Indigenous Peoples and civil society groups have known as on the United Nations to halt the monetisation of sacred animals and nature as “natural capital” for carbon and biodiversity markets, warning that the apply may contribute to wildlife extinction.
The groups made the decision on Tuesday on the sidelines of the continued seventeenth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP17) in Yerevan, Armenia.
They expressed concern that animals similar to buffalo, jaguars, orangutans and whales have been being included into offset schemes that, they argued, may enable oil and mining firms to painting themselves as environmentally accountable with out addressing the injury brought on by their operations.
“Alarmed that buffalo, jaguars, orangutans and even whales are being converted into offsets to greenwash oil and mining companies, Indigenous Peoples and civil society demand that the United Nations immediately stop monetising their sacred animals and nature as ‘natural capital’ for carbon and biodiversity markets because it will contribute to their extinction,” the groups mentioned.
The considerations come amid contentious negotiations over Article 8(j) of the Convention, which calls on events to respect, protect and keep the standard information, improvements and practices of Indigenous Peoples and native communities related to biodiversity conservation.
The provision additionally recognises the significance of the information and practices of Indigenous Peoples and native communities to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.
Concerns over biodiversity financing
The dispute over nature-based monetary mechanisms comes as delegates at COP17 proceed negotiations on how to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which units international targets for halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030.
Since negotiations started final week, main questions have remained over which nations and stakeholders ought to contribute to worldwide biodiversity financing, how a lot funding ought to be mobilised and the mechanisms via which the assets ought to be channelled.
Parties additionally stay divided over language on lowering or phasing out incentives dangerous to biodiversity, together with sure agricultural subsidies.
Other unresolved points embody which industrial customers of digital sequence data ought to contribute to the Cali Fund, preparations for a brand new everlasting physique on Indigenous Peoples and native communities beneath Article 8(j), and the way biodiversity motion ought to align with local weather commitments and different worldwide obligations.
Against this backdrop, Indigenous representatives and environmental organisations have warned that carbon and biodiversity credit score schemes may undermine conservation efforts if they permit firms to offset environmental injury quite than forestall it.
Indigenous groups reject monetisation of sacred animals
Aimee Robeson, govt director of Cultural Survival, mentioned biodiversity conservation mustn’t rely on assigning financial values to animals and ecosystem companies.
“If we truly care about biodiversity, we should not be tempted to monetise our relatives nor ecosystem services like carbon sequestration, because they have inherent value that cannot be reduced to a dollar amount,” Ms Robeson mentioned.
She described market-based schemes as false options that would worsen present environmental crises, arguing that they might lead to biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystems.
“There can be no sacrifice zones, no trade-offs and no offsets if we want life on Mother Earth to survive for generations to come,” she mentioned.
Tom Goldtooth, govt director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, mentioned Indigenous Peoples regard nature as a relative quite than a monetary asset.
“For Indigenous Peoples, nature is not an asset class, she is our Mother,” Mr Goldtooth mentioned.
He particularly rejected using buffalo in carbon credit score schemes, describing the animals as central to Indigenous id and heritage.
Mr Goldtooth recalled that industrial slaughter decreased the buffalo inhabitants from an estimated 60 million to 70 million in 1853 to only some thousand by the Eighteen Eighties.
He criticised proposals to use buffalo-related soil carbon storage to generate credits that would enable polluters to proceed emitting greenhouse gases.
“Our buffalo, Tanka Oyate, are part of our genesis, not ‘bison bonds’. Carbon trading is an offensive scam that threatens the future of humanity. Bring back the buffalo, not colonialism!” he mentioned.
Jaguar and orangutan offsets criticised
Wilmer Lucitante of UDAPT, Friends of the Earth-Ecuador and the Indigenous A’i Kofán Nation of the Ecuadorian Amazon additionally criticised using jaguar habitats to generate carbon credits.
He mentioned monetising the animals may present cowl for extractive industries whereas failing to tackle the threats posed by oil drilling and mining.
