towards benchmark methodology for biodiversity

Towards benchmark methodology for biodiversity

Compilation of Workshop Reports

by the EU Business and Biodiversity Platform June 2011

2

Contents Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 3 Agriculture ................................................................................................................................... 4 Finance ..................................................................................................................................... 13 Food Supply .............................................................................................................................. 22 Forestry ..................................................................................................................................... 32 Tourism ..................................................................................................................................... 53 Non-energy extractive industry .................................................................................................. 64 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 74

3

Introduction Safeguarding biodiversity is integral to sustainable development, competitiveness, economic growth and employment and is therefore important for business. In order to strengthen the link between the business sector and biodiversity conservation, the European Commission established the EU Business and Biodiversity Platform (B@B). This is a unique facility where businesses can come together to share their experiences and best practices, learn from their peers, and voice their needs and concerns to the European Commission. The specific objectives of this technical platform are:

• To facilitate a business and biodiversity initiative, • To help businesses find solutions to adjust their activities to ensure a fair income and

sustainable growth, while providing benefits for biodiversity and ecosystems, and • To give visibility through the implementation of an award scheme, acknowledging the good

practice of the best performing businesses.

Since the stakeholders within the environmental community, public and civil society and the business sector realized that business has a big role, responsibility and potential to contribute to the protection of biodiversity, they began cooperating to develop the business case for biodiversity and develop and implement measures to benefit biodiversity. This process has so far delivered many efforts and initiatives by the business sector in concrete measures, increased awareness and business commitment. Unfortunately, up until now the business sector has been lacking an instrument to accurately assess the effects of these measures and efforts for the benefit of biodiversity. Although many initiatives are in place to assess the impact of business practice on the environment in, for instance, the realms of resource efficiency, carbon emissions and the environmental footprint, there is currently no single adequate instrument in place to assess business performance with respect biodiversity. The effect of a lack of this kind of instrument is that there is no clear view of either the effectiveness of any measures implemented by business or the value of their efforts. Based on this, the European Commission through the Platform took up an initiative to evaluate the criteria of the currently available benchmarking schemes and explore the need and possibilities to develop an EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking instrument. Several workshops were set up to evaluate the existing benchmarking methodologies in the following sectors: agriculture, forestry, finance, food, non-energy extractive industries, and tourism. The workshops aimed to engage key stakeholders from these sectors and to solicit their opinions regarding existing mechanisms, and what could be improved to achieve the EU’s efforts to reduce biodiversity loss. The workshops also evaluated key existent benchmarking criteria relevant to each sector. The following sections of the document summarise the outcomes of the various sector workshops.

4

Agriculture

5

1. Introduction Since the stakeholders within the environmental community, public and civil society and the business sector realized that business has a big role, responsibility and potential to contribute to the protection of biodiversity, they began cooperating to develop the business case for biodiversity and develop and implement measures to benefit biodiversity. This process has so far delivered many efforts and initiatives by the business sector in concrete measures, increased awareness and business commitment. Unfortunately, up until now the business sector has been lacking an instrument to accurately assess the effects of these measures and efforts for the benefit of biodiversity. Although many initiatives are in place to assess the impact of business practice on the environment in for instance the realm of resource efficiency, carbon emissions and the environmental footprint, there is currently no adequate instrument in place to assess a businesses performance towards biodiversity. The effect of a lack of this kind of instrument is that there is no clear view of either the effectiveness of any measures implemented by business or the value of their efforts. Based on this, the European Commission took up the initiative to evaluate the criteria of the currently available benchmarking schemes and explore the need and possibilities to develop an EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking instrument. This document sets out the lines along which we will address the above mentioned need during the workshop in order to reach agreement upon the approach towards an EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking instrument.

2. Workshop aims The aim of this workshop is to explore whether any of the benchmarking instruments that are currently available can be utilized to assess the biodiversity performance of companies/actions and to explore the need and possibilities to develop such an instrument. This workshop also represents a unique opportunity to discuss benchmarking criteria that have been drafted by the EU Business & Biodiversity Platform. Next to assessing the biodiversity performance of a specific company or action as such, the expected outcome of the workshop will be to:

• evaluate the current set of criteria of a benchmarking scheme; • give recommendations to modifications and amendments of those criteria.

3. Draft Criteria for the benchmarking approach

In order to decide whether a benchmarking scheme is suited to assess a business and biodiversity effort, the European Commission proposes a number of criteria that could apply. During the workshop we will explore which criteria need to be met in relation to business and biodiversity. A number of draft criteria are listed below for consideration during the workshop. These (draft) criteria should all be answered positively for a benchmarking scheme to be applicable.

1. Addresses biodiversity components? Is the study clear about which of the four components of biodiversity it addresses: landscapes, ecosystems, species and/or biological resources?

2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? Is the study clear about which of the four biodiversity objectives it addresses: conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of

6

biological resources, equitable sharing of the benefits, and development outcomes (especially for cases in developing countries)?

3. Based on a corporate biodiversity policy? Does the study clearly link the case to the company's biodiversity policy?

4. Clear linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations? Does the study clearly link the case to relevant international, regional and national biodiversity policies and regulations?

5. Integrated into a corporate biodiversity action plan? Does the study show how the case is clearly linked to the company's biodiversity and action plan?

6. Biodiversity performance indicators? Does the case study clearly describe which biodiversity performance indicators are used in the case?

7. Biodiversity performance monitoring and reporting? Does the study clearly describe the performance monitoring and reporting processes for the case?

8. Independent verification? Does the study clearly explain whether and how the case has been independently verified?

9. Sustainability of the biodiversity action(s)? Does the study indicate whether and, if so, why the biodiversity actions of the case are sustainable?

10. Replicability of the biodiversity actions(s)? Does the study provide guidance on the how the case could be replicated or scaled up across the company or the sector?

11. Is the ecosystem/habitat/species important? E.g. Is the action in a Natura 2000 area or one covered by the Habitat or the Birds Directive? Is it threatened? Is it indigenous?

12. How extensive is the impact? E.g. What is the geographical area covered? What other types of land use can be found in the region? Are there negative side effects?

13. Environmental benefit, including: Integrating legal and ecological constraints and especially the European biodiversity policies – Birds and Habitats Directives, and Natura 2000 – into strategies considering the value chain with a sustainable sourcing policy.

During the workshop the criteria will be discussed and considered with the objective of evaluating whether you can work with these criteria and if they are valid for your industry.

4. Workshop methodology The workshop will last one day (from 9:45 am until 3:00 pm) and will be organized in two phases. During the first phase, presentations, discussion and participant feedback will focus on the suggested benchmarking criteria. This session aims at providing the participants with sufficient background on the EU Biodiversity Strategy, the provided criteria for the benchmarking approach and to discuss whether these criteria are applicable in light of a benchmarking methodology for the EU Business & Biodiversity Platform. The second phase will be dedicated to discussions among participants about the applicability to use this set of benchmarking criteria. This will be facilitated by actively testing the draft criteria in relation to one or more real cases. A number of participants will be asked to briefly introduce a case, which is a benchmarking scheme/methodology they have been involved or in contact with, and then the participants will assess and evaluate the criteria against this case. This exercise will lead into a moderated discussion where the experiences of the participants with applying the criteria will be discussed. Conclusions and advice regarding the criteria and the use thereof will be drawn from this session.

5. Case studies In order to facilitate the workshop, we have selected a number of examples which apply to the agriculture sector in order to test and evaluate the above given criteria. These cases will be described and illustrated in relation to the above mentioned criteria to provide you with a idea of

7

how these cases should relate to the set criteria. On the basis of these illustrations we will further highlight the cases and links with and evaluations of the criteria during the workshop. In this document for demonstration purposes only a few criteria are described per case. During the workshop all criteria will be addressed.

5.1. Case: European Biodiversity Standard

This benchmarking methodology was described previously during the sectoral workshops in September 2010. The European Biodiversity Standard (EBS) is a methodology which has been developed by ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC) in cooperation with Middlemarch Environmental Limited (MEL) to measure and improve a company’s environmental performance. It focuses not just on one certain project or initiative, but instead assesses a whole company. It is an assessment of a company’s biodiversity management performance looking at ten components: commitment, survey, assessment, legislation, planning, implementation, measurement, partnerships, communication and review.

Description

The methodology has been developed by MEL and they have, in cooperation with the Wildlife Trusts, widely implemented it in the United Kingdom for a number of years under the name Biodiversity Benchmark. A number of big organizations have applied for and acquired the Biodiversity Benchmark throughout the years. For example Center Parks was the first organization to get this benchmark for their entire organization, all their site, in the UK. MEL has together with ECNC adapted their methodology to better fit the European market and this adjusted approach has now been made available under the name European Biodiversity Standard. The EBS process consists of two stages of assessment; a self-assessment by the company in question to review their biodiversity performance and decide whether there is need for further improvement or the time is right to apply for the external assessment, and the external assessment by an independent assessor which verifies the self-assessment and seeks evidence of implemented management systems and progress made in each of the ten components of the EBS. If a company makes the grade, the assessor will recommend that it is awarded the European Biodiversity Standard to the accreditation body (ECNC). If it is not quite there, the assessor will advise on the requirements for re-application. The European Biodiversity Standard is accredited for two years, with an interim self-assessment after year one and a full re-accreditation process at the end of two years.

1. Addresses biodiversity components? Application of criteria

2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? The EBS clearly addresses a company’s performance regarding ecosystems and biological resources as well as the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of these resources by looking at the planning, implementation and measurement of measures taken by the company to minimize the impact on biodiversity and even improve the biodiversity on company sites. 3. Based on a corporate biodiversity policy? Throughout all ten components of the assessment procedure, the proof of certain actions, procedures, measures, monitoring, etc. should be traceable back to the business policy of the company being assessed.

8

4. Clear linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations? One of the components of the EBS is the demand that the company adheres to government legislation and policy. The assessed company needs to provide evidence that all relevant legislation is being identified and adhered to. 5. Integrated into a corporate biodiversity action plan? The component ‘planning’ assesses if the company has set objectives, targets and action plans for biodiversity issues. Through this component therefore, the EBS assesses whether biodiversity action plans have been created to integrate the company’s biodiversity policy and actions.

5.2. Case: Ecosystem Services Benchmark

The Ecosystem Services Benchmark (ESB) has been developed by the Natural Value Initiative in collaboration with investors from Europe, Brazil, the USA and Australia (Aviva Investors, F&C Investments, Insight Investment, Pax World,

Description

Grupo Santander Brazil and the Australian pension fund VicSuper). Designed to assess investment risk and opportunity associated with BES impacts and dependence in the food, beverage and tobacco sector, the Ecosystem Services Benchmark is aimed primarily at asset managers, but can also inform the banking and insurance sectors more generally. It has a secondary application for companies within the food, beverage and tobacco sectors, for which it provides a framework within which to consider the issue. The Ecosystem Services Benchmark (ESB) is aimed primarily at asset managers, but can also inform the banking and insurance sectors. Using it to assess companies within an investment portfolio will enable investors to identify companies that are proactively managing these risks and opportunities and those that have not yet responded. It has a secondary application for companies within the food, beverage and tobacco sectors for which it provides a strategic framework within which to consider the issue. By using it, companies will learn how to communicate more effectively with investors, gain greater reward for sustainable sourcing and facilitate effective management of an issue of increasing significance. The ESB focuses on impacts and dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystem services associated with the production and harvesting of raw materials in companies with agricultural supply chains (including agricultural commodities, livestock and fish). It evaluates companies against five broad categories of performance: competitive advantage, governance, policy and strategy, management, and implementation and reporting. Each evaluated company receives a summary of their results. By incorporating discussion of the recommendations and outcomes of the analysis into investor dialogues with poorly performing companies, improved performance can be encouraged and ultimately risk is more effectively managed.


2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? The ESB focuses on impacts and dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystem services which clearly addresses biodiversity components and objectives with a special attention to the sustainable use of biological resources for companies within the food, beverage and tobacco sectors and the banking and insurance sectors more generally. 4. Clear linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations?

9

The ESB clearly links the case to relevant biodiversity policies and regulations as it evaluates companies against five broad categories of performance. Two out of these five categories are related to governance and policy and strategy. 7. Biodiversity performance monitoring and reporting? This criterion clearly applies to the Ecosystem Services Benchmark. As part of the methodology, the company analysis template stresses that a company should have proof of the implementation of the set measures regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services. This should be monitored in order to be reported and the benchmark requires proof of this reporting. The ESB also demands monitoring of the understanding and management of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the supply chain, which also leads into the demanded reporting. 8. Independent verification? The fact that the Ecosystem Services Benchmark is an instrument for the financial sector to assess the biodiversity performance and risk management of companies in the food, beverage and tobacco sector defines that an independent verification of the performance applies. The assessor is, until the investment has been done, independent from the company and will ensure that the performance of the assessed company is up to the benchmark. The company analysis template states that the performance has to be documented and reported, which ensures this independent verification.

5.3. Case: agricultural entrepreneur ‘Hoeve Engelendael

Hoeve Engelendael is an agricultural entrepreneur running an arable farm in Flanders. Since 1993 the entrepreneur started implementing measures to support nature and landscape on the farm on his own initiative. Initially these measures consisted of small landscape elements such as tree rows and ditches with reed. Gradually the measures were extended with larger scale activities such as plantation of shrubs and woodland, still on own initiative until 2007.

Description

As from 2006, the entrepreneur adopted a more strategic approach towards diversification of his farm practices towards a multifunctional agricultural business. The thinking behind this was that this approach would create new economic value to the natural and cultural values of the surrounding environment and the farm itself. Also on the mid-term the economic value-added created by the diversification strategy would ensure continuity of the project and on the long term even continuity of the multifunctional farm by adoption of the approach by a successor. The strategy or specific components of it (selected agri-environmental measures) were included in a number of regional, national and European projects, through which funding and outreach was generated. This ensures that the business approach adopted by the farmer will have a multiplier effect by demonstrating that agricultural practices can go hand in hand with biodiversity measures combined with other uses of the farm (such as education and recreation) and still be economically viable. In addition to the measures that are oriented towards increasing the biodiversity and landscape value and offering multiple uses, the process of implementing the measures involved a range of stakeholders. The farmer cooperated with the regional authorities (Province of Oost-Vlaanderen), a government agency (Flemish Land Agency – and EU B@B Platform participant), a local authority (municipality of Sint-Laureins), a water board, a tourism board, regional development platform, local NGOs etc. By adopting such participatory process the farmer ensured wide ownership of his approach and the results of it and at the same time arranged for wider uptake by other farmers in the region.

10


2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? The case study clearly addresses a business performance regarding landscapes, ecosystems and biological resources as well as the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of these resources given the fact that the measures that are oriented towards increasing the biodiversity and landscape value and offering multiple uses. 9. Sustainability of the biodiversity action(s)? 10. Replicability of the biodiversity actions(s)? 12. How extensive is the impact? The case study indicates that the biodiversity actions of the case are sustainable, since the entrepreneur adopted a more strategic approach towards diversification of his farm practices towards a multifunctional agricultural business which would ensure continuity of the project on the long term. This also allows that the business approach adopted by the farmer will have a multiplier effect for wider uptake by other farmers in the region. The involvement of the wide range of stakeholders makes the impact even more extensive and adopting such participatory process is also a key for sustainability on the long term.

6. Workshop questions These examples clearly show that the different benchmarking methodologies fit to at least the majority of the set criteria. How these benchmarking methodologies relate to all the criteria and which is most suitable, based upon these criteria, will be further evaluated together with the participants during the EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking workshop. In order to facilitate this evaluation, there are a number of questions we would like to have answered during the workshop: Do you consider that the given draft criteria for the benchmarking approach sufficiently

address the issues regarding biodiversity within the agriculture sector? How do the presented benchmarking methodologies cover the given draft criteria for the

benchmarking approach? How do the given draft criteria for the benchmarking approach apply to the presented

cases? Which suggestions would you have for further elaboration or amendment of the given

draft criteria for the benchmarking approach?

7. Summary of the Discussion This part of the report summarizes the discussions of the participants (mainly Syngenta and VLM) during the workshop. Comprehensive minutes of the workshop are displayed in the appendix (see part 9 of this report). SIMPLIFICATION

• Give clear signals to farmers about what is expected and then they will be able to give clear responses. The list of criteria is currently too theoretical and not specific enough about the requirements.

• Since farming is an economic activity, it should also be clear how farmers can get (increased) revenue from the products. The importance of biodiversity can easily be emphasized by the payments of the CAP. A lot of compulsory standards are already covered by the 1st pillar of the CAP and cross-compliance (habitats and birds, soil, water,

11

sustainable use of pesticides, etc.). Most likely, farmers who are already applying for the measures of the 2nd pillar of the CAP will be interested in these benchmarking criteria.

PRACTICALITY • It is not clear what kind of biodiversity performance indicators the criteria are referring to.

Practicality is an important aspect, so the proper indicators, set of measures, tools and techniques have to be provided by the benchmarking in order to give clear guidance to farmers about solutions on how to enhance biodiversity while producing food at the same time.

• Sustainability is the most promising part of the list of criteria. What kind of actions should be used to secure biodiversity in the long term? Multifunctional field margin management is an example of how farmers protect and enhance biodiversity within the agricultural activity.

• Spreading the word about best practices is a key issue to success. CONTEXT

• In order to be able to apply this benchmark, the farmers should get clear guidance, in which a proper context/situation analysis is essential.

