76
28 September 2020 EU B@B Platform – Webinar series “Measuring biodiversity for business and finance” Webinar 1: Case studies on site level biodiversity measurement approaches for business
2 8 S e p t e m b e r 2 0 2 0
EU B@B Platform – Webinar series “Measuring biodiversity for business and finance”
Webinar 1: Case studies on site level biodiversity measurement approaches for business
ICF proprietary and confidential. Do not copy, distribute, or disclose.
Agenda
2
3:30 – 3:40
3:40 – 4:00
4:00 – 4:20
4:20 – 4:40
4:40 – 5:00
Introduction
The Biodiversity Indicators for Site-based Impacts (BISI) approach, with a case study from
ANGLO AMERICAN’s Kolomela mine, South Africa by Leo Murphy (UNEP-WCMC)
The LIFE Methodology (based on a Biodiversity Conservation Metric and a Biodiversity Impact
Index), with a case study from a printing company, POSIGRAF, by Maria Alice Alexandre (LIFE
Institute)
The Species Threats and Recovery (STAR) approach, with a case study on rubber production
at landscape level (“Bukit Tigapuluh Sustainable Landscape and Livelihoods Project”) by Frank
Hawkins (IUCN)
Q&A and closing remarks
ICF proprietary and confidential. Do not copy, distribute, or disclose.
Welcome & opening
Lars Müller, Policy Officer, DG ENV
Johan Lammerant, Methods Workstream Leader EU
Business@Biodiversity Platform, Arcadis
3
BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS FOR SITE-BASED IMPACTS
Leo Murphy – Programme Officer, UNEP-WCMC
Memorandum of Understanding
between UNEP-WCMC, FFI and
Conservation International to deliver
the project
Supported by IPIECA, Proteus, seven
pilot companies, The Biodiversity
Consultancy, and the project Advisory
Group
Joint initiative
Overview of method
Three stage process
Step 1:Screen to identify high
significance sites
Step 2:Validate results with site
managers
Activities
• Define assessment boundaries
• Define area of influence
• Screen operating sites against
features
• Scoring against screening
criteria and aggregation
Expected Output
A provisional list of all sites
categorised by potential
biodiversity significance
(low/medium/high)
First Stage: Biodiversity significance screening
Analysis against
screening criterion
ScoreData Source
Low Medium High
Criterion 1:
Threatened Species What is the weighted
number of threatened
species overlapped by the
area of influence?
<19 19-50 >50
IUCN Red List species
ranges. Available through
IBAT.
Criterion 2: Critical
HabitatDoes the operating site
and its area of influence
overlap with areas
identified as likely or
potential Critical Habitat?
No overlap
The area of direct and
indirect influence
(standard 50 km buffer)
overlaps with potential or
likely Critical Habitat
The physical footprint (i.e.
point location) of the
operating site overlaps
with potential or likely
Critical Habitat
Critical Habitat Screening
Layer. Available through
UNEP-WCMC.
Criteria 3: Protected
AreasDoes the operating site
and its area of influence
overlap with one or several
protected areas,
designated at the national,
regional or international
level?
No overlap
The area of direct and
indirect influence
(standard 50 km buffer)
overlaps with protected
area(s)
The physical footprint (i.e.
point location) of the
operating site overlaps
with protected area(s)
Polygon-based - World
Database Protected Areas
(IUCN and UNEP-WCMC).
Available through IBAT.
Screening criteria
Second Stage: Applying site-level framework
Step 3:Identify site-level SPR metrics using global and site-level data
and consultation
Step 4:Calculate scores for site
dashboard
Activities
• Identify focal biodiversity
features for indicator
development
• Evaluate existing metrics for
focal biodiversity features
against state-pressure-
response framework
• Address any gaps in the
framework
Expected Output
A list of site indicators for state-
pressure-response
Population/extent remaining=
Current population/extentX 100
Baseline population/extent
Area
remaining=
Current areaX 100
Baseline area
Scoring State-Pressure-Response
State-Pressure-Response are assessed quantitatively
and then assigned to categories of Red, Amber, Green
via thresholds outlined in the methodology.
• State is assessed based on the amount of the focal
biodiversity feature remaining compared to pre-
project conditions (e.g. area of wetland habitat).
