Approach for reporting on ecosystem services - BIP Indicators

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Sustainability Reporting Today: The Readers’ Verdict<strong>for</strong> some ES, and often beyond the capabilitiesof individual organizations. Companies typicallylack sufficient scientific staff and resources toundertake the necessary field assessments. Also,it can be questioned whether companies canbe expected to undertake such exercises ratherthan this in<strong>for</strong>mation being supplied by scientificinstitutions or authorities, <strong>for</strong> example. Moreover,scientific knowledge in the field of ecosystemservices and the relationship between changes tofunction and condition, and changes (enhancementor disruption) to different services provided bya particular ecosystem, is still the focus of muchongoing research.Another challenge <strong>for</strong> <strong>reporting</strong> is the fact thatchanges in ES may be the result of natural changesand may be caused by a combination of differentpressures from a variety of stakeholders. Separatingthe changes in ES caused by an organizationfrom natural changes and pressures of otherstakeholders may prove very difficult. This is furtherconfounded by the connectivity between differentES, whereby it may be difficult to determine thepressure that has caused any change identified.Developing ES-related indicators is also challengedby their site-specific nature. Apart from a fewexceptions, such as climate regulation, the optimalway to measure ES is site-specific, since theecological characteristics and beneficiaries varyby location. To serve organization-wide <strong>reporting</strong>,indicators need to be developed in such a waythat the in<strong>for</strong>mation from various sites can bemeaningfully aggregated.To overcome such challenges, the followingstrategies <strong>for</strong> per<strong>for</strong>mance <strong>reporting</strong> are outlined:1. Develop indicators based on the five key threatsto ES (Section 3.3.3), using proxy indicators<strong>for</strong> ES per<strong>for</strong>mance in case metrics about theES themselves are not deemed feasible <strong>for</strong>corporate level measurements.2. Frame per<strong>for</strong>mance data in an ES context,in case additional in<strong>for</strong>mation is needed toprovide insights into a <strong>reporting</strong> organization’sES per<strong>for</strong>mance.3.3.3 Strategies <strong>for</strong> developing ESper<strong>for</strong>mance indicatorsAs one option, it is suggested that indicatordevelopment focuses in part on the principalthreats to ecosystems (CBD, 2010 - see References)in order to capture the key ways that organizationscould be contributing to these threats, as wellas being dependent upon those ES that arethreatened. Moreover, these threats can beconsidered relevant <strong>for</strong> all organizations andsectors. Per the approach suggested in Figure3, indicators are also suggested that will help to“tell a story” about the organization’s impact anddependence on ES, as well as their response tomitigate threats and support those ES dependedupon.The main threats on ES <strong>for</strong> which indicators aresuggested are:• Habitat loss and degradation (impacting ES suchas water cycling and erosion prevention)• Overexploitation and unsustainable use(impacting ES such as the provision of food andraw materials)• Climate change (impacting ES such as climateregulation and regulation of water flows)• Pollution and nutrient load (impacting ES suchas pollination and recreation)• Invasive alien species (impacting ES such asbiological control and genetic resources)Per<strong>for</strong>mance Indicators within the GRI Frameworkare aimed at <strong>reporting</strong> on an organization-widebasis 4 . The key challenge here is combining ESrelateddata, which by its nature is site-specific,into aggregate figures. Some pressure data canbe aggregated at the group level by adding upper<strong>for</strong>mance metrics, such as the amount of CO 2emitted, the volume of pesticides used, or thesize of natural land converted into productionlocations. Other metrics could be summarized4This paper addresses attention <strong>for</strong> ES in organization-wide <strong>reporting</strong>in con<strong>for</strong>mity with GRI’s general Reporting Guidelines. GRI hasalso issued Sector Supplements that would be fit <strong>for</strong> inclusion ofspecific ES indicators that take into account the characteristicsof the sector in question (in this respect, see also Annex II <strong>for</strong>examples obtained from the Mining and Metals Sector Supplementand the Food Processing Sector Supplement).22© 2011 GRI
