Joshua Berger的动态

Give credits where credits are due. Carbon emissions reduction won't result in cooling for centuries. Biodiversity increase (ecorestoration) cools and rehydrates in months and years. Invest in biodiversity credits. Invest in @EcoRestorationAlliance

Really informative and helpful breakdown of biodiversity credit methodologies!

We have studied extensively 13 of the leading biodiversity credit schemes. Results were surprising! ? The Biodiversity Footprint Intelligence Company (BioInt) (in particular Giada Lampitelli & me) and Bloom Labs (Simas Gradeckas) have spent months analyzing the inner workings biodiversity certificate schemes, their indicators & metrics. You thought you had seen it all? (and if you’re discovering our work, check out the links in comments!) ? Today I’m releasing a new batch of fresh content focusing on 13 leading schemes! (and we'll present it all in a webinar in coming weeks) ? ? ?? Before delving into the key insights, quick reminder: Biodiversity certificates go through a number of steps in their life cycle: Registration ? Implementation ? Verification ? Issuance ? Transaction ? Retirement ? At the registration step, indicators are used to calculate the total amount of potential certificates that can be registered at the start of a project. This is what we call the “certificate calculation” step and this is the focus of today’s analysis (at the issuance step, other indicators are used to establish how many credits can actually be issued at milestones over the project lifetime). ? ? ?? So what have we learned? 1?? Standard setters have not yet made up their mind on how flexible indicators should be Half allows project developers to choose the best metric to report against an indicator, while the other half impose the metrics. 2?? 62% of the schemes use an Absolute uplift measurement system, the remaining 38% use a Relative one This is a major difference. There are valid reasons to favour a "relative" uplift measurement system but overall, certificates based on such systems are worth less than those based on absolute measurement systems. ? 3?? Close to half the schemes "cook" Condition-adjusted area "dishes", and many other include other considerations in their "recipe" 4?? More than a third of the schemes?do not consider time into their formula to register credits This is another major difference between schemes, even though this one is even more technical (I’ll probably post about it in the future). There is a lack of clarity from standards & methodologies on this critical aspect, this needs to improve. 5?? More than half of the schemes consider Significance as a credit rating category (a "nutri-score") and do not integrate it into the credit calculation itself 6?? Almost all the schemes cover both Conservation and Restoration activities ? ? Looking forward to expanding this analysis to more schemes! ? ? ?? What surprises you in those insights?

Ordering the wilderness: I suggest a new typology of biodiversity measurement. 2 main criteria help distinguish approaches quantifying the impacts of economic activities on biodiversity: 1) what is measured, 2) how the measurement is used. ? This post deals with Focus on the state of biodiversity (ecosystems or species). Later posts will deal with Focuses on biodiversity significance and the value of biodiversity for human societies. ? Many actually only seek to measure impacts and not remaining biodiversity. ? 1?? Impact databases See https://lnkd.in/eZFVjXjC ? ? 2?? Impact accounting tools Built to allow auditing of their data and outputs and include an audit trail. ? According to claims from their developers (which I would take with cautions): AgroBiodiversity (ABD) Index (in development), Bioscope, Corporate Biodiversity Footprint (CBF) Detailed, and the #GlobalBiodiversityScore (GBS). All are designed primarily for the corporate Organisational Focus Area (OFA). ? ? 3?? Impact hotspot screening tools Provide an audit trail and are mostly used to identify impact hotspots within a value chain. Other approaches can then take over to design avoidance & reduction actions and to refine measurement. ? ? Sector level OFA: Include ENCORE & derived tools (e.g. INFORM module of WWF's Biodiversity Risk Filter). ENCORE also has a "Biodiversity module" which works more at the asset-level. ? ? Supply chain OFA: Include the Biodiversity Impact Metric (BIM, not supported any more). ? ? 4?? Impact performance management tools (without accounting) Focus on supporting the management of biodiversity at the corporate, product or site level by reducing negative impacts or increasing positive ones. ? ? Corporate OFA LIFE Key, Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) tools used for ecodesign (but their results can be aggregated at the corporate level). ? ? Product OFA: LCA tools used for ecodesign (thus potentially avoiding or reducing products’ impacts), the Product Biodiversity Footprint (PBF) and the Biodiversity Footprint Calculator. ? ? Site OFA: B-INTACT, Site Biodiversity Footprint (SBF), Biodiversity Footprint Calculator and Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR) "tool". STAR is many things: a metric of species extinction, a global layer of STAR value across the globe and an approach to calculate "realised STAR" on specific sites: we refer here to this last use. ? The Biodiversity Indicators for Site-based Impacts (BISI) tool could also be classified here ? ? ?Categories can overlap, and some approaches may fit into multiple categories based on developer claims, which may sometimes be misleading. ?? What are your thoughts on this classification? Does it help you better understand & differentiates the approaches? ? PS: obviously direct measurement approaches (ecological surveys, eDNA, etc.) are the key missing part here, I’ll add them later.

????????**Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)** is a crucial approach to development that ensures a positive impact on biodiversity. Here's what you need to know: 1. **Definition**: BNG aims to create and enhance biodiversity by requiring development projects to achieve a measurable **net gain** in biodiversity compared to the state before development12. 2. **Mandatory in England**: As of **12 February 2024**, BNG is mandatory in England under **Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990** (inserted by the **Environment Act 2021**). Developers must deliver a **minimum BNG of 10%**1. 3. **How It Works**: - **Measuring Biodiversity**: Biodiversity value is measured in standardized units, considering factors like habitat size, quality, location, and type. - **Ecologist Consultation**: Ecologists assess existing habitats and recommend suitable habitat creation or enhancement. - **Statutory Biodiversity Metric**: A tool calculates the number of biodiversity units for existing habitats and enhancements to achieve BNG1. 4. **Who It Affects**: - **Developers**: Both major and small site developers are impacted. - **Land Managers**: Those participating in the BNG market. - **Local Planning Authorities (LPAs)**: Responsible for enforcing BNG requirements. - **Exemptions**: Some developments are exempt from BNG rules1. Remember, BNG ensures that development leaves habitats for wildlife in a better state than before, contributing positively to our natural environment ??????. Source: 18/02/2024 (1) Understanding biodiversity net gain - GOV.UK. https://lnkd.in/eW5kpYFR. (2) The Environment Act 2021: Biodiversity Net Gain. https://lnkd.in/eurnegp3. (3) Biodiversity net gain - GOV.UK. https://lnkd.in/e2bb3ydJ.

What does it take to ?cook” 3 ?? biodiversity credits ? The analogy with ?? & ?? & ?? is really great. So looking for the talented and passionated ??????????! If you are interested by learning more about this topic check out the post and the newsletter published by Joshua Berger