• Pressure is assessed based on the timing, scope and
severity of the pressure (e.g. habitat loss from
physical footprint)
• Response is assessed based on the level of planning
and implementation of mitigation measures.
As a site improves its mitigation response over time,
improvements in the level of pressure and state of the
focal biodiversity features are predicted.
Piloting has focused on refining the first and second stages
of the methodology.
The methodology now presents:
• a robust screening of sites within a portfolio
• a comprehensive site-level assessment of biodiversity
performance
The third stage, aggregating this information to corporate
level, will be piloted with companies in 2021.
Third Stage: Aggregation to corporate level
Case Studies
Pilot projects have covered marine and
terrestrial sites across Africa, Australia, Europe
and North America.
They include oil & gas, mining, renewables
and social investment sites in both pre-project
and operational phases.
Stand-alone case studies will be available
alongside the methodology and dashboard tool
on the UNEP-WCMC website.
Pilots with seven
companies
Lessons learned
• Initial creation of the dashboard is time intensive, but
updating it with new data less so.
• Understanding of data availability, quality and
consistency is as important as the assessment of
biodiversity features.
• On-site capacity to engage in the process is key.
• A narrative alongside each assessment is needed to
explain the result and interpret it in a way that
provides companies with a clear pathway to improve
performance.
© CELDF
Case study: Anglo American
• Site Name: Kolomela Mine
• Project: Open cast iron ore mine, Postmasburg in the
Northern Cape Province South Africa.
• Project Phase: The project has been in the
operational phase since 2011.
• Area of Influence: 50km buffer
The first stage was conducted through review
of global datasets, via IBAT & the Global
Critical Habitat Screening layer.
Validation with site managers highlighted that
not all species listed by IBAT were present at
site.
The Stage 1 process took: ~1 day
First Stage: Biodiversity
Significance Screening
First Stage: Biodiversity Significance Screening
Global Screening Criteria
Protected Areas Critical HabitatWeighted IUCN Red List Threatened
Species
CriteriaOverlap with Area of Influence
(1 Protected Area)No Overlap
Unweighted CR: 2 EN: 4 VU: 10
Unweighted Total: 16
Weighted Total: 24
Significance Medium Low Medium
Site Biodiversity Significance
Medium
Stage 2 was conducted by combining a review
of site literature with guidance in the
methodology document.
The process was based on the site’s
Biodiversity Action Plan and baseline data.
The Stage 2 process took: ~ 12 days
Stage 2 – Dashboard
Focal Biodiversity Features
• Species were screened based on Vulnerability,
Suitability and Significance.
• Both habitats and species were identified as meeting
the criteria for inclusion as Focal Biodiversity Features.
o 6 habitats were included, grouped together as
Biodiversity Management Units (BMU) to align with
site documentation.
o 4 mammal and bird species/species assemblages
were included.
©David Brossard
Second Stage: Applying site-level framework• State is variable across features, with habitats in
the direct impact area experiencing the largest
declines.
• Pressures are generally low to medium, with the
exception of habitat loss and dust deposition in
the direct impact area.
• Response is currently “Medium”. Implementation
is on schedule, but the plans need to be updated
to reflect new Net Positive Impact commitments.
• Expert opinion has been used for some features
in the absence of quantitative population data.
