生物多樣性信用市場機制之探討

Abstract

隨著聯合國《生物多樣性公約》（Convention on Biological Diversity）通過《昆明-蒙特婁全球生物多樣性框架》（Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework），生物多樣性議題已與氣候變遷問題齊肩而立，成為未來國際社會須同步應對的重大環境挑戰。

自 2015 年氣候相關財務揭露工作小組（Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures, TCFD）提出評估氣候變遷對企業營運風險與機會的架構後，2021 年啟動的自然相關財務揭露工作小組（Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, TNFD）則進一步擴展至自然資本領域，鼓勵企業自願揭露其對自然環境的影響、依賴及風險。隨著國際政策與資本市場日益重視自然相關揭露，生物多樣性信用市場（Biodiversity Credit Market）逐漸受到矚目，成為遏止生物多樣性喪失與導引永續資金流向的重要工具。

本研究以文獻回顧與比較分析方法，聚焦探討全球生物多樣性信用市場的發展脈絡與操作機制。研究內容涵蓋生物多樣性信用與傳統抵換制度之異同，並分析碳市場經驗如何對生物多樣性市場提供參考。個案選擇上，本文以三種類型為主軸進行探討，包括：政府主導的制度型市場（如澳洲自然修復市場）、法定強制性市場（如英國BNG制度），以及民間自願性市場案例（GreenCollar、CreditNature、Terrasos）。此外，本文亦納入 Verra 所提出的生物多樣性方法學作為分析參考，探討其在生物多樣性計量與信用計算之應用潛力與侷限性。

在企業需求層面，本文亦援引世界經濟論壇（WEF）提出之五大應用類型架構，分析企業如何將生物多樣性信用導入其永續策略，並藉此驅動多元形式的自然資本投資。

研究結論指出，儘管生物多樣性信用市場尚處於發展初期，制度設計與操作標準仍有待建立，但全球已有多項創新機制萌芽。未來若能在法規政策、量測工具、監管制度與投資誘因上持續優化，將有助於打造一個具規模化潛力與環境誠信的國際市場。

With the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity, biodiversity has risen alongside climate change as one of the twin pillars of global environmental governance.

The promotion of disclosure frameworks such as the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) has heightened corporate and financial sector awareness of natural capital risks and responsibilities. This has, in turn, accelerated the redirection of capital flows toward biodiversity conservation. Within this context, the biodiversity credit market has emerged as a policy instrument of growing importance. By offering a quantifiable, tradeable, and traceable credit mechanism, it seeks to close the global biodiversity financing gap and promote measurable positive outcomes for nature—beyond traditional offsetting models.

This study adopts a literature review and comparative analysis approach to explore the development trajectories and operational mechanisms of biodiversity credit markets worldwide. It examines the conceptual differences between biodiversity credits, biodiversity offsets, and carbon credits, while drawing insights from the evolution of carbon markets. The study analyzes three major market types: government-led structured markets (e.g., Australia's Nature Repair Market), regulated mandatory markets (e.g., the UK's Biodiversity Net Gain scheme), and voluntary markets operated by private actors, using three representative case studies: GreenCollar (Australia), CreditNature (UK), and Terrasos (Colombia). In addition, the study incorporates Verra’s biodiversity methodologies to evaluate their applicability and limitations in biodiversity credit quantification and monitoring.

On the demand side, this research also references the World Economic Forum’s five biodiversity credit application types, providing an analytical framework for understanding how businesses integrate biodiversity credits into corporate sustainability strategies and channel investments into diverse forms of nature-positive actions.

The study concludes that, although the biodiversity credit market remains in its early stages, a variety of innovative mechanisms are emerging across the globe. With improvements in regulatory design, measurement standards, governance systems, and financial incentives, the development of a scalable and high-integrity international biodiversity credit market appears increasingly feasible.