Biodiversity Credits: the UNI/PdR 179:2025 Practice

Disclaimer: this is an automated translation from Italian. Go to the original article.

The reference practice UNI/PdR 179:2025 is not merely a technical standard, but an innovative document that could define the state of the art for nature and biodiversity in the future. Developed by UNI, the Italian standardisation body recognised at the European level, this practice provides organisations with the tools to concretely assess their ecological footprint and implement nature conservation projects through verifiable credits. The document, available for free in Italian and English, also includes specific requirements for sustainability reporting and evaluation systems supported by Accredia, thus ensuring maximum reliability and transparency in the certification process. 3Bee participated in the drafting of the reference practice.

A biodiversity credit represents the full regeneration of 0.1 hectares of land, calculated through a precise formula that multiplies the improvement of the MSA index by the hectares involved, the years of the project, and a factor of 10 [Formula: Biodiversity Credit = (MSA post-intervention - MSA pre-intervention) × number of hectares × years of project × 10]. In practical terms, transforming one hectare of land subjected to intensive agriculture with an MSA of 0.1 into a natural meadow with an MSA of 1.0 generates as many as 9 credits per year, thanks to the improvement of 0.9 points in the index. Nature conservation projects must ensure a minimum duration of 15 years, extendable up to 30, during which the proponent commits to actively maintaining and managing the regenerative practices implemented, thus ensuring lasting ecosystem services for the area.

The introduction of the MSA (Mean Species Abundance) addresses an apparently impossible challenge: obtaining a comprehensive estimate of biodiversity, a concept that encompasses all living organisms on the planet, from plants and pollinators to mammals. This index assesses how closely an area approaches natural reference conditions, using a scale from 0 to 1 where the maximum value represents a pristine, entirely natural habitat (such as an untouched forest), while zero corresponds to a completely urbanised area (like a tarmacked yard that entirely isolates the substrate). Between these extremes lie all human-altered environments, from agricultural areas to urban parks, thus allowing for an objective quantification of the potential for ecosystem restoration and the planning of targeted environmental protection interventions.

The practice is structured into two pathways that follow a specific hierarchy of actions. The first pathway allows companies to calculate their corporate ecological footprint, assessing the impact on biodiversity through the analysis of environmental drivers, proximity to protected areas, and the presence of endangered species, including pollinators. This leads to the definition of a five-year improvement plan that always prioritises direct actions within their own perimeter. The second pathway, on the other hand, guides the generation of credits through regeneration projects: from the conversion of degraded areas to the implementation of regenerative practices that add a bonus of 0.2 to the MSA, transforming impoverished lands into ecosystems rich in biodiversity and ecosystem services for local communities.

Biodiversity credits represent a paradigm shift from carbon credits, operating on a local rather than a global scale. While carbon is a planetary issue that can be offset with projects anywhere in the world, the loss of biodiversity is a specific territorial issue that requires interventions where impacts are generated. Regeneration actions must take place in the same ecoregion, within 150 kilometres of the company site, ensuring direct benefits to the territory: mitigation of environmental risk and increased well-being for citizens. The practice ensures maximum transparency, allowing anyone to verify how a project was carried out, the calculations made, and the entire data set used. Corporate claims must include information accessible via QR code or hyperlink to analyse both on-site direct activities and supported projects. The tool has been designed in compliance with the Green Claims Directive.

The monitoring of biodiversity utilises a cutting-edge technological arsenal that makes data collection objective, continuous, and economically sustainable. Bioacoustic sensors detect the presence of birdlife and pollinators through their characteristic sounds, camera traps document the movements of mammals, while satellite analyses with a resolution of at least 15x15 metres map changes in land use and ecological footprint. The recommended focus on bees, butterflies, and other arthropods is not coincidental: these pollinators are excellent bioindicators of ecosystem health and provide essential ecosystem services. The annual reports, to be submitted within three months of the year's end, document not only the data collected but also the effectiveness of the regenerative practices implemented for ecosystem restoration.

The certification system, based on the ISO 14064 standard, ensures the credibility of the entire biodiversity protection process through rigorous and independent audits. The preliminary audit establishes the baseline for nature conservation, followed by field audits after the first year and triennial checks to monitor the sustainable development of the project. Pending international public registries, verification bodies temporarily manage transparent registries that prevent double counting, the most critical issue in the sector. Usable credits must be less than 5 years old, and each corporate claim must publicly specify how the organisation has reduced its ecological footprint, either through direct environmental protection interventions or by purchasing credits for ecosystem restoration.