SUB GROUP 1 ON BUSINESS APPLICATIONS &
TARGETS - WEBINAR 1
Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business initiative
6 September 2019
Objectives Outputs To agree a typology of business applications and
targets relevant for selecting an appropriate biodiversity measurement approach
Agreed typology of business applications and targets as a basis to enable companies to navigate through various measurement approaches and understand how they might be of benefit
To map measurement approaches to the business applications and targets
Matrix indicating which business applications are supported by which tools (based on input from tool developers)
To develop a first outline of a navigator/ decision tree supporting users to select the right tools, i.e.
those that fit best to their specific needs
First outline of a decision tree.
Short section in this paper outlining which measurement approaches could be used to address which business application and targets with a decision tree, illustrative case studies and key definitions (simple, business focused communication material). This work will be linked and aligned with the Natural Capital Protocol supplementary guidance on biodiversity.
To create a convincing narrative on the business case for application of different biodiversity measurement approaches
Short narrative, illustrated with simple but convincing examples
To identify common ground principles List of common ground principles related to the use of the concepts ‘business application’, ‘and targets in biodiversity measurement approaches for business’
To agree a common vocabulary of relevant terms Glossary of terms and definitions, aligned with terms and definitions defined in other sub-groups
Objectives of Subgroup
Agree with objectives and envisaged outputs?
© Arcadis 2019
Business applications (BAs) Explanation
BA 1: Assessment of current biodiversity performance
This is a very common BA. A company might do this just to demonstrate that it’s doing well in terms of biodiversity performance, or simply to know its current level of performance. It could be part of BA 3 (tracking progress to targets), 4 (comparing options) or 7 (assessing risks and/or opportunities).
BA 2: Assessment of future biodiversity performance
A company might be interested in assessing future biodiversity performance as a result of, for instance positive impact actions (e.g. restoration actions and/or actions that reduce pressures on biodiversity) or changes in its activities.
BA 3: Tracking progress to targets
Companies that have set targets on biodiversity performance will need to track progress periodically. There are many categories of targets and the current list (see Table 2 and points 3.1 to 3.9 in the matrix in Annex 2) covers the main categories.
BA 4: Comparing options A company might want to compare the impact of different options on biodiversity. This BA can inform different levels of decision.
BA 5: Biodiversity Return on Investment / Testing effectiveness of reduction measures
This category goes beyond ‘comparing options’ as it includes an explicit ‘Return on investment’ focus (or Cost benefit analysis) which addresses both biodiversity return and economic return. Companies aiming for improving biodiversity performance can take measures to actively increase biodiversity (e.g. investments in biodiversity conservation or restoration) and/or measures to reduce pressures (i.e. in a project context often denominated as mitigation measures). It is worth measuring the situation without and with measures (ex-ante or ex-post).
This category includes‘capturing opportunities’.
BA 6: Assessment / rating of biodiversity performance by third parties, using external data
Third party assessment based on biodiversity criteria and fed with external data (in to the absence of company data). This can be applied to compare company biodiversity performance across a sector.
BA 7: Certification by third parties
Third party certification based on auditing of a clearly established methodological approach.
BA 8: Screening and
assessment of biodiversity risks and opportunities
Accounting approaches can be used, for instance in case of due diligence assessments as part of mergers and acquisitions, or assessment undertaken by investors to differentiate between investment options, either based on the biodiversity performance or return on investment of different companies. This might also be undertaken by lenders to assess biodiversity risk and inform pricing credit.
This application often, but not always, overlaps with BA 4.
Business applications
Target/ Goal
Aichi targets and post 2020 biodiversity targets Sustainable Development Goals
Planetary Boundaries No net loss/ net gain ISO 14001, EMAS
Voluntary standards at sector level or product level
Voluntary biodiversity assessment and reporting frameworks Voluntary biodiversity agreements
Regulatory and permitting requirements Lender requirements
Site to landscape level commitments
Specific corporate-level biodiversity commitments or engagements
Targets
© Arcadis 2019
Topic Findings
Consistency of feedback
Not all tool developers have completed the matrix in the same way (e.g. scoring of coverage of BA for organisational focus areas), although this has improved a lot after a second request.
Some tool developers tend to be more flexible in indicating which BA and/or focus areas are covered by their tool than others. Therefore, it is very important to have evidence (case studies).
Some tool developers are more extensive in terms of clarification than others.
BA Typology Overall, the proposed typology has proved to work. No tool developer has commented on it.
