Workshop 1
Resources
- Expectations
- Background on current biodiversity metric in the Fieldprint Platform
- Overview of the proposed metric
- Overview of comments received in public comment period
- Overview of different biodiversity frameworks and standards in existence or being developed
- Example of biodiversity metric use and needs from Pheasants Forever and Quail Forever
- Mural exercise to collect feedback on various questions
Video recording may be available upon request.
Survey Questions
What type of biodiversity indicator would serve your needs for the next three to five years?
| Votes | Option |
|---|---|
| 22 | A quantitative, proxy indicator, such as the managed acres of natural or semi-natural habitat of cropland |
| 10 | A qualitative, index indicator, such as the WILD Index |
Need to make sure claims can be made with assurance and verification.
Both quantitative and qualitative metrics are needed.
Potentially both, but the qualitative index indicator needs to reflect context-appropriate practices with process and documentation.
Acres impacted is an important reporting unit for our company.
It’s critical not to imply that any modeled or proxy results represent actual species outcomes.
Whatever will be considered credible in company claims is supported by attendees.
Credible claims may include frameworks like SBTN/TFND; beyond that, metrics will be used for narrative claims.
Quantitative metrics make comparisons easier, allow for baseline comparisons, and calculate increases or reductions based on practice implementation.
Quantitative scores may be more amenable to uncertainty quantification.
For complex metrics, both quantitative and qualitative approaches are needed.
Quantitative metrics are essential for transparency, accountability, and good governance.
Qualitative assessments of habitat quality are important, as they generally reflect biodiversity in plants, flora, and fauna.
Quantitative metrics are essential for adding to the spider-diagram, aligning with FtM practices.
From a functional biodiversity perspective, larger semi-natural habitat size doesn’t always lead to higher biodiversity; land configuration and local context matter more.
Quantitative metrics provide transparency for partners and companies, while qualitative indices offer important contextual information.
Are we counting species?
Viewing this as a dichotomy is improper; the debate is on whether to use direct or indirect measures of biodiversity. Both approaches have shortcomings. A suitable metric may emerge if the focus shifts away from being strictly about biodiversity.
Above ground, in the soil, or in the water: Where in the environment should we focus the biodiversity indicator?
Please consider that it would likely not be feasible to account for all types of biodiversity in the same indicator and that this is dependent on farmer responses.
| Votes | Option |
|---|---|
| 25 | Above-ground, such as plants, animals and insects |
| 18 | Below-ground, such as soil microorganisms and invertebrates |
| 6 | Aquatic, including organisms living in oceans, rivers, lakes and streams |
Ideally, both above- and below-ground biodiversity should be considered as we are discussing a system (+1 by one attendee).
Both threatened biodiversity and functional biodiversity are ideally needed. Threatened biodiversity aspects are particularly challenging with below-ground components.
Include a seasonal component if considering above-ground, in-field biodiversity.
In-field below-ground and edge-of-field above-ground biodiversity are important (+1 by one attendee).
The prompt indicates reliance on farmer responses. If farmer observations are used to estimate responses to interventions, then reliability will depend on how accurately farmers can report those observations.
Below-ground diversity accounts for the majority of global biodiversity.
Aquatic biodiversity is crucial but difficult to measure causally due to diffuse effects and integration across many fields.
Some regional contexts may find aquatic biodiversity less applicable, but it should not be entirely discounted (+1 by one attendee).
Focus on whichever biodiversity component is important in the local context (+1 by one attendee).
Create a matrix categorizing impacts by practice, considering both what can be measured and which categories are most impacted.
It is understandable that including three components (above-ground, below-ground, aquatic) would be challenging, but both above- and below-ground are important, especially given the growing importance of soil health in regenerative agriculture discussions.
Further metrics guidance from the Nature Positive Initiative may be useful.
Consider appropriate plant selection and practices needed for the protection of threatened species.
A holistic approach is necessary, addressing above-ground, below-ground, and aquatic biodiversity to some extent.
