In a document published on Monday 2 June, the Green Finance Observatory (GFO) identified four reasons to be concerned about the introduction of ‘nature credits’ in the EU.
Based on a draft Commission ‘roadmap’ leaked at the end of May (see EUROPE 13648/5), the GFO is opposed to introducing the notion of profitability into biodiversity management.
To close the €37 billion annual funding gap for biodiversity identified by the Commission, the GFO states that it would be sufficient to put an end to subsidies for activities that are harmful to nature. “Member States direct between 34 and 48 billion euros of European subsidies each year towards activities that are harmful to nature”, the think-tank noted.
The GFO sees danger in linking conservation policy actions to the generation of a “financial return”. The risk is that it would “lead to a focus from private investors on the easiest, fastest to restore and most profitable types of habitats/species/ecosystems, regardless of whether this is what is ecologically needed”.
The idea of making the issue of ‘nature credits’ subject to measurable results in terms of biodiversity is welcomed.
But the GFO argues that the possibility of banking and exchanging ‘nature credits’ threatens their reliability. Storing ‘nature credits’ to “compensate” for a future loss risks generating an excess of credits with no real ecological impact. In addition, the possibility of credit swaps has led the GFO to worry about the authorisation of a secondary market synonymous with speculation and therefore instability of credit prices and disconnection from conservation actions.
To see the document, go to https://aeur.eu/f/h4v (Original version in French by Florent Servia)