COMMUNICATION TOOLS • The recognition and acknowledgement that agriculture can produce biodiversity should

be clearly reflected by the communication tools. FINANCE

• The question was raised of who will pay for the independent verification, how high the costs of the application of this benchmarking will be and how it will be financed. If the benchmarking is not marketable, then it will be difficult to manage and apply it.

The additional discussion points were: • The agriculture sector is too diversified to develop a single benchmarking methodology

and criteria for biodiversity; • Sustainability does pay; • Increased monitoring of biodiversity impacts in the EU could lead to increased imports of

agricultural products and raw materials from other parts of the world; • Climate change aspects need to be integrated in a benchmarking methodology for

biodiversity. The list of criteria does not reflect the role of SMEs in agriculture, which is quite substantial within the EU. The participants agreed that all 13 criteria could be applied to SMEs, but they should be better specified. Corporate identities, companies and farmers should be separately targeted by these criteria. If the corporates and companies are incentivised, they can provide biodiversity compatible advice and solutions to the farmers so that they can deliver various products and services to the customers (and to the public). The specific points which were discussed about the criteria are detailed in the minutes of the workshop.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations The productive discussions during the workshop led to the following conclusions and recommendations about the review of the benchmarking criteria which were provided by the EC:

12

• Before zooming into the benchmarking criteria, the whole benchmarking approach needs to be put into context. It is not specified within the criteria WHICH FARMERS WE ARE FOCUSING ON: - SMEs or large-scale farmers? - Farmers in the field or farmers in greenhouses? - In relation to crop production or animal production or biomass? More contextual information needs to be included and a situation description needs to be done before it comes to the question of criteria.

• There are a number of (new) key areas which need to be covered by additional criteria, namely: Biodiversity compatible advice and solutions, Legislation, Finance, Ecosystem services, Protocol and control mechanisms.

• It is recommended to integrate agricultural aspects into this list of criteria, because so far the focus is only on biodiversity. Agricultural production and the enhancement of biodiversity can go hand in hand, and this fact should be clearly reflected by the criteria. The participants doubt if this benchmarking in the present state would be appealing to the farmers and if farmer organizations would be interested in promoting such a scheme. The multiple benefits for the famers need to be made clear.

• The participants believe that having an award scheme at EU level would be of greater benefit for both biodiversity and the sector itself than this benchmarking approach.

Finance

14

1. Introduction Awareness among stakeholders within the environmental community, public and civil society and the business sector has increased in relation to the potentially significant role, responsibility and contribution that business has in relation to the protection of biodiversity. Cooperation has been initiated in order to develop the business case for biodiversity and to develop and implement measures to benefit biodiversity. This process has so far delivered many efforts and initiatives by the business sector in terms of concrete measures, increased awareness and business commitment. Unfortunately, up until now the business sector has lacked an instrument by which to accurately assess the benefits of these measures and efforts for biodiversity; although many initiatives are in place to evaluate the impact of business practice on the environment in (for instance) the realm of resource efficiency, carbon emissions and environmental footprint. The effect of this is that there is no clear view of either the effectiveness of any measures implemented by business or the value of their efforts. Based on this, the European Commission initiated a process to evaluate the criteria of the currently available benchmarking schemes and to explore the need and possibilities to develop an EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking instrument. This document therefore provides the basis for a knowledge driven discussion about the approach towards developing an EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking instrument.

2. Workshop aims The aim of this workshop is to explore whether any of the benchmarking instruments that are currently available can be utilized to assess the biodiversity performance of companies/actions and to explore the need and possibilities for developing such an instrument. This workshop also represents a unique opportunity to discuss benchmarking criteria that have been drafted by the EU Business & Biodiversity Platform. Next to assessing the biodiversity performance of a specific company or action as such, the expected outcomes of the workshop will be to:

• evaluate the current set of criteria of a benchmarking scheme; • give recommendations for modifications and amendments to those criteria.


In order to decide whether a benchmarking scheme is suitable for assessing the contributions of business to biodiversity, the European Commission has proposed a number of criteria that could apply. During the workshop we will explore which criteria need to be met in relation to business and biodiversity. A number of draft criteria are therefore listed below for consideration during the workshop. These (draft) criteria should all be answered positively for a benchmarking scheme to be applicable.


2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? Is the study clear about which of the four biodiversity objectives it addresses: conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of biological resources, equitable sharing of the benefits, and development outcomes (especially for cases in developing countries)?

15












During the workshop the criteria will be discussed and considered with the objective of evaluating whether you can work with these criteria and if they are valid for your industry.

4. Workshop methodology The workshop will last one day (from 9:45 am until 3:00 pm) and will be organized in two phases. During the first phase, presentations, discussion and participant feedback will focus on the EU benchmarking criteria. This session aims at providing the participants with sufficient background on the EU Biodiversity Strategy, the criteria provided for the benchmarking approach and to discuss whether these criteria are applicable in light of a benchmarking methodology for the EU Business & Biodiversity Platform. The second phase will be dedicated to discussions among participants about the application in practice of the EU benchmarking criteria. This will be facilitated by actively testing the draft criteria in relation to one or more real cases. A number of participants will be asked to briefly introduce a case, which is a benchmarking scheme/methodology they have been involved or in contact with, and then the participants will assess and evaluate the criteria against this case. This exercise will lead into a moderated discussion where the experience of the participants in relation to applying the criteria will be discussed. Conclusions and advice regarding the criteria and the use thereof will be drawn from this session.

5. Case studies In order to facilitate the workshop, we have selected a number of examples which apply to the finance sector in order to test and evaluate the above given criteria. These cases will be described and illustrated in relation to the above mentioned criteria to provide you with a idea of how these cases should relate to the set criteria. On the basis of these illustrations we will further highlight the cases and links with and evaluations of the criteria during the workshop. In

16

this document for demonstration purposes only a few criteria are described per case. During the workshop all criteria will be addressed.


This benchmarking methodology was described previously during the sectoral workshops in September 2010. The European Biodiversity Standard (EBS) is a methodology which has been developed by ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC) in cooperation with Middlemarch Environmental Limited (MEL) to measure and improve a company’s environmental performance. It focuses not just on one certain project or initiative, but instead assesses a whole company. It is an assessment of a company’s biodiversity management performance looking at ten components: commitment, survey, assessment, legislation, planning, implementation, measurement, partnerships, communication and review.

Description



2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? The EBS clearly addresses a company’s performance regarding ecosystems and biological resources as well as the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of these resources by looking at the planning, implementation and measurement of measures taken by the company to minimize the impact on biodiversity and even improve the biodiversity on company sites. 3. Based on a corporate biodiversity policy? Throughout all ten components of the assessment procedure, the proof of certain actions, procedures, measures, monitoring, etc. should be traceable back to the business policy of the company being assessed. 4. Clear linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations?

17

One of the components of the EBS is the demand that the company adheres to government legislation and policy. The assessed company needs to provide evidence that all relevant legislation is being identified and adhered to. 5. Integrated into a corporate biodiversity action plan? The component ‘planning’ assesses if the company has set objectives, targets and action plans for biodiversity issues. Through this component therefore, the EBS assesses whether biodiversity action plans have been created to integrate the company’s biodiversity policy and actions.

5.2. Case: Ecosystem Services Benchmark

The Ecosystem Services Benchmark (ESB) has been developed by the Natural Value Initiative in collaboration with investors from Europe, Brazil, the USA and Australia (Aviva Investors, F&C Investments, Insight Investment, Pax World, Grupo Santander Brazil and the Australian pension fund VicSuper). Designed to assess investment risk and opportunity associated with BES impacts and dependence in the food, beverage and tobacco sector, the Ecosystem Services Benchmark is aimed primarily at asset managers, but can also inform the banking and insurance sectors more generally. It has a secondary application for companies within the food, beverage and tobacco sectors, for which it provides a framework within which to consider the issue.

Description

The Ecosystem Services Benchmark (ESB) is aimed primarily at asset managers, but can also inform the banking and insurance sectors. Using it to assess companies within an investment portfolio will enable investors to identify companies that are proactively managing these risks and opportunities and those that have not yet responded. It has a secondary application for companies within the food, beverage and tobacco sectors for which it provides a strategic framework within which to consider the issue. By using it, companies will learn how to communicate more effectively with investors, gain greater reward for sustainable sourcing and facilitate effective management of an issue of increasing significance. The ESB focuses on impacts and dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystem services associated with the production and harvesting of raw materials in companies with agricultural supply chains (including agricultural commodities, livestock and fish). It evaluates companies against five broad categories of performance: competitive advantage, governance, policy and strategy, management, and implementation and reporting. Each evaluated company receives a summary of their results. By incorporating discussion of the recommendations and outcomes of the analysis into investor dialogues with poorly performing companies, improved performance can be encouraged and ultimately risk is more effectively managed.


2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? The ESB focuses on impacts and dependencies on biodiversity and ecosystem services which clearly addresses biodiversity components and objectives with a special attention to the sustainable use of biological resources for companies within the food, beverage and tobacco sectors and the banking and insurance sectors more generally. 4. Clear linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations? The ESB clearly links the case to relevant biodiversity policies and regulations as it evaluates companies against five broad categories of performance. Two out of these five categories are related to governance and policy and strategy.

18

7. Biodiversity performance monitoring and reporting? This criterion clearly applies to the Ecosystem Services Benchmark. As part of the methodology, the company analysis template stresses that a company should have proof of the implementation of the set measures regarding biodiversity and ecosystem services. This should be monitored in order to be reported and the benchmark requires proof of this reporting. The ESB also demands monitoring of the understanding and management of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the supply chain, which also leads into the demanded reporting. 8. Independent verification? The fact that the Ecosystem Services Benchmark is an instrument for the financial sector to assess the biodiversity performance and risk management of companies in the food, beverage and tobacco sector defines that an independent verification of the performance applies. The assessor is, until the investment has been done, independent from the company and will ensure that the performance of the assessed company is up to the benchmark. The company analysis template states that the performance has to be documented and reported, which ensures this independent verification.

5.3. Case: Special investment criteria regarding biodiversity

The ASN Bank is a sustainable bank which set out to, through their business activities, contribute and strengthen a sustainable society. One of the pillars of this sustainable business practice is their investment policy based on ‘special investment criteria. ASN realized that the impact it can have on nature and society through the proper utilization of their core activities is substantial. Therefore the bank has issued an investment policy to ensure that it only invests in companies and actions that conduct good practice towards nature and society.

Description

Biodiversity is one of the three themes within this ASN investment policy and together with human rights and climate change it covers all subjects that are important for the selection of the investments made by the bank. The bank wants to utilize its investment practices to contribute to the conservation and even strengthening of biodiversity worldwide. The ASN investment policy regarding biodiversity aims to invest in companies and actions that contribute to the protection and strengthening of biodiversity or take effective measures to mitigate or compensate biodiversity threats. In order to facilitate this process, the bank has formulated a number of criteria that indicate which activities are fit for investment. As mentioned above, the activities should fit not only the biodiversity criteria, but also the criteria regarding the other themes. These criteria apply to all investments and also the vote of the ASN Bank during shareholder meetings. In order to assess whether an enterprise or project is fit for investment, the ASN Bank employs a two-way system. There is a number of exclusion criteria regarding biodiversity and a number of acceptance criteria. The exclusion criteria set out the guidelines regarding practices and activities that an enterprise or project should refrain from and the acceptance criteria set out which practices or activities should be conducted in order to be eligible for investment. The ASN Bank has formulated a list of activities that could be a threat to biodiversity; this is than related to different sectors in which these activities are most relevant. As a third part there is a list of criteria to which companies in these sectors need to adhere. Based on this system ASN only invests in companies and actions that do not form a threat for biodiversity, or that do belong to one of the indicated sectors but adhere to the set criteria.

19

Through strict application of these special investment criteria, ASN Bank ensures that they only invest in companies and actions that fit within their sustainability profile and psychology and they can provide their customers with the reassurance that their money is not invested in activities that harm nature or society and actively build a sustainable future.


2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? It is clear that ASN Banks special investment criteria on biodiversity address biodiversity components and objectives. When applying the criteria to assess whether the business impact biodiversity the focus is on certain biodiversity components and after that stage the objectives of the enterprise or project are being assessed in order to see whether the measures to lower biodiversity impact are sufficient. In this way, both criteria are clearly met. 3. Based on a corporate biodiversity policy? This criterion is clearly met in the case of the special investment criteria regarding biodiversity. In their policy the ASN Bank states that they only positively evaluate companies and actions when they have formulated biodiversity policy addressing the issues raised in the special criteria. 6. Biodiversity performance indicators The special investment criteria regarding biodiversity meet this set criterion. The investment criteria themselves are the indicators which are used by the ASN Bank in order to evaluate an enterprise or project on its biodiversity performance and assess the possibility for investment. These criteria are clearly specified in the ASN Bank issue paper on biodiversity and also in a separate document containing the special investment criteria. 7. Biodiversity performance monitoring and reporting? Linked up to point 3 of the provided evaluation criteria (Based on a corporate biodiversity policy?), the ASN Bank also states in its biodiversity policy that it will only invest in those companies and actions that monitor their biodiversity policy and report according to the appropriate Global Reporting Initiative guidelines.

6. Workshop questions These examples clearly show that the different benchmarking methodologies fit to at least the majority of the set criteria. How these benchmarking methodologies relate to all the criteria and which is most suitable, based upon these criteria, will be further evaluated together with the participants during the EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking workshop. In order to facilitate this evaluation, there are a number of questions we would like to have answered during the workshop: What is your opinion on the EU benchmarking criteria presented?

- General - Specific

Do you consider that the given draft criteria for the benchmarking approach sufficiently address the issues regarding biodiversity within the finance sector?

How do the benchmarking methodologies presented cover the given draft criteria for the EU benchmarking approach?

How can we use the experiences from the case studies for refining the EU draft criteria? What could be the key elements for success or obstacles for using the criteria in practice

(reflecting also on the methodologies)?

20

What suggestions do you have for further elaboration or amendment to the EU draft criteria?

7. Summary of the Discussion

During the EU Business & Biodiversity Platform finance sector workshop on benchmarking, the criteria and the presented case studies were discussed with the participants. In relation to the criteria provided, the main discussion point was that the criteria, in themselves, are not suited for the financial sector to use in assessing a company’s performance towards biodiversity or to screen investment opportunities. The current list of criteria is too general and does not go into enough depth. In order to make them work for the financial sector it is important to prepare separate criteria for separate business sectors. Since the financial sector will need to use them to assess these sectors, the criteria should be more elaborated and specified towards certain sectors. The starting point should then be a set of basic criteria that, once they have been addressed, lead into more in depth criteria. Based on the case studies presented, the participants reflected back on the criteria in relation to these case studies. It was pointed out that these criteria, being too general, could actually apply to every case study but could not properly be utilized by the financial sector. It was again stressed that in depth research into the biodiversity performance of companies is essential to the financial sector. The other main issue put forward during the workshop, and which has some synergies with the previous point, is that the approach regarding the criteria was too ‘quick and easy’. Assessment of a company’s biodiversity performance should be based upon in depth research, not just ticking off a check list. The data should be verified and it should be clear who asks which questions and who should provide the answers, and to which level. The last major issue put forward was that more effort should be made to involve the financial sector in the issue/subject of biodiversity. Involvement in biodiversity by financial institutions is currently mainly based on the reputational risks of bad investments in relation to biodiversity. Biodiversity in itself is not considered a business case by the financial sector and therefore very few institutions act upon it. There is a need for a number of ‘big triggers’ to get the financial sector actively involved in biodiversity investments. Parallels were drawn with the Al Gore movie, which put climate change and the necessity to act in the public eye; on its own, this film triggered companies to take action. It would also help if biodiversity were to become a clearly identifiable business opportunity and were to become profitable. In addition it was proposed that a high level ‘biodiversity disclosure project’ (in which companies would have to reveal what activities they undertakes in relation to their positive/negative impacts on biodiversity) funded by the EU would provide a useful trigger for businesses. These are the main points discussed during the workshop. For more information and a more elaborate description of the workshop, please refer to the workshop minutes.

8. Conclusions and Recommendations Based on the discussion points provided above, the participants provided a number of conclusions and recommendations for the development of a benchmarking instrument and the further development of the set of criteria. In addition, recommendations were given on the development of a biodiversity award system.

21

The main recommendations are:

• The focus of the EU criteria should be more specific. It is very important to target specific biodiversity issues and business sectors, which different organisations can relate to.

• The criteria need to be further elaborated and expanded so that certain criteria can be applied specifically to particular business sectors.

• Use the given criteria as a possible driver for biodiversity action. It is not a benchmark in its own right but can be used to drive operational management, generate a paradigm shift and could improve the profile, knowledge and understanding of biodiversity in the sector

• The European Commission should explore the possibility to develop a new set of criteria which could be more effectively applied by the financial sector. A number of recommendations on what to take into account for these criteria are provided in the workshop minutes.

• In the biodiversity award other issues should also be taken into account (human rights, climate change, etc.). The decisive factor should still be biodiversity, but just good practice in regard to biodiversity and malpractice in regard to these other fields would create the wrong message.

• The European Commission needs to explore the possibility of working together with research companies (e.g. SAN, IRIS, Oekom Research, Avanti, Sustainalytics) in developing the criteria for the award.

• For the financial sector the reputational risk is the main driver for actions that take into account biodiversity. This driver should be targeted by the European Commission and NGOs in order to get the financial institutions fully on board.

These are the main recommendations provided during the workshop. For more information and a more elaborate description of the workshop, please refer to the workshop minutes.

