This is for an upcoming network vote to bring a Voluntary Biodiversity Credit Type on chain.
This credit type represents a unit of habitat conservation or restoration action taken to protect biodiversity much like a carbon credit type that represents a unit of reduced/sequestered greenhouse gas emissions.
These credit types are designed to support critical biodiversity conservation initiatives and enhance the effectiveness of ecosystem stewardship.
This governance proposal is focused on credit types, defined in Regen Registry Handbook as “the primary unit of measurement used to quantify the ecological asset being traded (i.e. carbon, biodiversity, etc) for a given credit class.” This is not a governance proposal for the credit classes.
This credit type invites a number of different ways of measuring stewardship impact that could be relevant to varied stakeholders.
Under this crediting protocol, one credit represents the stewardship of one hectare of umbrella species habitat in accordance to the metrics and interventions determined appropriate for each particular project.
This credit protocol guides landholders to become biodiversity stewards by applying interventions (project activities) that generate positive outcomes for the selected Umbrella Species and ecosystem under management. Landholders must evaluate and monitor umbrella species health, habitat quality and understand the local challenges and disturbances to establish a set of interventions that will be applied over the lifetime of the project. These interventions are establishe
Hey! happy to weight in, this is a great discussion to have now. Also glad to see all this hard work and progress by the ERA team.
Probably my comments are not only for ERA but also for the Regen team to think about what´s the most strategic resolution movign forward not just with ERA. I will go over some scenarios I can think of to provoque we discuss and dismiss some, analyzing pros and cons.
1st. question that comes to mind when reading the proposal, is if we are ok with having one credit type per method or protocol. Keeping in mind there will probably be more protocols comming to the RND ledger. If that´s the case (i.e. we are ok with 1 potocol-1credit type), it makes sense that the name of any credit type moves far away from a generic name, and becomes very specific, and shall include something in the name that refers to the organization or something unique about the specific protocol that will distinguish it. Im thinking of this because from my perspective, this is the pathway that Terrasos chose. BioTERRA has TERRAsos partially written on it, and so I hardly imagine other protocols adopting this same credit type. In this context, similarly the “ERA” or “Umbrella species” words shall be part of the name of the new credit type, following that same logic. “Biodiversity Habitat Unit” might be too generic for ERA and confusing as more biodiversity protocols come, in the case the credit type is supposed to be paired 1:1 with the protocols.
If we wanted the credit type to be more generic so that one credit type would be used by several protocols, but still differentiate from Bioterra, I guess the answer is different. If the credit type for ERA would be used by any other protocol using a unit of “1ha of habitat conservation/restauration” with a focus on “habitat”, then Biodiversity Habitat Unit would be ok. I think this opens the door to any other protocols that center on umbrella or keystone species, as well as functional groups, for example. As oppos
Thanks ERA team for the wonderful and well outlined post. I’m personally really excited to see this come to the table after witnessing and having the pleasure of participating in many years of thoughtful work in designing the protocol.
Credit Definition & Calculation
Based on my understanding of the methodology, one credit in this system represents a composite measure of biodiversity stewardship effectiveness focused on an umbrella species in a specific project area. This measure combines:
The health and presence of the umbrella species (USH score)
The quality of the habitat supporting the species (HQ score)
The successful implementation of conservation activities outlined in the project’s Theory of Change (USpToC score)
The protocol calculated the number of credits eligible for issuance by combining these scores, which are derived from various monitoring activities and implementation of conservation strategies. The calculation is as follows:
Number of Biodiversity Credits Issued = USH Score + HQ Score + USpToC Score
Where each component incorporates Habitat Area (HA) as a scaling factor:
* Umbrella Species Health USH Score = (PA + SP + MO + MM) x HA
* Habitat Quality Score = HA x (TD + ED)
* USp Theory of Change Score = PO x HA
Importantly, while habitat area (HA) factors into each component, a credit doesn’t represent stewardship of a fixed land area. In other words, if I were to purchase a credit, I can’t claim that I financed stewardship of one hectare of land. Rather, my investment reflects a contribution a suite of conservation activities and interventions across the project.
Credit Pricing & Buyer Understanding
The question of, “what does one credit represent?”, I believe, is addressed in the protocol’s pricing strategy. Unlike many protocols which allow the project developer to determine the credit price upon issuance, this method takes innovative approach to credit pricing, directly tying it to the ac
Thanks so much for your contributions @Gisel Booman! Very pertinent questions regarding how Regen plans to organize the credit type concept. It seems like we are heading in the direction of a 1:1 paring; however, I support your idea of a “credit type grouping” concept. I think that will allow users and buyers to navigate the credit type offerings more clearly.
Here to give an update on the credit type. After speaking with the ERABrazil team, we decided to make an update to the credit protocol to align the credit calculation and credit type with a desire to have an area-based umbrella species stewardship unit. We did with the hope that an area-based unit will be easier to communicate to buyers, and help align their approach with others emerging in the field (like Terrasos or Savimbo).
What we did
The new version of the Credit Protocol uses the the Umbrella Species Health (USH), Habitat Quality (HQ), and Theory of Change (USpToC) scoring system from the methodology to calculate factors ranging between 0.5 to 1.0. These factors, which are assigned by comparing current scores to the baseline year, or year 1, based on the level of improvement in HQ and USH, or the number of proposed activities implemented for USpToC, are then multiplied by the Habitat Area to make each credit representative of a hectare of conserved or restored habitat.
This approach allows land stewards to receive reward both maintenance of high standards and progressive improvements. Furthermore, it incentivizes continuous enhancement while acknowledging that ecological improvements often plateau.
The new equation is:
Umbrella Species Stewardship Credits = ((USHfactor * HQfactor * USpToCfactor)^(1/3)) * Habitat Area
Why this is advantageous
We believe this new approach has the following advantages:
Scale with impact: Credit issuance now directly scales with project size, recognizing the greater ecological benefits of larger conserved areas. This better reflects the true impact of conservation efforts.
Habitat expansion incentive: The HA multiplier encourages projects to expand protected areas, directly supporting biodiversity conservation goals.
Quality-quantity balance: By combining factor scores with area, we reward both intensive (quality improvement) and extensive (area expansion) conservation strategies.