Unravelling recognition injustices in biodiversity offsetting policies and practices

• Global political economies and local cultural histories entwine in the practices of biodiversity offsetting policies. • Histories of nonrecognition can easily be reproduced in new conservation policies if not given proper attention. • Equivalating what is legal to what is just upholds prevalent power relations and hampers recognition justice of IPLCs. • Offsetting policies can be adapted to enable transformative recognition to IPLCs. Biodiversity offsetting (BO) is a neoliberal conservation policy formulated in international policy arenas and later integrated into national policies in several countries. Studies of BO policy have shed light on diverse social and environmental justice concerns on the local levels of policy implementation. However, much of the research on justice questions in BO has centred on the distribution of benefits and harms and participatory processes of offsets, with less attention to how policy and practice enable recognition-as-justice to local communities. We argue that environmental justice in biodiversity offsetting requires a situated understanding of how recognition (in)justice arises, how recognition is conferred, and who or what is recognised. Based on empirical research we examine both BO policy development and implementation in Colombia and Finland to understand how international policy unfolds in diverse localities and what this implies for recognition of IPLCs. We link national policy to practice by examining the Cerrejón mine in Colombia and the Sakatti mine in Finland, illustrating how non- and misrecognition are enacted through the inclusion and exclusion of Indigenous peoples and local communities in BO practices in the context of large-scale mining projects. We find that barriers to recognition justice are embedded in the technocratic nature of BO policy, the dominance of ecological values, and the tendency of companies and authorities to equate legality with justice. These barriers can be attributed to the priorities formulated in international environmental policy but also the national and local political economies and histories of the two countries.