Food Supply

23

1. Introduction Since the stakeholders within the environmental community, public and civil society and the business sector realized that business has a big role, responsibility and potential to contribute to the protection of biodiversity, they began cooperating to develop the business case for biodiversity and develop and implement measures to benefit biodiversity. This process has so far delivered many efforts and initiatives by the business sector in concrete measures, increased awareness and business commitment. Unfortunately, up until now the business sector has been lacking an instrument to accurately assess the effects of these measures and efforts for the benefit of biodiversity. Although many initiatives are in place to assess the impact of business practice on the environment in for instance the realm of resource efficiency, carbon emissions and the environmental footprint, there is currently no adequate instrument in place to assess a business’ performance towards biodiversity. The effect of a lack of this kind of instrument is that there is no clear view of either the effectiveness of any measures implemented by business or the value of their efforts. Based on this, the European Commission took up the initiative to evaluate the criteria of the currently available benchmarking schemes and explore the need and possibilities to develop an EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking instrument. This document sets out the lines along which the above mentioned need has been addressed during the workshop to reach an agreement upon the approach towards an EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking instrument.

2. Workshop aims The aim of this workshop was to explore whether any of the benchmarking instruments that are currently available can be utilized to assess the biodiversity performance of companies/actions and to explore the need and possibilities to develop such an instrument. This workshop also represents a unique opportunity to discuss benchmarking criteria that have been drafted by the EU Business & Biodiversity Platform. Next to assessing the biodiversity performance of a specific company or action as such, the expected outcome of the workshop were to:

• evaluate the current set of criteria of a benchmarking scheme; • give recommendations to modifications and amendments of those criteria.


In order to decide whether a benchmarking scheme is suited to assess a business and biodiversity effort, the European Commission proposes a number of criteria that could apply. During the workshop we have explored which criteria need to be met in relation to business and biodiversity. These (draft) criteria should all be answered positively for a benchmarking scheme to be applicable.



24












During the workshop the criteria were discussed and considered with the objective of evaluating whether participants can work with these criteria and if they are valid for their industry.

4. Workshop methodology The workshop lasted one day (from 9:45 am until 3:00 pm) and was organized in two phases. During the first phase, presentations, discussions and participant feedback focused on the suggested criteria for the benchmarking approach. This session aimed at providing the participants with sufficient background on the EU Biodiversity Strategy and presenting each of the 13 drafted criteria in details. The second phase was dedicated to discussions among the participants about the applicability of this set of criteria. This was facilitated by actively testing the draft criteria in relation to one or more real cases. A number of participants was asked to briefly introduce a case, which is a benchmarking scheme/methodology they have been involved or in contact with. The participants then assessed and evaluated the criteria against this case. This exercise lead to a moderated discussion and the review of the 13 drafted criteria in order to agree on a basis of benchmarking scheme for the food supply sector.

5. Case studies Last year, during our first workshop we proposed a first analysis of 3 benchmarking scheme/methodologies and certifications schemes relevant for the food companies:

- The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) developed by the WBCSD/WRI and the Business and Biodiversity Interdependence Indicator (BBII) developed by Orée were more dedicated to the newcomers (companies more often at the very-early stage in the process of integrating biodiversity into their business). Indeed these methodologies

25

enable companies to define their interdependencies with biodiversity and ecosystems services.

- For companies more advanced and focusing on specific products or ingredients which enter the recipe of their products, the certification schemes (Rainforest alliance, RSPO, RTRS and MSC) give a level of quality in term of biodiversity protection which can be used as a standard for the market.

- Finally the NVI methodology

offers a tool mainly dedicated to investors to assess the management of biodiversity and risks and opportunities linked to ecosystem services for companies with an agricultural supply chain.

During this workshop we proposed to discuss the main interests of those already presented benchmarking methodologies and also to go further with an update on the evolution of efforts made on this kind of methods over the last year in relation to the benchmarking initiative of the European Commission. In that context PwC presented the following three cases1

These cases contributed to the discussion on the 13 drafted criteria for the elaboration of a comprehensive benchmarking approach.

described below.


The European Biodiversity Standard (EBS) is a methodology which has been developed by ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC) in cooperation with Middlemarch Environmental Limited (MEL) to measure and improve a company’s environmental performance. It focuses not just on one certain project or initiative, but instead assesses a whole company. It is an assessment of a company’s biodiversity management performance looking at ten components: commitment, survey, assessment, legislation, planning, implementation, measurement, partnerships, communication and review.

Description

The methodology has been developed by MEL and they have, in cooperation with the Wildlife Trusts, widely implemented it in the United Kingdom for a number of years under the name Biodiversity Benchmark. A number of big organizations have applied for and acquired the Biodiversity Benchmark throughout the years. For example Center Parks was the first organization to get this benchmark for their entire organization, all their site, in the UK. MEL has together with ECNC adapted their methodology to better fit the European market and this adjusted approach has now been made available under the name European Biodiversity Standard. The EBS process consists of two stages of assessment; a self-assessment by the company in question to review their biodiversity performance and decide whether there is need for further improvement or the time is right to apply for the external assessment, and the external assessment by an independent assessor which verifies the self-assessment and seeks evidence of implemented management systems and progress made in each of the ten components of the EBS. If a company makes the grade, the assessor will recommend that it is awarded the European Biodiversity Standard to the accreditation body (ECNC). If it is not quite there, the assessor will advise on the requirements for re-application. The European Biodiversity Standard is accredited

1 A case study can be a benchmarking scheme, a methodology or an instrument as well as a specific benchmarked project or initiative.

26

for two years, with an interim self-assessment after year one and a full re-accreditation process at the end of two years.


2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? The EBS clearly addresses a company’s performance regarding ecosystems and biological resources as well as the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of these resources by looking at the planning, implementation and measurement of measures taken by the company to minimize the impact on biodiversity and even improve the biodiversity on company sites. 3. Based on a corporate biodiversity policy? Throughout all ten components of the assessment procedure, the proof of certain actions, procedures, measures, monitoring, etc. should be traceable back to the business policy of the company being assessed. 4. Clear linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations? One of the components of the EBS is the demand that the company adheres to government legislation and policy. The assessed company needs to provide evidence that all relevant legislation is being identified and adhered to. 5. Integrated into a corporate biodiversity action plan? The component ‘planning’ assesses if the company has set objectives, targets and action plans for biodiversity issues. Through this component therefore, the EBS assesses whether biodiversity action plans have been created to integrate the company’s biodiversity policy and actions.

5.2. Case: Corporate Ecosystem valuation

The Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (CEV) was launched in April 2011 by the WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) in collaboration with ERM, IUCN and PwC. The main objective of this Guide is to provide a process to explicitly value and account for ecosystem costs and benefits in business decision making. It has been road tested by 14 international companies. It is downloadable at the following link: www.wbcsd.org/web/cev.htm

Description

The Guide is divided on 2 parts: « Screening » process that could be performed following the Corporate Ecosystem

Services Review (ESR) methodology « Methodology » to conduct a CEV divided in 5 steps (scoping, planning, valuation,

application, embedding) This approach can be useful to better understand and address some of the benchmarking criteria. In fact the valuation approach has been developed in line with a typical Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) process. Different valuation approaches are considered: qualitative, quantitative and monetary. Ecosystem valuation techniques are presented according to different type of ecosystem services.


2. Addresses biodiversity objectives?

27

The first part of the methodology, that foresees a screening process through the ESR helps to address biodiversity components and objectives getting specific to their impacts and dependencies on the organization. At this stage, those notions of impacts / dependencies have not yet been explicitly considered in the benchmarking criteria but the interest and relevance of their incorporation have been discussed during the workshop. 11. Is the ecosystem/habitat/species important? 12. How extensive is the impact? 13. Environmental benefit, In the CEV methodology, the valuation in itself is presented as a 9 step process and enables to address some benchmarking criteria such as the relative significance of the ecosystem services affected, and the environmental changes (taking into account environmental and physic-chemical changes). The techniques suggested by the CEV approach to better understand and address those criteria should be discussed during the workshop. Moreover, the CEV Guide suggests other steps to the valuation of a biodiversity programme such as the evaluation of internal and external benefits and, if feasible, the valuation phase through monetization. The interest and relevance of the incorporation of those parameters in the benchmarking criteria could also be discussed during the workshop.

5.3. Case: Biodiversity assessment criteria for the French environmental labeling initiative

This national initiative aims at labeling products put on the French market considering various criteria such as greenhouse gases, water, biodiversity, etc.

Description

In this context, the French Association of food products ANIA (l’Association Nationale des Industries Alimentaires) with some of its members (Nestlé, Nestlé Waters, Lesieur, Sofiproteol, la Fédération des Industries des Corps Gras (FNCG), Salins du Midi, Pernod-Ricard) initiate a workshop on biodiversity benchmarking criteria to be applied on products. Its work so far has consisted in designing indicators aimed at accounting for the good practices in the field of biodiversity along the production chain of a food product. For this purpose, a non comprehensive list of criteria has been identified as impacting positively biodiversity at the producer level and along the production chain. They tackle subjects as widespread as agricultural practices, the implementation of management and monitoring systems, the use of certification schemes, etc. The case will present the activities of the biodiversity workshop and the set of indicators designed for product assessment.

Among the indicators designed by the ANIA and its members, some are particularly in line with the draft criteria proposed by the EC.

Application of criteria

For example, 3. Based on a corporate biodiversity policy The indicators/questions on current engagements of the different actors of the value chain of a product and among themselves enable to evaluate the link with the corporate biodiversity policies in place. 7. Biodiversity performance monitoring and reporting The aspect is tackled by the indicator “existence of tracking/monitoring programs”.

28

6. Workshop questions These examples clearly show that the different benchmarking methodologies fit to at least the majority of the set criteria. How these benchmarking methodologies relate to all the criteria and which is most suitable, based upon these criteria, were further evaluated together with the participants during the EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking workshop. In order to facilitate this evaluation, the following questions were proposed to the participants during the workshop:

Do you consider that the given draft criteria for the benchmarking approach sufficiently address the issues regarding biodiversity within the food supply sector?

General Approach

What is needed to be considered a biodiversity leader in the food supply sector?

Do you think the methodological guides presented facilitate the work to address the benchmarking criteria ?

Feedback other benchmarking methodologies / schemes

Are there additional relevant tools not presented during the workshop that have to be included for developing a benchmarking mechanism for the XX sector in relation to nature and biodiversity impacts?

Which suggestions would you have for further elaboration or amendment of the given draft criteria for the benchmarking approach? Which criteria would you add / modify ?

Specific feedback on benchmarking criteria

Can the different stakeholders work with these benchmarking criteria? Are there any obstacles for applying these benchmarking criteria? How to measure the success and effective long-term commitment and implementation of

biodiversity related improvements based on the listed benchmarking criteria? Which aspects have to be taken into consideration when establishing monitoring and

measuring systems? How can we use the experiences from the case studies presented in this background

document for further development and refining of the benchmarking criteria for application in Europe and beyond?

7. Summary of discussions This part of the report summarizes the discussions of the participants (mainly ANIA and UECB) during the workshop or comment provided by stakeholders not able to attend the workshop (UNILEVER). Comprehensive minutes of the workshop are displayed in appendix. The cases listed in part 5 and presented during the workshop clearly show that the different benchmarking methodologies fit to many of the drafted 13 criteria. Moreover, the assessment of Unilever’s Sustainable Agricultural Code conveyed by PwC through a presentation prepared with Gail Smith allows getting feedback on a concrete initiative/program developed by Unilever. The review resulted in various conclusions such as: new criteria, amendments of existing criteria, and a ranking of the criteria between core and secondary criteria in order to simplify the system. A first general remark arose from the discussions: A need to define precisely the scope of the benchmarking: Does it apply to a company, a product, a project?

29

The term “study” should also be clearly explained. Indeed, a common basis is necessary in order to determine relevant criteria and enable a homogeneous valuation for benchmarking purposes. The following part describes the discussions on the criteria. Amendments were made and new criteria were added. The new set of criteria is described in the conclusion. Criteria 1 and 2: They are relevant sincethey inquire about important information (biodiversity components

and objectives as defined in the CBD). However in a benchmarking perspective, they may not be differentiating enough between the various actions assessed. The terms should be explained and adapted according to the particularities of the sector.

The concept of ecosystem services (as defined in the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) should be used since it is more understandable by businesses and will help companies to link the case with their activity.

There is a need of a specific criterion on the existence of a diagnosis to ensure that interrelationships with biodiversity are clearly defined and assessed.

Criterion 4: This criterion should include the references to the legal constraints such as the European

biodiversity policies mentioned in the criterion 13 ( Birds and Habitats Directive, Natura 2000, etc.)

This criterion should also assess the commitment of the company through the level of staff involved and its level of responsibility in the company. It should also mention the engagement of upstream and downstream actors (particularly for the food supply sector involving many actors along the value chain).

Criterion 5:

Criteria 6 and 7:They require more specifications on what is asked.

The criteria should thus specify the indicators referred to as performance indicators and also include qualitative information. Indeed, the CEV case study reminded that biodiversity valuation and thus monitoring and performance, cannot always, if seldom, be measured with quantitative indicators.

Criterion 8: This criterion should be considered as secondary. It would differentiate the actions

assessed based more on the size and status of the company than on the actual commitment to acting in favor of biodiversity. Indeed it is mostly large listed companies that tend to use independent verification on a regular basis.

The term “sustainability” should be explained. Does it refer to the period of time over which the action will have a positive effect on biodiversity or to the inclusion of the “sustainability” dimensions, namely: social (already partly tackled in criterion 2), economic, in the actions implemented?

Criteria 9:

If this second aspect is not taken into account, it should be covered by a specific criteria. Indeed, the economic and social aspects can give important indications on the viability of the actions.

30

Criterion 10: This criterion was deemed secondary. It does not appear as the main parameter to

consider in the assessment of an action on biodiversity. Furthermore, it may depend on the specific field conditions and ecosystem service concerned.

Criterion 11: This criterion should be considered secondary. Emphasis should be made on effort made

by companies through their activities dependent of and impacting ecosystem services. These criteria should not be discriminating in order not to disadvantage companies.

This criterion should focus on the actual impacts of the project on biodiversity and the environment. The impacts include environmental benefits, increase of biodiversity, etc. as well as potential negative side effects.

Criterion 12:

Criterion 13: This criterion should focus on the sustainable sourcing policy of the company. It is

particularly relevant for the food supply sector due to its position in the value chain to act with its suppliers – farmers – on biodiversity).

An assessment/ diagnosis on interdependencies with biodiversity and ecosystem services. This assessment should aim at determining a baseline of the level, quality of biodiversity on the areas concerned by the project and the ecosystem services at stake.

Additional criteria were suggested by the participants:

Partnership/ communication:

Partnerships can provide interesting information as they reflect also the expertise that can be brought on a project or to a company by NGOs, scientists, etc. Communication around the project/company is interesting as well for it gives an idea of the potential value that can be obtained from a project through its promotion and impact on consumers, stakeholders, etc.

8. Conclusions

The rich discussions during the workshop and the feedback provided by those who could not attend gave interesting information in order to review the EC criteria from the point of view of the food sector. The new set of criteria proposed is the following: Core indicators Diagnosis of the interdependencies of the company with biodiversity and ecosystem

services Addresses biodiversity components? (related to the sector) Addresses biodiversity objectives? (with mention of the ecosystem services) Based on a corporate biodiversity policy? Clear linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations? (including Bird and

Habitats directive, Natura 2000, etc.) Biodiversity performance indicators? (including qualitative information) Biodiversity performance monitoring and reporting? Impacts of the project on biodiversity (including positive and negative impacts, can be

quantitative and qualitative) Sustainability of the project (referring to the economic and social side benefits)

31

Partnership and communication on the project Based on sustainable sourcing policy

Secondary indicators Independent verification Replicability of the biodiversity actions Is the ecosystem/habitat/species important?

