. Focus Association for Sustainable Development  
145. Forum Ökologie & Papier  
146. Friends of the Earth Australia  
147. Friends of the Earth Canada  
148. Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland  
149. Friends of the Earth Japan  
150. Friends of the Earth Sri Lanka/CEJ  
151. Friends of the Earth US  
152. Fundación Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (FARN)  
153. Fundación Chile Sustentable  
154. Global Media Foundation LBG  
155. Good Health Community Programmes  
156. Gramya Resource Centre for Women  
157. Grupo Semillas  
158. Hope of Africa (HOFA) Cameroon  
159. Igapo Project  
160. Indigenous Environmental Network  
161. Indigenous Taiwan Self-Determination Alliance  
162. Investigación y Acción Biocultural, Anima Mundi, A.C.  
163. JA! Justica Ambiental/FOE Mozambique  
164. Jamaa Resource Initiatives  
165. JPIC Kalimantan  
166. Just Forests  
167. Justica Ambiental - JA!  
168. Kalpavriksh  
169. KOO - Co-ordination office of the Austrian Bishops’ Conference for international development
and mission  
170. KRuHA - people's coalition for the right to water  
171. Landelijk Netwerk Bossen-en Bomenbescherming  
172. Leefmilieu  
173. Legal Resources Centre  
174. Legal Rights and Natural Resources Center (LRC) 
175. Les Amis de la Terre - Belgique asbl (FoE Belgium)  
176. Les Amis de la Terre-Togo  
177. Lok Shakti Abhiyan  
178. Maryknoll Office for Global Concerns  
179. Masifundise Development Trust  
180. MAUSAM Movement for Advancing Understanding of Sustainability and Mutuality  
181. Milieu defensie  
182. Monteverde Commission for Resilience to Climate Change  
183. Mouvement Ecologique asbl., FoE Luxembourg  
184. Movimiento Independiente Indigena Lenca de la Paz Honduras MILPAH  
185. Naturaleza con Derechos  
186. ÖBV-Via Campesina Austria  
187. OFRANEH  
188. ONG  
189. ONG ACIEDD  
190. ONG ASHAD  
191. Pakistan Fisherfolk Forum  
192. Participatory Research & Action Network -PRAAN  
193. Pastoralists Alliance for Resilience and  Adaptation Across Nations (PARAAN)
194. People's Vigilance Committee on Human Rights (PVCHR)  
195. Persatuan Aktivis Sahabat Alam - KUASA, Malaysia  
196. Persatuan Pemeliharaan dan Pemuliharaan Alam Sekitar Sarawak (PELIHARA)
197. Pertubuhan Pelindung Khazanah Alam Malaysia (PEKA)  
198. PILIER AUX FEMMESVULNERABLESACTIVES - PIFEVA  
199. Pro Natura / Friends of the Earth Switzerland  
200. Protect The Forest  
201. Reacción Climática  
202. ReCommon  
203. Red de Coordinación en Biodiversidad
204. Red Dominicana de Estudios y Empoderamiento Afrodescendiente -Red Afros  
205. Réseau des Jeunes pour le Développement Durable -Madagascar  
206. Réseau Nigerien des Défenseurs des Droits Humains RNDDH  
207. Roots for Equity  
208. RSCDA-IO  
209. Rural Integrated Center For Community Empowerment  
210. RURAL RECONSTRUCTION FOUNDATION (RRF)  
211. Sahabat Alam Malaysia  
212. Salva la Selva  
213. Save Our Rice Campaign Network  
214. Size of Wales  
215. Slow Food Deutschland  
216. Small Scale Livestock and Livelihoods Program  
217. SNEHAKUNJA Trusthonnavar Karnataka  
218. Support for Women in Agriculture and Environment (SWAGEN)  
219. Sustainable Development Institute (SDI)  
220. The Australia Institute  
221. The Development Institute  
222. The Green Institute  
223. The Oakland Institute  
224. TORANG TRUST  
225. Trend Asia 
226. Ubuntu learning hub Trust  
227. Unidad de la Fuerza Indígena y Campesina  
228. vzw Climaxi  
229. Welthaus Diözese Graz-Seckau  
230. Zambia Alliance for Agroecology and Biodiversity (ZAAB)  
231. Zambian Governance Foundation for Civil Society (ZGF)  
232. Zimbabwe People’s Land Rights Movement 

