How to conduct a Biodiversity Footprint Assessment with the Global
Biodiversity Score
March 2019
Content
1 Foreword ... 3
2 Objectives of a GBS-based Assessment ... 3
3 Leading a GBS Assessment ... 4
4 Steps of a GBS-based Assessment ... 4
4.1 Main steps of a GBS-based Assessment ... 4
4.2 Detailed proceedings of a GBS-based assessment . 5 4.3 List of deliverables ... 7
4.4 Biodiversity Footprint Assessment report generic content ... 8
5 Quality assurance ... 11
6 Relationships between stakeholders ... 11
6.1 Project Owner Obligations ... 11
6.2 Service Provider Obligations ... 11
A Competencies ... 11
B Position of the Service Provider ... 12
C Behaviour ... 12
7 Bibliography/appendix ... 12
1 Foreword
This document is a practical guide describing how the Global Biodiversity Score (GBS), a tool developed by CDC Biodiversité, should be used in a Biodiversity Footprint Assessment of a company or a portfolio. It includes a description of the objectives of the use of the tool, the associated deliverables and their basic mandatory content, as well as how a biodiversity footprint assessment based on the GBS should be led.
This document aligns as much as possible with the Natural Capital Protocol, the Biological Diversity Protocol and UNEP-WCMC recommendations on Biodiversity Indicators (see How-To Guide for Phase 3 Piloting).
This document is set to be used whether:
- by assessors from consultancies
- by corporate environmental staff of companies
2 Objectives of a GBS-based Assessment
Leading a Biodiversity Footprint Assessment based on the Global Biodiversity Score aims at assessing the footprint of biodiversity generated directly and indirectly by the activities of the company all along its value chain, i.e. whether these impacts take place on the company’s sites or on its suppliers’ or clients’ and happen upstream or downstream.
The general objectives of a GBS-based assessment are thus:
- To assess quantitatively the footprint on biodiversity generated by the activity of the company and to assess the contribution of the company to global biodiversity erosion;
- To qualify the different types of pressures on biodiversity according to the different activities and sources;
- To provide elements for a short-term and a mid-term action plan to reduce the footprint on biodiversity and alleviate the contribution of the company to biodiversity erosion
- To anticipate future mandatory biodiversity footprint disclosure in France and in the European Union (action 30 of the French National Biodiversity Plan, post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda)
The results of the GBS study should be associated with the global environmental policy of the company, so that local as well as global approach of biodiversity appear coherent.
Quantitatively assessing the ecosystemic dependencies of the value chain of the company is not an objective of such biodiversity footprint assessments. A complementary study using additional tools must be led to obtain such results.
The principles that should lead a GBS-based assessment are (according to Natural Capital Coalition 2016): Relevance, rigor, replicability, consistency
3 Leading a GBS Assessment
A GBS-based assessment can be led by several organisms, depending on the available time, capacities and strategical choices:
- The company itself
- A service-provider, instructed by the company
- A non-financial rating agency (case not covered by this document)
The GBS tool allows to draw a macro-analysis of the footprint on biodiversity of the company, but it does not assess the footprint at the micro-level. That is why a GBS-based biodiversity assessment needs to include, in addition to the GBS calculations, elements on site-level biodiversity management. Although the GBS includes ecological integrity assessment, it does not take into account the risk of extinction of species nor the presence of exceptional species.
Although the GBS allows to get a global overview of the footprint on biodiversity of the company, it must not be used without detailed elements on per-site biodiversity management policy.
The relevance of the assessment will depend on:
- The inclusion of direct operations and value chain footprint on biodiversity - The consistency and transparency on data and methodology used
- The appropriate quality assurance complete disclosure of results
4 Steps of a GBS-based Assessment
4.1 Main steps of a GBS-based Assessment
In coherence with the methodology presented in the Common Ground in Biodiversity Footprint Methodologies for the Financial Sector(CDC Biodiversité, ASN Bank, et ACTIAM 2018),the main steps of a GBS-based assessment are indicated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Conducting a GBS-based biodiversity footprint analysis and use of the results Step 1
Perimeter/focus of the assessment
Step 2 Analysis of
pressures
Step 3 Assessment of
impacts Step 4
Interpretation of footprint results Step 5
Comparison to references
Step 6 Influence the company's policy Footprint analysis
Use of the results
4.2 Detailed proceedings of a GBS-based assessment
In Figure 2, detailed sub-steps are indicated. They are detailed below
1. Perimeter/Focus of the assessment
1.1. Define the perimeters and Scopes of the assessment
Perimeters’ definition of the assessment is in accordance notably with the GHG Protocol perimeters’ framework. The different components are detailed below.