Biodiversity considerations should be context-specific and allow flexibility for program/initiative developers.
Above- and below-ground biodiversity are most relevant, but aquatic biodiversity is also relevant in certain cases.
Focus on habitat management as it is something growers can impact and measure.
All biodiversity aspects are important, but counting specific species or microorganisms may be impractical for growers. Previous attempts found this too complex.
Soil Health should be considered its own metric rather than being included under Biodiversity (+1 by two attendees).
Implement whatever biodiversity measures are feasible, with the ultimate goal of encompassing above-ground, below-ground, and aquatic biodiversity.
If using practice-based indicators, it is not helpful to separate biodiversity by location because all elements in the agroecosystem are interconnected. For example, cover crops benefit pollinators (above-ground) and enhance soil biodiversity. Buffer strips improve water quality and contribute to soil and plant diversity. Benefits to specific groups can be explained during result interpretation, such as CFT biodiversity.
Support the need to document the rationale behind specific conservation practices.
Incorporate national and state-designated priorities, including species and range considerations.
Aquatic diversity may be easier to track, but this varies with stakeholder needs, interests, and geography. Both above-ground and below-ground biodiversity are crucial for agroecosystems. A single indicator for both is unlikely to be effective and may be problematic. Has Field to Market considered using a multi-dimensional indicator?
Field-level or Farm-level: What data granularity do you need?
For context, a field-level indicator would require a separate questionnaire for each crop field, while a farm-level indicator would require one questionnaire.
| Votes | Option |
|---|---|
| 13 | Field-level data and a determined area buffer around the field boundaries under grower management (cropland plus edge-of-field) |
| 14 | Farm-level (fields and the adjacent land under grower management) |
Field-level data aggregated to farm-level for reporting outcomes.
Field level is where the perturbation or farm activity is happening, making it the best level for validation. The farm level allows for aggregation, enabling comparison and scaling.
For PCSC projects, there has been a shift toward the farm level to minimize data burden.
There’s concern that focusing only on field-level and edge-of-field data could lead to distortions. Many in the value chain are asking for farm-level data.
There is uncertainty about whether “edge-of-field” refers to a buffer distance around a farmer-defined field or to conservation practices at the field’s edge, like converting low-yielding production acres to habitat or riparian buffers. Tracking the latter is critical, and these practices should be attributed to field or farm production and farmer choices, contributing to sustainable agriculture.
At some point, field-level data is necessary to ensure no conversion, rather than relying on “net zero” conversion, which lacks robustness.
There may be opportunities to consider broader landscape-level needs in some areas.
Based on experience working with farmers, conservation practices can be hard to select because they often don’t apply to just one field. For example, tailwater recovery may apply to multiple fields, and field borders or planting native species can result in double-counting. Therefore, farm-level reporting makes more sense.
While farm-level data seems most applicable, harmonizing with a field-level platform like Fieldprint may be challenging. Questions arise about whether growers can enroll only some of their fields.
The appropriate level for data collection should be context-specific.
This is more about the unit of measurement, and it’s not clear if it matters whether it’s at the farm or field level.
There must be a way to account for winter crops.
Farm-level reporting might be preferable, but it does not align with the scale of Field to Market (FtM).
Farm-level reporting is beneficial as it allows for actions on non-cultivated land that support biodiversity, giving credit to farmers for these efforts. It’s important not to penalize farms for lacking extensive natural areas.
The appropriate level of granularity will depend on conservation goals and stakeholder values. Both spatial and temporal scales should be considered. Aligning the report, data, and objectives with the spatio-temporal scale would enhance transparency and interpretability of the index, promoting informed decision-making.
Optional or Mandatory: What are your thoughts about allowing organizations to run the Biodiversity Metric (or any other metric) as optional rather than as a fixed suite of metrics?
For context, a field-level indicator would require a separate questionnaire for each crop field, while a farm-level indicator would require one questionnaire.
| Votes | Option |
|---|---|
| 13 | Optional -the biodiversity metric should run as an optional add-in to the other 7 metrics |
| 11 | Fixed - the biodiversity metric should run in the fixed suite of 8 metrics together |
Strongly recommend a sufficient period of piloting or beta testing for sensitivity analysis and scenario evaluation.