Academics  

233. Adeola Oluwadare Samson, Nigeria  
234. Aili Pyhälä, Finland  
235. Alison Blay-Palmer, Canada  
236. Anacleto Roberto Carolina Soares, Timor-Leste  
237. Anitra Nelson, Australia
238. Artur Milewski, Poland  
239. Aruna Rodrigues, India  
240. Carlos Augusto Pantoja Ramos, Brasil
241. Christine Leiser, Germany  
242. David Barkin, Mexico  
243. Dr. med. vet. Anita Idel, Germany  
244. Elen Shute, Australia  
245. Elizabeth Bravo, Ecuador  
246. Floren Satizabal P., Colombia  
247. Gerardo Cerdas Vega, Costa Rica  
248. Giulia Chersoni, Italy  
249. Guillaume Carbou, France  
250. Helen Newing, UK
251. Jackie Sunde, South Africa  
252. Janis Alcorn, Canada  
253. Jeff Corntassel, Cherokee Nation citizen; Canada
254. John Thackara, UK  
255. K. Nadeesha Nisansala, Sri Lanka  
256. Kshama Nagaraja
257. Kudzai, South Africa  
258. Kyle, Spain  
259. Liliana Buitrago , Venezuela  
260. Maria Carolina Olarte, Colombia  
261. Marie Bouchet, France  
262. Michel PIMBERT, UK  
263. Mike Jones, Sweden  
264. Nora Faltmann, Austria  
265. Olivier Hamerlynck, Mozambique  
266. Peter Mukasa Reutter, Germany  
267. Prof Jack Heinemann, New Zealand  
268. Rajeswari S. Raina, India  
269. Rosario Carmona, Norway  
270. S Faizi PhD, India  
271. Saloni, India  
272. Yung En Chee, Australia 
 

¹ UNEP 2023. State of Finance of Nature, https://www.unep.org/resources/state-finance-nature-2023
² Dooley K., Keith H., Larson A., Catacora-Vargas G., Carton W., Christiansen K.L., Enokenwa Baa O., Frechette A., Hugh S., Ivetic N., Lim L.C., Lund J.F., Luqman M., Mackey B., Monterroso I., Ojha H., Perfecto I., Riamit K., Robiou du Pont Y., Young V., 2022. The Land Gap Report 2022, https://www.landgap.org/  
³ Green Finance Observatory, GFO’s response to IAPB’s consultation on archetypes, 29 April 2024 https://greenfinanceobservatory.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/IAPBconsultation2v5.pdf
⁴ IPES-Food, 2024. Land Squeeze: What is driving unprecedented pressures on global farmland and what can be done to achieve equitable access to land? https://ipes-food.org/report/land-squeeze/  
⁵ Kill J, Franchi G, Rio Tinto’s biodiversity offset in Madagascar – Double landgrab in the name of biodiversity?, World Rainforest Movement, Re:Common, March 2016. https://wrm.org.uy/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/RioTintoBiodivOffsetMadagascar_report_EN_web.pdf;  Re:common, Turning forests into hotels The true cost of biodiversity offsetting in Uganda, Apr 2019
https://www.recommon.org/en/turning-forests-into-hotels-the-true-cost-of-biodiversity-offsetting-in-uganda/; The Guardian, ‘Nowhere else to go’: forest communities of Alto Mayo, Peru, at centre of offsetting row, January 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/forest-communities-alto-mayo-peru-carbon-offsetting-aoe; Mongabay, Shell affiliate accused of violating Indigenous rights in carbon credit contracts, November 2023 https://news.mongabay.com/2023/11/shell-affiliate-accused-of-violating-indigenous-rights-in-carbon-credit-contracts/; Counsell S., Survival International, Blood Carbon: how a carbon offset scheme makes millions from Indigenous land in Northern Kenya, March 2023, https://assets.survivalinternational.org/documents/2466/Blood_Carbon_Report.pdf  
⁶ Rojas-Marchini F and Carmona R. Biodiversity offsets and credits: Key aspects that make them problematic for protecting biodiversity, Third World Network Briefing Paper, March 2024. See here.
⁷ As an example, figure S2 in the following article shows early evidence of large concentration of offsets (23% of the dataset) on “moderate condition other neutral grassland” in the UK’s Biodiversity Offset Market. Rampling, E., zu Ermgassen, S.O.S.E., Hawkins, I. and Bull, J.W., 2023. Achieving biodiversity net gain by addressing governance gaps underpinning ecological compensation policies. Conservation Biology, https://osf.io/preprints/osf/avrhf  
⁸ Evidence from New South Wales’ biodiversity offset market shows that a large number of credit types leads to an illiquid market: “Liquidity of the credit market 7.6 As noted above, there are over 1,000 different credit types that can be traded under the scheme. Stakeholders noted that this reflects the complexity of biodiversity, but the result is that the credit market is also complex, and largely illiquid.”
New South Wales Parliament, Integrity of the NSW Biodiversity Offsets Scheme, Report 16, November 2022. See here.
⁹ Pascual, U. et al. Diverse values of nature for sustainability. Nature, v. 620, n. 7975, p. 813–823, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06406-9
¹⁰ As an example, Uk’s new “environmental services” payments to farmers will go hand in hand with a phasing out of direct farming subsidies. Horton H, The Guardian, Revealed: farmers received only tiny sum from post-Brexit sustainability fund last year, 12 February 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/feb/12/farmers-post-brexit-payments; Farmers Weekly, Defra confirms reductions in support for farmers, 24 February 2020, https://www.fwi.co.uk/business/payments-schemes/defra-confirms-reductions-in-support-for-farmers  
¹¹ Greenfield P, The Guardian, Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows, 18 January 2023, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe