Between recommendations and certification: how Switzerland structures biodiversity in urban planning

Numerous educational tools exist, but they still lack a certifiable framework

Switzerland has developed a wide range of tools to promote biodiversity in urban planning: recommendations, labels, checklists, and technical guides. However, this wealth of resources masks a structural limitation: most of these mechanisms focus on raising awareness or providing methodological advice, rather than independent certification. This highlights the crucial need to move from voluntary recommendations to measurable ecological evidence.

1. A mosaic of reference tools

In recent years, Swiss local authorities have adopted numerous approaches to integrate biodiversity into urban planning. Among the most recognized are:

• The FOEN guide on biodiversity in built-up areas,
• the SIA 2066 standard on biodiversity-friendly design,
• The Nature Toolbox in an urban environment
• the BioValues ​​program,
• or the Espazium repository, which aggregates best practices.

These tools play a crucial role: they educate, guide, and harmonize the practices of designers and project owners. However, they do not measure actual environmental performance. None are backed by an accredited certification body or an independent audit protocol.

2. The common thread in these approaches: pedagogy

Most of these tools operate according to a guidance model: they provide recommendations, sometimes self-assessment grids, and encourage continuous improvement. This approach has proven effective in disseminating best practices. However, it is now reaching its limits: it does not allow for project comparability or the traceability of results.

In Switzerland, as elsewhere, the transition to standardized ecological measurement is becoming essential to enhance the credibility of public policies, tenders, and sustainable finance.

3. The Biodiversity Performance Score and Effinature: from recommendation to certification

The Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS), developed by IRICE, extends the logic of Swiss tools while adding the dimension of independent measurement and verification. It assesses the actual ecological functionality of a site based on more than 50 criteria, grouped into five categories:

• Soil preservation, 
• Development of plant heritage, 
• Support for local wildlife, 
• Reduction of the project's impacts, 
• Ecological management of the site.

Each result is expressed as an environmental performance score, based on measured and verified data. This score forms the scientific backbone of the Effinature certification, also supported by IRICE and accredited to ISO/IEC 17065. Thus, BPS measures, Effinature certifies. Both tools translate recommendations into tangible evidence and verifiable results within a recognized institutional framework.

4. From guidance to governance: the necessary evolution

The Swiss approach demonstrates the relevance of the awareness-raising phase. But ecological credibility now depends on three conditions:

1. a verifiable method,
2. an independent body,
3. institutional recognition.

This is the role of the BPS and the Effinature certification, which translate recommendations into audited indicators. This shift from education to scientific governance marks a new stage of maturity for urban biodiversity.

5. In conclusion

Switzerland has laid the foundations for an exemplary ecological culture, based on cooperation and methodology. However, without an accredited certification framework, these tools remain merely intentions. The Biodiversity Performance Score and Effinature certification fill this gap: they transform recommendations into evidence, and good practices into measurable value.

It is this shift – from advice to verification – that brings biodiversity into the era of certifiable performance.