The service provider should assist the project owner in the definition of the perimeter of the assessment. It is highly recommended that the service provider leads a preliminary study to better understand the project owner company and the context of the project. He defines the type and format of data to collect.
a. Perimeters
i. Organisational/operational/ownership:
ii. Geographical: the physical boundaries of the assessment iii. Temporal
b. Scopes: direct operations, value chain (upstream as well as downstream) c. Hierarchy structure
i. “Site” definition
ii. Dimensioning and attribution 1.2. Screening
This step consists in identifying primarily what are the main sources of biodiversity footprint within the value chain of the company.
Figure 2 - Detailed steps of a GBS-based biodiversity footprint assessment
1.2.1. “Ecological integrity” screening: financial default assessment on the value chain of the company, to identify the most impactful steps within value production
iii. Based on default data: turnover split per region and sector
1.2.2. “Risk of extinction” screening: screening of endangered species, protected areas, critical habitat, etc. around sites of the company (as recommended in the UNEP- WCMC report on extractives biodiversity indicators (UNEP-WCMC 2019))
1.2.2.1. Screening of sites against the presence of threatened species (IUCN Red List for example)
IBAT1 screening report, final list of all sites categorized by potential biodiversity sensitivity 1.2.2.2. Overlap with areas identified as likely or potential critical habitat
1.2.2.3. Overlap with national-level protected areas, or under regional or international conventions or agreements (Ramsar, World Heritage Sites, …)
It could for example look like this (from the UNEP-WCMC report):
2. Analysis of pressures
Best-available data collection. Please report to the Data collection guidelines for more details on this part.
According to the results of the screenings, data collection must be led in order to collect data on an average of 80% of the MSA.km² true impacts of the company.
2.1. Ecological Data
If comprehensive ecological surveys available per site, then the GBS computation is possible directly.
_________________
1 Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool for Research and Conservation Planning: “innovative tool designed to facilitate access to a range of global and national data layers, such as protected area boundaries, biological information about habitat and species diversity indices, and key areas for biodiversity, which can be useful for research and conservation planning purposes. The tool is the result of a ground- breaking conservation partnership among BirdLife International, Conservation International, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre and is made possible by a diverse set of data providers, users and funders in government, business and civil society from over 200 countries and territories.” (https://www.ipbes.net/policy-support/tools- instruments/integrated-biodiversity-assessment-tool-ibat-research-conservation)
Figure 3 - IBAT Report Output - Source: Biodiversity Indicators for Extractives, How-To Guide for Phase 3 Piloting, UNEP-WCMC
2.2. Pressures Data
2.2.1. Terrestrial Pressures 2.2.2. Aquatic Pressures 2.3. Inventory Data
2.4. Qualitative data collection
Interviews and literature (according to the objectives of the BFA).
Labels and certifications on inventories, when not taken into account in the quantitative data collection.
3. Assessment of impacts - Quantitative analysis based on data collection Use of R-packages (GBStoolbox)
Presentation of results (HTML file) 4. Final step
4.1. Interpretation of footprint results
Global results (aggregated within the company) + per sector in which the company has an activity + per Scope, + Static/dynamic, + per pressure, + per aquatic/terrestrial
4.2. Qualitative analysis of the results
Qualitative analysis: The objective of this analysis is to assess to what extent the quantitative analysis covers all biodiversity impacts the activities is having, within the boundaries of the study.
Limitations of the quantitative analysis should be listed, especially regarding sector specific issues, non-assessed pressures, labels, …
The results of the qualitative analysis should indicate whether the results of the quantitative analysis must be corrected in a sense or in another.
4.3. Environmental safeguards analysis
Cover the blind spots of the GBS, in order to be sure impacts that are not included in GBS calculations remain insignificant compared to other computed impact drivers (such as GHG emissions or Land Use change?).
See examples in Table 1 below.
4.4. Comparison to references
Planetary boundaries, government policies, company’s own biodiversity objectives 4.5. Recommendations for a biodiversity action pan
Example: selection of suppliers according to labels or certifications. In order to reduce static footprint, choose suppliers with better yields/less land-use impacts.
4.3 List of deliverables
In case of the GBS-base assessment is led by a service provider for a company (and not by the company internally), deliverables should be:
Deliverables Format Mandatory Optional
Data collection guidelines Electronic or paper X
Data entry support Electronic (excel) X
Biodiversity Footprint Assessment report
Electronic and paper X
Animation of an awareness meeting Animation days X
Data collection training days Training days X Animation of meetings (3 min.) Animation days X
Provision of a biodiversity footprint reduction plan
Electronic X
Raw quantitative results Electronic X
4.4 Biodiversity Footprint Assessment report generic content
See document Audit-generic-content for updates and detailed content of the Diagnostic Report.
1. Disclaimer
2. Executive summary 3. Context of the assessment
3.1. Introduction to the GBS 3.2. Biodiversity and the Company
This part must include a description of the company and its activity + geographic location of sites/suppliers. In addition, the biodiversity management policy of the company must be presented (main projects, guidelines, past objectives).
3.3. The service provider 3.4. The steering team 4. Methodology
4.1. Main steps of the assessment 4.2. Perimeters’ definition
4.3. Pressures assessed
4.4. Data collection
Which data has been collected, how, why, by who, what quality tier, …?
4.5. Interpreting the results
5. Results
5.1. Results of the screening Global impacts in MSA.km²
Per pressure and per scope => identification of the most impactful commodities activities or scopes/
Quantitative and qualitative analysis 5.2. Refined results – global stage
Results should be disclosed per Scope and pressure, according to distinct impact categories, dimensioning and attribution structures.
Aggregate footprint expressed in MSA.km² within all the perimeters. Including all operations and value chain impacts. Dynamic & static.
Breakdown per scope and pressure. Per operations/upstream/downstream [The drivers of the footprint will be explained.]
Intensity: XX MSA.km²/k€ (to compare with the world average intensity at about 2 MSA.km²/k€).
Total dynamic footprint of the production per scope & pressure. Total static footprint of the production per scope & pressure.
As environmental safeguard, either in the general or in the sector-specific results, a table similar to the table below must be presented.
Issues not (fully) covered by the GBS approach
Concerned or not? Actions addressing the issue
Location specific impact characteristics
Water scarcity • If some activities in water-scarce areas Require the existence of water management system?
Proximity of HCVA’s/protected areas
• If companies operating in or near these areas
• If suppliers or providers are operating near these areas
• If endangered or threatened species are suspected to be locally affected by the operational activities of the company or of its value chain
• If company must comply to biodiversity offsetting measures (like ERC in France)
Require a Biodiversity Management Plan or Biodiversity Action Plan for the entities concerned
Build VCA or work only with areas in which the investment takes place is registered as a VCA
Respect of legal requirements in terms of offsetting biodiversity destructions Presence of
endangered or threatened species
Impact on soil fertility/soil quality Impacts (+ or -) on
soil fertility/soil quality
• Agricultural sourcing? Source only organically produced materials?
Drivers of biodiversity loss Introduction of
invasive species • In what situation is the company under high invasive species risk threat?
Specific certification initiatives may be used/required to guarantee compliance policy
Require the implementation of a management system to prevent the introduction of invasive species
No work with companies working with GMOs
Overexploitation • No use of IUCN red list species;
institutions aimed at protecting endangered species are excluded from this criterion?
•
• In case of ‘high risk’ sectors:
Companies should assess a sustainable level of exploitation.
Specific certification initiatives may be used/required to guarantee compliance Companies/institutions must comply with CITES legislation.
Disturbance • When is disturbance expected to be a serious issue (e.g. based on an environmental impact assessment)?
Is the company is operating in or near a HCVA/protected area?
