Biodiversity Conservation Requires More Than Forest Carbon Credits, Says Guyana Times

In a response to a column in the local media on October 26, 2026, titled “Questions for the Global Biodiversity Alliance,” Erin Northe wrote for the Guyana Times, addressing the topic of environmental financing and the need to demonstrate additional value when seeking payments for biodiversity conservation alongside existing carbon credits.

Northe noted that forest carbon credits only represent one aspect of monetizing the environmental benefits provided by Guyana’s natural assets. While carbon markets acknowledge the climate-regulating value of Guyana’s forests, they do not capture the complete ecological and economic worth of the biodiversity, freshwater systems, habitats, and other ecosystem services those forests support. Guyana possesses about 18.5 million hectares of forest cover, which constitutes approximately 85 per cent of the nation, highlighting the scale of these services. Furthermore, Guyana has only sold about 30 per cent of its available carbon credits, meaning the country has not fully monetized the climate services its forests provide through the existing carbon market. Therefore, it would be premature to claim that Guyana’s forests are already receiving comprehensive compensation for their environmental contributions.

The Global Biodiversity Alliance (GBA) aims to shift the discussion to a different level, as biodiversity conservation is not simply a side effect of keeping forests standing. It necessitates deliberate, sustained, and frequently costly interventions to protect species, preserve habitats, maintain ecosystem health, and address threats that carbon accounting alone cannot cover. These forests support over 1200 bird species, around 225 mammal species, and approximately 8000 plant species, which demonstrates an ecological value that cannot be reduced to carbon tonnage. A forest can remain standing and continue carbon storage while simultaneously experiencing biodiversity loss due to pressures such as illegal hunting, wildlife trafficking, invasive species, and habitat degradation. Consequently, protecting carbon stocks and protecting biodiversity are related but fundamentally distinct conservation responsibilities.

Protecting biodiversity demands substantially greater investment in people, systems, and activities. Effective biodiversity conservation requires more trained staff, including ecologists, scientists, rangers, and monitoring specialists. It also requires expanded research, habitat assessments, species inventories, enforcement, community involvement, technology, and long-term ecological monitoring. Guyana currently has about 1.8 million hectares designated as protected areas, and a plan is underway to have 30 per cent of its areas under conservation by 2030. Sustained financing is necessary for the management, monitoring, and community participation required to expand effective protection. These activities involve real and ongoing expenses that are not necessarily covered by carbon-credit revenues. Biodiversity financing can supply the supplementary resources needed to execute this work and achieve measurable conservation results.

Northe pointed out that Guyana’s carbon-credit program has generated around US$353 million over three years, with 20 per cent of the gross revenues allocated to Amerindian villages. While this shows the potential of environmental finance, it does not confirm that the specific costs associated with biodiversity protection have been met. The solution lies in the additional conservation efforts, scientific capacity, institutional strengthening, and measurable ecological outcomes that such financing can support. This requires clearly defining the conservation activities being financed, establishing baselines, tracking measurable biodiversity results, and preventing the same outcome from being claimed twice, while also ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place for credible measurement and avoiding double counting.

However, Northe stressed the importance of not confusing the presence of multiple environmental services within the same forest with the duplication of payments for a single service. The Global Biodiversity Alliance presents an opportunity to move the global conversation beyond merely compensating countries for maintaining forest carbon stocks, toward acknowledging and funding the wider duty of protecting the planet’s biodiversity. This distinction is especially crucial for Guyana and other developing nations rich in biodiversity, as the world cannot continue to require increasingly complex conservation outcomes without providing the necessary financial resources to achieve them. The goal is not to