In Colombia at the COP16 summit, the most unpopular proposal was that cash-rich corporations would pay for conservation if they made money from nature’s genes. But in the case of voluntary submission, is this really a breakthrough or another half-baked solution?
COP16 biodiversity summit COP16’s new version of conservation funding is controversial – a voluntary system wherein thriving corporations pledge to donate to a biodiversity fund when they deploy genetic information collected in the wild. In the abstract, this is a win for biodiversity. Firms that profit from digital DNA sequences from plants, animals and ecosystems might now be “incentivised” to donate a proportion of their income or profit to conservation. But why should we demand of companies that they regulate themselves, and is this the true path to sustainable biodiversity funding?
This new “Cali Fund” system is suspicious in that it is voluntary and companies are basically the ones who have to choose whether they want to contribute. With no contractual obligation, say opponents, corporations most likely to benefit from genetic resources will avoid the contribution. The fund also looks like a tiny effort to plug the gaps in conservation dollars without even taking companies seriously. And seriously – when was the last time something that you could do for free did any real good?
To make matters more shady, COP16 included the introduction of biodiversity credits, which are basically carbon credits. Businesses would then be allowed to buy these credits to “pay for” the damage they do to the environment. There is no room for the ironic parallels with the so-called carbon market. Carbon credits — the green gas credits that were sold as a means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — have also been accused of not producing genuine environmental goods, and in fact exacerbated social and environmental injustice. So, are biodiversity credits just another greenwashing tool for companies to keep poisoning ecosystems on the pretence of conservation?
The distrust in biodiversity credits is made all the more compelling by the voluntary character of the scheme itself. In theory, it will be easy for the market to be used as a bailout point by megacorporations, because there aren’t strict rules. But is this actually the start of sustainable funding, or are we just building a market for companies to simply pawn off responsibility?
For environmentalists watching this “voluntary” financing mechanism play out, there is nothing more in it than that. True conservation demands concrete commitments, not abstract money. In order for the Cali Fund to work, governments and conservation groups will need to advocate for more oversight so that companies who are driving biodiversity loss are held accountable. Or else, this compromise is going to be just another well-meaning, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to save the biosphere on Earth.
