Can Market-Based Approaches Address Critical Biodiversity Loss?

The document critiques the shift from biodiversity conservation to 'restoration' via financial markets, arguing that biodiversity offsets are conceptually flawed and practically ineffective. It asserts that these mechanisms often lead to net habitat loss and human rights abuses. The author contends that nature cannot be accurately valued monetarily and that the core concepts of 'price signals' and 'additionality' are invalid in this context. As an alternative, the report proposes binding conservation laws to restrict unsustainable economic activities and foster sustainable practices like agroecology.

• Biodiversity offset schemes have a poor track record, often resulting in net habitat loss and pushing species toward extinction. One study of 558 projects between 1990 and 2011 found a 99% net loss in habitats, while another indicated that up to two-thirds of ecosystem restoration offset projects failed.
• The implementation of biodiversity offsets is linked to social harms, including the displacement of communities, human rights violations, and land grabbing.
• There are fundamental scientific and conceptual barriers to offsetting, as recreating ecosystems with all original functions is often impossible or prohibitively expensive, and the complex, non-linear behaviors of ecosystems cannot be accurately measured.
• Monetary valuation of nature is flawed because it ignores cultural and spiritual values and creates a false sense of substitutability between critical ecosystem functions, which can lead to the destruction of irreplaceable functions.
• The two core pillars of offset markets—price signals and additionality—are non-functional. Price signals are negated by extreme volatility caused by financial speculation, and additionality cannot be accurately measured due to scientific uncertainty.
• Binding environmental regulations are presented as a more effective and stable alternative to market-based tools, providing clearer rules for the private sector and better accommodating scientific uncertainty.

APA

Hache, F. (2019). Can Market-Based Approaches Address Critical Biodiversity Loss? Friends of the Earth International. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Market-based-approaches-to-critical-biodiversity-loss_FOEI_EN.pdf

Chicago

Hache, Frederic. Can Market-Based Approaches Address Critical Biodiversity Loss? Friends of the Earth International, 2019. https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Market-based-approaches-to-critical-biodiversity-loss_FOEI_EN.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Hache |first1=Frederic |title=Can Market-Based Approaches Address Critical Biodiversity Loss? |publisher=Friends of the Earth International |date=October 2019 |url=https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Market-based-approaches-to-critical-biodiversity-loss_FOEI_EN.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{hache2019can, author = {Hache, Frederic}, title = {{Can Market-Based Approaches Address Critical Biodiversity Loss?}}, institution = {Friends of the Earth International}, year = {2019}, month = oct, url = {https://www.foei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Market-based-approaches-to-critical-biodiversity-loss_FOEI_EN.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }