Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business
Sub-Group 2 – Webinar 1
Scope, Boundaries & Baselines
Chaired by UNEP-WCMC
Agenda
1. Project overview (5 mins)
2. Sub-group overview, objectives
& outputs (10 mins)
1. Discussion Point 1 – Scope (20 mins)
2. Discussion Point 2 – Boundaries (20 mins) 3. Discussion Point 3 – Baselines (20 mins)
4. Next Steps and Discussion (15 mins)
The landscape of biodiversity measurement approaches
From CDC Biodiversite (2019)
Aim
• To form a common view among key stakeholders on the measurement,
monitoring and disclosure of corporate biodiversity impact and dependence
• To build on this to help integrate more credible and comprehensive
measurement approaches of corporate contribution to global biodiversity goals into corporate reporting and global policy frameworks
Outcome
• A unified foundation for development and use of corporate biodiversity
performance indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of the management of impacts and dependence and address international goals
Work conducted with the generous support of:
Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business
Webinar objectives:
1. Facilitate a conversation to further understand how scope, boundaries and baselines are treated and defined within current biodiversity measurement approaches.
2. Consider how differences in the interpretation and use of scope, boundaries and baselines within each methodology are likely to lead to differences in outputs
Expected outputs include:
Agreement on the sub-group objectives and outputs
Input on areas where the working paper can be strengthened
Comments on working paper to follow webinar (September 9 – 13)
SG2: Scope, boundaries and baselines
Sub-group objectives & outputs
Does the SG agree with
these objectives/
outputs?
Scope
The following definition of scope was provided in the pre-read material for Workshop 1 (Brussels, March 2019) & provides context for the discussion on ‘Issue Focus’ and
‘Organisational Focus’ :
“the organisational focus of the assessment, including consideration of whether to include upstream and downstream impacts”.
Scope
Issue Focus:
• Considers the methodologies biodiversity focus
• Most methods consider species but few consider ecosystem services
o e.g. elements of biodiversity that companies rely on (i.e. dependencies) OR o e. g elements of biodiversity which are impacted by company activities
• Goal = clarify links between biodiversity accounting approaches & natural capital accounting
Scope
Organisational Focus:
• Natural Capital Coalition (NCC) defines as the ‘part of a business to be included in a natural capital assessment’
o Includes only 3 levels = corporate, project and product
o This is the first step in Step 3 of NCC which is to ‘Scope the Assessment’ (of the NCP)
• Natural Capital Protocol considers 3 parts of the value chain o Upstream, direct operations & downstream
GHG Protocols Three Scopes
Adapted definitions are below and are one of the options up for discussion for defining scope:
Infographic representing different scopes of impact from GHG Protocol perspective of emissions (Berger et al 2018)
Scope 1 – all direct GHG emissions:
Scope 2 – indirect GHG emissions from c
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
Scope – Extract from Working Paper
The following discussion questions and comments on the working paper will facilitate completion of this table.
Scope – Discussion Questions
1. Is scope consistently understood?
2. How is scope addressed within the different methodologies? What are the implications of differences in the definitions used?
3. How do outcomes change when considering thematic scope (environment, biodiversity, ecosystem service etc.) or geographic scope?
4. What definitions do we need, and can we agree on?
5. With regards to organisational focus, does the GHG Protocol Scope 1-3
approach resonate (note that this is only one approach for defining scope)?
6. Are the GHG scopes an appropriate framework in the context of measuring
impacts on biodiversity? If yes, what are biodiversity equivalents for Scope 1, 2 and 3? If not, what could replace them?
Boundaries
The extent of impact is a key step for all measurement methodologies. A company’s impact differs depending on boundaries drawn around operations.
• Issue for site-based methodologies as interpretations of area a company has influence can vary significantly
• Relevant at company-level assessments as consistent boundaries will ensure consistent indicator application
Boundaries
Area of Influence is defined 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.”
Boundaries
Area of Influence can be estimated by:
• The physical footprint of the operating site
i.e. the area in which the company is actively working, potentially giving rise to an impact;
• Area of direct influence
i.e. area affected by project activities & facilities that are owned/managed by the company;
• Area of indirect influence
i.e. 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.
Boundaries
Considerations for ‘Area of Influence’:
• May range in size (i.e. few kilometres to several tens of square kilometres)
o It is important to understand how multiple players in the landscape may be impacting on biodiversity
• May change whether or not impacts are direct, indirect or cumulative
oFor companies it is often difficult to incorporate direct, indirect and cumulative impacts
oIt is hard to determine attribution of impacts to company activities, other companies or local communities
• Unless the effects of business are directly visible (e.g. extractives, agriculture, forestry
& fisheries), awareness of business impacts and dependencies on biodiversity is relatively low.
Boundaries – Extract from Working Paper
The following discussion questions and comments on the working paper will facilitate completion of this table.
Boundaries – Discussion Questions
1. Review and discuss the definitions of boundaries decision making implications:
a) How are boundary issues addressed within the different methodologies?
What are the implications of any differences?
b) What definitions do we need to agree on?
2. How do measurement approaches to determine how the Area of Influence is affected by each specific impact vector?
a) Is a single aggregated polygon approach applied? If so, does it overestimate effects? e.g. air emission impact on biodiversity might have greater reach
than the impact of noise.
3. Is there a need to reflect decisions around area of influence at site level into portfolio level approaches?
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.
• Baselines can be set as a pristine state, the state prior to the implementation of the project, or the current state of biodiversity
• Inconsistencies in applying baselines within a company or sector makes comparisons between the results of different measurement methodologies challenging.
• There is a need for transparent mechanisms for selecting appropriate baselines to achieve consistency among approaches.
Baselines
Understanding how the different approaches assign their baselines and how well aligned they are is important when determining common ground principles used between the various methodologies.
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)
Baselines – Extract from Working Paper
The following discussion questions and comments on the working paper will facilitate completion of this table.
Baselines – Discussion Questions
Review and discuss the different definitions of baselines and implications for decision making:
1. Is the term baseline consistently understood?
2. How is it addressed within the different methodologies?
3. What is the implication of any differences?
4. 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?
Next Steps and Discussion
1. Provide feedback in working paper document (after webinar 1) September 9 - 13
2. Attend Webinar 2 (review of final tables in working paper, further define scope etc.)
September 24
3. Provide feedback in working paper document (after webinar 2, based off discussion) September 30 – October 4
4. Attend Brazil workshop
Remote access likely (pending on costs and available funds)
