Minutes from sub-group 3B webinar on metrics and midpoint characterization factors
05 September 2019
Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business project
Attendees:
Julie Dimitrijevic, Matt Jones (UNEP-WCMC), Alexandra Marques (European Commission- JRC), Jihae Kwon (FAO), Laure Berling (FAO), Adam Melki, Joshua Berger and Rose Choukroun (CDC Biodiversité), Leonardo Viana (Conservation International), Marta Santamaria (Natural Capital Coalition), Serenella Sala (European Commission), Anne Malecot (AFD), Regiane Borsato (LIFE Institute), John Finisdore (Sustainable Flows), James MacPherson (Anthesis Group), Jesus Carasco (Ecoacsa), Shane Sparg (BirdLife International), Marion Hammerl (Global Nature Fund)
Minutes:
CDC Biodiversité, who is chairing sub-group 3B on metrics and midpoint characterization factors, presented the objectives and expected outputs of the sub-group. A proposal to rephrase the objectives in order to make them more broadly understandable was presented and no feedback was received.
For instance, it was suggested to rephrase the objective “Explore the differences between metrics and midpoint calculations across different measurement approaches and the reasons for the current divergence.” to instead read “Explore the difference between metrics and calculation intermediaries across different measurement approaches and the reasons for the current divergence.”
Output #1: Language Mapping
Mentimeter was used to allow participants to provide feedback during the presentation: 12 definitions of key technical expressions were proposed, and participants could approve or reject them with either “yes”, “yes, with limited corrections” or “no”. These definitions can be found in the working paper.
One key dilemma is the need to stick to existing and well-established definitions (sourced from references such as the Natural Capital Protocol or ISO standards) while making them understandable in the context of the Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business (ABMB) project.
One exception to this general rule of using existing definitions applies to the two concepts specifically proposed by the sub-group as a common vocabulary: Input data and Calculation intermediaries (and to a lesser extent “Impacts on biodiversity”).
The sub-group chair noted that the source used for each definition should be made clear in the position papers and examples provided. However, the numerous comments by webinar participants on definitions showed the difficulty to stick to existing definitions, especially when two communities are using the same word with different meanings (e.g. “primary data”). A lot of time was spent on definitions, as participants did not fully agree on specific details. The current phrasing of the
“midpoint” definition (#1) may be interpreted as meaning that each cause-effect mechanism can have only one midpoint. It will be clarified that several midpoints can exist.
Definition #2 - Characterisation factor: Coefficients used in calculations (e.g. the Global Warming Potential of methane is a characterisation factor which allows to calculate how much kg CO2-eq. is worth a kg of methane).
It was suggested that the word “coefficient” may not be the most appropriate as it can imply a mathematical coefficient in an equation to solve, and that “characterisation factor” may be too general.
Subgroup 3A’s Primary and Secondary Data definitions (based on the ISO standard used by Life Cycle Assessments) were criticized, as they are “loaded terms” that could be understood differently by ecological survey specialists for instance. “User-provided data” was proposed to replace “Primary Data”.
It was suggested to clarify how terms relate to each other: for instance: primary, secondary and activity data are all inventory data.
About the “endpoint” definition, the words “ecosystem quality” were considered to be too broad and could be replaced by “biodiversity impact”. A proposition was also made to replace the pressure definition with the ISO 14050 one (which should be forwarded by Shane Sparg).
Table 1 was discussed briefly, and discussions about the content are still necessary offline.
EIA was found better to be replaced by “site-based impact assessments”.
Overall, most of the definitions and the language mapping require adjustments but sub-group members broadly agreed with the spirit of the position paper. Output #1 will thus be updated according to the feedback during the webinar and used for the position paper for the Brazil workshop.
Impacts persistent over time
The section on impacts persistent over time was skipped due to time constraint but deserves its own discussion.
Output #2: Differences between metrics
Due to time constraints, the focus of the discussion was on Table 7 on limitations of the different metrics. Feedback is welcome on Tables 4, 5, 6 and 8 through comments of the position paper
or other channels.
An error was noticed during the webinar: on Table 4 and Table 5, the LIFE Index should be added on the MSA line.
Currently, among natural capital assessment approaches, only Kering’s EP&L is included in the analysis of sub-group 3B (and other sub-groups). This is because only Kering’s EP&L has been included in the assessment conducted by Johan Lammerant, chair of sub-group 1, and thus data is available only for this approach. More natural capital assessment approaches could be analysed if they were included in Johan Lammerant’s assessment. This would also probably require to focus on specific company cases, and not on a theoretical “natural capital assessment” as this would be too broad and not informative enough.
Overall, only Table 5 and Table 7 were reviewed and participants did not reject them but required additional edits to them.
The other tables of Output #3A were not reviewed and require further validation from sub-group members.
Output #3B: Link between inventories of species and habitat and aggregated metrics approaches
Participants asked where would “response” appear in the Figure 9 (and in general in the position paper) and why was “habitat” used instead of “ecosystem types”. More thought will be put on the place of “response” (in the pressure, state, impact, response framework) in the position paper. Some approaches include response in the changes in pressures caused by actions from businesses (even though response measures will occur sooner than any impact on pressure and may be derived from third parties, not the company themselves), others do not consider pressure and response together and some specifically evaluate quality of response. The chair explained “habitat” was used to be in line with the Biological Diversity Protocol current version which distinguishes habitats and taxa but Figure 9 could easily be changed.
Figure 9 was broadly considered adequate, with the need to take into account the feedback made during the webinar.
Remaining open questions
Issues raised during the review of the position paper are listed at the end of the presentation used during the webinar. Some of them were addressed during the webinar but time was lacking to address all of them so feedback is also welcome on these questions.
