Working Paper for Sub-Group 2 on Scope, Boundaries and Baselines

(1)

Working Paper for Sub-Group 2 on Scope, Boundaries and Baselines

6 September 2019

Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business project

DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION

(2)

Introduction

This working paper is based on the output of the “Biodiversity Accounting Approaches for Business’

workshop held in Brussels on 26 - 27 March 2019. It was prepared by the chair of sub-group 2 as a draft for discussion on the various scope, boundary and baseline definitions for biodiversity measurement approaches currently in use globally.

Multiple measurement approaches exist to understand and quantify corporate dependence and impact on biodiversity at a global scale. Methodologies developed for these approaches are often context- specific with a particular goal and/or objective applicable to the business or industry in question.

The purpose of this sub-group is to determine how these existing methodologies define and apply scope, boundaries and baselines, and provide clarification on the similarities and differences between each approach. The sub-group will also consider how differences in the interpretation and use of scope, boundaries and baselines within each methodology are likely to lead to differences in outputs.

Note on References: The majority of the information provided in this draft working paper is taken from documents that discuss existing measurement approaches¹². For this reason, specific references are not provided in text and the reader is advised to see the original documents for greater context and appropriate referencing.

Sub-group objectives and expected outputs

The table below provides a list of objectives and associated outputs. These objectives were developed and refined after the Technical Workshop, held in Brussels on the 26 & 27 of March 2019.

Objectives Outputs

1. To determine how the following topics are treated within current biodiversity measurement approaches and the implications of these differences:

a. Scope b. Boundaries c. Baselines

Key Terms Document

Key terms identified with a crosswalk to facilitate a common understanding among developers on how their measurement

approaches are both different and/or the same as others.

2. To agree a common vocabulary for scope,

boundaries and baselines, identify common ground between measurement approaches and align with business applications

Areas of Convergence and Divergence Areas of convergence and divergence identified and documented, and implications addressed through common ground principles.

3. To agree proposed common ground principles which include:

a. Transparency (i.e. need to be explicit regarding what is included in the approach and what is not)

b. Appropriate (i.e. must reflect most significant impacts and dependencies)

c. Clarity (i.e. definitions that have not been agreed used)

Common Ground Principles

Criteria agreed for each principle and used to create a common understanding of scope, boundaries and baselines and how they should be addressed in a consistent manner.

Do we all agree with the objectives and envisaged outputs?

1 Lammerant et al. 2018. report for the Technical workshop on Biodiversity Accounting Approaches for Business.

2 Lammerant et al. 2018 report for the Critical Assessment of Biodiversity Accounting Approaches

(4)

Overview of sub-group discussion questions

Sub-group members are encouraged to review the following information on scope, boundaries and baselines and provide feedback on alignment and divergence of how these terms are defined and applied in different measurement approaches. With guidance from developers, the tables below will be completed to show how the terms scope, boundary and baseline are defined and used in the various approaches.

The goal of each webinar is to facilitate a conversation to further refine and understand current methodology use with respect to scope, boundaries and baselines. A series of questions have been developed to help facilitate this conversation and determine where further clarification may be needed.

Please consider the following:

• Review and discuss the different definitions of scope, boundaries and baselines and their implications for decision making:

• Are the terms scope, area of influence, direct and indirect impacts, boundaries and baseline consistently understood?

• How are these issues addressed within the different methodologies?

• What is the implication of any differences?

• What definitions do we need to agree on?

• With regards to organisational focus, does the scope 1-3 approach resonate?

• With regards to baselines, should they be set on a similar basis across methodologies? If so, which is most appropriate to adopt?

• With regards to boundaries, is there a need to reflect decisions around area of influence at site level into portfolio level approaches?

• What common ground principles could promote alignment?

Discussion Point 1: Scope

Definition

The following definition of scope was provided in the pre-read material for Workshop 1, held in Brussels earlier this year and provides context for the discussion on ‘Issue Focus’ and ‘Organisational Focus’

below:

• “the organisational focus of the assessment, including consideration of whether to include upstream and downstream impacts”.

Issue Focus

It is important to define the biodiversity focus of the measurement approach. Some measurement approaches focus on species only, and relatively few include ecosystem services. Ecosystem services can be addressed in two ways, i.e. either as elements of biodiversity on which the company relies upon (‘dependencies’) or as elements of biodiversity which are impacted by the company’s activities.

