1/6 IUCN just published its new global standard for #NatureBasedSolutions. Among the 8 criteria, 2 are particulary worrying
https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2020-020-En.pdf

@AuroreLalucq @ph_lamberts @aubry @marietouss1 @drvandanashiva @MaudeBarlow @olga_02138 @SianSullivanUK @isaacgavitza @FoEint

2/6 “Criterion 3: NbS result in net gain to biodiversity and ecosystem integrity.” Net Gain being the new name for biodiversity offsetting, this criteria unfortunately confirms that NbS fosters offsetting, despite its appalling track record and intractable conceptual issues.

3/6 “Criterion 4: NbS are economically viable”
On what ground would we require addressing climate change and biodiversity loss to be profitable, when we never put similar expectations on addressing other major threats, like terrorism, nuclear safety, the hole in th ozone layer?

4/6 “Innovative and evidence-based tools for the valuation of nature, along with ideas for NbS contributions to markets and jobs, encourage creative (blended) financing of NbS, thereby increasing the likelihood of their long-term success.”

5/6 IUCN’s standard thus also fosters the monetary valuation of nature as well as its “contribution to markets” and “creative blended financing” (sic), or in layman terms complex financial structures mixing public funding and private profits.

6/6 This is despite evidence of the impossibility to put meaningful monetary values on nature, or the unsuitability of cost-benefit analyses for biodiversity losses, and of the moral hazard often associated with blended financing.
https://greenfinanceobservatory.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/50-shades-part-III_v5.10.pdf