# Executive summary Area-based, interoperable, rights-of-nature compliant, Indigenous-led biodiversity unit **This biodiversity unit was co-developed with Indigenous Peoples concerned about the commercialization of Nature. It functions for tracking and trading any biodiversity action, in any ecosystem, for any industry.** We present and explain an area-based [biodiversity unit](/unit-of-a-biodiversity-credit) co-designed by Savimbo, an Indigenous-led company, and our friends: >99 Indigenous leaders, in 25 countries, and 55 Indigenous nations. Indigenous Peoples guard an estimated [80% of the biodiversity](https://news.mongabay.com/2024/09/do-indigenous-peoples-really-conserve-80-of-the-worlds-biodiversity/), and [30% of the planet's intact ecosystems](https://report.territoriesoflife.org/global-analysis/). Their perspective [adds unique value](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381459737_An_interoperable_unit_for_area-based_biodiversity_conservation_wicked_problems_simple_solutions) to biodiversity science. The area-based unit is simple. A fixed [Area](https://unit.savimbo.com/area) of one hectare, for a fixed [Time](https://unit.savimbo.com/time) of one month with measured [Integrity](https://unit.savimbo.com/integrity) reported on a scale from 0-1. Where full integrity is an ecosystem with every ecological niche available to, and filled by, native species. The unit is *independently* categorized by its location and assigned a [Value](https://unit.savimbo.com/value) (Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze) representing the underlying biodiversity density and threat of the ecosystem. {% embed url="" %} Visual representation of calculations {% endembed %} Units can be issued as biodiversity "credits" and the terms are used interchangeably in this document, but for those who don't like the word "credit" it can also apply to "certificate", "outcome metric" or other more palatable words. This unit has rapidly [achieved widespread adoption](/adoption) around the world, and continues to be of intense interest to developers, market-makers, foundations, Indigenous nations, regulatory bodies, and scientists working in biodiversity. Why?

Measuring outcomes — Ecological Benefits Framework

This unit works. Here's *how* it works. **This unit is open-source and free to use.** We intend to give the market a good unit, a unit that truly represents Nature. So a [$180B commercial market](https://carbon-pulse.com/241018/) or an [$81B impact market](https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversityfinance.htm) does not form around false objectives, or quantify Nature in ways unlike itself. **This unit is *****not***** a metric or methodology**. There are over 170 ways to measure carbon with one unit: a ton of carbon. We anticipate *many* more ways to characterize biodiversity, often varying by ecosystem, or action (restoration vs conservation). While this unit was originally designed for a [conservation](https://isbm.savimbo.com) methodology. It is not limited to such actions and is instead designed to put *localized* biodiversity actions in a comparable format for buyers and regulators of *global* biodiversity outcomes, who may not understand the different metrics and methodologies involved. **This unit is from the perspective of other species.** Far too much work in the biodiversity space is biased by unquestioned paradigms about cost, and value, of other species to *humans*. Biodiverse areas have inverse funding ([Pirinon 2024](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg8028)). This unit clearly, simply, and publically directs funding and [value](/value) toward structurally intact ecosystems that protect the most life on this planet. We seek to remedy species-bias by setting an incontrovertible focus on the lived experience of other species — as any industry focused on biodiversity ought to do. Species have a fundamental right in their very DNA to inhabit the ecosystems they evolved in. **This unit has *****nothing***** to do with cost.** Biodiversity is conceivably the only market on the planet where we stop thinking about our own species, and instead think overtly about our obligations to other forms of planetary life. The cost of a unit will be strongly dependent on its implementation zone (cost of underlying land), and the effort of the actions involved. Currently, restoration ballparks at $25/ha/month while conservation averages $3/ha/month. This unit ignores the *cost* of actions and focuses on the global comparability of *outcomes.* An important note for the unit, we cannot prevent such uses of a public unit, but we are strongly opposed to the practice of [biodiversity offsetting](https://www.propublica.org/article/biodiversity-offsets-guinea-world-bank-group-chimpanzees-outbreak) as it violates both [Indigenous Peoples' values](https://carbon-pulse.com/269182/) and the [Rights of Nature](). While carbon is a basic element and can be emitted and sequestered from the atmosphere, a living species cannot be cycled between death and life. Extinction is a forever event. We *do* think interoperable tracking for impacts is desirable at global, national, and corporate levels. But *do not* endorse financial transactions that do not value life. We believe these practices and the mindset that bases them will be as abhorrent to our children as the ancient practice of human slavery now is to us. We remain hopeful and determined that this unit will have the intended effect of putting actions for Nature, in terms of Nature, with the understanding and insight of cultures that truly value Nature and whose actions and values have proven their holistic benefits. The Savimbo Team\ [eco at savimbo.com](mailto:eco@savimbo.com)\ [savimbo.com ](https://www.savimbo.com/about)
© 2024-2026 Savimbo Inc. *Suggested citation. Savimbo Inc. (2024). The Interoperable Biodiversity Unit (IBU): A Plain-Language Companion to Paynter et al. (2024).* [*https://unit.savimbo.com*](https://unit.savimbo.com) *Full methodology: Paynter, K. et al. (2024). An Interoperable Unit for Area-Based Biodiversity Conservation: Wicked Problems, Simple Solutions.* [*https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381459737*](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/381459737) © 2024–2026 Savimbo Inc. *The IBU and ISBM methodology are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) — free for academic, NGO, community, project developer, and commercial use with attribution. Certifiers incorporating ISBM into paid certification services are required to enter a royalty agreement with Savimbo Inc.* *Contact:* [eco at savimbo.com](mailto:eco@savimbo.com)
# Front materials Contents, index of figures and tables, acroynms and terms ### **Contents** * [Executive summary](/) * [Front material](/front-materials) * [Index of figures](https://unit.savimbo.com/front-materials#index-of-figures) * [Index of tables](https://unit.savimbo.com/front-materials#index-of-tables) * [Acronyms and abbreviations](https://unit.savimbo.com/front-materials#acronyms-and-abbreviations) * [Terms and definitions](https://unit.savimbo.com/front-materials#terms-and-definitions) * [Background](/background) * [Unit of a biodiversity credit](/unit-of-a-biodiversity-credit) * [Area](/area) * [Time](/time) * [Integrity](/integrity) * [Value](/value) * [Examples](/example-calculations) * [VBCs and iVBCx](/vbcs-and-ivbcs) * [Adoption](/adoption) * [Authors](/authors) * [FAQ](/faq) * [Document history](/document-history) * [Disclaimer](/disclaimer) * [References](/references) ### **Index of figures** * [**Figure 1: Indigenous people and local community contributors to biodiversity unit**](https://unit.savimbo.com/pages/hHqrEL8gAt7qDlexAEgY#figure-1.-indigenous-people-and-local-community-contributors-to-the-biodiversity-unit) ### Index of tables * #### [**Table 1. Ecosystem value sources based on public data**](https://unit.savimbo.com/value#table-x.-ecosystem-value-sources-based-on-public-data) * [**Table 2.** **Ecosystem value normalization table**](https://unit.savimbo.com/value#table-x.-ecosystem-value-normalization-table) * [**Table 3. Example calculations**](https://unit.savimbo.com/example-calculations#table-3.-example-calculations-with-loose-estimates-based-on-this-unit-include) * #### [Table 4: Current adoption of Savimbo biodiversity unit](https://unit.savimbo.com/adoption#table-4-current-adoption-of-savimbo-biodiversity-unit) ### **Acronyms and abbreviations** | Acronym | Definition | | ------- | ---------------------------------------------- | | IP | Indigenous Peoples | | IUCN | International Union for Conservation of Nature | | LC | Local Communities | | VBC | Voluntary biodiversity credit | | WWF | World Wildlife Fund | ### **Terms and definitions** **Biodiversity hotspots:** A biogeographic region characterized by exceptionally high levels of species richness and a significant degree of habitat loss. These areas are recognized for their extraordinary concentration of endemic species, meaning species that are found nowhere else in the world. **Components:** the elements comprise the biodiversity unit, dimensions ( Area, Time, Integrity), and category (Value). **Conservation:** There is a technical argument that this methodology falls under the definition of ‘preservation’ in many environmental contexts. “Conservation seeks the proper use of nature, while preservation seeks protection of nature from use." For simplicity, and readability with a non-technical IP and LC audience we have used the term conservation throughout ([Becker and Ghimire 2003](https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol8/iss1/art1/)). **Ecosystem integrity:** An ecosystem is generally understood to have integrity when its dominant ecological characteristics (e.g. elements of composition, structure, function, and ecological processes) occur within their natural ranges of variation, and extinction, and can withstand and recover from most perturbations. **Ecosystem services:** The benefits people derive from ecosystems. **Ecosystem value:** The planet-wide value of an ecosystem in the context of global biodiversity loss. Often referred to as “significance” in other contexts. **Impact:** We use the term impact to describe negative effects on biodiversity from human actions. This is often referred to in different industries as ecological impacts, corporate disclosures, or environmental impact assessments. In the case of the unit, it is meant to represent real impacts on biodiversity and not simply disclosure of these impacts which are often insufficient or partial. **Methodology**: is a protocol, often validated by certifiers in open review, with a standardized set of instructions to make meaning out of metrics. **Metric**: Means any core measurement. Typically it involves not only the measurement but a set of instructions or parameters for the measurement. **Monitoring period**: this is sometimes called crediting time and most projects will have a minimum monitoring timeframe of two years. Restoration projects have longer monitoring periods than conservation projects. Monitoring period is independent of the unit time of 1 month. **Project area:** this is sometimes called the crediting area and might be segmented for different actions. For most sites, this will be an area greater than 1000ha. The unit does allow for crediting from smaller areas incentivizing small projects, but a lot of biodiversity actions occur at a sq km (marine science or connectivity studies). Project area is independent of the unit area of 1 hectare. **Species:** Group of individuals or natural populations that are actually or potentially interbreeding, reproductively isolated from other similar groups by their physiological properties (reducing incompatibility between parents or sterility of hybrids, or both). **Species richness:** The population of different species present in a particular area or ecosystem. It is a measure of biodiversity that quantifies the diversity of species within a given habitat or geographical region, but it does not speak to the abundance or distribution of the species. **Unit:** is a final standardized format for a metric or methodology. Such as hectares, or tons, or bushels. In the case of biodiversity, a unit has time, area, integrity dimensions, and a value "grade". # Background Why do we need a unit for biodiversity? What is a unit? **This section covers some basic concepts and taxonomies for those who are unfamiliar with biodiversity credits, or those who know something about carbon credits but haven’t done a deep dive into how these types of markets operate.** In this section: * [What is a unit and why do we need one for biodiversity?](#what-is-a-unit-and-why-do-we-need-one-for-biodiversity) * [What is the difference between a metric and a unit?](#what-is-the-difference-between-a-metric-and-a-unit) * [What is a methodology? ](#what-is-a-methodology) * [Why can’t offsets work for biodiversity?](#why-cant-offsets-work-for-biodiversity) ### What is a unit and why do we need one for biodiversity? Defining a unit is how people communicate quantity. Units allow people and computer systems to understand and compare results. A unit of water is a liter or a gallon. A unit of a water contaminant is in parts per billion (ppb). You’ll notice that the water unit is a single unit, relating just to the amount of one thing. Parts per billion is measuring two things: the amount of the contaminant in relation to the amount of water. For some units, time is a factor. For example, kilometers per hour is a measure of speed that includes distance and time. Environmental units, like [CO2 tons per year](https://www.tapio.eco/blog/what-represents-one-ton-co2-emissions/), indicate the material (carbon dioxide), the weight (metric tons), and the time unit (year). Similarly, in order for us to talk about biodiversity, we need a unit that creates a mutual understanding among people who are measuring biodiversity. Years ago, people concluded it wasn't possible. But those people also didn't bother to ask Indigenous Peoples. For their own survival, Indigenous peoples have needed to assess the health of their ecologies, including biodiversity. More importantly, the people we need to communicate with are those same Indigenous Peoples, because they steward [80% of the biodiversity](https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/995271468177530126/pdf/443000WP0BOX321onservation01PUBLIC1.pdf), and conserve[ 30% of the intact ecosystems on the planet](https://report.territoriesoflife.org/global-analysis/). The job of this particular unit is to bridge between the people funding ecological preservation and the people who are performing ecological preservation on the ground. Even if the scientific community created a biodiversity unit that was agreed upon by all Universities, if the Indigenous People cannot understand the unit, it would be useless, because it would be incomprehensible to the people who are essential for preserving and restoring 80% of the planet’s biodiversity.
The Unit of Biodiversity described in this paper is 1 hectare per month with measured integrity from 0-1, with a value of bronze silver, gold, or platinum, [as described in the following section](https://unit.savimbo.com/unit-of-a-biodiversity-credit). Both the industrialized and non-industrialized world need transparent, fair, accounting for biodiversity actions and impacts. However, we cannot transact fairly to protect or restore Nature unless we agree on what these transactions are for. Many paradigms about the worth of Nature [are not shared](https://www.savimbo.com/blog/the-voice-of-the-indigenous-peoples-of-the-world-on-the-planetary-environmental-emergency) across the [territories we need to protect](https://report.territoriesoflife.org/global-analysis/). Therefore a unit for these transactions must be acceptable for both parties — and cross paradigms about what can be measured, and what has value. This problem applies across industries — in impact metrics for [charitable funding](https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversityfinance.htm), outcome metrics for [nation-state funding](https://www.cbd.int/gbf), or biodiversity credits for [commercial markets](https://carbon-pulse.com/241018/). This interoperable biodiversity unit was co-designed with Indigenous representatives from four continents with intact cultural lineages who have a demonstrated track record of fighting for Nature — even at a financial loss. It was designed to represent their work, and Nature itself, fairly for financial exchanges with industrialized-world parties who did not share their paradigms or values but did want to see the same outcomes. This collaboration rapidly simplified the problem of a universal biodiversity unit. As Indigenous Peoples understand clearly, biodiversity cannot be judged around its value to humans, it must be measured from the perspective of an intrinsic[ right to exist](https://rightsofnaturenow.com/). Insurmountable scientific and accounting problems are resolved cleanly when recontextualized to outcomes for other species. ## What is the difference between a metric and a unit? A metric is any core measurement. Usually, these have a scientific protocol for standardization. For example, the "diameter of tree at breast height" is the core metric in almost all forest carbon estimates. Everything else is calculated from this raw data with allometric equations for scale. But there are some standard instructions for measuring trees because they don't grow in a perfect circle and different species have different carbon densities. So in biodiversity, "species observation" might be a metric, but identifying a species is very different with different protocols depending on the kingdom (insects, trees, fish, etc.) or ecosystem (identifying dolphins in the ocean is different from sand crabs on the beach). Raw data, like game-camera footage is converted into a metric like a species observation, through a fairly formal process that controls for taxonomy, natural variation, DNA vs phenotypes, and species evolution. In this document, we talk about a UNIT of biodiversity which is based on the METRIC of identification of indicator species using a camera trap. Other metrics of biodiversity have been proposed (such as eDNA testing of water), and local Indigenous people use their own metrics (such as the taste and size of a fruit when it fully ripens). Both are highly accurate chemical tests, but practically impossible to correlate to one another. As stated above, it’s essential to use metrics and units that can be understood the same way by different cultures. ## What is a methodology? A methodology is a protocol to make meaning out of metrics. In the biodiversity crediting market these methodologies are technical documents that explain how to generate biodiversity credits. For instance, Savimbo's[ Indicator Species Methodology](https://isbm.savimbo.com) takes a metric like a game camera footage identified as a bush dog (one of the rarest species in the Amazon), and describes a formal replicable set of instructions to interpret how this camera footage is translated into the UNIT of biodiversity credits. Once a methodology is published, the methodology can be used by projects worldwide to calculate their credits. Some methodologies have certification from companies that provide certification of biodiversity credits. Buyers of biodiversity credits can purchase certified or uncertified biodiversity credits issued directly by projects, or through credit marketplaces.

