Biodiversity Footprint Tool for companies Based on the GLOBIO - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

JSScience

By: Wilbert van Rooij, Plansup Eric Arets, Wageningen Environmental Research

Biodiversiteitsvoetafdruk bedrijven: Methodes & tools

16 October 2017 | The Hague (NL) | Min EZ (Zijlstrazaal)

“Biodiversity Footprint Tool for companies”

Based on the GLOBIO methodology

JSScience

Background

• Initiative Platform BEE
• Determination biodiversity footprint of ~10 NatCap companies
• Two instruments tested:
• GLOBIO based footprint methodology (PBL)
• ReCiPe 2015, Life Cycle Impact Assessment method
• Biodiversity Footprint methodology uses only part of terrestrial GLOBIO3

method and part of GLOBIO-Aquatic method

2

JSScience

3

GLOBIO3 model (Terrestrial model, PBL)

The model uses the MSA indicator: Mean Species Abundance of original species, relative to their abundance in primary ecosystems

• Indicates the ‘naturalness’ or ‘intactness’ of an area / ecosystem
• Combines ecosystem quality (species abundance) and quantity (extent)
• The MSA can be calculated to determine past, present or future state
• Model uses cause-effect relations based on measured effects of 5

pressures

• Comparison between undisturbed and disturbed ecosystems

X

Kwaliteit * Kwantiteit

JSScience

Pressure factors in GLOBIO3

• Land-use change (agriculture expansion, forestry)

(management; e.g. harvest system, rotation, etc.)

• Infrastructure & settlement
• Fragmentation
• Climate change
• N-deposition

MSA

Cause-Effect relations for each pressure based on literature research in terms of quantity and quality

Internationally implemented at global, regional and sub-national scale

4

0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 primary forest selective logging secondary forest agroforestry plantations cropland pasture mean species abundance

Infrastructure Climate

forests

0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 5 10 15 20 N g.m-2 species richnes ratio

Nitrogen deposition

grasslands forests tundra

Land use change

0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 2 4 6 8 10 12 distance to roads mean species abundance grasslands, deserts, wetlands boreal and temperate forests tropical forests and tundra

0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 Temperature change

mean area reduction

grasslands forests tundra

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 minimum area requirement percentage of species birds mammals

Fragmentation

JSScience

GLOBIO: From global to national to footprint company level

5

• GLOBIO3 method:

Global, national and sub-national. Incl 5 terrestrial pressures

• Biodiversity Footprint method:

Company level, impact assessed per part of the chain. Incl 2 terrestrial pressures from GLOBIO3 (Landuse, GHG Emissions), 1 pressure from GLOBIO-aquatic (N&P Emissions to water), and 1 new (Water extraction) These 4 pressures are the most relevant pressure factors on biodiversity in the Netherlands and also in the rest of the world. Together they cover also the majority

• f impacts caused by businesses. Note: This can be different for individual

companies!

• Footprint calculations are carried out per local impact area and per product

(or product group) and per part of the chain

JSScience

GLOBIO: From global to national to footprint company level

6

Biodiversity Footprint is expressed in loss off MSA within the area that is used for the production of the product: MSA.ha: Biodiversity Footprint = (1 – MSA_impact area product) * Impact area product (ha) A higher MSA.ha means a larger footprint. E.g. because loss of natural reference-species per hectare is large, and/or loss extends over a larger area

• Reason not using all GLOBIO pressure factors: Relevancy to footprint company and

not all pressures can directly be related to the surrounding of a company (e.g. Infrastructure, Fragmentation and Nitrogen deposition to land)

• Impact toxic substances not separately included in GLOBIO (but indirect in landuse)
• Local desiccation, pesticides and eutrophying emissions are implicitly included via
• landuse. But in order to include also impact of desiccation on neighbouring nature

areas the impact of water extraction is also assessed (for 2 cases)

