Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business Sub-group 3B Metrics - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business Sub-group 3B Metrics and midpoint characterisation factors

Webinar 11 July 2019

❑ Introduction of participants and reminder of the objectives and context of the Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business initiative ❑ Reminder of the objectives and terms of reference of the sub-group and of the webinar ❑ Review of the SG3B working paper and preparation of the position paper

▪ Common framework (definition, time integration) ▪ Differences between metrics ▪ Brief discussion on bridges between metrics (and rest of the discussion left for the 2nd webinar) ▪ Links between midpoint-based approaches and site-level approaches

❑ Other discussion questions ❑ Choice of dates for the next two webinars

Agenda

Reminder of the objectives and context of the Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business initiative

Reminder of the objectives of the sub-group and of the webinar

❑ Go to www.menti.com and use the code 62 20 58 ❑ What is this session about?

Mentimeter

1. Explore the differences between metrics and midpoint calculations across different measurement approaches and the reasons for the current divergence. 2. Propose bridges between metrics (e.g. conversion factors

• r translation of characterisation factors in different metrics)

and propose common midpoint characterisation factors. 3. Identify how to disaggregate footprinting metrics and aggregate site level metrics, creating complementarity between the two. 4. Other expectations

Objectives of the sub-group

PAGE 7

Potential outcome of the sub-groups 3A and 3B: a (partial) harmonisation of inputs and midpoints facilitating conversions between metrics

Inputs (activity, pressure- related data…) Midpoints Impacts Initiative 1 Initiative 2 Initiative 3 Initiative 1 Initiative 2 Initiative 3 Corporate data input sub- group #3A Midpoint sub-group #3B

1. Analysis of differences between metrics and midpoint calculations and reason for divergence 2. Mapping of the language of the LCA community with language used to describe a more direct measurement of biodiversity. This mapping will comprise language used by LCA practitioners, EIA practitioners, biodiversity specialists and natural capital accounting and assessment (Natural Capital Protocol) 3. Exploration of linkages between the different metrics and the different mid-point characterisation factors ▪ This includes determining how site based and portfolio approaches can link and complement each other. 4. Other required outcomes?

Expected outputs of the sub-group

Linkage of the sub-group with sub-group 31 on corporate data inputs

1. Clarify the collaboration process. 2. Review the SG3B working paper and provide feedback to transform it into a SG3B position paper (input to the Brazil workshop). 3. Plan the next webinar.

Objectives of the webinar

❑ Go to www.menti.com and use the code 62 20 58 ❑ Questions? ➔ add them to the parking lot

Mentimeter

Review of the SG3B working paper and preparation

• f the position paper

REVIEW - Introduction

❑ aligning_biodiversity_measures_SG3B-metrics- midpoints_V03_20190708.docx ❑ Sent by Julie Dimitrijevic on 8th July ❑ Objective: have comments and edit proposals in track changes by SG3B members in July and August to build into a position paper open for suggestions for all ABMB members in September.

SG3B working paper

PAGE 15

Impacts on biodiversity, and associated pressures, covered due to the endpoint characterisation factors available for each metric

Endpoint characterisation factors and associated capacity to assess the impact of pressures Metric [initiatives using the metric] Available endpoint characterisa- tion factors Land / sea use change Direct exploitation Invasive alien species Pollution Climate change Other MSA [GBS, BIM, BF, LIFE Index] GLOBIO’s pressure- impact relationships Land use, Fragmentatio n, Encroachme nt, Hydrological disturbance, Wetland conversion Not covered directly Not covered Atmospheric nitrogen deposition, Nutrient emissions, Land use change in catchment Climate change PDF [BFFI, PBF] ReCiPe

• r

LC Impact’s characterisati

• n factors

Land

• ccupation,

Land transformatio n, (regional) Water scarcity Not covered Not covered Terrestrial ecotoxicity, Terrestrial acidification, Marine ecotoxicity, Marine eutrophication, Freshwater eutrophication, Freshwater ecotoxicity Climate change

PAGE 16

Impacts on biodiversity, and associated pressures, covered due to the endpoint characterisation factors available for each metric

Endpoint characterisation factors and associated capacity to assess the impact of pressures Metric [initiatives using the metric] Available endpoint characterisat ion factors Land / sea use change Direct exploitation Invasive alien species Pollution Climate change Other Risk

• f

extinction unit [STAR] No characterisat ion factor but assessment

• f the level
• f pressures

through the IUCN Red List Residential & Commercial Development, Agriculture & Aquaculture, Energy Production & Mining, Transportation & Service Corridors, Human Intrusions & Disturbance, Natural System Modifications Biological Resource Use Invasive & Problematic Species, Pathogens & Genes Pollution Climate Change Geological Events Natural capital monetary value (e.g. EUR) [EP&L] No characterisat ion factor [BIE, …] No characterisat ion factor

❑ Go to www.menti.com and use the code 62 20 58 ❑ What is meant by "midpoint" in this subgroup?

