{"id":1172,"date":"2025-05-13T14:48:23","date_gmt":"2025-05-13T12:48:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/?p=1172"},"modified":"2025-06-24T17:31:10","modified_gmt":"2025-06-24T15:31:10","slug":"biodiversity-from-assessment-to-pathway-how-to-integrate-scenarios","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/en\/2025\/05\/13\/biodiversity-from-assessment-to-pathway-how-to-integrate-scenarios\/","title":{"rendered":"Biodiversity: From Assessment to Pathway, How to Integrate Scenarios"},"content":{"rendered":" \n
\n
\n

\n Biodiversity: From Assessment to Pathway, How to Integrate Scenarios <\/h2>\n
\n <\/div>\n
\n

What tools and methodologies can help companies integrate biodiversity scenarios into their strategy? During the third workshop of the working group dedicated to biodiversity and co-led by Candriam, discussions highlighted the growing importance of robust pathways while also pointing out ongoing technical and methodological challenges.<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n\n

\n
\n
\n
\n \n <\/div>\n
\n

\n <\/h2>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n \n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

The discussions focused extensively on the case of Icade, which structured its biodiversity strategy about ten years ago, initially centered on its real estate activities, explained Josephine Brune, Head of Environmental Transition at Icade, in her introduction: \u201cWe established a Biodiversity Performance Contract with CDC Biodiversit\u00e9, which enables monitoring of around twenty indicators developed with ecologists to track the rewilding of business parks.\u201d Among these are outcome indicators such as the CBSh, which measures the quantity and quality of vegetated and water-covered surfaces, as well as input indicators and two experimental indicators.<\/p>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n <\/div>\n \n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Starting around 2016-2017, the strategy expanded to include promotional activities, with the implementation of rapid diagnostics designed to quickly identify major local biodiversity challenges. Since then, a biodiversity module has been developed with the Lokimo tool to qualify ecological stakes of a site upstream of projects, based on public data: protected species, soil pollution, ecological continuities… These initiatives are part of a global approach structured in four stages: measuring impacts, avoiding and reducing them as much as possible, renaturing sites, and contributing \u2014 for example to CDC Biodiversity\u2019s Nature 2050 Fund.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Global vision<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond the tools, Josephine Brune emphasized the importance of involving stakeholders at all stages, especially public actors and scientific experts. To hope to create coherent ecological continuities, for example, \u201cit is necessary to work at the neighborhood scale and in close connection with local authorities,\u201d she insisted. This imperative is even stronger because, in some cases, a space must reach 2,500 m\u00b2 in one piece for renaturation to contribute to the ZAN objective (under the current law) \u2014 a configuration rarely achieved by a single real estate project. \u201cCoordinating several projects to create connections between green spaces requires a territorial vision,\u201d she added.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Internally too, maintaining an ambitious biodiversity roadmap remains a challenge. \u201cThis is a constantly evolving subject. Tools change, data improves, demands increase. Teams, especially operational ones faced with sometimes complex indicators, need support,\u201d continued the Head of Environmental Transitions at Icade.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The same requirement for clarity applies to external communication. \u201cRegarding biodiversity, we try to be as transparent as possible, especially in our reports to investors. We define each indicator and are thinking of linking them more to ecosystem services to facilitate understanding.\u201d This is necessary, according to her, in a sector where \u201cthere is still the idea that real estate is not very concerned with biodiversity.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Case-by-case integration challenges<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Josephine Brune also stressed the need to make choices at the scale of each project. \u201cThere are not necessarily universal best practices; everything depends on the project, the local authority, the local challenges… But if there is one best practice that systematically ticks both carbon and biodiversity boxes, it is renovation,\u201d she underlined. Long perceived as out of reach for developers, rehabilitation is in fact a strong transformation axis at Icade. \u201cIt\u2019s a paradigm shift for our business that we have been pushing for ten years.\u201d The group notably launched Ville en vue to restructure city entrances and AfterWork, which converts offices into housing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the scale of each operation, it is sometimes necessary to arbitrate between conflicting objectives. \u201cTake green roofs: they filter rainwater, improve thermal insulation, bring biodiversity… but to be effective, they require sufficient substrate and vegetation, which means more weight,\u201d Josephine Brune illustrated. Structures then have to be reinforced, mechanically increasing the building\u2019s carbon footprint. Icade has ambitious goals here: a significant portion of projects must anticipate future environmental regulation thresholds. \u201cSo sometimes you have to make choices and prioritize certain issues depending on the project.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These trade-offs are not limited to design choices. They extend throughout the value chain, with sometimes counter-intuitive effects. \u201cYou can green a project and at the same time worsen its biodiversity footprint by increasing demand for construction materials,\u201d noted Florent Rebatel, ESG analyst \u2013 Environment\/Biodiversity at CDC. But measuring biodiversity footprint over the entire activity remains a major challenge. \u201cThe calculation of our Global Biodiversity Score illustrates these difficulties: we have very little information on the real impact of the value chain, especially since we are developers, not builders, but it\u2019s a subject requiring serious reflection,\u201d added Josephine Brune.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The data challenge<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To further integrate biodiversity, a priority remains to access reliable and exploitable data. \u201cAnd for that, the entire upstream sectors must be structured,\u201d said Ms. Brune. But unlike climate, where greenhouse gas emissions are primarily measured, biodiversity requires crossing several dimensions: land use, pollution, land conversion, climate, etc. The CSRD directive could play a structuring role by requiring companies to consolidate pressure data usable by analysts, estimated Cl\u00e9ment Molinier, senior ESG modeler specializing in biodiversity at Iceberg Data Lab.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The data challenge also exceeds technical aspects: \u201cThe whole point is to change practices. For that, real data\u2014not approximations\u2014is needed. Until a fine mapping of the value chain is done, progress cannot be made,\u201d insisted Alix Chosson, ESG analyst specialized in Climate & Environment at Candriam, calling for clearer frameworks: \u201cShould it come from the State? The regulator? It\u2019s not just about imposing constraints but also providing tools.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this context, some actors like CDC Biodiversity support companies in evaluating their footprint: identifying pressures in the value chain, modeling impacts, defining targeted strategies… \u201cThis approach is always adapted to sector-specificities, with priority given to high-impact value chains linked for example to agriculture, material extraction, or forestry,\u201d detailed Emma Godefroy, Project Manager at CDC Biodiversity. The organization also runs several sectoral working groups, including one dedicated to agriculture, to promote good practice dissemination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The data question also relates to how biodiversity issues are integrated into economic decisions. Should they be assigned a monetary value or a weight equivalent to financial criteria? \u201cWe have integrated the CBSh as a standalone risk indicator in our investment committees. A downgrade must be considered just like information on property value,\u201d illustrated Josephine Brune.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anticipating trajectories<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scenario issues featured prominently in discussions. While their use is more or less established for climate, their application to biodiversity is still nascent. \u201cThere aren\u2019t really stabilized tools to build biodiversity scenarios, nor clear methods to integrate them into company strategies,\u201d summarized Ms. Brune.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The TNFD recommendations provide some guidance, distinguishing normative scenarios\u2014based on a target objective\u2014and exploratory scenarios, built from hypotheses. \u201cOn climate, we have normative scenarios like 1.5 \u00b0C and transition plans to align with it. For biodiversity, we\u2019re more in exploratory scenarios: for example, what if water stress increases? This is more useful for risk analysis than strategic direction setting,\u201d noted Elouan Heurard, ESG analyst specializing in Biodiversity at Candriam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To build these exploratory scenarios, several approaches exist, often inspired by climate tools. Some adapt global socio-economic scenarios (SSP) to specific ecological issues like land use or diets. Others use the Delphi method, which involves expert panels to identify structuring hypotheses.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These feed into Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) such as IMAGE, GLOBIOM, or MAGPIE, which cross socio-economic and environmental data to project soil or resource evolution. Results can then feed more specialized models (Biodiversity models) translating pressures into biodiversity impacts. Examples include GLOBIO, the Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII), or the Living Planet Index (LPI).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this exercise has limits. \u201cDepending on the model used, very different results can be obtained. It\u2019s necessary to cross approaches to avoid selection bias or impact transfers,\u201d warned Elouan Heurard. The shared recommendation is to combine multiple models and indicators to strengthen trajectory robustness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A dynamic reading of impacts and dependencies<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At Candriam, a specific method was developed to evaluate a company\u2019s exposure to biodiversity by crossing three dimensions: what, where, and how. \u201cWe start by looking at what the company does and its impact on biodiversity, using life cycle analysis (LCA) models. Then, we look at where it operates through geospatial analyses. Finally, we assess how it manages these two dimensions: its internal policies, the existence or not of scenarios, its capacity to adapt strategy, and potential controversies,\u201d detailed Elouan Heurard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This approach is complemented by a prospective reading that includes a temporal dimension. \u201cIt\u2019s not enough to evaluate a company at time T: you must also project its behavior to 2030 or 2040, anticipating stricter regulations, production changes, or ecosystem modifications.\u201d The goal is to determine if the current footprint is likely to increase under a business-as-usual scenario or if the company\u2019s strategy anticipates improvement. This approach can also apply at portfolio scale to project a form of cumulative ecological debt, modeled on carbon budgets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Beyond construction, the question remains how scenarios are used. Several speakers noted that company-produced scenarios often remain a formal exercise. \u201cThe problem is that they serve to show everything is fine, without truly testing model resilience against different possible futures. For climate, for example, many companies build transition scenarios without integrating both physical and transition risk dimensions,\u201d said Alix Chosson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

These scenarios remain useful to anticipate trajectories to align with but must not lead to a mistaken reading of physical risk indicators that could encourage reducing nature dependencies, added Florent Rebatel: \u201cJust because a system depends on biodiversity doesn\u2019t mean it should be replaced. Agroecology, for example, depends heavily on ecosystems \u2014 but it\u2019s precisely a solution. The same applies to materials like wood in construction.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

That\u2019s why some advocate including a scope 4, which would value avoided impacts \u2014 in other words, positive contributions by companies that facilitate other actors\u2019 transitions. \u201cImpact or footprint measurement tools should also capture this dimension, especially for investors,\u201d observed Florent Rebatel. \u201cThat\u2019s where scenarios become essential: when talking about avoided impacts, you enter a theory of change logic. You need a baseline and an improved scenario to estimate what has really been avoided,\u201d emphasized Alix Chosson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Work is underway to structure this analysis framework. \u201cWe joined a European research project this year under Horizon Europe, where CDC Biodiversity\u2019s role will be to build sectoral trajectories aligned with the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF),\u201d mentioned Emma Godefroy. The project, designed holistically, aims to develop financial tools compatible with biodiversity preservation goals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cScenarios also have the advantage of integrating a temporal dimension into analysis and putting company strategies into perspective: are they truly ambitious, or out of step with sectoral or national trajectories?\u201d concluded Elouan Heurard.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Starting around 2016-2017, the strategy expanded to include promotional activities, with the implementation of rapid diagnostics designed to quickly identify major local biodiversity challenges. Since then, a biodiversity module has been developed with the Lokimo tool to qualify ecological stakes of a site upstream of projects, based on public data: protected species, soil pollution, ecological […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1040,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-biodiversity"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1172","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1172"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1172\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1173,"href":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1172\/revisions\/1173"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1040"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/2030investirdemain.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}