Which biodiversity metrics should Public Development Banks use?

A preliminary study designed to guide Public Development Banks on selecting biodiversity metrics for their portfolio concludes that they should carry out a ‘consolidated’ comparative assessment. It sets out practical approaches for applying and comparing metric results to help PDBs understand how each metric addresses key questions.

The study was carried out by The Biodiversity Consultancy on behalf of the Agence Française de Développement and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. A report has been extracted and published to share practical information for development banks getting ready to adopt the TNFD framework.

The six biodiversity metrics selected and analysed as potentially relevant to informing banks' investment decisions and reporting were:

• CBF – Corporate Biodiversity Footprint

• BFFI – Biodiversity Footprint for Financial Institutions

• STAR – Species Threat Abatement and Restoration metric

• GBS – Global Biodiversity Score

• ENCORE – Exploring Natural Capital Opportunities, Risks and Exposure

• ABC-map – Adaptation, Biodiversity and Carbon mapping tool

The six metrics have different attributes, outputs and data requirements, and are suited to different assessment objectives. The research concluded this makes it impossible simply to apply and compare all the metrics across a suite of projects. The study identified three potential approaches to applying and comparing metric results on a selected set of PDB projects:

1. A single-project metrics analysis, which provides an approach to apply all six metrics for one carefully selected project with good data availability, and then to compare the results of the metrics and choose one or a set of several of them for use on a wider sample of projects.
2. A high-level analysis, which proposes a comprehensive approach for applying the metrics on projects based on easily obtainable data of low granularity, and then to compare the results of the different metrics used
3. An in-depth analysis, which proposes a detailed approach based on more granular spatial and/or supply chain data, that can only be conducted for projects that have sufficient information available.

The report also contains useful information and a decision tree for PBDs that want to choose the most appropriate metric or suit of metrics for each assessment.

Report authors were Paula Valdujo, Pauline Poisson, Adrien Lindon, Leon Bennun, Malcom Starkey and Camille Maclet.