Carbon methodologies and unit — Ecological Benefits Framework

Projects for preservation of nature have the choice to use whatever methodology is best for their ecosystems. Biodiversity credits are a nascent market. Savimbo has created a unit that is easily understandable across different cultures, and it is our ambition to have this become a universal standard unit for multiple different biodiversity methodologies. We recognize that new standards and units will emerge as the industry matures, but one of the major drivers for widespread adoption will be the alignment of multiple methodologies and multiple agencies around a standard unit. A standard unit provides a level of certainty to buyers in the biodiversity credit markets. As with carbon credits, we expect the industry to mature over time and publish different types of biodiversity methodologies.

Biodiversity methodologies and unit — Ecological Benefits Framework

### Units help us measure what matters The unit is just the final format. Different ecosystems and actions need different metrics and methodologies. Analyzing oceans and freshwater systems are different. Jungle is different from desert. These are different actions, different species, and different equipment. The UNIT is how you compare what you did with everyone else. It's a standard set of expressions. Like we use "hectares" instead of "acres". This unit is designed to work with the following methodologies: * Restoration (“uplift”) * Eradication * Pollination * Agrobiodiversity * Conservation * Corporate impacts There will likely be more than one type of unit for biodiversity. This protocol is for an area-based biodiversity unit which covers the majority of immediate use-cases, but we see clear potential for other types of units in the future, such as a species unit. This unit also controls for industry lobbying by groups with strong financial incentives and better science in ecosystems that have been frankly inaccessible to true animal populations for hundreds of years (i.e. farmland in US and Europe), when compared against IP and LC protecting planetary treasures with little to no resources (i.e. fishing village in Mexico guarding blue whale UNESCO birthing site).

Roadmap for biodiversity unit development - Ecological Benefits Framework

The point is not to cover all use cases for biodiversity, the point is to start somewhere now. It is urgent that we preserve the intact ecosystems today, therefore, we need a unit that works now and that is acceptable enough to start with. ### Is biodiversity a commodity? We're not arguing that a biodiversity unit has to be a commodity. In fact, we'd much prefer if it were used interchangeably. But using we like commodities helps a lot for Indigenous projects because it's a product Indigenous Peoples can leave at the borders of their lands, with no strings attached. (We don't like Nature asset classes; we advise Indigenous Peoples to never sell off their assets.) Many people are using biodiversity units in the form of credits, designed to access existing carbon credit commodities markets. And for this use in particular the tangibility of the unit is a major differentiator in its utility. Legally, commodities units must be tangible. They can’t be an arbitrary calculation made by a brand. ManyLots of biodiversity credit schemes misunderstand this basic legal facet of commodities markets. They want to use similar climate market mechanisms to carbon credits but don't talk to commodities exchanges first. Commodities exchanges are heavily regulated. Formed to manage agricultural products, — they buy, sell, and trade real-world items that have a real-world expiration date. ### Why can’t offsets work for biodiversity? Biodiversity cannot be offset. Trying to offset one ecosystem for another is like taking out a person’s liver and giving them an extra gall bladder to replace it. They aren’t the same thing. Different functioning parts in a complex adaptive system can adapt--to some degree--but they can’t just be eliminated and replaced somewhere else. Similarly, you can’t “compress” biodiversity by moving the same amount of wildlife into a smaller area. Overcrowding makes the ecosystem less healthy, not more healthy. Healthy, intact, biodiverse ecosystems must be respected for the value they provide as the basis for the functioning of our planetary health. #### Figure 1. Indigenous people and local community contributors to the biodiversity unit

