Net Gain is a Lose-Lose option for women, Indigenous Peoples and local communities
“Net” approaches to biodiversity loss inherently ignore the local social, economic and cultural values of biodiversity, especially for rightsholder groups that disproportionately depend on these values like women in all their diversities, Indigenous Peoples and local communities. As such, the “net” approach is fundamentally at odds with the CBD vision of living in harmony with nature. In light of the seriousness of the biodiversity crisis,there is also no ecological space left for “net” approaches.
According to the mitigation hierarchy, projects and initiatives that may lead to biodiversity harm should first try to avoid harm to biodiversity.
If that is not possible, harm should be minimized, and if even that is not possible any harm done should afterwards be restored or rehabilitated. Only if it turns out that all these options are not feasible, a biodiversity offset may be considered. However, The Global Inventory of Biodiversity Offset Policies (GIBOP) concluded on basis of an analysis of 12,983 projects in 37 countries that 77% of the projects did not properly apply the mitigation hierarchy, and thus did not necessarily use biodiversity offsets as a last resource and IUCN found that the overall impact of “net” approaches was negative as, and I quote, “by design, even best-practice offsetting tends to lead to less biodiversity after a project than before, because many policies allow for the protection of existing biodiversity from later development or harm to be traded for residual losses from the project.”
The impacts of biodiversity offsets can have varied and differentiated negative implications.
This is due to the various forms of structural barriers that entrench and maintain discrimination and marginalization. When extractive industries and other projects do not avoid, minimize or restore the harm they cause to ecosystems, women in all their diversities, historically underrepresented groups, Indigenous Peoples, and other marginalized local communities will be the first victim as they will lose their livelihood resources. A biodiversity offset in another location will not compensate them in any way for the loss of livelihood resources. In fact, biodiversity offsets and other net approaches to biodiversity loss fundamentally ignore the dependencies of local livelihoods on biodiversity, and de facto dismiss the local economic, social and cultural values of biodiversity. The loss of biodiversity and livelihoods, thus can lead to loss of local food security and of cultural identities.
Biodiversity loss has to be avoided at all costs if an irreversible planetary crisis is to be avoided. This first and foremost requires divestment from biodiversity destruction, including by redirecting perverse subsidies.
Despite the biodiversity crisis, there are examples abound of Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities who have been living in true harmony with nature for generations. Such community conservation initiatives, which are often women-led, should be recognized and supported in biodiversity policies and laws, and the governance rights of Indigenous Peoples, local communities and women over the areas they have been living in harmony with for generations should be recognized. It is essential that biodiversity policy development is guided by the views and knowledge of these rightsholders on the ground, rather than the economic interests of large corporations.
See also the full briefing paper: https://globalforestcoalition.org/biodiversity-offsets/
By Souparna Lahiri, Global Forest Coalition
The opinions,commentaries, and articles printed in ECO are the sole opinion of the individual authors or organizations, unless otherwise expressed.