Arthur Pivin, Co-Lead of Biodiversity at Carbone 4, discusses the importance of biodiversity and the company's innovative approach in an interview for MORFO 's white paper on The future of carbon credits for reforestation. Explaining why the term "certificates" is preferable to "credits", he emphasizes the need for a methodological framework for biodiversity certificates. Pivin addresses the challenges of valuing biodiversity gains and offers valuable advice to companies wishing to invest in reforestation-related credits, encouraging them to broaden their environmental focus beyond carbon and recognize biodiversity's holistic contributions to sustainability and resilience.
Can you introduce yourself?
My name is Arthur Pivin, and I've been with Carbone 4 for three years. I initially joined the company to work on "living carbon" issues, but quickly became involved in developing our biodiversity practice. Prior to that, I spent four years at Pur Projet, where I spent much of my time in the field, which gave me a practical perspective on biodiversity.
Can you give us an overview of Carbone 4?
Carbone 4 is an independent consultancy initially focused on climate change. Over the past two or three years, we have broadened our scope to address global issues related to planetary limits, notably biodiversity. Our main role is to bridge the gap between scientific research and the business world. We work closely with the scientific community and offer solutions based on our in-house methodologies, which we proudly share as open source.
Why was the biodiversity practice created at Carbone 4?
Historically, Carbone 4's main focus was on supporting the transition to a low-carbon economy. However, it has become clear that tackling biodiversity loss is just as crucial. The scientific community has generated a wealth of research in this area, and companies need to take significant action. Our mission is to apply our well-established approach, developed for climate, to the field of biodiversity, while remaining rooted in science and proposing practical solutions.
As "Co-Lead of Biodiversity" at Carbone 4, what is your role and what is your mission?
My role as Co-Lead of Biodiversity involves several aspects, including developing our expertise, selling and managing projects, and developing methodologies. This mission emerged in the summer of 2021 with the aim of integrating biodiversity into our range of services. It aligns with our commitment to helping businesses transition to a low-carbon future while recognizing the crucial role of biodiversity in this transition.
One of our first commitments in this area focused on biodiversity credits. We collaborated with the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle to develop methodologies for evaluating biodiversity gains in field projects, and this concept has since been extended to broader considerations.
In December 2022, you published a proposal for a methodological framework for biodiversity certificates. Why do you use the term "certificates" instead of "credits"?
There are two main problems with the use of the term "credit". Firstly, it is mainly associated with the carbon market, which we consider to be flawed. At Carbone 4, we believe that the concept of "carbon neutrality" cannot be precisely defined for a company (as outlined in our Net Zero Initiative). Instead, companies should focus on contributing to global neutrality. This implies reducing emissions in line with global carbon reduction trajectories and contributing to emissions reduction and/or sequestration, without considering these contributions as a means of "offsetting" or "cancelling" emissions. These aspects need to be separated and reported separately, unlike the carbon credit mechanism, which is based on offsetting. It is important to note that these problems also extend to biodiversity offsetting.
What's more, biodiversity presents additional challenges. Firstly, biodiversity is inherently a local issue. The process of restoring a hectare of land in the Amazon, the Himalayas or France differs considerably due to unique ecological contexts. What's more, there is no universally established unit for valuing biodiversity, unlike the standardized tCO2 metric for carbon.
All in all, this makes biodiversity offsetting even more complex than carbon offsetting. We believe it is reasonable to develop tools to finance restoration and conservation projects, which may include the creation of a financial asset representing certified biodiversity gains, called a biodiversity certificate. However, we are firmly opposed to the use of these assets for offsetting purposes. Reporting on biodiversity impacts must be separate from reporting on negative impacts on biodiversity. The term "credits" implies the existence of a "debit" and is associated with offset schemes. This is why we prefer to use the term "certificates".
What was the motivation behind the frame proposal?
Our motivation is based on the conviction that this framework is essential and will continue to grow in importance. It is important to note that our intention is not to criticize existing projects or restoration efforts, but rather to strengthen their effectiveness, and to ensure that they are integrated into robust global approaches to biodiversity that effectively contribute to tackling the biodiversity crisis.
Our aim is to create a multi-universal methodology, i.e. one that can be adapted to a variety of contexts. We also aim to make it as simple as possible to implement, in order to limit certification and monitoring costs, while being sufficiently robust to guarantee the robustness of the mechanism.
One of the key commitments of the framework is to recommend excluding the possibility of offsetting biodiversity. Can you explain the reason behind this?
Our framework excludes offsetting, except in one very specific case, when projects are implemented within the supply chain. For example, if a coffee company invests in agroforestry to restore life to its plots and actually achieves biodiversity gains, then this is an appropriate impact reduction, and the biodiversity gains can be deducted from the original impacts. However, it is essential to understand that this only applies when the restoration efforts are an integral part of the company's value chain and use the right metrics to assess their impact. If the activities are outside the value chain, they should be considered as contributions to a global effort, distinguished from negative impacts.
How has this framework been received and how has it evolved since its launch?
In general, we have received positive feedback whenever we have had the opportunity to present our framework. Of course, the validity of the method remains to be proven on a concrete case - which will be the subject of the pilot project starting this autumn - but we have received several pieces of feedback confirming that the approach is relevant and promising.
How do you assess biodiversity gains when nature is often considered too complex to measure?
Assessing biodiversity gains is indeed a complex task due to the inherent complexity of nature itself. Our approach involves, for a specific category of ecosystem, bringing together field experts to define a taxonomy of biodiversity practices. Then, we engage scientific experts to establish a consensus on the biodiversity value associated with a particular change in practices. The result is a valuation framework for assessing the biodiversity gains associated with a specific transition.
What final advice would you give to companies looking to buy reforestation credits?
I would urge companies to broaden their focus beyond carbon and consider the wider aspects of biodiversity. It's essential to take a holistic approach to environmental initiatives, and to consider the invaluable contributions that biodiversity can make to sustainability and resilience.
