Q&A: Can biodiversity credits help close Africa’s nature financing gap?

From the newsletter

Africa is losing its biodiversity at alarming rates. IUCN warns that 6,400 animals and 3,100 plant species on the continent are at risk of extinction. In an exclusive interview with Conservation Rising, Innocent Omil explains how biodiversity credits are a potential economic tool for conservation and the risks of leaving nature without a price.

• “Biodiversity credits are about valuing nature in a way that encourages protection over exploitation,” says Innocent, the Executive Director of the Centre For Climate Action and the founder of Eco Sanctify in Kenya.

• The Nature Conservancy estimates that an additional $598 to $824 billion annually is needed by 2030 to reverse the biodiversity crisis. Can bio credits help reduce this gap?

How long have you been in the climate finance space?

My background is in environmental planning and climate governance. Professionally, I’ve worked with the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance, CARE International in Kenya, the Environmental Capacities and Sustainability Institute, and I’m currently at the Center for Climate Action. I also founded Eco-Sanctify Consultants.

I first engaged with climate finance in 2017 through the Kenya Platform for Climate Governance under the Pan African Climate Justice Alliance. I was attached to the climate finance thematic area, taking secretarial duties and supporting civil society organizations in regional blocs like Jumuiya ya Pwani and North Rift. We trained them on financing opportunities such as the Green Climate Fund and Kenya’s National Adaptation Fund.

Since then, I’ve noticed that climate finance is always debated. Every COP, we hear “we don’t have enough money.” But the real question is: how well are we using what is already available? That is why innovative mechanisms like biodiversity credits and carbon credits are emerging, alongside financing from multilateral development banks and the private sector.

What are biodiversity credits, and how do they differ from carbon credits?

Biodiversity or bio-credits are a mechanism to generate funds for conservation by quantifying and monetising positive outcomes for biodiversity. Each credit represents a measurable gain like protecting or restoring a habitat and improving conditions for endangered species, over a set timeframe. Investors can then purchase these credits to support sustainability goals or meet regulatory obligations. 

The key difference from carbon credits is focus. Carbon credits target greenhouse gas reductions, measured in tons of CO₂ equivalent. Conservation may happen indirectly, but it is not the primary goal. Biodiversity credits are however designed around restoration, habitat quality, species protection and ecosystem function. They lack a single universal unit, but they explicitly link financing to biodiversity gains. It’s also important to note that biodiversity credits are distinct from biodiversity offsets. Offsets usually compensate for environmental damage caused elsewhere. For example, a developer restoring one wetland after destroying another. 

How are biodiversity credits monetized in practice?

The market is still developing, but there are examples. In Kenya, Mikoko Pamoja is a good case. It restores mangrove ecosystems, which capture CO₂ and lock it away in their leaves, trunks, roots, and soil, while also supporting biodiversity. Conservation organisations finance these efforts and receive credits that represent measurable outcomes. More broadly, biodiversity credits can be tied to activities like conserving endangered species or rehabilitating water catchments like Ondiri Swamp.

At the same time, new tools are being developed to strengthen how biodiversity is valued. In July 2025, Estonia-based technology firm Endangered Wildlife launched the Biodiversity Valuator, a platform that uses artificial intelligence and scientific data to assign monetary worth to ecosystems and species. By modelling ecological functions, it presents results in financial terms. If widely adopted, this tool could help conservationists put biodiversity “on the balance sheet,” improving transparency and enabling African countries to attract more biodiversity-linked funds and impact investments. The value of a biodiversity credit therefore, depends increasingly on valuation systems that make biodiversity measurable in economic planning.

Who is investing in biodiversity credits?

As pressure grows on businesses to disclose and reduce their impact on nature, credits offer a measurable way to show contributions. Just recently, in July 2025, the Global Environment Facility (GEF) announced plans to launch biodiversity bonds aimed at mobilising up to $1.5 billion for protecting endangered species and ecosystems across 54 African countries. With an initial $150 million commitment, these bonds build on earlier pilots in Rwanda for rhinos and chimpanzees and Madagascar for lemurs). First tested in 2022 in South Africa, the bonds link repayments to conservation outcomes, meaning governments that meet biodiversity targets, such as reducing poaching or increasing species populations, end up paying back less. This is the biggest investment in bio credits in Africa to date.

Do communities benefit directly from these credits?

That’s one of the biggest challenges. Communities often own the land where these projects happen, yet lack the knowledge or power to negotiate fair benefits. Without safeguards, they risk being sidelined. Some countries like South Africa and Gabon are experimenting with biodiversity credits. In Kenya, conservancies have begun testing models, though controversies exist. The key safeguard is Free, Prior, and Informed Consent (FPIC). This principle, now part of Kenya’s carbon market regulations, requires that communities know who is behind a project and what benefits they should expect before it starts. Without this, we risk situations where projects generate millions but leave communities with only token benefits, like one or two schools. True equity means communities must see direct, fair compensation for their stewardship of biodiversity.

What policies or frameworks are needed to make bio-credits effective in Africa?

Clear regulatory frameworks are essential. Kenya has recently amended its climate law and introduced carbon market regulations, which provide legal certainty for both investors and communities. Similar frameworks are needed for biodiversity credits, aligned with global agreements like the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Global Biodiversity Framework. Institutional capacity is another big gap. We need monitoring systems and verification methods to measure biodiversity outcomes and avoid double counting. 

What risks should we watch out for as these markets develop?

Greenwashing is the biggest concern and it refers to projects exaggerating benefits or ignoring long-term impacts. For instance, solar energy projects are valuable, but few consider the waste that will accumulate in a decade. We must plan with the end in mind to avoid worsening environmental problems while claiming progress. Another challenge is the lack of standardised measurement. Unlike carbon markets, biodiversity credits do not yet have a universally accepted unit, which makes verification and comparability difficult. Equity is also critical, many biodiversity-rich areas in Africa are managed or inhabited by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Their consent and compensation are non-negotiable if this market is to be credible. Transparency and strong penalties for non-compliance will be key. With large sums of money involved, governments must enforce laws to prevent exploitation and ensure these tools deliver genuine conservation and resilience.

Any final thoughts?

Biodiversity credits are promising, but they will only succeed if three conditions are met: strong legal frameworks, fair community compensation and credible measurement and verification. If we get this right, they can support Africa’s conservation and climate resilience, while avoiding the pitfalls we’ve seen in some carbon projects.