• Investment criterion: companies should carry out an EIA and subsequent actions in case disturbance is a serious risk and they operate in or near a HCVA If fisheries, no salting-out.
Table 1 - Biodiversity topics not fully covered by the GBS tool and related policy options, from the Common Ground (ASN Bank, Actiam, CDC Biodiversité, Finance in motion, 2018)
A qualitative analysis will detail the pressures which were not taken into account and the level of confidence (expressed qualitatively) and the limitations for the figures obtained.
+ avoided footprint through biodiversity-conservative policies?
Membership and client of labels, institutions 5.3. Sector 1 results
…
5.4. Sector 2 results
…
5.5. Balancing out results
A distinct category in the structure should be dedicated to specific projects/sites led to balance out footprint (e.g. carbon offsetting projects, biodiversity conservation/compensation projects, …).
These results should be presented separately from the results directly occurring through the activity of the company (in its direct operations or its value chain). They should be considered as informative tools on biodiversity restoration capacity of the company.
6. Action Plan proposal & recommendations 7. Conclusion
8. Glossary
5 Quality assurance
Following the guidelines of these document assures a fist-level of quality for a GBS-based assessment.
In terms of quality assurance and audit, following the guidelines of the Biological Diversity Protocol should ensure coherence and accuracy. The seven principles are the following:
relevance, equivalency, completeness, consistency, transparency, accuracy and time period assumption.
+ s’inspirer du NatCapChecker: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital-protocol/natcap- checker/
6 Relationships between stakeholders
The following deals with the relationship between the project owner and the service provider, if any.
6.1 Project Owner Obligations
A referent person or team (pilot) should be appointed for the duration of the project. This person should enjoy sufficient means (training, availability, documentation, …) to lead his mission, should ease the investigation of the service provider and ensure the transmission of information.
Prior to the assessment, the project owner should define the objectives of the biodiversity footprint assessment for the company.
Because the quality of the footprint assessment is highly correlated to the accuracy and completeness of the data collected, the project owner top management should be involved in project to strengthen the legitimacy of the project and enable the collection of good-quality data.
The project owner commits to providing the most appropriate data for the service provider team to lead the assessment.
6.2 Service Provider Obligations
A Competencies
The service provider should be able to justify from its competencies in terms of non- financial auditing (knowledge of companies and functioning) and in terms of biodiversity assessment and capacities to efficiently use the GBS.
The service provider should be able to justify from a level 2 GBS training2 and an exploitation licence of the tool, at his name.
_________________
2CDC Biodiversité, the GBS developer, provides trainings to auditors about the GBS. There are two levels of training, and the second level corresponds to the most advanced one, enabling auditors to use the GBS to lead GBS-based biodiversity footprint assessment.
B Position of the Service Provider
The service provider is responsible for not intervening when all guarantees of impartiality are not gathered.
The service provider’s team should work during the assessment to raising awareness on biodiversity issues among the different actors they will meet (top management, managers and employees). This can take the form for example of communication of scientific literature on biodiversity accounting, planetary boundaries, or on the international political agenda regarding biodiversity depending on the public addressed.
The communication on the results of the GBS-based biodiversity assessment should be pedagogic. The service provider should be exhaustive in his recommendations and provide the project owner with all unbiased information needed to decide actions to minimize the footprint on biodiversity.
The report will be orally presented, and in particular, main conclusions and results will be presented. The service provider commits to respect the confidentiality of all information, documents and results produced during the time of the mission as well as of all data and information provided by the project leader.
C Behaviour
The service provider should behave in a remarkable manner regarding biodiversity management. He should work in order to increase outreach of main issues about biodiversity erosion, among the auditteam and the hierarchy of the company.
7 Bibliography/appendix
https://www.associationbilancarbone.fr/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/bilan-carbone-v8-guide- methodologique-final.pdf
Contact:
Joshua Berger GBS Project Manager 102, rue Réaumur 75002 Paris France
joshua.berger@cdc-biodiversite.fr
Direction:
Antoine Cadi 102 rue Réaumur 75002 Paris
antoine.cadi@cdc-biodiversite.fr
SAS au capital de 17 475 000 euros
