At COP 16 in Colombia, discussions focused a lot on biodiversity credits to finance global biodiversity, a financial need estimated at 200 billion dollars a year by 2030.
Two different financial mechanisms are being studied: biodiversity credits and biodiversity certificates. Credits are generally linked to local compensation for specific ecological damage, for example during building projects. They are inspired by carbon credits, whose effectiveness has been strongly questioned by several international studies.By contrast, certificates aim to encourage voluntary and proactive contributions to the conservation of global biodiversity, independently of the direct impact of a company’s activities.
Biodiversity credits, while popular, carry risks of fragmentation and greenwashing. They could allow companies simply to compensate for their environmental damage without really reducing their impact. Certificates, on the other hand, encourage a more holistic approach by highlighting ecosystem services and the environmental benefits of positive actions. For the economist Alain Karsenty, it seems wiser to give priority to contribution instruments that no longer separate ecosystem services but integrate and prioritise them according to the needs of the territories.
An innovative alternative could be a unified ‘nature certificate’ that would integrate several ecosystem services, such as carbon storage, biodiversity preservation and water management. This tool would simplify the complex landscape of environmental initiatives and foster increased transparency – all of which would be of great benefit to the environment.
In conclusion, it is necessary to align economic mechanisms with global ecological objectives, to prevent the solutions proposed at COP16 from being used to legitimise unsustainable practices. A collective commitment and an integrated approach are essential if we want to effectively protect biodiversity in the long term.