Mentimeter

REVIEW - Common framework (definition, time integration)

❑ Endpoint: an endpoint is the final element that is being assessed, corresponding to ecosystem quality (e.g. quantified with local species loss integrated over time, in species.year) , resource scarcity or human health (e.g. quantified in disability adjusted life years). ❑ Midpoint: a midpoint is an intermediary step in calculation of impacts allowing to link input data to impact results (endpoint), that is not specifically focused on what is being assessed (e.g. the assessment of the global mean temperature increase due to greenhouse gas emissions is a midpoint towards biodiversity erosion due to climate change). For example, if the endpoint is the loss in biodiversity linked to eutrophication at some point, then a midpoint could be the N concentration in a specific environment.

Definitions

PAGE 20

Example of path between inputs (in blue), midpoints (in green) and endpoints (in red) (ASN Bank, 2016)

PAGE 21

Models and databases providing biodiversity-related midpoint and endpoint characterisation factors (non- exhaustive)

From data inputs to midpoints (midpoint CF) From midpoints to endpoints (endpoint CF) Life cycle assessment databases such as ecoinvent Environmentally extended input-output models such as EXIOBASE UN Environment lifecycle initiative CML (outdated) GLOBIO ReCiPe LC Impact IUCN mean % decline over 10 years USEtox

❑

• Cf. SG3A:

▪ Indicator: “A quantitative or qualitative factor or variable that provides a simple and reliable means to measure achievement, to reflect changes connected to an intervention, or to help assess the performance of a development actor” ▪ Measure: an assessment of the amount, extent or condition, usually expressed in physical terms. Can be either qualitative or quantitative. ▪ Metric: “A system or standard of measurement”. A combination of measures or modelled elements. The Mean Species Abundance (MSA) and the Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF) are for instance metrics expressed as a percentage. ▪ Unit: a standard measure that is used to express amounts. For instance MSA.m2 or PDF.yr.m2 are units.

PAGE 22

Definitions

❑ Go to www.menti.com and use the code 62 20 58 ❑ What is time integration about?

Mentimeter

❑ Some impacts persist over time

PAGE 24

Illustration of the question of time-integration (CDC Biodiversité, 2019) with the example of MSA

1. Integrate impacts over time ➔ PDF.yr 2. Distinguish between impacts over the period considered (could be called dynamic) and the stock of past impacts (could be called static) 3. Ignore persistent effect ❑ Proposal: 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

PAGE 25

How to deal with effects persistent over time?

PAGE 26

Overview of current practices regarding time integration among measurement approaches

Time integration approach Measurement approaches Time integration embedded in the unit used (e.g. PDF.m2.yr) BFFI, PBF Distinction of dynamic (integrated over the assessment period) and static impacts GBS No time integration AI, BF, BIE, BIM, EP&L, LIFE Index, STAR

REVIEW - Differences between metrics

PAGE 28

Aggregation method used by each metric

Metric [initiatives using the metric] Aggregation method Reasoning behind the aggregation Mean species abundance (MSA) [GBS, BIM, BF, LIFE Index] Arithmetic mean

• f

abundances (same weight for all species) Equal weights are a good default and explicit weighting is also possible. Another aspect is that all species contribute to ecological functions. Potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) [BFFI, PBF] Number of species (same weight for all species) Similar to MSA. Risk of extinction unit [STAR] Sum of the risks of extinction

• f species weighted by their

threat status Threat status of species has been evaluated in a scientifically consistent, multi-stakeholder, global process and the presence of threatened species in a site or habitat is an indication that the ecosystem is under pressure. Natural capital monetary value (, e.g. EUR) [EP&L] Sum of the economic value

• f ecosystem services (i.e.

more weight to more valuable services) Economic valuation gives the expression of the worth

• f the benefits people gain from the environment.

Using this assessment allows to better understand and address impacts and prioritize actions. [BIE, …] No single quantitative metric. Aggregation approach is still to be determined State / pressure / response indicators are required to meet sites’ needs and such indicators are difficult to aggregate quantitatively, so a qualitative aggregation is used.

PAGE 29

State of biodiversity covered by each metric

Metric [initiatives using the metric] State

• f

biodiversity covered Reasons why some state of biodiversity are not covered Capacity to assess biodiversity state based

• n

ecological surveys (direct measurements) Mean species abundance (MSA) [GBS, BIM, BF, LIFE Index] Terrestrial and aquatic (freshwater) No endpoint characterisation factors for marine biodiversity Possible in theory Potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) [BFFI, PBF] Terrestrial, aquatic (freshwater) and marine ? Risk of extinction unit [STAR] Terrestrial, aquatic (freshwater) and marine? Possible Natural capital monetary value (e.g. EUR) [EP&L] Terrestrial

• nly?