32

Forestry

33

Introduction Safeguarding biodiversity is integral to sustainable development, competitiveness, economic growth and employment and is therefore important for business. In order to strengthen the link between the business sector and biodiversity conservation, the European Commission established the EU Business and Biodiversity Platform (B@B). This is a unique facility where businesses can come together to share their experiences and best practices, learn from their peers, and voice their needs and concerns to the European Commission. The specific objectives of this technical platform are:

• To facilitate a business and biodiversity initiative. • To help businesses find solutions to adjust their activities to ensure a fair income and

sustainable growth, while providing benefits for biodiversity and ecosystems • To give visibility through the implementation of an award scheme, acknowledging the

good practice of the best performing businesses. Within the scope of the EU Business and Biodiversity Platform, a guidance document with best practices for biodiversity and nature conservation in the forest sector has been produced last year, and is available on the EU Business and Biodiversity website via this link: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/sectors/forestry/best-practices-examples-and-guidance_en.html. This document also includes an overview of benchmarks to assess these biodiversity benefits. This discussion paper will give an overview of benchmarking methodologies and practical examples of their application, as well as criteria for biodiversity that can serve as a foundation to establish an award for outstanding contributions to biodiversity by the forest sector and to discover the most innovative, ambitious and effective initiatives for biodiversity in Europe. The European Business Awards for the Environment are presented by the European Commission every two years and aim to recognise and reward European companies that set an example by successfully bringing together innovation, economic viability and environmental concerns. The scheme comprises four award categories in which companies are rewarded for management practices, products, processes and international business cooperation activities that contribute to economic and social development without detriment to the environment. Starting in 2012, a new 'Business and Biodiversity' Award will also be presented to a European company with outstanding achievements in halting biodiversity loss and supporting natural ecosystems. The judging criteria for this award are listed here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/awards/downloads/business_biodiversity_award_judging_criteria.pdf . The competition is open to companies officially registered in one of the 27 Member States as well as in candidate countries. Companies apply in their home country and once awarded at a national level they can take part in the European competition. The benchmarking methodologies for the forest sector, which are provided in the next section of the document, have been compiled as a result of a workshop of the EU Business and Biodiversity Platform in 2010. Two of the benchmarking methodologies, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Forest Europe improved Pan-European indicators for sustainable forest management have been analysed according to the criteria for determining the impacts and results for biodiversity in section 2. In addition, with help from the forest sector members of the platform and interested partners, a number of case studies have been selected to show the implementation of these benchmarking methodologies in practice. These case studies will be described in section 4 and show how benchmarking can help to measure an organization's internal processes and identify, understand, and adapt outstanding practices from other organizations considered to be best-in-class.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/sectors/forestry/best-practices-examples-and-guidance_en.html�

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/sectors/forestry/best-practices-examples-and-guidance_en.html�

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/awards/downloads/business_biodiversity_award_judging_criteria.pdf�

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/awards/downloads/business_biodiversity_award_judging_criteria.pdf�

34

This working document is a product of the B@B Platform for the forest sector and will serve as a starting point for discussion during the benchmarking workshop on June 22nd 2011. The aim of this workshop is to explore whether the currently available benchmarking instruments can be utilized to assess the biodiversity performance of the forest sector and to explore the need and applicability of such instruments. The workshop also offers the opportunity to discuss existing benchmarking methods and biodiversity criteria used in case studies that have been collected by the EU Business & Biodiversity Platform. In addition to the assessment of the biodiversity performance of a specific company, association or action, the expected outcome of the workshop will be to:

• Evaluate the current set of criteria of a benchmarking scheme; • Give recommendations to modifications and amendments of those criteria.

9. Draft Criteria for the benchmarking approach The European Commission has adopted a new strategy to: "Halting the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services in the EU by 2020, and restoring them in so far as feasible, while stepping up the EU contribution to averting global biodiversity loss". It has also developed a 2050 vision: “By 2050, European Union biodiversity and the ecosystem services it provides – its natural capital – are protected, valued and appropriately restored for biodiversity's intrinsic value and for their essential contribution to human wellbeing and economic prosperity, and so that catastrophic changes caused by the loss of biodiversity are avoided.” The forest sector and private sector in general has an important role to play in achieving these objectives, and the European Commission has stated that it will in this context, further develop the EU Business and Biodiversity Platform and encourage greater cooperation between businesses in Europe, including SMEs, and links to national and global initiatives”. The development of benchmarking criteria serves to assess the biodiversity benefits of the best practices shown and implemented by private sector partners. The benchmarking methods can include common standards, performance measures, monitoring and certification schemes and indicators and legal and voluntary agreements to assess in an objective and accurate manner, tangible and practical solutions for biodiversity conservation, delivered by the forest sector. The benchmarking criteria developed for the benchmarking as part of the EU Business and Biodiversity Platform are:

• Addresses biodiversity components? Is the study clear about which of the four components of biodiversity it addresses: landscapes, ecosystems, species and/or biological resources?2

• Addresses biodiversity objectives? Is the study clear about which of the four biodiversity objectives it addresses: conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of biological resources, equitable sharing of the benefits, and development outcomes (especially for cases in developing countries)?

3

2 The CBD term for landscapes in the definition of biodiversity is ‘ecological complexes.’ Also, biological resources includes genetic resources. 3 The first three of these objectives are set out in Article 1 of the CBD, while the development objective is specified as an ‘overriding priority’ in the Preamble.

35

• Based on a corporate biodiversity policy? Does the study clearly link the case to the company's biodiversity policy?

• Clear linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations? Does the study clearly link the case to relevant international, regional and national biodiversity policies and regulations?

• Integrated into a corporate biodiversity action plan? Does the study show how the case is clearly linked to the company's biodiversity and action plan?

• Biodiversity performance indicators? Does the study clearly describe which biodiversity performance indicators are used in the case?

• Biodiversity performance monitoring and reporting? Does the study clearly describe the performance monitoring and reporting processes for the case?

• Independent verification? Does the study clearly explain whether and how the case has been independently verified?

• Sustainability of the biodiversity action(s)? Does the study indicate whether and, if so, why the biodiversity actions of the case are sustainable?

• Replicability of the biodiversity actions(s)? Does the study provide guidance on the how the case could be replicated or scaled up across the company or the sector?

• Is the ecosystem/habitat/species important? E.g. Is the action in a Natura 2000 area or one covered by the Habitat or the Birds Directive? Is it threatened? Is it indigenous?

• How extensive is the impact? E.g. What is the geographical area covered? What other types of land use can be found in the region? Are there negative side effects?

• Environmental benefit, including: Integrating legal and ecological constraints and especially the European biodiversity policies – Birds and Habitats Directives, and Natura 2000 – into strategies considering the value chain with a sustainable sourcing policy.

These benchmarking criteria, which are not listed in order of importance, will be the foundation for a European award/rating system to identify business partners that make an outstanding contribution to the protection of biodiversity within the framework of the initiative. The award system, however is outside of the scope of work of this discussion paper, since the development of a benchmarking method for the forest sector aims to raise awareness for best practices for biodiversity that go beyond the award scheme. The following list of standards, assessment tools and other indicators provide an overview of benchmarking methods that can be used to monitor the impacts of forest sector activities on biodiversity and nature and they were already discussed in the forest sector workshop of the EU Business and Biodiversity Platform in 2010. To determine whether these methods will be an effective foundation for evaluating companies’ impacts will have to be determined by further discussion with forest sector stakeholders and the European Commission, taking into account the benchmarking criteria listed above. In the following section two of the benchmarking methods will be discussed based on their compliance with the benchmarking criteria and it will be evaluated whether the sector can work with these criteria and if they are considered valid. • Forest Europe improved Pan-European indicators for sustainable forest management –

consists of a set of quantitative and qualitative Pan-European Indicators for Sustainable Forest Management http://www.foresteurope.org/filestore/foresteurope/Conferences/Vienna/Vienna_Improved_Indicators.pdf

• Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) – founded in 1993, FSC is an international non-government organization dedicated to promoting sustainable forest management through voluntary certification. FSC describes how forests have to be managed to meet the social,

http://www.foresteurope.org/filestore/foresteurope/Conferences/Vienna/Vienna_Improved_Indicators.pdf�


36

economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual needs of present and future generations. It includes managerial aspects as well as environmental and social requirements. http://www.fsc.org/ The following principles are of interest for the benchmarking criteria: - Reduction of environmental impact of logging activities and maintenance of the

ecological functions and integrity of the forest. - Appropriate and continuously updated forest management plans. - Appropriate monitoring and assessment activities to assess the condition of the forest,

management activities and their social and environmental impacts. - Maintenance of High Conservation Value Forests (HCVFs) defined as environmental and

social values that are considered to be of outstanding significance or critical importance. - Plantations must contribute to reduce the pressures on and promote the restoration and

conservation of natural forests

• The Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC) – founded in 1999 is an independent, non-profit, non-governmental organization which promotes sustainably managed forests through independent third party certification. PEFC is a global umbrella organization for the endorsement of national schemes. “Think global – act local" is at the heart of PEFC's governance system. The decentralized, "bottom-up" approach strengthens action on the ground and enables local stakeholders to participate in the core activities of forest certification at national level http://www.pefc.org/ PEFC bases its Sustainability Benchmark on broad consensus by society, expressed in globally respected international and intergovernmental process and guidelines. The best practice standards promote environmentally sound, socially just, and economically viable management of our forests globally. The certification criteria to be used in PEFC endorsed and mutually recognized national or sub-national schemes in Europe are based on the current Pan-European Criteria for Sustainable Forest Management (www.foresteurope.org): - Maintenance and appropriate enhancement of forest resources and their contribution to

global carbon cycles. - Maintenance of forest ecosystems’ health and vitality. - Maintenance and encouragement of productive functions of forests (wood and non-

wood). - Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of biological diversity in forest

ecosystems. - Maintenance, conservation and appropriate enhancement of protective functions in forest

management (notably soil and water). - Maintenance of other socio-economic functions and conditions.

• Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) - A partnership between BirdLife

International, Conservation International, the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre. It provides access to information about high-priority sites via online biodiversity maps to inform the implementation of corporate biodiversity policies and enhance environmental management systems www.ibatforbusiness.org IBAT for business facilitates access to information about high priority sites for conservation – namely protected areas and key biodiversity areas – to inform the implementation of corporate biodiversity policies and enhance environmental management systems. Incorporating IBAT within project planning processes at the earliest stages enables consideration of alternative projects or locations while such changes remain economically viable.

http://www.fsc.org/�

http://www.pefc.org/�

http://www.ibatforbusiness.org/�

37

- Management decisions that IBAT informs include: - Screening potential investments. - Sitting an operation in a given region. - Developing action plans to manage biodiversity impacts. - Assessing risks associated with potential sourcing regions.

• The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species™ – The most comprehensive and objective

approach for evaluating the conservation status of plant and animal species globally http://www.iucnredlist.org/ The European Red List is a review of the conservation status of c. 6,000 European species (mammals, reptiles, amphibians, freshwater fishes, butterflies, dragonflies, and selected groups of beetles, molluscs, and vascular plants) according to IUCN regional Red Listing guidelines. It identifies those species that are threatened with extinction at the European level – so that appropriate conservation action can be taken to improve their status. The threatened status of plants and animals is one of the most widely used indicators for assessing the condition of ecosystems and their biodiversity. It also provides an important tool in priority-setting exercises for species conservation.

• The Global Reporting Initiative – To make sustainability reporting standard practice by

providing guidance and support to organizations. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a network-based organization that pioneered the world’s most widely used sustainability reporting framework. GRI is committed to the Framework’s continuous improvement and application worldwide. GRI’s core goals include the mainstreaming of disclosure on environmental, social and governance performance. http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/G31Guidelines/

• TEEB for Business - This provides practical guidance on the issues and the opportunities

created by the inclusion in mainstream business practices of ecosystem- and biodiversity-related considerations. Business and enterprise have a huge role to play in how we manage, safeguard and invest in our natural capital. This report is aimed squarely at this sector and will provide practical guidance on the issues and the opportunities created by the inclusion in mainstream business practices of ecosystem- and biodiversity-related considerations. This report is for a wide array of enterprises, including those with direct impacts on ecosystems and biodiversity, such as mining, oil and gas and infrastructure; for those businesses that depend on healthy ecosystems and biodiversity for production, such as agriculture and fisheries; for industry sectors that finance and undergird economic activity and growth, like banks and asset managers, as well as insurance and business services; and for businesses that are selling ecosystem services or biodiversity-related products such as eco-tourism, eco-agriculture and bio-carbon http://www.teebweb.org/ForBusiness/tabid/1021/Default.aspx

• Guide to corporate ecosystem valuation - The Guide explains how firms should examine

issues such as: environmental risks in transportation, stakeholder compensation options, potential revenue opportunities in emerging environmental markets, and the impact of regulatory changes on the availability of natural resources http://www.wbcsd.org/Plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?DocTypeId=25&ObjectId=Mzk0MjA&URLBack=%2Ftemplates%2FTemplateWBCSD2%2Flayout%2Easp%3Ftype%3Dp%26MenuId%3DMjM2%26doOpen%3D1%26ClickMenu%3DLeftMenu

http://www.iucnredlist.org/�

http://www.globalreporting.org/ReportingFramework/G31Guidelines/�

http://www.teebweb.org/ForBusiness/tabid/1021/Default.aspx�

http://www.wbcsd.org/Plugins/DocSearch/details.asp?DocTypeId=25&ObjectId=Mzk0MjA&URLBack=%2Ftemplates%2FTemplateWBCSD2%2Flayout%2Easp%3Ftype%3Dp%26MenuId%3DMjM2%26doOpen%3D1%26ClickMenu%3DLeftMenu�



38

• Voluntary standards and programmes, such as: awareness raising initiatives, voluntary biodiversity offsets, stewardship payments, conservation auctions, payments for watershed protection and public-private partnerships

Two of the above listed benchmarking methodologies have been selected for analysis according to the criteria for determining the impacts and results for biodiversity in annex 1 : the Forest Stewardship Council and the Forest Europe improved Pan-European indicators for sustainable forest management

. The following overview shows the linkages between these two benchmarking schemes and the framework of the 13 criteria defined to determine impacts on biodiversity :

1. Biodiversity components The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

addresess in its guidelines for certification, forest landscapes and ecosystems.

Forest Europe

has developed common principles, criteria and guidelines for sustainable forest management. The political declarations and concrete actions have established a solid ground for growth and diversity in today’s forest ecosystems.

2. Biodiversity objectives As part of its mission, the Forest Stewardship Council

shall promote environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world's forests. Environmentally appropriate forest management ensures that the harvest of timber and non-timber products maintains the forest's biodiversity, productivity, and ecological processes.

Under principle 6 of the FSC Principles and Criteria (P&C) for Forest Stewardship, on environmental impact, it is stated that : Forest management shall conserve biological diversity and its associated values, water resources, soils, and unique and fragile ecosystems and landscapes, and, by so doing, maintain the ecological functions and the integrity of the forest. The Forest Europe

guidelines for sustainable forest management promote the conservation and enhancement of biological diversity in woodlands, e.g., through increased natural regeneration and more mixed species stands.

3. Corporate biodiversity policy FSC

is an independent, non-governmental, not-for-profit organization established to promote the responsible management of the world’s forests. It an international body which accredits certification organizations in order to guarantee the authenticity of their claims. In all cases the process of certification will be initiated voluntarily by forest owners and managers who request the services of a certification organization. Corporations can therefore on a voluntary basis decide to integrate FSC in their corporate biodiversity policies.

The Forest Europe

signatory countries and participants focus on elaborating strategies and solutions that meet new challenges such as climate change, bio-energy production and water protection. The work of FOREST EUROPE aims at maximising the contribution of Europe’s forests to the ecological, social and economic well-being of the continent. The Forest Europe commitments serve as a framework for implementing sustainable forest management in the European countries, but are not a legally binding instrument.

4. Linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations The FSC P&C should be used in conjunction with national and international laws and regulations. FSC intends to complement, not supplant, other initiatives that support responsible

39

forest management worldwide. In addition, the provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity, shall be respected. Through its work, Forest Europe

contributes substantially to the achievement of the 2020 Biodiversity Target. An important tasks is to develop a framework for future forest collaboration and to explore the possibilities for a legally binding agreement on forests in Europe. Forest Europe is linked to global and other regional processes and initiatives dealing with issues of highest political and social relevance related to forests, such as the Alpine and Carpathian Convention and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

5. Integration into a corporate biodiversity action plan FSC

is an independent, non-governmental, not-for-profit organization established to promote the responsible management of the world’s forests. It an international body which accredits certification organizations in order to guarantee the authenticity of their claims. In all cases the process of certification will be initiated voluntarily by forest owners and managers who request the services of a certification organization. Corporations can therefore on a voluntary basis decide to integrate FSC in their corporate biodiversity action plans.

Forest Europe

provides guidance for sustainable mobilisation of wood in Europe. It is a useful tool to assist policy-makers and practitioners in taking appropriate and supporting measures.

6. Biodiversity performance indicators? FSC

describes that forest management should include the research and data collection needed to monitor, at a minimum, a number of indicators, including: growth rates, regeneration and condition of the forest and composition and observed changes in the flora and fauna.

The Forest Europe guidelines for sustainable forest management and associated indicators are used to assess progress in sustainable forest management at international level and in individual countries and consist of quantitative and qualitatitative measures (http://www.foresteurope.org/filestore/foresteurope/Conferences/Vienna/Vienna_Improved_Indicators.pdf) 7. Biodiversity performance monitoring and reporting As part of the FSC

P&C Monitoring shall be conducted -- appropriate to the scale and intensity of forest management -- to assess the condition of the forest, yields of forest products, chain of custody, management activities and their social and environmental impacts.

In addition, documentation shall be provided by the forest manager to enable monitoring and certifying organizations to trace each forest product from its origin, a process known as the "chain of custody. The results of monitoring shall be incorporated into the implementation and revision of the management plan. While respecting the confidentiality of information, forest managers shall make publicly available a summary of the results of monitoring indicators. Forest Europe

states in one of its resolutions that the efforts already made to monitor the state of forest ecosystems, within the framework of the various regional, national or international programmes, must be reinforced.

8. Independent verification FSC does not issue certificates itself. The certification process is carried out by independent organizations called certification bodies. Before being able to certify according to FSC



40

standards, certification bodies have to gain FSC accreditation. To do this, certifiers have to comply with an extensive set of rules. Forest Europe

insists that priority must be given to the coherent long-term tracking of the data already gathered within the existing forest monitoring systems, as well as to complementing this data with new measurements, which can contribute as rapidly as possible to the thinking and decisions of national and international authorities.

9. Sustainability of the biodiversity action(s) FSC

Through its work,

certification prioritizes the protection of particularly valuable forest ecosystems. This includes both ecological and social values. To this end, FSC has developed a concept, called High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF). Besides the particular attention given to HCVF, FSC certification does also protect biodiversity more generally on the whole forest areas managed in accordance with FSC requirements.

Forest Europe

Forest Europe regularly analyses and presents the status and development of sustainable forest management in the pan-European region. The latest report on the

secures a strong and healthy basis for animals, plants, biodiversity, natural products and a clean environment.

