Five rules for scientifically-credible nature markets

Journal article

Nature markets are proliferating rapidly around the world, yet it is underacknowledged that they have been practiced in various forms for decades. A large body of scientific research has shown that nature markets regularly do not achieve their environmental objectives, and provides generalisable lessons to support their ongoing improvement. The scale of the biodiversity crisis and the enduring popularity of nature markets means it is now critical to stop reproducing the same mistakes. Here we synthesise international research from the history of nature markets and summarise five rules which are necessary precursors for achieving their environmental aims. We propose a checklist for investors, policymakers, and civil society to assess whether nature markets are likely to be delivering scientifically-credible outcomes. We score the world’s largest nature markets against these rules and show all face integrity risks. Lastly, we outline critical evidence-based actions that can be taken to push nature markets towards greater integrity.

Authors: Zu Ermgassen, S; Swinfield, T; Bull, J; Duffus, N; Macintosh, A

• Publication status: Published
• Peer review status: Peer reviewed
• Publisher: Springer Nature
• Journal: Nature Ecology & Evolution
• Publication date: 2026-01-12
• Acceptance date: 2025-09-22
• DOI: 10.1038/s41559-025-02932-z
• EISSN: 2397-334X
• Language: English
• Keywords: nature markets; biodiversity offsets; carbon offsets; nature-based solutions; biodiversity finance; conservation policy; biodiversity net gain; no net loss; net zero