Biodiversity offsetting and biocredits

The report distinguishes between biodiversity offsetting, which aims for 'no net loss' to compensate for development impacts, and biodiversity credits (biocredits), which are voluntary investments in conservation. It argues that offsetting is often ineffective because biodiversity losses are difficult to quantify and ecosystems are not interchangeable. While biocredits are presented as a more positive investment, the report warns they may facilitate greenwashing or prioritize profitability over ecology. It highlights the role of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the promotion of 'nature markets' by the UK, France, Australia, and the EU, while suggesting alternatives like target-based ecological compensation or centralized private sector funds.

• Biodiversity offsetting is based on a 'no net loss' policy, aiming to compensate for negative impacts of development by protecting or restoring similar habitats elsewhere, but it is criticized for allowing companies to avoid changing unsustainable practices.
• Biodiversity offsets are often ecologically ineffective because the complexity of ecosystems makes it impossible to properly quantify losses, meaning there is no evidence that gains from offsets actually compensate for development-associated losses.
• Biodiversity credits (biocredits) are voluntary investments in conservation that do not imply biodiversity loss elsewhere, though critics worry they may be used for offsetting purposes or lead to the monetisation of nature.
• The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), established at COP 15, aims to safeguard 30% of the earth’s surface and 30% of degraded ecosystems by 2030, but its Target 19 continues to promote biodiversity offsets and carbon credits despite expert reservations.
• The UK and France are leading efforts to establish a global biodiversity credit market, including the June 2023 Global Biodiversity Credits Roadmap, while the UK specifically aims to increase private nature financing to GBP 500 million annually by 2027.
• Australia utilizes compliance-based offsetting across all six states and a federal scheme, and is proposing a 'Nature Repair market' to attract private investment, though the latter has faced criticism regarding its integrity.
• The EU has included biodiversity offsetting in its EU Taxonomy for sustainable activities, despite recommendations from the Platform on Sustainable Finance to remove it and opposition from NGOs.

APA

Team, Z. (2023). Biodiversity offsetting and biocredits. Zero Carbon Analytics. https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/uncategorized/biodiversity-offsetting-and-biocredits/

Chicago

Team, ZCA. Biodiversity offsetting and biocredits. Zero Carbon Analytics, 2023. https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/uncategorized/biodiversity-offsetting-and-biocredits/.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Team |first1=ZCA |title=Biodiversity offsetting and biocredits |publisher=Zero Carbon Analytics |date=22 November 2023 |url=https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/uncategorized/biodiversity-offsetting-and-biocredits/ |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{team2023biodiversity, author = {Team, ZCA}, title = {{Biodiversity offsetting and biocredits}}, institution = {Zero Carbon Analytics}, year = {2023}, month = nov, url = {https://zerocarbon-analytics.org/uncategorized/biodiversity-offsetting-and-biocredits/}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }