A single approach to measuring nature is emerging as the core method across disclosures, targets, and biodiversity credit markets, researchers said in an article seen by Carbon Pulse.

Researchers have set out to tackle confusion on biodiversity credit calculations by taking a step towards standardising metrics, in an article by Simas Gradeckas, founder of analysis website Bloom Labs, and Joshua Berger, CEO of consultancy Biodiversity Footprint Intelligence Company (BioInt).

“Slowly but surely corporate nature-related disclosure frameworks, target-setting frameworks, and biodiversity credit markets are aligning around ecosystem condition as the core method to approach nature measurement,” Gradeckas and Berger told Carbon Pulse in a joint statement.

“Multiple fields are finally converging into a common way of understanding and measuring biodiversity,” they said.

Most biodiversity credit metrics fit the broad definition of ‘ecosystem condition’, with some using it as the starting point – such as Verra’s Nature Framework. Ecosystem condition is the quality of an ecosystem measured in terms of its living, physical, and chemical parts, the article said.

On the Bloom Labs biodiversity credit metrics database, a broad range of indicators from different companies fit into the macro category of ecosystem condition.

For example, these indicators include canopy, pollinator abundance, conservation values, and landscape connectivity.

A handful of other indicators only fit into the macro category of ‘species’, such as species abundance.

NATURE ACCOUNTING

Nature accounting, which is anything that tries to integrate nature into financial decision making such as disclosures, is also increasingly focused on ecosystem condition, the article said.

“If both nature accounting frameworks and biodiversity credit schemes speak the same language on measuring nature, i.e. ecosystem condition and its metrics, both sides would benefit from it. Corporates would also have an easier time to justify purchasing these credits.”

These frameworks include aspects of Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures, Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive, Global Reporting Initiative, and Science Based Targets Network, the article said.

Although numerous biodiversity credit schemes have emerged over the last couple of years, demand has been slow to take off due to a lack of buyer confidence.

On Tuesday, Carbon Pulse reported a team of other researchers who said existing biodiversity credit methodologies largely fail to address uncertainty in measuring changes in nature.

DOUBLING THE DATABASE

This week, Bloom Labs more than doubled the number of biodiversity credit entries in its database, from 62 to 140.

The database has a categorisation system that seeks to standardise measurements across the market, Gradeckas and Berger said.

“Standardising biodiversity credit metrics and aligning them with the broader nature finance components mentioned above is crucial to ensure high biodiversity credit integrity and scale,” they told Carbon Pulse.

“Market actors can access the most extensive database of biodiversity credit indicators and metrics to understand what goes into credit calculation for each credit scheme.”

For example:

Source: Bloom Labs

There are bound to be some inaccuracies in its database, which is non-exhaustive and based on publicly available information, the article said. Some indicators are “direct”, while others are “composed of multiple others”.

Berger’s consulting firm BioInt is initially leading on the activities around an Ecosystem Condition Protocol before it launches a draft version at COP16 later this year. An independent board will decide the secretariat.

The protocol aims to build bridges between corporate biodiversity accounting and biodiversity markets, through actions such as recommending the same metrics.

By Thomas Cox – t.cox@carbon-pulse.com

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