“State of Europe’s Forests” was jointly prepared with the UNECE and the FAO. The progress made by and the positive effects of sustainable forest management on our environment and society are evident. 10. Replicability of the biodiversity actions(s) FSC

The project addresses two main issues. Certification is proving challenging in countries where management is technically difficult and the political and institutional support for responsible management has been historically weak. Certification is also more cost-effective for large companies compared to smaller forest enterprises.

certification offers market incentives for good forest management which includes the protection and management of biodiversity values. Yet the potential benefits of certification in terms of biodiversity protection are not reaching as far as they could.

Forest Europe

develops common strategies and instruments to maintain and develop Europe’s valuable forest resources. A legally binding agreement is considered an option for strengthening cooperation on forests in Europe.

11. Importance of ecosystem/habitat/species The FSC

FSC certified Principles require that forests with high conservation values increase or at the very

least maintain these values. All operations must have a forest management plan that includes an inventory for high conservation values. If such values are found, the management plan has to include concrete actions on how these values will be maintained and enhanced. The classification of HCVFs is highly dependent on the particular socio-cultural and ecological context. To strike a balance between conservation and use, low-impact management procedures must be adopted so as not to degrade, but to improve the forest through management. Yearly surveillance audits prescribed by the FSC system control its effectiveness and implementation. Forest Europe

promotes forest biodiversity through forest protected areas, increased natural regeneration and more stands of mixed tree species. Sustainable forest management contributes to a rich diversity in forest ecosystems, species, populations, genes and landscapes.

12. Impact Tropical forests are particularly rich in biodiversity. This makes the protection of tropical forests the prime challenge when talking about biodiversity conservation. Globally, around 12% of all

http://www.fsc.org/index.php?id=48&L=0&tx_datamintsglossaryindex_pi1%5buid%5d=17�

http://www.foresteurope.org/?module=Files;action=File.getFile;ID=485�

http://www.fsc.org/glossary.html?&tx_datamintsglossaryindex_pi1%5buid%5d=82&tx_a21glossary%5bback%5d=152&cHash=5f1b18df03�

http://www.fsc.org/glossary.html?&tx_datamintsglossaryindex_pi1%5buid%5d=79&tx_a21glossary%5bback%5d=152&cHash=2f880807ae�

41

forest areas certified to FSCFSC certified

standards lie within the tropics or the subtropics. About 60% of these are natural forests. Other forest areas are about equally divided between the temperate and the boreal regions. Studies about the direct on the ground impacts of FSC certification in the forest are scarce. In some FSC certified operations in the tropics, higher prices from the export of FSC certified products provide the necessary capital to maintain the forest and prevent conversion to other uses. FSC is also increasingly recognized for its contribution to increase democratic elements in forest policy processes. Forest Europe

works at policy level where vital decisions are made by the co-operation of ministers through identifying issues of high relevance and developing common strategies through political commitments. Remaining challenges include better ways and means for cross-sectoral coordination and continued political commitment to further develop national forest programmes into an effective policy tool.

Forest Europe countries are pursuing sustainable forest management through creating new policy instruments and adjusting existing ones. This is done by integrating sustainable forest management into legal and regulatory frameworks, through financial support measures addressing the different dimensions of sustainable forest management, through efforts to strengthen the forest-related information base, and by improving communication with the public. Changes in institutional frameworks in Europe indicate an emphasis on further improving the efficiency and effectiveness of state forestry organisations as well as on reorganising forest research. In addition, organisational structures for private forest owners are being further developed. However, coordination mechanisms between different levels of government and increasingly diverse stakeholder groups could be further improved. 13. Environmental benefit FSC

• Conserve biological diversity and its values: water resources, soils, unique and fragile ecosytems and landscapes

started with environmental goals in mind. Members wanted to create a system to guarantee that the forest industry was helping protect, rather than destroy, forests. FSC's environmental criteria recognize that forest management should:

• Maintain the ecological functions and integrity of the forest • Protect threatened and endangered species and their habitats

According to Forest Europe

, Sustainable forest management practices in European countries have been implemented to promote the conservation and enhancement of biological diversity. Selective measures have notably lead to increased natural regeneration and more mixed species stands. Actions have also been taken to encourage deadwood accumulation. From 2000 to 2005 the area of protected forests increased by about 2 million hectares. By 2005, almost 5 percent of Europe’s forests were protected. It will be the task of the European ministers to take the robust political decisions necessary to promote the sustainable development of the continent’s forests and safeguard their important environmental and societal benefits.

10. Workshop methodology The workshop took place in Brussels on the 22nd of June from 9:45 am until 3:00 pm and was organized in two parts. During the first part, presentations, discussion and participant feedback focused on the suggested benchmarking criteria. This session aimed at providing the participants with sufficient background on the criteria for the benchmarking approach and to




http://www.fsc.org/glossary.html?&tx_datamintsglossaryindex_pi1%5buid%5d=90&tx_a21glossary%5bback%5d=152&cHash=b6472fc8e1�

42

discuss whether these criteria are applicable to develop a benchmarking methodology for the EU Business & Biodiversity Platform. The second part was dedicated to discussions among participants about the applicability to use this set of benchmarking criteria in practice. This was facilitated by following the criteria discussed in relation to a number of case studies from different countries. A number of participants have present a case study, which reflects a benchmarking scheme/methodology they have been involved or in contact with, and then the participants assessed and evaluated the criteria against this case. This was followed by a moderated discussion where the experiences of the participants in applying the criteria were discussed. A summary of this workshop as well as conclusions and recommendations with regards to the criteria and their use in practice have been drawn from this session and will be presented in sections 6 and 7. This document for the forest sector will be posted by the European Commission on the Circa pages for the EU Business and Biodiversity Platform members to give their comment and suggestions for amendments. These inputs will be collected and included in the document. After that the document will be harmonized with those of the other sectors and the forest sector will appear as a chapter and integrated in the overall benchmarking document. 11. Case studies The aim of establishing a benchmark for contributions to biodiversity by the forest sector is to discover the most innovative, ambitious and effective initiatives for biodiversity by the forest sector in Europe and ensure that these can be shared within EU Business and Biodiversity Platform and beyond. During the EU Business and Biodiversity Platform, forest sector workshop, last year one of the examples presented was the publication: ‘Sharing experiences and promoting biodiversity in the European Pulp and Paper Indstry by CEPI: http://www.eurosite.org/files/CEPI_BioBrochure_FINAL-20091120-00014-01-E_0.pdf The following case studies of benchmarking methods for the forest sector demonstrate criteria that are applied in practice to support biodiversity protection and could serve for sector wide use. It should be noted, however, that actions can have an impact at local, national or regional level and that it is not always feasible to compare different examples, since the forest sector comprises of a wide variety of activities, ranging from pulp-and paper production to cork, timber, tourism, non-timber forest product, furniture and energy. It is important to ensure that both large and small companies have an equal chance to show concrete improvements for environment and biodiversity as well as achieve economic and social growth. Therefore, when establishing criteria for benchmarking, different categories could be defined for different types of companies interested to submit their work as an outstanding example in Europe. To develop and refine the foundation and criteria for best performing companies in the forest sector in the EU, a number of existing case studies that have a clear added value for biodiversity protection have been collected, but these do not provide a representative overview of the forest sector achievements for biodiversity as a whole. The case studies have been structured according to the key requirements listed in section 2.

http://www.eurosite.org/files/CEPI_BioBrochure_FINAL-20091120-00014-01-E_0.pdf�

43

11.1. Case study: Valuation of ecosystem services at the local scale - The role of the cork oak montado at Herdade da Machoqueira do Grou (Amorim and CE Liege)

The case study focuses on the ecosystem: cork-oak dominated man-managed forests in Portugal and has the following biodiversity objectives:

Description

• To explore the link between Ecosystem Services (ES) and the spatial/temporal dynamics at the local level;

• Understand the impacts and the possible changes on ES patterns promoted by the case-study land management throughout the years;

• Assess, the most relevant ES; qualify identified ES as “Public or Communitarian/Shared Services”;

• Assess the relationship between agro-forestry management and the conservation state/trend on selected ES, at the land use level.

The study was a joint project between Corticeira Amorim (Cork Industry) and CE Liège, the European Cork Confederation and resulted from the Corticeira Amorim ‘Business & Biodiversity’ strategy, implemented since 2007, during the Portuguese EU Presidency. As an industry association representative, CE Liège cooperated with Corticeira Amorim in order to promote the study. The study and report published aim to highlight the issues beyond the ES valuation applied to sustainable agro-forestry management. This study has classified the services that ecosystems provide to people in three primary categories according to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA): Provisioning, Regulation and Cultural Services. All the work is focused in bibliographic information and information provided by the landowners. Evaluation and valuation methods were used as tools to estimate the value of different categories of land use and associated Ecosystem Services, at a local scale. Actually, by the time this report was finished, it represented the first consolidated attempt to assess and valuate ES at such a small landscape scale, considering not just the local scale but most important, the land management unit scale, crucial to link future Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) to agro-forestry European Union subsidiary and financial support schemes.

The study focus on the evaluation of Ecosystem services. The methodology was carried out in three phases:

Links to criteria for benchmarking

• Phase I – In the first phase all information needs were accessed and listed with the corresponding sources to obtain them. The methodology was defined and a preliminary assessment scheme was designed;

• Phase II – Needed information was gathered, sorted, prioritized and defined methodology applied. Some methods were readjusted;

• Phase III – The third and last phase involved the algorithm application (output 2) and assigning of economic value in total economic value matrix. Finally results were presented and the final report presented.

Methodology is presented as a scheme bellow, linking processes and outputs. In the results section some parts are explained in greater detail (e.g. the algorithm and calculating formulas for Output 3) in order to clarify results.

44

Corticeira Amorim and CE Liège are now developing new efforts jointly with the Higher Institute for Business Management (ISG – Instituto Superior de Gestão) research centre CIGEST in order to publish a scientific peer reviewed analysis of the study in a referenced journal, in the area of Forest Governance and Sustainable Management. One of the main goals of this study is to support the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) revision, in the area of calculating new ‘Payment for Ecosystem Services’ scheme. Therefore, the main idea is to mainstream the study as a case to help determining the mechanisms and economic models of subsidies for farmers who actively protect biodiversity and manage the outputs of Ecosystem Services, within the range of good farming and forestry sustainable practices. We reinforce the fact that the study used indicators from sustainable forestry management, namely from FSC and PEFC.

Proceeding with their joint cooperation, Corticeira Amorim and CE Liège have the intention to replicate the study, considering for that establishing contacts and protocols with both national and European entities, either companies, academia or sector associations within the range of CE Liège. From our point of view, replication of the study is feasible, and that’s one of the goals.

Success factors

The study focus primarily on the Cork Oak Montado Forestry based ecosystem, ‘Habitats’ Directive code 6310. The Montado is the Portuguese term applied to landscapes comprising of

45

mixed farming, centred on extensive evergreen oak woodlands dominated by Cork Oak (Quercus suber) or/and Holm Oak (Quercus ilex) and occasionally other oak species (Q. faginea, Q. pyrenaica, Q. coccifera), and interspersed by areas of scrubland, grassland, wetlands and streamside galleries and cultivated fields. The Montado is the dominant system in the southern part of Portugal (especially in the Alentejo region, covering 72% of the total) existing for many centuries, in more or less developed and intensive management forms. Montados provide a multifunctional land use, combining the use of the tree cover (mainly to extract cork or in the Holm Oak case to use the acorns for animal nourishing), with a rotation of grazing, cultivation and fallow in the understory. The Montado is adapted to poor soils with reduced fertility and it represents a traditional, sustainable land use. In Europe it can be found in Portugal, Spain, southern France and the west coast of Italy, covering 1,43 million hectares, and in Africa, in Morocco, north of Algeria and Tunisia were it occupies 0,85 million hectares. More than half the area of the Montado is found in the Iberian Peninsula, 32% of the total occurring in Portugal, comprising 736,700 hectares. The Cork Oak Montado’s prime product is cork, a renewable resource, whose exploration supports a considerable rich ecosystem and its maintenance possesses a recognized ecological, economical and social importance. This man-made / man-managed ecosystem contributes to biodiversity conservation, food production, water protection, acts as a carbon dioxide (CO2) long term sink, fibre production, soil restoration, natural hazards protection, and has a high potential for leisure, nature watching and outdoor activities. With regard to natural hazards protection, the Cork Oak constitutes an excellent example of a species resistant to fire, a common disturbance in the Mediterranean basin. The cork on the tree, if not harvested, can growth to very thick layer and constitute a protective barrier against fire, being a high-quality and natural insulating material. Therefore, the development of adequate mechanisms of market based instruments and assistance to rural development that enable the protection of the Montado and its ecosystem services, including biodiversity is considered of extreme importance. 11.2. Case study 2: Living forests, about the swedish forest industries work on the

conservation of biodiversity – Swedish Forest Industries Federation together with the Swedish Forestry companies

Description

In contrast to the forest in many other countries, the majority of the forest land in Sweden is privately owned – moreover, by a very large number of owners, more than 300,000. The estates are of varying size and extend over the landscape in a patchwork pattern. The very long rotation periods that characterise Swedish forestry contribute to species diversity. Sweden has developed its own forestry model. It is particularly different from the plantation forestry mainly conducted in the southern hemisphere that is reminiscent of farming with trees as a crop. Our forests are semi-natural – they retain their original structures, but disruptions and intervention have affected the ecology. Instead of allocating some of the land entirely to timber production and making large conservation allocations on other land, the entire forest is covered by ambitious environmental objectives. The semi-natural forests in Sweden have maintained their natural structure and while showing high rates of productivity, they are biodiversity rich. Swedish forest owners and the Swedish forest industry continuously work to improve the forest conditions, and this is today done through many different means. The action plan for “Living forests” is one example of how the work is implemented.

46

In addition to legislative requirements, the forest industry has also adopted its own environmental objectives to meet the high standards of environmental concern set by customers, but above all, the industry feels a moral responsibility for the living heritage of the forest’s diversity of species. Their overall objective is clear: we will manage the forest so that all species in the Swedish forest landscape can survive.

Swedish forest policy gives a framework which builds on freedom under responsibility. This implies that the forest owner when he takes out timber must follow different environmental goals and will not damage nature unnecessarily. This also implies that a part of the potential profit from a harvest is left in the forest to increase biodiversity and natural features. To increase the impact of these general environmental measures, several environmental quality goals are in place. “Living forests” is one of them and it includes seven different goals that should have been reached in 2010. New goals are currently under discussion. The results of the measures taken to achieve the goals and the fulfillment of them are monitored and evaluated by the Riksskogstaxeringen and the Forestry Agency.


The environmental quality objectives that are of the greatest significance to forestry are “Sustainable forests”: “the value of forests and forest land for biological production must be protected, at the same time as biodiversity and cultural heritage and recreational assets are safeguarded”. Sustainable forests comprise seven interim targets that should have been fulfilled no later than 2010 and are now being evaluated. The base year for the targets is 1998. State set objectives

• A further 900,000 hectares of forest land of high conservation value will be excluded from forest production (2010). Of these 900,000 hectares, 400,000 shall have some form of formal protection and 500,000 hectares voluntary protection

:

• Green; 970 000 ha are voluntarily protected • The amount of hard dead wood shall increase by a minimum of 40 percent nationwide,

with considerably more in areas in which biodiversity is particularly threatened (2010) • Green; Amount of dead-wood has grown with 60-80 percent • The area of mature deciduous forest shall increase by a minimum of 10 percent (2010) • Green; Area of mature deciduous forest increased with 10-25 percent • The area of old forest shall increase by a minimum of five percent (2010) • Green; Area of old growth forest has increased by 29-55 percent • The area regenerated with deciduous forest shall increase (2010) • Yellow; too early to evaluate since forests have not yet been pre-commercially thinned

Voluntary objectives from the industry side

• Increase of large trees so that it gets closer to historical numbers :

• Green; Positive trend in three large regions • Protection of key-habitats • Green; taken care of as voluntary preservation areas and through certification schemes • Higher quality of nature consideration • Yellow; Could still be improved more, there is still more work that can be done • Larger area left per tract of land after harvest • Green; increase from five percent to about 7-8 percent • Water quality improvement

47

• Red; Ambitious efforts have been made by the industry, but for full impact of these measures to be visible time is needed

• Active work with action programmes for red-listed species • Red; Number of finished programmes connected with forests and forestry is still low • Promotion of quality trees and restoration of wetlands • Red; Relatively new measures, but results inspire hope • Continuity forestry • Yellow; No comprehensive scientific evaluation of the advantages and disadvantages of

continuity forestry has ever been done, which is why this indicator is yellow. • Increased burning activity • Green; Number of among other fire-dependent insects have increased • Knowledge development in forest organisations • Yellow; Education is never finished, and knowledge development can always be

improved More information will be available in the publication soon made public by the Swedish Forest Industries at www.skogsindustrierna.se In addition to the Forestry Act’s requirements, the forest industry pursues voluntary nature conservation within the scope of the certification systems of the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes (PEFC). The intention is to follow up the presentation of results with annual reports. The results report is based on the following criteria. They have been chosen to provide as comprehensive a view of the forest industry’s nature conservation work as possible.

• This report will comprise the most significant factors in the work of preserving biodiversity.

• Where possible, the report will be based on publicly available fact bases. • The report will refer to a perspective framed by existing political decisions. • Special emphasis will be placed on the work done in addition to that required by law. • The report will be so comprehensive and well planned that the chosen criteria will remain

relevant over time.

