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

JS Science 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

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 JS Science

GLOBIO3 model (Terrestrial model, PBL) 3 The model uses the MSA indicator: X Mean Species Abundance of original species, relative to their abundance in primary ecosystems 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 JS Science

Pressure factors in GLOBIO3  Land-use change (agriculture expansion, forestry) (management; e.g. harvest system, rotation, etc.)  Infrastructure & settlement MSA  Fragmentation  Climate change  N-deposition Infrastructure Land use change 1,2 1,2 mean species abundance 1 mean species abundance 1 forests 0,8 0,8 Cause-Effect relations for each 0,6 0,6 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,2 pressure based on literature research 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 selective agroforestry cropland pasture primary secondary plantations forest logging forest distance to roads grasslands, deserts, wetlands boreal and temperate forests in terms of quantity and quality tropical forests and tundra Climate Nitrogen deposition Fragmentation mean area reduction 1,2 1,2 100 90 tundra 1 1 species richnes ratio percentage of species 80 tundra Internationally implemented at global, regional 70 0,8 0,8 60 birds 0,6 0,6 forests 50 and sub-national scale mammals grasslands 40 0,4 forests 0,4 30 grasslands 20 0,2 0,2 10 0 0 0 0 5 10 15 20 0,0 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 N g.m-2 Temperature change minimum area requirement 4 JS Science

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 JS Science

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) JS Science

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 JS Science

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

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

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

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

Results analysis GLOBIO: Case Tony Chocolonely 12 Footprint chocolate bar Footprint chocolate bar Cocoa from low productive farms Cocoa from from high productive farms MSA.ha MSA.ha 2.00E-06 2.00E-06 1.50E-06 1.50E-06 Land-use Pure Land-use pure chocolate chocolate 1.00E-06 1.00E-06 Land-use milk Land-use milk chocolate chocolate Climate pure Climate pure chocolate 5.00E-07 chocolate 5.00E-07 Climate milk Climate milk chocolate chocolate 0.00E+00 0.00E+00 Total footprint 1000kg chocolate: Total footprint 1000kg chocolate: Pure: 1.2 msa.ha; Milk: 0.91 msa.ha Pure: 0.96 msa.ha; Milk: 0.80 msa.ha JS Science

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

Results analysis GLOBIO: Nature restoration 14 30 MSA herstel voormalig landbouwterrein naar natuurgebied MSA.ha MSA.ha 0.7 25 0.6 20 0.5 0.4 15 Natuurontwikkeling 0.3 10 0.2 Log. (Natuurontwikkeling) 5 0.1 0.0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425 Bestaand landbouw Natuurontwikkeling Natuurontwikkeling gebied na 1 jaar 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 JS Science

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) JS Science