PROJECT PHASE: OPERATIONAL BASELINE: PRE-PROJECT
FOCAL BIODIVERSITY
FEATUREPROJECT-INDUCED PRESSURES STATE PRESSURE RESPONSE
DATA
CON-
FIDENCE
1
Biodiversity
Management Units
(BMUs) directly
impacted by mining
activities
Habitat loss and degradation
Poor
High
Medium Level 3
Loss & trampling of sensitive
speciesMedium
Dust deposition High
Non-compliance to plans Low
2
BMUs outside the
direct impact
footprint
Habitat loss and degradation
Good
Medium
Medium Level 3Illegal harvesting Low
Alien invasive plants MediumUncontrolled bush fires Low
Land mgmt & governance Low
3
Large ground birds:
Ludwig's Bustard
Secretarybird
Transmission line collisions
Moderate
Low
Medium Level 3Habitat loss and degradation Low
Illegal harvesting Low
4
Wild cats:
Black-footed Cat
Leopard
Habitat loss and degradation
Good
Low
Medium Level 2
Road kill Unknown
Illegal harvesting Unknown
5 Temminck's Pangolin
Habitat loss and degradation
Moderate
Low
Medium Level 2Electrocution along fences Medium
Road kill LowIllegal harvesting Low
6
Large Raptors:
Tawny Eagle
Martial Eagle
Habitat loss and degradation Moderate Low Medium Level 3
7
Vultures:
Cape Vulture
White-backed
Lappet-faced
Habitat loss and degradation Moderate Low Medium Level 3
Piloting outcomes
We can’t do this on our own. We must form partnerships and collaborations with other mining companies,
organisations, and institutions. Making sure we are aligned with international best practice as well as regional and national
biodiversity strategies is critical to ensuring positive biodiversity outcomes”Principal Biodiversity, Anglo American
This approach can be used to review and analyse where our operations are in terms of their impact to areas of high
biodiversity value. Working with external partners to gain access to global datasets of biodiversity helps to assess a site’s
potential impact on biodiversity. Its important to have a consistent approach using the same methodology, to make
comparative assessments of the potential impact of an operation”. ”Sustainable Development Principal, Anglo American
I think it is a good way of indicating biodiversity value and determining the effectiveness of the management plans
”Environmental Manager, Kolomela Mine
The next phase of the project will look to pilot aggregation
approaches across all, or a sub-section, of a company’s
portfolio.
This will include:
• applying the methodology to a larger number of sites.
• assessing a number of potential aggregation
approaches.
• identifying the most suitable approach for aggregation
to inform decision-making at corporate level.
Please get in touch if you are interesting in piloting this
method!
Next steps
Facebook:
Twitter:
Linkedin:
Youtube:
@unepwcmc
@unepwcmc
UNEP-WCMC
UNEP-WCMC Communications
unep-wcmc.org
Instituto LIFELasting Init iat ive For Earth
Measuring Biodiversity for Business and Finance
September 28th, 2020
02
About LIFE Institute
▪Headquarters in Curitiba, Brazil▪ Representation in Spain
▪ LIFE Institute, established in 2009, wascreated to promote the engagement of thebusiness sector on biodiversity conservationand maintenance of ecosystem services
Development of Methodologies
Standard-setting Organization
Management Software – LIFE Key
Main activities:
LIFE METHODOLOGY
Business and Biodiversity Tool
03
04
How does LIFE Methodology work?
LIFE Methodology – Business Application according to European B@B platform
05
BUSINESS APPLICATION SUPPORTED
ORGANISATIONAL FOCUS
Product/ service
Project/ site
Supply chain
BusinessPortfolio/
sectorCountry
Current performance - LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE
Future performance - LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE
Tracking targets - LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE -
Comparing options - - LIFE - LIFE LIFE
3rd party assessments/ ratings
- LIFE - LIFE LIFE LIFE
3rd party certification - LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE LIFE
Risk and opportunity assessment
- - - - - -
Biodiversity accounting - - - - - -
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/assets/pdf/European_B@B_platform_report_biodiversity_assessment_2019_FINAL_5Dec2019.pdf
06
POSIGRAF Printing Company
LIFE METHODOLOGYBusiness Case
Business Case – POSIGRAF Printing Company
07
Business Application: Site Level Assessment
POSIGRAF is a printing company in Latin America –belongs to Positivo Group.
Context: POSIGRAF was founded in 1972 and ispresent in more than 40 countries with its productsand services. POSIGRAF was the first Brazilian industryto be recognized by third-party audit as a LIFECertified company (since 2014).