Price discovery & biodiversity credits, beginning of the nightmare? I’ve recently read several analyses on the price of biodiversity credits which had my head almost exploding, with ranges of 1 to 10?000 between the cheapest and most expensive credits: how was that even possible? ??♂? The answer may be: it is not. Channeling my inner Sherlock Holmes, I embarked on a thorough investigation to unravel the complexities of biodiversity credit pricing. Key pricing aspects 1?? Restoration vs. Conservation Restoration credits involve actively restoring damaged ecosystems, often costing more than conservation credits, which focus on preventing biodiversity loss (avoided loss). My analysis focuses on restoration credits. 2?? Duration A credit guaranteeing a gain over 20 yr is arguably worth more than one ensuring gains only for 10 yr. As a first approximation, I considered it was worth the double. What may matter more are the speed of gains and their permanence. 3?? Ecosystem extent Obviously, restoring 200m2 is twice better than restoring 100m2, all being equal. 4?? Uplift measurement Some schemes calculate a relative % uplift compared to their initial baseline, others assess absolute gains compared to an undisturbed ecosystem. In the 1st case, an ecosystem could be considered to improve by +20% by raising its ecosystem condition by only 2 percentage points (going from an absolute 10% to 12% against an undisturbed ecosystem). These differences can significantly affect pricing so the two systems should not be compared. ? Standardizing Prices I standardized prices from projects by Terrasos & rePLANET by those variables: (E)=(A)/((B)/30)/((C)*(D)) (cf. table). I considered a standardized duration of 30 years to end up with a meaningful price in $/30yr/gain.m2. For relative uplift measurement systems like the ones I studied, “gain” means an uplift of 100% compared to the initial situation, i.e. a doubling of biodiversity. ?? Lessons Learned 1?? Relative Uplift Challenges As detailed in a post by Cain Blythe, what really matters is gains compared to a common (undisturbed) situation, i.e. absolute uplift. Relative uplift muddles price discovery. 2?? MRV and other costs probably represent very significant costs Monitoring, Reporting and Verification (MRV) costs are in the range of 20-400 $/yr/ha or 0.06-1.20 $/30yr/m2. Administrative costs such as registration associated to biodiversity credits exceed 2.5-14 ￡/yr/ha or 0.01-0.05 $/30yr/m2 and maybe double that when verification costs are included. Restoring 1 m2 eq means restoring 100 m2 for rePLANET (100 m2 of 1% uplift required to achieve 1 m2 eq) so MRV and administrative costs eat up a large proportion of the price or even exceed it. The sample is very small though so I may be drawing conclusions too hastily. What are your thoughts? EDIT: Plan Vivo Foundation clarified "the value of $20 is not attributable to any Plan Vivo credits", see comments. Sorry for the mistake.

Brainstorming – How to deal with landscape spillovers for biodiversity credits? One critical yet under-discussed issue in biodiversity credits is attributing responsibility for biodiversity changes when landscape-level dynamics come into play. How can we ensure fair attribution of biodiversity improvements or losses? ? In essence: How do we prevent penalizing project developers for negative landscape dynamics beyond their control? Conversely, how do we avoid rewarding developers for positive changes they didn't cause? These questions are crucial, especially when transactions worth millions are involved. ? ??? Bear with my poor drawing skills (I promise, we’ll improve the charts in the future!) but I quickly put together a few figures to illustrate how this issue of attribution would play out. Let’s describe them: ? ?? Our case: a restoration project supposed to generate credits Restoration actions will be implemented over a large surface area for 30 years. Credits will be issued based on the biodiversity uplift and their sale will pay for the restoration. ? Case 1?? biodiversity loss at the site despite adequate restoration actions - Initial situation (before any restoration is implemented): the individual counts for the project site are 3 birds of prey & 2 ungulates. The surrounding landscape is more diverse with 4 species: 1 wolf, 1 howl, 2 chameleons, 3 ungulates. - Negative spillover from the landscape towards the site: increased human pressures in the landscape cause the loss of the wolf and reduces populations of ungulates. Because ungulates move back & forth between the site and the broader landscape, onsite ungulate also suffer from the degraded landscape and their populations drop. Instead of a biodiversity uplift (required for credit issuance in this case), the site faces a loss. In theory, the project developer thus cannot issue credits and get funding. ? Case 2?? biodiversity uplift at the site unfairly rewarding an undeserving project developer - Initial situation: same as Case 1. - Positive spillover: this case is the opposite of the previous one. Positive trends at the landscape-level means more ungulates, which cross over to the site. The number of individual ungulates increase from 2 to 3 onsite. The project developer can in theory claim an uplift & issue credits, even if, in this specific case, he did not implement proper restoration actions and all the uplift was due to landscape-level improvements. ?? At this stage, I’m describing the problem rather than offering a definitive solution. Do you have any experience with such situations? What are your ideas? ? One potential approach is to use counterfactuals—what would have happened without the project or landscape changes. However, this method is prone to manipulation, criticism and endless debates, undermining the robustness of biodiversity credits.

