CBD COP17: Indigenous groups urge UN to halt wildlife carbon, biodiversity credits

Indigenous Peoples and civil society groups have called on the United Nations to halt the monetisation of sacred animals and nature as “natural capital” for carbon and biodiversity markets, warning that the practice could contribute to wildlife extinction.

The groups made the call on Tuesday on the sidelines of the ongoing 17th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP17) in Yerevan, Armenia.

They expressed concern that animals such as buffalo, jaguars, orangutans and whales were being incorporated into offset schemes that, they argued, could allow oil and mining companies to portray themselves as environmentally responsible without addressing the damage caused 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 said.

The concerns come amid contentious negotiations over Article 8(j) of the Convention, which calls on parties to respect, preserve and maintain the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities relevant to biodiversity conservation.

The provision also recognises the importance of the knowledge and practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Concerns over biodiversity financing

The dispute over nature-based financial mechanisms comes as delegates at COP17 continue negotiations on how to implement the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which sets global targets for halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030.

Since negotiations began last week, major questions have remained over which countries and stakeholders should contribute to international biodiversity financing, how much funding should be mobilised and the mechanisms through which the resources should be channelled.

Parties also remain divided over language on reducing or phasing out incentives harmful to biodiversity, including certain agricultural subsidies.

Other unresolved issues include which commercial users of digital sequence information should contribute to the Cali Fund, arrangements for a new permanent body on Indigenous Peoples and local communities under Article 8(j), and how biodiversity action should align with climate commitments and other international obligations.

Against this backdrop, Indigenous representatives and environmental organisations have warned that carbon and biodiversity credit schemes could undermine conservation efforts if they allow companies to offset environmental damage rather than prevent it.

Indigenous groups reject monetisation of sacred animals

Aimee Robeson, executive director of Cultural Survival, said biodiversity conservation should not depend on assigning monetary values to animals and ecosystem services.

“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 said.

She described market-based schemes as false solutions that could worsen existing environmental crises, arguing that they could 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 said.

Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network, said Indigenous Peoples regard nature as a relative rather than a financial asset.

“For Indigenous Peoples, nature is not an asset class, she is our Mother,” Mr Goldtooth said.

He specifically rejected the use of buffalo in carbon credit schemes, describing the animals as central to Indigenous identity and heritage.

Mr Goldtooth recalled that commercial slaughter reduced the buffalo population from an estimated 60 million to 70 million in 1853 to only a few thousand by the 1880s.

He criticised proposals to use buffalo-related soil carbon storage to generate credits that could allow polluters to continue 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 said.

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 also criticised the use of jaguar habitats to generate carbon credits.

He said monetising the animals could provide cover for extractive industries while failing to address 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 said.

In Indonesia, Andine Fahira Lubis of the North Sumatra regional office of WALHI, also known as Friends of the Earth-Indonesia, raised concerns over biodiversity offsets involving the critically endangered Tapanuli orangutan.

With fewer than 800 individuals remaining, the species is considered one of the world’s rarest great apes.

Ms Lubis alleged that the orangutans were being used in biodiversity offset schemes associated with the Martabe Gold Mine in Sumatra, operated by PT Agincourt Resources, a subsidiary of Jardine Matheson.

The mine is located in the Batang Toru ecosystem, within 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 said.

Armenian mine raises further concerns

The debate also extends to mining projects in Armenia, the host country of COP17.

Nazeli Vardanyan, director of Armenian Forests, said the controversial Amulsar gold mine planned to use biodiversity offsets in areas associated with the Caucasian leopard and brown bear, species whose habitats could be threatened by the project.

She said civil society groups had campaigned against the mine for 20 years and that its approval shortly before the opening of the biodiversity summit had heightened concerns about the use of offsets to address environmental damage.

The groups warned that placing financial values on wildlife and their habitats could allow companies to claim conservation benefits while continuing activities that threaten biodiversity.

Cassandra Smithies, an offsets expert with the Global Justice Ecology Project, said the United Nations should not support schemes that allow 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 said.

She argued that Indigenous Peoples’ lands, animals and oceans should not be treated as carbon sinks for industries responsible for greenhouse gas emissions.

“The United Nations must not be complicit with green colonialism,” she said.

Conservation groups call for stronger commitments

While Indigenous representatives criticised the monetisation of nature, other conservation organisations at COP17 called for stronger commitments and more effective implementation of existing biodiversity targets.

READ ALSO: CBD COP17: Nigeria urges developed countries to fulfil $30bn annual biodiversity funding pledge

Sue Lieberman, vice president of international policy at the Wildlife Conservation Society, said negotiations had made some progress but had yet to produce the level of ambition and concrete action required to meet the 2030 biodiversity targets.

She said delegates needed to strengthen commitments in the global review process and ensure that governments, communities and donors followed through 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 said.

She added that conservation efforts must translate into practical action on the ground and in aquatic ecosystems, particularly at national and regional levels.

Alfred DeGemmis, the society’s director of international policy, said Armenia and a growing number of governments were supporting civil society calls to identify subsidies that harm nature and redirect the resources towards conservation.

However, he said proposed language that could establish measurable milestones towards the 2030 targets remained unresolved in the negotiating text.

“Ministers are now expected to try to resolve this behind closed doors in the summit’s final days,” Mr DeGemmis said.

The competing positions highlight a broader question confronting delegates at COP17: how to mobilise the financing needed to protect biodiversity while ensuring that financial mechanisms do not undermine conservation, Indigenous rights and the integrity of ecosystems.