LogoLogo
Savimbo homepageBuy creditsSpanish
  • Executive summary
  • Front Material
    • Contents
    • Index of figures
    • Index of tables
    • Acronyms and abbreviations
    • Terms and definitions
  • Getting started
  • Introduction
    • The urgency of targeted biodiversity conservation
    • Simplicity, complexity theory, and biodiversity
    • Inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and local communities by design
    • Biodiversity methodology benefits
  • Overall description
    • Objectives
    • Scope
    • Limitations
  • Project description
    • Principles
      • Principles of working with IP
    • Eligibility criteria
      • Land ownership and law
    • Additionality
    • Project boundaries
      • Spatial limits of the BCP
      • Temporal limits of the BCP
      • Grouped projects
    • Implementation plan
      • Measurement approaches
      • Indicator species observations
      • Risks and uncertainty
    • Effective participation
      • Community involvement
      • Capacity for action
      • Financial transparency
      • Safeguards checklist
  • Calculation
    • Unit calculations
    • Area calculations
    • Time calculations
    • Integrity calculations
    • Value calculations
  • Baseline assessment
    • Baseline ecosystem categorization
    • Analysis of agents and drivers of biodiversity loss
    • Baseline biodiversity (optional)
    • Baseline risk of biodiversity loss
    • Indicator species selection
    • Indicator species integrity score
  • SDG contributions
  • Monitoring plan
    • Monitoring report
    • Additional monitoring requirements
  • Authors
  • References
  • Appendices
    • Appendix A: Biodiversity methodologies comparison table
    • Appendix B: Sample legal proof of land control
    • Appendix C: Sample baseline ecosystem categorization
    • Appendix D: Species categorization of richness
    • Appendix E: Sample selection of indicator species
    • Appendix F: Sample indicator-species observations
    • Appendix G: Sample open-source code and calculation
    • Appendix H: Indigenous authors
    • Appendix I: Letters of support
      • Fernando Ayerbe, Ornithology
      • Ned Hording, Biodiversity
      • Olber Llanos, Zoologist
      • Mike McColm, Ethnology
      • Peter Thomas, Anthropologist
      • Jesús Argente, Marine biology
      • Sara Andreotti, Marine Biologist
      • Carolina Romero, Lawyer.
      • Daniel Urbano, Herpetologist
      • Ramesh Boonratana PhD, Primatologist
      • Theodore Schmitt, Conservationists
      • Anja Hutschenreiter, Ecologist and Tropical Conservationist
      • Miguel Chindoy, Indigenous leader
    • Appendix J: Sample uses of biodiversity unit
    • Appendix K: How to do FPIC
    • Appendix L: Independent Expert Panel Checklist
    • Appendix M: How to calculate a biodiversity credit by hand
    • Appendix N: How to calculate home ranges
    • Appendix O: How to calculate integrity scores
  • Document history
  • Disclaimer
Powered by GitBook
LogoLogo

Follow us

  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • TikTok
  • LinkedIn

About Savimbo

  • Science
  • Buy credits
  • About us
  • Donate

Indigenous authors

  • Jhony Lopez
  • Fernando Lezama
  • Blog

© 2023 Savimbo Inc. All rights reserved.

On this page

Was this helpful?

  1. Introduction

Simplicity, complexity theory, and biodiversity

Earth systems science applied to biodiversity credits

PreviousThe urgency of targeted biodiversity conservationNextInclusion of Indigenous Peoples and local communities by design

Last updated 1 year ago

Was this helpful?

This methodology breaks away from conventional scientific approaches, firstly, by recognizing climate as a complex system that now exhibits properties of a chaotic system. Therefore, this methodology is based on emerging science and theory regarding complex adaptive systems. Secondly, this biodiversity methodology does not attempt to classify and measure all of the species in an ecosystem. An estimated 7 million of the world’s species have not been characterized (). Finally, this methodology does not make the mistake of adapting carbon-crediting methodologies and trying to apply them to biodiversity.

The planet is in crisis and this methodology prioritizes clear and immediate action that provides measurable results. Today’s best planetary science also supports this earth systems science approach.

Complex adaptive ecosystems maintain their resilience, that is, their ability to self-heal. In such systems, small changes can have oversized effects. Disruption can irreversibly knock them out of balance, and small conservation efforts can have butterfly effects much larger than the sum of their parts.

By tackling these measurement challenges head-on, ISBMs approach provides a robust, nuanced perspective on biodiversity and ecological health. We strive to optimize our methodologies and remain receptive to ongoing scientific developments in the field.

ISBM is both grounded in complexity theory and also respects and aligns with Indigenous knowledge systems. Central to our approach is the selection of 3-30 indicator species in each bioregion. These species, encompassing a diverse mix of trees, birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, are chosen for their sensitivity and rarity, serving as living barometers of ecosystem health.

This approach eliminates the need for invasive and exhaustive scientific surveys in high-value ecosystems that are under-researched. As an example, two of our pilot sites in the Tropical Andean biodiversity hotspot discovered unrecorded high-value species during the first year of project implementation ( in Villagarzón pilot , and on Waorani pilot ). We cannot afford to wait to quantify to conserve. Instead, this methodology is direct enough to be carried out by Indigenous and local communities and aligns with traditional ways of life and wisdom about preserving their environment.

Furthermore in the ISBM, projects are rewarded not for activities, or for ex-ante projections, but for ex-post outcomes . Outcomes are measured and reported on an ongoing basis. This logic is consistent with complexity science as evidence shows that iteration for an outcome is more effective in designing changes for complex systems which often exhibit randomness, nonlinearity, and tipping points in systems-level change ().

By rewarding outcomes, in the form of indicator species, we increase real-time incentives for participants. This also frees BCPs to experiment and utilize all available means to achieve desired results. Further positive extensions of conserved habitat or indicator species are directly coupled to VBC crediting and thus promptly rewarded.

Mora et al. 2011
Bush Dog
(Tobon 2023)
Green Anaconda
(Woodyatt 2024)
(Wilburn 2023)
Resnicow and Vaughan 2006