Written by
Danny ChenBiodiversity restoration and conservation is important. However, is the nature credit mechanism under the carbon credit project the right one to promote and adopt?
As a stakeholder, understand the potential drawbacks and problems will help us better make judgement. Here, we organize the common top 5 criticisms of nature credit mechanism.
C1: Non-Fungible: Biodiversity assessments are simplified and overlook the full range of values.
A1: It is the problem all mechanisms will face when our resources are limited, not just the nature of the credit mechanism.
C2: Ineffective Monitoring: Biodiversity losses and gains are hard to define and measure
A2: It is a problem that will be solved as the industry evolves with technological advancement
C3: Insufficient Disclosure: Lack of transparency
A3: Nature Credit has provided public consultation on the project requirements. The specific area of transparency should be sent and discussed in the consultation.
C4: Methodology Misalignment: Each region has its own methodologies without a global consensus.
A4: Under the nature credit framework, it provides the flexibility for developers to self-select the indicators that may best represent the local region's biodiversity conditions and align with their local methodologies.
C5: Community Low Engagement: Business practices do not often align with Indigenous people's practices and knowledge with weak free, prior, and informed consent(FPIC).
A5: The nature of the credit mechanism has established several requirements to force stakeholder communication and engagement with constant standard improvement.
Similar to the carbon credit industry, the nature credit industry is evolving and will gradually evolve to a better mechanism that most stakeholders agree on.