y describing trends or frequency of occurrenceacross the organization’s portfolio. For example, asite-based indicator may show the actual changein soil depth or soil pH, whereas a corporate-levelindicator would show the number and location ofsites where soil degradation is occurring. Scorecards<strong>for</strong> site-level application could be developed toobtain data to be aggregated on group level. Otherexamples are the percentage of farming operationsthat have access to healthy pollinator populations,or the percentage of production locations in waterscarce regions. A basis <strong>for</strong> this kind of indicatorcan be the use of global ecosystem services mapsprovided by international institutions, and researchorganizations that provide in<strong>for</strong>mation on ESaround the world, such as water availability and soilquality. The location of production sites could beassociated with in<strong>for</strong>mation given on ecosystems.Some of the important pressures may be locatedfurther down the value chain and there<strong>for</strong>e not bewithin the direct scope of an organization. However,given that impacts on ES are often most severe atthe production side of the supply chain, ef<strong>for</strong>tsneed to be made to address them in <strong>reporting</strong>.Obtaining in<strong>for</strong>mation on sites not directlymanaged poses the challenge of full transparencyand cooperation throughout the supply chain.In addition to indicators that work to aggregatesite-level in<strong>for</strong>mation on ES, corporate levelindicators could work to highlight progressregarding management of ES. For example,the number of operations that have managementplans on ES and their threats (such as theintroduction of invasive species, climate change).Such management-based per<strong>for</strong>mance indicatorswould work particularly well <strong>for</strong> individual sectors.For example, agricultural companies could reporton the number of operations that use integratedpest management or precision agriculture,indicating limited use of pesticides and other agrochemicals.Or, paper and wood-based companiescould disclose the percentage of inputs fromcertified sources, serving as an indication of theirimpact on natural <strong>for</strong>ests and the ES they provide.3.3.4 Example <strong>reporting</strong> indicators in thefield of ecosystem servicesTable 3 explores a range of organization-wideindicators based on the five key threats toecosystems. These example indicators provideoptions <strong>for</strong> <strong>reporting</strong> organizational pressures,impacts, dependence on, and responses to,ES. In addition to presenting indicators thataddress pressures on ecosystems and ES, Table3 suggests indicators that address impacts onother beneficiaries of ES, and responses to thoseimpacts. Also included are GRI EnvironmentalPer<strong>for</strong>mance Indicators from the current Guidelinesthat are relevant, but mostly do not sufficientlyinvite comprehensive <strong>reporting</strong> on ES in theircurrent <strong>for</strong>mat. Many of the indicators listed do notmeasure ES directly; nevertheless, they may serve asmeaningful proxies at organization-wide level.Recognizing that, in some cases, an organization’sdependence on a particular ES can also be a pressure(e.g., water consumption), there is some overlapbetween the pressure and dependence indicators.<strong>Approach</strong> <strong>for</strong> <strong>reporting</strong> on ecosystem services– Incorporating ecosystem services into an organization’s per<strong>for</strong>mance disclosure23GRI Research andDevelopment SeriesI Research & DevelopmentTopicsReportingPractices
Page 1 and 2: opicsendsoolsGRI Research & Develop
Page 3 and 4: AcknowledgementGlobal Reporting Ini
Page 5 and 6: Table of ContentsExecutive Summary
Page 7 and 8: focuses on the principal threats to
Page 12 and 13: Sustainability Reporting Today: The
Page 15 and 16: Figure 1. An example of ecosystem c
Page 17 and 18: that organization’s activities or
Page 19 and 20: It should be realised for</
Page 21 and 22: 3. Reporting onperfor</stro
Page 23: to report on is quite challenging.
Page 27 and 28: Key threatsto ecosystemservicesHabi
Page 29 and 30: Key threatsto ecosystemservicesPoll
Page 31 and 32: Figure 5. Example of report
Page 33 and 34: No single indicator can tell the fu
Page 35 and 36: 4. Ecosystem servicesin future GRI
Page 37 and 38: Balmford, A., Rodr
Page 39 and 40: Annex II: Reference to ecosystem se
Page 41 and 42: ADDADDEN13 Habitats protected or re
Page 43 and 44: SocietySociety Perfor</stro

Approach for reporting on ecosystem services - BIP Indicators

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?