JSScience

Main goals biodiversity footprint calculation for collaborating companies

• Insight in impact contribution main pressure factors
• Determination which part of the chain or process has the largest impact
• Testing effectiveness of assumed biodiversity friendly measures
• Determination of footprint difference between:
• Different products
• Current and desired (future) situation
• Use of different raw materials / energy consumption / transport systems, etc

7

JSScience

8

Company Case Company Case Better Future Factory Difference between footprint of 'New Marble' tile from recycled PET bottles versus standard ceramics tile Natural Plastics Difference between footprint of traditional tree plant system (with wooden stakes) and the new 'keepers' tree plant system based

• n materials made from potato and maize

waste materials DESSO Difference between current production of carpets and future production with biodiversity friendly measures Schut Papier Difference in footprint of traditional paper and 'Valorise' paper made with paper pulp and 30% waste material from tomato plants DSM Footprint dextrose production based on maize from the US Tony Choco lonely Difference in footprint of a pure chocolate bar and a milk chocolate bar. The ratio of the origin of beans can be adjusted (smallholders/plantation) Foreco Difference in footprint by the use of three different wood species for the production of bio based impregnated 'Nobelwood' Dairy sector NL Difference between footprint of regular milk production, environmental friendly milk production and organic milk production Moyee Difference in footprint of coffee production for 4 scenarios: 1. Coffee beans from small holders only. 2. Coffee beans only from productive plantation, and two scenarios with a different transport system (air vs ship) Nature restoration Fictive case to show footprint development

• f nature recovery on former agricultural

land

JSScience

Data requirements

9

Pressure factor Specification units Characteristics Ecological damage

GHG CO2 (kg)

• Eq. factor = 1

Land / water by climate change CH4 (kg)

• Eq. factor = 28

N2O (kg)

• Eq. factor = 265

X (kg)

• Eq. factor = NX

Land use Industrial area (ha) Netherlands Land, reduction natural habitat original species Other land (ha) Netherlands(+ mgmt) Other land (ha) Foreign (+ mgmt) Water use Ground water (m3) Extraction Nature area, drought by water extraction Inland water (m3) Extraction Tap water (m3) Use Location water extraction Location drought sensitive nature areas N en P to water N surface water (mg/L) Concentration increase water body type in the Netherlands Eutrophication inland water P surface water (mg/L) Volume, area and flow water body in which is emitted

JSScience

Results analysis: Dairy sector case

10

• 7%

+11%

0%

• 14%
• 4%

+ 8%

Terrestrial footprint: MSA.ha_landuse + MSA.ha_GHG (Excluding water extraction)

Footprint land use dairy sector Terrestrial footprint Water footprint (N&P emission to water) Regula farmr Nature friendly farm Organic farm

• 14%

JSScience

11

Results analysis GLOBIO: Desso Case.

Effect pro-biodiversity measures DESSO Improvement compared to 2012 Inprovement % Terrestrial bd-footprint: 20-50 % Aquatic bd-footprint: 20%

Benutting land 34%

• 20%
• 50%

Benutting land 10%

JSScience

Results analysis GLOBIO: Case Tony Chocolonely

12

Total footprint 1000kg chocolate: Pure: 1.2 msa.ha; Milk: 0.91 msa.ha Total footprint 1000kg chocolate: Pure: 0.96 msa.ha; Milk: 0.80 msa.ha

0.00E+00 5.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.50E-06 2.00E-06 MSA.ha

Footprint chocolate bar

Cocoa from low productive farms

Land-use Pure chocolate Land-use milk chocolate Climate pure chocolate Climate milk chocolate 0.00E+00 5.00E-07 1.00E-06 1.50E-06 2.00E-06 MSA.ha

Footprint chocolate bar

Cocoa from from high productive farms

Land-use pure chocolate Land-use milk chocolate Climate pure chocolate Climate milk chocolate

JSScience

Results analysis GLOBIO: Case Tony Chocolonely

13

L

• w

p r

• d

H i g h p r

• d

JSScience

14

Results analysis GLOBIO: Nature restoration

• The recovery of nature on a former agricultural field (30 ha) developes gradually
• A linear recovery is assumed until improved cause-effect relations are known

5 10 15 20 25 30 Bestaand landbouw gebied Natuurontwikkeling na 1 jaar Natuurontwikkeling na 25 jaar MSA.ha 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425 MSA.ha

MSA herstel voormalig landbouwterrein naar natuurgebied Natuurontwikkeling Log. (Natuurontwikkeling)

JSScience

15

Results analysis GLOBIO: Water use DESSO

• The biodiversity footprint for extraction of water by Desso in Dendermonde is very

small: 0.64 MSA.ha.