Location: Curitiba – PR - Brazil
08
STATE
Characterization of Business and Landscape
09
STATE
Main activities
• Initial evaluation of business’ operations and
management system
• Characterization of the landscape
✓ Ecoregion identification
✓ Identification of hydrographic region
Conservation priorities
✓ Identification of threatened species (flora and
fauna)
• Identification of implemented conservation actions
POSIGRAF Location – Araucaria Moist Forests
10
11
PRESSURE
LIFE Biodiversity Pressure Index (BPI)
PRESSURE
Main activities
• Calculation of the Biodiversity Pressure Index
✓ Assessing the quantity and severity of 05
environmental aspects
✓ Calculation of the individual pressure index
for each environmental aspect
• Assessment of Impacts and Dependence on
Ecosystem Services
12
POSIGRAF Printing – Biodiversity Pressure Index 2019
13
Assessment based on 05 environmental aspects:
➢ Environmental Monitoring Data✓ Energy Consumption✓ Waste Generation
✓ Greeenhouse Gas Emission✓ Area Occupation✓ Water Usage
BPI Scale
0 500250 750125 625375 875 1000
14
POSIGRAF Printing - Ecosystem´s Impacts and DependenciesEvaluation 2019
➢ Identification of the main impacts onbiodiversity and ecosystem services
➢ Identification of the main dependenciesof ecosystem services
➢ Measurement of the effectiveness of theactions to compensate the impacts
➢ Possibility of minimizing risks andidentifying business opportunities
15
RESPONSE
Biodiversity Positive Performance
16
RESPONSEMain activities
• Elaboration of a Biodiversity Action Plan
✓ Evaluation and scorinng of biodiversity conservation
actions
✓ Calculation of Biodiversity Positive Performance (BPP)
✓ Improvement of conservation actions and projects
• Management Indicators Assessment and Improvements
✓ Policy establishment and communication with a focus
on biodiversity conservation
✓ Implementation of the supplier's assessment program
and criteria definition for assessing impacts on
biodiversity
✓ Other management indicators
17
POSIGRAF Printing - Biodiversity Positive Performance
The main action carried out by the organization wasthe adoption of a Uru Reserve, located in Parana(Brazil).
One of the last remnant natural area of AraucariaForest.
POSIGRAF invested US$ 500,000 in the Uru Reserve.
Uru Reserve located in Parana (Brazil)
Location Uru Reserve
Remnant natural area of Araucaria Forest
18
POSIGRAF Printing - Biodiversity Conservation Results
Adoption of 129 hectares of Araucaria Forest in an
advanced stage of conservation.
Araucaria Moist Forest has only 1% of remaining natural area in
Paraná, where Uru Forest Reserve is located
19
Flora Species Monitoring
Activity
573 species20 rare species15 endangered
1 very rare species
POSIGRAF Printing - Biodiversity Conservation Results
20
Fauna Species Monitoring
Activity
41 species of medium and large
mammals10 endangered
POSIGRAF Printing - Biodiversity Conservation Results
21
22
RESPONSE
LIFE Biodiversity Management Indicators
Analysis of company´s role in the implementation of biodiversity international agreements
Development of a technical Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP)
Refinement of environmental data collection and control to monitor GHG emissions
Supply chain evaluation of biodiversity impacts
POSIGRAF Printing - Improvements on Biodiversity Management
23
24
LIFE requirements for supplier's evaluation
POSIGRAF main activities:
➢ Identification of 100% of direct suppliers
➢ Biodiversity impact assessment required for suppliers
➢ Identification of risks for each category of direct suppliers
➢ Criteria for periodic evaluation and classification of suppliers
➢ Minimum requirements for the purchasing policy
25
LIFE Certification
POSIGRAF Printing Company Certification
26
LIFE Certification
POSIGRAF has been LIFE Certified since 2014
Response must be higher than Pressure
+
Third part audit
+
LIFE Certification
Biodiversity Positive Performance (BPP) in voluntary conservation actions
27
LIFE KEY Software
Biodiversity Disclosure Reports
LIFE KEY Software
✓ Standardized information on Biodiversity Pressure and Performance
✓ Quantitative and comparable data
✓ Information annual updated
✓ Public summaries available after third-party audits
✓ Example of real cases summaries reports available at https://www.tecparcert.com.br/en/life/
28
29
LIFE Methodology
Where we are
30
Latin America
Where we are
Europe
➢ First pilot: november/2020
31
POSIGRAF STATEMENTS
32
POSIGRAF Statements
✓ We chose LIFE Methodology because of its reliable and objective metrics
✓ LIFE Methodology allowed the identification of main biodiversity pressures
✓ Biodiversity Performance score allowed us to evaluate technically our investments
✓ LIFE Methodology was a way to evaluate if POSIGRAF response was compatible with pressure
✓ LIFE Key is user-friendly and allow us to report biodiversity anytime both in a technical or executive way
✓ Our main challenges are reduce Biodiversity Pressure and mobilize our supply chain
✓ LIFE Certification helped to:
