#09 - Ecosystem condition: direct measurement and assessment of regulatory offsets

This ninth issue of The Nature Intelligence Newsletter focuses on two thorny question for ecosystem condition measurement: how to actually derive it based on direct biodiversity state measurement? And how does it relate to existing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) frameworks and the associated regulations on biodiversity offsets? It covers:

• direct measurement of ecosystem condition gains for a 6000 ha lake - AFD case study
• link between ecosystem condition measurement and regulatory biodiversity offsets, example of a gas pipeline - GRTgaz case study
• corporate-level measurement of impacts on ecosystem condition

?

For a refresher on ecosystem condition, head to our previous Newsletter issue. Ecosystem condition is generally considered to include three components: function, structure and composition. This issue will actually focus on the composition component, and illustrate it based on the Mean Species Abundance (MSA) metric, but the conclusions would also apply to other metrics such as the Ecosystem Integrity Index.

How can ecological condition be directly measured in practice? The AFD case study with the MSA metric

Ecological survey data are required to verify that potential impacts translate into actual impacts and to ensure maximum level of accuracy

Ecologists regularly collect biodiversity state data and a number of companies of varying sizes are improving measurement approaches such as eDNA, drones, camera traps, eco-acoustics, etc. (see The Biodiversity Footprint Intelligence Company (BioInt) 's overview of their strengths and weaknesses). So why is it difficult to measure ecosystem condition, and more specifically composition?

Two main difficulties face companies:

1. Species occurence is not enough, abundances are necessary: most approaches can only tell if a species has been spotted, but cannot provide individual counts (i.e. how many individual of each species the ecosystem hosts)
2. Undisturbed densities are also required, and that raises one very tricky question: what would be the undisturbed habitat in the location assessed? But more practically, it also reveals the lack of databases listing undisturbed densities.

A proof of concept was developed using the MSA metric, providing partial solutions to these questions (4 page summary). A standardised protocol to measure ecosystem condition with field data is still lacking though.

What links between ecosystem condition and existing regulatory biodiversity offsets? GRTgaz case study

If laws related to biodiversity impacts and, more importantly, their implementation were perfect, then there might be no need for approaches measuring ecosystem condition beyond traditional Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA).

Unfortunately, those laws and their implementation only cover a small fraction of global biodiversity loss and only imperfectly. Limitations include:

• The sectors responsible of most of global biodiversity loss are not really requested to assess their impacts and apply the mitigation hierarchy to achieve no net loss of biodiversity (e.g. agriculture and consumer goods).
• Impacts caused outside direct operations are never properly tackled.
• The mitigation hierarchy is mostly applied to endangered or rare species and their habitats (when applied at all), and not to ecosystem health.

Assessing impacts on ecosystem condition of all sectors and across value chains can tackle those issues.

But how does that link with traditional EIA approaches? The following case study (4 pages summary) explores the impacts on ecosystem condition of some regulatory offsets and highlights that the two approaches should complement each other: it is necessary to achieve no net loss both for i) habitats and species covered in the EIA and ii) for ecosystem condition. And measures to achieve no net loss for i) are not necessarily enough to achieve it for ii) (and vice-versa).

Other examples - corporate level assessments

The questions discussed above are critical to develop a proper framework for ecosystem condition measurement and accounting (see our previous issue for more on associated metrics, links with reporting frameworks and biodiversity credits), similar to what has happened for greenhouse gas emissions.

In recent years, most measurements have nonetheless focused on other questions, such as how to measure impacts on ecosystem condition at the corporate level (and many have used the MSA metric described in depth here).

If you'd like to learn more, check the last issue of the Nature Intelligence Newsletter, which shared the inspiring examples of three front-runners who conducted such assessments.

Please share your thoughts in comments! And please let me know if there is a topic you'd like me to cover in the future!

If you found this issue of the newsletter useful, please remember to subscribe and feel free to spread it by liking, commenting or sharing it (for subscribers receiving it in their inbox, please click on the blue button below to be able to like)!

Disclaimer: all views are mine and do not represent any institution or initiative's.

Access previous issues of the Nature Intelligence Newsletter:

Case studies and examples

#01 - Impacts on ecosystem integrity of a listed equity index assessed for the first time - STOXX600

#08 - Getting inspired: 3 front-runners who assessed their biodiversity impacts at the corporate level

Ecosystem condition definition and metrics

#02 - All you ever wanted to know about the MSA

#03 - Ecosystem condition: the indicator to watch for corporate biodiversity performance

Biodiversity measurement tools

#04 – Differences between the corporate biodiversity metrics

#05 - Charting path: navigating the biodiversity tool wilderness - part 1 - The compasses

#06 - Charting path: navigating the biodiversity tool wilderness - part 2 - The map

#07 - Charting path: navigating the biodiversity tool wilderness - part 3 - Tools for financial institutions