Jeidy Caicedo

Jhony Lopez

Savimbo team

# Common mistakes Easy-to-resolve misunderstandings about the biodiversity unit **This section covers the most common mistakes people make when thinking about the biodiversity unit, frequently conflating it with other layers of measurement abstraction (metrics and units) or with other market functions (validation or pricing).** In this section: * [Biodiversity vs carbon](https://unit.savimbo.com/) * [Unit vs metric](#unit-vs-metric) * [Unit vs methodology](#unit-vs-methodology) * [Unit vs price](#unit-vs-price) * [Unit time vs. monitoring time](#unit-time-vs.-monitoring-time) * [Unit vs verification/validation](#unit-vs-verification-validation) * [Unit vs market](#unit-vs-market) ### **Biodiversity vs carbon** There is considerable conflation between carbon markets and biodiversity markets. Carbon markets certainly have had problems with a lack of credibility, transparency, double counting, and equity [(58)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16558537\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). But, they always had a universal unit, a ton of carbon. Biodiversity markets can iterate on carbon-market failings, but the unit problem is a separate problem, and conflation between the two issues has delayed the design and adoption of an appropriate unit. Where possible, we have incorporated lessons learned from carbon market failings in the selection of negotiable unit attributes and Indigenous co-design. However, the majority of unit decisions were constrained by logic, pragmatism, and multidisciplinary theory. The main reason we were able to clearly elucidate these constraints was to remove issues that were irrelevant to the discussion (see Figure 1). The most powerful tool we had in negotiating this unit, was the willingness to leave intractable, but irrelevant debates out of the discussion. ### **Unit vs metric** Metrics are the first level of scientific abstraction. A metric is any core measurement, which usually has a scientific protocol for standardization. It typically includes not just the measurement itself, but a set of repeatable instructions or parameters. For example, the "diameter of a tree at breast height" is the core metric in almost all forest carbon estimates. Everything else is calculated from this raw data with standardized instructions in obtaining the metric, and extrapolated with allometric equations for scale. In biodiversity, "species observation" might be a metric, but identifying a species is very different with different protocols depending on the kingdom (insects, trees, fish, etc.) or ecosystem (identifying dolphins in the ocean is different from sand crabs on the beach). Raw data, like game-camera footage, is converted into a metric like a species observation, through a formal process that controls for taxonomy, natural variation, DNA vs phenotypes, and species evolution. Other metrics of biodiversity have been proposed (such as eDNA testing of water), and local Indigenous people use their own metrics (such as the taste of the bark of an Amazonian tree). Both are highly accurate chemical tests, but practically impossible to correlate to one another. It’s useful, but not essential, to use metrics and units that can be understood by different cultures across industrialized and non-industrialized paradigms. We do recommend metrics that meet cross-cultural epistemological requirements - prioritizing game cameras over eDNA. What is essential is that metrics are abstracted sufficiently for global markets, while retaining accuracy. Metrics are constantly evolving with technology and scientific developments. The aim of this paper is not to constrain metrics, but instead to differentiate between metrics which are useful for market purposes (cleanly generate an accurate unit) and those which are useful for scientific purposes (measure ecosystems in other ways). Much of what has made the unit debates intractable is the attempt to standardize metrics, which are desirably heterogeneous, instead of providing a comparable format for their final abstraction. This paper does not constrain metrics, it merely asks if metrics can be used in an ecosystem unit or not. ### **Unit vs methodology** Methodologies are the second level of scientific abstraction. A methodology is a protocol to make meaning out of metrics. The methodology chosen by researchers, often validated in open review, is a protocol to measure and quantify the biodiversity of a particular ecosystem, usually using a combination of metrics in a formal abstraction. In the biodiversity crediting market, these methodologies are technical documents that explain how to generate biodiversity credits. Once a methodology is published, the methodology can be used by projects worldwide to calculate their credits. Some methodologies have certification from companies that provide certification of biodiversity credits. Most methodologies are ecosystem-specific and constrained by action (i.e., a methodology for increasing pollinators in farmland). Not all crediting schemas will use methodologies, some may credit from metrics alone. But in all cases, methodologies are independent of the final comparable abstraction, the unit, and merely clearly describe how the unit was calculated and from what metrics and with what justification. Much of what has made the unit debates intractable is the attempt to prioritize one methodology over another, which are desirably heterogeneous, instead of providing a comparable format for their final abstraction. This paper does not constrain methodologies, it merely asks them to report their output in a final abstraction, an interoperable unit. ### **Unit vs price** A unit is not a price. A price depends on the buyer-perceived market value at the time of sale (related to, but not to be conflated with, the Value category in this paper). This includes the perceived market value and reputation of each project developer, certifier, methodology, metric, ecosystem, action, and even charismatic species involved in unit composition. As already described, units need to be logical and tangible in their composition. However, buyers do not have to be rational in pricing. In fact, the field of behavioral economics tells us they are likely to be quite irrational [(59)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=769760\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Indeed, early market pricing for restoration is already nearly triple that of conservation, and inverse to species density, showing anthropomorphic buyer motivations [(4, 53)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16133214,16491539\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). Our task, in this case, is merely to design units that accurately reflect biodiversity itself. Not to promote pricing or value judgments on biodiversity. We did bow to current market pricing in our choice of area/time granularity. Preferring the smallest functional ecosystem unit of hectare/month over alternatives such as sqkm/year. But this decision will not affect final market pricing for biodiversity, which will be based on market normalization in the future. Fluctuations in the price of the credit, or the price of land a credit is associated with, do not affect the unit it is measured in. ### **Unit time vs. monitoring time** The time component of the unit was chosen as one month (30 days) for minimum viable granularity. Larger monitoring periods (duration of crediting periods, methodology requirements, etc.) can be easily subdivided into smaller time intervals for conversion to this unit. Controls and requirements for monitoring period length fall outside the scope of the unit design and must be accounted for by methodologies, certification bodies, international standards, and verifiers (see Figure 1). Much of what has made the unit debates intractable is the option to select from a wide variety of seemingly arbitrary scales for standardizing time (month, year, twenty years) and area (hectare, acre, meter-squared). The point of a unit is to make a logical choice that makes intuitive sense to people who will use the unit, stick with it, and obtain stakeholder consensus around that choice. And this is what we have done. ### **Unit vs verification/validation** Methodologies, metrics, and units may be audited by independent parties in order to validate claims about biodiversity outcomes. Indeed, we recommend third-party validation. However, the validity of reported units and the comparability of reported are completely separate issues. The authors of this paper can all claim to be ten feet tall, and the truth of this claim does not affect the tape measure used to measure our height (see Figure 1). We do note that making units tangible and simple greatly reduces the opportunity for manipulation of reporting, and this was a strong consideration in unit dimensions. ### **Unit vs market** This biodiversity unit does not have to be used as a commodity or transact in a marketplace. A unit that meets the requirements for a commodity has advantages in tangibility, market adoption, and accounting for expiration (biodiversity is either alive or dead) [(28)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16467930\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). However, given the strong presence of charitable stakeholders in this space, one could argue that an effective unit cannot only be commercial [(13)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16133706\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). It is preferable if this unit is used interchangeably across commercial and noncommercial settings. This unit can be also called a biodiversity ‘credit’, ‘certificate’, ‘asset’, or any other semantic variation as long as they are identical dimensions. Much of what has made the unit a wicked problem is the endless debate about the commercialization of Nature, a highly emotional argument. In turn, the solution is to use it as a measurement across philosophical divides.
# Climate change and biodiversity loss We urgently need an interoperable, global unit of account for biodiversity for all stakeholders to work together to preserve the ecology of Earth. In the 21st century, Earth is experiencing species loss so abrupt it has been dubbed the ‘sixth mass extinction event’ [(2)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=4934855\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). In 2022, over 196 nations agreed to take urgent action under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), to conserve at least 30% of the Earth’s surface by 2030 — focusing attention on high-risk biodiversity ecoregions to prevent catastrophic species collapse [(3, 4)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=7013008,16133214\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). Yet we know from the science of project management and the history of megaprojects that this effort can only succeed if we agree on how to measure our success [(5, 6)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16439095,16545226\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). Biodiversity accords both lag, and benefit from, lessons learned in carbon accords. While climate is tracked through global average temperature changes, carbon emissions are quantified through metric tons of CO2. As yet, biodiversity action and tracking have suffered because there is no such agreed-upon unit [(7)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16545253\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). There is a simple solution to this problem, but the simplicity relies on a frameshift, applying a multidisciplinary approach, and eliminating ideological differences in favor of shared aims.
# A rare catalyst for a wicked problem The emerging commercial market for biodiversity credits has forced a renewed interest in achieving consensus on a biodiversity unit. Economic theory predicts that without a standardized unit of measure, market mechanisms will not achieve accurate price discovery, leading to confusion that will reduce buyer demand [(8)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16457064\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). But many people flocking to work on this problem are surprised at the need, why hasn’t the unit problem already been solved? The answer is that the biodiversity unit is what paradox theory and policy science call a ‘wicked problem’, a problem that cannot be resolved through science or data advancements, because the real conflicts are about values, interests, and perspectives [(9)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16545284\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Yes, biodiversity has all the regular technical headaches for natural systems science. Complexity in measurements and data, path dependence (unlike carbon, biodiversity will always be localized to the context or ecosystem where it evolved), unknowns of species themselves, and messy ontologies [(10–12)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=14891423,8280746,16457157\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0,0). However, these problems are exacerbated by deeper conflicts between the stakeholders who need to use a biodiversity unit (Nature, notably, is not among them — merely needing to tangibly benefit from a unit’s application). Charities dominate the current $81 billion biodiversity market, but commercial interests and innovation dominate the $180 billion emerging biodiversity credit market, competing both ideologically and for public and/or private funding for biodiversity protection and uplift [(13, 14)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16133706,16133770\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). Indigenous Peoples have 80% of the conserved biodiversity but are unified in their dislike of quantifying or commercializing Nature and as yet undecided on biodiversity markets — although they have been clear in their disdain of the way carbon markets have unfolded [(15–18)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16133765,16439233,16459281,16545595\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0,0,0). Governments are committed to tracking and regulation but have an estimated $700 billion finance gap to execute on biodiversity goals, and have failed to achieve any timely or meaningful regulation on carbon [(3, 19)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=7013008,16546551\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). Industry currently extracts an estimated $7.3 trillion dollars annually from natural capital and has few incentives to fund a reversal of this behavior [(20)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16437372\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Corporations profiting from biodiversity loss are legally bound to maximize that profit, and yet claim to be paradoxically self-regulating — even possibly leading regulation through voluntary cutbacks like the Taskforce on Nature-related Disclosures [(21)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16545606\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0)? It is clear that a biodiversity unit must work for all of these parties, yet none of them parties share values, interests, or perspectives. In fact, quite the reverse. In management science, paradox theory is used to address and tame wicked problems with high tensions [(22)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=6273916\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). So how do we “measure what matters” for biodiversity when we can’t agree about what matters? Political science tells us that some of the tools to solve a wicked problem are to: 1) identify it accurately, 2) treat the problem as unique, 3) avoid science- and data-driven solutions in favor of negotiation, and 4) reduce the compounding factors of complexity, uncertainty, and disagreement [(9)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16545284\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). The emerging market for biodiversity credits has created a rare opportunity to solve this problem by aligning stakeholders, thus reducing disagreement, because every stakeholder could potentially use a well-designed marketplace. Many parties see an opportunity to iterate on the working model of the carbon market while solving some intransigent problems with biodiversity funding and climate equity [(14)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16133770\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Certainly, government funding for climate and forests is not currently reaching Indigenous Peoples [(23)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16457161\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0), and we know that commercial innovation is better at optimizing markets [(24)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16457378\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). However, the disciplines of history, law, and political science are clear on the risks of using capitalistic structures to innovate in fields that need to be protected ethically or for minority groups [(25)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16461958\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Therefore, the ideal biodiversity unit will be useful in a commercial or charitable market, protect equity to the extent possible, and function immediately to capture this rare opportunity for concordance. We’ll address the requirements in turn, and then discuss a negotiated area-based unit that is achieving market traction.
