Biodiversity Credits: Demystifying Metrics for Nature Markets

The report outlines four key decisions for measuring nature outcomes: choosing between practices and outcomes, selecting metric types, determining aggregation levels, and quantifying change. It identifies three emerging models for biodiversity credits—comprehensive aggregated, critical indicator, and mosaic compilation—and discusses their alignment with corporate disclosure frameworks like TNFD and SBTN.

• Measuring biodiversity outcomes is a prerequisite for robust nature-positive financing, as practice-based metrics (such as conserved area) alone cannot prove real impact on nature.
• Biodiversity metrics are categorized into three types: direct measurements of nature quality (e.g., species count), measurements of pollutants and novel entities (e.g., chemical levels), and factors closely related to outcomes (e.g., socioeconomic effects).
• While biotic metrics more directly reflect biodiversity, abiotic metrics (physical or chemical characteristics) are frequently used because they are often more standardized and easier to measure across different ecosystems.
• The report distinguishes between discrete (keystone) metrics, which use a few indicators to estimate overall health, and composite metrics, which weave multiple measurements together for a more holistic assessment.
• Quantifying change requires a baseline, which can be a static point (historical or comparable reference) or a dynamic pathway (a modelled counterfactual scenario that accounts for expected changes without intervention).
• The 'comprehensive aggregated model' is most common among standard-setters, utilizing composite metrics and direct measurements to provide high precision and generalizability across ecosystems.
• The 'critical indicator model' is most prevalent among project developers, relying on a few discrete, ecosystem-specific indicators and typically static baselines to minimize costs.
• The 'mosaic compilation model' creates a tailored view of an ecosystem by combining direct biodiversity measurements with pollutants and socioeconomic factors.
• Biodiversity credits generally align with high-level corporate disclosure frameworks, such as the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) and the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN), though these frameworks typically suggest metric types rather than prescribing exact metrics.
• An estimated $700 billion per year in additional funding is needed by 2030 to halt and reverse biodiversity decline, highlighting the role of the private sector in closing this gap.

APA

World Economic Forum (2024). Biodiversity Credits: Demystifying Metrics for Nature Markets. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Biodiversity_Credits_2024.pdf

Chicago

World Economic Forum. Biodiversity Credits: Demystifying Metrics for Nature Markets. 2024. https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Biodiversity_Credits_2024.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |author=World Economic Forum |title=Biodiversity Credits: Demystifying Metrics for Nature Markets |date=September 2024 |url=https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Biodiversity_Credits_2024.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{worldeconomicforum2024biodiversity, author = {{World Economic Forum}}, title = {{Biodiversity Credits: Demystifying Metrics for Nature Markets}}, institution = {World Economic Forum}, year = {2024}, month = sep, url = {https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Biodiversity_Credits_2024.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }