A/HRC/61/49 69. Biodiversity markets and carbon credits schemes, which allow developers to compensate the harm done to nature in one place by supporting restoration in another, can raise significant human rights concerns. Not only has the legitimacy of carbon markets been repeatedly challenged, and biodiversity credits would be even harder to quantify, 113 but, in any case, harm to the rights of a local population to a clean and healthy environment and to maintain and transmit its identity and cultural practices cannot be offset by a biodiversity gain somewhere else. Pursuing their establishment may allow States and companies to postpone targeted action to reduce biodiversity destruction, while excusing human rights violations. 70. States are under the obligation to ensure that donors and organizations operating on their territory respect and implement cultural rights; that both public and private bodies operate with respect for cultural rights; and that their contributions in all international organizations are consistent with their human rights obligations. VII. Conclusions and recommendations 71. Respecting, protecting and fulfilling cultural rights is critical for effective environmental protection and biodiversity conservation, with cultural practices, traditional ecological knowledge and local governance systems being essential for positive conservation outcomes. This reality, acknowledged recently in the outcome document of the 2025 World Conference on Cultural Policies and Sustainable Development (MONDIACULT) and transposed into specific commitments, 114 necessitates an urgent, more robust engagement with cultural rights in global conservation policy and practice. 72. A cultural rights-based approach must be adopted in nature conservation policies and programmes by all States, international organizations and other stakeholders. Any international or national document on nature conservation must be interpreted in a manner that respects cultural rights. A paradigm shift needs to take place so that the protection of biodiversity is linked to the protection of cultural diversity, and vice versa. 73. Nevertheless, the main ongoing problem lies not in policies but in their implementation and monitoring. The “fortress conservation” model prevails in many parts of the world, with catastrophic consequences for the cultural rights of individuals and groups. 74. States should: (a) Identify, respect, protect and fulfil cultural rights, both individual and collective, in the conception, design, funding, implementation, management and monitoring of nature conservation projects; (b) Ensure that nature conservation measures do not discriminate directly, indirectly, intersectionally or structurally against specific individuals or groups; (c) Review all national legal, policy and educational frameworks related to nature conservation to reflect the intrinsic connection between nature and humans, and between biodiversity and cultural diversity; (d) Review all legal and policy documents related to nature conservation to ensure that they protect the cultural rights of individuals and groups and fully reflect their binding international obligations; (e) Review all public documents and work to ensure that bias in favour of fortress conservation and “one-size-fits-all” models are removed; 113 114 18 Submission from Amnesty International, p. 3. UNESCO, “Outcome document MONDIACULT 2025” (2025), pp. 2 and 3, available at https://www.unesco.org/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/2025/09/EN_MONDIACULT_Outcome_D ocument%20Final%2027.09.25.pdf. GE.26-01310