# Technical requirements for an area-based biodiversity unit A unit is an abstraction that enables rapid communication about a standardized measurement. Trade is built on units — as are the physical sciences, and the rest of modern society. Identical units are a prerequisite to the formation and efficient functioning of markets. Both carbon and biodiversity are emerging markets. We know from research on innovation that emerging or frontier markets stabilize and form according to a standardized curve of the Gartner Hype Cycle [(26)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16457109\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). In this context, carbon markets would be at the “trough of disillusionment” stage, and biodiversity markets would be at the “innovation trigger” stage. The speed with which any market achieves optimization or “productivity” is dependent on several factors, one of which is perfect competition. The main principles of perfect competition are that products or services in the market are exchanged in terms of identical units, the market is large enough that no single participant has influence over the pricing, there are no barriers to entry or exit for market participants, and all market participants have complete information available [(8)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16457064\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). The absence of any one of the conditions for perfect competition results in price distortion and market failure, rather than optimal value and wealth creation [(27)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16457124\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). In the ideal market, all activity is measured in terms of standardized identical units in order to avoid inefficiencies and support buyers in comparing the relationship between price and value. But the current biodiversity market more closely resembles a yard sale, with boutique purchases and individuals haggling [(28)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16467930\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Currently, the number of proposed biodiversity ‘units’ numbers nearly as high as the number of active schemas which is currently fifty-two and increasing daily [(29, 30)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16133128,16436949\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). Therefore, a viable unit would need to reliably work for at least the majority of these schemas, all stakeholders, and also accurately abstract path-dependent data (ecosystem-specific data) for a global context [(30)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16436949\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). In particular, it would need to function in measuring conservation, restoration (pollination, uplift, eradication of invasive or alien species), and impact (disclosures of degradation or avoided degradation) actions. As most of these schemas explicitly or implicitly intend, in order for the biodiversity credit market to utilize similar market structures as the carbon credit market, it must also be a commodity [(28)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16467930\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Commodities markets have rigorous regulations regarding product expiration and universal tangibility and do not accept scoring systems and calculations that do not have real-world corollaries. They could, for instance, sell one ton of live meerkats with a ‘grade’ of 4.5, but they could not sell 4.5 stars that had been awarded to live meerkats. The first is a physical dimension, the second is an intangible score whose value is arbitrarily based on the reputation of the awarding party. This is not such a bad requirement. Human concepts mean nothing to Nature, which is nothing if not tangible. Thus, the more tangible a unit is, the more likely it is to truly measure, and account for, natural systems. Reduced abstraction also leads to reduced opportunities for gaming or manipulating a unit from its intended use. There remains some debate around area-based units. While there are certainly biodiversity actions which fall outside of area-based activities, the vast majority of schemas can utilize an area-based structure. Certainly, one could argue that biodiversity never exists outside of an ecosystem, or habitat. Therefore, an area-based unit could cover the emerging market adequately with the stipulation that future units may emerge. Ideally, a properly designed unit will also be aligned with the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) accounting standards International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Guidelines and a number of emerging international market controls on natural capital accounting [(31, 32)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16461939,16457505\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). Currently, carbon commodities markets have a multi-party structure, which is rapidly replicating itself for biodiversity markets [(30)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16436949\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). A clear understanding of this structure dramatically reduces common technical confusions about the unit, which is too frequently conflated with other market functions and structures such as validation of claims, standardization of metrics and methodologies, price, sales, and origination (see Figure 1 ).
# Social requirements for a well-designed unit As discussed earlier, approaching the biodiversity unit as merely a technical problem will not lead to a solution. Climate change and Indigenous equity are two well-recognized wicked problems, in the biodiversity unit they compound with existing technical problems [(9)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16545284\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). We cannot simply solve, we must negotiate. The biodiversity unit is not only an economic problem, but also a historical, sociological, anthropological, political, and legal one. A universally abstracted unit must cross paradigms between the industrialized, and non-industrialized worlds, and protect non-human species as entities with the inherent right to exist. Not least, it must function in accounting for Nature in regulatory, charitable, and commercial contexts during a profound transition of economic and legal models formerly built on colonialism and extraction. As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2022, colonialism and inequity are primary drivers of the vulnerability of ecosystems and people to climate change, and also a chief barrier to recovery [(33)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=15746764\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). This task is impossible when viewed through competing ideological lenses; unifying principles must be found. Conventional economic theory must adapt to address markets where the majority of the supply is controlled by groups that don't transact via conventional economic mechanisms, or where we want to adapt these mechanisms because they have historically inflicted severe harm [(34)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16465026\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Indigenous Peoples are both a critical stakeholder and shareholder in negotiating a proper unit for embryonic biodiversity markets. The UN and World Bank estimate they control 80% of the intact biodiversity on the planet [(35)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16133404\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Together with local communities, they account for 30% of the intact planet and own or manage nearly half of the world’s forests and farm landscapes [(36–38)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16133386,15104227,16473456\&pre=\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0,0). Yet they are a minority, numbering only six percent of the planet's total population while accounting for a disproportionate 19% of its population living in extreme poverty [(39)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16489277\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Thus, despite international rights to consultation and direct involvement in the design of markets that affect them, they are often underrepresented or excluded from market negotiations and require special protections [(17, 40)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16459281,16461587\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). Indeed, trade with IP is protected in a separate category with unique protocols under international law and local Indigenous governing structure and dimensionality that may not conform to Western systems [(41)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16234350\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Both IP and LC are also worth consulting for technical reasons. They have better long-term outcomes for forest management [(42)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16461411\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0), protect biodiversity effectively in sovereign lands [(43)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16436919\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0), and comprise essential knowledge, expertise, and impact for the preservation of species [(44)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=15605279\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Further, LC, if not directly incentivized, are the greatest risk to habitat destruction [(45)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=14165620\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). However, we must acknowledge existing markets have failed in inclusion and equity. IP and LC currently receive less than 1-2% of the funding from existing climate markets [(38, 46)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16473456,16473455\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). Our best current evidence shows that trade and market-based schemes have made little impact against deforestation, and in some cases worsened economic inequality [(40, 47)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16473475,16461587\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). If colonialism caused climate change, we must address the two issues as linked [(33)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=15746764\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). A unit that is intended to meet GBF aims must be intuitively acceptable to IP and LC, remediate or ameliorate economic inequality, and take advantage of non-industrialized technical expertise. We propose that a successful unit transcends three core paradigms: tangibility, dynamism, and anthropocentrism. A tangible unit is not only good for commodities markets, tangibility is also better at achieving value in both industrialized and non-industrialized paradigms. We know from the disciplines of philosophy and anthropology that epistemology, axiology, and ontology vary widely between industrialized and non-industrialized cultures [(48, 49)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=2551241,16473535\&pre=\&pre=\&suf=\&suf=\&sa=0,0). For instance, an intangible unit like a ton of carbon computed from a forest study immediately leads to a dearth of IP or LC specialists on the topic and requires intermediaries versed in this kind of epistemological knowledge (e.g. allometric equations and satellite forest modeling) [(18)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16545595\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). In contrast, a ton of goji berries might require as much depth of expertise to deliver, but both industrialized and non-industrialized world can easily conceptualize, measure, and trade it. There is no reason a biodiversity unit must be intangible (e.g. calculated score from machine learning algorithm) instead of tangible and measurable by both epistemic cultures (e.g. a hectare of intact ecosystem). Larger area-based units also allow for dynamism. Conceptualizations of biodiversity as an object to be traded belie its dynamic qualities. In contrast, IP often have living-systems perspectives that are relational, or praxis-based. One simple way to resolve this apparent discrepancy is not to reduce units for biodiversity below that of functional units for an ecosystem. IP perspectives also adjust for anthropocentrism. Many proposed units reward anthropocentrism by measuring biodiversity in terms of human priorities (human scoring systems, human effort, commodification of ecosystem services or land cost) [(30)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=16436949\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). In contrast, IP initiatives explicitly demand that biodiversity cannot be judged around its value to humans, it must be measured from the perspective of an intrinsic right to exist [(50)](https://sciwheel.com/work/citation?ids=15229836\&pre=\&suf=\&sa=0). Further, units which prioritize uplift or threat over conservation or intactness will have profound effects on both resource allocation to Indigenous Peoples and fail to reward Nature within its own context. Thus, a well-designed unit must account for the possibility of legal rights of Nature, different paradigms of animal ownership and/or custodianship, and measure biodiversity based on outcomes for all species, not only humans. As a final consideration, there is no doubt that area-based units transacting through commercial structures do run the risk of exacerbating existing inequities in land rights. But this problem, while important (and wicked), cannot be resolved or addressed at the level of a unit, and must be accounted for in other social and/or governance mechanisms (see Figure 1).
# Unit of a biodiversity credit An interoperable unit for biodiversity crediting **This is an area-based unit. It is meant to measure a functional ecosystem. This biodiversity unit has standard dimensions (Area, Time, and Integrity) and it has a grade (Value).** After a comprehensive review of the biodiversity credit landscape, we have intentionally normalized the Voluntary Biodiversity Credits issued in our conservation methodology to an interoperable Unit which can also be used for other methodologies. This unit works for any ecosystem, metric, or methodology and covers conservation, restoration, pollination, or eradication activities. Of particular note, although we are opposed to offsetting, this unit also works for corporate disclosures of biodiversity impacts and can contribute to international accounting at the local, state, national, or international levels. The area-based biodiversity unit has the following components: **UNIT =** [**AREA**](/area) **(1 hectare) for** [**TIME**](/time) **(1 month) with** [**INTEGRITY**](/integrity) **(scale from 0 to 1, as determined by bespoke methodologies) categorized by** [**VALUE**](/value) **(Platinum, Gold, Silver, Bronze)** Where the dimensions are: * [**Area**](/area) fixed at 1 hectare. * [**Time**](/time) fixed at 1 month (*monitoring periods* will almost always be longer but *units* are small). * [**Integrity**](/integrity) on a scale from 0 to 1, as determined by bespoke methodologies. Where full integrity is all ecosystem niches available to and occupied by native species. And the grade is: * [**Value**](/value) or the planet-wide value of preserving the ecosystem where the hectare is located. A complete explanation of these components follows. ### Value vs Integrity Value and Integrity components were designed to make ecosystems comparable, ocean vs desert. Humans have no right to judge the intrinsic worth of other species. Desert animals have as much right to exist as jungle animals do; however, the density of unique DNA protected by an ecosystem makes higher biodiverse regions a higher priority for planetary funding. It is critical to distinguish between the [Integrity](/integrity) of the ecosystem, which is based on how many ecological niches are filled, and the [Value ](/value)of the ecosystem, which represents the underlying biodiversity density and the threat of degradation and is determined by geographical location. For example, an ecosystem in the arctic ice sheets which is fully occupied by native species would receive a bronze grade and issue bronze units because it is less biodiverse than a hectare in the Colombian Amazon, which would receive a platinum grade. * Full credits are awarded to completely intact ecosystems (with Integrity of 1), and partial credits are awarded to partially degraded ecosystems, in accordance with their measured Integrity (eg. 0.5). * Areas near high-value ecosystems (forest outside of a biodiversity hotspot), or high-density ecosystems that are not threatened (Amazon with low deforestation rates) could have full Integrity, but will have a lower Value. * Degraded areas within high-value ecosystems, (eg. cattle farm in a biodiversity hotspot) could be high Value, but would have low Integrity. We will address each element in turn.