Ecosystem services are generally not included in the measurement approaches, apart from the approach by LIFE Institute, which considers impacts on ecosystem services as well as biodiversity.

Companies often struggle to place biodiversity within the context of natural capital. Therefore, clarity on the links between biodiversity accounting approaches and natural capital accounting is also important.

Consideration of dependencies, as well as impacts, in measurement approaches will be important to enable biodiversity to be integrated as part of a natural capital assessment.

There is a risk that differences in the biodiversity focus employed by different approaches might lead to similar businesses, products, or projects having very different results. These implications for businesses need to be understood.

(5)

Organisational Focus

According to the Natural Capital Protocol, organisational focus refers to the part of a business to be included in a natural capital assessment. The Protocol only considers 3 levels of organisational focus, namely: corporate³, project⁴ and product⁵.

‘Determining the organisational focus’ is the first action in Step 3 ‘Scope the assessment’ of the Natural Capital Protocol. The second action in Step 3 is to determine the value chain boundary or ‘scope’. The Protocol considers three major parts of the value chain: upstream⁶, direct operations⁷, and downstream⁸.

This aligns with the GHG Protocol’s three Scopes^9,which were adapted as follows, and are considered one of the options for defining scope (this will be discussed in the upcoming webinars):

• Scope 1 – all direct GHG emissions

• Scope 2 – indirect GHG emissions from consumption of purchased electricity, heat or steam

• Scope 3 – other indirect emissions (e.g., the extraction and production of purchased materials and fuels, waste disposal) materials and fuels, waste disposal)

This was represented by CDC Biodiversité in Figure 1 below in the context of biodiversity measurement approaches. However further clarity on the organisational focus and value chain boundary will be important to ensure consistency between different measurement approaches because existing biodiversity measurement approaches tend to mix up the separate scoping elements of the Natural Capital Protocol, i.e. organisational focus and value chain boundary. In terms of coverage of business applications throughout the value chain, all parts of the value chain are covered by one or more of the assessed approaches in the table below:

• 4 approaches cover a product level assessment;

• 2 approaches cover project level assessments, one of them limited to large scale projects;

• 3 approaches cover site level assessments;

• 4 approaches cover the supply chain;

• 6 approaches cover the corporate level;

• 7 approaches might be applicable by financial institutions.

Example: ASN Bank includes the biodiversity impacts in the value chains (scope 3) of the businesses the bank invests in. Including scope 3 means in the case of the sportswear brand that the impact of the production of the sportswear and the cotton in the sportswear is also included, even though ASN Bank does not directly invest in cotton production.

By taking this approach, the footprint result shows how the biodiversity impact hot spots relate to the different investments of the bank across the portfolio and where in the value chains linked to these investments the impact is highest and why. This allows the bank to decide on follow-up steps that are material to managing the bank’s (negative and positive) impacts, even when these impacts take place further up the supply chain.

3 Corporate: assessment of a corporation or group, including all subsidiaries, business units, divisions, different geographies or markets, etc. (NCP, 2016)

4 Project: assessment of a planned undertaking or initiative for a specific purpose, and including all related sites, activities, processes, and incidents. (NCP, 2016)

5 Product: assessment of particular goods and/or services, including the materials and services used in their production. (NCP, 2016)

6 Upstream (cradle-to-gate): covers the activities of suppliers, including purchased energy. (NCP, 2016)

7 Direct operations (gate-to-gate): covers activities over which the business has direct operational control, including majority owned subsidiaries (NCP, 2016)

8 Downstream (gate-to-grave): covers activities linked to the purchase, use, re-use, recovery, recycling, and final disposal of the business’ products and services (NCP, 2016)

9 WRI and WBCSD (2004) The Greenhouse Gas Protocol.

(6)

Figure 1. Infographic representing different scopes of impact from GHG Protocol perspective of emissions (Berger et al 2018) ¹⁰

Discussion Questions to Consider:

• Review and discuss the different definitions of issue and organisational focus and their implications for decision making:

• Is scope consistently understood?

• How is scope addressed within the different methodologies?

• What is the implication of any differences?

• What definitions do we need and can we agree on?

• With regards to organisational focus, does the GHG Protocol Scope 1-3 approach resonate (note that this is only one approach for defining scope)?

• How do the implications of scope change the outcomes when considering thematic scope (environment, biodiversity, ecosystem service etc.) or geographic scope?

• Are the GHG scopes an appropriate framework in the context of measuring impacts on biodiversity? If so, what would be the biodiversity equivalents for Scope 1, 2 and 3 be if we did use this framework? If we did not, what could replace them?

10 Infographic copied from Lammerant et al 2019 report (Technical Workshop on Biodiversity Accounting Approaches for Business).

(7)

Information on Scope – This table is intended to be completed by developers and will then feed into the development of the sub-group outputs.

11 Information adapted from Table 3 (Key features of assessed initiatives on biodiversity metrics for bsuiness) of the report Lammerant et al. 2018 (Assessment of Biodiversity Accounting Approaches for Business.

Metric Lead

Organisation

Focus (methodology, application and outcomes)¹¹

Definition of Scope from Brussels Workshop Pre- Read

Further details on Scope

Implications of Scope Definition and

Considerations for Use

Comments

Global Biodiversity Score

CDC Biodiversité • Applicable to all sectors (inclusive of financial institutions)

• Utilises mean species abundance (MSA) and its surface area equivalent, i.e., km² MSA

• Two-step process that quantifies pressures from specific economic pressures and estimates the impacts of these pressures (relying on GLOBIO model)

• Requires hybrid of real data and modelling data

Scope 1 + 2 + upstream 3

Biodiversity Impact Metric

Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL)

• For MNCs which sources raw materials globally

• Quantifiable measure to assess and track impact of a business’ land use activities on biodiversity (area focused)

• Measures impact of raw material production OR land use in global supply chains

• Utilises a hybrid of real data and modelling data

Scope 1

Biodiversity Indicators for Extractives

UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP- WCMC)

• Applicable to extractive industries

• Provides site level indicators which can be aggregated at the corporate level.

• 3-stage process to develop indicators (context specific)

• Utilises real data (use of modelled data being explored)

Direct, indirect and cumulative impacts with a 50km area of influence specified for initial screening.

Adjusted following validation with site managers.

(8)

Product Biodiversity Footprint

I Care Consultants &

Sayari

• Applicable for all industries

• Utilises potential disappeared fraction of species within a year, or PDF*yr

• Aim is to improve biodiversity performance of a product (through identification of hotspots)

• Utilises a hybrid of real data and modelling data

Not specified

Biodiversity Footprint for Financial Institutions

ASN Bank • Applicable for FI (all sectors of investment)

• Utilises metrics of Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF) = PDF.m².yr (for land) and PDF.m³.yr (for water). (The PDF.m².yr and PDF.m³.yr can be added up to a PDF.year or species/year score)

• Quantitative methodology consisting of 3 steps

• Utilises real data from Exiobase (calculating environmental footprinting) and dose-response modelling to (calculating biodiversity footprint of economic activities/companies). Does not require primary data from companies.

Scope 1 & Scope 3 Upstream

Biodiversity Return on Investment

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

• Applicable to all sectors, including financial institutions

• Metric based off of BRIM Ex-ante return on investment for a species, and/or for a site Composed of 1/ % of total population at site, 2/

Red List category weighting, 3/ relative contribution of each pressure (P x w x R)

• Measures change in extinction risk (at the species level) attributable to investment

• Tool is quantifiable and not based on expert opinion. Datasets utilised include range, habitats, threats etc.

• Uses real data and coefficients (no modelling)

Not specified

Agrobiodiversity Index

Biodiversity International

• Applicable to the agro-industry

• Utilises agrobiodiversity index (ABD). Index based on 33 indicators. Although only a few indicators relate to wild biodiversity, the index could be considered as a proxy indicator for wild biodiversity

Not specified

(9)

• Focus is on agricultural biodiversity at the genetic, species and landscape levels.

Considers biotic organisms directly or indirectly impacted for food and agriculture.

• Majority of metric relies of real data, some information is extrapolated through meta- analysis using the PREDICTS model (soil and/or pollinator diversity data)

Biodiversity Footprint Calculator

Plansup • Applicable for all sectors

• Metric calculated using MSA.ha (Mean species abundance per hectare)

• Online tool is free and used to assess current and future biodiversity footprints for a company’s product at the landscape level.

• Companies able to test the effectiveness of presumed biodiversity friendly measures.

• Tool calculates the biodiversity impact of a company’s supply chain, production process and transport that can be related to one or more products.

• Utilises modelled data

Not specified

LIFE Impact Index (Formerly Biodiversity Estimated Impact Value (BEIV))

LIFE Institute • Applicable to all sectors

• Metrics rely on MSA (Mean Species

Abundance), as part of a wider Natural Capital Impact Index

• Helps organisations identify their natural capital impacts and design strategic plans to reduce, mitigate and compensate for each.

• Method includes an approach to reduce impacts in the supply chain

• Can be utilised as an Environmental Management System or as a third-party certification scheme.

• Utilises a hybrid of real data and modelling data (estimates may be used if real data unavailable, but is considered unusual)

Scope 1 + 2 + 3

Bioscope Platform BEE • Applicable to all sectors

Scope 2 + 3

(10)

• Metric utilises Potential Disappeared Fraction (PDF) = PDF.m².yr (for land) and PDF.m³.yr (for water). PDF stands for Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species.

• Provides business with simple/fast indication of most important impacts their supply chain is having on biodiversity

• Results will help formulate meaningful actions to further assess and reduce their impact on business and biodiversity

• Indicates potential impact of commodity you purchase but include the upstream supply chain of the commodities in question

• Relies on modelling data [ADD METRIC

HERE]

[ADD METRIC HERE]

(11)

Discussion Point 2: Boundaries

In addition to determining the scope (i.e. organisational and issue focus), determining the boundaries of the assessment more broadly i.e. the extent of the impact considered is a key step for all measurement methodologies. A company’s impact will differ considerably depending on the boundaries drawn around its operations.

This is a particular issue for site-based methodologies for which interpretations of the area over which the company has influence could vary significantly. However, this is also true for company-level assessments as consistent boundaries around sectors will be important to ensure consistency of indicator application.

Area of Influence is defined in Annex 2 of the Brussels pre-read¹² as: “The area likely to be affected by:

• The project and the client’s activities and facilities that are directly owned, operated or managed (including by contractors) and that are a component of the project; (ii) impacts from unplanned but predictable developments caused by the project that may occur later or at a different location; or (iii) indirect project impacts on biodiversity or on ecosystem services upon which Affected Communities’ livelihoods are dependent.

• Associated facilities, which are facilities that are not funded as part of the project and that would not have been constructed or expanded if the project did not exist and without which the project would not be viable.

• Cumulative impacts that result from the incremental impact, on areas or resources used or directly impacted by the project, from other existing, planned or reasonably defined developments at the time the risks and impacts identification process is conducted.”

An estimation of the ‘area of influence’ may require consideration of, for example¹³:

• The physical footprint of the operating site

o i.e. the area in which the company is actively working, potentially giving rise to an impact;

• Area of direct influence

o i.e. area affected by project activities and facilities that are owned and managed by the company;

• Area of indirect influence

o i.e. the area affected by facilities that, although are not a part of the project that is being assessed by the environmental and social impact assessment, would not have been constructed in the absence of the project and the physical footprint of non-project activities in the surrounding area that are caused or stimulated by the project.

The area of influence around a site may range in size from a few square kilometres, to several tens of square kilometres. In establishing the area of influence, it will be important to understand how multiple players in the landscape may be impacting on biodiversity. Impacts may be indirect (e.g. from inward migration of workers to a mine site following economic opportunity), direct (e.g. conversion of habitat to mine ore) or cumulative. With a site’s area of influence incorporating direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, attribution of impacts to company activities, other companies, or local communities is often challenging.

12 Lammerant et al. 2018. report for the Technical workshop on Biodiversity Accounting Approaches for Business.

13Gullison, T. (2015) Good Practice Guidelines for the Collection of Biodiversity Baseline Data. Prepared for the Multilateral Financing Institutions Biodiversity Working Group and the Cross Sector Biodiversity Initiative

(12)

With the exception of primary business sectors (e.g. extractives, agriculture, forestry and fisheries) where direct impacts are immediately visible, awareness of business impacts and dependence on biodiversity is relatively low. As a result, indirect impacts of consumption and production on biodiversity (which may take place locally, regionally or globally and throughout the value chain) may be captured to differing extents within assessment methodologies.

The extent to which area of influence is incorporated within site-based biodiversity approaches for business and how different boundaries are reflected in portfolio-level approaches will be an important determinant of how well such different approaches can align to create an overall picture of corporate performance.

Discussion Questions to Consider:

• Review and discuss the different definitions of boundaries and implications for decision making:

o Are the terms area of influence, direct and indirect impacts, and boundaries consistently understood?

o How are these issues addressed within the different methodologies?

o What is the implication of any differences?

o What definitions do we need to agree on?

• How do measurement approaches determine how the Area of Influence is affected by each specific impact vector?

o Is a single aggregated polygon approach applied? If so, does it overestimate effects?

o E.g. air emission impact on biodiversity might have greater reach than the impact of noise.

• Is there a need to reflect decisions around area of influence at site level into portfolio level approaches?

(13)

Information on Boundaries – This table is intended to be completed by developers and will then feed into the development of the sub-group outputs.

Metric Lead Organisation Focus (methodology, application and outcomes) Definition of Boundaries Implications of Boundaries Definition and Considerations for Use

Comments

CDC Biodiversité • Applicable to all sectors (inclusive of financial institutions)

Requires hybrid of real data and modelling data

Cambridge Institute for Sustainability

Leadership (CISL)

Utilises a hybrid of real data and modelling data Biodiversity

Indicators for Extractives

UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)

Utilises real data (use of modelled data being explored)

I Care Consultants &

Sayari

• Aim is to improve biodiversity performance of a product (through identification of hotspots) Utilises a hybrid of real data and modelling data

Biodiversity Footprint for

(14)

Comments

Financial Institutions

• Quantitative methodology consisting of 3 steps Utilises real data from Exiobase (calculating environmental footprinting) and dose-response modelling to (calculating biodiversity footprint of economic activities/companies). Does not require primary data from companies.

International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

• Metric based off of BRIM Ex-ante return on

investment for a species, and/or for a site Composed of 1/ % of total population at site, 2/ Red List category weighting, 3/ relative contribution of each pressure (P x w x R)

• Tool is quantifiable and not based on expert opinion.

Datasets utilised include range, habitats, threats etc.

Uses real data and coefficients (no modelling)

Biodiversity International • Applicable to the agro-industry

• Utilises agrobiodiversity index (ABD). Index based on 33 indicators. Although only a few indicators relate to wild biodiversity, the index could be considered as a proxy indicator for wild biodiversity

• Focus is on agricultural biodiversity at the genetic, species and landscape levels. Considers biotic organisms directly or indirectly impacted for food and agriculture.

Majority of metric relies of real data, some information is extrapolated through meta-analysis using the

PREDICTS model (soil and/or pollinator diversity data)

(15)

Comments

Utilises modelled data

LIFE Impact Index (Formerly Biodiversity Estimated Impact Value (BEIV))

• Metrics rely on MSA (Mean Species Abundance), as part of a wider Natural Capital Impact Index

Utilises a hybrid of real data and modelling data (estimates may be used if real data unavailable, but is considered unusual)

• Metric utilises Potential Disappeared Fraction (PDF)

= PDF.m².yr (for land) and PDF.m³.yr (for water).

PDF stands for Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species.

(16)

Comments

• Indicates potential impact of commodity you purchase but include the upstream supply chain of the

commodities in question Relies on modelling data

(17)

Discussion Point 3: Baselines

A baseline or frame of reference against which measurement approaches can track progress fundamentally affect the results derived from the application of the measurement approach. For example, there is evidence that the frame of reference set can alter whether targets such as those on No Net Loss are met even under identical conditions¹⁴.

Baselines can be set as a pristine state, the state prior to the implementation of the project, or the current state of biodiversity. Alternatively, a counterfactual scenario might be used in which impacts are described relative to a plausible alternative state that would occur if the project did not exist.

Inconsistencies in applying baselines within a company or sector makes comparisons between the results of different measurement methodologies challenging. Therefore, a transparent mechanism for selecting appropriate baselines is key in achieving greater consistency between approaches.

Understanding the different approaches used for baselines across measurement approaches, how well aligned they are and their implications for decision making will be important to enable determination of common ground principles used in the different biodiversity measurement approaches.

