Biodiversity Credits and Ecosystem Service Value

Updated 2026-11-02 · 4 min read · By the akar.earth specialist team

Biodiversity credits in Indonesia explained: nature credit methods, ecosystem service valuation, co-benefit certification, monitoring and the TNFD link.

Biodiversity credits are certificates that represent measured gains in, or protection of, biodiversity in a defined place over a defined period. In Indonesia they are still an early market, mostly layered on top of carbon projects, but companies with land-intensive supply chains are starting to ask what their nature impacts and dependencies are worth.

This hub covers how biodiversity credits differ from carbon credits, the methods used to measure them, how ecosystem services are valued, and how this connects to corporate disclosure.

Why biodiversity is different from carbon

Carbon has a common unit: one tonne of CO2e is the same in Kalimantan as in Brazil. Biodiversity has no such unit. A hectare of restored lowland dipterocarp forest in Sumatra and a hectare of restored mangrove in Sulawesi support different species and ecosystem functions. That makes biodiversity credits:

• Local. Value depends on what is there and what was lost.
• Multi-metric. Methods combine habitat condition, species presence, connectivity and threat.
• Hard to offset with. Most frameworks discourage using them to cancel out damage elsewhere. They are better suited to contribution claims.

Biodiversity credits vs carbon credits compares the two in a table.

A mental model: three ways to put a value on nature

These are complementary. A restoration project in Indonesia might sell carbon credits with CCB labels, report its ecosystem service value to investors, and pilot biodiversity units.

Credit methods

Methods vary in what they measure and how. Some score habitat condition against a reference ecosystem. Others track indicator species or species groups. Some combine area and condition into a single unit. Biodiversity credit methods compared sets out the main approaches and their strengths and weaknesses.

Two program-level options appear most often for Southeast Asian projects:

• Plan Vivo PV Nature, which issues biodiversity units under a community-centred governance model. See Plan Vivo PV Nature.
• Verra’s Nature Framework, which sets out how Verra will issue nature credits. See Verra Nature Framework.

For carbon projects that want to show biodiversity outcomes without a separate unit, the CCB Standards are the usual route.

Measuring biodiversity

Credible biodiversity claims need monitoring that can be repeated. Field surveys of plants, birds and mammals remain essential. New tools reduce cost and increase coverage:

• Passive acoustic monitoring records birds, amphibians, insects and primates over long periods.
• eDNA samples water or soil for genetic traces of species.
• Camera traps document medium and large mammals.
• Remote sensing maps habitat extent, fragmentation and canopy structure.

Biodiversity monitoring with acoustics and eDNA explains what each method can and cannot show. The same field teams and plot networks used for carbon monitoring can collect much of this data; see the dMRV hub.

High conservation value

In Indonesia, high conservation value (HCV) and high carbon stock (HCS) assessments are already standard in oil palm and pulpwood supply chains. They identify areas that must be protected before development. These assessments provide a baseline that biodiversity projects can build on. See HCV and HCSA assessments.

Valuing ecosystem services

Ecosystems provide services with economic value: water regulation, flood and storm protection, pollination, soil fertility, fisheries support and cultural value. Valuation methods include avoided cost, replacement cost, market prices and benefit transfer. Mangroves protecting a coastline from storm surge and peat forests regulating water are common Indonesian examples. Valuing ecosystem services for land projects covers the methods and their limits. Be wary of large headline numbers: valuation depends heavily on assumptions, and buyers will ask what they are.

Corporate disclosure: TNFD

The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) gives companies a framework to report nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities. It does not require buying credits. For land-intensive companies sourcing palm oil, pulp, rubber, coffee or cocoa from Indonesia, TNFD reporting draws on the same location data, land cover change and biodiversity indicators that EUDR compliance and project monitoring produce. See TNFD disclosures for land-intensive companies.

Where the market stands

Biodiversity credit markets are small and methods are still settling. No reliable price benchmarks exist for Indonesian biodiversity units. Treat any claim of a large market with caution. The more robust path today is to measure biodiversity well within carbon and restoration projects, label it through co-benefit standards, and be ready for dedicated units as demand firms up.

Common mistakes

• Using carbon logic for nature. Biodiversity outcomes are not fungible like tonnes, so do not promise offsets.
• No baseline. Without pre-project surveys, gains cannot be shown.
• Too many metrics. Choose a small set of repeatable indicators rather than surveying everything once.
• Overstated valuations. Ecosystem service values depend on assumptions; publish them.

Getting started

• Establish a baseline: species, habitat condition and threats.
• Choose metrics you can repeat at each monitoring visit.
• Decide whether you want a separate unit, a co-benefit label or a disclosure dataset.

Our biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation service designs baselines, monitoring and valuation for land projects and companies. See also the forest carbon hub. Every biodiversity page is listed below.