Voluntary Biodiversity Credit (VBC) components - Ecological Benefits Framework

# Area Standardized area for a biodiversity unit The area of a biodiversity credit is always 1 hectare. Marine science is usually expressed in square kilometers, and easily converted as equal to 100 hectares.

Depiction of biodiveristy unit area — Ecological Benefits Foundation

# Time Standardized time for a biodiversity unit **It is critical that when understanding the Time of this unit, readers realize that time for a *****unit*****, is not the same as time for a *****monitoring period*****.** For instance, if you purchase a lollypop for $1, you can pay a $1 bill, or four $0.25c coins and it will be *the same transaction*. Units are about the standard "size" of the currency, not the value of the transaction. So a 20-year restoration methodology might only deliver results after a monitoring period of 1-2 years, and with this unit would issue *12 units per year*. We are paying in smaller "coins" for several very sound reasons outlined below, not changing the total "price" of the transaction. ### Why one month? **Time** is always 1 month. This time period was chosen *only* for intuitive sensibility and pricing and market adoption of VBCs at the time of unit release based on pilot data, adopting entities, and early market signals. * Conservation credits of 1 year \~$30 were less desirable to buyers than credits of 1 month at \~$2.50 which was closer to market pricing for carbon commodities ($1-7). * A month makes intuitive sense to people when looking at shorter units. * Shorter time scales allow for biodiversity fluctuations, and account for ongoing predation, and trafficking of rare species within the 1-year monitoring periods. It captures granular reporting for restoration integrity increases.

Biodiversity unit Time unit based on market pricing - Ecological Benefits Framework

There are some benefits to more granular crediting in some conservation projects. * IP and LC experts working on Savimbo's [indicator-species conservation methodology]() felt 1 year was too long to accurately reflect conservation outcomes in monitoring sites without tagged animals as a jaguar could be killed for its teeth immediately after observation in month 1 of a 12-month crediting cycle. * 2 month crediting periods followed optimum hunter-gatherer tracking activities. Allowing for rest periods and scouting for indicator species, yet delivering clear signals for species that had relocated or disappeared. ### Longer-term projects Restoration projects will most likely require twenty-year commitments with minimum 5-year action crediting. This does not affect the Time unit in the *slightest*.

Monitoring vs unit time - Ecological Benefits Framework

# Integrity Standardized integrity scale for a biodiversity unit **Full integrity is defined as all ecological niches, available to, and occupied by native species.** The key to this unit's interoperability lies in the fact that standardizing Time, Value, and Area, allows methodologies and metrics to converge in their Integrity measurements from the perspective of an ecosystem itself. ### Integrity scale * **0 signifies a completely degraded ecosystem**. For example, nuclear waste sites, ocean dead zones, wildfires that burn hot enough to sterilize soil. * **1 signifies a fully available ecosystem.** For example, national parks, game parks, UNESCO World Heritage sites, primary Amazon forest, etc.

Integrity scale - Ecological Benefits Framework

Every competing metric and methodology, certifiers, and disclosures can interoperate here. Metrics and methodologies can be local (i.e. desert, ocean) while normalizing for global tracking. In cross-market studies, experts have confirmed that conservation, eradication, pollination, restoration, and corporate impacts from all ecosystems can all report outcomes with this scale. * **Academic definitions** of ecosystem "integrity" and "health", are bundled under a universal term for market adoption. Although it is acknowledged there are important differences which can be elucidated in different methodologies. * **Methodologies**, as approved by certifiers or scientists, have a standardized way to measure Integrity effects. * **Projects** can get partial crediting, or demerits for partial effects. In most methodologies, it is simplest to assume Integrity is constant throughout a one-month unit period. The integrity for the one-month crediting period is taken as the average over this time. Changes in integrity are reflected over the full monitoring period of the project, subdivided into one-month crediting intervals.

Integrity scale - Ecological Benefits Framework

### **𝚫 Integrity** Functionally, Integrity is always measuring change. Because biodiversity actions either move Integrity up (restoration), down (impact), or show no change (conservation). While partial integrity scores may not offer additional crediting benefit, a full spectrum of data gives projects more validity in their claims to represent an intact ecosystem, and factors into qualitative assessments performed by IEP in their final evaluations.

Integrity changes - Ecological Benefits Framework

# Value An interoperable Value for a voluntary biodiversity credit Unit **Value is the planet-wide value of preserving the ecosystem where the unit is located.** Not every ecosystem is created equal. If we apply biogeochemistry science to look at the planet as an organism, some ecosystems are organs (a liver or a kidney), some ecosystems are muscle, skin, or bones ([Boston, 2008](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780444637680007356)). The resources represented by biodiversity credits must be directed in order of planetary importance. Especially in the context of unequal access to scientific resources and advocacy for Indigenous Peoples and local communities guarding critical biozones. Our planet has crossed 6 of 9 planetary boundaries ([Richardson et al. 2023](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458)) we need urgent global triage on biodiversity *organs*. For example, biodiversity hotspots contain a high level of endemic species and have undergone greater than 30% destruction which makes them incredibly high-value for immediate protection ([Kareiva and Kareiva 2017](https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-95)). Figure: Global distribution of plant species richness ([Pirinon 2024](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg8028))

Global distribution of plants used by humans, Pironon et al. Science 2024

There are at least [\~14 competing biome schemes](#table-2.-ecosystem-value-normalization-table) for Value, all incomplete, most out of date and ranging from 14-504 ecosystem categories ([Table 1](#table-x.-ecosystem-rank-for-vbcs)). We have made a significant effort with reviewers to standardize this to something markets can use ([Table 2](#table-x.-ecosystem-value-normalization-table)) In this unit, Value is determined by public data on global ecosystem value and threat ([Ecosystem value](#ecosystem-value-sources)), then normalized to Platinum, Gold, Silver, or Bronze for interoperability and market adoption ([Ecosystem value normalization](#ecosystem-value-normalization)). BCPs may issue credits of different values depending on their segmentation.

