Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Bending the curve of biodiversity loss requires the business and financial sectors to disclose and reduce their biodiversity impacts and help fund nature recovery. This has sparked interest in developing generalizable, standardized measurements of biodiversity-essentially a 'unit of nature'. We examine how such units are defined in the rapidly growing voluntary biodiversity credits market and present a framework exploring how biodiversity is quantified, how delivery of positive outcomes is detected and attributed to the investment and how the number of credits issued is adjusted to account for uncertainties. We demonstrate that there are deep uncertainties throughout the process and question if the benefits of biodiversity credits, and other efforts to abstract nature to a single unit, outweigh the harms. Credits can only be positive for biodiversity if they are used with unprecedentedly strict regulation that ensures businesses mostly avoid negative impacts and if they are purchased to quantify positive contributions rather than as direct offsets. While there may be a role for markets in attracting conservation funding, they will only ever be part of the solution, especially for the many aspects of nature that cannot be reduced to a unit.

Original publication

DOI

10.1098/rspb.2024.2353

Type

Journal article

Journal

Proc Biol Sci

Publication Date

12/2024

Volume

291

Keywords

additionality, contribution, credits, fungible, leakage, quantify, Biodiversity, Conservation of Natural Resources