In order to address these three issues, Native is pioneering a path beyond the narrow confines of carbon-centric perspectives by enabling individuals and organizations to invest in the conservation and regeneration of a broad spectrum of ecosystems, both terrestrial (green) and marine (blue). This includes, but is not limited to, forests, mangroves, peat bogs, coral reefs, seabeds, and Marine Protected Areas.

‍

The term NbS is increasingly used to describe these vital ecosystems and their contributions to both planetary health and economic stability.

Native’s proprietary methodology assesses each ecosystem along three distinct criteria:

Additionality: We evaluate the carbon density of a given Square and analyze the risk of losing those carbon stocks over a 40 year period.

Biodiversity: We measure the biodiversity within the Square, including intactness, species count, the presence of endemic species, and the percentage of those at risk of extinction.

Community: We examine how thoroughly the project consults and includes the views of local indigenous populations, and consider how investment will impact a range of social impact metrics from education to healthcare.

Every Square is given a score for each between 0% to 100%. These scores are then aggregated across all Squares and displayed transparently on buyers’ impact pages along with the total tonnes of carbon within their Squares and what % of these tonnes are additional (total tonnes x additionality %). This allows buyers to quantify both the existing NbS value within a Square, the social impact that their money will have on local communities as well as forecasting the likelihood that financial intervention will prevent ecological loss and carbon release. 

Our ABC methodology embraces the complexities of the natural world and the nuances of additionality, moving away from the binary model dominating current carbon markets. For instance, a Square of virgin rainforest, though facing minimal deforestation threat, would score high on biodiversity and community but lower on additionality. Conversely, a newly planted pine monoculture might rank high on additionality due to the carbon sequestration potential but low on biodiversity and community. Both projects contribute to the mitigation of climate and biodiversity loss in different ways to suit different types of buyers, and neither should be excluded because of misplaced emphasis on the importance of additionality.