Biodiversity and sustainable real estate news
As part of the Green Budget initiative, the Directorate General for Local Authorities (DGCL) has just published a guide for local authorities. Its objective: to facilitate the integration of biodiversity into public policies. This intention has been welcomed. However, at a time when projects are proliferating, the lack of a hierarchy between levels of evidence represents a systemic weakness.
Governing by Evidence
This guide, like many current initiatives, brings together a variety of tools: certifications, labels, sector-specific approaches, self-assessments. But without ever distinguishing between them:
- that which is certifiable,
- which is verified by an independent third party
- which falls under the category of a voluntary declaration or non-binding support.
In the field of biodiversity, this confusion is not insignificant: it prevents governance, in the truest sense. And it weakens the clarity of any collective strategy.
The state wants to structure. Local authorities want to decide. Funders want to understand.
It's a clear tripod:
- The state wants to make public action more coherent.
- Local authorities are looking for reliable tools to arbitrate.
- Funders are demanding guarantees that are compatible with ESG, taxonomy and sustainable performance.
But without a common language of evidence, this tripod falters. Confusing a voluntary label with an accredited certification risks invalidated decisions, lost funding, or legally questionable actions.
Behind every tool, a question: is it enforceable?
The example is well-known. A municipality incorporates into its Local Urban Development Plan (PLU) a framework derived from a well-intentioned label… but one that is not certified, accredited, or legally binding. The result: the judge or the funding body refuses to recognize it. The project is blocked. Local ambition is thwarted.
This is not an isolated case. It is a symptom of an ecosystem without mapping.
What we offer
At IRICE, our mission is not to promote a tool, but to clarify the value of each commitment in light of the evidence.
Some accredited environmental certifications already meet the requirements for traceability, enforceability, and ESG compatibility. It's time to make them a foundation and put everything else in its proper place.
Towards a public grid of biodiversity guarantee levels?
The issue is no longer technical. It is strategic. Any public policy on biodiversity in the future will have to be based on a clear map:
- declarative tools,
- supported procedures,
- verified standards,
- and legally binding certifications.
IRICE will propose a first open methodological analysis matrix, based on this simple principle: biodiversity is not a commitment, it is a traceable responsibility.