Joshua Berger的动态

A quick and helpful summary of how biodiversity credits are managed. none of the standards/methodologies are perfect, but they all try to cover one part of the multifaceted natural condition of biodiversity ????

FFM - 2023 - Biodiversity Offset - Part 1 Between 2020 and 2023, FFM has been involved with clients that requested support for a biodiversity offset strategy. FFM has supported clients in Liberia, Mozambique, Gabon and DRC to consider the scale, scope and costs of biodiversity offsets. Biodiversity offsets are a contentious issue. It is imperative to understand that they are a "last resort" option, after the full mitigation hierarchy has been exhausted. This does mean that at least the following key aspects have been considered: 1) Not implementing the project. 2) Alternatives in location, design solution and management approaches, which, when combined, will reduce the impact profile to the lowest possible figures. 3) Restoration solutions to manage the post impact situation and how best to bring back or even improve on the pre project situation, if feasible. 4) Once residual impacts (the impacts that lead to an offset requirement) have been highlighted, a revision of the project design has been undertaken to reduce these further. 5) Can the impacted biodiversity features be offset? What are the limits to "offsetability"? How does one demonstrate "no net loss, but net gain"? How does one ensure "additionality"? It is also imperative to consider the true cost of a biodiversity offset. The implications are usually overlooked by most developers. One key aspect lies in the following question: "how much conservation area is enough?" It is necessary to calculate the minimum size of the biodiversity area that will provide adequate compensation for the loss. Let us consider the following two elements: a) It has to be planned to last for the foreseeable future. Generally this means in perpetuity, hence a 50 year timeframe usually needs to be considered as a starting point. b) It has to provide a viable ecosystem for the group of species targeted by the offset to not only survive, but preferably thrive and grow. There should be enough individuals of all the target species, and those of the supporting species (consider a simple chain spanning the plants required to support the herbivores necessary to further support a predator that features as a trigger to the offset) to ensure the survival of these populations over the timeframe considered, considering all the uncertainty that we face. The above two points immediately bring to light the fact that an offset, will, in nearly all instances, require a large to very large geographical scale, first to buffer against unknowns from the future and secondly to buffer against the uncertainty related to scientific evidence available for the determination of the minimum viable requirements for species. FFM has developed science based methods to provide guidance on how to buffer against these uncertainties. These represent a point of departure to consider the implications of an offset.

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.

GBS Finance | ???? "How do we measure biodiversity?” This is a common question from businesses striving to evaluate their biodiversity impacts, dependencies, risks and opportunities. Understanding the intricacies of biodiversity requires more than relying on a single indicator, it calls for a comprehensive biodiversity assessment. But fear not, biodiversity metrics can provide insightful information tailored to (almost) each aspect of biodiversity. ? CDC Biodiversité has compiled an overview of the various components of biodiversity to be measured, along with the corresponding metrics and data to rely on, summarized in this chart. ? ?? Starting at its core, the figure outlines what should be measured and offers examples of metrics for each element. The indicators are classified into two categories: ? 1?? Biodiversity state, that encompasses ecosystems, further split between condition and extent, species and genes. ? 2?? Biodiversity significance, that sheds light on the importance of specific areas or species in maintaining biodiversity. It includes species risks of extinctions, overlap of activities with Protected areas or Key Biodiversity Areas, and Ecosystem services.?? ? Measuring biodiversity also demands identifying specific metrics tailored to each component. If the MSA.km2 enables ecosystem state to be assessed in the #GlobalBiodiversityScore (GBS), metrics for each of the other components have been identified. ? ?? But which data should be used? ? Flexibility is key when conducting biodiversity assessments. Depending on objectives, two approaches can be considered: ? 1?? If the goal is a screening of biodiversity performance, corporate-level data such as operation country, turnover or purchases is adequate. ? 2?? For monitoring progress towards targets, more detailed site-level data is necessary. They allow to refine the screening approach by relying on direct biodiversity state measurement or pressure-based modelling. ? The ability to use consistent metrics across these two approaches facilitates comparisons, aggregations, and seamless integration of data at varying levels. For example, consider the GBS, which evaluates ecosystem state: impacts can be calculated with macro-level data or more refined pressure data, but also site-level data. All this use-cases provide results expressed with the same metric, enabling comparison between assessments. ? ?? Why it matters ? Integrating diverse indicators into the biodiversity measurement process is a best practice, which aligns with international frameworks and standards (#TNFD, #GRI, #SBTN, #CSRD). These frameworks emphasize not only evaluating impacts but also understanding dependencies on ecosystem services, reporting on a wide range of biodiversity state and significance indicators and metrics. For a deeper dive into biodiversity assessment and the role of the Global Biodiversity Score, check out our latest publication in comments ?? #Footprinting #biodiversity