Data requirements may limit the choice of metrics that can be used.
Consider having a few required questions or data points that provide a coarse overview, with additional questions or data points for those motivated and supported to provide more detailed information.
Concern that making aspects optional could send the message that they are not important. It might be useful to have optional elements as standalone options.
The final approach will depend on the version of the framework that is ultimately adopted.
Since Field to Market (FTM) is in the early stages, it may be best to keep certain aspects optional until metrics across industries and organizations become standardized.
Dislike the idea of making anything optional. If metrics are being defined, they should be consistently used by everyone.
This biodiversity metric should be addressed similarly to other FTM metrics.
It would be useful for users to choose the metrics they want to obtain from the platform. This would allow users or projects to focus on specific areas of interest without needing to gather unnecessary information. While some metrics are interconnected (e.g., energy and GHG), having the flexibility to select relevant metrics might be beneficial. This idea was discussed in a plenary session but did not receive positive feedback. For biodiversity, having it as an optional metric could be acceptable.
A holistic approach is necessary to ensure no single metric is prioritized over others when there are conflicting outcomes. For example, flooded rice fields are beneficial as waterfowl habitat but harmful due to methane emissions. The goal should be transparency, with efforts to prevent misinterpretation and misuse of various metrics.
Name: what should we call the metric?
In the future, it might be possible to implement a true biodiversity metric (e.g. species richness). Until that day comes, what are your thoughts about renaming the Biodiversity Metric to “Biodiversity Habitat Support Metric/Indicator” to avoid misleading stakeholders about what our metric does?
| Votes | How do you feel about “Biodiversity Support Metric/Indicator” |
|---|---|
| 2 | Love it |
| 3 | Hate it |
| 12 | Indifferent |
There is concern about using “biodiversity support” unless an outcomes element is specifically included, rather than just practices.
The term “biodiversity potential” is preferable because it does not imply that biodiversity outcomes have been achieved.
Biodiversity is a broad topic, and the metric name should accurately reflect what it is capturing. It is challenging to claim that this metric captures all aspects of biodiversity (+1 by two attendees).
Indifference to the specific name, but consideration should be given to whether the agriculture element should be reflected in the name, such as using “Agrobiodiversity.” This raises questions about the indicator’s goal or outcome—whether to target biodiversity within agroecosystems or beyond.
Preference to avoid using a “cute” acronym like “WILD.”
Suggested name: Potential Biodiversity Index.
Renaming the “Biodiversity Metric” is necessary due to current limitations. It is preferable to avoid using the word “biodiversity,” as it is a fundamentally multidimensional concept. Biodiversity includes aspects like species richness, trophic levels, functional diversity, phylogenetic diversity, and scale.
How should we treat rented land?
A USDA ERS report with national data up to 2022 indicates that approximately 40% of U.S. farmland is rented or leased (USDA ERS - Farmland Ownership and Tenure, first chart). When growers rent or lease farmland, they may or may not be allowed to implement edge-of-field practices or maintain/improve habitat adjacent to cropland, among other activities.
If a grower has no control over areas adjacent to rented cropland, what approach do you suggest we take to avoid penalizing growers with low biodiversity scores?
From the comments (below), the key considerations seem to include:
Control and Responsibility: Farmers should be measured based on what they can control. Renters might be unfairly penalized if they lack the authority to implement certain biodiversity practices. Thus, metrics should reflect what is realistically achievable within the control of the farmer, acknowledging the limitations imposed by tenancy.
Need for Differentiation: Treat rented and owned lands differently. Suggestions include separate baselines or adjusted scoring systems that account for these differences while still promoting overall biodiversity improvement.
Shared (rented) land may have a different potential biodiversity profile than owned land, and should be treated differently, depending on the scope of the metric.