Ecosystem Value - Ecological Benefits Framework

### Ecosystem value sources To create a standardized metric of ecosystem value from the perspective of all species on the planet, we utilized 12 reputable public classification schemas. Please note, this ecosystem normalization table is acknowledged to be incomplete. Even the most respected organizations (IUCN, National Geographic, Biodiversity hotspots, WWF and UNEP among others) have partially characterized datasets. We will not attempt to give a complete ecosystem value calculation and will instead utilize external resources to provide this ranking, acknowledging that future versions will have updated categorizations based on wider public review. #### **Table 1. Ecosystem value sources based on public data** |

Category
Source

| **Platinum** | **Gold** | **Silver** | **Bronze** | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------- | | [Biodiversity hotspots](https://www.cepf.net/our-work/biodiversity-hotspots/hotspots-defined) | Inside a biodiversity hotspot | Within 50 km of a recognized hotspot | Within 100 km of a recognized hotspot | All other locations | | [CBD National targets](https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/targets/) | Deforestation region 2020 - 2030 | Deforestation region 2030 - 2050 | Within 50km from gold region | No intrinsic ranking | | [Holdridge Life Zones](https://reddcr.go.cr/sites/default/files/centro-de-documentacion/holdridge_1966_-_life_zone_ecology.pdf) | Complexity Index ≥270 | Complexity Index ≥90 and ≤ 270 | Complexity Index ≥45 and ≤ 90 | Any other value | | [Irrecoverable carbon and irreplaceable biodiversity](https://irrecoverable.resilienceatlas.org/map?tab=layers\&layers=%5B%7B%22id%22%3A2162%2C%22opacity%22%3A1%2C%22order%22%3Anull%7D%2C%7B%22id%22%3A2331%2C%22opacity%22%3A1%2C%22order%22%3A1%7D%5D\&zoom=5\¢er=lat%3D2.767477951092084%26lng%3D650.9619140625) | High biodiversity, any carbon ranking | Medium biodiversity, any carbon ranking | Low biodiversity - high carbon | Any other ranking | | [IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology](https://iucnrle.org/global-eco-typo) | 50% probability of collapse within 50 years | 20% probability of ecosystem collapse in within 50 years | 10% probability of ecosystem collapse within 100 years | Any other probability | | [IUCN protected areas](https://iucn.org/our-work/protected-areas-and-land-use) | Categories Ia, Ib | Category II | Category III, IV, and V | Any other category | | [IUCN Red List of Ecosystems](https://assessments.iucnrle.org/) | Critically endangered | Endangered | Vulnerable or Near threatened | No intrinisic ranking | | [IUCN Red LIst (of threatened species) - national level](https://unit.savimbo.com/www.minambiente.gov.co/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/resolucion-1912-de-2017.pdf) | >1 species naturally occurs in project area and is Extinct in the wild (reintroduction) or Critically endangered | >1 species naturally occurs in project area and is Endangered | >1 species naturally occurs in project area and is Vulnerable | No intrinisic ranking | | [Ramsar Wetland Classification](https://rsis.ramsar.org/) | Ramsar Category I | Ramsar Category II | Ramsar Category III | No intrinsic ranking | | [Terrestrial Ecoregions of the World](https://www.worldwildlife.org/publications/terrestrial-ecoregions-of-the-world) | Global 200 Ecoregions | Within 50km of a Global 200 Ecoregion | Within 100km of a Global 200 Ecoregion | All other locations | | [UNEP Forest Biodiversity Intactness Index](https://data-gis.unep-wcmc.org/portal/home/item.html?id=20b950b0dea045d1b0798a307ca9d8c1) | 100% intact forest ecosystem with minimal human disturbance | 75% intact forest ecosystem with moderate human disturbance | 50% intact forest ecosystem with high human disturbance | All other values | | [World Heritage List UNESCO](https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/) | Natural assets | Mixed assets | Cultural assets | All other locations | | [WWF for Nature Ecoregions](https://www.worldwildlife.org/biome-categories/terrestrial-ecoregions) | 35 global priority places | Within 50km of a global priority place | Within 100km of a global priority place | All other locations | To date, many of the accepted ecosystem classification schemas are incomplete, or periodically updated. Given this limitation, within two competing values, projects can select the ecosystem value that best serves their project, but must provide justification for their selection. An example value calculation for Colombia is provided [here](https://isbm.savimbo.com/appendices/appendix-c-sample-baseline-ecosystem-categorization). ### Ecosystem value normalization Under this unit, projects should be segmented by ecosystem value, issuing units under only one category Platinum, Gold, Silver, or Bronze based on the following #### Table 2. Ecosystem value normalization table. | Type | Unit | Description | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | ![](https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/SdIHr2els-ZHb2dukzMxdffHK4kEMd8L6XQeyLbdsm6UuUpVunklyLRUa9z0fMjN0f-pO8MIOIG_zcP6d3puKJKkKzQAr86Z6wUmOSegR90GdfAwTfbw9tcAfJ_JSGg6tvTDuvliTohYSGqWrEVrCpU) |

Platinum

1 hectare

1 month

| VBCs issued from the highest density, highest-threat locations, ie priority hotspots, critically endangered ecosystems. This is the highest value VBC in terms of the number of species being preserved. | | ![](https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/9PKBq231XXk9NzskobAQR_qaURIzkDPRPF_5do6EIs1pmTiYhttMqGu6tJvZwl_LlNK_k15KzIbvfQvSEfOFSrkDh8ejtrdUYECt9IeC03IN931EuqAPgbKERknHLz5CDsRtkEp6y1ddSONJ7fdq3Bk) |

Gold

1 hectare

1 month

| VBCs issued from high-density locations, endangered species, recognized hotspots. This is a high-priority location that may not have as much urgency as the platinum areas but is still very rich in terms of the species being protected. | | ![](https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/FQiOd-3w9Ywft7PnEDMUktxqGiwpP7NjhATa9ifQ6G8aeSicT-zV8vPgETAZVmtqpel9M5FNHO-yuf2ucqJTUwqx3_rhGYyUw1iakF-kqywlhPp0HEcUJ6djj9U6RkZ_bQh2vKCtJc7NfvbIzNO9Di4) |

Silver

1 hectare

1 month

| VBCs issued from vulnerable areas but with lower biodiversity. Silver areas may still be pristine, but they are areas that naturally have fewer species living there due to the particular landscape. Silver areas can have significance because of their proximity (within 50 kilometers) to other higher-value biodiversity areas. | | ![](https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/mkYfZpzxfPesRb5tUcCrcdEdhXnZoj3xcmX1PZqEcIOCOaUPYttEWD8V-FLqCP706vKMFSfR_ryQEhn2D_0wOEP7eThjO-F1fLHFLk95EDcbqiJEjeTf5LKAfCE1K9Nlx-gYrgm7o6SLxeLyO4SerTM) |