However, although not explicitly noted by tool developers, a few adaptations to the BA typology might be considered:
All BA are covered by one or more tools, although BA 6, 7 and 8 are covered by less tools than other BA. Also, within BA 3 ‘tracking progress to targets’ there is quite some difference (see topic ‘targets’ below)
Organisational focus
The 6 different organisational focus areas are well understood by tool developers
Site/project, supply chain and corporate are most covered by tools throughout the different BA
Targets All targets under BA 3 are covered by one or more biodiversity tools, although Planetary Boundaries, environmental management systems, regulatory requirements, landscape level commitments are covered to a lesser extent
Some tools only cover targets in a qualitative way. This has for instance been indicated as such for the LIFE methodology (‘Qual’) but this quotation should probably also apply to some other tools (e.g. ABD Index?). This is the case for tools which are partly based on checklists.
Case studies There seems to be an increasing number of case studies. The LIFE methodology by far has the largest number of concrete applications by businesses. GBS, PBF and probably BIM have a growing number of case studies. BFFI has been applied for 4 years on one case. BD Protocol is developing first test cases. ABD Index and STAR don’t refer to case studies.
Case studies cover product (PBF), site/project (PBF, BD Protocol, GBS and mainly LIFE), supply chain (PBF, GBS, LIFE and mainly BIM), corporate (GBS, LIFE), portfolio (GBS, BFFI). No case studies are reported for public policy.
Case studies mainly cover BA 1 and BA 2.
Feedback from tool developers
o It would be useful to add a specific BA on biodiversity accounting. See the definition of natural capital accounting compared to the definition of natural capital assessment in Annex 1 (Glossary).
o In line with these definitions, biodiversity accounting is the process of compiling consistent, comparable and regularly produced data using an accounting approach on biodiversity and the flow of services generated in physical and monetary terms. The majority of applications are done at a national level and by the public sector. Natural capital accounts are a possible output from a natural capital assessment, and this also applies to biodiversity.
o The Biological Diversity Protocol and Kering’s E P&L are both tools that explicitly support this specific BA (although to a different extent) and therefore it’s relevant to make it a separate BA.
Agree?
Proposed adaptations to typology of BA
© Arcadis 2019
o It might be more logical to integrate BA 5 ‘Biodiversity Return on Investment / Testing effectiveness of reduction measures’ into BA 4 ‘Comparing options’, for the simple reason that 1/ BA 5 is always comparing options (it is inherent to the methodology) and 2/ comparing options will always include both a biodiversity component and an economic component. The fact that IUCN’s STAR approach explicitly includes an economic component doesn’t justify a separate BA, as it is relatively easy to add an economic component to all biodiversity tools that cover BA 4.
Agree?
Proposed adaptations to typology of BA
To be covered in next webinar, but…
More factors than only BA, targets and organizational focus will determine the selection of an appropriate tool, such as:
Sector scope
Impact drivers
Dependencies (ecosystem services)
Valuation approach
Proposed matrix to be completed by SG1 leader and validated by tool developers.
Decision tree
Agree?
© Arcadis 2019
Relevant: approaches should be relevant to the business application and to the material biodiversity impacts caused by the company and should be clear on the application they support as well as the impacts they cover’
Target focused: approaches should be considered as supportive tools to facilitate business applications in the field of biodiversity, not a goal on its own
Simple and convincing: approaches should be readily communicable to the private sector
Opportunity focused: approaches should be designed to incorporate positive impacts of companies as well as negative impacts
Transparent: approaches should have no black boxes and the methodology should be transparent with, for example, confidence margins explained
Consistent: different approaches applied to same case should be consistent in outcomes
Complementarity: a decision tree allowing user to select the most suitable approaches for their specific context and application, should be available as ‘open source’ and should be continuously kept up to date
Multiple use : if necessary, different approaches might be applied by one company for supporting different BA
Agree? Any additional?
Common ground principles
Business application for biodiversity measurement: the intended use of the results of a company’s
biodiversity measurement, to help inform decision making (this definition is based on the Protocol’s definition of business application)
Biodiversity target: the objectives relating to what the business wants to achieve in relation to the
management of biodiversity; these objectives could be voluntary or regulatory, and qualitative or quantitative.
(own definition)
Biodiversity impact: The negative or positive change in the state of biodiversity, as a result of business activity (slightly deviating from proposed definition in SG3A, but now more in line with NCP)
Which is the most suitable common denominator for the biodiversity measurement approaches which are analyzed here? Are we talking indeed about measurement approaches? Can we talk about tools? Anyway,
from now on, we need to be consistent.
Definitions
© Arcadis 2019