✓ Quantify and value the efforts for conservation✓ Communicate the Board the relations between business future and conservation✓ Improve organization's reputation
Instituto LIFEPractical solutions to promote the durability of any economic activity through the conservation of biodiversity
www.institutolife.org
/lifecertification
/company/instituto-life
Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR) Metric:
Field Test in Bukit TigapuluhSustainable Landscape and Livelihoods
Project
Mair, L. et al. (in review) Nature Ecology and Evolution
Frank Hawkins, IUCNKarmila Parakkasi, Meizani Irmadhiany, Royal Lestari Utama
Louise Mair, Philip McGowan, Newcastle University
Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR) Metric
• Purpose is to permit measurement of the potential ‘conservation gain’ that could be achieved for species through action taken within a geographical area (site, landscape, corporate footprint, country)
• STAR considers two types of action:• Threat abatement in existing habitat
• Restoration of lost habitat
• Assumption is that the complete alleviation of threats would halt population and/or distribution decline, such that the species could be downlisted (from NT, VU, EN or CR) to Least Concern
STAR data requirements
• Species extinction risk
• Red List category (NT, VU, EN, CR)
• Threats to species
• Threats to species (classification scheme)
• Scope and severity of threats
• Timing of threats (only present and future included)
• Current and restorable species Area of Habitat (AOH)
• Species distribution polygons
• Species habitat associations
• Species elevation limitations
• Land cover maps (from two time periods)
Properties of STAR
• STAR yields a value that is proportional to the change in species extinction likelihood
• STAR is based on primary data generated by the network of 10,000+ scientists –contributing to the IUCN Red List of Species and national red list processes
• STAR has been designed to:
• Be scalable- can be measured at site, country, landscape or global scale
• Be additive- impacts at one site can be compared to and added to impacts at another
• Respond over policy-relevant time periods
• Make use of best available data
• Permits the calculation of global, regional and national targets, and for assessing progress towards achieving those targets
• Allows calculation of STAR scores per species, per site, per threat, per taxa, globally…
• Allows contributions of state and non-state actors to the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Strategy to be assessed
STAR scores: conservation opportunities
Total STAR threat-abatement score (summed across all threats)
Invasive and problematic species
Considerations
• Terrestrial vertebrates analysed globally to date;
• Will incorporate reptiles, cacti, cycads, conifers and freshwater fish over next 18 months; reef fish, reef-building corals and trees in following 2 years; plants and other taxa can be applied nationally where data exist
• Threat impacts are assumed to be constant across species ranges
• Refinement of this possible using global threat heat maps under development
• Assessments are ex ante
• Need to be complemented with ex post evaluation
• Does not address newly-emerging or worsening threats
• These are addressed through e.g. re-assessment in the Red Lists
Application of STAR
STAR is calculated in three phases
• Estimated ex ante
• Based only on existing published information
• Gives a preliminary evaluation of the potential of a site/landscape to contribute to
threatened species conservation
• Baseline ex ante
• Produces a refined STAR score based on site-specific information: verification of the
presence of threatened species and the presence and severity of threats to species
operating at the site
• Ex post
• Measures progress against conservation targets (reduction of scope and severity of
threats) through management
STAR at the site level: Bukit Tigapuluh Landscape, Indonesia
Bukit Tigapuluh Landscape
▪ 400,000 Ha Bukit Tigapuluh Landscape lies in the “RIMBA Corridor”- one of Sumatra’s critical last remaining lowland tropical forest landscapes. It Includes the threatened 143,000 Ha Bukit Tigapuluh National Park (“BTPNP”) and 70,000 Ha RLU concessions
▪ Landscape supports high levels of biodiversity & ecosystem services, located upstream of an important watershed system; Home to 180 species on the IUCN Red List; three critically endangered flagship species including 120 Sumatran elephants, 30 Sumatran tigers & 180 orangutans; and an important bird & biodiversity area. Also home two indigenous tribes: 550 Orang Rimba, 8,000 Talang Mamak
▪ Less than 230,000 Ha still contains natural forest cover. Area has experienced high carbon emissions from large scale deforestation, low incomes, illegal encroachment, high social & wildlife conflict levels
▪ Home to Human population approx. 50,000 across 18 villages around the concessions
September 28, 2020 Confidential-Information Only Indicative 9
The Bukit Tigapuluh Sustainable Landscape and Livelihoods Project
• Private sector partner is PT Royal Lestari Utama (RLU).