• Its share is limited to 0.007% of the total biodiversity footprint of Desso

(8960 MSA.ha for climate and landuse)

JSScience

General conclusions Biodiversity Footprint method

Restrictions:

• The availability of the required input data at the companies is sometimes

restricted.

• Current KPIs do not always provide enough information about the pressure

factors, especially on landuse. New biodiversity related KPIs needed.

• Not all companies have clear visions about alternative or future situations.
• It is important to determine in advance what will be included in the analysis and

what can be omitted. (focus on main impact implies that certain calculations/data are not needed, e.g. exclusion of some parts of the chain)

• Footprint emission to water should not be added to the footprint of land use.

Terrestrial footprint is therefore determined by impact of land use, GHG and water extraction.

• Danger of greenwashing in case data. However this is also the case with LCAs

that depend on selected data and assumptions.

16

JSScience Feedback involved companies: Companies indicated that the method leads to new insights with repect to their impact

• n biodiversity. Based on the results they concluded that the Biodiversity Footprint

method can succesfully help companies to:

• Get insight in which pressure factors and what processes have the largest

contribution to the total biodiversity impact for given local conditions.

• Determine the difference in footprint between the current and alternative or future

situation.

• Calculate the effectiveness of biodiversity friendly measures.

17

General conclusions Biodiversity Footprint method

JSScience

Additional value with respect to other methods:

• Location specific. The impact of landuse and emission to water are being

calculated for the actual impact-location and not generated based on generic impact values that are similar within Europe

• No need for specific software and not dependent of commercial databases
• Flexible, can be used without LCA
• Methodology can be implemented by companies themselves and is especially

useful for internal monitoring of biodiversity-friendly measures

• Focus on the most relevant pressure types. The impact of the 4 pressure factors

comprises the largest overall impact on biodiversity by Dutch and international businesses

• Landuse can be differentiated in types of use intensity. Landuse is often not yet

reported by companies but can be assessed relatively simple.

18

General conclusions Biodiversity Footprint method

JSScience

NatCap prestatiemeting webtool: Biodiversity Footprint Tool

• Web application for companies to calculate biodiversity footprint by themselves

based on simplified GLOBIO methodology.

• Simple method so that companies can use it without background knowledge.
• Included pressures: Land use, GHG.

Investigate possibility to add impact water extraction to webtool. Impact of N en P to water is not yet included webtool because of its complexity.

• Not entire chain included. First tool focuses on resources, suppliers and production

process (which are the two most relevant parts of the chain with respect to impacc).

• Technical part of the tool ready, but not accessible yet.

19

JSScience

Discussion: Follow up

• Make the webtool accessible for everyone interested: public website

Need to provide it with manual and stepwise instructions.

• Improve and develop the Footprint method:
• Refining extensive use function, agricultural nature management,

nature recovery, including culture landscapes, …

• Water extraction outside NLs
• Impact on marine biodiversity
• Adding other pressures: e.g. Infrastructure, cause effect relations toxic

emission, impact fossile fuels versus bio based

• Integration with other models
• Detailed manual for companies incl directions for getting data
• Additional cases

E.g with companies that want to test effectiveness measures of developed scenarios/alternatives, sectoral assessments (soy, oilpalm, meat, etc)

• Scenario workshops with selected companies

20

JSScience

Follow up (cont)

• Opportunities of linking the methodology to one or more steps of the

NCP, including the finance sector guide. Realization:

• Research program PBL, WUR
• Role Ministry , IUCN, Plansup, CREM Bioscope partners

21