Figure 2 provides a visual representation of how different results for biodiversity value might occur over time depending on the frame of reference that is initially determined. For example, Bull et al. (2014) highlighted that No Net Loss of biodiversity (NNL) is dependent on the interaction of two factors: a) the reference frame initially determined and b) the background diversity trends. Focused on offsets, the study determined that achieving NNL was less likely when biodiversity was decreasing. If, however, biodiversity trends were considered stable or increasing, then offsets were more likely to reach the target of NNL. Highlighting the importance of baselines, this study shows the need for a standardised approach in determining baselines. In doing so, it will allow consistency and comparison of results generated from the various biodiversity measurement approaches

Figure 2. Infographic detailing differences between a baseline vs counterfactual frame of reference. NNL = no net loss biodiversity. (Amrei von Hase and Erin Parham BBOP 15 Conference, Paris 27 & 29 November 2018) ¹⁵ Discussion Questions to Consider:

14 Bull, J.W. et al (2014) Importance of Baseline Specification in Evaluating Conservation Interventions and Achieving No Net Loss of Biodiversity. Conservation Biology 28(3) 799-809

15 Infographic copied from Lammerant et al 2019 report (Technical Workshop on Biodiversity Accounting Approaches for Business).

(18)

• Review and discuss the different definitions of baselines and implications for decision making:

o Is the term baseline consistently understood?

o How is it addressed within the different methodologies?

o What is the implication of any differences?

o What definitions do we need to agree on?

• Should baselines be set on a similar basis across methodologies? If so, which is most appropriate to adopt?

(19)

Information on Baselines – This table is intended to be completed by developers and will then feed into the development of the sub-group outputs.

Metric Lead

Organisation

Focus (methodology, application and outcomes)

Definition of Baseline from Brussels Workshop Pre-Read

Further details on Baseline

Implications of Baseline Definition and Considerations for Use

Comments

CDC Biodiversité

• Applicable to all sectors (inclusive of financial institutions)

Requires hybrid of real data and modelling data

Not specified

Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL)

Utilises a hybrid of real data and modelling data

Not specified

Biodiversity Indicators for Extractives

UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP- WCMC)

Utilises real data (use of modelled data being explored)

Pre-project baseline specified aligned with EIA regulations.

I Care Consultants

& Sayari

Not specified

(20)

Metric Lead Organisation

Comments

• Aim is to improve biodiversity performance of a product (through identification of hotspots)

Utilises a hybrid of real data and modelling data

Biodiversity Footprint for Financial Institutions

• Quantitative methodology consisting of 3 steps

Utilises real data from Exiobase (calculating environmental footprinting) and dose-response modelling to (calculating biodiversity footprint of economic activities/companies). Does not require primary data from companies.

Not specified

International Union on the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

• Metric based off of BRIM Ex-ante return on investment for a species, and/or for a site Composed of 1/ % of total population at site, 2/ Red List category weighting, 3/

relative contribution of each pressure (P x w x R)

• Tool is quantifiable and not based on expert opinion. Datasets utilised include range, habitats, threats etc.

Uses real data and coefficients (no modelling)

Multiple including current state baseline and pre-project state baseline.

Biodiversity International

• Applicable to the agro-industry

• Utilises agrobiodiversity index (ABD). Index based on 33 indicators. Although only a few

Current state baseline

(21)

Comments

indicators relate to wild biodiversity, the index could be considered as a proxy indicator for wild biodiversity

• Focus is on agricultural biodiversity at the genetic, species and landscape levels.

Considers biotic organisms directly or indirectly impacted for food and agriculture.

Majority of metric relies of real data, some information is extrapolated through meta- analysis using the PREDICTS model (soil and/or pollinator diversity data)

Utilises modelled data

Current footprint baseline

LIFE Impact Index

• Metrics rely on MSA (Mean Species Abundance), as part of a wider Natural Capital Impact Index

Counterfactual – Business as usual

(22)

Comments

Utilises a hybrid of real data and modelling data (estimates may be used if real data unavailable, but is considered unusual)

• Metric utilises Potential Disappeared Fraction (PDF) = PDF.m².yr (for land) and PDF.m³.yr (for water). PDF stands for Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species.

• Indicates potential impact of commodity you purchase but include the upstream supply chain of the commodities in question Relies on modelling data

Not specified

•

Working Paper for Sub-Group 2 on Scope, Boundaries and Baselines