? Likely to be challenging given that values

• f biodiversity are known not to be well

represented currently into natural capital assessments [BIE, …] Terrestrial, aquatic (freshwater) and marine? Possible

❑ The following types of biodiversity are suggested in line with the PBL’s presentation at the March workshop: ▪ Ecological integrity: health of the overall ecosystem (abundance combined to species richness), including ordinary biodiversity ▪ Extinction risk: state of key biodiversity features (and not of the

• verall ecosystem), including endangered and charismatic species

▪ Ecosystem services (addition to the PBL’s presentation) ❑ The following are not kept: ▪ Population abundances - considered it to be equivalent to ecological integrity ▪ Coverage of unique hot-spots – considered it a prioritization issue and not a different type of biodiversity

PAGE 30

Limitations of each metric –biodiversity type

PAGE 31

Limitations of each metric (to be completed after the 11 July webinar)

Metric [initiatives using the metric] Type

• f

biodiversity covered Other limitations (on top of those listed in the previous tables) Mean species abundance (MSA) [GBS, BIM, BF, LIFE Index] Ecological integrity To be completed Potentially disappeared fraction (PDF) [BFFI, PBF] Ecological integrity To be completed Risk of extinction unit [STAR] Extinction risk To be completed Natural capital monetary value (e.g. EUR) [EP&L] Ecosystem services To be completed [BIE, …] Ecological integrity & extinction risk To be completed

REVIEW - Brief discussion on bridges between metrics

Two main options to build bridges between metrics

PAGE 33

Impacts

9 MSA.m2 ? PDF.m2.yr

Difficulties to translate directly impacts?

9 MSA.m2 8.9 PDF.m2.yr (local effect)

Use midpoints instead

10 m2 of natural forest convertedto intensive agriculture ? unit of extinction risk (STAR)

Midpoints

Preliminary list of data and midpoints typically necessary to assess pressures. Items in bold orange are data which could be required from companies (cf. SG3A)

PAGE 34

Pressure Midpoints Data typically necessary to assess the pressures Land / sea use change Agricultural yields and quantities produced Water withdrawal and consumption Land use changes (LUC) Hydrological disturbances Direct exploitation To be discussed To be discussed Invasive alien species To be discussed To be discussed Pollution Emissions of pesticides, N & P Pesticide concentrations N & P concentrations Climate change Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions Global Warming Potential (GWP) Global mean temperature increase (GMTI)

❑ Proposal: SG3B agrees to promote the choice and use of common midpoints between measurement approaches, to facilitate indirect conversions between metrics. ❑ More on bridges in the 2nd webinar.

PAGE 35

Bridges between metrics

REVIEW - Links between midpoint-based approaches and site-level approaches

❑ Some corporate level footprints could be disaggregated at site level ❑ And some site level approaches could be aggregated at the corporate level ❑ They could meet thus in the middle. However, metrics are different and conversion is not possible between quantitative and qualitative metrics

PAGE 37

Links between midpoint-based approaches and site- level approaches - Disaggregation / aggregation

❑ SG3A explores promising linkages between site level and corporate footprint approaches focused on data collection

PAGE 38

Links between midpoint-based approaches and site- level approaches – Data input linkages

LUC (common classification) Endangered species, PA, criticial habitats

❑ Site level approaches and corporate footprints usually: ▪ Meet different business applications (cf. SG1) ▪ Cover different types of biodiversity ❑ They are complementary, without the need for conversion

PAGE 39

Links between midpoint-based approaches and site- level approaches – Complementarity

❑ Go to www.menti.com and use the code 62 20 58 ❑ Do you agree with the proposed positions of SG3B on the following topics? ❑ Do you think the analyses in the working paper so far are satisfactory?

Mentimeter

Other discussion questions

❑ Transparency: to include data sources, gaps, limitations. ❑ Fit for purpose: the data and methods used should match the objective, application and scope. ❑ Rigor: the information, data and methods used should be technically robust.

PAGE 42

Common ground principles

❑ What are the reasons for the differences between the metrics and midpoint characterisation factors used? ❑ What are the decision implications of these differences? ❑ If alignment is not feasible / practical how can this be communicated to stakeholders to avoid confusion or are translations / conversions between metrics possible? ❑ What common approaches and midpoint characterisation factor values can be agreed on? ❑ Is it feasible to develop ‘translation’ approaches between different metrics, what are the decision implications of introducing more estimation into the approach? ❑ What Common Ground principles for corporate biodiversity measurement could promote alignment? ❑ Are there other issues and areas of alignment we should explore?

PAGE 43

Discussion questions

Choice of dates for the next two webinars

❑ https://doodle.com/poll/zqzbfypt5zi2qiyb ❑ 2 dates to choose: ▪ 2 hour web conference in July - in-depth technical discussions to try to converge on a limited number of midpoints with the measurement approaches interested to do so ▪ 2 hours web conference in September, to finalize the position paper

PAGE 45

Choice of dates for the next two webinars

Contacts Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business Annelisa Grigg, UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre Tel: +44 (0)1223 277314 Email: annelisa.grigg@unep- wcmc.org Sub-group 3A chair Joshua Berger, CDC Biodiversité Tel: +33 (0)1 80 40 15 41 Email: joshua.berger@cdc- biodiversite.fr