As a result of the principle of freedom under responsibility, forest policy in Sweden assumes that the forest owner him or herself finances the conservation measures undertaken insofar as they are not so invasive that ongoing land use is substantially impeded (encroachment limitation). This means that it may be required that nature conservation be practiced without compensation on a harvest property at a cost of a proportion of the net harvest.

Success factors

We can note that the politically set objectives have been achieved, often by a wide margin, without detailed regulation and without sanctions. The objectives the companies have set themselves are more extensive. Strong results have been achieved in some areas, but there are also needs for improvement. The Swedish model leads to us being able to have a continued high level of growth in the forest. Because growth is larger than harvesting, the forest binds a net amount of carbon dioxide. At the same time, the amount of mature forest and the amount of dead wood increase in the entire forest landscape, which improves the living conditions for plants and animals.

http://www.skogsindustrierna.se/�

48

With the aim of further developing the environmental work, the Environmental Objective Council was charged to propose strategies, objectives and action plans in the environmental area. Forestry is one of the areas that the Environmental Objective Council will address first and a strategy will be presented as soon as the end of 2012. 11.3. Case study 3: Dafnondas Forest Estate Greece – Dafnondas SA

Dafnondas Estate, located in the centre of the upper half of the island of Evia, is a natural and historical Greek treasure and consists of a total area of 1494,4 Ha. The ideal combination of a verdant wooded mountain environment with beaches of superlative beauty makes Evia different from other areas of Greece. The variety of flora and fauna is amongst the widest in Europe and the estate has the particularity of evergreen mountains. The estate is now owned by a private company, Dafnondas S.A and specially created to manage and develop its forests.

Description

The objectives of the Forest Estate are: the conservation, protection, wildlife and sustainable management of the forest of “Dafnondas” in order to enhance its value and revenue by promoting its protective, productive, esthetic and recreational values and to enable to stand economically and to satisfy the respective needs of the local and wider area population. The actions and means involved to achieve these objectives are twofold. First a new management plan was formulated and officially approved, designed to include the appropriate treatment of all natural resources including the esthetic and recreational assets. Secondly, the entire forest was fenced in order to assure complete protection and potentially creating hunting grounds. New forest roads were built to facilitate the production and protection as well as the development. Fire breaks were created, observation posts were assigned, an early warning system was installed, water tanks were placed and fire suppression equipment were procured. In addition, plans are under preparation for the creation of basic constructions for serving the visitors according to the local style not affecting the natural environment but helping the valuation and development of all potential resources. The concepts of multi-purpose and sustainable forestry are best served making Dafnondas a good example for the future of Greek forest policy.

The forest of Dafnondas is no more confined exclusively to material production. Following the provisions of the management plant and new trends in forest techniques and environmental science the forest of Dafnondas is now a model of rationally treating natural resources. The forest management is nowadays fulfilling all the principals, criteria and indicators of sustainable forestry practice as established by the various international organizations.


With its present ownership, careful investment policy and new updated management plan to fit modern forestry ideas, the ecological conditions are gradually improving and the estate is now able to produce forest products sustainably. Protection from fires, local employment opportunities, landscape enhancement and cultural benefits are essential in the process. The new management plan provides for the appropriate treatment to assure the achievement of regularity in the forest in due time, as well as the production of increased quantities of quality products. Thinnings, regenerative fellings and removal of diseased trees will be among the measures proposed for improving the quality of the growing stock and enhancing its incremental potential.

49

Examples of actions to preserve and enhance the landscape in relation to logging, forest fires and water streams are as follows. assist the natural regeneration without affecting the general appearance of the forest and not creating unnecessary openings. Many old trees are not harvested as they are part of the landscape and essential for ecological purposes. Sites which were destroyed in the past, mainly by forest fires, are given priority when re-establishing the forest with native vegetation and thereby to return it to its former shape. The necessary protective firebreaks are expected to be covered with low vegetation and maintained this way in order to serve their purpose but without causing any visual intrusion, while water supply tanks are mainly removable. All water streams are left intact as an essential part of the landscape and water sources are marked and preserved. No construction is planned directly on the coast, and any facility planned will be of a size to fit under the tree cover. With regards to biodiversity the following measures are taken : Visitors are advised to exercise the greatest possible caution in terms of environmental preservation. All potentially vulnerable places like streams and creeks are left intact. The sea coast is confined to very modest activities. More detailed investigations to locate possible areas with rare or endangered species as sites of protection and demonstration and a small museum of natural history are under way. The future development of controlled hunting activities will also be beneficial compared with the free unlimited hunting that is exercised today in the entire area of the property of Dafnondas.

In 2009, Dafnondas Estate won the award promoted by the Anders Wall Foundation (Sweden), the Friends of the Countryside, DG Environment and the Royal Agricultural Academy of tockholm. The Anders Wall Award was created to encourage and promote efforts made by creative entrepreneurs who have contributed to the creation of a “positive rural environment”. This includes landscape preservation, biodiversity enhancement, cultural heritage conservation and contribution to the rural economy within the European Union.

Success factors

More than twenty years of interrupted management (1965-1988) and several forest fires had negative effects on the quality and quantity of the growing stock. This lack of appropriate management – even mismanagement – together with forest fires and other illegal activities, reduced the growing stock and degraded the land. The infrastructure was minimal and for protection it was necessary to rely on the state guards and fire suppression. In general the area was abandoned, to a point of minimal revenue and practically no investment. Currently, the forested area covers 35.2% of the estate but the prospects for the future are very high since the partially forested lands are gradually becoming denser and regeneration is also improving. 12. Inputs requested from workshop participants During the benchmarking workshop on 22 June, 2011, this working document has been discussed and further developed based on the knowledge and experience of the participants in the event, in order to provide a final overview of benchmarking criteria for the forest sector. Key questions to be addressed during the workshop are:

• Are all the benchmarking tools listed in section 2 applicable to the forest sector and biodiversity achievements?

• Are there additional tools that have to be included for developing a benchmarking mechanism for the forest sector in relation to nature and biodiversity impacts?

• How can we use these existing initiatives and standards in the most optimal manner for developing biodiversity benchmarks?

50

• Can the different stakeholders work with the benchmarking criteria? • Are there any obstacles for applying these benchmarking criteria? • What is needed to be considered a biodiversity leader in the forest sector? • How to measure the success and effective long-term commitment and implementation of

biodiversity related improvements based on the listed benchmarking methods and criteria?

• Which aspects have to be taken into consideration when establishing monitoring and measuring systems?

• How can we use the experiences from the case studies presented in this background document for further development and refining of the benchmarking criteria for application in Europe and beyond?

The discussion in relation to this discussion paper and the questions listed above, during the workshop on 22 June, will be expected to lead to a conclusion and summary for a suggested benchmarking method for the EU Business and Bioversity platform for the forest sector. After the workshop a report with the results will be prepared. 13. Summary of the workshop discussion Participants: Albane Siramy, The Alliance for Beverage Cartons and the Environment (ACE) Ana Rocha, ELO Philipp Miller-Aichholz, ELO Marie-Alice Budniok, ELO John Hontelez, FSC Caroline Bostrom, CEPF - Conféderation Européenne des Propriétaires Forestiers Lisa Engström, CEPF - Conféderation Européenne des Propriétaires Forestiers Ulrich Leberle, Confederation of European Paper Industries (CEPI) Marta Kaczynska, DG Environment Shulamit Alony, IUCN Liza Drius, IUCN Moderator: Chantal van Ham, IUCN The workshop on benchmarking methodology for the Forestry sector saw good attendance by the platform’s participants who actively discussed the proposed agenda and themes and formulated relevant recommendations. The workshop started with a presentation by Marta Kaczynska from the European Commission (EC) who gave a general overview of the Platform, in particular on the EU Biodiversity policy and B@B award scheme for businesses. She also explained the objectives of the present workshop. It was clarified that this year there will be 27 awards given at EU Member State level, and these winners can apply for the EU award next year. It was strongly emphasized that the importance benchmarking goes beyond the award scheme, because it can help companies to reduce their impacts on biodiversity in the long-term. This presentation was followed by a roundtable discussion to gather participants‘ expectations for the meeting. Several questions were addressed to the EC, in particular as concerns the B@B award. Participants noted that the B@B award which includes all sectors should be expanded to

51

offer an award by sector as to allow more specific criteria, since sectors have very different needs and tools. It was also noted that the benchmarking methodology being developed should be linked to the award scheme. Questions on who is in charge of enforcing the methodology and how the benchmarking methodology can be turned into concrete action were also raised. It was noted that the supply chain approach to benchmarking is considered of relevance for capturing all aspects of biodiversity impacts and the EU Biodiversity target for 2020 has to be integrated in the criteria for benchmarking, as that is not the case now. FSC was welcomed as a new member of the EU Business and Biodiversity Platform for the forest sector, but a special note was made that FSC is not a business, but a non-profit organization representing the interests of different stakeholder groups, including business. After a general introduction by Chantal van Ham on the agenda of the workshop, the participants were given the opportunity to comment on the pre-defined list of benchmarking criteria included in this document. Several suggestions were made to improve the current list. In particular, participants underlined the need to reduce the number of criteria also by merging some. The list of all recommendations with regards to the benchmarking criteria is included in the final section of this document. The workshop continued with 3 presentations on the case studies relevant to benchmarking methodology, followed by questions and discussion. The case studies presented are included in this document in section 4. Discussions on the viability and effectiveness of these practical examples led to more recommendations to be addressed to the EC (see section 7). The last session of the workshop aimed to gather all input and agree on a list of recommendations. Participants also underlined the need for more clarity on the next step of the benchmarking process and the B@B award. 14. Conclusion and recommendations The overall conclusion of the workshop is that the participants of the forest sector agree that it is important to assess performance of the business sector in relation to biodiversity impacts by using a benchmarking methodology. However, there remains some unclarity on the key objectives of this workshop, in particular as to the value of the recommendations made in light of the EU Biodiversity Strategy and targets for 2020 and the implications of the adoption of the benchmarking criteria for biodiversity in practice. The following suggestions for changes to the background document and recommendations have been collected:

• The document needs to be more clearly contextualized in the EU policy processes and in particular the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2020; information is needed on how the recommendations will be used and what will be next steps

EU Biodiversity Policy and Business and Biodiversity Award

• The benchmarking methodology is developed per sector while the award scheme has no sectoral approach; it is recommended to give an award per sector, considering the variety of business sectors involved

• Add criteria for EU business and biodiversity award selection to the benchmarking document and ensure alignment between the two sets of criteria; explain who is eligible for the award

Benchmarking criteria

52

• It is recommended to reduce the number of criteria in the list to facilite their application in practice

• In general, the description for each of the criteria has to be made more clear, e.g. biodiversity components and objectives, extent of impact, environmental benefit

• Clarity is needed on who is in charge of benchmarking process and how it can be translated into action

• Integrate the link between the criteria and the EU Biodiversity Strategy • Include economics and ecosystem services as an indicator in the criteria, including job

creation and social impact • A complicated factor in the compliance with the criteria is the involvement of the different

stakeholders part of the supply chain • Unclarity on how business outside Europe is included in the methodology • Innovation should be included as a separate component in the list of criteria • Cooperation among stakeholders should be included in the criteria • Replicability is an important, but even more important is the capacity and willingness of

an organization to share their experience and communicate successful results to interested parties

• The criteria should be included in the main text of the document and not as annex • Take note that not all aspects of sustainability can be addressed in the criteria for

biodiversity, it should be clarified what the focus is • The following suggestions for adaptation of the criteria have been made, some may be

merged, others need additions or changes:

o Criteria 1 and 2 should be merged o Criterion 2 needs to include a reference to supply chain o Criteria 3 and 5 can be merged – combine biodiversity policy and action plans o Criterion 9 should be more specific, what is aimed at here in relation to

economics, social and ecological aspects o Criterion 10 should include communications efforts to promote replicability o Criterion 11 should include restoration and a link to the EU Biodiversity Strategy o Criteria 4 and 11 can be merged – EU policy o The word “indigenous” should be deleted from criterion 11 o Criterion 11 should not include reference to Natura 2000, since business operates

also outside protected areas and in other nature ares that are not designated Natura 2000; Natura 2000 should be integrated in criterion 4

o The EC should explain the reference to “equal benefit-sharing” as this is generally referred to developing countries, is it applicable in this context

• Define the boundaries of scope of the work of the EU Business and Biodiversity Platform, e.g. are organizations mainly focused on sourcing forest raw materials in tropical countries eligible for a European award?

General comments

• A FAO scheme, called ‘WISDOM’ applied at national level in Slovenia was suggested as an addition to the document

53

Tourism

54

1. Introduction Since the stakeholders within the environmental community, public and civil society and the business sector realized that business has a big role, responsibility and potential to contribute to the protection of biodiversity, they began cooperating to develop the business case for biodiversity and develop and implement measures to benefit biodiversity. This process has so far delivered many efforts and initiatives by the business sector in concrete measures, increased awareness and business commitment. Unfortunately, up until now the business sector has been lacking an instrument to accurately assess the effects of these measures and efforts for the benefit of biodiversity. Although many initiatives are in place to assess the impact of business practice on the environment in for instance the realm of resource efficiency, carbon emissions and the environmental footprint, there is currently no adequate instrument in place to assess a business’ performance towards biodiversity. The effect of a lack of this kind of instrument is that there is no clear view of either the effectiveness of any measures implemented by business or the value of their efforts. Based on this, the European Commission took up the initiative to evaluate the criteria of the currently available benchmarking schemes and explore the need and possibilities to develop an EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking instrument. This document sets out the lines along which the above mentioned need has been addressed during the workshop to reach an agreement upon the approach towards an EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking instrument.

2. Workshop aims The aim of this workshop (see part 4 for more explanations on workshop details) was to explore whether any of the benchmarking instruments that are currently available can be utilized to assess the biodiversity performance of companies/actions and to explore the need and possibilities to develop such an instrument. This workshop also represents a unique opportunity to discuss benchmarking criteria that have been drafted by the EU Business & Biodiversity Platform. Next to assessing the biodiversity performance of a specific company or action as such, the expected outcome of the workshop were to:

• Evaluate the current set of criteria of a benchmarking scheme; • Give recommendations to modifications and amendments of those criteria.


In order to decide whether a benchmarking scheme is suited to assess a business and biodiversity effort, the European Commission proposes a number of criteria that could apply. During the workshop we have explored which criteria need to be met in relation to business and biodiversity. These (draft) criteria should all be answered positively for a benchmarking scheme to be applicable.



55












During the workshop the criteria were discussed and considered with the objective of evaluating whether participants can work with these criteria and if they are valid for their industry.

4. Workshop methodology The workshop was supposed to last one day and to be organized in two phases described below: During the first phase, the main session aimed at providing the participants with sufficient background on the EU Biodiversity Strategy and presenting each of the 13 drafted criteria in details. The second phase was dedicated to discussions among the participants about the applicability of this set of criteria. Unfortunately, the workshop has been cancelled due to the low number of participants. However in order to assess the applicability of the set of criteria, interviews (over the phone) have been held individually with each participant of the B@B tourism sector between the 1st and the 8th of July, 2011. This exercise lead to a discussion and the review of the 13 drafted criteria in order to agree on a basis of benchmarking scheme for the tourism sector.

5. Case studies Last year, during our first workshop we proposed a first analysis of 5 benchmarking scheme/methodologies relevant for the tourism companies. Those existing methods can help companies to answer some of the requirements included in the benchmarking criteria. The following table shows what methodologies/schemes can be useful for companies in the biodiversity benchmarking criteria framework:

56

This analysis shows that most of the time, the tools and guidelines available partially provide information to help to answer benchmark criteria requirements, especially for case studies linked with wildlife watching (Wildlife Watching and Tourism UNEP/CMS) and hotels (Biodiversity My Hotel in action). The publication from Conservation International (Linking Communities, Tourism & Conservation) is a good source to answer criteria for projects of any kind. The analyzed publications suffer from a lack guidelines on biodiversity performance indicators and independent verification which are two important EU benchmarking criteria. That is why, we have encouraged B@B members for tourism sector to go further with an update on the evolution of efforts made on this kind of methods over the last year in relation to the benchmarking initiative of the European Commission. In that context participants have prepraed the following cases4

These cases contributed to the discussion on the 13 drafted criteria for the elaboration of a comprehensive benchmarking approach, especially regarding the biodiversity performance indicators and aspects linked to valuation.

described below.


The European Biodiversity Standard (EBS) is a methodology which has been developed by ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC) in cooperation with Middlemarch Environmental Limited (MEL) to measure and improve a company’s environmental performance. It focuses not just on one certain project or initiative, but instead assesses a whole company. It is an assessment of a company’s biodiversity management performance looking at ten components: commitment, survey, assessment, legislation, planning, implementation, measurement, partnerships, communication and review.

Description

4 A case study can be a benchmarking scheme, a methodology or an instrument as well as a specific benchmarked project or initiative.

Guidelines name

CBD Guidelines on Biodiversity and Tourism Development and user’s manual

Tourism and biodiversity - Mapping Tourism's global footprint

Linking Communities, Tourism & Conservation: A Tourism Assessment Process. Conservation International:

Wildlife Watching and Tourism. UNEP/ CMS

Hotel Biodiversity Operational Guidelines "Biodiversity: My hotel in action

1. Addresses biodiversity components?

X X

2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? X X X3. Based on a corporate biodiversity policy?