“Turning our sacred jaguars into carbon credits is a false solution to climate change that accelerates their extinction, while greenwashing extractive industries. Instead of monetising wildlife, we need to stop oil drilling and mining in the Amazon,” Mr Lucitante mentioned.
In Indonesia, Andine Fahira Lubis of the North Sumatra regional workplace of WALHI, often known as Friends of the Earth-Indonesia, raised considerations over biodiversity offsets involving the critically endangered Tapanuli orangutan.
With fewer than 800 people remaining, the species is taken into account one of many world’s rarest nice apes.
Ms Lubis alleged that the orangutans have been being utilized in biodiversity offset schemes related to the Martabe Gold Mine in Sumatra, operated by PT Agincourt Resources, a subsidiary of Jardine Matheson.
The mine is situated within the Batang Toru ecosystem, inside Indigenous Peoples’ territories.
“Not only is the sheer hypocrisy of orangutan offsets staggering, but as our report clearly shows, offsets cannot redeem the irreplaceable,” she mentioned.
Armenian mine raises additional considerations
The debate additionally extends to mining initiatives in Armenia, the host nation of COP17.
Nazeli Vardanyan, director of Armenian Forests, mentioned the controversial Amulsar gold mine deliberate to use biodiversity offsets in areas related to the Caucasian leopard and brown bear, species whose habitats may very well be threatened by the venture.
She mentioned civil society groups had campaigned in opposition to the mine for 20 years and that its approval shortly earlier than the opening of the biodiversity summit had heightened considerations about using offsets to tackle environmental injury.
The groups warned that putting monetary values on wildlife and their habitats may enable firms to declare conservation advantages whereas persevering with actions that threaten biodiversity.
Cassandra Smithies, an offsets skilled with the Global Justice Ecology Project, mentioned the United Nations mustn’t assist schemes that enable extractive industries to use Indigenous territories and ecosystems as sources of carbon credits.
“Putting a price on nature will not save nature, it will destroy her,” Ms Smithies mentioned.
She argued that Indigenous Peoples’ lands, animals and oceans shouldn’t be handled as carbon sinks for industries liable for greenhouse fuel emissions.
“The United Nations must not be complicit with green colonialism,” she mentioned.
Conservation groups name for stronger commitments
While Indigenous representatives criticised the monetisation of nature, different conservation organisations at COP17 known as for stronger commitments and simpler implementation of present biodiversity targets.
READ ALSO: CBD COP17: Nigeria urges developed countries to fulfil $30bn annual biodiversity funding pledge
Sue Lieberman, vice chairman of worldwide coverage on the Wildlife Conservation Society, mentioned negotiations had made some progress however had but to produce the extent of ambition and concrete motion required to meet the 2030 biodiversity targets.
She mentioned delegates wanted to strengthen commitments within the international assessment course of and be certain that governments, communities and donors adopted via on their pledges.
“The key is ambition. The key is to work with countries, communities, and donors to make sure everything they commit to happens,” Ms Lieberman mentioned.
She added that conservation efforts should translate into sensible motion on the bottom and in aquatic ecosystems, significantly at nationwide and regional ranges.
Alfred DeGemmis, the society’s director of worldwide coverage, mentioned Armenia and a rising variety of governments have been supporting civil society calls to determine subsidies that hurt nature and redirect the assets in the direction of conservation.
However, he mentioned proposed language that would set up measurable milestones in the direction of the 2030 targets remained unresolved within the negotiating textual content.
“Ministers are now expected to try to resolve this behind closed doors in the summit’s final days,” Mr DeGemmis mentioned.
The competing positions spotlight a broader query confronting delegates at COP17: how to mobilise the financing wanted to defend biodiversity whereas making certain that monetary mechanisms don’t undermine conservation, Indigenous rights and the integrity of ecosystems.
Discover extra from Premium Times Nigeria
Subscribe to get the newest posts despatched to your e-mail.
