How do biodiversity units differ from traditional carbon or biodiversity credits?

The biodiversity credit market is still nascent and consensus has yet to be reached on a number of issues. The Biodiversity Credit Alliance defines a biodiversity credit as "a certificate that represents a measured and evidence-based unit of positive biodiversity outcome that is durable and additional to what would otherwise have occurred".

Our vision is to make nature investable. We therefore believe that investments in conservation and restoration must be recognised as asset investments. That's why we made the following distinctions:

Key Differences

• Additionality: Biodiversity units value all intact natural systems, while traditional credits require demonstrating additional improvements. The concept of additionality can limit investment in already existing, high-integrity ecosystems and create perverse incentives for ecosystem degradation to establish a baseline for credit eligibility. Furthermore, proving additionality involves speculative counterfactual scenarios, ignoring that today’s environmental threats put all natural systems at risk. Where additionality is required, project proponents should demonstrate it through proactive, holistic management (e.g. species introduction) that identifies and enhances areas of resilience that wouldn't otherwise have been undertaken.
• Permanence: Biodiversity units are issued for measurable, genuine conservation outcomes that already occured, not future promises.
• Leakage: Biodiversity units encourage comprehensive, landscape-level planning in conservation efforts rather than isolated, site-specific projects. Our methodology focuses on landscape-level collaboration instead of proving no leakage.
• Tangibility: Biodiversity units are traceable to specific areas and time periods, with monitored values on an interactive dashboard.
• Offsetting: Biodiversity units are not designed for offsetting, unlike some traditional credits.

Similarities

• Both aim to finance conservation, restoration, and address biodiversity loss drivers.
• Both recognize nature's intrinsic value beyond ecosystem services.
• Both strive for credibility, scalability, and just partnerships with communities.