When it comes to ESG priorities, topics like biodiversity and rewilding often struggle to get the prominence they deserve and frequently end up on the “nice to have” list.
But a new study may help reframe how people see nature restoration projects, particularly in terms of their potential to sequester carbon.
Spearheaded by global sustainable development consultancy Arup and nature recovery experts Nattergal Ltd, the study examined the rewilding work carried out at the Knepp estate in West Sussex, England.
The estate has been running one of the U.K.’s most successful rewilding programmes for the last 20 years, with an emphasis on using natural processes to regenerate degraded ecosystems.
The findings in the report indicate that the rewilding of scrub and grassland, sequester and store large volumes of atmospheric CO2 over at least their first 20 years, with most carbon sequestration initially below ground in the soil.
In fact, the study concludes carbon sequestration rates in rewilding projects are as fast as deciduous woodland planting over the first 20 years when measured using the woodland carbon code.
Ivan de Klee, the project initiator at Nattergal, said in an interview because the Knepp rewilding project is primarily about restoring and creating biodiversity, the added benefit of carbon sequestration has always been a secondary outcome.
He added researchers have also traditionally isolated different pools of carbon and treated any sequestrations in trees and soil as separate, rather than considering the overall amount as an entire eco-system.
“Most carbon models are associated with trees and woodland in the U.K.,” said de Klee.
“They came from productive timber systems, but scrub, grassland and little trees do not have any timber value, so no one has ever really studied them, and they have a great biodiversity value.”
According to the report, its findings could encourage investors and private sector actors to invest in a greater diversity and scale of habitat restoration projects.
It argues a diverse range of process-led nature restoration projects could help expand the voluntary carbon market, particularly in Britain.
“A lot of people in sustainability used to refer to biodiversity as a “nice-to-have” but that is changing,” said de Klee.
“What this report does is demonstrate something anyone who works within the natural world knows already, namely that a healthy ecosystem is likely to be good for the climate and sequestering carbon. Carbon investment can now be focussed on biodiversity-led projects.”
Arup’s nature director, Tom Butterworth said in an interview interest in rewilding and nature restoration has shifted in recent years as researchers gain a greater understanding of how eco-systems can work and how they impact on a number of levels, such as mitigating climate change and improving mental health.
“It’s that ironic that just as we realise how we are fundamentally linked to nature, we have also realised we are losing it faster than at any time in human history,” he told me.
“A system-led approach to regenerating ecosystems is critical,” he added. “People and nature, co-creating places, is something that could be incredibly powerful.”
William Theisen, chief executive of climate consultancy EcoAct North America said in an email treating biodiversity as a “nice-to-have” is like saying water resources or food production are “nice-to-have”.
“Biodiversity and Nature provide essential ecosystem services like pollination, clean water, climate regulation, and food production, valued at an estimated $125-140 trillion per year,” said Theisen.
“Businesses must take note as regulations like the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive emphasize biodiversity conservation, while non-compliance poses legal, financial, and reputational risks as seen in the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures,” he added.
“Business resilience relies on both climate actions and biodiversity protection.”