X X X

4. Clear linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations?

X X

5. Integrated into a corporate biodiversity action plan?

X

6. Biodiversity performance indicators?

7. Biodiversity performance monitoring and reporting?

X X

8. Independent verification?

9. Sustainability of the biodiversity action(s)?

X X X

10. Replicability of the biodiversity actions(s)?

X X X

11. Is the ecosystem/habitat/species important?

X

12. How extensive is the impact? X X

13. Environmental benefit, including: Integrating legal and ecological constraints and especially the European biodiversity policies strategies

X X

EU Benchmark

criteria

57



2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? The EBS clearly addresses a company’s performance regarding ecosystems and biological resources as well as the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable use of these resources by looking at the planning, implementation and measurement of measures taken by the company to minimize the impact on biodiversity and even improve the biodiversity on company sites. 3. Based on a corporate biodiversity policy? Throughout all ten components of the assessment procedure, the proof of certain actions, procedures, measures, monitoring, etc. should be traceable back to the business policy of the company being assessed. 4. Clear linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations? One of the components of the EBS is the demand that the company adheres to government legislation and policy. The assessed company needs to provide evidence that all relevant legislation is being identified and adhered to. 5. Integrated into a corporate biodiversity action plan? The component ‘planning’ assesses if the company has set objectives, targets and action plans for biodiversity issues. Through this component therefore, the EBS assesses whether biodiversity action plans have been created to integrate the company’s biodiversity policy and actions.

5.2. Case: Corporate Ecosystem valuation Description

58

The Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (CEV) was launched in April 2011 by the WBCSD (World Business Council for Sustainable Development) in collaboration with ERM, IUCN and PwC. The main objective of this Guide is to provide a process to explicitly value and account for ecosystem costs and benefits in business decision making. It has been road tested by 14 international companies. It is downloadable at the following link: www.wbcsd.org/web/cev.htm The Guide is divided on 2 parts:

• « Screening » process that could be performed following the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) methodology

• « Methodology » to conduct a CEV divided in 5 steps (scoping, planning, valuation, application, embedding)

This approach can be useful to better understand and address some of the benchmarking criteria. In fact the valuation approach has been developed in line with a typical Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) process. Different valuation approaches are considered: qualitative, quantitative and monetary. Ecosystem valuation techniques are presented according to different type of ecosystem services.


2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? The first part of the methodology, that foresees a screening process through the ESR helps to address biodiversity components and objectives getting specific to their impacts and dependencies on the organization. At this stage, those notions of impacts / dependencies have not yet been explicitly considered in the benchmarking criteria but the interest and relevance of their incorporation could be discussed during the workshop. 11. Is the ecosystem/habitat/species important? 12. How extensive is the impact? 13. Environmental benefit, In the CEV methodology, the valuation in itself is presented as a 9 step process and enables to address some benchmarking criteria such as the relative significance of the ecosystem services affected, and the environmental changes (taking into account environmental and physic-chemical changes). The techniques suggested by the CEV approach to better understand and address those criteria should be discussed during the workshop. Moreover, the CEV Guide suggests other steps to the valuation of a biodiversity programme such as the evaluation of internal and external benefits and, if feasible, the valuation phase through monetization. The interest and relevance of the incorporation of those parameters in the benchmarking criteria could also be discussed during the workshop.

5.3. Case: Ljunghusen Golf Club

The Ljunghusen Golf Club in Sweden is located on an international wetland area. The public opinion does not consider golf course as an environmental friendly place (fertilizers are too heavily used as well as pesticides, no or little access for general public, little or no wildlife and flora).

Description

However, environment and biodiversity are a central concern of many golf courses and golf associations all over the world. For more than ten years, the Ljunghusen Golf Club indeed performed several tasks aiming to protect the environment on site and especially the rich local biodiversity. Like some other well involved golf courses, this initiative received the Golf Environment Organization Certification in 2009 which is an international certification designed for golf courses.

59

This initiative is furthermore integrated in the European Golf Association 10 steps-guideline aiming at protecting, enhancing and restoring biodiversity on golf courses dedicated for golf courses all over Europe. This guideline was discussed with the European Commission. The dissemination of the guideline is done through the national associations. The tasks performed by the Ljunghusen Golf club include:

• Ecological studies on plants, birds, mammals amphibians and red listed species • Work on habitats (increase the size of habitat patches, connect internal habitat patches,

connect patches with external habitats, create new habitat corridors, improve and diversify habitat edges)

• Consultation with local nature conservation organisations • Activities for environmental education • Conservation and enhancing landscape and cultural heritages • activities to conserve, reduce and minimize water consumption • Careful use of fertilizers


2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? Since the activity directly depends on a natural site, the case study addresses habitats and wildlife species (birds, flora, and mammals). The biodiversity objectives addressed are the conservation of biodiversity (golf course close to nature reserves), and the equitable sharing of benefits between golfers, birdwatchers, walkers. 5. Integrated into a corporate biodiversity action plan? This case study is part of bigger initiatives, the10 steps guideline for golf courses and the Golf Environment Organization certification. 8. Independent verification? There is an independent verification by an accredited auditor of the Golf Environment Organization Sustainability Associate 9. Sustainability of the biodiversity action(s)? 10. Replicability of the biodiversity actions(s)? The case study indicates that the biodiversity actions of the case are sustainable since the studies and certification proved the efficiency of the management. Furthermore such actions are bound to be replicated on other golf courses since they face the same environment and biodiversity problems. The European Golf Course Association focused on the replicability questions with the 10 steps guidelines

5.4. Case: Pierre &Vacances new recreational center in Moselle (France) The Pierre & Vacances group conducted a study on biodiversity protection prior to the building of tourism accommodations in a new site located in Moselle France. This study paved the way to an ecology and forest management plan for the site. This case study was also analysed through the EU benchmark criteria.

6. Workshop questions These examples clearly show that the different benchmarking methodologies fit to at least the majority of the set criteria. How these benchmarking methodologies relate to all the criteria and

60

which is most suitable, based upon these criteria, will be further evaluated together with the participants during the EU Business & Biodiversity Benchmarking workshop. In order to facilitate this evaluation, the following questions were proposed to the participants:

Do you consider that the given draft criteria for the benchmarking approach sufficiently address the issues regarding biodiversity within the food supply sector?

General Approach

What is needed to be considered a biodiversity leader in the food supply sector?

Do you think the methodological guides presented facilitate the work to address the benchmarking criteria?

Feedback other benchmarking methodologies / schemes

Are there additional relevant tools not presented during the workshop that have to be included for developing a benchmarking mechanism for the tourism sector in relation to nature and biodiversity impacts?

Which suggestions would you have for further elaboration or amendment of the given draft criteria for the benchmarking approach? Which criteria would you add / modify?

Specific feedback on benchmarking criteria

Can the different stakeholders work with these benchmarking criteria? Are there any obstacles for applying these benchmarking criteria? How to measure the success and effective long-term commitment and implementation of

biodiversity related improvements based on the listed benchmarking criteria? Which aspects have to be taken into consideration when establishing monitoring and

measuring systems? How can we use the experiences from the case studies presented in this background

document for further development and refining of the benchmarking criteria for application in Europe and beyond?

7. Summary of discussions

This part of the report summarizes the feedbacks of the following participants: - Malgorzata Steckiewicz (Business To Nature) - Olivia Ruggles-Brise (WTTC) - Stig Persson (EGA Golf Course Committee) - Alix Houdayer (Pierre & Vacances)

The cases listed in chapter 5 and prepared for the workshop clearly show that the different benchmarking methodologies fit to many of the drafted 13 criteria. Moreover, the assessment of Pierre & Vacances case and Ljunghusen Golf conveyed by PwC allows getting feedback on concrete initiatives. However in order to answer carefully all criteria, several documents are needed (technical document describing the initiative, communication support of the initiative, etc.) to cover all the areas highlighted by the criteria. The review resulted in various conclusions such as: new criteria, amendments of existing criteria, and a sorting into categories in order to simplify the system. Two general remarks arose from the discussions:

61

A need to define precisely the scope of the benchmarking:

The term “study” should also be clearly explained. Does it apply to a company, a product, a project?

Indeed, a common basis is necessary in order to determine relevant criteria and enable a homogeneous valuation for benchmarking purposes.

Having a list of criteria from 1 to 13 is confusing, it should be more organized. The following categories could be used:

A need to create criteria categories would be helpful according to participants

1. Biodiversity components and objectives (Criteria 1 & 2) 2. Link to the company policies and local regulations (Criteria 3 to 5) 3. Biodiversity performance (Criteria 6 to 8) – specifying baseline situation and current

performance 4. Replicability (Criteria 9 & 10) 5. Impact and benefit (Criteria 11 to 13)

The following part describes the discussions on the criteria. Amendments were made and new criteria were added. Criteria 1 and 2: They are relevant since they inquire about important information (biodiversity

components and objectives as defined in the CBD). However these indicators seem to be hard to understand for several participants, since they are no biodiversity experts. The terms should be explained and adapted according to the specificities of the sector.

The concept of ecosystem services (as defined in the Millenium Ecosystem Assessment) should be used since it is more understandable by businesses and will help companies to link the case with their activity.

The second criterion defines four biodiversity objectives: conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of biological resources, equitable sharing of the benefits, and development outcomes (especially for cases in developing countries). However these objectives are not easily understandable by participants, an adaptation to the tourism sector may help (i.e. is enjoying a touristic place is considered as equitable sharing of benefits?).

Criterion 3 & 5:

These criteria are relevant only for big companies because SMESs cannot afford to have a corporate biodiversity plan. They should be included since they are also a target of the platform

Even big companies cannot all afford to have a corporate biodiversity policy. It could be for example included into a global policy on the environment. It could be wise to add “Based on a corporate policy that includes biodiversity?”.

Criterion 4: This criterion should include the references to the local constraints that can be stronger

than national biodiversity policies and regulation.

Criteria 6 and 7:They require more specifications on what is asked.

The criteria should thus specify the indicators referred to as performance indicators and also include qualitative information. Monitoring tools or method should as well be listed.

62

These indicators should be accepted by every company. A solid reference would help. Global Sustainable Travel Council (GSTC) could be the baseline for such performance indicators.

Sometimes companies could use performance indicators not directly related with biodiversity but including it (for example indicators on parkland management). Since biodiversity performance indicators are not common, a fall-back approach should be possible.

Criterion 8: Such a third party should be accredited to perform independent verification. The process

and scheme of accreditation should be précised to avoid any greenwashing.

The term “sustainability” should be explained. What are the scope and the indicators? Does it refer to the period of time over which the action will have a positive effect on biodiversity or to the inclusion of the “sustainability” dimensions, namely: social (already partly tackled in criterion 2), economic, in the actions implemented?

Criteria 9:

This indicator also depends on the criteria 6 & 7. The economic and social aspects can give important indications on the viability of the

actions. Criterion 11: National or regional protected areas should be included to refer to the local importance of

the initiative. Many good examples are located in ordinary places, but can still be good examples of successful implementation and management.

Criterion 13: This criterion is unclear for most participants of the tourism sector. The sourcing policy is

not a focus point for tourism companies. Details should be given to enable a better understanding.

Costs and investments and hiring of external skills Additional criteria were suggested by the participants:

The question of costs and necessary investment should be raised to answer questions such as “Is this case study replicable every year in a given company or it is so expensive that we can perform it only every 5 years”, “Was the case study started from scratch and therefore a strong investment was needed, or was it part of an on-going process with slow changes and thus low investments?” The question of investments also relates to the question “Is the project feasible by internal employees or are external consultants needed?”

Supply Chain Is the project integrated in the supply chain? Are suppliers engaged in the initiative?

Communication: Communication around the project/company and the lessons learnt would be interesting also to add as a specific criteria

8. Conclusions The rich discussions we had during the contacts with Platform members showed that the current defined criteria need more explanations for some of them. They feel that sometimes they have not sufficient knowledge to answer those criteria. There is a clear need to give the reporting guidelines and tools to assist companies in their answers.

63

It appears also that there is no common benchmarking tool available for the tourism sector that fulfill all criteria. Participants would like also to have a classification of benchmarking criteria and have proposed some additional criteria that are considered at this stage.

64

Non-energy extractive industry

65

1. Introduction Greenhouse gases emitted or sequestered can be measured in tonnes of carbon. Water used or conserved can be measured in cubic metres. How can biodiversity loss, restoration or conservation be measured? This is not an easy question to answer. However, for responsible businesses that have developed a biodiversity strategy and action plan, it is a critical question. How do they and other stakeholders know whether or not their efforts are biodiversity positive? This document discusses the current challenges and opportunities of measuring biodiversity performance, particularly for the Non-Energy Extractive Industry (NEEI) sector in Europe. It includes the outputs of a workshop with the NEEI sector5

on benchmarking which was organised by the European Commission and took place on 20 September 2011 in Brussels.

2. Workshop aims The aim of this workshop was to explore whether any of the benchmarking instruments that are currently available can be utilised to assess the biodiversity performance of companies/actions in the non-energy extractive industry sector and whether there may be a need and possibility to develop such an instrument for the sector. This workshop also represented a unique opportunity to discuss benchmarking criteria that have been identified by the EU Business & Biodiversity Platform and its partners. The expected outcomes of the workshop were:

• To evaluate the current options for a benchmarking scheme; and • To give recommendations to modifications and amendments as may be needed.

At the workshop itself, the participants identified that the key issue was how one effectively measures biodiversity. They noted that many initiatives have been taken all over Europe by the NEEI sector with different approaches and results.

3. Draft criteria for a benchmarking approach In order to decide whether a benchmarking scheme is suited to assess a business and biodiversity effort, the European Commission has proposed several criteria. During the workshop, the participants explored which criteria need to be met in relation to the NEEI sector and biodiversity. In principle, it was noted that the following draft criteria should all be answered positively in order for a benchmarking scheme to be applicable:

1. Addresses biodiversity components? Is the benchmarking scheme clear about the components of biodiversity it addresses: ecological complexes (or/landscapes), ecosystems, species/habitats, and biological resources?

2. Addresses biodiversity objectives? Is the benchmarking scheme clear about which biodiversity objectives it addresses: conservation of biodiversity, sustainable use of biological resources, equitable use of biological resources, and, especially for developing country situations, development outcomes?

3. Based on a corporate biodiversity policy? Does the scheme require a corporate biodiversity policy?

5 At the workshop, NEEI sector representation included CEMBUREAU, UEPG, IMA-Europe and Eurogypsum. Other participants were from the European Commission and IUCN.

66

4. Clear linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations? Does the scheme clearly link the case to relevant international, regional and national biodiversity policies and regulations?

5. Integrated into a corporate biodiversity action plan? Does the scheme require a corporate biodiversity action plan?

6. Biodiversity performance indicators? Does the scheme clearly describe which biodiversity performance indicators are to be used?

7. Biodiversity performance monitoring and reporting? Does the scheme clearly describe performance monitoring and reporting processes?

8. Independent verification? Does the scheme require independent verification of biodiversity performance?

9. Sustainability of the biodiversity action(s)? Does the scheme expect an indication of whether a company’s biodiversity actions will be sustainable, and, if so, how?

10. Replicability of the biodiversity actions? Does the scheme provide guidance on the how various biodiversity actions could be replicated or scaled up across the company or the sector?

11. Importance of the ecosystem/habitat/species? For example, is the action in a Natura 2000 area or one covered by the Habitat or the Birds Directive? Is it threatened? Is it indigenous?

12. How extensive is the impact? For example, what is the geographical area covered? What other types of land use can be found in the region? Are there negative side effects?

13. Environmental benefit? Including integrating legal and ecological constraints and especially the European biodiversity policies – Birds and Habitats Directives, and Natura 2000 – into strategies considering the value chain with a sustainable sourcing policy.

However, during the discussions, the participants challenged the notion of single benchmark scheme or metric as an approach to measure biodiversity. Indeed, there is a need to measure biodiversity but there does not appear to be a sole indicator or a sole number to measure it like we measure carbon emissions or energy efficiency. Hence, during the workshop, the above criteria were discussed and reviewed with the objective of evaluating whether these criteria are useful for the NEEI sector.

4. Workshop methodology The workshop was organised in two general parts. During the first part, presentations, discussion and participant feedback focused on the suggested benchmarking criteria. This part aimed at providing the participants with sufficient background on the EU Biodiversity Strategy and the draft criteria for the benchmarking approach. It also focused on discussing whether these criteria are applicable in light of a benchmarking methodology for the EU Business & Biodiversity Platform. The second part was dedicated to discussions among participants about the applicability of using this set of benchmarking criteria. This was facilitated by actively testing the draft criteria in relation to one or more real cases, including those presented in the following section. Participants were also asked to introduce a relevant case, which is a benchmarking scheme/methodology they have been involved or in contact with. This case was discussed and evaluated against the proposed criteria. This approach enabled a moderated discussion where the experiences of the participants with benchmarking were shared. Conclusions and advice regarding the criteria and the use thereof were drawn from this session. These are further reflected in the sections below.

67

5. Case studies In order to facilitate the workshop, there are a number of examples which could be applied to the NEEI sector in order to test and evaluate the above given criteria. This section describes and illustrates four cases in relation to the above-mentioned criteria, of which the last two were put forward by the workshop participants. The first two of the case studies which follow were also highlighted in the Non-Energy Extractive Industry and Biodiversity Conservation Benchmarking Discussion Paper for which the final version was released in June 20116

. Both of these cases focus on a type of biodiversity standard similar to an environmental management system which can be certified under ISO14001. In this regard, the benchmarking measurement is to “comply with the management system requirements and then contribute to biodiversity.”

