Verra’s SD VISta Nature Framework and biodiversity methodology will provide an overarching global framework for projects to meet, complemented by localised modules based on biomes or eco-regions, and may also incorporate the issue of biodiversity significance.

The draft framework will tackle the many trade-offs inherent to measuring biodiversity change, such as whether to prioritise a global or localised application, and whether to focus on restoration of degraded land or conservation of unspoilt land, said Sinclair Vincent, Verra director of sustainable development innovation, at the First Annual Conference on Nature-based Solutions using Carbon and Biodiversity Credit Funding, hosted at the University of Lincoln last Thursday.

“We are developing an overarching framework at Verra that is nested within our existing Sustainable Development Verified Impact Standard, or SD VISta, and the framework will provide the requirements that all biodiversity projects will need to meet, and that framework will be complemented by modules. These may be based on biomes or eco-regions or otherwise – that level of granularity is still to be determined,” said Vincent.

The number of units generated under the framework will be calculated based on both the extension of geographical area and the condition of that area, with the framework prescribing a set of indicators that all projects must monitor in order to assess that condition.

Indicators may relate to “structure, composition, and function within the project area” and complementary modules may elaborate on any indicators of particular importance to the local area, said Vincent.

The framework will also include social environmental safeguards, many of which already appeared in the underlying SD VISta programme, but that will be complemented with things specific to biodiversity projects, including the concept of benefit sharing.

Verra released calls for project developers to pilot its nature credit framework in early July. The programme is expected to become one of the chief standards in the emerging global voluntary biodiversity credit market.

QUESTION MARKS

The concept of biodiversity significance may also be incorporated into the Verra framework as an attribute of the project, which “is a little bit different to some of the existing methodologies” on biodiversity, said Vincent.

Significance may be reported as a composite score or a metric, it’s still under discussion, she added.

Verra is also considering whether to incorporate threat reduction into its framework.

“Where threat reduction is used as the basis for project intervention or as an indicator for any sort of biodiversity uplift improvement, it will likely need to be supported with measurement of outcomes on the ground,” said Vincent.

TRADE-OFFS

It will be important to get comfortable with some trade-offs when rolling out a biodiversity methodology that is scalable, usable, granular, and valid, explained Vincent.

One of those trade-offs relates to scale and whether to design a methodology that is more globally or locally applicable.

“While using the same unit everywhere in every project context would in theory make projects and their outcomes credible, it would be hard to adapt the methodology and metrics to local contexts,” said Vincent.

The immature nature of the biodiversity credit market makes it difficult to yet determine whether buyers will favour more global or localised credits.

Another trade-off relates to defining units as the percentage change in biodiversity per hectare, which is already a common metric in several existing biodiversity frameworks.

There is a risk that incentivising projects that increase biodiversity value will end up promoting places with a low starting point, which are already heavily degraded, said Vincent.

“We need to ask ourselves whether the expected change in biodiversity should be measured from the baseline upward, or as steps toward an idealised value … [and if so] whether the market should be focused on the restoration of degraded lands, conservation of decently intact lands, or both,” she said.

Vincent stressed that there is no right or wrong, but that a methodology favouring a certain approach may lead to potentially skewed outcomes.

A COMMON METRIC

The issue of achieving a standardised metric for biodiversity much as is promoted in the carbon market was also discussed at the event.

“When we look to the carbon market as an example and considering whether we need a tonne of CO2 type metric for biodiversity, we need to acknowledge the complexity of life on Earth and the many social and environmental contexts surrounding it. It’s much harder to reduce that complexity to some sort of equivalence,” said Vincent.

She also pointed out the divergence between the many targets outlined in the Global Biodiversity Framework compared to the single global temperature change goal under the Paris Agreement on climate.

The first draft of Verra’s SD VISta Nature Framework and biodiversity methodology is expected later this year, ready for public consultation and discussion around the aforementioned trade-offs. Further details will be available in a matter of weeks,” said Vincent.

Projects wishing to apply for pilot statues must do so by Aug. 4, with the pilots due to begin the following month.

By Bryony Collins – bryony@carbon-pulse.com

*** Click here to sign up to our weekly biodiversity newsletter ***