What does a unit of biodiversity credit represent? For climate, the answer is usually relatively straightforward: 1 unit = 1 t of CO2 equivalent considered removed. ? But does 1 biodiversity credit unit represent 1 individual from a given species (say, 1 Amur tiger)? 1 hectare of land restored? Are the units generated weighted by the ecosystem services provided (more ecosystem services = more units generated, for the same surface restored)? Or by biodiversity significance? ? Though certainly more complex than climate, in truth only 3 broad approaches are used. With Simas Gradeckas (Bloom Labs), we developed this chart to summarize them. ?? Not yet familiar with the cooking analogy? Check out: https://t.ly/143sp In short, “Every credit scheme has at least one metric (ingredient ??) that they quantify in a certain way (recipe ??) to derive the format (dish ??) & number of [the biodiversity credits registered].” ? ?? Understanding this process is really key to grasping what 1 unit represents so let’s detail each step: 1?? Indicators & metrics Standards request project developers to evaluate how a number of indicators will be affected by their project. For instance “Spatial diversity”, “Species abundance”, “Habitat connectivity”, etc. These indicators can be related to Ecosystem condition (EC), Species, or pressures, risks, biodiversity significance, etc. (classified as Others). 2?? Calculation method Each standard then has its own “equation” or “recipe” to mix & weight those ingredients. The figure obtained is always multiplied by the area affected (“ecosystem extent”). In the end, it spits out a number of credit units. For instance, CreditNature does a simple mean of the variation of 4 indicators (each expressed as a percentage compared to an undisturbed situation) to calculate the number of credits. 3?? Calculation indicator Depending on the ingredients involved in the method and how they are combined, 3 types of outputs are possible: - Condition-adjusted area: EC indicators only - Species weighted ecosystem extent: species indicators only - Weighted ecosystem extent: any combination of categories or other ingredients See https://t.ly/MJfjp for more details. ?? If there is one thing you should remember from this post, it’s that the indicators project developers have to assess are not necessarily proportional to the number of potential credits registered: sometimes complex recipes stand between the ingredients and the final dishes. As a buyer, it will be critical to pay attention not just to the nature of the ingredients but also to how they are combined (imagine a cake with 2 teaspoons of flour and 200g of salt instead of the opposite, it might surprise you!). ? ? ? Overall, biodiversity credits have sped up thinking around monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of biodiversity state and communication of biodiversity outcomes. Studying them hold many lessons for MRV strategy in many other contexts.

Biodiversity net gain #BNG update:?? How long does biodiversity land need to be secured for? It is not that obvious for how long land being used for biodiversity net gain should be secured.?You may have thought there were two interpretations: - it has to be secured for 30 years from the date you start creating or improving the habitat, or - it has to be secured for the time it takes to achieve the target habitat/condition plus 30 years. In fact the answer is … neither of these! For onsite habitat, the legal commitment is contained in paragraph 9(3) of Schedule 7A to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990: the habitat must 'be maintained for at least 30 years *after the development is completed*', where the submitter of the biodiversity gain plan 'proposes to carry out works in the course of the development that increase the biodiversity value of the onsite habitat'. For offsite habitat, the legal commitment is contained in regulation 6(3) of the Biodiversity Gain Site Register Regulations 2024: 'one or more persons are required under the conservation covenant or section 106 agreement to maintain the habitat enhancement to be achieved by the?required enhancement works on the land under the conservation covenant or section 106 agreement for at least 30 years *after the completion of those works*.' Notice that the onsite 30-year period starts when the main development, which includes enhancement works, is completed, and the offsite 30-year period starts when the enhancement works are completed.?So what are those? For a description of them we must look at the guidance for legal agreements, here: https://lnkd.in/eaUG-vuP This says that the enhancement works are just the capital works (which may take no time at all if they just involve stopping doing something) and gives some examples.?So the time these works take is generally shorter than the time taken to achieve the target habitat/condition, and any remaining time beyond the completion of the habitat works (offsite) or the completion of the development (onsite) (which could be longer) can be subtracted from the 30 years, since this does not generally involve 'works'. As some habitats take up to 30 years to achieve their target condition, there might not be much time left at all for the habitat to have to stay in that condition (although one would hope that after all that effort it did do so).?The longer-to-create habitats are disincentivised by the temporal multiplier so there may not be so many of those in practice. Note that the s106 agreement or conservation covenant must say when the enhancement work will be completed, so that the end of the 30-year period is certain.