There is strong evidence that the percentage of rented land in a landscape changes management actions (e.g., crop diversity). Separate baselines could be used for owned versus rented land.
Potentially report two scores: one standard and one normalized after accounting for non-applicable practices of rented land. This approach would allow one score for benchmarking and another for encouraging improvement.
Differentiating rented land is important for action planning but may not be directly relevant to a biodiversity metric. Considering this factor could inadvertently penalize land managers in different contexts and may create perverse incentives (+1 by one attendee).
Landowners who do not allow grower-managers (renters) to implement edge-of-field practices should not receive the same credit as landowners who support these conservation efforts.
Renters have disadvantages in implementing some practices, but this limitation still provides an opportunity for discussions with landowners about shared benefits and credit allocation.
Growers should be measured based on what they can control (+1 by one attendee).
Yes, measuring what growers can control is crucial. However, even land boundaries can impact what a producer who owns land can control, as they cannot manage neighboring land.
While Field to Market (FtM) cannot directly pressure landowners, they should be accountable if they receive federal funds. Landowners should feel the same pressure as operators.
Growers on rented land may achieve lower biodiversity outcomes. This is not penalizing but rather reflecting reality (+1 by one attendee).
In a spirit of continuous improvement, renters shouldn’t be penalized if biodiversity is harder for them to impact. However, opportunities should be created to support them in achieving biodiversity goals.
Policy issues need to be addressed, especially if landowners benefit from federal programs. Landowners should not prevent conservation measures on their land.
These issues need to be tackled at a landscape or jurisdictional level. What is the process to ensure actual change rather than just adapting metrics?
This issue is not limited to biodiversity; it applies to other activities, such as land leveling or winter field management. Farmers should be evaluated like other farmers to reflect reality. While control might be limited, the index should capture the actual conditions in the field/farm. Conservation programs should focus on what individual farmers can do for improvement, but the creation of the index must be objective.
Clear documentation should be required, similar to recent conversion cases where farmers weren’t responsible. However, alternative actions should be mandated rather than lowering the bar.
Be aware that biodiversity net gain (BNG) often involves a 30-year commitment. This long-term obligation should be considered in tenant agreements and biodiversity unit pricing.
Landowners should work closely with tenants to incorporate biodiversity improvements into farming practices. Strategies could include: adding environmental plans to farm tenancy agreements, inserting special conditions in Farm Business Tenancy (FBT) contracts for collaboration on environmental improvements, and incorporating soil testing clauses to monitor soil health over time.
Baseline biodiversity assessments of rented land are crucial before implementing changes or entering agreements. This helps determine potential biodiversity improvement and guides future planning.
Rented land should be treated the same as owned land. Landowners who rent properties should be held accountable as they benefit from the production on their land.
Growers without control over the land shouldn’t be penalized for their inability to manage it.
Field to Market (FtM) should encourage market conditions that allow all growers to manage buffers, regardless of land ownership.
This issue needs more consideration. Once the overall objective of the metric is clear, it may be easier to determine which factors to consider, regardless of the growers’ ability to control or influence them.
This is a tough issue because similar problems exist with other metrics. For example, farmers don’t control soil texture, but soil characteristics affect GHG emissions. Scores should reflect reality: a farmer might have a higher GHG score due to soil conditions, and the metrics should represent this reality. We face this issue in our current project funded by a private company, where we’re finding ways not to penalize farmers doing their best. However, I believe the metrics and scores should remain true to actual conditions.
Temporal considerations: Should habitat created on cropland between rotational crops count?
Some cropland might be able to create seasonal habitat for wildlife by providing food, shelter, or flooded conditions in the months between cash crops.
Should a biodiversity indicator have a temporal component, such as months of habitat provided per year?
| Votes | Option |
|---|---|
| 19 | Yes |
| 0 | No |
This phrasing is confusing. [This prompt refers to habitat created in croplands] between crop rotations, not between crop [fields] (e.g. prairie strips).
Annual habitat like milkweed seems relevant.
It seems like temporal crop diversity is relevant, so already incorporated in some way.
