Biodiversity restoration: how to measure ecological return?
Biodiversity restoration: how to measure ecological return?
Ecological restoration is a key lever in addressing biodiversity loss, but its integration into corporate strategies remains limited. During the fourth workshop of the biodiversity-focused working group, co-led by Candriam, discussions centered on the concept of biodiversity debt, measurement frameworks, and the conditions for successful restoration projects.
It is not enough to avoid or reduce biodiversity impacts: as soon as an activity exerts pressure on ecosystems, the issue of restoration also arises. This theme was at the heart of the fourth workshop of the working group on biodiversity, whose introduction highlighted several key challenges: the still limited role of private financing in restoration projects, the actual effectiveness of the actions taken, and the associated costs. “Depending on the country and the ecosystem, the cost varies between five cents and forty euros per square meter depending on the type of project,” noted Elouan Heurard, ESG analyst at Candriam.
To shed light on these issues, the asset management firm sought to estimate what a company’s “biodiversity debt” might look like. “Our idea is to measure a company’s footprint and estimate the cost of restoring the impacts it has generated,” explained Elouan Heurard. As an example, he presented a scenario for restoring the impacts associated with certain commodities purchased by a food company (beef, soy, palm oil, chocolate…), based on data published under the European Deforestation Regulation. “Assuming a restoration cost of €5 per square meter, the total would come to between €7 and €8 billion — nearly 10% of annual revenue.”
Beyond the observation, these estimates aim to integrate biodiversity debt into corporate trajectories and explore different levers for reducing transition risks: ecosystem restoration, commodity substitution, process optimization, and more. More broadly, the data also serve to support corporate engagement, guide investment decisions, and meet growing transparency demands from clients, Heurard added.
Clarifying concepts
This approach requires clarification of the underlying concepts. Alexandre Rambaud, co-director of the Ecological Accounting Chair (AgroParisTech), emphasized the difference between impact reduction and restoration. “Debt stems from a past impact: the company’s activity has caused degradation — that’s what creates the debt. Restoration is the only way to address that debt,” he explained. Hence the importance of distinguishing between avoidance, reduction, and compensation/restoration, which are neither equivalent nor interchangeable.
Measuring ecological debt raises broader accounting questions, according to Rambaud: if value creation has been built on the degradation of an ecosystem, then restoring that ecosystem must be part of the value equation. “Otherwise, we create value detached from what made it possible in the first place, which distorts our understanding of returns,” he said. In other words, ignoring this debt amounts to recording revenues without accounting for the corresponding expenses, leading to a skewed view of actual performance. The issue also ties back to the frameworks used for evaluation — which, he warned, should not rely only on temporal baselines (reference year, past impact levels), but rather on scientifically defined ecological states aligned with planetary boundaries.
The need for data
In addition to scientific benchmarks, access to reliable data remains crucial — both to assess the actual ecological quality of projects and to build credible strategies. “We need access to quality information from companies in order to meet our own transparency obligations,” stressed Alix Chosson, ESG analyst at Candriam. However, regulation is still falling short. The CSRD directive, recently amended through the “Omnibus” package, for instance, allows companies to define what they consider material — potentially overlooking key topics.
“European regulation was built backwards,” lamented Rambaud. “Investor obligations were defined before ensuring that companies would provide the necessary data.” He also criticized the lack of alignment between key texts: “The CSRD and the green taxonomy aren’t aligned with each other, or with Eurostat’s CEPA classifications. And even when data exist, companies don’t always have the institutional guidance they need to know where to turn or how to use them.” In many cases, he said, the issue is not a lack of scientific data, but a failure of institutional and organizational coordination.
In this context, several voluntary frameworks offer valuable foundations, though uptake remains uneven. The TNFD (Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures) and SBTN (Science Based Targets Network) provide methodological tools and classifications for analyzing biodiversity-related impacts and dependencies. “We’re hoping for convergence between these expert frameworks and future regulatory requirements,” said Chosson, especially around structured approaches like the LEAP Framework, which lays out a biodiversity analysis based on impact location, dependencies, and prioritization of action. Formal standards are also in development — including the ISO Biodiversity standard currently under discussion.
From measurement to action
For restoration efforts to be truly effective, they must be embedded in science-based, context-specific, and long-term strategies. That’s the approach advocated by the NGO Noé, which operates in several countries to preserve high-value ecological areas. “We focus on preserving biodiversity ‘hotspots’ identified by international bodies,” explained Grégoire Even, Director of Development at Noé. This includes implementing conservation and restoration projects in close collaboration with local stakeholders, and promoting biodiversity-compatible economic alternatives, such as agroforestry sectors. The model also relies on inclusive governance, actively involving civil society and local communities to ensure long-term viability.
“Restoration cannot succeed without sustainable transformation of practices,” Even added, advocating for the development of biodiversity certificates tied to concrete projects. To avoid the abuses seen in carbon markets, such certificates must be based on robust scientific standards, issued by independent third parties, and kept free of speculative logic. “A biodiversity certificate should not be viewed as a financial asset,” confirmed Rambaud. “It’s not something to be securitized — it represents a set of concrete actions, each tied to a specific cost and a quality guarantee.”
To help biodiversity restoration scale up, Even called for a better distribution of risks between project developers and funders, greater use of ex-ante investments, and the integration of these efforts into long-term strategies backed by accounting systems aligned with strong sustainability principles. Speakers also emphasized the need to anchor projects in the territories actually affected, and to embed them in participatory governance models that respect local communities — mobilizing all stakeholders, including governments. “We must keep up the pressure and show political courage so that this value is properly accounted for,” Even concluded.
