Biodiversiteitsvoetafdruk bedrijven: Methodes & tools 16 October 2017 The Hague (NL) Min EZ (Zijlstrazaal) Biodiversity Footprint Tool for companies

Transcription

1 Biodiversiteitsvoetafdruk bedrijven: Methodes & tools 16 October 2017 The Hague (NL) Min EZ (Zijlstrazaal) Biodiversity Footprint Tool for companies Based on the GLOBIO methodology By: Wilbert van Rooij, Plansup Eric Arets, Wageningen Environmental Research

2 Background 2 Initiative Platform BEE Determination biodiversity footprint of ~10 NatCap companies Two instruments tested: GLOBIO based footprint methodology (PBL) ReCiPe 2015, Life Cycle Impact Assessment method Biodiversity Footprint methodology uses only part of terrestrial GLOBIO3 method and part of GLOBIO-Aquatic method

3 GLOBIO3 model (Terrestrial model, PBL) 3 The model uses the MSA indicator: Mean Species Abundance of original species, relative to their abundance in primary ecosystems X Kwaliteit * Kwantiteit Indicates the naturalness or intactness of an area / ecosystem Combines ecosystem quality (species abundance) and quantity (extent) The MSA can be calculated to determine past, present or future state Model uses cause-effect relations based on measured effects of 5 pressures Comparison between undisturbed and disturbed ecosystems

4 percentage of species species richnes ratio mean area reduction primary forest selective logging secondary forest agroforestry plantations cropland pasture mean species abundance mean species abundance Pressure factors in GLOBIO3 Land-use change (agriculture expansion, forestry) (management; e.g. harvest system, rotation, etc.) Infrastructure & settlement Fragmentation Climate change N-deposition Land use change MSA Infrastructure Cause-Effect relations for each pressure based on literature research in terms of quantity and quality Internationally implemented at global, regional and sub-national scale 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 Fragmentation minimum area requirement birds mammals forests Nitrogen deposition 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 tundra forests N g.m-2 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0, grasslands grasslands, deserts, wetlands boreal and temperate forests tropical forests and tundra 4 1,2 1 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,2 0 distance to roads Climate tundra forests grasslands 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 Temperature change

5 GLOBIO: From global to national to footprint company level 5 GLOBIO3 method: Global, national and sub-national. Incl 5 terrestrial pressures Biodiversity Footprint method: Company level, impact assessed per part of the chain. Incl 2 terrestrial pressures from GLOBIO3 (Landuse, GHG Emissions), 1 pressure from GLOBIO-aquatic (N&P Emissions to water), and 1 new (Water extraction) These 4 pressures are the most relevant pressure factors on biodiversity in the Netherlands and also in the rest of the world. Together they cover also the majority of impacts caused by businesses. Note: This can be different for individual companies! Footprint calculations are carried out per local impact area and per product (or product group) and per part of the chain

6 GLOBIO: From global to national to footprint company level 6 Biodiversity Footprint is expressed in loss off MSA within the area that is used for the production of the product: MSA.ha: Biodiversity Footprint = (1 MSA_impact area product) * Impact area product (ha) A higher MSA.ha means a larger footprint. E.g. because loss of natural reference-species per hectare is large, and/or loss extends over a larger area Reason not using all GLOBIO pressure factors: Relevancy to footprint company and not all pressures can directly be related to the surrounding of a company (e.g. Infrastructure, Fragmentation and Nitrogen deposition to land) Impact toxic substances not separately included in GLOBIO (but indirect in landuse) Local desiccation, pesticides and eutrophying emissions are implicitly included via landuse. But in order to include also impact of desiccation on neighbouring nature areas the impact of water extraction is also assessed (for 2 cases)

7 Main goals biodiversity footprint calculation for collaborating companies 7 Insight in impact contribution main pressure factors Determination which part of the chain or process has the largest impact Testing effectiveness of assumed biodiversity friendly measures Determination of footprint difference between: Different products Current and desired (future) situation Use of different raw materials / energy consumption / transport systems, etc

8 Company Case Better Future Factory DESSO Difference between footprint of 'New Marble' tile from recycled PET bottles versus standard ceramics tile Difference between current production of carpets and future production with biodiversity friendly measures Company Case Natural Plastics Schut Papier Difference between footprint of traditional tree plant system (with wooden stakes) and 8 the new 'keepers' tree plant system based on materials made from potato and maize waste materials Difference in footprint of traditional paper and 'Valorise' paper made with paper pulp and 30% waste material from tomato plants DSM Foreco Moyee Footprint dextrose production based on maize from the US Difference in footprint by the use of three different wood species for the production of bio based impregnated 'Nobelwood' Difference in footprint of coffee production for 4 scenarios: 1. Coffee beans from small holders only. 2. Coffee beans only from productive plantation, and two scenarios with a different transport system (air vs ship) Tony Choco lonely Dairy sector NL Nature restoration Difference in footprint of a pure chocolate bar and a milk chocolate bar. The ratio of the origin of beans can be adjusted (smallholders/plantation) Difference between footprint of regular milk production, environmental friendly milk production and organic milk production Fictive case to show footprint development of nature recovery on former agricultural land

9 Data Pressure factor Specification units Characteristics Ecological damage requirements CO 2 (kg) Eq. factor = 1 9 GHG CH 4 (kg) Eq. factor = 28 N 2 O (kg) Eq. factor = 265 Land / water by climate change X (kg) Eq. factor = N X Industrial area (ha) Netherlands Land use Other land (ha) Other land (ha) Netherlands(+ mgmt) Foreign (+ mgmt) Land, reduction natural habitat original species Ground water (m 3 ) Extraction Water use Inland water (m 3 ) Tap water (m 3 ) Extraction Use Nature area, drought by water extraction Location water extraction N surface water (mg/l) Location drought sensitive nature areas N en P to water P surface water (mg/l) Volume, area and flow water body in which is emitted Concentration increase water body type in the Netherlands Eutrophication inland water

