A framework for evaluating biodiversity mitigation metrics

Original Research: How Will the TNFD Impact the Health Sector's Nature-Risks Management?

The G20-led TNFD taskforce or TNFD is under development and should be ready in September 2023. With one year to go before its official release, the study of the beta versions of the 0.2 framework is crucial to know the strategy of the taskforce regarding metrics and sectors with high natural risks. Its big sister, the Taskforce on Climate-related Financial Disclosure or TCFD, had defined the health sector as a non-key in terms of climate change and carbon risks, but the TNFD decided that it was a priority in terms of nature-related risks and co-dependencies. This research therefore focuses on the innovations of the TNFD and its impact on future disclosures in the sector. The goal being to predict if the TNFD will lead to more disclosures and therefore better risk management from the health firms. To complete this research, the analysis of the sector's risks and dependencies on nature-related issues and biodiversity loss was essential. To do so, a policy analysis on the framework of the TNFD was conducted, as well as a literature review on nature related risks and opportunities for the health sector. The Health Sector-Wide Approach (SWAp) was analysed to highlight the Task Force's focus on the health sector. Finally, a due diligence of the TNFD's stakeholders and partners was carried out to ascertain the interest and participation of health sector actors in the TNFD. Results have shown that Nature risks were important for the sector and that the TNFD was giving more importance to the sector in terms of priority. On the contrary, the health sector does not show an improved interest in this new taskforce. There is a need for more research in the implementation of Nature-financial metrics for disclosures.

Ecological equivalence assessment: The potential of genetic tools, remote sensing and metapopulation models to better apply the mitigation hierarchy

Within the framework of the mitigation hierarchy, biodiversity offsetting is the main tool promoted to reach No Net Loss. One of the determining factors of offsetting success is the evaluation of ecological equivalence. Various equivalence assessment methods (EAMs) have been developed to provide a framework to evaluate the balance between expected biodiversity losses and gains. In the context of achieving No Net Loss, EAMs must address challenges of Operationality, Currency, Uncertainty, Spatial scale and Time frame. In this study, we investigated the way the most widely used EAMs address these challenges, positing that certain tools from ecological science could limit the trade-offs between these challenges and improve the ecological assessment process. To this end, we analysed the risks and benefits associated with the inclusion of genetic tools (landscape genetics and eDNA), remote sensing and metapopulation models in selected EAMs. Our results revealed trade-offs between these five challenges, in particular between Operationality and Currency. The EAMs varied strongly in these two aspects, depending on the general assessment approach and the biodiversity component they focus on. To a lesser degree, Time frame and Spatial scale also differed between the methods. We identified that the integration of the different tools differs among them, being easier for remote sensing and metapopulation models than for the genetic tools. Nevertheless, the integration resulted in benefits compared to the current use of the methods - benefits that included improving the objectivation of the assessment and the automatization potential. The tools also show potential for automatization, which could have major benefits for operationality. In terms of risks, the integration of these tools increases the technical complexity of the methods, requiring new skills, and would change the overall approach of the ecological assessment.

Precision, Applicability, and Economic Implications: A Comparison of Alternative Biodiversity Offset Indexes

The rates of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss are alarming and current conservation efforts are not sufficient to stop them. The need for new tools is urgent. One approach is biodiversity offsetting: a developer causing habitat degradation provides an improvement in biodiversity so that the lost ecological value is compensated for. Accurate and ecologically meaningful measurement of losses and estimation of gains are essential in reaching the no net loss goal or any other desired outcome of biodiversity offsetting. The chosen calculation method strongly influences biodiversity outcomes. We compare a multiplicative method, which is based on a habitat condition index developed for measuring the state of ecosystems in Finland to two alternative approaches for building a calculation method: an additive function and a simpler matrix tool. We examine the different logic of each method by comparing the resulting trade ratios and examine the costs of offsetting for developers, which allows us to compare the cost-effectiveness of different types of offsets. The results show that the outcomes of the calculation methods differ in many aspects. The matrix approach is not able to consider small changes in the ecological state. The additive method gives always higher biodiversity values compared to the multiplicative method. The multiplicative method tends to require larger trade ratios than the additive method when trade ratios are larger than one. Using scoring intervals instead of using continuous components may increase the difference between the methods. In addition, the calculation methods have differences in dealing with the issue of substitutability.

Metrics and Equivalence in Conservation Banking

Offsets are increasingly used to compensate for unavoidable development impacts on species and habitats. Many offset programs pursue no net loss, but research on the success of these programs is lacking, including research on conservation banking’s success in conserving protected species under the US Endangered Species Act. This article provides a case study analysis of two conservation banks in the state of California, comparing the conservation gains provided by banks with the losses from development impacts. It provides an analysis of credits and metrics to determine whether the gains are equal to the losses in terms of type, condition, and amount. Results do show that the gains exceed the losses in terms of acreage. However, the program uses indirect metrics (acreage), and the equivalence of the losses and gains, besides habitat type and size, is not reflected. Banks provide a baseline in their documentation and conduct monitoring of species abundance and habitat quality, but they do not use it to measure additional conservation gains. More detailed metrics and transparent indices to certify the acres in production could allow for a quantification of conservation benefits and an evaluation of program success. However, selecting standardized metrics is challenging because they need to be species-specific to reflect the goal of species recovery, and still be operational in practice.