Joshua Berger’s Post

View profile for Joshua Berger

CEO at BioInt | Transforming biodiversity impact & dependency measurement | Driving pragmatic & science-based actions for nature | The Biodiversity Footprint Intelligence Company | Views are my own

From the equivalent of 2°C for biodiversity to national & corporate biodiversity budgets. Yes, it is possible to hold countries and companies accountable for their impacts on ecosystems.     In previous posts, I explained how a global trajectory for ecosystem condition (the health of ecosystems, one of the three key components of the state of biodiversity) could be defined. How can that global budget be broken down into maximum losses allowed or minimum gains required per country and company?     The 5 steps required are listed in the figure attached, part of The Biodiversity Footprint Intelligence Company (BioInt)'s “Translating Biodiversity Goals into Action: A Global Budget Approach”. Let’s break down this figure, which I’ve wanted to put together for close to 5 years and which relies on science-based frameworks to translate planetary boundaries to the country level:     📖 Caption   - 2 “levels” (in orange) to which the methodology applies: global at the top, and national / industry / company (i.e. it can apply to any of the three) at the bottom   - 3 topics considered (in pink): biophysical characteristics, ethical systems, and environmental pressures   - 5 steps, each with a orange dot   - 5 outputs (greenish), the final one being the reduction & gain targets     Step 1️⃣ Define control variable & global limits and Step 2️⃣ Compare to current level of the control variable   Basically, the global trajectory (no net loss in 2030 and periodic gains between 2030-2050) is used to determine a global budget of maximum periodic loss allowed (up to 2030) or minimum periodic gain required (from 2030 to 2050) per year.   The #MeanSpeciesAbundance metric is used here (especially since the global limit – the planetary boundary – has been estimated in MSA) but another ecosystem condition metric could replace it.     Step 3️⃣ Translate global budget into fair shares and then the desired budget   Who should be responsible to reduce their impacts the most? Responsibility is allocated between stakeholders using ethical allocation systems such as sovereignty, capability, equality or efficiency.   Combining the global budget (Steps 1 & 2 output) & the fair share (Step 3 output) yields a "desired budget" at considered level.     Step 4️⃣ Assess environmental pressures & impacts (baseline scenario)   The current periodic losses/gains (impacts) are assessed.     Step 5️⃣ Definition of scenarios to stay within budget   The desired (future) budget (from Step 3) is compared to current impacts (from Step 4). The difference shows the level of efforts required and the path forward.     💡 This approach could also be applied to ecoregions, a geographical level which adequately capture ecosystem specificities at a granular yet practical level. The approach applied to countries would apply similarly to ecoregions.     ➡ Interested? Read our full Biodiversity Brief to (i) learn how to calculate the global budget and (ii) discover budgets for countries and companies.

  • graphical user interface, application
Joshua Berger

CEO at BioInt | Transforming biodiversity impact & dependency measurement | Driving pragmatic & science-based actions for nature | The Biodiversity Footprint Intelligence Company | Views are my own

9mo

The scientific work on which this framework is based is: Paul Lucas and Harry Wilting. 2018. ‘Using Planetary Boundaries to Support National Implementation of Environment-Related Sustainable Development Goals’. 2748. The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. https://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/downloads/Using_planetary_boundaries_to_support_national_implementation_of_environment-related_Sustainable_Development_Goals_-_2748.pdf. Full thought leadership piece: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7250399744819171329/ Summary: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7254386023642624001/ Permalink to the Biodiversity Briefs #2 (+ appendix): https://tbfic.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/Eji0ke5Q9s1MqxScEp3SjEMBcKerigT-lK5ysrn5k55-wA?e=ew1rX2 Previous posts: - the global biodiversity budget: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7269670470885543936 - climate & biodiversity comparison: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7268171884083437569 - top 10 most impactful countries: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7263102949881430017 And again, thanks to Gabrielle Casteigts for all her work on this, and to Anne Devieilletoile! 😊

Ollie Potter

Senior Strategy Manager @ Monitor Deloitte | Founder @ The NatureTech Memos

9mo

Love this format. Very digestible

Anna Chilton

Nature Finance | ESG Strategy

9mo

Like the way you simplify this using easy to understand visuals. Could you explain how this MSAapproach works in terms of setting a baseline. Do you recommend using the GBF 2020 baseline, ‘natural state’ or the first year of monitoring. Do you have any suggestions on what adequate data quality is? Ie. The level of data quality which would be appropriate to set the target?

Felicity Spors

Director | Strategy | Partnership Builder Just Transition & Resilience in Infrastructure, Supply Chains & Nature-Based Solutions | ESG and Impact management |

9mo
See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore content categories