Because both management systems and areas to be managed are very diverse, it is important to recognise that Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) could be appropriate in some situations and not suitable for others. Each quarry, for example, is part of a bigger ecosystem and each ecosystem will have its own specific KPIs. Hence, attempts to have global approach might be very subjective. Importantly, management systems in relation to biodiversity should cover a previously defined ecosystem, the quarry and the neighbouring area as this enables demonstration of the added-value of a quarry inside an ecosystem. Specific KPIs derived for a management system should be adapted to local ecosystems and these should be changed as needed in response to ecosystem changes. A biodiversity management for a NEEI site needs to be flexible and adaptable to specific situations in specific areas across Europe. Hence, the following cases indicate a good way forward to improve biodiversity, especially as through their simplicity, they can trigger positive results for biodiversity.

1.1 IFC Performance Standard 6

In August 2011, the International Finance Corporation (IFC) released their updated Sustainability Framework. The IFC is the private sector arm of the World Bank Group headquartered in Washington DC. It “fosters sustainable economic growth in developing countries by financing private sector investment, mobilizing capital in the international financial markets, and providing advisory services to businesses and governments.” The IFC’s Sustainability Framework – which will become operational in January 2012 – also provides the basis for the Equator Principles which are “a credit risk management framework for determining, assessing and managing environmental and social risk in project finance transactions.” These Principles have been adopted by over 70 financial institutions, such as Citigroup, HSBC and Société Générale, covering over 70% of international project finance debt in developing countries. Thus the IFC’s updated Sustainability Framework is also material to the sustainability of international finance. The Framework includes the following Performance Standards for clients of the IFC and the Equator Principle institutions:

PS1 – Assessment and Management of Social and Environmental Risks and Impacts PS2 – Labour and Working Conditions PS3 – Resource Efficiency and Pollution Prevention

6 See: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/assets/pdf/sectors/FinalECBBextractives-Jun2011.pdf.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business/assets/pdf/sectors/FinalECBBextractives-Jun2011.pdf�

68

PS4 – Community Health, Safety and Security PS5 – Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement PS6 – Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural

Resources PS7 – Indigenous Peoples PS8 – Cultural Heritage

PS6 on Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources7

• protect and conserve biodiversity,

“recognizes that protecting and conserving biodiversity, maintaining ecosystem services, and sustainably managing living natural resources are fundamental to sustainable development.” In this context, IFC clients (e.g. private sector borrowers) should:

• maintain the benefits from ecosystem services, and • promote the sustainable management of living natural resources through the adoption

of practices that integrate conservation needs and development priorities. So what is the business case for this approach? In their Policy on Environmental and Social Sustainability, the IFC clearly states their position:

“In order to accomplish its mission and achieve its commitments, IFC endeavours to collaborate with clients who identify and manage environmental and social risks and who pursue environmental and social opportunities and outcomes in their business activities with a view to continually improving their sustainability performance. IFC recognizes the relationship between a strong culture of corporate integrity and governance, and sustainability performance, and that a company’s management and board of directors play important roles in driving risk management and sustainable growth. IFC believes that this approach helps improve the financial, social, and environmental sustainability of investments, and enhances the public trust in its operations.”

In this respect, they provide a critically important benchmark for project financing among key lending agencies for the NEEI sector – as well as other sectors – whether they are operating in developed or developed countries.

1.2 Green development certification In 2008, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) agreed to “improve actions and cooperation for enhancing the engagement of the business community” and to “come forward with new and innovative financing mechanisms in support of the strategy for resource mobilization.” In 2010, the Parties further agreed that “by 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial resources […] should increase substantially". In response, the Green Development Initiative (GDI) aims to increase the level of private sector financing for biodiversity through a voluntary, transparent, accountable, market-based scheme which will enable funding to directly support conservation and development outcomes on the ground. The GDI intends to establish a green development certification system for land management. Such a scheme will facilitate international funding to reward land managers directly for their

7 See: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/policyreview.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Updated_PS6_August1-2011/$FILE/Updated_PS6_August1-2011.pdf.

http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/policyreview.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Updated_PS6_August1-2011/$FILE/Updated_PS6_August1-2011.pdf�

http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/policyreview.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/Updated_PS6_August1-2011/$FILE/Updated_PS6_August1-2011.pdf�

69

efforts to conserve biodiversity, use biological resources sustainably and equitably, and promote economic and social development. Green development certification will apply CBD objectives, approaches and guidance to the management of geographically-defined areas. Where appropriate, the approaches and guidance of other biodiversity-related conventions and voluntary environmental and social certification schemes will also be referenced. In particular, green development certification will build on the CBD’s Ecosystem Approach. A set of Working Papers is now under review including a Prototype Green Development Certification Reference Guide.8

Regarding the potential demand for green development certification, research is also underway on the drivers and modalities for engaging businesses, investors and consumers. Businesses, for example, may seek certification for the management of their own lands or as a means for channelling support to the management of other areas, such as buffer areas around their facilities or areas relevant to their value chains. In this regard, the GDI approach may be particularly relevant to the NEEI sector.

1.3 Assessment of the first two cases Criteria IFC PS 6 on biodiversity

conservation Green development certification

1. Addresses biodiversity components?

Yes Yes

2. Addresses biodiversity objectives?

Yes, except benefits focuses more narrowly on ecosystem services

Yes

3. Based on a corporate biodiversity policy?

Maybe, as part of a broader sustainability strategy

Maybe, the focus is on land management rather than on corporate policy

4. Clear linkages to government biodiversity policies and regulations?

Yes Yes

5. Integrated into a corporate biodiversity action plan?

Maybe, in the context of a broader sustainability plan

Yes, but specifically with respect the management of a geographically-defined area

6. Biodiversity performance indicators?

Implied in the specification of the standard, but not detailed

Required as part of the green development land management plan, with a key indicator of ‘hectares’ of certified lands

7. Biodiversity performance monitoring and reporting?

Maybe, as part of a broader requirement on sustainability monitoring and reporting

Required as part of the green development land management plan

8 See: http://gdi.earthmind.net/library/ and, in particular, http://gdi.earthmind.net/files/gdi-wp07-guide-31aug2011.pdf.

http://gdi.earthmind.net/library/�

http://gdi.earthmind.net/files/gdi-wp07-guide-31aug2011.pdf�

70

Criteria IFC PS 6 on biodiversity conservation

Green development certification

8. Independent verification? A possibility, but not clearly a requirement

Yes, required for certification

9. Sustainability of the biodiversity action(s)?

Not specified Not specified

10. Replicability of the biodiversity actions?

Implicit in the standard Implicit in the guidance for certification

11. Importance of the ecosystem/habitat/species?

Yes, highlights critical habitats and endangered species

Not exactly, as it is applicable to biodiversity-responsible management of all types of areas

12. How extensive is the impact?

Yes Yes

13. Environmental benefit? Yes Yes

1.4 Cement Sustainability Initiative biodiversity KPIs The workshop participants proposed consideration of another case – the biodiversity KPIs of the WBCSD Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI).9

These are applied by some companies in the aggregates and cement sector in Europe.

The CSI KPIs aim at being simple and practicable, and are already applied globally by some major companies. They are also, in principle, accessible to SMEs in the NEEI industry. However, to encourage companies, and SMEs in particular, to progressively commit to the reporting it should be accepted that they voluntarily report at the first stage two of the four indicators. For example these two indicators could be Number (or %) of quarry or pit sites with rehabilitation or restoration plans or programmes in place, and also Number (or %) of sites within or near areas designated for their high biodiversity value, such as Natura 2000 or other designated conservation areas. Proposed Non-Energy Extractive Industry Biodiversity VOLUNTARY KPIs

Numbers (or %) of Sites

Number (or %) of quarry or pit sites with rehabilitation or restoration plans or programs

Number (or %) of sites with community engagement plans in place (such as Open Days, Minerals Days, or as part of a National or Company initiative) The total number of community events may also optionally be reported, which would count the total number of Open Days and other events for all sites

Number (or %) of sites within or near areas designated for their high biodiversity value, such as Natura 2000 or other

9 See: http://wbcsdcement.org/.

http://wbcsdcement.org/�

71

designated conservation areas Number (or %) of sites with a Biodiversity plan or program, where site Biodiversity has been reviewed and a plan or program of Biodiversity conservation has been developed, ideally with communication with appropriate stakeholders

As noted by the European Commission, the above set of voluntary KPIs could be strengthened by complementary indicators reflecting the conservation status of habitats and species at the site level. Further, an assessment or a KPI on the impact of a quarry on a relevant Natura 2000 site (habitats or species protected by it) –would be a useful addition.

1.5 Global Reporting Initiative-based method A further case study considered by the participants was the method of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).10

• Percentage of endemic plants used in rehabilitation, and

Certain, more advanced, companies are using more sophisticated indicators such as:

• Comparison of flora and fauna before land disturbance and after completion of rehabilitation at 10, 20 years' intervals.

For such indicators the metric could be the percentage difference on number of species, variety of species; or other such indicators. These may be used by the companies who wish so on a voluntary basis. In this respect, the NEEI partners should strive to organise exchanges so that NEEI companies can benefit from the existence of indicators having been developed elsewhere for their own use. Proposed Non-Energy Extractive Industry Biodiversity VOLUNTARY KPIs

Metric

of mined area within or near areas designated for their high biodiversity value, such as Natura 2000 or other designated conservation areas

% of mined areas covered with a Biodiversity plan or program, where site Biodiversity has been reviewed and a plan or programme of Biodiversity conservation has been developed

Some additional advanced indicators may be provided by some companies, on a case by case basis, such as the following:

Percentage of endemic plants used in rehabilitation

Comparison of flora and fauna before land disturbance and after completion of rehabilitation at 10, 20 years intervals. Metric: % difference on number of species, variety of species.

Indicators used by business should be linked to those included in the EU monitoring system for biodiversity – more co-operation with the European Commission on it would be needed.

10 See: http://www.globalreporting.org/Home.

http://www.globalreporting.org/Home�

72

6. Workshop recommendations These case studies clearly show that these different benchmarking methodologies fit to aims of the set criteria. In so doing, however, are they suitable as well for use by the NEEI sector? In order to facilitate this evaluation, a number of questions were considered during the workshop including the following:

• Do you consider that the given draft criteria for the benchmarking approach sufficiently address the issues regarding biodiversity within the non-energy extractive industry sector?

• How well do the presented benchmarking methodologies cover the given draft criteria for the benchmarking approach?

• How well do the given draft criteria for the benchmarking approach apply to the presented cases?

• Which suggestions would you have for further elaboration or amendment of the given draft criteria for the benchmarking approach?

In considering these questions, the participants noted that the European NEEI sector actively addresses the biodiversity challenges it faces. They do by adopting standards and guidelines and by engaging with biodiversity experts so as to mitigate its impacts, to ensure no net loss of biodiversity, and, in many instances, to strive for an overall net positive impact on biodiversity following extraction restoration. The sector has demonstrated this with numerous biodiversity case studies involving experts at site level. Exchange of good practice among industry associations, companies, competent authorities and NGOs are also leading to a greater number of biodiversity-friendly extraction operations within the sector. One of the challenges, as this workshop made clear, is to measure progress on biodiversity status. Different approaches already exist and are being successfully applied in the different sub-sectors of NEEI based on guidelines from CSI, GRI and other initiatives. In this respect, it is essential to apply and promote methods appropriate and applicable by each sub-sector separately, taking into account especially the practicability for SMEs in order to achieve a broader positive effect. The reality, however, is that few sites, even within large companies, can claim that they fully comply with a biodiversity management system as envisioned by the IFC Performance Standard 6 and by the certification scheme of the Green Development Initiative. Further, for SMEs, such a management system is not affordable. Nevertheless, it happens that ‘non-ethical’ quarries give a bad image to the whole extractive industry, making it even more difficult to obtain permits. Importantly, enhancing biodiversity performance enables access to resources. Hence, any operator should play according to the rules of the game and contribute to that access to resources in a fair way. This means that within the NEEI sector, biodiversity responsibility is to be expected. The participants agreed that we need to bring the whole sector (including SMEs) upwards and not only look at the best cases. To do so, we need a simple management approach building on the insights of the case studies reviewed above and on industry experience. The participants proposed the following:

• Undertake baseline studies for all quarries. Within an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), there can be specific KPIs for a quarry in the context of a description of its surrounding ecosystem. These KPIs can be used by the relevant environmental and mining authorities on a regular – usually yearly – basis.

73

• In the EIA, one part is normally dedicated to a restoration plan where elements of biodiversity are or could be included. Particularly for sensitive areas (e.g., Natura 2000), stricter measures and outcomes would be foreseen.

• For some old quarries who do not have an EIA, they will most likely have a restoration proposal approved by the mining authorities. This document could be updated including different indicators related to the specific ecosystem to strengthen its biodiversity performance. The on-going work of the EU on biodiversity indicators could be useful in this regard.

• In operating quarries, control of biodiversity performance can be on a regular basis under the permit by the competent authorities.

• Ultimately this leads to the desired outcome: a biodiversity-positive restored site after quarrying or during quarrying depending on the EIA of the site. For a legacy site, we can have a report with the evolution of the different indicators. For example, number of indigenous trees per hectare or number of a specific predatory bird leaving in the ecosystem.

In short, the elements of a simple management process include initial IEAs, regular review and audits of biodiversity performance during quarrying and a review of the biodiversity status after restoration. To this end, the participants agreed that the promoted methods should be simple, practicable, cost-effective and suitable at the site, company, national and European levels. Importantly, all the cases and methods considered in this report are entirely voluntary and focused on a site-by-site approach.

74

Conclusion The workshops evaluated key benchmarking criteria in the following sectors: agriculture, forestry, finance, food, non-energy extractive industries, and tourism. Each workshop used a series of case studies to evaluate the relevance of the criteria and to what extent they were applicable to each sector. A series of 13 key criteria were generally applied to each sector and each case study in turn. In most cases, the European Biodiversity Standard, which has been developed by the European Centre for Nature Conservation (ECNC), was assessed, except in the case of forestry where several existing and well-known standards such as FSC were identified and assessed as well. Additionally, in the case of the non-extractive energy industries, the proposed Green Development Land Management Certification scheme was also assessed. Concluding remarks vary, though some similarities can be found. In general, for all sectors, there is a greater need for clarity and explanation regarding the benchmarking process and the criteria. What is expected from each sector group needs to be stated clearly for the benefit of all interested stakeholders. It is also obvious that the criteria cannot apply to each sector in the same way, and therefore they will require some adaptation. In some cases, such as forestry and food supply, adaptation and modification of the criteria to better fit the sector have been suggested by the participants of the workshops. In the case of the finance sector, it was generally agreed that the criteria are not particularly well suited to the finance sector and therefore not applicable when trying to evaluate its performance towards biodiversity. In particular, for the financial sector the reputational risk is the main driver for actions that take into account biodiversity. The scope of the best practice benchmarking needs to be more clearly defined. It is very important to target specific biodiversity issues and business sectors, which different organisations can relate to. In the agricultural sector, for example, better focus is needed to decide which farmers are being targeted by the programme. In the non-energy extractive sectors, tools related to biodiversity-positive site restoration are especially needed. For the forestry sector, capacity and willingness of an organisation to share its experiences and communicate successful results to interested parties is important. More work is still needed within various business sectors and across these sectors to develop appropriate benchmarking criteria and tools to enable both the companies and their stakeholders to better understand how corporate biodiversity actions are benefiting biodiversity. In this regard, for example, the finance sector recommended that the European Commission should explore the possibility to develop a new set of criteria which could be more effectively applied by the sector. The food sector and the NEEI sector went further and proposed new sets of criteria.

75

The European Union Business and Biodiversity Platform The EU Business and Biodiversity Platform is a unique facility within the European Commission's Initiative where businesses can come together to share their experiences and best practices, learn from their peers, and voice their needs and concerns to the European Commission. The Platform aims to strengthen the link between the business sector and biodiversity conservation. The IUCN Regional Office for Pan-Europe, in partnership with PriceWaterhouseCoopers, ECNC, ELO and Blue4You, implements the B@B Platform which is funded by the European Commission. More information at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business.

IUCN IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature, helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our most pressing environment and development challenges. IUCN supports scientific research, manages field projects, and brings governments, NGOs, the UN and companies together to develop policy, laws and best practice. www.iucn.org

PriceWaterhouseCoopers The French SBS practice (www.pwc.fr/dd), member of PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisory France and a part of PricewaterhouseCoopers Sustainable Business Solutions (SBS) network (www.pwc.com/sustainability) is dedicated to providing clients with environmental/sustainability advisory services.

ECNC The ECNC-European Centre for Nature Conservation working for the conservation and sustainable use of Europe’s nature, biodiversity and landscapes, developing partnerships with organizations, institutes and businesses. www.ecnc.org

ELO ELO, European landowners’ organization is committed to promoting a sustainable and prosperous countryside and to increasing awareness relating to environmental and agricultural issues. www.europeanlandowners.org

Contact

Shulamit Alony Regional Business and Biodiversity Officer

IUCN - Regional Office for Pan-Europe 64 Boulevard Louis Schmidt

1040 Brussels, Belgium Telephone: +32-2-739 0319

Fax: +32-2-732 9499 [email protected]

This Platform is implemented with financial support from the European Commission. The points of view expressed in this document are those of the consultants. They do not represent the official point of view of the Commission.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/biodiversity/business�

http://www.iucn.org/�

http://www.pwc.fr/dd�

http://www.pwc.com/sustainability�

http://www.ecnc.org/�

http://www.europeanlandowners.org/�

mailto:[email protected]�

towards benchmark methodology for biodiversity

Documents