10 Regula farmr Nature friendly farm Organic farm Results analysis: Dairy sector case 10 Footprint land use dairy sector +11% Terrestrial footprint + 8% - 4% -7% Water footprint (N&P emission to water) 0% Terrestrial footprint: MSA.ha_landuse + MSA.ha_GHG (Excluding water extraction) -14% -14%

11 Results analysis GLOBIO: Desso Case % Effect pro-biodiversity measures DESSO Improvement compared to 2012 Inprovement % Terrestrial bd-footprint: % Aquatic bd-footprint: 20% Benutting land 34% - 50% Benutting land 10%

12 Results analysis GLOBIO: Case Tony Chocolonely 12 MSA.ha Footprint chocolate bar Cocoa from low productive farms MSA.ha Footprint chocolate bar Cocoa from from high productive farms 2.00E E E E E E-07 Land-use Pure chocolate Land-use milk chocolate Climate pure chocolate Climate milk chocolate 1.00E E-07 Land-use pure chocolate Land-use milk chocolate Climate pure chocolate Climate milk chocolate 0.00E E+00 Total footprint 1000kg chocolate: Pure: 1.2 msa.ha; Milk: 0.91 msa.ha Total footprint 1000kg chocolate: Pure: 0.96 msa.ha; Milk: 0.80 msa.ha

13 Results analysis GLOBIO: Case Tony Chocolonely L o w 13 p r o d H i g h p r o d

14 MSA.ha Results analysis GLOBIO: Nature restoration 14 MSA.ha MSA herstel voormalig landbouwterrein naar natuurgebied Natuurontwikkeling Log. (Natuurontwikkeling) Bestaand landbouw gebied Natuurontwikkeling na 1 jaar Natuurontwikkeling na 25 jaar The recovery of nature on a former agricultural field (30 ha) developes gradually A linear recovery is assumed until improved cause-effect relations are known

15 Results analysis GLOBIO: Water use DESSO 15 The biodiversity footprint for extraction of water by Desso in Dendermonde is very small: 0.64 MSA.ha. Its share is limited to 0.007% of the total biodiversity footprint of Desso (8960 MSA.ha for climate and landuse)

16 General conclusions Biodiversity Footprint method 16 Restrictions: The availability of the required input data at the companies is sometimes restricted. Current KPIs do not always provide enough information about the pressure factors, especially on landuse. New biodiversity related KPIs needed. Not all companies have clear visions about alternative or future situations. It is important to determine in advance what will be included in the analysis and what can be omitted. (focus on main impact implies that certain calculations/data are not needed, e.g. exclusion of some parts of the chain) Footprint emission to water should not be added to the footprint of land use. Terrestrial footprint is therefore determined by impact of land use, GHG and water extraction. Danger of greenwashing in case data. However this is also the case with LCAs that depend on selected data and assumptions.

17 General conclusions Biodiversity Footprint method 17 Feedback involved companies: Companies indicated that the method leads to new insights with repect to their impact on biodiversity. Based on the results they concluded that the Biodiversity Footprint method can succesfully help companies to: Get insight in which pressure factors and what processes have the largest contribution to the total biodiversity impact for given local conditions. Determine the difference in footprint between the current and alternative or future situation. Calculate the effectiveness of biodiversity friendly measures.

18 General conclusions Biodiversity Footprint method 18 Additional value with respect to other methods: Location specific. The impact of landuse and emission to water are being calculated for the actual impact-location and not generated based on generic impact values that are similar within Europe No need for specific software and not dependent of commercial databases Flexible, can be used without LCA Methodology can be implemented by companies themselves and is especially useful for internal monitoring of biodiversity-friendly measures Focus on the most relevant pressure types. The impact of the 4 pressure factors comprises the largest overall impact on biodiversity by Dutch and international businesses Landuse can be differentiated in types of use intensity. Landuse is often not yet reported by companies but can be assessed relatively simple.

19 NatCap prestatiemeting webtool: Biodiversity Footprint Tool 19 Web application for companies to calculate biodiversity footprint by themselves based on simplified GLOBIO methodology. Simple method so that companies can use it without background knowledge. Included pressures: Land use, GHG. Investigate possibility to add impact water extraction to webtool. Impact of N en P to water is not yet included webtool because of its complexity. Not entire chain included. First tool focuses on resources, suppliers and production process (which are the two most relevant parts of the chain with respect to impacc). Technical part of the tool ready, but not accessible yet.

20 Discussion: Follow up 20 Make the webtool accessible for everyone interested: public website Need to provide it with manual and stepwise instructions. Improve and develop the Footprint method: Refining extensive use function, agricultural nature management, nature recovery, including culture landscapes, Water extraction outside NLs Impact on marine biodiversity Adding other pressures: e.g. Infrastructure, cause effect relations toxic emission, impact fossile fuels versus bio based Integration with other models Detailed manual for companies incl directions for getting data Additional cases E.g with companies that want to test effectiveness measures of developed scenarios/alternatives, sectoral assessments (soy, oilpalm, meat, etc) Scenario workshops with selected companies

21 Follow up (cont) 21 Opportunities of linking the methodology to one or more steps of the NCP, including the finance sector guide. Realization: Research program PBL, WUR Role Ministry, IUCN, Plansup, CREM Bioscope partners