In-field only, right? Semi-natural will follow natural seasonal cycles.
The entire field profile should matter.
Consider temporal component, but it may unfairly penalize certain fields. Consider quality vs. quantity debate.
If temporal habitat is beneficial, then definitely count it. Some temporal practices could definitely help some species, so why not count?
This is especially great for migratory birds. We shouldn’t just give a half year’s credit because they aren’t going to tear out their rice fields. Just give them credit.
If possible, I would suggest coming up with an overall weighted score that gives a higher score for those folks who have more month-acres of habitat, per acre of harvested crop.
Yes, a temporal component is necessary. We are unclear what is meant by the term ‘biodiversity habitat support’. Given that biodiversity is both spatially and temporally dynamic, some indication to primary or end users of the metric would be critical.
What unanswered questions did participants still have?
Is there a clear description of what the biodiversity metric is trying to cover, i.e., defined scope?
- The scope in terms of biodiversity itself. E.g., species, functional, range-of-taxa, etc.
Is there some of this that can be scored based on relative biodiversity on other farms in the area?
What are the specific biodiversity-related outcomes WILD index attempt to measure or associate with?
For example, WBCSD listed 3 outcomes (improved ecological integrity, increased cultivated biodiversity, reduced pesticide risk), each have corresponding metrics to address. WILD packaged many components into one score, so it is not clear what outcome(s) are the core focus behind the design philosophy? For example, are you focused on reducing land use change or enhancing on-farm biodiversity?
I’m concerned that if your goal is too broad then the message on benefits of using the index could be weakened, leading to difficulties in increasing adoption (e.g., among farmers). Perhaps you are trying to find a balance among multiple outcomes, but it will be helpful to clarify.
Is it possible we are trying to do too much here [in this workshop series]?
Are there any plans to try to cross-walk any of these standards?
- There has been some cross-walking done already but not with SAI and WBCSD yet.
Could you clarify the landscape diversity metric?
- Are growers rewarded for higher landscape complexity that may be out of their control, or would growers be rewarded for adding some diversity to an overall lower diversity landscape?
How will the WILD index be accessed by the public when it is released?
Other thoughts from participants
When HPI was developed, we were conscious that some farms have more natural habitat based on location, such as streams, making it inherently a better habitat.
- HPI was an attempt to neutralize that.
Really like the idea of having different baselines for landscapes but realize this might be hard to implement.
- Maybe you could roll this out first for one crop and one region first…
I could not comment on the field vs. farm level. But I think farm level is extremely important. We need to account for some farms having inherently better habitat. So, in order to maintain or enhance, there are actual things growers can do to enhance. We should focus on that.
Many farms in the US have endangered species that are on the property, adjacent, or could be present transiently. How do we address this here? There’s a lot of public datasets that could be leveraged to measure this (+1 by one attendee).
It would be nice to see component scores of the biodiversity rather than just one score. If there is just one score, let users see where they did well and where they can improve. Maybe they did well with pesticides but not with cropland conversions. Let the report give more information.
It would be good to see credit given not just for conservation practices on cropland but also on the other land they have. All of it should factor in.
This [feedback form] doesn’t cover all of the areas raised during the consultation so they should be addressed as well.
We believe that rebranding this concept to avoid the term ‘biodiversity’ would be valuable, as the complexity of biodiversity eludes a simple scoring solution. Even habitat quality is highly multidimensional in most cases and inappropriate for a scoring solution: for instance, although the habitat quality of a paved parking lot vs. primary rainforest is easily ranked, the quality of most habitat is highly dependent on the species being considered. The fundamental flaws associated with developing a single universal score of biodiversity or habitat quality can be seen, for instance, by reviewing the literature on congruence of biodiversity patterns, the universality of diversity patterns (e.g., universality is the exception, not the rule), metapopulation models, and land sparing vs. land sharing. Further, single metric-oriented efforts to convey information on biodiversity may not elicit the needed adoption from policymakers and stakeholders (Soto-Navarro et al. 2021).