Search Climate Insights Directory

This research paper examines voluntary biodiversity credits (VBCs) as a mechanism to bridge the global biodiversity funding gap. It argues that because the standalone business case for VBCs is currently weak, they should be integrated into hybrid financing models—such as carbon markets and debt-for-nature swaps—to attract private investment and ensure scalable conservation outcomes.

This report by Zero Carbon Analytics examines the distinctions, controversies, and global implementation of biodiversity offsetting and biodiversity credits (biocredits). It contrasts offsetting—a mandatory mitigation tool for development impacts—with biocredits, which are voluntary investments in conservation. The document highlights ecological and ethical concerns regarding the 'no net loss' principle and the potential for greenwashing, while detailing the efforts of the UK, France, Australia, and the EU to establish nature markets.

This report by Friends of the Earth International critiques biodiversity offsets and biodiversity certificates (credits), arguing that these market-based mechanisms serve as false solutions that normalize the destruction of nature and undermine the rights of Indigenous Peoples.

A fact sheet by Friends of the Earth International critiquing biodiversity offsets and credits as ineffective and harmful mechanisms for biodiversity protection and financing.

A report by Friends of the Earth International and collaborators presented at COP16 in Cali, Colombia, which critiques biodiversity offsetting and crediting as market-based schemes that fail to address the biodiversity crisis and undermine the rights of Indigenous Peoples.