By Abdullahi Lukman
Indigenous Peoples and environmental organizations have urged the United Nations to reject carbon and biodiversity offset schemes that use wildlife and natural habitats as financial assets, warning that the initiatives could accelerate species extinction while allowing polluting
industries to continue operating.
The groups issued the warning at the UN Convention on Biological Diversity summit in Yerevan, Armenia, criticizing the use of buffalo, jaguars, orangutans, whales and other wildlife to generate credits that companies can purchase to compensate for environmental damage.
They argue that such schemes commodify sacred animals and Indigenous territories, potentially undermining conservation efforts while enabling oil, mining and other extractive industries to portray
themselves as environmentally responsible.
Aimee Robeson, executive director of Cultural Survival and a member of the Chahta/Chikashsha peoples, said nature has inherent value that cannot be reduced to monetary terms.
She warned that market-based conservation schemes could contribute to biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and environmental destruction, arguing that protecting nature should not involve trading one ecosystem or species for another.
Tom Goldtooth, executive director of the Indigenous Environmental Network and a member of the Diné/Dakota peoples, also condemned the use of Indigenous lands and sacred animals to generate carbon and biodiversity credits.
Goldtooth specifically rejected the creation of buffalo-based carbon credits, which he said allow polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases by treating the animals as tools for carbon storage.
He cited the historical slaughter of tens of millions of buffalo in North America during the 19th century, describing the current commercialization of the animals as a continuation of colonial exploitation.
In Ecuador, carbon credits linked to jaguar habitats have drawn criticism from Wilmer Lucitante of the Indigenous A’i Kofán Nation and UDAPT, an organization affiliated with Friends of the Earth.
Lucitante said monetizing jaguars would not address the underlying causes of climate change and could help companies conceal the environmental consequences of oil extraction and mining. He called for an end to extractive activities threatening the Amazon.
In Indonesia, Andine Fahira Lubis of WALHI/Friends of the Earth-Indonesia’s North Sumatra office raised concerns about biodiversity offsets involving the critically endangered Tapanuli orangutan.
Fewer than 800 of the great apes are estimated to remain, making them among the world’s rarest great ape species. According to Lubis, their habitat in the Batang Toru ecosystem is being used for biodiversity offset initiatives associated with the Martabe Gold Mine, operated by PT Agincourt Resources, a subsidiary of Jardine Matheson.
Lubis argued that offset schemes cannot compensate for damage to irreplaceable habitats and questioned the use of endangered species to promote the environmental credentials of mining operations.
Similar concerns have emerged in Armenia, where the controversial Amulsar gold mine plans to use biodiversity offsets linked to habitats of the Caucasian leopard and brown bear, according to Nazeli Vardanyan, director of Armenian Forests. Civil society groups have opposed the project for years, and its approval shortly before the biodiversity summit has intensified criticism.
Cassandra Smithies, an offsets expert with Global Justice Ecology Project, warned that turning wildlife and ecosystems into tradable financial assets could worsen the climate and biodiversity crises.
The campaigners argue that offsetting allows companies to continue environmentally destructive activities rather than directly reducing emissions, halting habitat loss or preventing pollution.
They are calling on the United Nations to reject approaches that assign financial value to wildlife and Indigenous territories as a substitute for protecting them.
The controversy has also raised broader questions about the role of financial markets in global conservation efforts, with critics warning that biodiversity protection risks becoming a mechanism for corporate greenwashing rather than a means of preventing species loss.
The groups maintain that effective conservation requires protecting ecosystems in place, respecting Indigenous rights and addressing the industrial activities driving environmental destruction, rather than relying on credits intended to compensate for
