Most assessment methods come up against the problem of measuring biodiversity in situ. In general, we do not know how to measure biodiversity satisfactorily because of its complexity. However, experts generally state that they know, for a given location, which actions are favorable to biodiversity.

What we propose is to quantify the gain from these actions based on a consensus between experts. To do so, we will not consider biodiversity as such, but the Biodiversity Carrying Capacity of a given area, which is the capacity of the ecosystem to host and support species.

The first step of the approach is to define categories of ecosystems, « ecosystem types », which are considered to be sufficiently homogeneous to allow, at first, the same approach to be applied to assess their biodiversity carrying capacity (e.g., intersection between a biogeographical category and a category of land use). For an ecosystem type, a group of experts is formed, i.e. individuals with established and recognized knowledge of biodiversity in that ecosystem type.

With the support of the experts, we establish a set of “parameters”, that are identified as the main drivers of the biodiversity carrying capacity in the given ecosystem type.

These parameters can be anthropic practices (e.g., pesticide use) or ecosystem characteristics (e.g., species diversity in a forest), but should always be assessable or measurable with reasonable complexity.

The experts are then mobilized in a participatory research protocol that outputs a calculation rule for assessing the biodiversity carrying capacity based on the value on the parameters. The process is designed so that the rule will be a synthesis and a generalization of the expert’s collective knowledge.

This evaluation rule can be used directly to provide an evaluation over time of the biodiversity carrying capacity from a measurement of the set of parameters.

It can also be used to derive an evaluation grid that will directly provide the biodiversity gains associated with certain changes of practices.

The evaluation may be refined in a second step to better account for local specificities. Overall, the method can be used to make ex-ante projections as well as ex-post evaluations. Importantly, it is designed to be easily applicable on the field, as the assessment relies only on the parameters that were selected according to their measurability.

For the certification mechanism, we recommend seeking inspiration from the best-in-class carbon standards, while taking care to adapt them to the biodiversity context.

Having a robust assessment methodology and certification process is necessary, yet not sufficient to ensure that the certificates mechanism promotes adequate action for biodiversity. Principles should be implemented so that the purchase of certificates be part of a consistent global action for biodiversity that is in line with the challenge we face.

In particular, we recommend excluding the possibility of offsetting for biodiversity.  The concept already raises legitimate concerns in the climate field, and it seems even more problematic when applied to biodiversity, where impacts are essentially local and on non-substitutable ecosystems.

We rather recommend a contribution approach.

Corporates and Stakeholders of the biodiversity certificates mechanism (companies, field actors, experts, NGOs, etc.) are welcome to join us to contribute to the methodological developments, so that we can collectively create a robust mechanism that is up to the challenge