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

TEN (10) IMPORTANCES OF THE GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY STANDARD (TGBS) CERTIFICATION. TGBS is an important tool to advance positive biodiversity outcomes from ecosystem restoration initiatives. It is important that these gains are made to secure the long-term future for biodiversity and to ensure the full functionality of terrestrial, freshwater and coastal ecosystems. The TGBS can provide: 1. Assurance: Establishes a set of criteria and best practices that projects should follow to ensure that ecosystem restoration efforts are achieved. 2. Credibility: Certified projects provide credibility to funders and stakeholders. 3. Robust Monitoring: The TGBS uses a robust monitoring and reporting framework of biodiversity impacts, which helps ensure that applicants can achieve robust reporting.?This can also help projects to adapt and improve their practices based on the outcomes of TGBS assessments. 4. Benchmarking: ?Provides a benchmark against which the success of restorative initiatives can be measured. 5. Knowledge sharing: The TGBS collects and analyses data that can be shared with the broader restoration community, contributing to the global knowledge base and improving ecosystem restoration practices elsewhere. 6. Community Engagement: The TGBS not only assesses projects concerning their impact on biodiversity but also the sustainability of the project from social perspectives. 7. Environmental Compliance: The TGBS can ensure that restoration projects are in compliance with environmental laws, regulations and performance standards, which is critical for protecting biodiversity and preventing negative impacts on the environment. 8. Attracting Funding: The TGBS can provide a mechanism to ease the process of securing funding. The TGBS can be used by government or private grants as a requirement or can be used by potential investors who are looking for assurances that their funds will be used to effectively improve biodiversity. 9. Risk Management: The TGBS can help identify potential risks associated with ecosystem restoration projects and establish guidelines for mitigating those risks, thereby protecting the investment in the project and the surrounding communities. 10. Access: It provides a cost-effective framework to comprehensively and objectively measure biodiversity and provides a mechanism for applicants to access expertise on biodiversity and ecosystem restoration through the TGBS mentoring programme. Source: The Global Biodiversity Standard: Manual for Assessment and Best Practices, Section 9.1, The Global Biodiversity Standard (TGBS) Botanic Gardens Conservation International Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew CIFOR-ICRAF World Agroforestry Plan Vivo Foundation IUCN IUCN Species Survival Commission 1t.org Ecosia TRAFFIC Reforest'Action Acorn tooro botanical gardens

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.

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.

Using cooking to understand biodiversity credit calculation ?? That’s what we had to resort to when unifying our thinking about it with Joshua Berger from BioInt. I’ve already alluded to it in the original post (link in the comments ??) but this cooking-based framing has been one of the biggest personal unlocks that helped me better understand how credits are calculated. It deserves a deeper explanation. Here’s how you can think about it: **Every credit scheme has at least one metric (ingredient ??) that they quantify in a certain way (recipe ??) to derive the format (dish ??) & number of these biodiversity credits.** Ingredients ?? Indicators & metrics used to calculate biodiversity credits. We put them into the ecosystem condition (e.g. landscape connectivity), other (e.g. property management) & species (e.g. species abundance) buckets. The Venn diagram in the original post was built on that. Recipe ?? A step-by-step method schemes use with the ingredients they have to calculate credits. Again, we often see same ingredients = different results. Most schemes then multiply the biodiversity uplift/avoided loss with ecosystem extent. Dish ?? The end format (unit) of a biodiversity credit. We see 3 types: 1. Condition-adjusted area The dishes that only use the ecosystem condition (EC) ingredients. It’s directly proportional to ecosystem condition (i.e. physical reality). Hence, we can express it in physical terms (e.g. 1 biodiversity credit = 1 percentage point uplift in ecosystem condition over 1 hectare). 2. Weighted ecosystem extent A dish that involves non-EC & non-species ingredients (e.g. management goals/practices or, let’s say, intensity of pesticide use). That's why we can’t express these units in purely physical terms. That’s where the “weighted” part comes in. 3. Species-weighted ecosystem extent Works similarly to the condition-adjusted area. Difference: the number of issued biodiversity credit units is proportional to species and not EC metrics. Still early days. It’s difficult to assess biodiversity credit scheme quality. Context-dependent stuff. One takeaway we did share though: condition-adjusted area credits *might* fit the corporate buyers best. They: 1. are proportional to EC 2. can be expressed in physical terms (e.g. 1 biodiversity credit = 1 percentage point uplift in EC over 1 hectare). Just like carbon. 3. are (relatively) easy to understand 4. fit into the corporate nature reporting standards best This makes it easier for corporates to justify purchasing these credits (post mitigation hierarchy) & connecting them to their nature reports, since both use ecosystem condition as a shared framework on nature measurement. Now, each credit project obviously must address the local biodiversity loss drivers & benefit the people. For that, many schemes use social “guardrail” metrics (next to solid project design). Adding them to the credit calculation mix does sever the credit's connection to physical reality though.

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.