We’d like to start a discussion ahead of a network vote to bring an exciting new credit type from Terrasos called the **Voluntary Biodiversity Credit. **
About Credit Types
At Regen Registry we’re excited to be working at the forefront of the emerging field of biodiversity crediting systems & methodologies. While credit classes (a standard or protocol which correspond to specific methodologies) can be brought on-chain without network-wide governance (either through the registry, or via open crediting), introducing new credit types (e.g. units) onto Regen Ledger requires a network governance vote. This approach improves network effects and UX for ecosystem services, as methodologies can all have unique ways of tracking their impact, but still be attempting to measure standardized units.
In carbon credit types, imagine if we had some credits tracking carbon in metric tons of CO2 equivalent, and some in kilograms CO2? This would present UX hurdles, and confusion around pricing of credits since each methodology could be talking about the same type of credit, but be using a different unit. More conversation around units of biodiversity credits is needed and, with biodiversity, as an industry we’re at an inflection point! Now is the time for us to be discussing (both as Regen Network, and a larger community of scientists and others working on biodiversity markets) what standardization makes sense for the many different biodiversity methodologies and protocols that are evolving.
At Regen Registry we have new promising approaches, and would like to propose that in these early days of biodiversity markets, we lead by example: not forcing one metric, but pick the best in class protocols and curate together as a community a small number of different ways of measuring biodiversity impact that relevant to stakeholders on the ground.
**Biodiversity Credit Types **
We’re thrilled to introduce new biodiversity credit types to the Regen Network ecosystem:
I like seeing this moving forward but am less excited about the name of the credit type, “Voluntary Biodiversity Credit.” I realize that is the name used in the Terrasos methodology, but it sounds more like a label for a category for the (many?) biodiversity credit types that will be listed on Regen Ledger. Would we consider “Voluntary Carbon Credit” as a name for a credit type? Would “Terrasos Biodiversity Index” or something more descriptive be more appropriate?
I am 100% for methodologies and credits like Terrasos and ERA that layout their rationale, scope, and use case and so much more in such detail. Just like biodiversity, I think credit types should be diverse and unique as well as modular and use-case specific. Regen Ledger will be a cornucopia (or could I even say smorgasbord!) for land stewards and project developers to make their projects pencil and for buyers/investors to help make the projects a reality.
This is a great discussion to have now, in the mindst of the emergence of these markets, when I feel we can collaborate so much from our learnings from the VCMs and our interdisciplinar knowledge. Im re-reviewing, currently, Terrasos protocol . I´m always impressed by the thoughful way its outlined and I appreciate so much the simplicity and clarity of it.
My aim is to run an excercise of playing a bit with the equations from several protocols like Terrasos, ERA and others that are currently emerging, to analyze convergences/ divergence and see if there´s any potential way to represent them through a unified unit. Even though the components behind the unit might be very diverse and will speak to the robustness and importance of each project and each MRV process…
So many questions and so much to digest, I´d love to cowork on it with anyone interested…
My congratulations to the Terrasos and Registry teams. I will continue to monitor how this credit rolls out and generates results. Agree on the renaming as TBI.