Biodiversity and land use in the Natural Capital Protocol

Transcription

1 Biodiversity and land use in the Natural Capital Protocol March 15 th 2016 Samuel Vionnet Sustainability Expert +41 (0)

2 A first insight The Natural Capital Protocol does not address yet the issue of biodiversity. 2

3 What is the Natural Capital Protocol?

4 4

5 What is the Natural Capital Protocol (NCP)? The Protocol and Sector Guides (Food & Beverages and Apparels) aim to provide a standardized framework for business to measure and value their direct and indirect impacts and dependencies on natural capital. Released date: July 13 th 2016 Consultation period (December February 2016) just ended Deep dive pilots from a range of companies (Nestlé, Hugo Boss, Natura, Coca-Cola, etc) 5

6 What is meant by Natural Capital? We define Natural Capital as the stock of renewable and non-renewable natural resources (e.g., plants, animals, air, water, soils, minerals) that combine to yield a flow of benefits to people. 6

7 What is meant by Natural Capital? We define Natural Capital as the stock of renewable and non-renewable natural resources (e.g., plants, animals, air, water, soils, minerals) that combine to yield a flow of benefits to people. LCA LCA 7

8 Different perspectives (routes) in the NCP LCA Scope 8

9 How biodiversity is addressed in Natural Capital Accounting?

10 The concept of ecosystem services 10

11 The concept of ecosystem services The ES services framework accounts for the cause effect chain from the existence of an ecosystem to the benefit for the society*. Input Intermediate services Final services Benefits Abiotic resources (nutrients, sun, rainfall, etc) Biodiversity Erosion control Food Pollination Photosynthesis Soil formation Primary productivity Water regulation Drinking water Timber Biodiversity * Fischer and Turner

12 List of ecosystem services (MA, 2005) Provisioning services Raw materials Medicinal resources Freshwater Food Regulating services Pollination Erosion prevention and maintenance of soil fertility Local climate and air quality Carbon sequestration and storage Moderation of extreme events Waste water treatment Biological control 12

13 List of ecosystem services (MA, 2005) Cultural services Recreation and mental and physical health Tourism Aesthetic appreciation and inspiration Spiritual experience and sense of place Habitat and supporting services Maintenance of genetic diversity Habitats for species 13

14 Classification of ecosystem services (CICES 2013) Section Division Group Provisioning Nutrition Biomass Water Materials Biomass,1Fibre Water Energy Biomass7based1energy1sources Mechanical1energy1 Regulation4&4Maintenance Mediation1of1waste,1toxics1and1other1nuisances Mediation1by1biota Mediation1by1ecosystems Cultural Mediation1of1flows Maintenance1of1physical,1chemical,1biological1 conditions Physical1and1intellectual1interactions1with1ecosystems1 and1land7/seascapes1[environmental1settings] Spiritual,1symbolic1and1other1interactions1with1 ecosystems1and1land7/seascapes1[environmental1 settings] Mass1flows CICES: Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) Liquid1flows Gaseous1/1air1flows Lifecycle1maintenance,1habitat1and1gene1pool1protection Pest1and1disease1control Soil1formation1and1composition Water1conditions Atmospheric1composition1and1climate1regulation Physical1and1experiential1interactions Intellectual1and1representational1interactions Spiritual1and/or1emblematic Other1cultural1outputs 14

15 Classification of economic valuation techniques* Techniques Classes Market prices Cost based Revealed preferences Stated preferences Benefits transfer Types Market price Production function Replacement cost Avoided damage cost Travel cost Hedonic pricing Contingent approach Multiattribut approach Results transfer Function transfer * Dupras et Réveret (2015) Nature et économie Un regard sur les écosystèmes du Québec. Presses de l université du Québec 15

16 Land use valuation framework (modified from Cao et al. 2015) Ecosystem services References Biodiversity Biotic production (BPP) Carbon sequestration (CRP) Brandao & Mila i Canals (2013) Muller-Wenk & Brendao, 2010 LAND USE Biodiversity Water purification (WPP MF and PCF) Water recharge (FWRP) Saad, Koellner & Margni 2013 Erosion resistance (ERP) and Cao et al

17 Valuation techniques for Cao et al A mix of avoided damage costs, replacement costs and production functions valuation techniques. Midpoint Erosion resistence potential (ERP) Mechan. Water Purification Pot. (MWPP) Phys-Chem Water Purification Pot. (PCWP) Fresh Water Renewal Potential (FWRP) Carbon Sequestration Potential (CSP) Biotic Production Potential (BPP) Physical unit t/(ha.yr) cm/day Economic approach Cost of erosion mitigation measures Data source WOCAT 1 ry treatment WaTER cmol/kg soil 2 d & 3 rd treatment WaTER mm/year tco 2 /(ha.yr) Water to supply UNESCO Social cost of carbon Diverse Interpretation Natural resistance loss Non-filtered water Non-filtered water Water non provided CO 2 emitted tc/(ha.yr) Productivity loss FAO Production loss 17

18 Overview of insights Biodiversity is not addressed directly in the NCP (apart from some exceptions such as specific provisioning services) The NCP relies on existing methods and approaches to measure and value biodiversity, including LCA methods (e.g. Cao et al. 2015) The utility perspective followed by the NCP does not fully overlap with LCA overall approach and the conservation of nature/biodiversity. Said differently, optimizing ecosystem services might reduce biodiversity in some cases. The NCP does not aim to value nature, it values the flows of service(s). 18

19 Examples of applications

20 Biodiversity dependencies The case of soybean in Santa Cruz, Bolivia The value of nature conservation and biodiversity, in this case local and regional forests, are supporting soybean farmers in Santa Cruz region for more than 30 millions USD/year. (Local) Climate regulation Local and regional forests including biodiversity Other services Source: 20

21 Nestle Corporate Natural Capital Accounting Natural*Land*Transforma8on* Human*health*(other)* Freshwater*eutrophica8on* Freshwater*acidifica8on* Upstream*ac8vi8es* Direct*opera8ons* Downstream*ac8vi8es* Marine*eutrophica8on* Human*par8culate*mamer* Resources* Human*toxicity* Land*use* Water*withdrawal* Climate*change* Billions CHF/year Source: 21

22 Mansonto mono-culture vs. Cerrado (agro-forestry) Fig. 2: The total environmental value calculated in the Monsanto case study PROVISIONING SERVICES R$ 785 (US$ 335) SOYBEAN MONOCULTURE REGULATING SERVICES DIRECT AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS R$ 345 (US$ 147) R$ -100 (US$ -43) ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE R$ 1,031 (US$ 440) SOYBEAN MONOCULTURE WITH CERRADO PROVISIONING SERVICES REGULATING SERVICES DIRECT AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE R$ -80 (US$ -34) R$ 719 (US$ 307) R$ 590 (US$ 252) R$ 1,139 (US$ 486) R$ -250 R $0 R$ 250 R$ 500 R$ 750 R$ 1K R$ 1.25K ECOSYSTEM SERVICES + DIRECT AGRICULTURAL IMPACTS = ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE (>0) (<0) Source: TEEB for Business Brazil (2014) 22

23 Identification of best practices (cattle farming in Brazil) Source: FAO (2015) Natural Capital Impacts in Agriculture 23

24 Thank you! Questions? Samuel Vionnet Sustainability expert and founder +41 (0)