Bronze

1 hectare

1 month

| VBCs issued from all other areas. May be of lower concern or lower density of biodiversity. Preservation adds value in terms of biodiversity load, but does not represent planetary ecosystem targets. | Note that the relative monetary value of different value credits will be determined by the market demand for each type of credit and with market standardization, represent publicly-recognized priorities for preservation. # Calculation of a biodiversity credit A formula for calculating a biodiversity action or impact. Calculations that form this unit *must* be methodology-specific. A true *unit*, simply gives standardized dimensions for the final output. However, many people have asked for a formula so a simple example of a unified calculation formula is as follows, which may be further modified by area-based methodologies. {% embed url="" %} Visual representation of calculations {% endembed %} Sample general calculation: $$ \textrm{VBCs}= \sum\_{a \in A} \sum\_{t=1}^{T} \textrm{Integrity}\_{a, t} $$ Variables * Where *a* is the unit area (one hectare) * Where *A* is the project area * Where *t* is the unit time (one month), the starting point of a unit time is *t=0*, and the end of the first unit time is *t=1.* * Where *T* is the monitoring period ### Restoration calculations By definition, restoration projects monitor actions which lead to positive changes in Integrity. As the unit time is short, it is reasonable to simply credit the Integrity in each successive month of the crediting time. Many methodologies will choose to subtract a baseline integrity when they credit. However the mechanism to update that baseline from one crediting period to another must be clear for fair crediting. $$ \textrm{VBCs}= \sum\_{a \in A} \sum\_{t=1}^{T} (\textrm{Integrity}*{a, t} - \textrm{Integrity}*{a, \textrm{Baseline}}) $$ On average, restoration projects selling biodiversity credits bring a 10x higher credit price than conservation projects. The unit is meant to clearly document in a comparable format what this does for biodiversity itself, not set pricing for activities that are quite divergent and often far more labor intensive. ### Conservation calculations A successful restoration project will need to switch to conservation activities, and some projects might be heterogeneous or segmented between the two. By definition, conservation projects are actions meant to maintain a near-total integrity. They will likely have a cutoff Integrity score for inclusion. $$ \textrm{VBCs}= \sum\_{a \in A} \sum\_{t=1}^{T} \textrm{Integrity}\_{a, t} $$ # Example calculations Examples of biodiversity calculations conservation, restoration, and corporate-disclosure methodologies We've made a strong call to action for the interoperability of our [VBC *unit*](/unit-of-a-biodiversity-credit), to corporate disclosure organizations, and multiple crediting bodies. Our hope is that although this methodology is limited in its applicability, an interoperable unit will spur market adoption, innovation in the field, and wider market adoption of biodiversity credits. As described the Unit of a VBC is a fixed [Area](https://unit.savimbo.com/area) of one hectare, for a fixed [Time](https://unit.savimbo.com/time) of one month with measured [Integrity](https://unit.savimbo.com/integrity) reported on a scale from 0-1. Where full integrity is an ecosystem with every ecological niche available to, and filled by, native species. This appendix is to provide real-world examples for why this unit is interoperable and can be used for any conservation, restoration, eradication, or pollination methodology. #### Table 3. Example calculations (with loose estimates) based on this unit include: | Action | Impact | Credits issued | Calculation | | ------------ | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------ | -------------------------------------------------------- | | Conservation | 100% conserved Amazon primary forest through an indicator species methodology in a biodiversity hotspot | 5 Platinum credits | 5 ha of 100% intact ecosystem in a Platinum ecosystem. | | Restoration | Farmland converted to regenerative farming. Log-normalized increase in ecosystem integrity from 50%-> 60% in an IUCN 'Vulnerable' ecosystem. | 10 Silver credists | 100 ha of farmland \* 10% increase in a Silver ecosystem | | Pollination | Bees added to central Austin as pollinators. 0.01% increase over 3 mile radius in ecosystem with no intrinsic ranking. | 73 Bronze credits | 7,321 ha \* 0.01 increase in Bronze ecosystem. | | Eradication | Sea urchins pulled from kelp beds in California's kelp forests. | 10 Gold credits | 200 ha \* 5% increase in Gold ecosystem | | Impact | Petroleum drilling in ocean desert. | -50 Bronze credits | 1000 ha \* 5% impact in Bronze ecosystem | | Impact | Military oil spill in Hawaiian bay. | -150 Gold credits | 500 ha \* 30% impact in Gold ecosystem | # VBCs and iVBCs Innovation in voluntary biodiversity credits and Unit designators Biodiversity science is incomplete, evolving, and now stimulated by market, regulatory and scientific funding. The high probability is that the next twenty years will show intense changes in biodiversity science, standards, methodologies, and protocols. Carbon markets failed because of premature claims of scientific certainty, eroding trust and destroying early attempts at carbon emissions regulations. We seek to avoid these failures and claims of greenwashing in biodiversity by clearly delineating experimental solutions from more standardized solutions to follow. We sincerely hope that risk-tolerant funders will consider deploying capital widely across a number of experimental solutions to fund innovation in the field, and seek to demarcate more standardized approaches to more conservative funders such that expectations are realistic. Under Cercarbono's adoption of this unit, and hopefully under other certifiers * Biodiversity credits issued under this unit WITHOUT a methodology, and with MRV alone will be assigned an iVBC designation as an "innovation VBC". * The first year of a methodology’s adoption under certification bodies it will issue iVBCs, after which if accepted by the market and does not alter it will automatically convert to VBCs. # Adoption Who is using the Savimbo voluntary biodiversity unit and why **A good unit, needs multidimensional adoption and we're getting it! Heres a list of adopting partners and how they are using the unit.** This biodiversity unit has been adopted by major certifiers, registries, and multiple methodologies for biodiversity credits. The unit has been publically reviewed adopted by Savimbo, Cercarbono, Ecoregistry in biodiversity crediting projects, and dozens of participating commodities exchanges around the world. It has achieved significant interest from eradication, restoration, pollination, and agrobiodiversity crediting methodology developers. We hope it will be equally useful in quantification of impact projects that are non-commercial in origin. It has received interest from international, national, and local governments and large philanthropic foundations around the world. It has been reviewed and endorsed by conservation biologists, conservation economists, and other academic supporters. #### Table 4: Current adoption of Savimbo biodiversity unit | Party | | Used in | Stage of adoption | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------- | | [Savimbo]() | Conservation methodology developer | Indicator species biodiversity methodology (ISBM) | Active | | [Cercarbono](https://www.cercarbono.com/) | Certifier | Biodiversity crediting program | Active | | [International Carbon Registry](https://www.carbonregistry.com/) | Certifier | Biodiversity crediting program | Active | | [EcoRegistry](https://www.ecoregistry.io/) | Registry | Registry software | Approved, In production | | [Carbon Z](https://www.climateactionco.com/biodiversity-credits) | Eradication credits | Eradication methodologies | Active | | [Emsurge](https://trade.emsurge.com/biodiversity/projects) | Exchange | Commodities sales | Active | | [Sen.ken](https://www.senken.io/) | Exchange | Commodities sales | Active | | [Dovu](https://dovu.earth/en/) | Exchange | Commodities sales | Active | | [Ecological Benefits Foundation](https://Canyouchangethefuture.org) | Standards-setter | Biodiversity MRV | Active | | [Boostera](https://www.boosterra.io/) | Exchange | Commodities sales | Active | | Xpansiv | Exchange | Commodities sales | In development | | [Native](https://www.nativesquared.com/) | Project developer and certifier | Biodiversity crediting | In development | # Authors Cross-disciplinary collaboration made this unit #### **Author list for Savimbo biodiversity unit**
AuthorTitle, Affiliation
Drea Burbank, MDMD-technologist, Savimbo
Grace RachmanyTechnical writing, Savimbo
Alvaro VallejoBiosciences, Independent
Miguel ChindoyGoverner, Kamëntsa
James Payner, PhD Astrophysicist, Hebrew University
Enrique BalpData science, Savimbo
Roberto DuifBusiness development, Savimbo
Ana Isabel Rojas LopezBiology, Savimbo
Fernando LezamaIndigenous rights, Savimbo
Jhony LopezBiodiversity, Savimbo
Nawi FloresScience, Kinray Hub
# FAQ Frequently asked questions and answers from the hactivists at Savimbo #### Q: Why is there such a short time period in the base unit? It's not ecologically meaningful... This is a classic conflation between unit time, and monitoring time. Units must be small to allow for a wide degree of market uses. Monitoring periods must be methodology-specific and are often much longer. #### Q: Why are you trying to make a global unit when measuring biodiversity is highly contextual? This is a classic conflation between metrics/methodologies and units. Metrics and methodologies are for accurate monitoring *within* a local context. Units are for interoperating globally *between* contexts such as international commodities markets, [Kunming-Montreal accords](https://www.cbd.int/gbf), [National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans](https://www.cbd.int/nbsap) (NBSAPs), [International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB)](https://www.iasplus.com/en/resources/ifrsf/issb) corporate accounting. #### Q: What about price fluctuations in land? This is a classic conflation between price and unit. The point of a tangible unit is that it measures the real world, and pricing can fluctuate based on the market value of the real world. The unit was made small because the value of real-world biodiversity is projected to increase significantly in the next fifty years as humans learn to value other species. Small units are more transactable. #### Q: Why are you guys commercializing a charitable industry, one that has intrinsic value, etc.? This is a classic conflation between industry and unit. There are charitable, regulatory, and capitalist markets for biodiversity. We're promoting interoperabel tracking between them, not promoting one solution or the other which are highly ideological to humans but really unrelated to Nature. We either fixed the problem or we didn't. It really doesn't matter *how* we fixed it. #### Q: Why are you focused on indicator species? We aren't. This unit was designed for one [niche methodology](https://isbm.savimbo.com), then adapted for *all of them*. Don't mistake the origin story of the unit for its application. #### Q: Who are you guys and why did you think you could do this? We get this a lot. We're new kids on the block, but sometimes a fresh perspective helps to solve hard problems. We're [hactivists](https://www.savimbo.com/blog/biodiversity-credits-hacktivists-and-indigenous-groups) from two different cultures. Like the [kindergarteners in *The Culture Code*](https://danielcoyle.com/excerpt-culture-code/) we didn't think — we forgot about our status in the scientific hierarchy — and we just *did*. The truth is, it took abandonment of our egos, transdisciplinary thinking, overeducated geniuses in two civilizations, twenty years of grinding grassroots activism, some very accomplished data scientists, and the use of Indigenous ecological knowledge to come up with this unit. We made the unit for our [indicator species biodiversity methodology]() then adjusted it to interoperate with the rest of the market. If we had a flag it would read: "This planet is awesome!" #### Q: Are you guys carbon colonialists/rabid capitalists/scientific posers/extractive douchebags? No. We're just desperately trying to save the rainforest. Right now, the most expedient method of saving intact ecosystems is to get direct payments to the IPLC who are desperate in a different way, trying to survive as their habitats and native lands are being destroyed. Creating a for-profit business into the hands of local people is the fastest way we have of immediately stopping the destruction. If you want to find out more, check out our[ website](https://www.savimbo.com) or[ YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpe3gIFqzrNrX6qBFDJl6kw/featured). #### Q: Do you represent Indigenous Peoples? No. Indigenous Peoples represent themselves. We were founded by, and work with, and for, Indigenous Peoples. But