• A multi-tranche, long-dated sustainability bond arranged by
BNP Paribas (BNPP) and issued by Tropical Landscape
Finance Facility- Indonesia Pte Ltd (TLFF-I)
• RLU is a Joint Venture between Indonesia’s Barito Pacific
Group and France’s Michelin Group.
• ADM Capital acts as facility and ESG manager for TLFF-I
• STAR analysis supported by ADM Capital and Synchronicity
Earth
The study area
The study area (approximately 88,000 ha) includes a 5 km buffer, set aside to support local livelihoods, wildlife conservation areas and forest protection and restoration, and two ecosystem restoration areas, which form a conservation management zone that protects the Bukit Tigapuluh National Park
Management goal of study: identify key threats to species and opportunities for mitigation
VU
VU
CR
VU
VU
CR
VU
VU
EN
VU
EN
Species Threat category
Bonaparte’s Nightjar Caprimulgusconcretus
VU
Greater Green Leafbird Chloropsissonnerati
VU
Large-billed Blue-flycatcherCyornis caerulatus
VU
Black Partridge Melanoperdixniger
VU
Wallace’s Hawk-eagle Nisaetusnanus
VU
Helmeted Hornbill Rhinoplax vigil CR
Large Green-pigeon Treroncapellei
VU
Brooks’s Dyak Fruit-batDyacopterus brooksi
VU
Sumatran Elephant Elephasmaximus ssp. sumatranus
CR
Sun Bear Helarctos malayanus VU
Orbiculus Leaf-nosed BatHipposideros orbiculus
VU
Agile Gibbon Hylobates agilis EN
Species Threat category
Smooth-coated Otter Lutrogaleperspicillata
VU
Malay Tapir Tapirus indicus VU
Sunda Pangolin Manis javanica CR
Whitehead’s Sundaic MaxomysMaxomys whiteheadi
VU
Marbled cat Neofelis diardi VU
Greater Slow Loris Nycticebus coucang VU
Whiskered Flying Squirrel Petinomysgenibarbis
VU
Temminck’s Flying Squirrel Petinomyssetosus
VU
Sumatran Surili Presbytis melalophos EN
Flat-headed Cat Prionailurus planiceps EN
Bearded Pig Sus barbatus VU
Siamang Symphalangus syndactylus EN
STAR analysis- threatened species present at site
Threat analysis
The total START score for the study area represents 0.2% of the START score for Sumatra, 0.04% of that for Indonesia and 0.003% of the global START.
The major threats to the threatened species identified are from annual and perennial non-timber crops, logging and wood harvesting, and collecting terrestrial animals
Threat abatement and restoration
Data challenges: access to partner data, focus on megafauna, distribution and severity of threats
Management recommendations
• Confirm presence of threatened species
• Confirm extent of threats, especially hunting
• Set threat reduction targets• Plan optimal restoration to
support threat abatement• Measure and monitor• Report in corporate
disclosure
Thank you
ICF proprietary and confidential. Do not copy, distribute, or disclose.
Q&A and closing remarks
Johan Lammerant, Methods Workstream Leader EU
Business@Biodiversity Platform, Arcadis
1
ICF proprietary and confidential. Do not copy, distribute, or disclose.
The next webinars in the series will be:
- Webinar 2 (1 October): Product level approaches
- Webinar 3 (8 October): Supply chain level approaches
- Webinar 4 (15 October): Corporate and sector level approaches
- Webinar 5 (22 October): Approaches for the financial sector
Each webinar takes place from 3:30 – 5:00pm
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/index_en.htm
2
