14 February 2025 | Article

Robust metrics for BioCredits 

The biocredit market is expanding rapidly, and to minimize risks and ensure high quality, robust and comparable measurement methods are essential. As the saying goes: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.”

For biocredits to be effective and credible, they must adhere to key principles such as additionality, permanence, and traceability, and be verified by an independent third party.

A report published in January 2025 by the World Economic Forum in collaboration with McKinsey & Company focuses on how biodiversity and the state of nature can be measured in a way that enables efficient nature markets and financing of nature-positive initiatives. The report reinforces the principles and methods that fightCOtwo has been working on since its inception over four years ago.
 

The challenge: Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services

The report highlights the urgent issue of the rapid loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services, a trend largely driven by human activity. To slow this negative trajectory, standardized and comparable measurement methods, along with systematic working models, are required.

Biocredits offer a solution by financing nature-positive initiatives. At fightCOtwo, we base our projects on healthy Swedish forest ecosystems.
 

Four key questions in measuring biodiversity

The report identifies four critical decisions that impact how nature’s condition is measured and how credits are generated:

1. Should methods focus on actions, outcomes, or both?

• Practice-based methods measure actions, such as conservation and protected areas
• Outcome-based methods measure actual improvements in biodiversity

2. Which metrics should be used?

• Direct metrics, such as species population counts
• Indirect metrics, such as ecosystem values or socio-economic factors

3. How aggregated should the metrics be?

• Individual metrics, e.g., key species
• Composite indices, e.g., the Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII) or the Swedish model based on Nature Value Inventory (NVI) combined with CLIMB

4. How should biodiversity changes be quantified?

• Comparison with a static historical reference point (baseline)
• Comparison with a dynamic reference curve adjusted over time (systematic monitoring)
   

Conclusions and future development

The report draws several key conclusions about the future of the biocredit market:

• Need for standardization and verification – The biodiversity credit market requires clearer regulations and improved verification processes.
• Technological innovations – Tools such as satellite imagery, AI, and eDNA can enhance measurement accuracy.
• Local knowledge is crucial – Indigenous communities, such as the Sámi, and local communities should be involved in measurement and verification processes to ensure relevance and legitimacy.
   

FightCOtwo and the Future of BioCredits

The report confirms and strengthens fightCOtwo’s mission and the direction we have taken with our digital platform. With support from EcotechAi, we continue to develop innovative solutions to ensure high-quality and traceable biocredits – a necessity for a functioning and credible nature market.

Photo: fightCOtwo