any third party who claims to represent them is mistaken at best. We are really lucky to have a lot of Indigenous friends and collaborators who collectively give us lots of great feedback on our products, scientific design, and market decisions but Savimbo is a [B-corp](https://www.savimbo.com/about/#structure) with a for-profit and non-profit arm. The for-profit mostly replaces climate colonialism with [conscious business](), the non-profit is focused on [rights for nature](). #### Q: What is a Voluntary Biodiversity Credit? A Voluntary Biodiversity Credit (VBC) is a unit for the preservation or restoration of biodiversity on a specific area of land. The voluntary part means VBCs cannot be offset. In other words just because you paid for someone to preserve or restore biodiversity somewhere, does mean you have permission to destroy biodiversity somewhere else. Some people and companies will pay to preserve other species just because they care, and they can. A VBC is an easy way for someone who doesn't know you, doesn't live in your ecosystem, to feel safe that they are paying you for a concrete action that is well tracked. Sometimes these are certified, sometimes they are just used as an outcome metric to support actions. The nice thing about using a credit system, is that you can measure biodiversity gains in multiple ecosystems, or with multiple actions. Buyers can buy credits from a wide variety of projects. You could buy credits from increasing pollinators like bees, conservation of intact ecosystems, restoration of ecosystems, or eradication of invasive species. Biodiversity credits are part of the evolution towards recognizing natural resources as an important part of the world economy. Credits just mean that one kind of outcome metric is roughly equal to another. #### Q: How do I measure integrity with my metric/methodology? That is going to be something you have to work out. This unit just describes the final output you need to put your work in so we can work together more effectively. It's a big planet, it's going to take a lot of different types to fix this problem. (Special Tip: if you can't put your work in terms of this unit, it is highly likely it doesn't actually help other species.) #### Q: How does Savimbo check that the other posers in my discipline aren't lying about their outcomes? We dont! We actually tend to think there is a good place for certifiers, or independent parties, to validate claims about biodiversity outcomes. We're certainly not qualified to be the scientific validity police and there are lots of cool things emerging in this field that we wouldn't want to suppress. The validity of any metric or methodology is going to have to be worked out independently of units. We would strongly advise against metrics and methodologies that are exclusive to IP and LC tho because of cost, technical access, or on-the-ground durability. # Document history Document, version, and methodology history This methodology has undergone independent public and private feedback since its inception. Several certification bodies have considered adopting it and they will adapt it for use within their crediting frameworks leading to "forks". The Savimbo version remains publically available, with expanded sections for projects not seeking accreditation, or using the methodology for outcomes tracking or MRV alone. ### File versioning (Savimbo version)
VersionDateNameDescription
1.0June 11, 2023SavimboSavimbo internal draft
1.0Jun 22, 2023 - Oct 11, 2023Savimbo public consultationSavimbo public consultation
1.1-SJan 10, 2024International presentationPresentation to major certifiers, regulators, and commodities exchanges
1.1-SNov 5 - 2023Savimbo revisionSavimbo revision based on Cercarbono feedback
### Methodology versions
VersionLast updatedNameDescription
SavimboNov 5, 20231.1-SPublic IPLC version maintained with additional parameters for projects who will not seek certification but instead deliver MRV data directly to buyers or sponsors
CercarbonoNov 5, 20231.1-CSavimbo ISBM adapted for use within Cercarbono biodiversity crediting program
### Public reviewers This unit has incorporated feedback from a number of public and private reviewers. Public reviewers whose comments informed revisions are listed in order of contribution, however they remain independent and are not responsible for the final content.
Galena WoodhouseScientific reviewer, Independent
Ned HorningScientific reviewer, Independent
Karl BurkhartScientific reviewer, Independent
Lauren SerotaScientific reviewer, Independent
Michael McColmAdvocacy reviewer, Independent
Peter ThomasCultural reviewer, Independent
Jesús Argente Marine scientific reviewer, Independent
Alvaro VallejoScientific reviewer, Independent
Ramesh Boonratana PhDScientific reviewer, Independent
Daniel UrbanoScientific reviewer, Independent
# Disclaimer We are dedicated scientists, but we are not an independent certifying body! This document is provided 'as is' for informational purposes only, and the authors and contributors make no representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, adequacy, validity, reliability, availability, or completeness of any information contained herein. The information provided does not constitute legal, financial, or other professional advice, and should not be used as a substitute for professional advice. This document does not establish any legal rights or responsibilities, and it does not modify or supersede any statutory obligations under applicable laws and regulations. The implementation of this methodology may involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions, and the authors and contributors shall not be held responsible for any losses or damages, direct or indirect, that arise from its use. Prior to implementing this methodology, we recommend seeking appropriate legal, financial, and technical advice. We also recommend verifying the latest versions of all applicable laws, regulations, and best practices. Any action you take upon the information in this document is strictly at your own risk, and we will not be liable for any losses or damages in connection with the use of this document."
# References An updated list of references used in this document. UPDATE FROM: March 24, 2024 Kareiva, P., & Kareiva, I. (2017). Biodiversity hotspots and conservation priorities. In Oxford research encyclopedia of environmental science. Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.013.95](https://oxfordre.com/environmentalscience/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389414.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389414-e-95) Kimbrough, L. (2023, December 27). Photos: Top species discoveries from 2023. Mora, C., Tittensor, D. P., Adl, S., Simpson, A. G. B., & Worm, B. (2011). How many species are there on Earth and in the ocean? PLoS Biology, 9(8), e1001127. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127](https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001127) National Geographic. (n.d.). Indigenous peoples defend Earth’s biodiversity—but they’re in danger. Indigenous Peoples Defend Earth’s Biodiversity. Retrieved June 15, 2023, from Nobre, C. A., Sampaio, G., Borma, L. S., Castilla-Rubio, J. C., Silva, J. S., & Cardoso, M. (2016). Land-use and climate change risks in the Amazon and the need of a novel sustainable development paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(39), 10759–10768. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605516113](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1605516113) OECD. (2008). OECD Environmental Outlookto 2030. Pironon S, Ondo I, Diazgranados M, Allkin R, Baquero AC, Cámara-Leret R, Canteiro C, Dennehy-Carr Z, Govaerts R, Hargreaves S, Hudson AJ. [The global distribution of plants used by humans. Science. 2024 Jan 19;383(6680):293-7.](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adg8028) Pollock, L. J., O’Connor, L. M. J., Mokany, K., Rosauer, D. F., Talluto, M. V., & Thuiller, W. (2020). Protecting biodiversity (in all its complexity): new models and methods. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 35(12), 1119–1128. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2020.08.015](https://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-evolution/abstract/S0169-5347\(20\)30230-5?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0169534720302305%3Fshowall%3Dtrue) Rapacciuolo, G., Graham, C. H., Marin, J., Behm, J. E., Costa, G. C., Hedges, S. B., Helmus, M. R., Radeloff, V. C., Young, B. E., & Brooks, T. M. (2019). Species diversity as a surrogate for conservation of phylogenetic and functional diversity in terrestrial vertebrates across the Americas. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3(1), 53–61. [https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0744-7](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-018-0744-7) Rapacciuolo, G. (2024, February 27). Giovanni Rapacciuolo on LinkedIn: Knowledge of species diversity may be sufficient to preserve other dimensions of biodiversity. Resnicow, K., & Vaughan, R. (2006). A chaotic view of behavior change: a quantum leap for health promotion. The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 3, 25. [https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-3-25](https://ijbnpa.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1479-5868-3-25) Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., Drüke, M., Fetzer, I., Bala, G., von Bloh, W., Feulner, G., Fiedler, S., Gerten, D., Gleeson, T., Hofmann, M., Huiskamp, W., Kummu, M., Mohan, C., Nogués-Bravo, D., … Rockström, J. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(37), eadh2458. [https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458](https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458) Ritchie, H., Spooner, F., & Roser, M. (2022). Biodiversity - Our World in Data. Our World in Data. Rodrigues, A. S. L., & Brooks, T. M. (2007). Shortcuts for Biodiversity Conservation Planning: The Effectiveness of Surrogates. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 38(1), 713–737. [https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095737](https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.38.091206.095737) Ruiz-García, M., Pinedo-Castro, M., & Shostell, J. M. (2023). Morphological and Genetics Support for a Hitherto Undescribed Spotted Cat Species (Genus Leopardus; Felidae, Carnivora) from the Southern Colombian Andes. Genes, 14(6). [https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14061266](https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/6/1266) Song, L., & Barry, J. (2023, June 15). How the World Bank Group Is Enabling the Deaths of Endangered Chimps — ProPublica. Propublica. Space Intelligence. (n.d.). Measure And Review Projects With HabitatMapper: Landcover mapping for measuring and reviewing nature-based solutions projects. Retrieved March 1, 2024, from Stewart, J., Gosling, J., Corrigan, C., Jonas, H. C. J., Vaziri, L. V. Z., & Rubis, J. (2021). Summary of the global spatial analysis. Territories. Tobón, A. V. (2023, September 4). Captan a dos perros venaderos en el Putumayo, una especie canina silvestre en extinción. El Tiempo. UNDP, U. N. D. P. (2023, May 22). National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs). UNEP, U. N. E. P. (2003). Convention on biological diversity. United Nations Environment Program. United Nations. (2007). Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 53, 32. United Nations, U. N. (1992). The Rio Conventions | UNFCCC. Vilar, C. C., Magris, R. A., Loyola, R., & Joyeux, J. (2020). Strengthening the synergies among global biodiversity targets to reconcile conservation and socio‐economic demands. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 30(3), 497–513. [https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.3269](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.3269) Wilburn, E. (2023). Eric Wilburn on LinkedIn: PACT Framework for NBS Carbon Crediting | 26 comments. Woodyatt, A. (2024, February 3). Gigantic new anaconda species discovered in Amazon rainforest | CNN. World Bank. (2006). At loggerheads? agricultural expansion, poverty reduction, and environment in the tropical forests. The World Bank. [https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-6735-3](https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/abs/10.1596/978-0-8213-6735-3) World Wildlife Foundation. (2022). WWF | Living Planet Report 2022. Worldwildlife.Org. WWF, World Wildlife Foundation. (2020, October 22). Recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ land interests is critical for people and nature | Stories | WWF. Worldwildlife.Org. WWF, World Wildlife Fund’s. (2023, June 15). 69% average decline in wildlife populations since 1970, says new WWF report | Press Releases | WWF. WWF, World Wildlife Fund. (2022). Living Planet Index | WWF. Zanjani, L. V., Govan, H., Jonas, H. C., Karfakis, T., Mwamidi, D. M., Stewart, J., Walters, G., & Dominguez, P. (2023). Territories of life as key to global environmental sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 63, 101298. # License