Minutes from sub-group 3B webinar on metrics and midpoint characterization factors
11 July 2019
Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business project
Attendees:
Julie Dimitrijevic, Matt Jones and Annelisa Grigg (UNEP-WCMC), Alexandra Marques (European Commission), Jihae Kwon, Laure Berling and Philip Audebert (FAO), Eliette Verdier, Joshua Berger and Rose Choukroun (CDC Biodiversité), Leonardo Viana (Conservation International), Malcolm Starkey (Biodiversity Consultancy), Anne Malecot (AFD), Marion Hammerl (Global Nature Fund), Shane Sparg (BirdLife International), Joel Houdet (Biodiversity Disclosure Project), Rosie Dunscumbe (NCC), Ana Deligny (FRB) Minutes:
UNEP-WCMC began the webinar with a reminder of the context and objectives of the Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business project, and an overview of the sub-groups. CDC Biodiversité, who is chairing sub-group 3B on metrics and midpoint characterization factors, then presented the objectives and expected outputs of the sub-group.
The objectives of this first webinar were to review the sub-group 3B working paper (providing feedback for this to develop into a position paper for the Brazil workshop) and build consensus on three outputs: the analysis of the difference between metrics, the language mapping and the exploration of linkages between metrics and midpoint characterisation factors. These minutes focus on the discussions and decisions taken. Please refer to the presentation slides for more details on the content presented during the webinar.
Introduction to the subgroup: Metrics and midpoint characterisation factors
Participants had a relatively good understanding of the goals of the webinar, as illustrated by their answers to the question asked through Mentimeter:
Exploring the reasons behind different metrics
Identifying the best metric
Exploring bridges (conversion factors) between metrics
Exploring complementarity between site level and footprinting metrics Assessing
which impact factors are the best
Regarding objective 3 of the sub-group (“Identify how to disaggregate footprinting metrics and aggregate site level metrics, creating complementarity between the two”), it was commented that the split was not necessarily between footprinting metric approaches and site level approachesbut rather between site level (direct measurement) and default/modelled data.
More thoughts will be put in framing this issue.
Proposed output 1: Analysis of differences between metrics and midpoint calculations and reason for divergence
Tables 4-7 in the working paper, on the differences between metrics, are not yet comprehensively filled and require feedback from initiative developers. The tools and approaches assessed are the ones included in the EU B@B platform survey, which does not aimto cover or reflect all existing approaches. In particular, only the Environmental Profit &
Loss (EP&L) account from Kering is included among natural capital approaches. Although the EP&L provides an economic valuation of the biodiversity components of natural capital, valuation is not standard practice in other natural capital approaches.
An independent review of tools and metrics currently carried out by theFrench Foundation for Research on Biodiversity (FRB) should feed into the differences section of the working paper.
A workshop on impact assessment tools and impact indicators will be organised by FRB in October 2019, in France.
Proposed output 2: Language mapping
▪ Midpoints & Endpoints
Participants indicated varied levels of understanding of “midpoint”, as highlighted by the answers below:
The concepts of “midpoint” and “endpoint” are used in the context of Life Cycle Assessments (LCA). They are particularly relevant for approaches using pressure-impact relationships.
No idea!
Intermediaries between physical measures and biodiversity impacts
Element in a cause- effect chain between inventory data and endpoint
Definitions for these concepts were discussed and will be added to the final SG3 position paper.
▪ Indicator, measure, metric and unit
Definitions from sub-group 3A’s working paper were also shown: indicator, measure, metric and unit. Participants were asked for their approval of the proposed definitions. Although they agreed on average (3.5/5 with most people with 5 = Strongly agree, and the distribution of answers being mostly in strong agreement with the definition, but a few participants strongly disagreeing), no consensus was reached. Further feedback on the definitions is therefore welcome before they are added to the final SG3 position paper.
Participants suggested to map the concepts of “midpoint” and “endpoint” with the following steps of the Natural Capital Protocol: step 5 on measuring impact drivers, step 6 on measuring changes in the state of natural capital, and step 7 on valuing impacts.
▪ Accounting for impact persistency
Several participants indicated that they were unfamiliar with the concept of “time integration”, as highlighted by the answers below.
Time integration is about taking into account the impacts of long-lasting pressures over time.
For example, heavy metals emitted in the environment in 2019 will continue to impact the environment for hundreds of years.
The two main approaches used by pressure-based tools are described in the working paper.
Participants asked how accounting for impacts of long-lasting pressures over time related to monitoring the state of biodiversity over time (and potentially comparing its evolution to a counterfactual scenario) in Environmental Impact Assessments or equivalents (e.g. in BBOP).
It was suggested to explore and clarify the relationship between the two.
A participant asked whether it was relevant to use discount factors to capture the persistence effect. CDC Biodiversité answered that a simple discount factor was not accurate enough and that the general idea was instead to use more accurate models of how pressures impact biodiversity through impulse response functions, and then use the shape of these impulse response functions to capture the persistence (as illustrated in Figure 6 of the working paper).
The following assertion was proposed to participants: “SG3B recognizes the importance to take into account the persistence of impacts over time and the need for each measurement approach to clarify how it currently deals with the issue.” Most participants agreed with the proposal but a few disagreed, as highlighted below (average rating of 3.5/5).
Time travel? Taking into account impacts over time
Comparing impacts to a reference period
Output 3: Bridges between metrics and common midpoints
Technical bridges between midpoints and metrics are the subject of the next webinar. This webinar provided an introduction to the topic and touched upon the links between midpoint- based approaches and direct measurement approaches.
The following assertion was proposed to participants: “SG3B agrees to promote the choice and use of common midpoints between measurement approaches, to facilitate indirect conversions between metrics.” There was no clear consensus among participants (average rating of 3.3/5) on the proposal at this stage.
Next steps
➢ Sub-group 3B members to provide further feedback on the working paper following the webinar. The final deadline to comment and propose changes is end of August.
Additional feedback is welcome to improve the current analyses of the working paper, which still lacked some elements due to time and knowledge constraint.
➢ Sub-group 3B members to complete the Doodle poll for the next two webinar in July and September: https://doodle.com/poll/zqzbfypt5zi2qiyb
