with “biodiversity credits”, the risk of a “free hand for a nature business”

ENVIRONMENT – Find and finance billions of euros to save fauna and flora. This is essentially the idea of “biodiversity credits”which will be at the heart of the discussions of the 12,000 participants expected during COP16 biodiversity, which is being held from this Monday, October 21 and until November 1, in Cali, Colombia.

The concept of “biodiversity credits” is not new. The idea of “sell nature to save it”, according to the expression popularized by the American researcher Kathleen McAfee, was born in the United States in the 1970s. But they had never aroused as much enthusiasm as since COP15 in 2022. One of the objectives set in Montreal is to increase global spending to 200 billion dollars per year for biodiversity. To achieve this, the text encourages States to promote “biodiversity credits and compensation” and pushes the private sector to take out its wallet. Public investments are in fact largely insufficient.

Harold Levrel. These credits aim either to quantify actions carried out in favor of biodiversity (depollution, de-artificialization, tree planting, etc.), or to give a price to the results obtained thanks to this action. In a simplified way, you are given a certification proving the ecological gains made, for example if you have succeeded in increasing the number of birds in an environment.

Who wants to buy them?

Large companies have an interest in buying them. Those employing more than 500 employees or generating 40 million euros in turnover are required to carry out “CSRD reporting”. This is a European obligation to take stock of the social and environmental dimensions of their activity. Biodiversity is one of them. These credits are also interesting for companies obliged to declare their environmental impacts (in the agro-industrial, energy sector, etc.). The purchase of credits allows them to “compensate” damage to nature.

And why is there not unanimous support for putting the restoration of biodiversity in the hands of businesses?

The problem is that effective restoration, such as rehabilitating a brownfield site, can cost hundreds of thousands of euros per hectare. An amount that some companies will undoubtedly not want to spend, who will prefer less costly actions, such as planting trees.

So you doubt the gains for biodiversity?

If we consider a biodiversity credit which corresponds to the planting of a forest, but which is just based on the fact that you have planted 100 trees without guarantee that they will adapt to the environment, it is superficial. Not only are we not certain of having ecological gains, but we also do not know if they will last.

Scientists should be able to map the sites eligible for “biodiversity credits”. Harold Levrel, environmental economist

For example, if we decontaminate an area, but do not eliminate the origin of the pollution, it will be polluted again months or years later. In the same way, if land is “de-artificialized” but there is no land guarantee that it will no longer be used, it can be artificialized again. This is why legal tools are needed that guarantee the sustainability of the ecological gain.

Besides the legal aspect, how can we regulate this tool?

The most important thing is to look for the best alternative for biodiversity. In the agricultural sector, we could ask companies to pay farmers for remaining organic. Land without pesticides would be a breath of fresh air for ecosystems. In the marine environment, we can consider fishing-free zones so that biodiversity returns. Ultimately, scientists should be able to map the sites eligible for biodiversity credits.

As a researcher, what are your fears with these nature credits?

We must hope that this will not be an opportunity to give the green light to a new business to the detriment of nature and which allows the maintenance of activities destructive of living things. History tells us to be wary, every time biodiversity is found at the heart of a financial system, it ends up being the big loser from these innovations.