Biodiversity credit markets must consider solutions spanning control sites, verification, and transparency to avoid the pitfalls of carbon credits, a researcher has said.

Like carbon, biodiversity credits faces risks from failing to implement rigorous science-backed processes, says T. Mitchell Aide, research associate at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute, in a forthcoming article in Npj Biodiversity journal.

Some carbon credit projects have exaggerated their impacts, compared to areas with no intervention, by predicting excessive deforestation, Aide says, according to a press release.

To try to avoid this issue, biodiversity credit projects should monitor both degraded and pristine control sites over time, creating a dynamic baseline that accounts for natural fluctuations, he says.

Monitoring should also extend to nearby areas to prevent biodiversity leakage, where conservation in one area inadvertently pushes destructive activities to another, Aide says.

Biodiversity credit projects that rely on habitat diversity alone, like the presence of forests or wetlands, can be misleading as degraded woodland may appear intact on satellite imagery.

On-the-ground species monitoring tools like camera traps, bioacoustics, and environmental DNA can help track biodiversity in cost-effective ways to offer a more complete picture, according to Aide.

Such technology can also provide a more accurate evaluation of additionality, while avoiding potential for inflated claims that have affected other environmental credit markets.

VALIDATION

Validation presents another challenge for both carbon and biodiversity markets, with potential conflicts of interest when project developers select their own verification organisations.

To address this, biodiversity credit markets could establish their own independent regional or national verification panels to review projects, Aide says.

Transparent platforms like blockchain should make biodiversity credit data publicly accessible, allowing all stakeholders to verify claims. Organisations including Integrity Certificates and Blockchain Jungle have already set out to try to make this possible.

Projects should aim for commitments of at least 30 to 50 years to secure lasting biodiversity benefits, as long-term sustainability is crucial, he says. Initiatives could further the longevity of their impacts by creating endowments that fund conservation after the initial funding runs out.

By Thomas Cox – t.cox@carbon-pulse.com

*** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter ***