Mapping of business tools and methodologies for …randd.defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=WC0710_8843...Defra Mapping of business tools and methodologies for managing biodiversity

Mapping of business tools and methodologies for managing biodiversity

Final Report - Volume 1

Prepared for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

December 2009

Defra Mapping of business tools and methodologies for managing biodiversity

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Ltd. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole. The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion. © Scott Wilson Ltd 2009

Scott Wilson 6 – 8 Greencoat Place London SW1P 1PL Tel 020 7798 5000 Fax 020 7798 5001 www.scottwilson.com

Revision Schedule Mapping of business tools and methodologies for managing biodiversity Main Report – Volume 1 December 2009

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

01 2 December 2009

Final Report Steven Smith Associate

Jeremy Richardson Technical Director

Andrew McNab Director

Liz Clarke Assistant Environmental Consultant

Rowan Secrett Assistant Environmental Consultant

Ian Brenkley Assistant Environmental Consultant

20 July 2009 Draft for client comment


Table of Contents

Abbreviations .............................................................................................. 1

1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 6

2 Research methodology.................................................................. 12

3 Construction & building................................................................. 18

4 Mining.............................................................................................. 38

5 Forestry & Paper ............................................................................ 48

6 Utilities ............................................................................................ 64

7 Oil & Gas ......................................................................................... 83

8 Food Producers & Processors...................................................... 98

9 Retail.............................................................................................. 117

10 Leisure & Hotels ........................................................................... 131

11 Investment, Insurance & Banking............................................... 151

12 General / Cross-sector................................................................. 163

13 Conclusions.................................................................................. 172

Appendix 1 – Workshop ......................................................................... 183

Appendix 2 – Short List Tables.............................................................. 192

Appendix 3 – Data Capture Form........................................................... 273


List of Tables Table 1: Measures of effectiveness of the construction & building shortlisted mechanisms ....................... 21 Table 2: Conclusions and recommendations for the construction and building sector................................ 36 Table 3: Measures of effectiveness of the mining shortlisted mechanisms ................................................. 41 Table 4: Conclusions and recommendations for the mining sector ............................................................. 47 Table 5: Measures of effectiveness of the forestry & paper shortlisted mechanisms.................................. 51 Table 6: Conclusions and recommendations for the forestry and paper sector........................................... 62 Table 7: Measures of effectiveness of the utilities shortlisted mechanisms................................................. 69 Table 8: Conclusions and recommendations for the utilities sector............................................................. 82 Table 9: Measures of effectiveness of the oil & gas shortlisted mechanisms.............................................. 86 Table 10: Products of the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative ........................................................................ 92 Table 11: Environmental and socio-economic tool categories..................................................................... 94 Table 12: Conclusions and recommendations for the oil and gas sector .................................................... 97 Table 13: Measures of effectiveness of the food producers & processors shortlisted mechanisms ......... 102 Table 14: Conclusions and recommendations for the food producers and processors sector .................. 115 Table 15: Measures of effectiveness of the retail shortlisted mechanisms................................................ 121 Table 16: Conclusions and recommendations for the retail sector ............................................................ 129 Table 17: Measures of effectiveness of the leisure & hotels shortlisted mechanisms............................... 134 Table 18: Conclusions and recommendations for the leisure and hotels sector........................................ 149 Table 19: Measures of effectiveness of the investment, insurance & banking shortlisted mechanisms ... 153 Table 20: Conclusions and recommendations for the investment, insurance and banking sector ............ 161 List of Figures Figure 1: Research methodology - schematic.............................................................................................. 13 Figure 2: Nature After Minerals web tool...................................................................................................... 34 Figure 3: The UK water and sewerage regional division.............................................................................. 65 Figure 4: Extent of cultivated systems.......................................................................................................... 99 Figure 5: Exploring the boundaries of CR .................................................................................................. 119


Final Report - Volume 1 December 2009 1

Abbreviations

AECB Association for Environment Conscious Building ALGE Association of Local Government Ecologists BACP Biodiversity and Agricultural Commodities Program BAF Biodiversity Assessment Framework BAP Biodiversity Action Plan BATBP British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership BBII Business & Biodiversity Interdependence Indicator BBOP Business and Biodiversity Offset Program BBSIG Business and Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Group BCI Better Cotton Initiative BGS British Geological Survey BH&HPA British Holiday & Home Parks Association BMP Better Management Practice BNI Biodiversity Neutral Initiative BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method BSI Better Sugarcane Initiative BSI British Standards Institution BTAU Biodiversity Technical Assistance Unit BTC Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Caspian Pipeline BTO British Trust for Ornithology CAP Common Agricultural Policy CBBIA Capacity Building for Biodiversity and Impact Assessment CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CCF Cambridge Conservation Forum CCI Cambridge Conservation Initiative CDA Common Data Access Limited CEEQUAL Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme CELB Centre for Environmental Leadership in Business CEO Chief Executive Officer CFA Conservation Finance Alliance CI Conservation International CIEF Construction Industry Environmental Forum CITO Caravan Industry Training Ltd CLACDS Centro Latinoamericano para la Competitividad y el Desarrollo Sostenible CLG Department for Communities and Local Government CMS Convention on Migratory Species CoaST Cornwall Sustainable Tourism Network CONCAWE CONservation of Clear Air and Water in Europe COPs Conference of the Parties CSI Cement Sustainability Initiative CSR Corporate Social Responsibility D4B Design for Biodiversity DECC Department of Energy and Climate Change Defra Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs DETR Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions



DfID Department for International Development DNO Distribution Network Operator DTI Department of Trade and Industry (now BERR) EBI Energy and Biodiversity Initiative EBs Environmental Bodies EC European Commission EC DG Environment

European Commission's Environment Directorate-General

EcIA Ecological Impact Assessment EI Energy Institute EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EMAS Eco-Management and Audit Scheme EMAS Eco-Management and Audit Scheme EMP Environmental Management Plan EMS Environmental Management System ENCAMS Environmental Campaigns EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPP Environmental Planning and Protection EPPN Environmental Planning and Protection Network EPRI Electric Power Research Institute ESB Ecosystem Services Benchmark ESB Ecosystem Services Benchmark ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment ESR Corporate Ecosystem Services Review ETAP Environmental Technologies Action Plan EU European Union EuP Eco-design of Energy Using Products Directive EUROPIA European Petroleum Industry Association EWGS English Woodland Grant Scheme FEE Foundation for Environmental Education FEE Foundation for Environmental Education FFI Fauna & Flora International FLO Fairtrade Labelling Organisation FRB Foundation pour la recherché sur la biodiversite FSC Forest Stewardship Council FTO Federation of Tour Operators FWAG Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group GEF Global Environment Facility GI Green Infrastructure GIS Geographic Information Systems GLA Greater London Authority GMO Genetically Modified Organism GPG Good Practice Guidance GPP Green Public Procurement GRI Global Reporting Initiative GTBS Green Tourism Business Scheme GTZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit



IA Impact Assessment IAGC International Association of Geophysical Contractors IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment IBA Important Bird Areas IBAP Initial Biodiversity Assessment and Planning Methodology IBAT Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool IBLF International Business Leaders Forum IBLF International Business Leaders Forum ICFPA International Council of Forest and Paper Associations ICMM International Council for Mining and Minerals ICRT International Centre for Responsible Tourism IDNO Independent Distribution Network Operator IEE Initial Environmental Examination IEEM Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management IFC International Finance Corporation IFM Integrated Farm Management IHEI International Hotels and Environment Initiative IIED International Institute for Environment and Development IOM3 Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining IPIECA International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association IPP Integrated Product Policy IPPC Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control ISO International Organisation for Standardisation ITP International Tourism Partnership IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature KPI Key Performance Indicator LCF Landfill Community Fund LDA London Development Agency LDF Local Development Framework LEAF Linking Environment and Farming MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment MARTI Mesoamerican Reef Tourism Initiative MMSD Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development MNC Multinational corporation MNCF Minerals and Nature Conservation Forum MSC Marine Stewardship Council NERC Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act NFFO National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisation NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NGP New Growth Point NHS National Health Service NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council NSW New South Wales NVQ National Vocational Qualifications NW Northumbrian Water OGP International Association of Oil & Gas Producers P&C Principles and Criteria PEFC Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification



PPRP Power Plant Research Program PPS Planning Policy Statement PRI Principles of Responsible Investment R&D Research & Development RDPE Rural Development Programme for England RITE Reducing the Impact of Textiles on the Environment RLSS Royal Life Saving Society RNLI Royal National Lifeboat Institution RoSPA Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents RPP Responsible Purchasing Policy RSB Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels RSPB Royal Society for the Protection of Birds RSPO Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil RSS Rural Stewardship Scheme RSS Regional Spatial Strategy RTFO Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation Programme RTPI Royal Town Planning Institute RTRS Roundtable on Responsible Soy SA Soil Association SAGB Shellfish Association of Great Britain SAI Sustainable Agriculture Initiative SAN Sustainable Agriculture Network SCaMP Sustainable Catchment Management Programme SDC Sustainable Development Commission SDG Sustainable Development Group SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment SEBA Site Enhancement for Biodiversity Access SEEDA South East of England Regional Development Agency SEEDA South East of England Regional Development Agency SFI Sustainable Forestry Initiative SFIA Sea Fish Industry Authority SFMI Sustainable Forest Mosaic Initiative SMBC Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center SMEs small and medium-sized enterprises SRTP Social Responsibility in Tobacco Production SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest STEP Sustainable Tourism Eco-Certification Program STI Sustainable Travel International STSC Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council SUDS Sustainable Drainage Systems TCPA Town and Country Planning Association TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity TOI Tour Operators' Initiative ToR Terms of Reference TTF Timber Trade Federation UKAS United Kingdom Accreditation Service UKCS United Kingdom Continental Shelf UK-GBC UK Green Building Council Biodiversity Taskforce



UKWAS UK Woodland Assurance Standard UN United Nations UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNEP FI United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative UNWTO UN World Tourism Organization UU United Utilities VBDO Dutch Association of Investors for Sustainable Development VISIT Voluntary Initiatives for Sustainability in Tourism WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development WCMC World Conservation Monitoring Centre WDPA World Database on Protected Areas WFD Water Framework Directive WRAP Waste and Resources Action Programme WRI World Resources Institute WSSD World Summit on Sustainable Development ZEBRA Zones of Environmental and Biodiversity Risk Assessment



1 Introduction

1.1 This Report 1.1.1 Scott Wilson – in partnership with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) and

Green Horizons Environmental Consultants Ltd – were commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to, firstly, provide a comprehensive picture of the currently available tools and methodologies to assist business across key sectors in managing their biodiversity impacts and identifying opportunities associated with biodiversity and, secondly, investigate the feasibility of developing tools / methodologies to fill the most evident gap(s) identified. The findings of the research are intended to inform the work of the Business and Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Group (BBSIG), established in response to the England Biodiversity Strategy. The research builds on a previous desk based assessment of the tools available to UK business for the management of their biodiversity impacts undertaken on behalf of BBSIG1.

1.1.2 This report is structured as follows:

• Chapter 1 – sets out the context for this research

• Chapter 2 – sets out our research methodology

• Chapters 3-12 – set out the analysis of the business sectors and general/cross-sector

• Chapter 13 – sets out our conclusions and recommendations

• Appendix – includes notes from the stakeholder workshop, the short list tables of business mechanisms and a blank data capture form

• Volume 2 – provides the long list of mechanisms per business sector and responses received as data capture forms

1.2 Context 1.2.1 In April 2002, the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) committed

themselves to achieve by 2010 a significant reduction of the current rate of biodiversity loss at the global, regional and national level, as a contribution to poverty alleviation and to the benefit of all life on Earth. The European Union (EU) Sustainable Development Strategy, renewed in 2006, includes a target to halt the loss of biodiversity and contribute to a significant reduction in the worldwide rate of biodiversity loss by 20102. In 2008, the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee concluded that the 2010 target to halt biodiversity loss was unlikely to be met; however, they argued that the Government should adopt a new target and vision for halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 20203.

1 Cokeliss, Z. (2005). A desk based assessment of the tools available to UK business for the management of their biodiversity impacts. London: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. 2 Council of the European Union (2006). Renewed EU Sustainable Development Strategy [online] available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10917.en06.pdf (accessed 15 July 2009) 3 House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee (2008). Halting Biodiversity Loss: Thirteenth Report of Session 2007–08 [online] available at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmenvaud/743/74302.htm (accessed 15 July 2009).



1.2.2 The Parties to the CBD have underlined the importance of engaging the business community in implementing the Convention; however, in a 2006 Decision, the Conference of the Parties argued that the private sector is “the least engaged of all stakeholders in the implementation of the Convention, yet the daily activities of business and industry have major impacts on biodiversity”4. Notwithstanding this, the Decision highlights various tools and mechanisms that might facilitate contributions from business towards implementation of the Convention and its 2010 target. Those listed include: awareness-raising materials; certification schemes; internationally agreed standards; company biodiversity policies and action plans; and biodiversity benchmarks to guide and assess companies’ biodiversity management practices.

1.2.3 The England Biodiversity Strategy5 seeks to ensure biodiversity considerations become embedded in all main sectors of public policy. It includes a chapter on engaging business and sets out the ambition “to see business automatically engaging in managing and reporting on biodiversity as an integral part of its processes and activities”. It commits the Government to “[p]rovide advice, simple tools and support to help companies manage their biodiversity impacts and contribute to nature conservation targets in England.” It states that the Government will “encourage business to act for biodiversity in the boardroom, through the supply chain, in their management systems, in their annual reports and accounts, and on the ground”. Furthermore, the chapter outlines that the “Government believes that impact on the environment is “first among equals” of a range of factors that every director needs to consider in pursuing a company’s business objectives”.

1.2.4 The UK Government is therefore committed to the business and biodiversity agenda through various initiatives, and this is mirrored in several European ventures (see box below). The England Biodiversity Strategy set out within its programme of action to: “Establish a Business and Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Group with public, private and voluntary sector partners to develop and implement the programme of action”. As a consequence Defra established the Business and Biodiversity Strategy Implementation Group (BBSIG). In 2005, the BBSIG asked Zoe Cokeliss to produce a desk based assessment of the tools available to UK business for the management of their biodiversity impacts. This work was a preliminary assessment of available tools, and was not intended as a complete picture of all the tools currently available to various sectors. Owing to the rapid rate of change in levels of activity within the business and biodiversity community, the information needs updating to include more recent schemes and emerging issues. This report is the outcome of this commitment.

International & European biodiversity workstreams German Business and Biodiversity Initiative Following CBD COP 9 in May 2008, the Business and Biodiversity Initiative was established under German chairmanship as an international initiative to enhance private sector engagement in the CBD. The GTZ was commissioned by the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety to implement the initiative. It aims to encourage companies: to incorporate the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity into their management systems through its Leadership Declaration; to publish their best practices; to actively take part in the COP 10. It looks for a broadened international profile of the initiative. At time of writing no tools had been developed, but a practitioners’ ToR B&B Handbook is being prepared for end of 2009.

4 Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2006). COP 8 Decision VIII/17 Private-sector engagement [online] available at: http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=11031 5 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (2002). Working with the Grain of Nature: A Biodiversity Strategy for England [online] available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/pdf/biodiversity/biostrategy.pdf (accessed 16 July 2009).



The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) TEEB is a global study initiated by the European Commission (EC) and Germany in 2007. It looks at the economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity and is being undertaken as part of a “Potsdam Initiative” for biodiversity. The interim report, outlining Phase I findings, was presented at COP9. The final report is due in 2010 for presentation at CBD COP 10. In March 2009, as part of Phase II, TEEB announced a call for contributions to its Deliverable 3 (‘D3’ of D0-D4) for the purposes of compiling its ‘Report for business’. It will set out: “the economic case, identifying economic tools to help business make the transition to a ‘green’ economy, in which natural capital and its risks and returns are neither remote nor external to business success”. The report is being coordinated by IUCN and targets a private sector audience, aiming to: offer practical guidance on measuring and managing the risks of biodiversity and ecosystem losses risks to business; explore innovative economic tools including avoidance, mitigation and offsets; assist the identification of new market opportunities; and enhance awareness of wider impacts of business activities, in terms of financial, human and natural capital. The Biodiversity Assessment Framework (BAF) It is important to note that several countries are working independently on addressing business and biodiversity. In the Netherlands, as an example, BAF is being developed by the government (notably the Netherlands Ministry of Environment) with assistance from SevS natural and human environment consultants and CREM – a company that has an extensive ‘biodiversity and business’ field of work. BAF provides “a basis for an all-encompassing analysis of potential biodiversity impacts of any imaginable human activity”. The framework appraises or benchmarks existing instruments, identifying where they do not comply with the CBD and where they can be improved. It guides businesses in the assessment of existing management systems and reporting practices. The project programme passes the responsibility (under the Dutch government) of framework development on to Dutch private companies, economic sectors and other relevant stakeholders for practical implementation. Results will be presented through the Dutch Clearing House Mechanism.

1.2.5 Biodiversity is climbing up the business agenda not only due to uncertainty over costs (such as loss of natural capital and resources) and risks from biodiversity loss, but also due to increased public scrutiny and consumer demand. This is in addition to increasing Government and pressure group scrutiny of business supply-chains, practises and impacts. The tightening of legislation, including a broadening definition and interpretation of biodiversity and the introduction of new levies and penalties; also increase the profile and priority of biodiversity within business.6

1.2.6 A two-way relationship exists between business and biodiversity: Business derives many benefits from biodiversity – and is thus dependent upon biodiversity for its operations and economic stability – but it therefore also has many indirect, direct and cumulative impacts on biodiversity. The IFC outlines numerous ways in which business can impact upon biodiversity7:

• Direct impacts

• Usually occur at the same time and place as business activities e.g. through inputs (e.g. resource use) and outputs (e.g. waste generation)

• May include: habitat loss and degradation, erosion, species loss, air and water pollution, soil and water contamination, introduction of non-native species

6 F&C (2004). Is biodiversity a material risk for companies? An assessment of the exposure of FTSE sectors to biodiversity risk [online] available at: http://www.peblds.org/files/Publications/Articles/ISIS_Is_biodiversity_a_material_risk.pdf (accessed 4 February 2009). 7 IFC (2009) Understanding Biodiversity [online] available at: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/sustainability.nsf/Content/BiodiversityGuide_Understanding_Business (accessed 4 February 2009).



• These can impact on local communities e.g. reducing access to natural resources or disrupting ecosystem services

• Indirect Impacts

• The actions of others, triggered or caused by business activities

• May occur in a different place and time to the business operations

• Possibly represents a company's most significant risk for damage to biodiversity

• Often the most challenging to predict, identify, manage and control

• May result from third party suppliers in the sourcing and production of goods and services used by a company

• Mismanagement may impact upon other companies e.g. from the use or disposal of a company's products by consumers or other business users – particularly vulnerable companies that are directly dependent on biodiversity

• May result in changes in behaviour by others, including local people and employees, prompted by a company's operations. This may lead to induced negative impacts to biodiversity, including habitat loss and conversion from unplanned settlements and agricultural expansion, or increased demand for and depletion of natural resources as a result of in-migration

• Cumulative Impacts

• The operations of several companies in close proximity begin to collectively affect biodiversity

• Although individual business decisions or activities may have insignificant direct impacts on biodiversity, when combined, their impact may be significant

1.2.7 Thus the responsibility business has for biodiversity is rooted both in benefit derived, and impacts made. Business mechanisms provide a means of addressing this biodiversity link. Moreover, in addition to being well-placed to make the changes, business can also derive benefits from taking on business mechanisms to include the following and more:

• Economic stability – risk management (e.g. of building stock through reduction of flood risk) and preservation of natural capital (e.g. raw materials including direct dependence by farming, fisheries, pharmaceuticals etc)

• New opportunities, unique selling-points and a competitive advantage – in addition to new products and branding, there are emerging new markets such as through biodiversity offsets

• Increased revenue – responding to increased consumers’ demand for responsible products

• Reputation – public relations value, communication of good performance and demonstrating commitment to CSR

• Corporate responsibility – answering demand for transparency from society, consumers and investors

• Legal compliance and safe-guarding – pre-empt regulations (and fines) and public pressure. Securing a license to operate.

• Employee satisfaction and morale and staff retention



• Improved quality of products and services (including genetic diversity)

• Cost savings – more efficient use of natural resources, more efficient operations and improved access to financial capital

1.2.8 Biodiversity also offers a viable business venture, often referred to as “pro-biodiversity business”.8

1.2.9 Business is therefore both part of the problem, and part of the solution. Moreover, the resources and influence of the private sector offer important opportunities for innovative and effective contributions to conservation. As a result, a number of business mechanisms have been made available broadly to all business (e.g. by government, trade association or NGO), within business sectors, or within companies (e.g. created to address a specific challenge).

Pro-Biodiversity Business (PBB)9 Biodiversity offers a viable business venture, particularly for SMEs, often referred to as “Pro-Biodiversity Business”. These companies are highly reliant upon biodiversity and therefore highly vulnerable to its loss. Examples from a non-exhaustive and expanding list generated by the BTAU project include: • Organic farming and extensification of existing intensive practices • Ecotourism • Breeding traditional or rare breeds of livestock/animal husbandry • Sustainable fish, mollusc and crustacean farming and harvesting • Ecological management and consultancy services • Landscape maintenance • Sustainable forestry and wood processing • Specialised seed production • Seaweed harvesting • Reed harvesting • Plant oil production • Organic wine production • Grazing and mowing of grasslands • Sport fishing / diving / hunting • Provision of educational facilities for nature protection • Production of soaps, oils, creams and medicinal oils • Production of clothes and bags from organic fibres

1.3 Research aims and objectives 1.3.1 The project’s stated aim – as set out in the specification of requirements – was to review the

existing desk based assessment (Cokeliss, 2005) and use this as a basis for further assessing the existing tools and methodologies currently available. This work will then form the basis of investigating the feasibility of developing tools/methodologies to fill the most evident gap identified by the findings of this research.

1.3.2 The project’s stated objectives were therefore identified as:

8 RSPB (2009) Handbook for Developing and Implementing Pro-Biodiversity Projects- an output from the EC Biodiversity Technical Assistance Unit project, Sandy, UK 9 RSPB (2009) Handbook for Developing and Implementing Pro-Biodiversity Projects- an output from the EC Biodiversity Technical Assistance Unit project, Sandy, UK



• Build a comprehensive picture of currently available tools and methodologies to assist business across key sectors

• Investigate feasibility of developing tools/methodologies to fill the most evident gaps identified

Cokeliss Report Zoe Cokeliss wrote a report for the BBSIG in 2005 entitled: ‘A desk based assessment of the tools available to UK business for the management of their biodiversity impacts’10. This research: • gave a general outline of the biodiversity tools that are currently available in each of eight sectors

identified as ‘high risk’ sectors in F&C 200411 • outlined gaps where further tools are needed • recommended solutions for filling these gaps and improving the biodiversity benefits delivered The report was split into four main sections: a gap analysis summary (evidence gaps and areas where biodiversity activity is lacking); summaries on biodiversity tools found in each sector, plus recommendations; detailed information about the active biodiversity initiatives in each sector and the degree to which they deliver benefits for biodiversity; and two excel spreadsheets listing the identified initiatives and trade bodies. Key issues/findings for the initiatives identified: • Certification / accreditation schemes – Half the sectors analysed seemed to have sufficient

schemes for the certification of products, half did not. • Partnerships with Government / NGOs – The majority of sectors (except forestry & paper and oil &

gas) do not have many working biodiversity partnerships with Government bodies or conservation bodies).

• Forum / network / information provider – Most sectors (except the utilities industry and the food & drug retailers) have industry bodies that provide information about biodiversity issues relating to the industry, a network of like-minded companies or a forum for discussion about biodiversity issues.

• Workshops – Considerable improvement could be made here as only one sector (utilities) has ‘sufficient workshops’ at which biodiversity issues can be discussed and new initiatives developed with the sector.

• Publications – All but one sector (food producers & processors) has ‘sufficient publications’ about biodiversity issues and biodiversity strategy produced by industry bodies and/or collaborations with NGOs.

• Awards – Only two sectors (utilities and food & drug retailers) currently use awards (provided by industry bodies/NGOs) to exhibit best practice with respect to biodiversity.

10 Cokeliss, Z. (2005). A desk based assessment of the tools available to UK business for the management of their biodiversity impacts 11 F&C (2004). Is biodiversity a material risk for companies? An assessment of the exposure of FTSE sectors to biodiversity risk [online] available at: http://www.peblds.org/files/Publications/Articles/ISIS_Is_biodiversity_a_material_risk.pdf (accessed 4 February 2009).



2 Research methodology

2.1 Introduction 2.1.1 This section sets out the methodology for the research. This is based on a series of steps: a

literature review and the development of a ‘long list’ of mechanisms; the creation of a ‘short list’ of mechanisms from the ‘long list’; further research on the short-listed mechanisms including the emailing of data capture forms and telephone follow-up; an analysis of business sector findings; a stakeholder workshop; and a Final Report on findings. These steps are summarised in Figure 1.

2.1.2 The research was necessarily staggered throughout the project in terms of a constantly evolving ‘long list’ and in addressing each of the nine identified business sectors. The ‘long list’ was constantly updated and supplemented throughout the project timeframe with any further mechanisms identified including following the short-listing process.



Figure 1: Research methodology - schematic

Literature review

‘Long list’ of tools / methodologies for each

sector

‘Short list’ for each sector

Email data capture proforma

Telephone follow-up

Analysis of sector findings

Stakeholder workshop

Final Report



2.2 Typology of business sectors and mechanisms 2.2.1 The research aim – as set out in the project specification – was to build upon the Cokeliss

research. The Cokeliss research focused on eight ‘high-risk’ business sectors outlined in the F&C (2004) publication: ‘Is biodiversity a material risk for companies?’ as being “exposed to biodiversity risks and that the risks faced by individual companies in these sectors are likely to be significant”.12 Sectors may not only be more exposed to biodiversity risk, but could also be described as having a more direct impact or/and as being better positioned to influence biodiversity impact. This report focuses on these sectors, but also identifies common elements amongst business mechanisms – elements that may be particularly effective and/or transferable.

2.2.2 This research uses the same list of sectors, but also looks at the efforts of the finance sector (investment, insurance & banking), and at business mechanisms that are more general and cross-sectoral in application. The food and drug retailers sector is expanded in to a more general ‘retail’ category. It is acknowledged that there are other business sectors that are increasingly biodiversity-aware in their practices; however, these sectors were identified and agreed upon for the purposes of this project.

2.2.3 The business sectors focused on in this report are:

• Construction & building

• Mining

• Forestry & paper

• Utilities

• Oil & gas

• Food processors & producers

• Retail

• Leisure & hotels

• Investment, insurance & banking

• Plus general or cross-sectoral mechanisms

2.2.4 There are many types of mechanism and, regardless of differences in intention (be it for business sector or operation), mechanisms can potentially have several transferable elements. It is therefore possible to loosely categorise business mechanisms to explore effective and transposable elements. For the purpose of this research a general typology of six categories of business mechanisms was used. Although it is acknowledged that assignment by category in this way is a subjective process, it was carried out in order to assist in analysis of the mechanisms and is not intended as a definitive assignation. A more specific description of delivery mechanism(s) was given under each category as indicated below:

• Technical – e.g. certification scheme 12 F&C (2004). Is biodiversity a material risk for companies? An assessment of the exposure of FTSE sectors to biodiversity risk [online] available at: http://www.peblds.org/files/Publications/Articles/ISIS_Is_biodiversity_a_material_risk.pdf (accessed 4 February 2009).



• Institutional – e.g. critical friend

• Discursive – e.g. roundtables

• Philanthropic – e.g. awards

• Financial – e.g. market-based

• Policy – e.g. guidance tool

2.3 ‘Long list’ stage 2.3.1 Beginning with Cokeliss’ original research, the list of mechanisms per business sector was

updated and expanded in scope and detail. The process included a ‘literature review’ phase of research using both a web-based and library-based search. The resultant ‘long list’ of mechanisms was also built upon through expert input and continued to be expanded throughout the project timescale following the data capture form and telephone contact stages. Although this research is primarily focused on the UK, the long list contains business mechanisms that are international and, in some cases, not practiced within the UK. Biodiversity and business operations result in impacts that are globally manifested and shared, and international schemes may have been included in the long list because they involved the UK in their global reach, because they related to MNCs that might operate within the UK, and/or because they provided useful insights in to the effectiveness and transferability of different mechanisms.

2.3.2 Through professional judgement a measure of ‘biodiversity focus’ was assigned per mechanism from ‘none-limited’, ‘moderate’, ‘extensive’ or ‘complete’ focus. The list was sifted to identify those mechanisms of particular interest – based upon professional judgement with reference to factors such as the degree of ‘biodiversity focus’ and potential interest to Defra – and a ‘short list’ was generated per sector of mechanisms for further research.

2.4 ‘Short list’ stage 2.4.1 A standard data capture form was created in

order to capture three levels of information:

• Description of mechanism

• Name

• Geographic scope

• Business sector

• Type / category

• Delivery mechanism

• Description

• History

• Contact details

• Governance



• Effectiveness of mechanism

• Biodiversity focus

• Business size / users of tool

• Reach within business

• Cost & funding

• Timescale

• Communicability

• Frequency of use

• Usefulness

• Ease of execution / usability

• Monitoring

• Additional mechanisms that might be of research interest

2.4.2 Data capture forms were emailed to the identified key contacts in the business sector shortlists (see Appendix 2). Any information gathered was added to the ‘long list’ and used to explore effectiveness in a sector-by-sector analysis. A blank data capture form can be seen in Appendix 3.

2.4.3 Informal telephone interviews were also carried out with key contacts in order to gather further information on mechanisms or, more generally, the business sector ‘state of play’.

2.5 Analysis 2.5.1 The research provided an idea of where gaps may exist in terms of:

• Business sector coverage by mechanism type

• Mechanism effectiveness

2.5.2 The business sector chapters of this report contain the analysis findings and the short lists are contained in Appendix 2. These chapters include a tabular summary of effectiveness that summarises feedback received from the short list stage. The business sector chapters are followed by a chapter analysing general/cross-sector mechanisms.

2.5.3 The names of mechanisms in the long list and the data capture forms received as feedback are contained in Volume 2.

2.5.4 Overall conclusions (including any gaps in coverage) and recommendations were drawn for each business sector. The following three questions were asked:

1. Are appropriate mechanisms available to the sector?

2. How effective have the mechanisms been (particularly in terms of managing impacts on biodiversity)?

3. To what extent have mechanisms been adopted across the sector?



2.5.5 In this case, effectiveness was taken to mean a positive result for biodiversity on the ground, but also there are other dimensions of effectiveness (e.g. communicability) explored within this project and referred to where appropriate.

2.6 Workshop 2.6.1 A workshop was held on April 1st 2009 to discuss the present the research findings and to

canvass stakeholder views on effectiveness, barriers to take-up and implementation, transferability of mechanisms and where we go from here. Appendix 1 contains a summary of workshop findings.

2.7 Final report 2.7.1 This report sets out the business and biodiversity context, the research findings for the nine

business sectors and for general/cross-sector mechanisms, and conclusions and recommendations.



3 Construction & building

3.1 Introduction 3.1.1 This chapter details our findings in relation to the construction and building sector and is

organised around the following sections:

• Context – Introduction and making the link between business and biodiversity

• Findings – Summary of the long and short lists. The effectiveness table based on feedback received

• Discussion – Summary of the mapping exercise, analysis of mechanisms and case studies

• Conclusions and recommendations

3.1.2 A long list of mechanisms for this sector is in Volume 2 of this report.

3.2 Context Introduction

3.2.1 Notwithstanding the current economic downturn and its negative impact on the property sector, Government statistics show that there is an increasing need and demand for more housing and associated infrastructure. The Government’s key housing policy goal, as set out in Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3)13 is to ensure that everyone has the opportunity of living in a decent home, which they can afford, in a community where they want to live. The 2007 Housing Green Paper, Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable14, identified three key challenges in relation to housing: demand for homes to buy or rent is growing faster than supply; as house prices have grown faster than wages, it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people to get a step on the housing ladder; and climate changes means that we need to provide greener, better-designed housing for the future. In light of this, the Green Paper commits the Government to working with partners to provide:

• More homes to meet growing demand

• More affordable homes to buy or rent

• Well-designed and greener homes, linked to good schools, transport and healthcare

3.2.2 To meet these objectives, the Government has set targets to increase housing supply to 240,000 additional homes a year by 2016, delivering 2 million homes by 2016 and 3 million homes by 2020. In addition, the Government has highlighted a number of areas, in the UK, which would benefit from new housing development. Announced in December 2005, the New Growth Points (NGP) Programme is designed to provide support to local communities who want to pursue large scale and sustainable growth outside of the four Growth Areas, including new housing, through a partnership with Government. 29 NGPs were announced in October 2006 covering the East and West Midlands, the East of England, the South East and the South

13 Communities and Local Government (2006). Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing [online] available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps3housing (accessed 11 February 2008). 14 Communities and Local Government (2007). Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable [online] available at http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/housing/homesforfuture (accessed 11 February 2008).



West. The Government has since invited additional local authorities to bid to become part of the NGP Programme during 2008-0915.

3.2.3 Increasing housing supply requires more aggregates, building materials and associated infrastructure; while ‘hard’ infrastructure refers to areas such as transport (e.g. road, rail, airports) and energy (e.g. electricity plants, sewage treatment works), ‘soft’ infrastructure refers to social and community facilities, open spaces, parks and heath centres. Increasing the supply of housing and associated infrastructure means more building / landscaping and hence, more potential impacts on biodiversity.

Making the link

3.2.4 While the economic and social benefits of increasing housing supply are quite clear, what are the repercussions of such large scale building for the environment and more specifically, biodiversity? PPS9 sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. In this document, the Government emphasises that ‘regional planning bodies and local planning authorities should adhere to the following key principles to ensure that the potential impacts of planning decisions on biodiversity and geological conservation are fully considered’16.

3.2.5 PPS3 also emphasises that Local Planning Authorities should encourage applicants to bring forward sustainable and environmentally friendly new housing developments. In the context of biodiversity, developers should not only consider the impact of their building products and processes on the natural environment (through sustainable construction and design), but should also seek to protect and enhance the green infrastructure, within which, the development lies. Supporting this, Natural England believes green infrastructure should be an integral part of the creation of sustainable communities: ‘It [green infrastructure] can provide multiple benefits for people and wildlife and encapsulates many of Natural England’s strategic outcomes through it’s links with biodiversity, access to natural green spaces, sustainable land use and enhancing an areas robustness for future environmental change’17.

3.2.6 Construction projects, whether commercial developments, housing estates, infrastructure or public-sector projects, all have the potential to damage natural habitats, threatening wildlife and plant species. Having said this and as emphasised by the Environment Agency in their report ‘Building a Better Environment’, ‘development doesn’t have to harm the environment. We know that if it is well located, planned and designed, it can actually make improvements to the environment and provide a better place for people to live’18. The construction industry therefore has an important role to play in protecting sensitive sites and biodiversity in the wider countryside, and minimising damage to ecology.

15 Communities and Local Government (2008). Second Round Growth Points: Partnerships for Growth [online] available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/housing/pdf/partnershipsforgrowth (accessed 11 February 2008). 16 Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005). Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation [online] available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/147408.pdf (accessed 16 April 2009). 17 Natural England (2009). Green Infrastructure Section on Natural England Website [online] available at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/regions/south_west/ourwork/greeninfrastructure.aspx (accessed 11 February 2009). 18 Environment Agency (2006). Building a Better Environment: A guide for developers and practical advice on adding value to your site [online] available at: http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/1_GETH1106BLNE-e-e(1).pdf?bcsi_scan_F6892CABA15785B4=Om495ZyACMsL+Rh5D3LCWE4AAAD2UgYT&bcsi_scan_filename=1_GETH1106BLNE-e-e(1).pdf (accessed 11 February 2009).



3.3 Findings Introduction

3.3.1 A report written in 2003 on ‘Biodiversity Indicators for Construction Projects’19, argued that there was ’generally a poor understanding of biodiversity issues within the construction industry’ (p3). However, our preliminary research shows that this understanding has improved substantially over the past six years and there is now a well documented, well established (and indeed emerging) body of tools and initiatives, aimed at guiding developers, organisations and members of the public through the planning process and beyond, showing how the impacts of construction / building projects on biodiversity can be measured, monitored and minimised. The question is how widely are these being taken up and are they effective?

3.3.2 Our preliminary research uncovered over 50 tools, initiatives and good practice examples in the construction and building sector. We found that the biodiversity focus varied considerably across the list, from ‘complete focus’ e.g. CIRIA publications and training packs, and Design for Biodiversity (a partnership project established to promote the conservation of wildlife as part of the design and management of buildings and urban landscapes in London), to ‘limited focus’ e.g. WRAP Aggregates Programme and the Steel Construction Sector Sustainability Committee. Having established our ‘long list’, we then put together a ‘short list’ (see Appendix 2), comprised of 17 organisations and groups (some of which had more than one tool or initiative) which showed ‘moderate’, ‘complete’ or ‘extensive’ biodiversity focus.

3.3.3 We sent data capture forms to those organisations listed in the short list table and have highlighted whether or not we received feedback. Those who returned completed data capture forms are listed in the table below where the effectiveness criteria of each tool and initiative are detailed. Some organisations and companies responded in a format other than a data capture form. Although these responses are not represented in the effectiveness table, we have considered this feedback and where appropriate, it is discussed in the ‘analysis of mechanisms’ and ‘conclusions’.

19 Woodall, R. & Crowhurst, D. (2003). Biodiversity Indicators for Construction Projects - CIRIA and DTI, London [online] available at: http://www.ciria.org.uk/pdf/w005.pdf (accessed 11 February 2009).



The short list

3.3.4 The complete ‘long list’ of mechanisms identified can be found in Volume 2 of this report. The long list of mechanisms for each sector was whittled down to a short list for further investigation. The short listing process was based on factors including the extent of each mechanism’s ‘biodiversity focus’ – since many of the identified mechanisms had a general environment or sustainability focus with biodiversity only one of the topics covered – and its potential interest to Defra. The ‘short list’ is outlined in Appendix 2 of this report.

Effectiveness table

3.3.5 Additional information was requested for the short-listed mechanisms using a standard data capture form (see Appendix). The data capture form was designed around a number of criteria to obtain a greater level of detail on each mechanism and to assist in measuring effectiveness. Reponses were received in the form of returned data capture forms, emails and telephone calls, which were used to inform the analysis. The returned data capture forms can be found in Volume 2 to this report. The following table summarises the information in the returned data capture forms and it should be noted that it therefore represents the views and opinions of those contacted.

Table 1: Measures of effectiveness of the construction & building shortlisted mechanisms20 Mechanism Geog

scope Business size / users of tool

Reach within business

Cost & Funding

Timescale Bio focus Communicability Frequency of use

Usefulness Ease of execution / usability

Monitoring

Hanson, Company Biodiversity Action Plan

National - Currently being expanded globally across Heidelberg

MNCs Could be applied to any business – currently only applied within Hanson activities.

Preparation of biodiversity action plans £2000 per site. Implementation of works varies across sites.

Ongoing Complete focus

Universally recognised – several UK mineral extraction companies operate similar systems.

Used by some – approx 30% UK quarries in Hanson currently have BAPs –progressive roll-out. Those with most biodiversity potential

Very useful. Moderately user-friendly.

Monitoring – need a better base for monitoring implementation – currently going from manually requested feedback to database.

20 Only mechanisms for which a response was received in the form of a data capture form are listed in this table. Contacts for the shortlisted mechanisms were given two opportunities to respond with this information.



targeted first.

CEEQUAL, Assessment Manual for Projects V4 (2008)

European Any civil engineering or public realm project

Whole Project Award – requires client, designers & contractors to work together

Awards paid for by project teams. Fees based on project value and start at £2,950

Assessment runs for the life of the project

Extensive Focus – CEEQUAL assesses 12 areas, one of each is ‘ecology & biodiversity’. Section 4 accounts for 8.5% of total score available. Ecology also overlaps into other sections.

Some recognition – receiving increasingly wide take-up with £6bn of civil engineering project value being assessed.

Used by some – few organisations that carry out an assessment on every project.

Very useful Moderately user-friendly – methodology is simple but can be time intensive for the assessor depending on complexity of the project.

Monitoring and indicators - award is verified at end of construction. The questions are a mix of requiring monitoring and use of indicators.

CIRIA, Construction Industry Environmental Forum

National MNCs & SMEs from local small builders, to government agencies, consultants, academic institutions and MNCs.

Members come from throughout the supply chain – have good ‘reach’ into the built environment supply chain.

12 months subscription for large company £850 to £250 for a small or overseas company. CIEF is member funded with additional sponsorship from Govt e.g. Defra.

Continuous

Moderate focus – run events on a broad range of topics around sustainability & built environment – biodiversity is one of these topics.

Some-universal recognition – most organisations within the construction industry are aware of CIEF & many are CIEF members.

Widely used – many types of people within each subscribing member make use of CIEF.

Very useful Simple Monitoring – CIEF Management Committee meets every 4 months to monitor outputs & review progress.

LDA, GLA, Groundwork London and London Wildlife Trust, Design for Biodiversity

National SME ? Info / advice from a D4B Officer costs £27,000/yr. Funded by the developer. Info / advice on website is free.

? Complete focus

Some recognition Used by some

Very useful Simple ?

Royal Town National Local and Local and Network is Ongoing Moderate Universally Widely used Moderately Simple N/A



Planning Institute, Environmental Planning and Protection Network

regional government, consultancies, universities and environmental organisations.

regional government, consultancies, universities and environmental organisations.

funded by the RTPI.

focus – EPPN gives broad overview of the field of environmental planning and protection and biodiversity is just an element of that.

recognised – facility available to all RTPI members (optional).

useful – EEP concerned with all aspects of environmental planning – biodiversity is an element but not focus.

WBCSD Cement Sustainability Initiative, Biodiversity Working Group

Global Multi-national corp

18 member companies. As contractors work at quarries, there is also some ‘reach’ into the supply chain there.

Costs are minimal & funded by 18 member companies. Costs for Biodiversity Working Group mostly come from company contributions of staff time & resources.

CSI began in 2002 (budget and work plan reviewed annually) and will run indefinitely

Extensive focus within the Task Force and Working Group but limited focus to whole CSI

Some recognition – known amongst good number of leading cement companies, all Trade Associations & in the policy arena. Plan to share learning with other sectors operating quarries

Used by some – KPIs used extensively by quarry managers and biodiversity managers in the CSI companies. KPIs used in companies’ annual reports & used to assess progress and set future targets

Very useful – KPIs used to monitor progress on biodiversity and quarry rehab, and to set targets for future years = useful mechanism to ensure consistent improvements at quarry sites

Simple - database of quarry rehab case studies & sharing of quarry good practices kept as simple as possible. Working Group provides expertise

Monitoring & indicators - Third party verification of member companies’ reports. Indicators major part of Working Group’s biodiversity work.

ALGE, Developing Naturally

National Local planning authorities, developers and planning and ecological consultants

? £30.00 The publication published in 2000 and sold out in early 2008

Moderate focus – publication sold out of a print run of 900 copies.

Some recognition Widely used Very useful Simple ?



ALGE, Framework for Biodiversity

National Land-use planning

? Desktop publishing and printing were approx £3000

The document was published in 2005

Moderate focus

Some recognition Widely used – document supported by over 30 seminars around England and Wales aimed at planners working in local authorities. Seminars explained how biodiversity can be incorporated into forward planning.

Moderately useful

? ?

CIRIA, Publications and training packs

National MNCs, SMEs & Other

Promoted through CIRIA’s extensive network of industry / stakeholder contacts e.g. £30k industry contacts and £100k+ monthly web hits.

Publications retail £40-£100. Members receive discounts.

N/A Complete focus – publications are wholly focused. CEEQUAL has limited focus (all environmental aspects covered).

Universal -some recognition – good recognitions within construction sector and reasonable recognition amongst non-construction companies.

Used by some

Very useful – seek feedback from purchasers

Simple – publications are useable guides as opposed to research documents. CEEQUAL becoming widely used with dozens of training assessors across industry.

?

Environment Agency, Building a Better Environment: A Guide for

National ? ? ? ? Moderate focus

Some recognition – given several seminars at a local and regional level

? Moderately useful

Simple ?



Developers

Royal Town Planning Institute, Planning for Biodiversity: A Good Practice Guide

National Other Local authority planners and private planning consultancies – not the wider business community.

N/A N/A Complete focus

Limited recognition (published in 1999 so no longer widely disseminated)

- - -

The Biodiversity Partnership for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, Biodiversity Checklist: Developers’ Guidance

? Funded by Cambridgeshire County Council

Ongoing Complete focus


Moderately useful

Simple ?

Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), Eco-town Green Infrastructure Worksheet

National Other Hopefully it will be widely adopted as good practice

CLG grant to TCPA - £15,000

Current Extensive focus – extensive green infrastructure is vital for supporting biodiversity within a region.

Some recognition ? Very useful – well received by everyone who has read the worksheet.

Moderately user-friendly

Indicators

Quarry Products Association, Nature After Minerals

National Multi-national corporation and SME

? Funded through Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund

? Extensive Focus – mainly based on ecosystem not biodiversity.

Some recognition Widely used Moderately useful – hopefully will become more useful when second bit funding given go ahead

Simple ?



ALGE, Web-based biodiversity toolkit

National MNCs, SMEs and land-use planning

The web toolkit is still under construction but a pilot version should be ready within a couple of months.

Funding from a number of government departments, statutory agencies and in-kind support from relevant NGOs across the whole of the UK. Development costs in excess of £50,000.

An operational toolkit should be online and available from the end of 2009, with pilot versions available mid-summer 2009.

Moderate focus

Universally recognised – the web-based toolkit is to be hosted by the Government’s specialist website for planning – the Planning Portal. This should provide v. widespread access and recognition.

? Very useful Simple ?



3.4 Discussion Summary of mapping exercise

3.4.1 From our ‘short list’, it is clear that there is a wide range of active and relevant tools and initiatives for managing biodiversity in the construction and building sector (including aggregates), mainly UK-wide and covering a range of areas including technical, discursive, institutional and philanthropic. Drawn directly from the ‘short list’, the next section categorises (into publications / networks and forums / company best practice / certification schemes / web-based / awards) the specific tools and initiatives that we identified as the most active and relevant in promoting biodiversity to business21.

• Awards include: the Considerate Constructors Scheme Awards; the BREEAM Awards; and CEEQUAL’s Assessment Manual for Projects V4.

• Company best practice examples include: CIRIA’s ‘Building Greener’ and SUDS guidance websites; Environment Agency’s ‘Building a Better Environment: A Guide for Developers’; Hanson’s Company Biodiversity Action Plan; and the Quarry Products Association’s ‘After Minerals’ mapping tool and guidance on quarry restoration.

• Certification schemes include: BREEAM’s BRE Environmental Assessment Method, Eco-homes, Code for Sustainable Homes, LCA Environmental Profiles and ‘Specification: the Green Guide and Envest’ AND Whole Building LCA Software; CEEQUAL’s Assessment Manual for Projects V4.

• Networks and forums include: Association for Environment Conscious Building’s Forum to promote Environment Conscious Building; CIRIA’s Construction Industry Environmental Forum; Design for Biodiversity (LDA, GLA, Groundwork London and London Wildlife Trust); the Quarry Products Association’s Minerals and Nature Conservation Forum; Royal Town Planning Institute’s Environment Planning and Protection Network; SEEDA’s Building for Nature initiative; the UK Green Building Council’s Biodiversity Taskforce; and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development’s Cement Sustainability Initiative Biodiversity Working Group.

• Publications include: Association of Local Government Ecologists’ ‘Framework for Biodiversity: Integrating Biodiversity into Local Development Frameworks’ and ‘Developing Naturally – A Handbook for Incorporating the Natural Environment into Planning and Development’; CEEQUAL publications including ‘Working with Wildlife: A Resource and Training Pack for the Construction Industry’ and ‘The Drainage Channel Biodiversity Manual’; CIRIA’s range of guidance documents including ‘Biodiversity Indicators for Construction Projects’, ‘Working with Wildlife Pocket Book’, ‘Working with Wildlife: A Resource and Training Pack for the Construction Industry’, ‘Biodiversity Indicators for Construction Projects’, ‘Invasive Species Management for Infrastructure Managers and the Construction Industry’, ‘Environmental Good Practice on Site’, ‘Biodiversity and Buildings’ and ‘Habitat Translocation – a Best Practice Guide’; the Environment Agency’s ‘Building a Better Environment’; North West Regional Development Agency’s ‘North West Green Infrastructure Guide’; and the Royal Town Planning Institute’s ‘Planning for Biodiversity: A Good Practice Guide’; and The Biodiversity Partnership for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough’s ‘Biodiversity Checklist for Land Use Planners in Cambridgeshire &

21 Inevitably, due to time constraints, this list is by no means exhaustive. The following shows the results of a comprehensive desk review undertaken to capture the key tools / initiatives for managing biodiversity across the sector.



Peterborough’; and the Town and Country Planning Association’s ‘Biodiversity by Design: A Guide for Sustainable Communities’ and ‘Eco-towns Green Infrastructure Worksheet.

• Web-based tools include: the Association of Local Government Ecologists’ Web-based Biodiversity Toolkit; the Quarry Products Association (in partnership with RSPB, Natural England, Miro and CLG) Nature After Minerals web tool; and CIRIA’s ‘Building Greener’ and ‘SUDs’ websites.

3.4.2 For each tool or initiative identified at the ‘short list’ stage, a proforma was sent out to the key contact person (identified at the ‘long list’ stage). Proformas were emailed to a total of 17 organisations and groups, in relation to around 40 tools and initiatives. Compared to other sectors, the response rate for returned proformas was very good and we received 16 forms covering a total of 20 tools and initiatives, analysed in the section below:

Analysis of mechanisms

Awards / Certification Schemes

CEEQUAL Assessment Manual for Projects V4

3.4.3 CEEQUAL, which is a self-assessment certification / award scheme where a trained assessor forms part of the participating project team, is receiving an increasingly wide take-up across civil engineering and public realm projects; already, approximately £6bn of civil engineering project value is being assessed under CEEQUAL. While the current ‘take up of CEEQUAL is almost exclusively national’ (Technical Manager, CEEQUAL Scheme Management Team), the Technical Advisory Group sees no reason why the new Version 4 could not be applied across Northern Europe.

3.4.4 The scheme encourages clients, designers and contractors to work together across 12 environmental areas, one of which is ‘ecology and biodiversity’. According to CEEQUAL, ‘ecology and biodiversity’ accounts for 8.5% of the total score available, with some additional overlap into other sections. The awards, which project teams strive for, are priced from £2,950, a cost which funds the scheme. CEEQUAL rates itself as ‘very useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business, and ‘moderately user-friendly’. While simple to use, achieving the standard is potentially time intensive for the assessor depending on the complexity of the project.

Publications

‘Developing Naturally: A Handbook for Incorporating the Natural Environment into Planning and Development’, ALGE

‘Framework for Biodiversity: Integrating Biodiversity into Local Development Frameworks’, ALGE

‘Working with Wildlife Pocket Book’ (2003); Habitat Translocation – A Best Practice Guide’ (2003), CIRIA

‘Working with Wildlife: A Resource and Training Pack for the Construction Industry’ (2004)’, CIRIA

‘Building Greener’ (2008), CIRIA



‘Biodiversity Indicators for Construction Projects’ (2005), CIRIA

‘Invasive Species Management for Infrastructure Managers and the Construction Industry’ (2008), CIRIA

‘Eco-towns Green Infrastructure Worksheet’, TCPA

‘Planning for Biodiversity: A Good Practice Guide’, RTPI

‘Building a Better Environment: A Guide for Developers’, Environment Agency

‘Biodiversity Checklist: Developers’ Guidance’, Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Councils

3.4.5 As shown from the list above, there exists a wide range of publications on biodiversity and the building / construction industry, considerably more than for other sectors e.g. retail, leisure and utilities. These handbooks, training packs, indicators, worksheets, checklists and good practice guides assist in equipping developers with the information and guidance needed to understand and address biodiversity issues at the site level.

3.4.6 These publications ranged from having ‘complete’ biodiversity focus e.g. CIRIA’s publications and training packs which are ‘wholly focused’ (see Case Study), to ‘moderate’ focus e.g. ALGE’s ‘Developing Naturally’ publication. Overall, publications tended to have just ‘some recognition’ (not disseminated that widely within the business sector) and were only deemed ‘moderately useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business. Some publications appear to be more useful than others e.g. ALGE’s publications ‘Developing Naturally’ and ‘Framework for Biodiversity’ were thought to be widely used. Publications offer a simple and user-friendly way to extract information on business and biodiversity in the building and construction sector.

Case study: CIRIA publications and good practice guides CIRIA is a member-based research and information organisation dedicated to improvement in the construction industry. The organisation’s members include representatives from all parts of the supply chains of the modern built environment, covering building and civil engineering as well as transport and utilities infrastructure. CIRIA has emerged as a key player in designing and disseminating a wide range of biodiversity tools and initiatives to a range of stakeholders. We have identified a number of CIRIA biodiversity guidance documents for those engaged in the building / construction industry, including ‘Biodiversity Indicators for Construction Projects’, ‘Working with Wildlife’, ‘Environmental Good Practice on Site’ and ‘Biodiversity and Buildings’. In addition, following two years of development, and guided by a project steering group, CIRIA launched the Building Greener guidance in 2007 (www.ciria.org/buildinggreener/guidance). The guidance is intended for use by those who require independent advice on the planning, design, construction and maintenance of green roofs, green walls and other biodiversity features. As well as good practice publications and websites, CIRIA also has an established forum (Construction Industry Environmental Forum) with a mission to improve the sustainability and environmental performance of construction, by providing a cross-sector and independent forum for the exchange of new ideas and demonstration of best practice. Members (currently 190 organisations) include clients and developers, contractors, consultants, architects, specialists, research bodies and academic institutions.

3.4.7 In the public sector, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Councils provide a good example of a Biodiversity Partnership and have developed a Biodiversity Checklist for developers



(www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/biodiversitypartnership). Highlighting the important steps in considering biodiversity, in feedback received the checklist is considered to be ‘simple’ to use, has ‘some recognition’ and is ‘moderately useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business.

Networks & Forums

Construction Industry Environmental Forum (CIEF), CIRIA – The CIEF is CIRIA’s environment and sustainability network and is for organisations in the built environment with an interest in environment and sustainability. The CIEF hosts events, arranges site visits demonstrating sustainability in practice, continuing professional development, business networking opportunities, continuing professional development, business networking opportunities, workshop notes, free attendance to CIEF events.

Environmental Planning and Protection Network (EPPN), RTPI – The EEPM is concerned with the management of the environment through the planning system and controls affecting the environment applied through other legislation that impact on the operation of the planning system. Through Interest Groups, Network members help to develop policy and projects for the RTPI.

Design for Biodiversity, LDA, GLA, Groundwork London and London Wildlife Trust - Aims to secure positive ecological / biodiversity outcomes through developing design solutions (e.g. living roofs, sustainable drainage etc) that can be integrated into new developments in London. D4B supplies biodiversity conservation advisors to work alongside developers and their design team and also provides a web site providing information and advice on biodiversity conservation.

Biodiversity Working Group, Cement Sustainability Initiative, WBCSD - This is a collaborative industry effort to share best practice, internally and externally and raise standards of biodiversity management and rehabilitation in the cement sector, or at least amongst member companies.

3.4.8 The research identified several key networks and forums promoting biodiversity protection across businesses engaged in the construction and building sector. For those that we received feedback on (listed above), their biodiversity focus ranged from ‘moderate’ to ‘complete’. CIRIA’s Construction Industry Environmental Forum (CIEF) and the RTPI’s Environmental Planning and Protection Network (EPPN) were only ‘moderate’ in biodiversity focus due to biodiversity being just one element of the environmental spectrum e.g. while the EPPN must give a ‘broad overview of the field of environmental planning and protection’, the CIEF runs events on a broad range of topics around sustainability and the built environment (i.e. biodiversity is not the only focus). On the other hand, the Cement Sustainability Initiative’s Biodiversity Working Group, which is made up of 18 member companies who put forward a representative to participate in the Group, felt it had ‘extensive’ biodiversity focus within the Task Force and Working Group, but only ‘limited’ focus to the whole Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI). In 2008, the Biodiversity Working Group was formed to specifically identify Key Performance Indicators for biodiversity reporting amongst CSI members. The Group is currently working on a database of quarry rehabilitation case studies.

3.4.9 Across all four networks and forums it was felt that they were simple to execute and use and that, overall, networks and forums are very useful to influence business around biodiversity issues. As an example, the WBCSD’s Working Group has Key Performance Indicators to monitor progress on biodiversity and quarry rehabilitation, and to set targets for future years;

http://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/biodiversitypartnership�



this is considered a ‘useful mechanism to ensure consistent improvements at quarry sites’. The Working Group hosts a database of rehabilitation case studies (sharing quarry good practice in a simplistic way) and provides expertise.

3.4.10 Given that networks and forums tend to be sector-wide groups, there was generally a considerable (in two cases ‘universal’ according to respondents) amount of recognition across the construction / building industry. In accordance with this, the groups tended to be ‘widely used’ e.g. while the EPNN is available to all RTPI members, the CIEF is disseminated beyond this, as there can be many types of people using the facility within each subscribing member. The WBCSD Biodiversity Working Group is known amongst a good number of leading cement companies, all Trade Associations and in the policy arena, and there are plans to share learning with other sectors operating quarries. According to the Working Group, their Key Performance Indicators are used extensively by quarry managers and biodiversity managers in the CSI companies; the KPIs are used in companies’ annual reports and are used to assess progress and set future targets.

3.4.11 Members of these networks and forums tended to be more SMEs and local / regional governments (including local builders, consultancies, environmental organisations, government agencies and academic institutions), than multi-national corporations. The WBCSD Biodiversity Working Group was the only exception to this, who work globally with MNCs and whose members comprise 18 large companies. In terms of funding, while CIRIA and Design for Biodiversity are funded by membership fees (ranging from £250/yr for a small or overseas company to join CIEF to £27,000/yr for information and advice from Design for Biodiversity), the WBCD’s ‘minimal’ costs are funded by the company members and the EPNN is funded entirely by the RTPI.

3.4.12 In addition to the four networks and forums discussed here, we also identified three others at the ‘short list’ stage, which are also worth mentioning for their seemingly extensive to complete focus on biodiversity: the UK Green Building Council (see Case Study); the Association for Environment Conscious Building’s Forum to promote environment conscious building; and SEEDA’s Building for Nature.

Case study: UK Green Building Council Biodiversity Taskforce The UK Green Building Council Biodiversity Taskforce (UK-GBC) Biodiversity Task Group was launched in June 2008 and is comprised of a wide range of organisations (private and public sector), academic institutions and NGOs e.g. Atkins, Bat Conservation Trust, BRE Canary Wharf, CIRIA, Defra, Ecology Consultancy Ltd, Ekologica, Environment Agency, Faber Maunsell, Oxford Brookes (Oxford Institute for Sustainability), Skanska, WWF etc. The broad objectives for the task group are:

1. To raise the awareness of the role of biodiversity in delivering a sustainable built environment and to encourage the construction industry and its clients to incorporate biodiversity into all new and refurbishment schemes.

2. Develop the roadmap in order to maintain and enhance biodiversity in the built environment through the production of simple and clear guidance.

The UK-GBC Biodiversity Task Group has launched a new report on ‘Biodiversity and the Built Environment’ (the product of 6 months work), including recommendations and sector-specific guidance for the industry on 31st March 2009. ‘Although the construction and property industry is traditionally seen as having a negative influence on wildlife and habitats, the UK-GBC argues that the development and refurbishment of buildings can actually improve the ecological value of a site, if done well’.



The report contains: • Guidance, specific to developers, landlords, contractors and consultants on enhancing biodiversity in

the built environment. This includes guidance on raising staff awareness, better training and reporting on Key Performance Indicators.

• Recommendations to improve the main sustainability tools (BREEAM, Code for Sustainable Homes, CEEQUAL etc) to better incorporate assessment of biodiversity. This has been done in collaboration with the tool owners.

• Recommendations for the industry, local and central government which would help improve the consistency of biodiversity measurement and reporting, in order to set meaningful targets in the future.

The task group also reviewed information and resources available to the industry on biodiversity. Finding it to be dispersed and sometimes inaccessible, UK-GBC, in dialogue with stakeholders, is launching an online ‘biodiversity portal’ through www.ukgbc.org to help the industry better navigate the information and sign-post it to the most useful resources.

Company Best Practice

Company Biodiversity Action Plan, Hanson

3.4.13 Multi-national Corporation (MNC), Hanson, has an ongoing Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) which requires operational sites to develop site BAPs, generating site objectives and targets that relate to national and local UK BAP targets. The BAP, which is part of Hanson’s Environmental Management System (EMS) and is audited to ISO 14001 standards by BSI, is considered in feedback received to have ‘complete’ focus on biodiversity. The BAP’s current reach is only applied within Hanson’s own activities, but the Head of Environment said that it ‘could be applied to any business’. Approximately 30% of UK quarries in Hanson currently have BAPs, although this is being progressively rolled out, starting with those with the most biodiversity. It is felt that Hanson’s BAP is ‘moderately user-friendly’ and ‘very useful’ in protecting biodiversity and influencing business. In terms of monitoring, Hanson have realised that their system requesting feedback manually for monitoring implementation is insufficient and they are currently working towards developing a ‘better’ centralised database for managing this information.

Web-based

‘Web-based Biodiversity Toolkit’, ALGE

‘Nature After Minerals’, Quarry Products Association (in partnership with RSPB, Natural England, Miro and CLG)

3.4.14 We received feedback on two web-based tools. The ALGE Web-based Biodiversity Toolkit (which is currently under construction but should be available online from the end of 2009) is a web based information resource providing information for all those operating within the land-use and development planning system, including local authorities, statutory bodies, applicants, developers, agents and consultants. Led by the Association of Local Government Ecologists and being developed in partnership with a wide range of conservation and planning organisations, the toolkit will be hosted by the Government’s specialist website for planning – the Planning Portal. Therefore, once up and running, the tool will have widespread access and recognition and is expected to be easy to use and ‘very useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business.



3.4.15 'After Minerals' is a website run by the Nature after Minerals partnership, to: help deliver more appropriate, high-quality and sustainable priority biodiversity habitat on mineral sites; and promote high-quality restorations and raise awareness of the huge conservation potential of minerals sites. Key activities include:

• Creation of a new web-based tool that will investigate the restoration potential of new minerals sites and preferred areas (see figure 2).

• Collation and dissemination of best-practice advice in habitat creation on mineral sites.

• Work with planners and industry to integrate habitat creation as an end-use of mineral sites into the new Minerals Development Frameworks.

• Advocacy to maximise the potential contribution of minerals site restoration to national habitat creation targets, and encourage support and investment in long-term management.

• Recognition of high-quality habitat creation achieved on mineral sites, and their outstanding contributions to best-practice knowledge.

• Promotion of the benefits of nature after minerals to local communities and the general public.

3.4.16 Funded through the Aggregates Levy Sustainability Fund, the partnership is aimed at both SMEs and MNCs. As illustrated in the key activities above, the partnership is considered to have ‘extensive’ biodiversity focus. The website is widely used and the tool ‘simple’ to use. While the partnership does have some recognition, it is believed that this will only increase, particularly when the second portion of funding goes ahead.



Figure 2: Nature After Minerals web tool22

3.5 Conclusions 3.5.1 Compared to other sectors, there is an extensive and well disseminated body of tools and

initiatives promoting biodiversity in the building and construction industry. At the ‘short list’ stage, we identified a wide range of delivery mechanisms e.g. publications, checklists, certification schemes, company best practice examples, awards, participatory schemes, policy tools, networks and forums, voluntary measures, projects and various others.

3.5.2 In the building / construction sector, there are numerous well-known and well recognised certification and awards schemes e.g. Considerate Constructors Scheme Awards, BREEAM

22 Nature After Minerals (2009) Map Tool [online] available at: http://www.afterminerals.com/maptool.aspx (accessed 6 April 2009).



Awards, CEEQUAL Assessment Manual for Projects V4 and a range of BREEAM environmental assessment methods e.g. Eco-homes, Code for Sustainable Homes etc. In addition, the Technical Advisory Group at CEEQUAL sees no reason why the new Version 4 standards (which includes a section on biodiversity and ecology) could not be applied across Northern Europe; this would lead to wider dissemination. However, it is important to emphasise that biodiversity is just one element of these certification standards (e.g. CEEQUAL’s biodiversity section accounts for just 8.5% of the total score available) and in some cases (e.g. Eco-homes and the Code for Sustainable Homes) biodiversity takes an even smaller weighting compared to other issues e.g. climate change and energy efficiency. Therefore, it is very encouraging to hear about the UK-GBC Biodiversity Task Group’s Biodiversity Assessment tool, which could be included within the next versions of BREEAM and CEEQUAL.

3.5.3 Technical publications are a key mechanism for promoting good practice and helping to guide the building and construction sector on how to manage biodiversity. However, the publications that we received feedback for were rated as having only ‘some recognition’ as opposed to other mechanisms e.g. networks and forums, certification schemes, awards etc., which were considered to be more ‘universally recognised’. To increase recognition and direct industry stakeholders to key guidance and information, it might be useful to have a central website / portal of ‘useful publications’. It could be argued that publications have a less ‘direct’ impact on influencing business behaviour than perhaps more ‘direct’ tools like networks & forums, certification schemes and awards.

3.5.4 It was very promising to report seven active biodiversity and building / construction focused networks/forums, with representatives across such a wide range of companies (from Government to NGO to private sector). Focused almost solely on business and biodiversity, the networks and forums who returned feedback felt that they have very clear and determined goals and maximum influence over members (as opposed to perhaps a certification scheme which features biodiversity as only one element of the overall environmental picture). Promoting these networks and forums could instigate even more take-up and wider involvement.

3.5.5 Companies demonstrating good practice in biodiversity are also very powerful tools for leading the way and encouraging others to follow. For example, the Head of Environment at Hanson said that their Biodiversity Action Plan ‘could be applied to any business’.

3.5.6 Web-based tools were also shown to be useful practical tools and information resources for companies wishing to learn more about their impacts and potential impacts on biodiversity. These tools could be promoted further to enable greater dissemination and recognition.

3.5.7 Our conclusions and recommendations in relation to the construction and building sector are summarised in Table 2.



Table 2: Conclusions and recommendations for the construction and building sector

Are appropriate mechanisms available to the sector?

A range of guidance documents are available on planning and biodiversity; however, many of these are aimed primarily at local government and include a focus on strategic planning (rather than the site scale planning for biodiversity of interest to developers) In recent years, a range of assessment schemes have emerged (e.g. Code for Sustainable Homes, BREEAM, CEEQUAL) which aim to promote more sustainable design and construction. However, biodiversity is only one component of these and these mechanisms are still relatively new.

How effective have the mechanisms been (particularly in terms of managing impacts on biodiversity)?

Biodiversity is only one component of the various assessment schemes. For example, ‘ecology’ is only one of nine design categories under the Code for Sustainable Homes and, unlike energy and water, is not subject to minimum standards. The UK-GBC Biodiversity Task Group reviewed the various schemes and found that23: • There is no common approach to assessment of biodiversity

across the principal sustainability tools • Sustainability tools could be improved to assess biodiversity in

a more meaningful way, which better assesses the value of habitats that are gained and lost

• Improvements could be made to the tools which focus users on making a genuine contribution to local ecological value, rather than unintentionally encouraging a ‘tick-box’ approach

• Sustainability tools do not encourage the industry to appropriately monitor and therefore meaningfully maintain and manage habitats created through development

The Task Group has proposed a new method of assessing biodiversity for inclusion in sustainability assessment tools which is currently being refined.

To what extent have mechanisms been adopted across the sector?

The take-up of these mechanisms is increasing; for example, a code rating for new build homes under the Code for Sustainable Homes became mandatory in May 2008 and many local authorities’ development plans include policies requiring specified BREEAM ratings for certain developments.

Overall conclusion (including any gaps in coverage)

A range of mechanisms for assessing biodiversity as part of new development have emerged in recent years. However, biodiversity is only one component of these and shortcomings in the tools’ capacity to promote biodiversity conservation and enhancement have been identified. These problems have been recognised by the UK-GBC Biodiversity Task Group and action is underway to try and address the tools’ shortcomings.

23 UK Green Building Council Biodiversity Task Group (2009). Biodiversity and the Built Environment [online] available at: http://www.ukgbc.org/site/taskgroups/info?id=2 (accessed 26 November 2009).



Recommendations to Defra / BBSIG

• Support the UK-GBC Biodiversity Task Group and their recommendations.

• Progressively strengthen the role of biodiversity in assessment schemes (e.g. the Code for Sustainable Homes).

• Consider supporting specific mechanisms, including through awareness raising (e.g. the Wildlife Trusts Biodiversity Benchmark for Green Roofs)



4 Mining

4.1 Introduction 4.1.1 This chapter details our findings in relation to the mining sector and is organised around the

following sections:







4.2.1 This chapter looks to address the variety of biodiversity focussed initiatives within the mining sector24, however, as research into existing mechanisms was undertaken it became apparent that the mining sector in the UK has particular characteristics and can not be as simply addressed as the other chapters. Historically, the UK mining industry has been a source for a wide variety of minerals, including inter alia, copper, lead, zinc, tin, silver, coal, and gold. However, today, UK mining consists predominantly of the coal industry and this itself is in long term decline due to increasing overseas competition and dwindling indigenous resources.

4.2.2 Given the limited scope for biodiversity focussed mechanisms for the “mining” sector (i.e. coal sector in the UK), the scope was widened to also include biodiversity focussed mechanisms being implemented internationally. This approach was to provide a more comprehensive and constructive assessment of mechanisms applicable to this sector.

4.2.3 Due to the scale of mining operations globally, both in terms of geographical reach and number of operators, this research focussed initially on those companies listed in the UK, such as Rio Tinto, Anglo-American and BHP Billiton. The scope was subsequently widened to include other mechanisms developed by multi-stakeholder associations such as the International Council on Mining and Metals and other institutions such as non-governmental organisations and conservation groups.

4.2.4 As a result of the above approach it became clear that there were essentially three main “groups” within which this research tried to assess their biodiversity focus:

• The UK coal industry;

• UK listed mining companies with overseas operations; and

24 In this chapter, the mining sector is considered to include all extractive industries except quarrying (ie aggregate extraction). Biodiversity mechanisms relating to the quarrying industry are considered within the Construction and Building chapter as 90% of aggregates in the UK are used within the construction industry.



• Associations25 and non-governmental organisations / conservation groups with a mining focus.

4.2.5 The mining sector is a massive global industry. Internationally, it produces around 90 mined substances which form the basis for millions of different products. It is estimated that over 30 million people worldwide are directly involved with the sector and, furthermore, 34 countries including many in the developing world rely on minerals for a large proportion of their exports26.

4.2.6 In the UK, although the coal industry is in decline, it still supports around 5,600 jobs with approximately 4,000 employed in deep mines and around 1,600 employed in opencast mines. In terms of output, in 2005 approximately 20 million tonnes was produced but this was down on both 2004 and 2003 levels. Very little of UK coal is exported (around 3%) and approximately double the quantity of domestic production is imported27. This reflects both increased demand and declining indigenous production, catalysed by the privatisation of the UK electricity supply industry in 1990 and the UK coal industry being exposed to the international coal market.

Making the link

4.2.7 Mining has the potential to impact on biodiversity at each stage of the life cycle. Impacts can be both direct and indirect. Direct impacts result from activities such as land clearance for exploration and access road construction, for example. Other direct impacts include discharges to water courses such as riverine tailings disposal or to air such as smelter emissions and/or dust. Direct impacts are easily identified and their impacts clearly understood. Impacts on biodiversity can include loss or fragmentation of habitats and/or degradation of species’ natural environments due to emissions to either water or air, in addition to impacts caused by extraction activities and infrastructure development.

4.2.8 The continuing demand for minerals has resulted in exploration being undertaken in more and more environmentally sensitive areas, some of which are internationally renowned for their biodiversity and where the potential impacts of mining are likely to be more greatly felt. Technological advances have made extraction in these areas more efficient and environmentally “friendly”, however, a certain degree of impact is still inevitable.

4.2.9 In addition to the potential negative impacts on biodiversity from mining, there are also many measures the mining sector can and are taking to mitigate their impact as well as enhance biodiversity conservation within their operation areas. In particular, where mining operations are undertaken in areas that are highly populated, have previously been intensively farmed or even within industrial sites, post mining remediation can often bring significant improvement in local biodiversity for these areas.

25 These also include partnerships and multi-stakeholder associations including private mining companies, NGOs and / or conservation groups 26 World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2009) [online] available at: http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?type=p&MenuId=ODA (accessed 17 April 2009) 27 BERR (2009) [online] available at: http://www.berr.gov.uk/energy/sources/coal/industry/page13125.html (accessed 17 April 2009)




4.3.1 An initial long list of nearly 30 tools, initiatives and examples of biodiversity focussed initiatives in the mining sector were identified and the scope of the initiatives and the extent to which biodiversity was the “focus” varied significantly.

4.3.2 In general, it is clear that there is a high degree of activity within the mining industry with regards to their operations and impacts on biodiversity, however, very little information was easily accessible direct from the mining companies themselves. The majority of mechanisms identified came from multi-stakeholder groups such as the International Council for Mining and Minerals (ICMM) which, in particular, by working both independently and with partner organisations has developed a number of mechanisms to improve the mining industry’s performance in the field of biodiversity conservation. In addition, many conservation groups were identified which had mechanisms specifically focussed towards the mining industry, such as those by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

4.3.3 The full ‘long-list’ of business mechanisms identified for this sector may be found in Volume 2 of this report. As mentioned above, biodiversity focus and relevance to business varies between the mechanisms in this long list, and a short list (see Appendix 2) was compiled of mechanisms identified for further investigation. In total, 12 mechanisms were brought forward to the short list stage and these are included in the table below.




Short list table


Effectiveness table


Table 3: Measures of effectiveness of the mining shortlisted mechanisms28 Mechanism Geog.

Scope Business size / users of tool


Cost & Funding



Monitoring

International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM), Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity

Global MNCs & SMEs

The biodiversity practices for mining are mostly specific for mining.

Funded by ICMM

About 2 years to develop

Complete focus


Moderately useful

Simple ?





4.4.1 The shortlist table identifies eight organisations with 11 mechanisms that present a wide range of mechanisms including networks and forums, publications, company best practice, and policy tools.29 These are briefly introduced below:

• Networks and forums include: IUCN Business and Biodiversity Programme; ICMM Mining Dialogue; WBCSD Minerals, Mining and Sustainable Development; and the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3) Sustainable Development Group.

• Publications include: ICMM and IUCN Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity and Mining and Biodiversity: Towards best practice; Global Reporting Initiative Mining and Metals Sector Supplement; Flora & Fauna International and Insight Investment Benchmark of Biodiversity Management Practices in the Extractive Industry; WBCSD Breaking New Ground: Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development and Room to Manoeuvre.

• Company Best Practice includes: ICMM and IUCN Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity and Mining.

• Good practice websites include: ICMM and UNCTAD Good Practice Sustainable Development in the Mining and Metals Sector; and Business and Biodiversity Resource Centre Mining and Quarrying.

4.4.2 For each initiative brought forward to the shortlist table a data capture form was sent out to the key contact person. In total, only one data capture form from the International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM) was received. This is discussed as a case study below.


Networks and forums

4.4.3 A number of networks and forums were identified within the mining sector. The IUCN Business and Biodiversity Programme, the ICMM’s Mining Dialogue and the Centre for Environmental Leadership in Business all look to help businesses improve their environmental performance in terms protecting ecosystem services and contributing to biodiversity conservation. They focus on identifying the value to businesses in addressing biodiversity issues and also improving dialogue and understanding between conservation bodies and mining operators, in particular, finding win-win solutions to all parties. The IUCN also encourages and provides support for businesses to help them develop and follow good practice guidance.

4.4.4 The WBCSD Minerals, Mining and Sustainable Development project also operates in a similar manner, having acknowledged that their operations can have an impact on a variety of sustainability issues including biodiversity. It has engaged with different stakeholders to help find a way forward in achieving more sustainable operations and published its findings in the ‘Breaking New Ground: Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development’, further detailed as a case study below.




4.4.5 The Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3) differs in its member make-up and its approach to addressing the impacts of the mineral and mining industry’s impact on the environment. Rather than a network for corporation engagement, it is an institution of engineering professionals with the aim to ‘promote and develop all aspects of materials science … geology, mining and associated technologies … and extraction metallurgy, as a leading authority in the worldwide materials and mining community’30. It focuses on material’s life cycle from exploration and extraction to product recycling and land reuse. It therefore differs to the above mechanisms in that its main engagement is at the individual, rather than corporate, level. The extent to which it focuses on biodiversity is limited, however, with a membership of over 18,000 professionals ranging from project level technicians to corporate heads, it has the potential to act as an effective dialogue to engage people at all levels and across multiple sectors.

4.4.6 The approach by IOM3 to address the sustainability of the entire supply chain rather than just individual operations of processes enables a much more holistic view and a greater understanding of the key elements which impact on biodiversity. This highlights areas to which measures should be targeted to deliver the greatest biodiversity benefit overall. Emerging measures such as “minerals supply chain stewardship”31 and “responsible sourcing”32, although not prescriptively biodiversity focussed, do enable greater choice for the consumer in deciding which material and/or supplier to choose and provide some assurance of good environmental practice throughout the entire supply chain. The gold mining and diamond industries have already made steps towards providing information on the responsible sourcing e.g. companies ensuring (and communicating) that diamonds are conflict free. The Responsible Jewellery Council, which was set up as an international not-for-profit organisation representing over 130 member companies across the gold and diamond jewellery supply chain, recently added some biodiversity clauses to its draft mining supplement. Mechanisms like this one are in part a response to consumer led demand for ethically sourced jewellery, however, a similar demand from industries in (for example) the construction sector, are not yet fully established.

Publications

4.4.7 The greatest number of mechanisms identified within the mining sector were publications. These include:

• ICMM and IUCN: Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity;

• ICMM and IUCN: Mining and Biodiversity - Towards best practice;

• Global Reporting Initiative: Mining and Metals Sector Supplement;

• Flora & Fauna International and Insight Investment: Protecting shareholder and natural value: Benchmark of biodiversity management practices in the extractive industry;

• WBCSD: Breaking New Ground - Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development; and

• WBCSD: Room to Manoeuvre.

4.4.8 Led by the ICMM with expert input from the IUCN, the ICMM-IUCN publications are examples of successful dialogues between potentially opposing interests. They are examples of

30 IOM3 (2009) [online] available at: http://www.iom3.org/content/about-iom3 (accessed 17 April 2009) 31 Eden Project (undated) [online] available at: http://www.edenproject.com/documents/rocktoroof.pdf (accessed 17 April 2009) 32 BRE(2009) Responsible Sourcing of Construction Products [online] available at: http://www.bre.co.uk/responsiblesourcing/page.jsp?id=1514 (accessed 17 April 2009)



successful working relationships that can assist both parties in gaining a greater appreciation of often conflicting priorities. For example, ‘Mining and Biodiversity: Towards Best Practice’ was the result of an IUCN-ICMM workshop specifically focussing on mining, protected areas and biodiversity conservation with the aim to identify best practice and reporting.

4.4.9 The ICMM, whose membership includes 15 of the world’s largest mining and metal producing companies and which also includes 27 worldwide industry associations is in a strong position to disseminate its research and publications to those actors with greatest influence. Added to the fact that its publications have been developed in cooperation with the IUCN, it provides an added level of objective credibility which could not only increase confidence in the mining communities attitude to adopting recommended practices, but could also indicate to external parties the mining industry is taking a proactive approach to reducing its impact on biodiversity.

4.4.10 The Global Reporting Initiative is a ‘long-term, multi-stakeholder, international process whose mission is to develop and disseminate globally applicable Sustainability Reporting Guidelines33. In order to capture sector specific issues, the Mining and Metals Sector Supplement is being produced. The consultation on the ‘Draft Final Version’34, is due to close at the end of April and the final supplement released in the second half of 2009. The Supplement is to help reporting organisations and their stakeholders to present and understand the organisations’ contributions to sustainable development. In terms of the supplement’s incorporation of biodiversity elements, biodiversity is included under the environmental dimension of management approach and specifically by five performance indicators including, for example, ‘EN13 Habitats Protected and Restored’ and ‘EN14 Strategies, current actions and future plans for managing impacts on biodiversity’. The supplement covers all aspects of the mining lifecycle from exploration and feasibility to closure and post closure, and through providing a framework, enables all businesses – regardless of size and the particular issues they may face – to report on their approach to sustainable development.

4.4.11 The short-list highlighted two publications by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. These included ‘Breaking New Ground: Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development’, and ‘Room to Manoeuvre. Breaking New Ground was the culmination of two-year consultation process - Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development – which aimed ‘to understand how to maximise the contribution of the mining and minerals sector to sustainable development’. It assessed this at the local, national, regional and global level and included proposals for global change in the mining sector. The ‘Biological Diversity: Threats and Opportunities’35 section, identifies the UN convention on Biological Diversity as an effective tool to link biodiversity to sustainable development but notes its limitations, such as lack of resources and insufficient capacity and that the mining sector has a key role to play in biodiversity maintenance, particularly given the potential for biodiversity loss through unchecked mining operations. It provides good examples of where, particularly in pristine regions, industry can work with and support science institutions to better understand biodiversity in these areas.

33 GRI (2005) GRI Mining and Metals Sector Supplement, Global Reporting Initiative [online] available at: http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/25EEF0C7-F050-48CA-9FF5-C79F359D9976/0/SS_MiningMetals_ENG.pdf (accessed 17 April 2009) 34 GRI (2009) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines & Mining and Metals Sector Supplement, Global Reporting Initiative [online] available at: http://www.globalreporting.org/NR/rdonlyres/E75BAED5-F176-477E-A78E-DC2E434E1FB2/2456/DraftFinalMiningandMetalsSectorSupplment1.pdf (accessed 17 April 2009) 35 MMSD (2002) Breaking New Ground, Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development [online] at http://www.natural-resources.org/minerals/cd/docs/mmsd/global/finalreport/finalreport_10.pdf (accessed 17 April 2009)



4.4.12 ‘Room to Manoeuvre’36 was part of a series of the Mining, Minerals and Sustainable Development’s Working Papers. It provides an analysis of the often conflicting issues of mining in areas of valuable biodiversity. The paper draws on information from written material and debates conducted under the mining and biodiversity process of the MMSD project as well as key input from stakeholders, main industry players and leading academic specialists. It provides excellent background information to the need for biodiversity conservation, and highlights the challenges and opportunities available to the mining sector. It also highlights the different perspectives taken by different players including government, industry and conversationalists and informs on the existing policies and actions and a potential ‘Way Forward’ to help balance often conflicting priorities and interests. Furthermore, key messages are effectively presented in the form of case studies.

4.4.13 A few “best practice” resources were brought forward to the short list. These included two from ICMM and partners and also from the Business and Biodiversity Resource Centre: Mining and Quarrying.

4.4.14 The Business and Biodiversity Resource Centre provides information on improving biodiversity checks in the mining life cycle and adding value to projects through risk reduction and/or mitigation. It notes the importance of incorporating biodiversity management from the first phase of the mining cycle and incorporating it into an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE). It encourages the use of GIS information and an Environmental Management Plan (EMP).

Case study: ICMM & IUCN ‘Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity’ The International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM) and World Conservation Union have produced their ‘Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity’. The Good Practice Guidance (GPG) is the product of an extensive dialogue between the ICMM and the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in response to increasing pressure from commentators, NGOs and financial analysts by the mining and metals industry to demonstrate that biodiversity conservation is now a key commitment of the mining industry’s approach to sustainable development as stated within Principle 7 of the ICMM’s Sustainable Development Framework: the ICMM will ‘contribute to conservation of biodiversity and integrated approaches to land use planning’. The GPG aims to assist members to meet the objectives of Principle 7. It is a technical publication which describes systems, tools and processes, and guidance on their practical application which can be used by mining companies at all stages of their operations. The target audience of the guidance is professionals and other specialists with direct experience of, or responsibility for, environmental aspects. The GPG provides a basic platform to help develop ‘knowledge and capacity’ , however, it also identifies where more specialist biodiversity input should be sought. The GPG also notes the importance of improving dialogue between mining and biodiversity professionals. The GPG is necessarily global in its scope and specifically focussed towards the mining industry. It has been translated into Spanish, Russian, Mandarin and Portuguese. The GPG includes necessary stems to improve biodiversity management at each sage of the mining cycle and is applicable to a range of operational contexts, including a range of ecosystem types (such as deserts and lowland tropical environments) and importance (such as areas where biodiversity is of designated importance). As such, the GPG is “guidance” and therefore specialist expertise may be required in its application. The GPG is divided into 3 sections:

36 MMSD (2003) Room to Manouvre? Mining, Biodiversity and Protected Areas [online] available at: http://www.iied.org/pubs/pdfs/9266IIED.pdf (accessed 17 April 2009)



1. Section A outlines the background for developing the GPG 2. Section B provides the guidance for managing biodiversity at each stage of operation. Stage 1:

project development (exploration, pre-feasibility and feasibility studies, construction). Stage 2: operations (core mining facilities and activities and infrastructure). Stage 3: closure planning and implementation

3. Section C describes the systems, tools and processes in more detail and outlines their practical application

The structure accounts for the fact that different operations will be at different stages of project development and that some of the processes, tools and systems for biodiversity management could be applicable at all three stages outlined above under Section B.

4.5 Conclusions 4.5.1 Generally speaking, there are a range of tools and methodologies available to assist the mining

sector in managing its biodiversity impacts. In the UK, the Nature After Minerals Programme is focused on the key issue of site restoration and the website includes a series of case studies. In addition, it is committed to creating a new web-based tool that will investigate the restoration potential of new minerals sites and preferred areas.

4.5.2 A number of multi-stakeholder groups, such as the ICMM have biodiversity focussed initiatives. Encouragingly, there is a high degree of participation between private companies and environmental conservation groups (UICN)

4.5.3 There are some good practice emerging examples of responsibly sourcing materials such as specifying gold that has not been produced using cyanide in the leaching process and non-conflict diamonds for example. At present there are some moves towards enabling greater consumer choice whereby the consumer has greater say in where their jewellery for example comes from. This is proving difficult due to the smelting processes often using many different sources. Moreover, it is important that consumers are made aware about the issue of sustainable sourcing in order to make this a viable area for business improvement. The Eden Project ‘Rock to Roof’ has demonstrated that, with the right willingness, this is achievable.

4.5.4 While, in theory, there are opportunities for biodiversity offsetting and post mining remediation, in practice, mining companies have not generally delivered this vision of post-mining biodiversity. Even today, in some cases, there is little or limited information about the biodiversity that was present before mining began and historically, such information was not collected routinely or at all. The shortfall in biodiversity restoration is the driver for biodiversity offsets for mining companies – they recognise that restoring biodiversity is simply not possible in many cases and offsets will be the only way to achieve ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity.

4.5.5 According to a booklet produced in 2002 as part of the Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development Project (MMSD):37 ‘There are few similarities among the initiatives currently in use in the mining and other sectors – this may reflect tailoring of initiatives to their respective goals, but it may also indicate a lack of sharing or development between initiatives. In the mining sector, there are indications that a high degree of confusion exists about which initiatives are appropriate and useful; in some companies, a feeling of ‘initiative overload’

37 ERM, IIED & WBCSD (2002) Finding the Way Forward: How Could Voluntary Action Move Mining Towards Sustainable Development? p.xii [online] available at: http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/fAPC7ZOWpfeRrSJiNxIe/finding_the_way.pdf (accessed 17 April 2009)



heightens this uncertainty. Without independent verification of performance against standards or norms, many initiatives do little more than raise awareness.’ However, this is no longer an accurate assessment of the situation in the mining sector and post-MMSD there has been a more concerted effort to develop intra and inter-sector links between initiatives.

4.5.6 Our conclusions and recommendations in relation to the mining sector are summarised in Table 4.

Table 4: Conclusions and recommendations for the mining sector


The quarrying sector’s primary impact on biodiversity is through the removal of surface features during minerals extraction. Secondary effects of the quarrying process, such as noise, dust, pollution and waste removal can also adversely affect wildlife. In terms of mechanisms, Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is required prior to development consent in some cases. With respect to the operational phase the tools available include company biodiversity action plans which can guide operations so as to minimise impacts on biodiversity. The Nature After Minerals Programme focuses on site restoration. Partnerships between companies and NGOs have also been established; for example RSPB with CEMEX UK have established a new two-year biodiversity partnership.


Mechanisms exist for the operational and restoration phases and EIA may be required prior to development consent. It proved difficult to establish the effectiveness of these mechanisms; however, in relation to restoration the Nature After Minerals Programme website provides 14 case studies of success. In relation to the RSPB and CEMEX partnership, the RSPB has argued their "expertise in landscape restoration applied across CEMEX's network of more than 80 quarries has the potential to make a real difference"38.


It proved difficult to establish the level of take-up across the sector; however, Hanson reported that around 30% of their UK quarries currently have Biodiversity Action Plans. The businessandbiodiversity.org website also cites examples of quarrying companies with biodiversity initiatives.


Tools are available to the quarrying sector to address biodiversity impacts during the operational stage in the form of company biodiversity action plans and advice and support is also available for promoting biodiversity at the restoration stage.


• Provide support to the Nature After Minerals Programme. • Monitor the success of partnerships within the quarrying sector

and consider facilitating the development of further partnerships.

• Monitor biodiversity gains on the ground from site management and benchmark different operators’ performance.

38 Buildingtalk (2009). CEMEX partnership with RSPB [online] available at: http://www.buildingtalk.com/news/cex/cex142.html (accessed 26 November 2009).



5 Forestry & Paper

5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 This chapter details our findings in relation to the forestry and paper sector and is organised

around the following sections:





5.1.2 A long list of mechanisms for this sector is in the Appendix to this report.


5.2.1 In the UK, we have 2,841,000 ha of woodland (Forestry Commission, 2008), providing a range of economic, social and environmental benefits. Often these are complementary, but trade-offs can be required between economic timber production and aims such as public access or increased biodiversity. In terms of environmental value, woodland and trees perform a variety of valuable natural functions39:

• Protecting soils from erosion;

• reducing flooding;

• protecting soils from erosion;

• reducing flooding in some catchments by intercepting rain water and reducing run-off in storm events;

• helping to reclaim contaminated land;

• providing shelter, shade and cooling in urban areas, and wind breaks on farmland;

• conserving biodiversity; and

• contributing to limiting climate change by taking up and retaining atmospheric carbon (sequestration) and reducing CO2 emissions by the use of wood as a source of bio-energy.

5.2.2 It is also important to emphasise the raw material value that forests and trees provide e.g. wood supplies timber, pulpwood, firewood, fodder, meat, cash crops, fish and medicinal plants. However, pre-historic and historic clearance of our woodland led us to a low point at the beginning of the twentieth century when woodland was only 5% of Britain – and falling. It is

39 Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2007) Postnote: UK Trees and Forests [online] available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn275.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2009).



now nearly 12% – and rising (Forestry Commission, 200940). Having adopted the Statement of Forest Principles at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit and agreed a general declaration at the Helsinki Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe (1993), the UK is internationally committed to sustainable forest management. The Statement of Forest Principles states that to achieve sustainable forest management, ‘forest resources and forest lands should be managed to meet the social, economic, ecological, cultural and spiritual human needs of present and future generations’. In the UK, best practice guidelines and incentives such as management grants, help to promote high environmental and social standards in commercial forestry, reducing the risk of environmental damage such as acidification of water or soil erosion during harvesting.

5.2.3 Although this biodiversity and business research is UK focused, given the international reach of the forestry and paper sector, we have looked at some tools and initiatives outside the UK.

Making the link

5.2.4 According to the ‘Center for International Forestry Research’, forests are the most diverse ecosystems on land because they hold the vast majority of the world's terrestrial species. Speaking within the context of their ‘Forests Forever’ project, the Timber Trade Federation says that, ‘sustainable timber means that regardless of the extraction of individual trees, the forest maintains its ecological function as for biodiversity, climate and water cycles’41. Some rainforests are among the oldest ecosystems on Earth42. In the UK, broadleaved woodland contains more than twice as many rare species, listed in the UK Biodiversity Action Plan, as any other UK habitat; conifer plantations can also have significant value as habitat for birds, fungi, invertebrates and some protected species such as the red squirrel and capercaillie43.

5.2.5 However, according to the Forestry Commission, internationally, we are losing 12 million hectares of forest a year, much of it tropical rainforest with its unique and rich biodiversity44. Forest biodiversity is threatened on a global scale by rapid deforestation, forest fragmentation and degradation, hunting and the arrival of invasive species from other habitats. Indicators for biodiversity include45:

• Ancient woodland

• Native woodland area

• Native woodland condition

• Abundance of fauna

• Richness of flora

• Diversity of woodland within a stand

• Natural regeneration of woodland

40 Forestry Commission (2009) Sustainable Forestry [online] available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/sustainableforestry (accessed 2 April 2009). 41 Timber Trade Federation (2009) Forests Forever [online] available at: http://www.forestsforever.org.uk/sustainability/what/ (accessed 2 April 2009). 42 Center for International Forestry Research (20069) [online] available at: http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/ (accessed 3 April 2009). 43 Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (2007) Postnote: UK Trees and Forests [online] available at: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/postpn275.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2009). 44 Forestry Commission (2009). Indicators for biodiversity [online] available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/oldsite.nsf/byunique/ahen-52gd2n (accessed 2 April 2009). 45 Forestry Commission (2009). Indicators for biodiversity [online] available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/oldsite.nsf/byunique/ahen-52gd2n (accessed 2 April 2009).



5.2.6 Human activity around forestry and paper has the potential to damage natural habitats, threatening wildlife and plant species. Having said this, ‘Britain's forests are a great habitat and species resource’ and ‘biodiversity conservation is an integral part of sustainable forestry’ (Forestry Commission, 2008). Therefore, there is a tremendous opportunity and role for the forestry / paper industry to play in not only exploiting but protecting and where possible, enhancing forest biodiversity.


5.3.1 Given the very direct link between the forestry / paper sector and biodiversity, there is a well established body of tools and initiatives, aimed at guiding anyone from forest owners through to paper companies and consumers how the impacts of the sector on biodiversity can be measured, monitored and minimised. The question is how widely are these being taken up and are they effective?

5.3.2 Our preliminary research uncovered over 45 tools, initiatives and good practice examples in the forestry and paper sector. We found that the biodiversity focus varied considerably across the list, from ‘complete focus’ e.g. a Step-by-step approach to Biodiversity Action Planning, to ‘limited focus’ e.g. Royal Forestry Society of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Having established our ‘long list’, we then put together a ‘short list’ (see Appendix 2), comprised of 14 organisations and groups (some of which had more than one tool or initiative) which showed ‘limited’, ‘moderate’, ‘complete’ or ‘extensive’ biodiversity focus.




The short list


Effectiveness table


Table 5: Measures of effectiveness of the forestry & paper shortlisted mechanisms46 Mechanism Geog



Cost & Funding Timescale Bio focus Communicability Frequency of use


Monitoring

Step-by-step approach to Biodiversity Action Planning, Fauna & Flora International (FFI)

Global Can be used by any company to develop a site based Biodiversity Action Plan. It is specific to Rio Tinto in terms of targets.

Business unit level only

Costs will vary for each operation

Depending on data availability between 6 months and 2 years

Complete focus

Universally recognised

Used by some – more relevant for Greenfield sites where biodiversity can represent a risk if unmanaged.

Very useful – this depends on the quality of data and technical expertise made available for developing the plan.

Moderately user-friendly – also stresses the importance of having a highly technical ecologist/field biologist as part of the team.

Monitoring and indicators – identifying indicators and developing a monitoring plan is an essential part of the BAP.




Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) UK, Forest Management and Chain of Custody Certification

Global Applicable for organisations of all sizes that buy or sell forest products e.g. trusts, NGOs, Gov bodies etc.

Applicable throughout supply chain.

Funded by the certificate owner (i.e. business). Cost varies depending on size of woodland or business for CoC certificate. Minimum annual fee £450.

Dependent on the necessary scale and complexity of the audit and the work schedule of the chosen certification body.

Moderate focus – Biodiversity is an important component but not the only focus (social and economic too).

Some recognition – well-known in UK within forestry sector but level of recognition varies globally.

Widely used Very useful – forest certification helped forest managers / owners consider and include ecological issues in forest management planning.

Moderately user-friendly / complicated – requires familiarity with a standard that is very detailed and comprehensive.

Monitoring and indicators

PEFC Council, Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes

Global MNCs, SMEs, forest owners and consumers

Complete supply chain

Cost of certification depends on user/size. PEFC is funded by membership fees.

N/A Complete – extensive focus


Widely used Very useful Simple Monitoring and indicators

Sustainable National MNCs, Currently Funded by its N/A Extensive Universally Widely used Very useful – Moderately Monitoring



Forestry Initiative

national corporations, regional corporations, state and provincial agencies, conservation groups and academic institutions

over 700 organisations are involved with the SFI Program including government, conservation groups, industry, private landowners, universities. Currently 65 million ha of forest certified to the SFI Standard

program participants based on a formula that considers hectares certified and revenues, in addition to other voluntary contributions and successful grant proposals.

focus – 5/10 principles related to biodiversity and 5/14 objectives have performance measures with associated indicators relating biodiversity

recognised – of 10 eco-labels tested in the US, SFI had the highest familiarity rating of any forest certification program.

SFI certified landowners had strong biodiversity practices; promotes conservation of biodiversity hot spots and major tropic wilderness areas; improve sustainable forest management; facilitate research…

user-friendly – certification can be complex depending on the size and scope of the operation. Certification of forestry operations can require much technical expertise.

and indicators – Current SFI Standard has 103 indicators, performance measures & objectives. Independent certification audit and an annual review every 5 years.

UK Woodland Assurance Standard, Biodiversity focus in standard

National Certified woodland ownerships in the UK reflect the ownership pattern of UK forests <10ha to 457,000ha e.g. private owners, forestry companies, national forest services, public bodies etc.

50% of all UK woodland and 80% of the timber harvest is certified against UKWAS standard through the scheme.

Steering group’s work facilitated by a Support Unit funded by contributions from the members of the Company. Operating income of £40,000 in 2008.

Standard is revised every 5 years to take into account changes in legislation, standards and principles / criteria for forest stewardship.

Moderate focus – conservation & enhancement makes up one of 8 sections within the standard

Some recognition – well recognised within mainstream UK forestry community but most forest owners very small and not well engaged with certification process.

Widely used - 50% of all UK woodland and 80% of the timber harvest is certified against UKWAS standard through the scheme.

Moderately useful – high uptake for larger enterprises increases quality of woodland management. Low uptake for smallest owners.

Moderately user-friendly – standard is relatively straightforward to apply for larger enterprises but too complex for smaller owners.

Monitoring & indicators – certified woodlands monitored on regular basis.

Forestry Commission, English Woodland Grant Scheme

National MNCs & SMEs

Land managers and their agents only

Approx £30m/year, £17m exchequer (Defra vote), £13m EU EAFRD

Will operate until at least 2013, contracts continue thereafter

Extensive focus – Although EWGS deals with social activities,

Some recognition – universally recognised within forest/woodland sector. However, it is also relevant

Used by some – around 20% by area of woodlands are in the

Very useful – Scheme achieves more than protection – it results in

Moderately user-friendly – applicants must comply with EU regulations. More complex /

Indicators & monitoring – primarily monitored via RDPE processes,



on 15 year timescale

vast majority of activity relates back to biodiversity outcomes.

to other land managers where it will have only limited recognition.

scheme. creation, restoration and improvement of condition of a range of habitats.

extensive work may require engagement of professional advisor.

some indicators form part of FC corporate plan targets.

West Midlands Biodiversity Partnership, Trees, Woods & Forests Task Group

National ? ? ? ? Extensive focus

Limited recognition

? ? ? ?

WWF, UK Forest and Trade Network

Global MNCs & SMEs – strategic position in the market for forest goods is key to WWF engagement.

WWF looks at total volume of forest entering UK annually and engage these companies. Cascading down the supply chain and engaging is difficult and complex.

<£100,000 for WWF UK FTN. Funded by participation fees.

UK FTN functioning since 1995 – not time limited in strategic planning.

Extensive focus – focus is on responsible trade (including people and economic sustainability)


Widely used Very useful Moderately user-friendly – looking at supply chain involves detail and cannot be over simplified – do not want the mechanism to be ‘shallow’.

Monitoring and indicators – annual monitoring & reporting against set of key performance criteria.



Timber Trade Federation, Responsible Purchasing Policy

National SMEs (which make up majority of companies within timber sector) & MNCs.

RPP is focused on TTF UK members but could be extended to other sectors and used as model for other European countries to follow.

RPP signatories pay annual audit fee varying from £150-£500 depending on size of company involved.

On-going Limited focus – RPP focuses on legality and sustainability rather than biodiversity

Some recognition – well-recognised within timber importing sector but limited outside sector. Has been cited as good industry practice by Gov officers and Ministers in relation to UK Gov Timber Procurement Policy.

Widely used – as it’s a condition of membership!

Very useful – compulsory nature and helps enforce laws protecting biodiversity in supplier countries adhered to.

Moderately user-friendly – although daunting, focused seminars and workshops help companies implement it relatively easily.

Monitoring – members are independently audited for compliance with the RPP

Conservation International / CELB, Sustainable Forest Mosaics Initiative

National MNCs & SMEs - Multi-national and large Brazilian corporations involved, with some efforts to engage smaller outgrowers.

Plantation owners to end retailers

If fully implemented, cost would be $3.7 million, funded currently through grants from companies in forestry, personal care product and retail sectors.

5 years Extensive focus


Very useful Moderately user-friendly

Indicators – project proposal contains a full set of indicators. Also report on project activities to the donors.




5.4.1 From our ‘short list’, it is clear that there is a wide range of active and relevant tools and initiatives for managing biodiversity in the forestry and paper sector. These mechanisms are both national and international in scope, covering a range of areas including technical, discursive, institutional and philanthropic. Drawn directly from the ‘short list’, the next section categorises (into advisor / control & regulation; certification schemes; grants; network & forums; participatory scheme; partnerships; and projects) the specific tools and initiatives that we identified as the most active and relevant in promoting biodiversity to business47.

• Advisory / control and regulation / grants include: Fauna & Flora International’s ‘Step-by-step approach to Biodiversity Action Planning’; the Forestry Commission’s ‘English Woodland Grant Scheme’; and the Woodland Trust’s ‘Woodwatch’ campaign.

• Certification schemes include: the Forest Stewardship Council UK’s ‘Forest Management and Chain of Custody Certification; the PEFC Council’s Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes; the Soil Association’s ‘Woodmark’ UK Forest Management scheme; the Sustainable Forestry Initiative’s SFI Label; the UK Woodland Assurance Standard.

• Networks & forums include: the Forestry Commission’s ‘England Biodiversity Group’; the International Council of Forest and Paper Associations; the West Midlands Biodiversity Partnership’s ‘Trees, Woods & Forests Task Group’; and WWF’s UK Forest and Trade Network.

• Participatory schemes include: the Timber Trade Federation’s ‘Responsible Purchasing Policy’.

• Partnerships / Projects include: the Forestry Commission’s ‘UK Forest Partnership for Action’; the Woodland Trust’s range of corporate partnerships, including ‘Plant a Tree’, Woodland Carbon, cause-related marketing through off-the-shelf products, conservation and biodiversity, payroll giving, and waste and recycling; and the Conservation International / CELB’s Sustainable Production and Biodiversity Conservation in ‘Forest Mosaics Initiative’.

5.4.2 For each tool or initiative identified at the ‘short list’ stage, a proforma was sent out to the key contact person (identified at the ‘long list’ stage). Proformas were emailed to a total of 14 organisations and groups, in relation to 23 tools and initiatives. Compared to other sectors, the response rate for returned proformas was very good and we received 10 forms covering a total of 10 tools and initiatives, analysed in the section below:


Advisory / control and regulation / grants

Step-by-step approach to Biodiversity Action Planning, Fauna & Flora International

English Woodland Grant Scheme, Forestry Commission

47 Inevitably, due to time constraints, this list is by no means exhaustive. The following shows the results of a comprehensive desk review undertaken to capture the key tools / initiatives for managing biodiversity across the construction and building sector.



5.4.3 The Step-by-step approach to Biodiversity Action Plan is an international guidance document to support Rio Tinto Business Units to prepare for a site BAP for the lease with a goal of achieving Net Positive Impact on biodiversity. The guidance, which helps the operation to identify and manage biological features (including the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, minimisation, rehabilitation and offsetting) was rated in self-feedback to have a ‘complete’ focus on biodiversity and ‘universal recognition’, although the approach is more relevant for greenfield sites. Feedback claimed that the approach is thought to be very useful in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business; however, this depends on the quality of the data and technical expertise made available for developing the plan. It was felt that the approach is very useful for protecting biodiversity and influencing business but FFI do stress the importance of having a highly technical ecologist / field biologist as part of the team in implementing the approach.

Case study: The Forestry Commission England Biodiversity Group (network & forum): Co-ordinates implementation of woodland sector of the England Biodiversity Strategy and the Habitat Action Plans for native woodland in England. Membership includes all key stakeholders with support provided Forestry Commission England. E.g. Woodland Trust, National Trust. The UK Forest Partnership for Action (partnership) launched a publication describing its work and committing the partners to continue to work together. This was presented by Michael Meacher on behalf of the partnership at the Summit at an event which gave delegates the opportunity to share the UK's experience of promoting sustainable development in the forestry sector. The initiative stimulated a wide-ranging discussion covering sustainable forestry issues around the world as well as the value of government, business and civil society working in partnership.

The English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) is the Forestry Commission's suite of grants designed to develop the co-ordinated delivery of public benefits from England's woodlands. EWGS is supported via the Rural Development Programme for England. The aims of the EWGS are to sustain and increase the public benefits given by existing woodlands and to help create new woodlands to deliver additional public benefit.

5.4.4 The English Woodland Grant Scheme, aimed at MNCs and SMEs in the UK, is the Forestry Commission’s suite of grants designed to develop the co-ordinated delivery of public benefits from England’s woodland (see Case Study). The scheme is funded by the exchequer and the EU at a total cost of almost £30m per year. Feedback rated the scheme as having ‘extensive’ biodiversity focus, although the EWGS also deals with social activities, a vast majority of which relates back to biodiversity outcomes. There is universal recognition of the grant within the forest / woodland sector and approximately 20% of woodlands are in the scheme. The respondent stated that the scheme is ‘very useful’, in that it is not there just to protect, but to help lead to results in creation, restoration and improvement of condition of a range of habitats. The scheme rates itself as ‘moderately user-friendly’ as applicants must comply with EU regulation and more complex, extensive work may require engagement of a professional advisor.

5.4.5 Both FFI and the Forestry Commission identified indicators and developing a monitoring plan as an essential part of the corporate plan targets and BAP, respectively.

Certification schemes



Forest Management and Chain of Custody Certification, Forest Stewardship Council UK

Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes, PEFC Council

SFI Label, Sustainable Forestry Initiative

UK Woodland Assurance Standard

5.4.6 The short list stage identified a large number of certification schemes, each with the aim of encouraging businesses in the forestry / paper sector to have their products and/or supply chains accredited. In return for having a well-recognised, ‘quality’ mark attributed to their product and/or supply chain, the organisation / company must adhere to the certification scheme’s standards and targets to reduce harmful impacts on the forest and its associated biodiversity.

5.4.7 From the proformas returned, two out of the four certification schemes graded themselves ‘complete’ to ‘extensive’ in biodiversity focus - the ‘Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes’ (PEFC Council) and the ‘Sustainable Forestry Initiative’ (see Case Study). The Sustainable Forestry Initiative reported an ‘extensive’ focus, with five out of its ten principles relating directly to biodiversity and five out of its 14 objectives with performance measures and associated indicators relating to biodiversity. The Sustainable Forestry Initiative considers itself to be very successful promoting biodiversity protection and influencing business: ‘SFI certified landowners all have strong biodiversity practices’’. The standard also promotes conservation of biodiversity hot spots and major tropic wilderness areas. Currently, there are 65 million hectares of forest certified to the SFI standard. The standard has wide recognition (e.g. of ten eco-labels tested in the US, SFI has the highest familiarity rating of any forest certification program) and is used widely across over 700 organisations, including government, conservation groups, industry, private landowners and universities.

Case study: The Sustainable Forestry Initiative

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI®) label is for wood and paper products from well-managed forests, backed by a rigorous, third-party certification audit. SFI Inc. is improving sustainable forest management in North America and supporting responsible procurement globally. It sets standards for forest management and products designed by American Forest & Paper Association industry. It provides a system of principles, objectives and performance measures developed by professional foresters, conservationists and scientists in the USA. The standards help manage the quality and distribution of wildlife habitats. They also contribute to the conservation of biological diversity by developing and implementing stand and landscape-level measures that promote habitat diversity and the conservation of forest fauna and flora.

5.4.8 The PEFC Programme promotes sustainable forest management through independent third party forest certification. The Programme, which is used by MNCs, SMEs, forest owners and consumers was assessed in feedback as having an ‘extensive’ biodiversity focus, with widespread recognition and a useful tool for protecting biodiversity and influencing business.

5.4.9 The Forest Stewardship Council UK’s Forest Management and Chain of Custody and the UK Woodland Assurance Standard are both well-known within the mainstream UK forestry community. Both schemes are independent certification standards for verifying sustainable woodland management in the UK and tracing products through the supply chain to the end



consumer, and have a ‘moderate’ focus on biodiversity. Although biodiversity is an important component, it is not the only focus (and there are social and economic components too). For example, for the UK Woodland Assurance Standard (which is an independent certification standard for verifying sustainable woodland management in the UK), ‘conservation and enhancement’ constitutes just one of eight sections within the standard. Both schemes are widely used e.g. under the UK Woodland Assurance Scheme, 50% of all UK woodland and 80%of the timber harvest is certified against the standard through the scheme. The Forest Stewardship Council finds their certification ‘very useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business: ‘forest certification has helped forest managers / owners to consider and to include ecological issues in forest management planning’. However, the UK Woodland Assurance Standard points out that while the uptake for larger enterprises to join the scheme is high, there is a low uptake amongst the smallest owners. Both schemes highlight that certification can be complex, a process which ‘requires familiarity with a standard that is very detailed and comprehensive’ (Forest Stewardship Council UK); in addition, the UK Woodland Assurance Standard points out that while the standard is relatively straight forward to apply to large enterprises, it is too complex for smaller owners.

5.4.10 At the short list stage, we also identified the Soil Association’s ‘Woodmark’ UK Forest Management scheme as a key tool for promoting biodiversity protection to business. Woodmark only certifies to standards which meets their requirements for quality and integrity. Internationally, the SA recognise and certify to FSC approved standards and in the UK, they recognise the UKWAS standard (supported by the Forestry Commission), FSC and environmental groups including the WWF for Nature, Greenpeace and the Woodland Trust.

5.4.11 Most certification schemes are funded through membership fees, a cost which varies depending on the size of woodland being certified.

Networks & Forums

Trees, Woods & Forests Task Group, West Midlands Biodiversity Partnership

UK Forest and Trade Network, WWF

5.4.12 Feedback was received from two networks: the ‘Trees, Woods & Forests Task Group’ and WWF’s ‘UK Forest & Trade Network’. Although the Task Group assessed itself as having ‘extensive’ biodiversity focus – for example, amongst other tools, the Task Group uses a Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping initiative – it was thought to have limited recognition throughout the sector. On the other hand, WWF’s ‘UK Forest and Trade Network’, which aims to improve the management of the world’s production forests by using the purchasing power influence of UK businesses to bring about change, has a strong biodiversity focus and is very relevant to this project. WWF attempts to reach all businesses (MNCs or SMEs) by looking at the total volume of forest entering the UK market annually and trying to engage these companies. However, ‘cascading down the supply chain and engaging is difficult and complex’. The Network is considered very useful in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business, and has a wide international reach. While the Network is user-friendly, WWF stress that looking at the supply chain “involves some detail and cannot be over-simplified… business needs to understand the issues being addressed and what their role is – this level of complexity is of great appeal to business – they do not want the mechanism to be shallow”.

5.4.13 At the short list stage, we also identified other useful networks and forums with a strong biodiversity focus e.g. the Forestry Commission’s ‘England Biodiversity Group’ (see case



study) and the ‘International Council of Forest and Paper Associations’, which is a network of the world’s forestry and paper industry associations and deals with policy issues such as recognition of sustainable forestry standards, climate change and the environmental preferability of forest products.

Participatory schemes

Responsible Purchasing Policy, Timber Trade Federation

5.4.14 We received one proforma on a participatory scheme, the Responsible Purchasing Policy, which is a risk management tool for members of the Timber Trade Federation to assess timber products for evidence of the legality and sustainability of supply and encourages suppliers to improve their sourcing practices. RPP signatories are independently audited for compliance by the Soil Association. Given the RPP’s focus on legality and sustainability, it was felt that the policy has limited biodiversity focus. However, information on supplier country forests and the presence of biodiversity ‘hotspots’ is given in guidance documents to help signatories rate their timber products. The policy is aimed at both MNCs and SMEs (which make up the majority of companies within the timber sector). According to the RRP Manager: “at present, the RPP is focused on TTF members in the UK but could be extended to other sectors and used as a model for other European countries to follow”. The policy, which has been cited as good industry practice by Government Officers and Ministers in relation to the UK Government Timber Procurement Policy, is considered well-recognised within the timber importing sector but limited outside it. The respondent assessed the policy as widely used and useful in protecting biodiversity and influencing business, particularly given its compulsory nature, helping enforce laws protecting biodiversity in supplier countries. Although the policy is “daunting” to use, “focused seminars and workshops help companies implement it relatively easily”.

Partnerships / Projects

Sustainable Production and Biodiversity Conservation Forest Mosaics Initiative, Conservation International / CELB

5.4.15 We received feedback on one partnership / project, the Sustainable Forest Mosaic Initiative (SFMI). In addition, we identified other partnerships at the short list stage, including Forestry Commission’s UK Forest Partnership for Action and a range of corporate partnerships run by the Woodland Trust e.g. ‘Plant a Tree’, Woodland Carbon, payroll giving and cause-related marketing through off-the-shelf products.

5.4.16 SFMI brings together pulp and paper companies, personal care product producers and retainers, and NGOs to promote sustainable forest landscapes through monitoring and effective land-use planning for conservation, restoration and production. Involvement comes mostly from MNCs and large Brazilian corporations, but there are also efforts to engage smaller out growers (from plantation owners to end retailers). BBOP is global in scope and used mainly by developers of large capital projects. However, like the SFMI, there are some pilot projects led by SMEs and, according to the BBOP Program Director, there are plans to make offset methodologies more user-friendly for SMEs in the future and there is a goal over 2009-2011 to work with new industry sectors (e.g. agriculture and retail) “from cradle to grave”.

5.4.17 Both projects for which we received feedback rated themselves very similarly across the effectiveness criteria. With ‘complete – ‘extensive’ focus on biodiversity, both tools were deemed ‘very useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business. Having said



this, recognition and frequency of use for these two tools was not as high as for others already discussed for this sector e.g. BBOP is quite new so “recognition is growing fast… with enormous growth in the private and policy sectors between 2007 and 2009”. In addition, it is felt that forthcoming publications should help communicate the tool further. It was felt that both tools are ‘moderately user-friendly’ e.g. BBOP has a principles-based approach allowing individual users to select the method best suited to them. In both cases, a full set of indicators are used to monitor outcomes and the SFMI reports on project activities to its donors.

5.4.18 At the short list stage, the UK Forest Partnership for Action was also identified as a key tool for protecting biodiversity and influencing business (for more information, see Case Study). In addition, the World Bank and WWF came together to form the Forest Alliance, which works with governments, the private sector and civil society to create new protected areas of forestry, improve the management of existing protected areas and promote independent certification of the world’s production forests.

5.5 Conclusions 5.5.1 Compared to other sectors, there is an extensive and well disseminated body of tools and

initiatives promoting biodiversity in the forestry and paper sector. The ‘short list’ stage identified a wide range of delivery mechanisms, including advisory services, controls and regulations, grants, certification schemes, networks and forums, participatory schemes, partnerships and projects. The desk review did not reveal many other tools such as checklists, publications and guidance notes compared to other sectors e.g. construction and building, although it is believed that these do exist for the sector. Arguably the forestry / paper sector (with its very direct link to biodiversity) is governed more by the ‘harder’ more ‘direct’ regulations, certification schemes, codes of conduct, partnerships etc. than perhaps the construction sector, which has arguably less ‘direct’ impacts on green infrastructure (and biodiversity).

5.5.2 A large number of well-known and well recognised certification schemes were identified, including the Forest Stewardship Council UK’s ‘Forest Management and Chain of Custody Certification’, the PEFC Council’s ‘Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes’, the Soil Association’s ‘Woodmark’, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative’s SFI Label and the UK Woodland Assurance Standard. All of these schemes have direct links to biodiversity (being the forestry / paper sector) and had a strong focus on protecting biodiversity and influencing business. In addition, these certification schemes were overall assessed as having good ‘recognition’, some nationally (e.g. the UK Woodland Assurance Standard) and some internationally (e.g. PEFC Council), reaching out to a significant portion of both SMEs and MNCs in the forestry and paper sector. For example, there are currently 65 million ha of forest certified to the SFI standard across over 700 organisations. The feedback suggested that certification schemes are very useful tools for protecting biodiversity and influencing business on a large scale e.g. according to the FSC “forest certification has helped forest managers / owners to consider and to include ecological issues in forest management planning”. However, the point was also raised by the UK Woodland Assurance Standard that there is a low uptake amongst the smallest owners, due to the certification process being quite complex and expensive to join.

5.5.3 Partnerships and projects are also a key tool in the forestry / paper sector for protecting biodiversity and influencing business. Forest Trends’ Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (which will be discussed further in the cross-sector chapter), the Forestry



Commission’s ‘UK Forest Partnership for Action’ and CELB’s ‘Forest Mosaics Initiative’, are just a few examples of successful partnership models which actively pull together industry stakeholders to work together towards a common goal. As an example, the FMI brings together pulp and paper companies, personal care product producers and retailers, and NGOs to promote sustainable forest landscapes. The FMI and BBOP both commented that, while most involvement is currently from MNCs, there are great efforts being made to try and engage smaller enterprises e.g. in the BBOP case, by making offset methodologies more user-friendly for SMEs in the future. In addition, BBOP has a goal over 2009-2011 to work with new industry sectors (e.g. agriculture and retail) “from cradle to grave”. Engagement of this kind at the SME scale could be encouraged and promoted.

5.5.4 It was promising to identify numerous networks and forums. From the WWF’s international UK Forest and Trade Network, to the national Forestry Commission’s England and Biodiversity Group, to the regional West Midlands Biodiversity Partnership’s Trees, Woods and Forests Task Group, there are a wide range of groups at all scales that encourage collaboration between leading stakeholders over the common goal to improve the management of the world’s forests and thus ultimately protect biodiversity. In addition, through networks and forums, outreach to and influence over business is strengthened e.g. WWF’s UK Forest and Trade Network use the purchasing power influence of UK businesses to bring about change.

5.5.5 Numerous other tools / initiatives were also identified, including an advisory scheme (FFI’s Step-by-step approach to Biodiversity Action Planning), a control / regulation tool (the Woodland Trust’s ‘Woodwatch’ campaign), a grant scheme (Forestry Commission’s ‘English Woodland Grant Scheme) and a participatory scheme (the ‘Responsible Purchasing Policy’). This list of additional tools shows that the forestry / paper sector has a wide range of different mechanisms for protecting biodiversity. Furthermore, these are of a substantial scale e.g. the English Woodland Grant Scheme is funded by the exchequer and the EU at a total cost of almost £30m per year. These were assessed by respondents as having ‘universal recognition’ of the grant within the forest / woodland sector and approximately 20% of woodlands are in the scheme. For other (perhaps lesser known) schemes, the potential for expansion is being explored e.g. the Responsible Purchasing Policy Manager (at the Timber Trade Federation) stated that the policy, currently focused on TTF members in the UK, “could be extended to other sectors and used as a model for other European countries to follow”. The policy has been cited as good industry practice by Government Officers and Ministers in relation to the UK Government Timber Procurement Policy.

5.5.6 Our conclusions and recommendations in relation to the forestry and paper sector are summarised in Table 6.

Table 6: Conclusions and recommendations for the forestry and paper sector


The research identified a wide range of mechanisms, particularly certification schemes. Other mechanisms identified included the United Kingdom Forestry Standard (UKFS) and associated Forestry Guidelines including advice on forests and biodiversity48 and HaRPPS (Habitats and Rare, Priority and Protected Species), an internet-based system that provides access to information

48 Forestry Commission (2009). Forests and Biodiversity Guidelines: Consultation Draft July 2009 [online] available at: http://www.forestry.gov.uk/pdf/FCGL001consultation.pdf/$FILE/FCGL001consultation.pdf (accessed 26 November 2009).



about particular species and habitats and the opportunities and threats from forest management.


There are several well known forest certification schemes, for example, the UK Woodland Assurance Standard against which fifty per cent of all UK woodland and eighty per cent of the timber harvest is certified. According to the Forest Stewardship Council, “forest certification has helped forest managers / owners to consider and to include ecological issues in forest management planning”.


It proved difficult to establish the level of take-up across the sector; however, a respondent from the UK Woodland Assurance Standard pointed out that while the uptake for larger enterprises to join the scheme is high, there is a low uptake amongst the smallest owners, due to the relative complexity of the process.


A wide range of tools are available to the forestry and paper sector, particularly certification schemes. However, concern has been expressed that the uptake of certification schemes is lower amongst the smallest owners, due to the complexity of the process.


• Provide support and guidance for smaller scale forest owners and managers.



6 Utilities

6.1 Introduction 6.1.1 This chapter details our findings in relation to the utilities sector and is organised around the

following sections:







6.2.1 Electricity, gas and water (supply and treatment) are supplied to the UK consumer by utilities companies in a competitive market. The industry is subject to tight independent regulation and numerous other bodies monitor and advise the sub-sector. The water industry is divided into 12 regional water and sewerage companies (see figure 3 below) and additional companies operate in a water-only capacity. Water UK represents the industry at national and European level. On a daily basis the UK water industry collects, treats and supplies over 16 billion litres of water to domestic and commercial customers, then collects and treats over 10 billion litres of wastewaters.49 Collectively, the water companies invest over £94 million in maintaining and improving services and have an annual turnover of £9.2 billion.50

6.2.2 The water sector deals with the collection, treatment and distribution of water. The infrastructure required for this includes numerous physical assets e.g. reservoirs, mains, sewers and treatment works in addition to operational equipment such as pumps, remote monitoring, control systems etc. Climate change is seen as a big threat to the sustainability of water services, due to vulnerabilities posed by droughts, intense rainfall and flooding. The water industry is governed by strong regulation from national sources and EU directives, which protect the value of water services e.g. economy, water quality, wastewater services, well-being, water system health, clean beaches, wildlife, resources, flood prevention etc.

6.2.3 Over 18 energy companies supply the UK, most of which offer both electricity and gas.51 14 companies run regional electricity networks in the UK. Under license by Ofgem, four companies own and operate the energy transmission networks which are fully interconnected, and 14 Distribution Network Operators (DNOs) and four licensed Independent Distribution Network Operators (IDNOs) operate in England, Wales and Scotland.

49 See: Water UK Waterfacts: The water industry today [online] available at: http://www.water.org.uk/home/resources-and-links/waterfacts/waterindustry (accessed 17 April 2009) 50 See: Ofwat website [online] available at: www.ofwat.gov.uk (accessed 17 April 2009) 51 See: The Electricity Guide [online] available at: www.electricity-guide.org.uk (accessed 17 April 2009)



Figure 3: The UK water and sewerage regional division52

6.2.4 The UK gas infrastructure comprises the national transmission system (including nationwide pipeline and compressor stations), power stations, a small number of large industrial consumers and twelve local distribution zones that operate within eight distribution networks. Four companies own the local gas distribution networks.53 It is also subject to numerous national and European regulations. Ofgem, as a regulator, is “committed to doing what we can to address climate change”, with sustainable development an enhanced remit following the 2008 Energy Act. Low carbon energy is a key challenge and commitment for the energy sector, and other regulatory drivers include the Renewables Obligation, Climate Change Levy exemptions and the Carbon Emission Reduction Target. The 2008 Sustainable Development Commission (SDC) review of Ofgem’s role acknowledged the Government’s Sustainable Development Strategy Securing the Future (2005) five principles of sustainable development, of which ’Living within environmental limits’ includes “Respecting the limits of the planet’s

52 Taken from Water UK (2007). See: http://www.water.org.uk/home/our-members/a4-the-uk-water-industry-map-0908.pdf (accessed 17 April 2009) 53 See: Ofgem website [online] available at: www.ogem.gov.uk (accessed 17 April 2009)



environment, resources and biodiversity – to improve our environment and ensure that the natural resources needed for life are unimpaired and remain so for future generations”.54

6.2.5 The whole sector, therefore, has many challenges relating to climate change and thus indirectly associated biodiversity – many of which are related to national and European regulations. The complexity of large infrastructure requirements onsite and for distribution, owned and operated in a competitive environment by numerous organisations, also creates a direct onsite environmental and biodiversity impact.

Making the link

6.2.6 In addition to the link between energy and water consumption and climate change concerns is a far more direct link between onsite biodiversity and utility company operations. Much of the land occupied by energy utilities has an intrinsic biodiversity value. In particular, many sites are remote with restricted access and often not under intensive agricultural management, and are thus a refuge for (often rare) species and habitats. Indeed, many utility companies own or have infrastructure located on or adjacent to land designated as SSSIs.

6.2.7 Statutory protected sites and the responsibility of owning and operating utilities infrastructure where there is onsite biodiversity value have resulted in the enforcement of numerous regulatory drivers for the utility sector (both water and electricity). Examples of international, European and national legislation relating to biodiversity and relevant to the utilities sector include:

• Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act (NERC) Act 2006 s40 ‘Duty to conserve biodiversity’;

• Section 3 of the Water Industry Act (1991) and the Code of Practice for Conservation Access and Recreation has a ‘duty’ to “further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest”;

• Responsibilities under the Wildlife and Countryside Act and Habitats Regulations;

• EIA regulations and legislation for protection of specific habitats and species;

• The Water Framework Directive (WFD), which builds on the 1995 UK Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) process, will require companies to achieve quality standards by 2012 based on the ecology as well as chemical water quality of their rivers, estuaries and coastal waters.

• Section 106 agreements and the planning process – provides another means for biodiversity management and enhancement onsite.

6.2.8 The energy and water markets are competitive and in addition to regulatory drivers there is also a consumer driver. The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee Biodiversity report, commenting on evidence supplied by Water UK, stated in relation to the water sector that:

“The water companies have got very involved in championing the process and a number of species have benefited. Of course this is not mere altruism; the firms make effective use of their actions in advertising

54 SDC (2007) Lost In Transmission: The role of Ofgem in a changing climate [online] available at: http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications/downloads/SDC_ofgem_report%20(2).pdf (accessed 17 April 2009)



material to emphasise that they are responsible businesses. We see no problem with this: indeed any promotion of environmental performance as a competitive parameter is to be welcomed.”55

6.2.9 The Biodiversity Policies for utility companies outline the business value from protecting onsite biodiversity. Such benefits may encourage companies to go beyond minimum requirements and may include:56

• Operational

• Enhanced operations e.g. improved water quality or quantity or lowered costs;

• Solutions for operational problems; and

• Minimizing maintenance costs / cost effectiveness;

• Enhancing and adding value to redundant and/or contaminated land or run off

• Communications

• Good relations with local authorities and communities through partnerships and goodwill schemes;

• Enhanced quality of life for employees and customers – engagement opportunities;

• Customer & prospective/current employee appeal;

• Avoiding health and safety and liability proceedings;

• Better planning and minimised disruption to project planning if the biodiversity/environmental information has been addressed and is fully understood;

• Increased competitiveness

• Staff and business development – skill retention and development of skills in-house;

• Meeting stakeholder expectations and assisting in negotiations;

• Increased ability to win international and national contracts.


6.3.1 The majority of biodiversity mechanisms for this sector have evolved as part of company best practice, partly in response to consumer pressure and the onsite benefits available from biodiversity management (see context), but predominantly in response to policy drivers and statutory obligations requiring biodiversity to be taken in to account.

6.3.2 Not all utility companies were contacted in relation to this project; rather, our shortlist comprised of contacts from the previous Cokeliss (2005) research, contacts that were made known to us and companies that we identified through research. These companies are mainly UK and, in some cases, regionally based. Water UK, the Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) and the Energy Institute are exceptions that were contacted in relation to institutional mechanisms for policy, standard-setting and research.

55 ETRA (2000) The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee Biodiversity report [online] available at: http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/etrahome.htm (accessed 17 April 2009) 56 Adapted from United Utilities Biodiversity Policy. See: http://www.unitedutilities.com/3132.htm (accessed 17 April 2009)



6.3.3 Our research identified 49 mechanisms in a non-exhaustive ‘long list’ (see Volume 2) for the utilities sector. It should be noted, however, that biodiversity focus and business relevance of these mechanisms varied between mechanisms. This includes a number of institutions / networks and forums that were included as part of the original Cokeliss (2005) list but that, following investigation, were assigned limited or no biodiversity focus. They were kept on the list owing to their potential to provide a vocal platform for biodiversity.

6.3.4 Having established our ‘long list’, we then put together a ‘short list’ (see Appendix 2), comprised of 12 organisations and groups (some of which had more than one tool or initiative – there are therefore 31 identified ‘mechanisms’ from a potentially longer list).




Short list table


Effectiveness table


Table 7: Measures of effectiveness of the utilities shortlisted mechanisms57 Mechanism Geog.



Cost & Funding

Timescale Bio focus Communicability Frequency of use Usefulness Ease of execution / usability

Monitoring

EDF Energy – NETMAP - GIS Tools

national MNC Mainly used within the Networks business, but available to all staff with only the ability to view the information & query content via intranet

U/K N/A Extensive –recently upgraded the system to improve coverage of biodiversity issues

Limited recognition – currently bespoke to EDF Energy, although its Alliance Partners are given access to the system when working on its behalf. Also make available to other utility networks or

Widely used – daily Very useful Simple – the environment layer is always switched on & by default the planner/designer for the Network can see features of interest

None – No monitoring data collected by EDF. Success would be if no one complains about activities




interested stakeholders information relating to the location of its network assets & equipment

Energy Institute – Chartered Environmentalist accreditation

Global MNC & SME – Anyone working in any context may be eligible to apply

Likely to apply only to those directly working in an environmental role

Annual subscription is around £35 per annum but there is an application fee payable to go through the process to attain the recognition

Can be as littled as two months between application & award

Moderate – Knowledge & understanding of Biodiversity is one of the key competences that is assessed but there are many other aspects of environmentalism & sustainability besides

Some recognition – Likely to become much more widely recognised as demand grows

Used by some – Likely to become much more widely recognised as demand grows

Very useful –Provides a peer reviewed method of ensuring high standards & knowledge of the individual who holds the award

Simple – Competence based assessment

Monitoring – The individual holding the award is monitored periodically via CPD returns. Difficult to say what is the ultimate impact on biodiversity

Energy Institute – EI Awards

Global MNC & SME

Entrants can come from any part of the energy industry - from direct suppliers to end users & parts of the supply chain

There is no fee for entry but the award is sponsored

Applications are invited every year until June/July. The judging takes place in September & the Awards ceremony takes place in November

Moderate – Some projects submitted for the Award are very focused on biodiversity but there is a wide range of other environmental factors that could form the basis of an entry

Some recognition – Well known amongst the EI's members and customer base but entries do occasionally come from beyond that reach

Widely used – The winners will often use the Award in their own publicity/promotions etc

Very useful –Will certainly influence business but impact on [bio]diversity will depend on the nature of the project submitted

Simple – Awards entry is by means of a 1000 word explanation of the project and its aims, objectives, benefits & ultimate impact

-

United Utilities National Other – To date the mechanism

N/A - currently being piloted

Pilot is designed to determine

N/A Complete – The process is designed to

Limited recognition – there has been

Limited/no uptake –Current use reflects status as a pilot

Very useful –the process / mechanism

Moderately user-friendly –the reporting

Monitoring & indicators – Indicators



/ process is tailored specifically to operational sites within United Utilities. It is sufficiently generic however to be used in any organisation

within United Utilities

the costs and benefits of active biodiversity management

assess site biodiversity and develop biodiversity management plans

limited sharing of the process / mechanism, specifically with Cheshire Region Biodiversity Partnership

project on 6 United Utilities sites

will support the discharge of UU's Biodiversity Duty under the NERC Act & inform business benefits (& costs) associated with active biodiversity management

mechanisms are relatively simple but assume ecological knowledge in undertaking assessment & developing / prioritising management actions

are incorporated into the survey reporting process, providing a benchmark against which further survey outputs can be assessed




6.4.1 The majority of biodiversity mechanisms for this sector have evolved in-house as part of company best practice, partly in response to consumer pressure, but predominantly in response to policy drivers and statutory obligations requiring biodiversity to be taken in to account. The shortlist includes several UK-based (and often regional) utility companies, all of which have independently developed similar mechanisms for meeting the same statutory obligations, but the methods for doing so are often unique. The different companies have also developed numerous other mechanisms as part of company best practice and often going beyond minimum requirements. Thus, although only 12 organisations were contacted, this was in relation to 31 mechanisms.

6.4.2 Water UK, the Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) and the Energy Institute are exceptions that were contacted in relation to institutional mechanisms for policy, standard-setting, awards and research.

6.4.3 The shortlisted mechanisms were loosely categorised by delivery mechanism and the following identifies those that are the most active and relevant in promoting biodiversity to business58. The mechanisms were split from parent company and compared alongside other similar mechanisms with regards to category and delivery. A summary of key points from the short-list follows:

• The utilities sector is typified by examples of company best practice which may be loosely grouped as institutional mechanisms or as policy given that they respond to statutory requirements and refer to company policy:

• EDF Energy – Biodiversity Policy

• Northumbrian Water – Biodiversity Strategy

• RWE npower – Biodiversity Framework

• Scottish Power – Biodiversity Approach and Windfarm Sustainable Development Strategy and Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

• Severn Trent Water – Company Best Practice

• Thames Water – Company Best Practice / Biodiversity Policy

• United Utilities – Biodiversity Policy

• Yorkshire Water – Biodiversity Strategy

• A second institutional categorisation for this sector is of non-business groups acting as networks & forums, advisory bodies, and research institutes: the Energy Institute; the Power Plant Research Program (PPRP); Water UK; and the Argonne National Laboratory for the Electric Power Research Institute – which provides access to publications such as ‘Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating Potential Operational Impacts of Cooling Water Intake Structures: Approaches for Enhancing Environmental Resources’ (2003). These




institutions can also provide technical qualifications and accreditation, such as the Energy Institute’s Chartered Environmentalist accreditation.

• Many of the companies either have or are developing technical mechanisms in the form of GIS software and tools to ascertain biodiversity impact e.g. EDF Energy’s NETMAP - GIS Tools; Thames Water – GIS and associated databases and Yorkshire Water’s – GIS-based biodiversity tool. Northumbrian Water – ZEBRA (Zones of Environmental and Biodiversity Risk Assessment) – a risk assessment or checklist tool – to ascertain biodiversity impact.

• Water UK also produces Sustainability Indicators – technical measures that utilise a checklist method to ascertain industry progress. Some utility companies have assisted in these measures through efforts that could be described as philanthropic – going above and beyond statutory obligations – using onsite expertise and resources to develop and implement technical mechanisms such as Northumbrian Water’s Wetland Bird Indicators and Wildlife surveys. United Utilities also supports industry measures through the Sustainable Catchment Management Programme (SCaMP).

• Philanthropic awards in existence have limited biodiversity focus, an example being the EI Awards hosted by the Energy Institute. Philanthropic measures carried out by companies – going beyond statutory obligations or engaging consumers in company PR and CSR – include activities such as:

• Northumbrian Water – Biodiversity Annual Focus – project and training

• Northumbrian Water – National Champions – voluntary measure

• Scottish Power – The Kintyre project – project / research

• Severn Trent Water – Outdoor recreation sites – voluntary measure

• Northumbrian Water – ‘Using water wisely at home and work’ – publication of guidance for customers

• Discursive is a broad category of mechanisms that is distinctly lacking in this business sector compared to others. The only notable exception in the shortlist is Northumbrian Water’s business and biodiversity seminars. Although several utility companies have formed partnerships, for example with local wildlife organisations or local authorities, the same does not appear to be true between companies.

6.4.4 For each tool or initiative identified at the ‘short list’ stage, a data capture form was sent out to the key contact person (identified at the ‘long list’ stage). Data capture forms were emailed to 12 organisations and groups in the shortlist in relation to 31 tools and initiatives. There was a poor response rate for the utilities sector compared to other sectors, with responses from 6 organisations (3 of which were utility companies) with 4 completed forms and 3 responses in a format other than a data capture form, analysed in the section below.


Institutional / policy – company best practice

6.4.5 The majority of biodiversity mechanisms for the utilities sector have evolved in-house as part of company best practice, partly in response to consumer pressure, competitively and potential onsite benefits, but predominantly in response to policy drivers and statutory obligations requiring biodiversity to be taken in to account. These policy drivers are regional (to the local infrastructure site), national and international, and may apply to some or all of the utility sub-sectors (gas, electricity and water).



6.4.6 It is questionable whether the utilities sector would have such strong biodiversity focus and the development of such a broad range of mechanisms were it not for these policy drivers. The statutory requirements address biodiversity impacts that are localised and onsite, as is characteristic for this sector, and as such regulatory drivers have supported the development of in-house expertise for each utility company. Moreover, global supply chain impacts are arguably less significant to companies that produce a primary resource (e.g. electricity or water) onsite, and where consumers have limited choice in where their energy and water needs are sourced. This is particularly apparent when considering other business sectors where these concerns are of great importance and therefore where mechanisms include (often sector-wide) partnerships, discursive bodies and institutional bodies etc.

6.4.7 Of the eight utility companies contacted only three responded – EDF Energy in the energy sector (with completed data capture forms) and Thames Water and United Utilities in the water sector. EDF Energy, United Utilities and Thames Water all have a regularly updated company ‘Biodiversity Policy’, a commonality for utility companies, in addition to Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). EDF recognises the importance of “branch-specific Biodiversity Actions Plans (BAPs) – each one focused on ways to maintain and improve biodiversity by mapping potential risks and ensuring they are managed effectively”.59 This has also influenced the development of several technical tools in order to assist in this mapping and assessment.

6.4.8 Although regulatory drivers are a key factor in the development of assessment tools and company biodiversity policies, there is a business value in addressing biodiversity that the resultant in-house expertise and resource base can capitalise upon through numerous other business mechanisms. Incentives exist in terms of PR and CSR (e.g. competitively with other utility companies) and onsite benefits (e.g. where savings can be made or product quality improved) of going beyond meeting minimum statutory requirements. The various business mechanisms that have consequently been developed arise in-house through company expertise and resources, and enhance: the ease of meeting biodiversity policy; the number of biodiversity benefits to the company (e.g. lower maintenance costs); the potential for PR and CSR gains; competitiveness, and; the means of communicating best practice to the public. As a respondent, Thames Water commented that: “it greatly assists the business to have in-house expertise in biodiversity”.

Institutional – networks & forums, advisory, research, publications

6.4.9 It is possible to construct a second level of institutional categorisation for this sector, comprising non-business groups representing industry needs more widely. These bodies are important networks and forums in terms of their advisory capacity with regard to policy changes and guidelines that need to be adhered to by utility companies, and in terms of advising the consumer. However, as previously stated, these sector-wide institutions appear to have less influence in biodiversity terms compared to other sectors e.g. food and leisure, and this is reflected in a smaller number of institutions with a more general and less specialised remit. Rather, most of the biodiversity requirements for utility companies are policy-driven for local sites (thus negating supply chain impacts and the importance of geographic-reach) and these needs are fulfilled with company in-house expertise and bespoke-designed mechanisms and technical tools. This is also reflected in the large number of utility company contacts and mechanisms in the short list, and the small number of representative organisations and related mechanisms.

59 See EDF Biodiversity Policy



6.4.10 Water UK represents the water industry at national and European level. A respondent from Water UK commented that: “The water industry has a significant impact on biodiversity and spends a lot of time/money working to improve this.” Although many mechanisms develop in-house, sector representatives can also play a role in encouraging sector-wide partnerships and mechanisms, and thus play a vital role in engaging major utility companies to encourage a coordinated approach and knowledge-sharing. The water industry does this through the development of Sustainability Indicators – technical measures that utilise a checklist method to ascertain industry progress, about which it engages water companies and capitalises upon in-house and localised expertise. Other levels of engagement include through e.g. wetland bird indicators and wildlife surveys, as developed by Northumbrian Water with regional and national conservation organisations. Water for Wildlife is an example of a coordinated water industry effort that was identified subsequent to short-listing, and this highlights a useful national partnership that engages numerous water companies and encourages best practice sharing specifically in relation to biodiversity (see case study).60

Case study: Water for Wildlife Water for Wildlife co-ordinates the wetland work of The Wildlife Trusts and was established to support wetland conservation across the UK through a more consistent and targeted approach. It is a partnership between The Wildlife Trusts, water companies, the Environment Agency and other key partners. Activities include the support of national and regional project development, raising the profile of wetland conservation, and encouraging sharing of best practice between the trusts and their partners. Originally intended to run from 2004-7, funding for the project has been extended to 2010 and has increased support from more of the large water-only companies in England. The project is addressing the need for conservation resources to meet water industry needs in their next planning round of AMP5 for 2010-15.

The resourcing for this project comes from the partnership. In 2007/8, almost £240,000 of funding came from the Environment Agency, £360,000 from the water industry, and match funding of £820,000 from other sources. In addition, there were nearly 5,000 volunteer days by local people through the Wildlife Trusts. This partnership approach achieved the maintenance or restoration of 9,5000ha of wetlands, the protection or restoration of 750 km of rivers, 1,900 otter surveys and 1,600 water vole surveys, and walks and talks with participation totalling over 10,000 people.

6.4.11 The role of large institutional bodies, therefore, may be seen in a monitoring and advisory capacity, but also in a sector-wide research role. Research streams in the electricity industry were identified in the USA as interesting ventures that could be replicated:

• The Power Plant Research Program (PPRP) in Maryland was established to ensure that Maryland meets its electricity demands at reasonable costs while protecting the State's valuable natural resources. To this end, it provides a continuing program for evaluating electric generation issues and recommending responsible, long-term solutions. It instigated three initiatives to address the potential impacts of power generation and transmission on biodiversity and to facilitate increased biodiversity management and restoration activities by electric utilities: Biodiversity Partnerships with the Electric Industry; DNR Conference on Biodiversity; Mapping of Biodiversity Hotspots in Maryland.

60 For more information on Water for Wildlife, see: http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/index.php?section=environment:wfw



• The Electric Power Research Institute – a research organisation of the US power industry – responded to a query in relation to publications that it makes available online, specifically to the Argonne National Laboratory 2003 publication: ‘Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating Potential Operational Impacts of Cooling Water Intake Structures: Approaches for Enhancing Environmental Resources’. This was “intended to evaluate voluntary ecological restoration approaches that could serve to mitigate the effects on aquatic organisms caused by entrainment and impingement at cooling water intakes” and was prepared to “help power companies identify mechanisms for enhancement/restoration” at a time when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was preparing detailed regulations for cooling water intakes at power plants. These regulations have since been returned to the EPA for addition work following a court ruling upon the EPA being sued over the regulations. Thus the respondent states that: “As a result, the information in our report has not had much opportunity to be put to work”.

6.4.12 Another role played by sector-wide institutional bodies is that of technical qualifications and accreditation, for example the Energy Institute (EI) is one of a number of bodies that can award the Chartered Environmentalist accreditation. According to an EI respondent, this global accreditation for MNCs and SMEs is “a professional grade of registration granted by the Society of the Environment through which we have a licence to award. It is awarded on the basis of qualifications and experience of an individual who works in an environmental field.” It is the Society for the Environment’s role to set the standards and grant licences to the professional institutions that award it. Although biodiversity is “one of the key competences that is assessed … there are many other aspects of environmentalism and sustainability” and it was assessed to have a “moderate” biodiversity focus. There is good potential for uptake of this award and it was assessed as being “very useful” in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business: it “Provides a peer reviewed method of ensuring high standards and knowledge of the individual who holds the award” and accredited individuals are monitored. This award can be achieved quite quickly in “as little as two months between application and award” – it is open to individuals working in any context, both SMEs and MNCs – and is a “simple” assessment. EI only began to award the grade in 2008, the respondant stating that it is “Likely to become much more widely recognised as demand grows”, thus it was assessed, potentially only temporarily, as only “some recognition” and “used by some”.

Technical – GIS software, tools, risk assessment, checklist

6.4.13 As stated above, most technical business mechanisms are created not through large institutions, but through in-house expertise and resources within the utility companies for onsite purposes not only to ease the meeting of statutory requirements, but also for business value e.g. planning. It is therefore unsurprising that several utility companies are separately working on tools to ascertain biodiversity impact e.g. EDF Energy’s NETMAP – GIS Tools; Thames Water – GIS and associated databases and Yorkshire Water’s – GIS-based biodiversity tool; Northumbrian Water’s – ZEBRA (Zones of Environmental and Biodiversity Risk Assessment).

6.4.14 EDF Energy completed a data capture form for its NETMAP system, which takes publically available output from Natural England, MAGIC and OS Maps/Photos to assist with Biodiversity desk top assessments, and produces an electronic ‘layered format’ picture of the network based on an OS map, including cables, SSSIs, and features such as ponds and landfills. The system has been operating since 2004 and is now being updated to include NBN Gateway and aerial photographs. It highlights sensitivities which may impact on the company’s work. According to EDF: “Desktop interrogation of these layers sometimes goes much further than the law requires.” The respondant for EDF stated that it has an “extensive” biodiversity focus



and that the system has recently been upgraded to improve coverage of biodiversity issues. The respondant assessed the tool as “very useful” in terms of protecting biodiversity and “simple” to use: “The environment layer is always switched on, and by default the planner/designer for the Network can see features of interest”. The benefit of tools designed in-house is that they can be made bespoke for purpose, making them easy to use and with the option of staff training and continual research and development post-implementation.

6.4.15 It is important to note that, as with many of these in-house tools, this tool is only available to EDF staff (to view information and query content via intranet) and mainly used within the Networks business (on a daily basis), and so it has a “limited recognition”. Although the tool is “bespoke to EDF Energy at the moment”, the respondant stated that EDF’s Alliance Partners are given access to the system when they working on the company’s behalf, and that EDF “make available to other utility networks or interested stakeholders information relating to the location of our network assets and equipment”.

6.4.16 United Utilities (UU) responded with a completed data capture form for its “complete” biodiversity focus Operational Site Biodiversity Management mechanism “designed to assess site biodiversity and develop biodiversity management plans”.

“This mechanism / process has been devised to assist in the identification and subsequent management of biodiversity features (species and habitats) on operational sites within the United Utilities estate. It is currently deployed as part of a biodiversity pilot project on 6 sites.”

6.4.17 It is a 5-step process – including use of criteria (proximity to area of natural designation, future site plans, known biodiversity features and site size), ecological site survey with an in-house template (benchmark against which to measure site biodiversity improvement / deterioration), and a Site Biodiversity Action Plan – and is supported by a Biodiversity Toolkit (under development) comprising online resources, guidance for field staff, best practice sharing etc. The individual site survey summaries can also be summated to provide an overall view of biodiversity across UU operational assets. Given the assumption of ecological knowledge, it was assessed by the respondent as “moderately useful” but with a “simple” reporting system. The tool is monitored with indicators incorporated into the survey reporting process acting as a “benchmark” against which further survey outputs can be assessed.

6.4.18 According to UU: “This information is likely to be of value to external interested parties, including local authorities, in delivering on regional biodiversity targets”. However, to date there has been “limited sharing of the process / mechanism, specifically with Cheshire Region Biodiversity Partnership”. This, again, highlights the issue of whether the information is made publically available, and also the ground-level local significance of mechanisms within the utilities sector. It also highlights the issue of tool-sharing between utility companies, with several tools under development at different companies but for similar purposes.

6.4.19 As with EDF’s NETMAP system, the mechanism is tailored specifically to operational sites within United Utilities, but interestingly the respondant notes that: “It is sufficiently generic however to be used in any organisation”. Although the cost of the tool is not specified, this may be negligible given that the tool is “designed to determine the costs and benefits of active biodiversity management” and may thus result in savings. Additionally, it was assessed by the respondent as being “very useful” as it “will support the discharge of UU's Biodiversity Duty under the NERC Act and inform business benefits (and costs) associated with active biodiversity management”.



Case study: Northumbrian Water Northumbrian Water (NW) provides water and sewerage services to 2.6 million customers in the north east of England, and also water only services to 1.7 million in the south east (as Essex and Suffolk Water). The company has a dedicated conservation team and its chairman maintains involvement and support for the biodiversity initiatives. Biodiversity work is integrated with the company’s ISO 14000 Environmental Management System. Regional biodiversity work in carried out in partnership with the Wildlife Trusts, Natural England, the RSPB and local authorities. Through partnership it has developed its Biodiversity Strategy as a “comprehensive approach to conservation across the whole range of the company’s activities and sphere of influence”. Developed in 1996 and one of the first in the UK and Europe to be published in 1998, the Biodiversity Strategy is a coordinated programme of work to protect and enhance biodiversity through various mechanisms that include: Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) - Contains local targets for nature conservation. The BAP describes current status and potential threats to habitats and species on land owned by NW or affected by its operations. It sets targets and actions for NW and its partners. BAPs have been created for all key species and habitats identified. ZEBRA (Zones of Environmental and Biodiversity Risk Assessment) – Determines the risk to designated conservation areas from any accidents that might occur at one of the company's operational sites. Biodiversity annual focus – NW focus on one biodiversity topic each year, rotating between a species, a habitat and a specific activity such as training. A work program is drawn up and local groups are identified to work with towards BAP targets. This approach allows local, county and regional targets to be incorporated as well as wider national targets. It also allows NW to involve company staff in addition to partnership conservation organisations and other interested groups. The approach incorporates shared learning between business and conservation organisation. Wildlife surveys – Habitat surveys are carried out on all landholdings over 0.5Ha, including commenting on suitability of habitats for species not present. Detailed targeted surveys are also carried out on key sites and species. The information is used to guide conservation management. National Champions – For the Roseate Tern BAP (Britain’s rarest seabird) and the Round-mouthed Whorl Snail BAP (rare arctic snail). Wetland Bird Indicators – Developed by NW with DETR, BTO, and RSPB. Business and biodiversity seminars – Two organised in Durham and Chelmsford. Targeted specifically at local businesses, including production of a specific business plan for the Durham event. Using water wisely at home and work – A booklet targeted at local authorities and businesses and featuring biodiversity actions. Species and habitat specific projects – Several onsite projects e.g. building otter holts/islands and badger setts, reedbed creation, juniper planting, adding bird hides etc

Technical – conveyance of company best practice e.g. project, training, voluntary measure, research, publication

6.4.20 As stated, many biodiversity mechanisms have developed in-house. Although biodiversity policy is a commonality amongst utility companies, companies go beyond minimum requirements through the development of several other initiatives. These mechanisms are often



conveyed as best practice through company websites. Northumbrian Water (see case study) offers an example of how a range of mechanisms may develop in-house within one utility company in order to address biodiversity.61

6.4.21 Conveyance of company best practice and measures that go beyond minimum statutory requirements is important for company PR and competitiveness. Different mechanisms have therefore been developed for this purpose, but it is debatable how truly “philanthropic” and voluntary these efforts are, if the cost of going beyond maximum onsite gains and minimum legal requirements brings greater benefits through e.g. a competitive edge, lower maintenance costs etc. However, they do provide benefits to biodiversity as mechanisms and raise consumer awareness. Thames Water also stated in feedback received that:

“Public recognition of our projects benefiting biodiversity is good for business and our reputation with stakeholders and customers and reinforces the commitment to biodiversity management.”

6.4.22 In addition to mailing information to customers and putting information online, companies are keen to explore different mechanisms for conveying biodiversity advances. For example, Severn Trent Water maintains outdoor recreation sites for public use and Northumbrian Water publishes consumer guidance e.g. ‘Using water wisely at home and work’.

6.4.23 As mentioned, industry institutions often carry out sector research. The expertise and onsite resources within utility companies can contribute to this research and thus also capitalise upon for CSR. For example, Scottish Power is carrying out pioneering research into the interaction between birds of prey and its windfarms in its Kintyre project. Northumbrian Water is also National Champion for the Roseate Tern BAP (Britain’s rarest seabird) and the Round-mouthed Whorl Snail BAP (rare arctic snail). Northumbrian Water also rotates a Biodiversity Annual Focus between a species, a habitat and a specific activity (e.g. training) that includes drawing up a work program for the year and the identification of local groups identified to work with. Such measures also build upon staff development and engagement, and partnerships with local authorities, local wildlife organisations and communities.

Philanthropic – awards

6.4.24 Philanthropic awards in existence for the utilities sector have limited biodiversity focus, an example being the EI Awards hosted by the Energy Institute. This is an annual global award that the respondent’s feedback states is also relevant to the oil and gas sector, in addition to energy efficiency organisations, public sector and renewables companies. The award began in 2000 and is awarded by an independent judging panel of industry experts that is appointed by the EI. Although the biodiversity focus is assessed as “moderate” due to “a wide range of other environmental factors that could form the basis of an entry … Some projects submitted for the Award are very focused on biodiversity”:

“Environmental considerations are an increasingly important driving force for the energy industry and the sustainability of activities is key to success. The judges for this Award will consider projects and products that enhance environmental considerations, and will be looking for examples of intelligent and sustainable responses from the energy industry.”

6.4.25 An interesting aspect of the award is that “Entrants can come from any part of the energy industry - from direct suppliers to end users and parts of the supply chain”. Such award schemes, bringing in other business sectors, could work as an incentive for utility companies to address supply chains – the importance of which may be less acknowledged by this ‘localised

61 For more information on Northumbrian Water’s biodiversity strategy, see: http://www.nwl.co.uk/Biodiversity.aspx



onsite needs’ focused sector. Such an award scheme would need to be well-recognised as an incentive for company participation. The respondent states that there is “some recognition”, that the awards are particularly well-known amongst EI members and also “widely used”, “simple” and “very useful”.

6.4.26 Thames Water commented on the importance of awards to utility companies. Interestingly, it again highlighted the importance of policy as a driver and of company recognition:

“The Code of Practice for Conservation, Access and Recreation has been a driver over the years for planning biodiversity projects and acquiring funding for biodiversity enhancement projects. This is currently known as the Site Enhancement for Biodiversity Access (SEBA) project. This has enabled us to deliver a number of biodiversity projects, many winning awards and recognition for the business.”

Discursive – business and biodiversity seminars

6.4.27 Discursive is a broad category of mechanisms that our research suggests is distinctly lacking in this business sector compared to others. The only notable exception in the shortlist is Northumbrian Water’s business and biodiversity seminars. Northumbrian Water’s Biodiversity Annual Focus also includes the identification of local groups to work with. Such measures offer partnerships and discursive mechanisms and, although voluntary, are arguably not philanthropic given their value to business. By participating in the Sustainable Catchment Management Programme (SCaMP) United Utilities aims to “develop an integrated approach to catchment management incorporating sustainable upland farming which delivers a range of water quality, environmental and public goods”. In addition to helping UU meet statutory requirements (e.g. government targets for SSSIs and biodiversity plans for priority habitats and species) and helping improve raw water quality (thus minimising operational costs), it improves partnerships and offers a discursive mechanism with tenant farmers for mutual benefit.

6.4.28 Although there are many examples of partnerships and discursive mechanisms arising from in-house expertise and the conveyance of best practice to consumers, there are few incentives for discursive mechanisms that bring together different utility companies, and industry institutions do not appear to fill this role as in other business sectors e.g. food and leisure. Water for Wildlife is a notable exception of an industry-wide partnership that engages water companies. There may also be limited knowledge-sharing regarding GIS tools, research and development in-house for bespoke monitoring of biodiversity impacts and the identification of potential damage mitigation and biodiversity gains.

6.5 Conclusions 6.5.1 Local, onsite issues related to the location of utilities infrastructure are central to biodiversity

concerns within this sector. Water and power infrastructure is located to meet regional needs, not only does this limit consumer choice over resourcing, but it also limits the importance of global supply chain dynamics. It is unsurprising, therefore, that mechanisms such as certification schemes are less apparent within this sector.

6.5.2 Regulatory drivers are therefore of overriding importance to this sector and there are numerous drivers for utilities separately (e.g. water, gas and electricity) and as a whole sector. The need to assess biodiversity and meet regulatory requirements has led to the development of in-house expertise for many companies, and the development of similar tools for similar assessment purposes e.g. incorporating GIS or risk assessment software. They assist companies not only in meeting regulatory requirements, but they also allow for the



management of risks in planning and assist in the identification of costs/benefits. Many of these tools are currently being piloted.

6.5.3 The benefit of tools designed in-house is that they can be made bespoke for purpose, making them easy to use and with the option of staff training and continual research and development post-implementation. There is, however, an issue around whether information is made publically available and the importance of data for regional biodiversity targets and local authorities. Although partnerships with local authorities have developed, knowledge-sharing between utility companies is less apparent, and networking and shared learning opportunities exist.

6.5.4 In addition to assisting meeting regulatory requirements, there are benefits in going beyond minimum statutory requirements, and further drivers include the consumer and competition, and added business and operational value.

6.5.5 In-house resources and skills can also be capitalised upon for this purpose. In terms of added business and operational value, this may include staff training, employee satisfaction, planning, lowered operational costs from managing onsite biodiversity etc. Although consumer choice is limited for this sector, a competitive advantage is an added benefit in terms of conveying company best practice, such as through CSR, PR, public access to onsite wildlife, seminars and walks etc. In-house expertise also offers excellent partnership and research opportunities with local wildlife organisations and local authorities. This has led to the development of numerous mechanisms as part of wider company biodiversity programmes, again with similar mechanisms for similar tasks arising per company or with transferable elements that could be used as a model for development by other companies. The in-house expertise of companies offers the potential for regional partnerships and schemes with local authorities and wildlife organisations for research, projects and community outreach opportunities.

6.5.6 Although numerous tools develop on the ground within companies, given the localised onsite focus and associated in-house expertise of this sector, sector-wide institutions have a role to play in collectively addressing biodiversity concerns, encouraging best practice sharing and enhancing the achievements of utility companies. Overseas initiatives provide examples of a sector-wide role for research and the provision of publications and guidance with a biodiversity focus for the sector – this is also apparent in other business sectors, where specifically environment-focused networks and forums have developed. Sector-wide institutions are well-placed to liaise with utility companies and their local partnerships, utilise in-house expertise and co-ordinate national research to inform indicators etc. They are also well-placed as a discursive and roundtable tool for the development of criteria and the networking and knowledge-sharing of company in-house biodiversity experts. There is potential to increase biodiversity focus of sector institutions and networks and forums e.g. knowledge-sharing, publication of guidance, workshops etc. and to utilise institutions as a sector-wide discursive tool, to increase biodiversity research and regional partnerships and to support existing partnerships e.g. Water for Wildlife.

6.5.7 There is also potential within this sector to acknowledge the achievements of the utilities sector and thus encourage improvement and moving beyond minimum statutory requirements. This chapter highlights the role played by institutional bodies in terms of awarding Chartered Environmentalist accreditation and in terms of the EI awards, which both arguably lack a biodiversity focus.



6.5.8 The BTO – British Energy Business Bird Challenge highlights how an award scheme can enhance onsite birdlife through awareness-raising and open and acknowledged competition. Existing awards have potential for an increased biodiversity focus and there is potential to increase public and sector awareness of these awards e.g. through sector-wide institutions and the role of statutory consultees.

6.5.9 Our conclusions and recommendations in relation to the utilities sector are summarised in Table 8.

Table 8: Conclusions and recommendations for the utilities sector


Utility companies often own or occupy land with biodiversity value and, in response to regulatory requirements in particular, have developed company specific but essentially similar tools including biodiversity policies, frameworks and / or strategies. For example, EDF Energy has a biodiversity policy, RWE npower a biodiversity framework and Northumbrian Water a biodiversity strategy. RWE npower’s biodiversity framework includes a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) for every site.


It proved difficult to establish the effectiveness of the various policies, frameworks and strategies developed by utility companies as independent evaluations of these are not available. In theory, it should be possible to benchmark utility companies’ performance in terms of maintaining SSSIs in favourable or recovering condition (the current Water UK sustainability indicator focuses on water industry land holdings and is not reported on a company-by-company basis).


There is evidence of widespread development of company specific mechanisms which are nonetheless similar in scope and reflect the utilities’ land management role.


The mechanisms identified for the utilities sector have been developed partly in response to regulatory requirements and different companies’ schemes are similar in scope. The research did not identify any obvious gaps in coverage; however, the effectiveness of different companies’ mechanisms could be revealed through benchmarking performance.


• Investigate the possibility of benchmarking individual company performance (e.g. through Water UK or other relevant associations).

• Encourage utilities companies and other companies with responsibility for land management (e.g. minerals operators and Network Rail) to share best practice in relation to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity.

• Facilitate links, particularly on a local scale, between utility companies and wildlife management bodies.



7 Oil & Gas

7.1 Introduction 7.1.1 This chapter details our findings in relation to the oil and gas sector and is organised around

the following sections:



• Discussion – Summary of the mapping exercise, analysis of mechanisms

• Case studies




7.2.1 Today’s energy markets are dominated by fossil fuels, in particular oil and gas. Although other, cleaner energy sources, such as biofuels and renewables, are growing in both scale and scope to meet the world’s growing demand for energy whilst reducing our impacts on the environment; the oil and gas sector continues to be, and is foreseen to be, a key element in our energy mix for decades to come62.

7.2.2 The oil and gas industry benefits the UK considerably. It provides fuel for transportation and energy for homes and business, as well as forming the basis for many other everyday essentials such as pharmaceuticals and plastics. The industry supports approximately half a million jobs with around 380,000 involved in domestic production; 30,000 in oil and gas companies and major contractors, 260,000 in the wider supply chain, and 90,000 supported by indirect employment63. Approximately £240 billion has been invested in the UK oil and gas industry since 1960 and a further £18 billion is expected in new projects by the end of this decade. Since 1968, the UK economy has benefitted from around £230 billion in tax revenues (at 2006 prices)64.

7.2.3 The UK’s oil and gas reserves are declining although oil and gas from the UK continental shelf still provides around 70% of the nation’s total energy demand. It is forecast, however, that the UK will rely on oil and gas to supply approximately 80% of its energy demands in 2020, and by this time, indigenous supply will provide approximately only 60-65% of UK oil demand and 20-25% of UK gas demand. These developments will result in the UK being significantly more dependent on overseas energy imports to meet domestic energy demand. Subsequently, the environmental impacts of oil and gas exploration associated with the UK’s energy consumption

62 IPIECA and OGP (2006) Oil and Gas Sector Report Card, International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers. Available [online] at http://www.ipieca.org/activities/general/downloads/ipieca_ogp_report_card.pdf. 63 Oil and Gas UK (2009) Available [online] at http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/issues/economic/econ07/main/contribution-5.cfm. 64 Oil and Gas UK (2009) Available [online] at http://www.oilandgas.org.uk/issues/decommissioning/index.cfm.



will become more and more distant from the domestic market and the UK oil and gas industry’s influence in terms of the environmental preservation associated with domestic consumption could be diluted.

7.2.4 Biofuels are an increasingly important factor in the UK’s energy mix both in reducing the UK’s carbon emissions and in improving security of supply. Although domestic biofuel production is relatively small scale, certain government policies, such as the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation Programme (RTFO 2006), have spurned significant investment in biofuel cultivation and production and are designed to reduce the level of carbon emissions from UK road transport. The RTFO, for example, has placed an obligation on fuel suppliers to ensure that 5% of all fuel sold on UK forecourts by 2010 is to come from renewable sources starting with 2.5% in 2008 and 3.75% in 2009. For comparison, biofuel accounted for approximately 0.5% of all road fuel in 2006 and therefore this is equivalent to a ten fold increase in only four years.

7.2.5 Reports indicate that the companies within the oil and gas sector will increase investment in the biofuels area. The cultivation and production of biofuels aligns well with oil and gas companies existing business models of providing fuels, logistics, trading and branding. Furthermore, political will to increase the proportion of biofuels sold at the forecourt is also giving companies the green light to expand and further investment in biofuel technologies.

Making the link

7.2.6 The present world economic climate has temporarily put an end to spiralling energy costs, however, the long term trend is for a continual increase in energy costs as existing reserves and accessibility to these reserves decreases. Declining reserves and accessibility have resulted in oil and gas exploration moving further afield to remoter areas of the world which has resulted in potentially significant implications for biodiversity in these areas.

7.2.7 Key impacts of exploration in remote areas include land take and habitat disturbance, however, perhaps more important are the potential induced impacts facilitated by opening up these previously inaccessible areas through pipeline and transport route infrastructure. Such infrastructure can enable access to settlers, loggers and hunters inter alia, which could pose a threat to biodiversity within these regions. In addition, introducing such infrastructure to a previously undisturbed area can also fragment habitats and impact on migratory routes.

7.2.8 The exploration and exploitation of reserves in remote areas also increases transport distances and increased risk of leakages and accidents. The impact of an accident such as an oil spill in remote areas could have a greater impact on biodiversity than an impact in a more accessible location, due to the increased difficulty of the clean-up operations. Local climatic factors and/or operational constraints may also increase the risk of accident that could also impact biodiversity.

7.2.9 The growth of the biofuels sector has been identified as one of the “greatest environmental threats of the 21st century”65. Traditionally, agricultural development has always been one of the main drivers of encroachment into the natural environment and biodiversity sustaining ecosystems, however, recent trends towards biofuels have started to significantly change land-use patterns across the globe, in particular, in some of the world’s most sensitive and diverse regions.

65 IATP (2008) Biofuel and Global Biodiversity. Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy. Available [online] at http://www.agobservatory.org/library.cfm?refid=102584&bcsi_scan_F6892CABA15785B4=vbbrmWtpqEdmqg2VlG5GeFwAAAAPsAkW&bcsi_scan_filename=library.cfm.



7.2.10 As noted above, the expansion of biofuels has been driven by the complementary drivers of the increase in crude oil prices and national policies focussing on greater use of biofuels as a means to “reduce” carbon emissions. These elements, particularly in the European Union where there is limited opportunity to grow feedstock, have driven the expansion of the biofuel industry worldwide. The key feedstocks for the biofuel industry have principally focussed on conventional crops such as corn, sugarcane and palm which has had significant impacts on biodiversity. Furthermore, demand for biodiesel in the UK has also, for example, resulted indirectly in the loss of biodiversity overseas in the rainforests of Indonesia and Malaysia where palm oil plantations are rapidly taking root where rainforests once stood.

7.2.11 In summary, the key links between the oil and gas sector, biofuels and biodiversity include:

• The fragmentation and destruction of local habitats • Opening up of otherwise remote areas to illegal loggers, hunters, settlers • Increased risk of accidents through transportation of fuel from remote areas • Overdependence on monocultures and reduced crop rotation • Domestic policy’s indirect influence on international biodiversity loss

7.2.12 It should be noted, however, that some oil and gas companies and others within the sector are now looking at second and third generation biofuels, such as agricultural wastes and algal sources, to reduce or eliminate the use of biodiverse land to support biofuels crops.


7.3.1 The initial research identified over 60 tools, initiatives and good practice examples of biodiversity focussed initiatives in the oil and gas sector (including biofuels). The scope of the initiatives and hence the extent to which biodiversity was the “focus” varied across the different initiatives. Some initiatives such as the International Petroleum Industry Environmental conservation Association’s (IPICEA) ‘Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity for the Oil and Gas Industry’ have a complete focus whereas others, such as the International Association of Drilling Contractors have only a “limited” focus where biodiversity considerations were included within a wider context of general environmental conservation and protection.

7.3.2 We sent data capture forms to those organisations listed in the short list table (see Appendix 2) and have highlighted whether or not we received feedback. Those who returned completed data capture forms are listed in the table below where the effectiveness criteria of each tool and initiative are detailed. Some organisations and companies responded in a format other than a data capture form. Although these responses are not represented in the effectiveness table, we have considered this feedback and where appropriate, it is discussed in the ‘analysis of mechanisms’ and ‘conclusions’.



Short list table


Effectiveness table


Table 9: Measures of effectiveness of the oil & gas shortlisted mechanisms66 Mechanism Geog.



Cost & Funding



Monitoring

DEAL website

European Other – owned by CDA – a small organisation of less than 10, managed by BGS 800 staff, serves 4000 active users within entire UK oil

Well known & widely used within oil & gas community –a reference location for a number of oil & gas types

Funded by Oil & Gas UK membership & subscriptions to components of the web service

Active for 9 years & for the foreseeable future. Data kept up-to-date at various timescales depending on data – weekly to

Limited – now hosts environmental info for UKCS in form of SEA data – kely to become more important over time as UKCS licensing demands more env.


Widely used

Moderately useful – provides env. info used within any licensing agreements to ensure oil & gas activity does not


-




& gas community

biannually considerations unduly impact on biodiversity

Energy and Biodiversity Initiative

Global MNC & SME - - - Complete Some recognition Used by some

Very useful Simple -

IPIECA-OGP Biodiversity Working Group and numerous publications

Global MNC Tools sent to corporate office but often intended for operational managers

BDWG budget ~£50K/year for publications, monitoring, meetings, international workshops

2002 - ongoing

Complete – specific focus

Some recognition – acknowledged this needs to be improved through communications strategy

Used by some

Very useful Simple / Moderately user-friendly

None – conducted one user survey – being addressed in new IPIECA’s communications strategy

Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB)

Global MNC & SME – transpositions for small farmers are proposed due to high technical levels of text

Through participations in decision process & discussions, companies might ultimately endorse the RSB deliverables

Annual Fee (USD. Annual Operating Budget) Public / not-for profit: small (<15 million) 250; medium (15-30 million) 500; large (30-150 million) 1000; very large (>150 million) 2000. All other organisations: small (<40 million) 1000; medium (40-200 million)

Complete – specific principle & associated criteria for Conservation & Biodiversity, approved by expert panel (IUCN, WWF, CI, NRDC)

Some recognition – not yet implemented so some companies are still cautious and some are involved in other schemes recognised by the RSB

Not ready for use

Very useful – the only standard for biofuel crops not already under a specific certification process (e.g. palm oil, sugarcane, soy) for 1st, 2nd generations etc. participatory & multi-stakeholder approach = unique credibility & legitimacy

Moderately user-friendly – some technical concepts need further detail & simplification for small producers

Monitoring & indicators under development



2000; large (200 million - 2 billion) 5000; very large (>2 billion) 10,000

among actors

The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and WDPA -Marine

Global MCN & SME Used by all Oil/gas and majority of Mining Super majors

- - Complete Universally recognised

Widely used

Very useful Simple Monitoring




7.4.1 The shortlist table identifies that there is a wide range of active and relevant tools for the oil and gas sector (including biofuels). The table identifies tools from both the private and public sectors covering a range of delivery mechanisms including technical, discursive, and institutional approaches.

7.4.2 Drawn directly from the short list table, the next section categorises (into software / research and publications / network and forum / policy and company best practice) the specific tools and initiatives that we identified as the most active and relevant or have the potential in promoting biodiversity to businesses and organisations in this sector67.

• Web-based tools include: IPIECA’s online lifecycle tool ‘Key Biodiversity Questions in the Oil and Gas Lifecycle’; UNEP’s Proteus 2012 database; and UNEP-WCMC’s global dataset; BP’s BTC pipeline satellite monitoring.

• Research and publications include: Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe’s research on environmental issues relevant to the oil industry; IUCN’s ‘Implementing Sustainable Bioenergy Production: A Compilation of Tools and Approaches’; IPICEA-OGP Biodiversity Working Group publications including ‘Fate and effects of naturally occurring substances in produced water on the marine environment’ and ‘Oil and gas exploration and production in arctic offshore regions: Guidelines for environmental protection’; IPICEA publications including ‘An Ecosystem Approach to Oil and Gas Industry Biodiversity Conservation’, ‘A Guide to Developing Biodiversity Action Plans for the Oil and Gas Sector’ and ‘Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity for the Oil and Gas Industry’; the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative’s development of guidance and resources for integrating biodiversity conservation into oil and gas development; the EPFL Energy Centre’s ‘Principles and Criteria for sustainable biofuel production’.

• Networks and forums include: The IPIECA – OGP Biodiversity Working Group; Oil and Gas UK Environment Forum; and EPFL Energy Centre’s Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels.

• Policy focussed schemes include: EUROPIA’s active contribution to proposed environmental policies and regulations with key areas in air quality, site emissions and waste management.

• Company best practice schemes include: Shell’s Biodiversity Standard to maintain ecosystems and respect protected areas.

7.4.3 For each tool or initiative identified at the short list stage, a pro forma was sent out to the key contact person. Pro formas were emailed to a total of 12 organisations and groups. In total, five responses were received. The analysis of these responses is presented below.





Web-based tools

7.4.4 The Deal Website provides a public web based service ‘designed to promote and facilitate access to data and information relevant to the exploration and production of hydrocarbons on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS)’. DEAL began as a pilot initiative in 2000 as a joint venture between the Government and the oil and gas industry. The main focus was to secure the long term future of the industry in the UK and therefore the extent of biodiversity focus is considered “limited”. However, the website, now under the management of the British Geological Survey, now hosts environmental information for UKCS in the form of Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) data. In this context it is likely that over time UKCS licensing demands will demand greater environmental considerations and correspondingly a greater biodiversity focus.

7.4.5 The website is understood to be universally known and widely used. It serves a community of approximately 4000 active users within the UK oil and gas industry and is known as a key reference location for a number of oil and gas data types. In terms of usefulness, it is considered “moderately useful” providing environmental information which can be used within any licensing agreement to ensure oil and gas activities do not ‘unduly impact on biodiversity’.

7.4.6 The World Database on Protected Areas is the only global dataset on protected areas. It is global in scope and is applicable to all sectors whose operations could impact upon protected areas. It is essentially a technical and policy focused mechanism to enable private sector users to make better informed decisions on where and how to operate. The database has a strong biodiversity focus and is primarily aimed towards MNCs and SMEs. The respondent considered it to be universally recognised and used by all major oil and gas companies, providing valuable information in a simple and easy to use format.

Network / forum

7.4.7 Although now disbanded, the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative provided a network and forum covering both key industry players and influential conservation organisations. It enabled biodiversity issues to be raised at a high level within private organisations which helps facilitate ‘buy-in’ and the dissemination of information more widely within companies.

7.4.8 While the group no longer works as a whole, it is clear that each member continues to look for opportunities to incorporate the Institute’s findings within their own internal policies. The practical guidelines, tools and methods developed are understood to be ‘instrumental in helping companies understand and address biodiversity conservation and it provides an effective framework for the management of biodiversity across multiple industries’.

7.4.9 The initiative was global in its approach and covered both the oil and gas and the mining sectors at MNC and SME level. Although considered “very useful” and “simple” to use it is also understood that it received only “some recognition” and was used only “by some”. At this stage, it was not possible to identify why it has not been more widely adopted.



Publications

7.4.10 The IUCN’s ‘Implementing Sustainable Bioenergy – A Compilation of Tools and Approaches’ provides an introduction to over 30 approaches to achieving more sustainable bioenergy production. Biodiversity is specifically mentioned within the context of environmental, agricultural, ecosystem restoration, protected area, threatened species, certification, standards and labelling and economic tools sections. Further details on the guidance are included within the Case Study below.

7.4.11 The Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels has developed Principles and Criteria (P&C) for sustainable biofuels production. The P&Cs have been developed to be global in their scope and is applicable across multiple sectors; including in addition to bioenergy, retail, oil and gas, forestry and paper, investment and banking and the food processing and production sector. The P&C are broadly based on existing schemes and set out rules ”producers should follow in order to claim for genuine sustainability over their supply chain”. The P&C aim to cover all aspects related to biodiversity and conservation and were developed and approved by an expert panel constituting some of the most experienced organisations in this field including UICN, WWF, CI and NRDC. The P&C are centred around the following concepts:

• High conservation values • Ecosystem services and functions • Buffer zones and ecological corridors

7.4.12 The P&C can be applied at MNC and/or SME level, however, for small scale users such as small farmers an adapted, less technical transposition has been proposed. Although not yet ready to use, the P&C are likely to be very useful as they will be the only generic standards for biofuel production of 1st and 2nd generations and onward. Furthermore, they have been developed through a participatory and multi-stakeholder approach and therefore they have “a unique credibility and legitimacy among actors”. Monitoring and indicators for the P&C are still under development.

7.4.13 The IPIECA Biodiversity Working Group tools and guidance has a clear biodiversity focus. It is clear in its content and approaches to application, integrating biodiversity within both the environmental and socio-economic tools. The guidance is provided to corporate offices and intended for operational managers, however, the extent to which it is integrated within company structures and management procedures is not clear. The pro forma response identified the guidance as “very useful” and relatively simple to use.

7.4.14 In general, it is clear that within the oil and gas and biofuels sectors there are a significant number of publications which set out a variety of tools, frameworks, methodologies and initiatives. The extent to which these publications are taken up is not entirely clear, however, it is evident that given the wealth of information available it is likely that there will already exist some tool/framework/methodology/initiative that could be applied or amended to address most situations.

7.5 Case studies 7.5.1 This section outlines in more detail two mechanisms identified in the research:



• Case Study 1: Energy and Biodiversity Initiative • Case Study 2: IUCN publication & Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels

Case Study: Energy and Biodiversity Initiative

7.5.2 The Energy and Biodiversity Initiative (EBI) was created to ‘develop and promote’ practices for integrating biodiversity conservation into upstream oil and gas development. The initiative was in response to leading energy companies coming to realise the value of integrating the conservation of biodiversity into their operations. The Initiative began in 2001 and continued for six years to 2007. The EBI was a global initiative covering the oil and gas industry as well as the mining industry. It provides technical guidance and publications to aid the integration of biodiversity within company and institutional policies.

7.5.3 The EBI was first conceptualized at the Center for Environmental Leadership in Business at Conservation International and was formed by four energy companies – BP, Chevron, Shell and Statiol and five conservation organisations – Conservation International, Fauna & Flora International, IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Smithsonian Institution and The Nature Conservancy.

7.5.4 The EBI operated in three phases. The first phase of the EBI was dedicated to the development of guidance and resources for integrating biodiversity conservation into oil and gas development. The second phase of the EBI was designed to promote the ideas and practices outlined in the EBI products developed in phase 1. The third phase concentrated on the continued promotion and disemination of the EBI guidelines around the world.

Phase 1

7.5.5 During the first phase, the member organisations worked together to develop and produce a number of guides, discussion papers and resources to help industry to integrate biodiversity conservation into their operations. The main report ‘Integrating Biodiversity Conservation into Oil & Gas Development’ (2003) was published to act as a practical guide for integrating biodiversity protection into the full spectrum of oil and gas operations, from exploitation through decommissioning. The following documents produced during this phase can be found in the table below.

Table 10: Products of the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative Guides Discussion Papers Resources

Integrating Biodiversity into Environmental Management Systems

Negative Secondary Impacts from Oil and Gas Development

Good Practice in the Prevention and Mitigation of Primary and Secondary Biodiversity Impacts

Integrating Biodiversity into Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Processes

Opportunities for Benefiting Biodiversity Conservation

Online Biodiversity Information Sources

Framework for Integrating Biodiversity into the Site Selection Process

International Conventions

Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Impacts and Conservation Actions

Glossary



Powerpoint Presentation on Integrating Biodiversity Conservation into Oil and Gas Development

7.5.6 All guides, discussion papers and resources were prepared and consulted on with several key stakeholders across industry, academia and the environmental sector prior to publishing.

Phase 2

7.5.7 The second phase sought to promote and disseminate the practices and ideas or the work undertaken in Phase 1 outlined. The main goal was for ‘industry to adopt, disseminate, apply, and gather feedback on, the EBI report and products’. This phase also looked to help organisations adopt and apply the recommendations of the EBI to their own operations and systems as well as further promote the products throughout the oil and gas sector. This was aided by translating the main EBI report into Chinese, French, Portuguese and Spanish to help achieve greater dissemination in key oil and gas development regions.

7.5.8 The outcome of phase 2 was the report Energy and Biodiversity Initiative (EBI): Report on Progress (2005)68.

Phase 3

7.5.9 The third and final phase was dedicated to continue the promotion and dissemination of the EBI guidelines around the world.

7.5.10 As stated above, formal collaboration of the EBI ceased in 2007, however, although the group will not act ‘as a whole’ Individual members are committed to continue looking for opportunities to integrate the EBI recommendations within their operations and continually promote EBI’s messages globally.

7.5.11 The Energy and Biodiversity Initiative (EBI): Report on Progress69 highlighted that BP is using the EBI to incorporate biodiversity in its Environmental Stewardship Principles and Shell has developed a biodiversity standard as part of their Health, Safety and Environment Policy. Furthermore, it is noted that EBI member companies are also implementing the Institute’s guidelines and recommendations at project sites.

7.5.12 In terms of the conservation organisation members, the work of the EBI has furthered their understanding of the key issues and drivers of the energy companies. This insight has afforded these organisations the ability to better advise companies operating in these sectors.

7.5.13 In response to the Business mechanisms for biodiversity – data capture form, the EBI states that it believes it has been ‘instrumental in helping companies understand and address biodiversity conservation and it provides an effective framework for the management of biodiversity across multiple sectors’. The EBI also states that its tools and frameworks can be applied to both MNCs and SMEs. It also notes its tools and frameworks as simple and very useful, however, it also concedes that it achieves only ‘some recognition’ within the sector.

68 Available at [http://www.theebi.org/news.html] Accessed 18/03/09 69 Ibid



Case Study: IUCN – Implementing Sustainable Bioenergy Production

7.5.14 The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) works towards identifying practicable solutions to pressing development and environmental challenges. It manages projects, supports research and works with government and non-government organisations, as well as the United Nations agencies, companies and communities to develop and implement best practice, law and policy.

7.5.15 The IUCN is the largest professional global conservation network. Its membership includes over 1,000 government and NGO member organisations and nearly 11,000 volunteer scientists. The IUCN produces or co-authors more than 150 books and assessments each year in addition to hundreds of other documents, guidelines and reports. This has made the IUCN one of the world’s most authoritative agencies in terms of conservation and sustainable development.

7.5.16 One of the IUCN documents – Implementing Sustainable Bioenergy Production: A Compilation of Tools and Approaches70 – outlines examples of existing approaches and tools to reduce, mitigate and manage risks, as well as, identify and promote opportunities and synergies between bioenergy production and biodiversity conservation and livelihood development. It is focussed towards a range of stakeholders including inter-alia government (agricultural, environment and energy departments), land owners and agri-business and communities and individuals.

7.5.17 The report can be used to reduce the environmental impact, as well as socio-economic risks associated with bioenergy production and aims to assist those stakeholders engaged in the bioenergy field to ‘achieve more sustainable outcomes in relation to ecosystems and livelihoods’.

7.5.18 The report is broad in its scope and does not attempt to include all available tools but does act to identify the type of tools available to implement sustainability criteria including links to further resources where appropriate. For a broader range of tools, an online resource is available in the form of the bioenergywiki71 which is identified and promoted as a forum to encourage additional tools to be listed and discussed. Eight environmental and five socio-economic ‘tools’ are presented in the table below.

Table 11: Environmental and socio-economic tool categories Environmental tools Socio-economic tools

Impact assessment tools Food security tools

Agricultural tools Gender tools

Water resource tools Climate adaptation tools

Forestry tools Certification, standards & labelling

Ecosystem restoration tools Economic tools

Protected area tools

Threatened species tools

70 Available at [http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2008-057.pdf] Accessed 18/03/09 71 Available at [http://www.bioenergywiki.net/index.php/Main_Page] Accessed 18/03/09



Invasive species tools

7.5.19 The key recommendations from the report are:

1. Do not re-invent the wheel – An acceptance that bioenergy is not new and that it is no longer a question of whether bioenergy will or will not play a future role but to what extent it will play a role

2. Think broadly about objectives – Fully question the assumptions before setting out, including assessing the opportunity costs of all viable project options.

3. Do not wait – Although there may be added complexity or greater difficulty understanding the energy pathways for bioenergy production, there already exists numerous tools that can be directly applied or simply modified to improve its sustainability production.

4. Expand and adapt existing tools – Project planners and stakeholders are encouraged to adapt the tools presented to best fit their specific requirements and to use them at all levels of the decision making process.

5. Use common sense – Many tools presented encourage a common sense approach and many of the tools are simply structured and compiled to enable a common set of skill sets to be applied.

6. Bioenergy is not just about biofuels – Whilst liquid biofuels currently dominate the debate, the potential for the production of electricity, heat and second-generation biofuels from a wider range of non-food biomass may be of greater long-term significance.

7.6 Conclusions 7.6.1 This report has identified a good range of comprehensive and widely distributed tools and

initiatives promoting the conservation and best practice management of biodiversity in the oil and gas and biofuels sectors. The short list stage identified a number of delivery mechanisms including, inter alia, web based tools, research and publications, networks and forums, policy focussed schemes and company best practice.

7.6.2 Within the scope of this research, the majority of delivery mechanisms identified fell within the web based, network / forum and publications headings. An evident focus on these delivery mechanisms, in particular within the oil and gas sector, may be characteristic of the approach to biodiversity within this sector. Although there appears to be a strong willingness for companies and institutions to directly address biodiversity issues, no overarching initiative appears to be universally accepted or applied. The approach taken by the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative to enable major energy companies to access expertise in the biodiversity sector in order to improve their environmental performance appears sound. However, given the initiative was later disbanded, this implies that the initiative was no longer serving a useful function or its manner of operation was no longer appropriate. Interestingly, the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels uses a similar approach, drawing together key stakeholders to develop criteria and frameworks to ensure greater sustainability within the sector. However, contrary to the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative, this initiative appears to be gaining more and more



support throughout the industry with time. There is no evident overarching initiative for the oil and gas sector, which suggests a need to further investigate the reasons behind this and identify whether such an initiative is required.

7.6.3 One possible explanation for success of the approach for each sector could be attributed to the more recent emergence of the importance of biodiversity (as compared to general environmental protection) at a similar time to the growth in the biofuels sector. Regulation within the oil and gas industry has ensured that environmental considerations are now integral within their operations and biodiversity has, for example through the EBI, been effectively implemented into companies individual environmental management practices. On the other hand the particular impact on biodiversity from biofuels has emerged as a stand alone topic in its own right, in part because of limited regulation in this field and also due to the emerging importance of biodiversity and biofuels at a similar time.

7.6.4 No certification schemes were identified for the oil and gas sector, however, the emergence of company best practice schemes indicate that industry has already taken a lead in the biodiversity field. On the other hand, given the rapid emergence of the biofuels sector with its limited regulation and its sheer number of individual farmers/suppliers, environmental bodies are having to lead the way in encouraging biofuel farmers to be more sustainable. It is important to note the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels official strategy is to implement a certification scheme which should enable consumers to help drive demand for more sustainable biofuel production. This could be particularly effective if lead consumers or government policies dictated the sole consumption of certified biofuels, for example. This approach may have merit as a further obvious distinction between the oil and gas and biofuels sectors is that, whereas oil and gas extraction sites are fixed and finite, biofuels are less constrained in terms of potential locations where they can be grown (although crop type and yield will vary). Hence, within the biofuels sector there are greater opportunities to implement a wider range of biodiversity focussed mechanisms and there also exists greater scope for consumers to specify where and how biofuels are grown.

7.6.5 Several of the oil and gas focussed initiatives introduced above have potential to be modified to apply to operations requiring land take and/or infrastructure development in environmentally sensitive areas, both terrestrial and marine; and are hence applicable across multiple sectors and at all levels. The biofuel focussed initiatives are more specific and, in some schemes such as RSB’s P&C, highly technical and hence may not be easily applied at different levels.

7.6.6 Our conclusions and recommendations in relation to the oil and gas sector are summarised in Table 12.



Table 12: Conclusions and recommendations for the oil and gas sector


Overall we identified a reasonably comprehensive range of tools and methodologies including guidance documents and forums. In particular, the now disbanded Energy and Biodiversity Initiative (EBI) produced a series of guidance documents which cover all aspects of the project life cycle (e.g. ‘Integrating Biodiversity into Environmental and Social Impact Assessment Processes’; ‘Framework for Integrating Biodiversity into the Site Selection Process’; ‘Negative Secondary Impacts from Oil and Gas Development’; and ‘Integrating Biodiversity into Environmental Management Systems’). We also identified examples of company best practice. In relation to biofuels, we identified emerging tools and methodologies including publications such as the IUCN’s Implementing Sustainable Bioenergy Production: A Compilation of Tools and Approaches.


It proved difficult to establish the effectiveness of the various tools and methodologies identified, particularly the degree to which advice in guidance is adhered to. The IPIECA – OGP Biodiversity Working Group has an annual budget of 50k for publications, monitoring, meetings and international workshops but acknowledged that its level of recognition needed to be improved.


It proved difficult to establish the extent of take-up across the oil and gas sector but we identified several big companies with biodiversity specific mechanisms (e.g. Shell’s Biodiversity Standard to maintain ecosystems and respect protected areas). It also proved difficult to establish take-up across the biofuels sector, a relatively new sector.


We identified a range of guidance notes covering all aspects of the project life cycle; however, the degree to which the advice in guidance notes is taken up is difficult to establish. Although the IPIECA – OGP Biodiversity Working Group has been set up, the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative (EBI) (which produced many of the guidance notes) has been dissolved. The links between biofuel cultivation and biodiversity have been increasingly recognised and further mechanisms will doubtless emerge over time.


• Support the IPIECA – OGP Biodiversity Working Group and raise awareness of the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative’s (EBI) products.

• Monitor the development of tools and methodologies for the biofuels sector.



8 Food Producers & Processors

8.1 Introduction 8.1.1 This chapter details our findings in relation to the food producers and processors sector and is








8.2.1 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) clearly sets out the impact human society has made on the planet with regards to cultivation (see Figure 4).72 This includes substantial modification of the majority of biomes. The MA estimates that between 20% and 50% of nine out of fourteen global biomes have been transformed to croplands and states that, while cultivated lands provide many provisioning services (e.g. grains, fruits, and meat), habitat conversion to agriculture typically leads to reductions in local native biodiversity.

72 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and human Well-Being: Biodiversity Synthesis [online] available at: http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf?bcsi_scan_F6892CABA15785B4=0&bcsi_scan_filename=document.354.aspx.pdf (accessed 9 February 2009)



Figure 4: Extent of cultivated systems

8.2.2 Cultivation has led to 33% of earth’s surface being used for crops or grazing. Moreover, the matter is further complicated along the supply chain from field to consumer via the food processing industry. The final product often contains many ingredients. It is estimated that over 90% of most products’ water footprint lies outside a company’s direct control.

8.2.3 The England Biodiversity Strategy living document states that over 70% of the English land surface is farmed.73 The ‘Environmental Stewardship’ scheme builds on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme and the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and is a key mechanism to address the influence of land management on the environment. It is an agri-environment scheme that provides funding to farmers and land managers in England who deliver effective environmental management on their land.74

8.2.4 A large influence over UK agriculture is exerted by the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the most expensive and visible common policy of the EU which controls the EU agricultural markets and – instead of paying farmers to produce more – provides farmers with conditional financial support for numerous farming environmental and rural development activities. Amongst the recent (November 2008) CAP reforms is an increase in the share of CAP funding that goes towards environment and rural development schemes and the option to use cross-compliance to help address the environmental effects of ending set-aside. Defra deals with the CAP policy and the responsibility for delivery of mechanisms, tools and money (such as agri-environment schemes) is through various Agencies. Agriculture, and thus the delivery of CAP, is devolved in the UK. The Rural Development Programme for England (RDPE) sets out the

73 Defra (2002) Working with the Grain of Nature: A Biodiversity Strategy for England [online] available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/pdf/biodiversity/biostrategy.pdf (accessed 10 February 2009). 74 Natural England (date unknown) Environmental Stewardship [online] available at: http://www.naturalengland.org.uk/ourwork/farming/funding/es/default.aspx (accessed 17 April 2009).



objectives for how England delivers the environmental Pillar 2 of the CAP, also known as the ‘rural development pillar’.

8.2.5 Defra acknowledges that the CAP “continues to attract criticism” and is “increasingly out of step with the need for Europe to respond to the challenges of globalisation” … “Indeed much of the CAP still has a negative impact on the environment.” Defra is working towards a reformed CAP that addresses these challenges, “creating a sustainable environment and protecting natural resources”.75

8.2.6 The food and drinks sector relies upon the agriculture sector – indeed, it buys two thirds of all the UK’s agricultural produce. It is the single largest manufacturing sector in the UK, with an annual turnover of £72.6 billion, annual exports worth £7.5 billion and 440,000 employees in the UK.76 The food and drinks sector is a major part of the food chain and comprises agriculture and fishing, food and drink manufacturing, distribution and warehousing, wholesaling, retail, foodservice and catering.

Making the link

8.2.7 There is a clear link between biodiversity and agriculture, food production and sustainable development. Agribusiness depends directly on healthy ecosystems for key components and services, including: crop and livestock productivity, crop protection, nutrient rich soil, watershed control, erosion control, carbon sequestration, waste removal, pollination, and genetic diversity and sources of genetic advancement (e.g. disease resistance). The loss of biodiversity therefore represents serious business risks, such as loss of resources (e.g. genetic diversity ensuring crop resistance to disease and pests) and operational risks (e.g. diminishing supplies or rising costs of key resources and inputs such as raw materials and water). The reliance of agricultural on biodiversity is acknowledged and documented heavily in many sources including by the CBD.77

8.2.8 Agricultural systems can impact upon biodiversity in a number of direct and indirect ways:

• land-clearing and conversion e.g. for oil palm, soya and cattle; • introduction of non-native species; • excessive water use e.g. for crops such as sugar, cotton and rice; • habitat conversion; • soil and water contamination; • reduced water infiltration and soil retention including runoff; • reduced dispersal of seeds of wild and endangered plants; • loss of sanctuary for species during droughts; • loss of key habitats and species e.g. hedgerows, field borders, pollinators, beneficial

predators – from specialisation and intensification.

75 Defra (2009) Farming – CAP Reform [online] available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/capreform/index.htm (accessed 17 April 2009). 76 Food and Drink Federation (2009) Stats at a Glance [online] available at: http://www.fdf.org.uk/statsataglance.aspx (accessed 17 April 2009). 77 CBD (2008) Business, biodiversity and Agriculture [online] available at: http://www.cbd.int/ibd/2008/business/ (accessed 10 February 2009).



8.2.9 In addition to supporting the health of the economy, the food and drink industry has a major role to play maintaining the health of the population and of the environment. Long term business survival in the food industry is reliant upon safeguarding natural assets such as clean waters, healthy habitats and an abundance of flora and fauna.

8.2.10 Agriculture can also add biodiversity value in cultivated landscapes (e.g. planting native species and preserving some of the natural aspects of an area).78 Indeed, as major landscape managers, agricultural businesses have the potential to make profound impacts on biodiversity. This is demonstrated in practise in the UK through management of designated Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) by farmers and through the Environmental Stewardship scheme.

8.2.11 Businesses operating in the food industry also impact upon biodiversity through processing, manufacturing and retail markets. Concerns include packaging and transportation decisions, such as plastics which may harm biodiversity from their production (e.g. the oil sector) through to their disposal (generating harmful waste) and the food miles involved in transportation (e.g. fuel consumption, pollution, transport infrastructure, food preparation for extended shelf life). The supply chain also links back to agricultural practises for the sourcing of food, demonstrating a shared interest in the conservation of biodiversity and the potential for shared protective and enhancive measures.


8.3.1 This sector is broad in range, covering production from agriculture and fisheries through to processing considerations. It therefore has a large impact upon biodiversity, incorporating risks and impacts that are direct, indirect and cumulative. This unsurprisingly translates in to a large selection of business mechanisms, with our research identifying 76 distinct mechanisms in a non-exhaustive ‘long list’ (see Volume 2). The biodiversity focus and business relevance of these mechanisms, however, varied between mechanisms and in geographic scope.

8.3.2 Having established our ‘long list’, we then put together a ‘short list’ (see Appendix 2), comprised of 21 organisations and groups (some of which had more than one tool or initiative – there are therefore 25 identified ‘mechanisms’ from a potentially longer list).


78 International Finance Corporation. A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector [online] available at: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/BiodivGuide_SectorSummary_Agribusiness/$FILE/Agribusiness.pdf (accessed 9 February 2009).



Short list table


Effectiveness table


Table 13: Measures of effectiveness of the food producers & processors shortlisted mechanisms79

Mechanism Geog. scope

Business size / users of tool


Cost & Funding Timescale Biodiversity

focus Communicability Frequency of use Usefulness

Ease of execution / usability

British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership

Global MNCs Directly managed companies & supply chain tools to farmers

£12,500,000 2001-2010

2001-2010 Complete Limited recognition – piloting so external communications has not been a prority, but now sharing of practice & more coming online

Widely used / Used by some – still being developed / rolled out

Moderately useful – expect significance & influence to be felt in coming years

Complexity varies with different aspects of the partnership




ADAS & Natural England - Conservation Advice to farmers and growers

National MNCs and SMEs

Primary producers

Confidential Nov 04 - present

Extensive Universally recognised

Widely used Very useful Simple

Conservation Grade Farming – farming for Wildlife

National MNCs Rolled out on over 50,000 acres of UK farmland & encompasses £50 million turnover – massive potential

£350K to administer funded through licensees in food industry + £5K farmer memberships

25 year track record & ongoing

Complete Some recognition – hopefully by 2010 (International Year of Biodiversity) will be widely recognised

Used by all – fundamental component of business model of its licensees

Very useful – major marketing differentiation factor of its licensees

Simple – 25 years development & experience = quick & efficient roll-out by new licensees & farmers

Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF) – LEAF Audit

Global SME Producers. 1500 users / 2500 LEAF members = 10% of farmed area

LEAF Membership £60 - £180

On going Extensive Some recognition but well-recognised within farming sector

Used by some

Very useful Simple

Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF) – LEAF Green Box

National SME To LEAF demonstration farmers and LEAF Marque Accredited farmers

LEAF Membership £60 - £180

On going Extensive Some recognition but well-recognised within farming sector

Used by some

Very useful Simple

Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF) – LEAF Marque

Global SME Producers – consumers. 18% UK fruit & veg now achieving LEAF Marque accreditation

LEAF Membership £60 - £180 + cost of independent verifier

On going Extensive Some recognition but well-recognised within retail and farming sector – growing recognition amongst consumers

Used by some

Very useful Simple



Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) – MSC Standard

Global – MSC has a HQ in London & a number of offices around the world

Other From 1999-2009: number of fisheries in the MSC programme from three to over 140; MSC’s Chain of Custody certificate holders (ensures traceability of MSC certified seafood from boat to plate) grown to around 830. Now over 2,000 MSC eco-labelled product lines on sale in 42 countries around the world with estimated annual sales of over US $1 billion

Cost of assessment against MSC standard roughly proportional to scale of fishing operations & number of different units of certification included in assessment. Implications of size, scale, & type of fishery, location & management arrangements, uniqueness of resources & effects on other ecosystems all affect the time required to conduct an assessment & therefore the cost. Assessment is a contract between fishery client & Certification Body that is independent of the MSC

MSC target is for an assessment to be conducted within a 12 month period. Most assessments in the past have taken longer than this. A certificate for a successful fishery covers a 5 year period, subject to annual surveillances, before reassessment is required

Extensive – in Principle 1, criteria 3; and Principle 2, Criteria 2 of MSC’s environmental standard and in details of assessment methods

Some recognition Used by some – MSC is in a rapid growth phase with increasing industry demand for certification. See comments on ‘Reach’

Very useful – Most fisheries have made a series of positive changes to the benefit of target fish stocks & the wider environment in order to achieve & retain certification

Complicated –but necessarily so to reflect the complexity & diversity of fishery resources & the nature of the MSC third-party, stakeholder-consultation based processes



Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS)

Global MNCs & SMEs – big & small NGOs, companies & orgs.

The whole soy supply chain

Funded via: membership fees of member companies; government subsidies for specific program; NGO support

3 years agenda-setting before 2005 establishing meeting. Currently criteria setting for anticipated 2009 implementation

Extensive Some recognition Not ready for use

Moderately useful Moderately user-friendly

SAI (Sustainable Agriculture Initiative) Platform

Global MNCs & SMEs

Global food industry & its producers of agricultural materials

Membership fees

- Extensive Some recognition Used by some

Moderately useful Simple

leafTc – Road Mapping / Social Responsibility in Tobacco Production (SRTP)

Global MNC Whole chain –seed selection, crop management, post-harvest management, supplier, client

£750/day on-site reviews – 2days + expenses. £75,000 collection and collation of returns via STRP or Road Mapping.

Annual reports. On-site reviews all months of year.

Extensive Some recognition Widely used – all but one of world’s major tobacco companies & 2009 onwards STRP

Moderately useful – challenging underperformance & technology transfer

Simple – user guides, comment boxes, online




8.4.1 The food sector has one of the longest long and short lists of the business sectors researched for this report. This may be unsurprising given the scope of this sector – encompassing agriculture, fisheries and food processors – and the large potential for, and interest in, biodiversity impact of this sector. The short list table highlights this broad scope, which is also geographically broad given the wide-reaching supply-chain impacts of the food sector.

8.4.2 The mechanisms in the short list are broadly institutional, technical and discursive. These mechanisms were loosely categorised by delivery mechanism and the following identifies those that are the most active and relevant in promoting biodiversity to business80.

8.4.3 A summary of key points from the short-list follows:

• There are numerous institutional organisations and associated networks and forums and advisory bodies for fisheries, farming, and processors. This shortlist targeted some key bodies with a more environment/biodiversity-focused aim for these three sub-sectors: the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG); Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF); the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC); the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO); Sea Fish Industry Authority (SFIA); Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB); the Soil Association and The Center for Environmental Leadership in Business (CELB) Agriculture and Fisheries Program. Numerous other networks and forums and representative bodies are long-listed (e.g. Food and Drink Federation, Food Standards Agency, Tenant Farmers’ Association, Scottish Fishermen's Federation etc), however the biodiversity/environmental focus is less clear within these organisations. Many of these organisations are also key mechanisms for lobbying and research.

• The shortlist includes numerous mechanisms that have been broadly defined as technical. Numerous publications – many by networks and forums as listed above – may often be more indirectly related to biodiversity through sustainability and farming practice. This shortlist therefore identifies one specific publication, the IFC and World Bank’s ‘A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector: The Biodiversity and Agricultural Commodities Program (BACP)’.

• Publications also accompany the numerous certification schemes within the food sector, many of which have been produced by the networks and forums above. This high proportion of certification schemes is reflected in the shortlist with: the LEAF Marque; the MSC Standard; Conservation Grade farming - farming for wildlife; Sustainable Farm Certification by the Rainforest Alliance and the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN); Bird Friendly Coffee by the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC); and the Soil Association standard. These schemes were selected as they appeared to have the strongest biodiversity-focus and they may also be identified for encouraging company best practice. LeafTc’s Road Mapping / Social Responsibility in Tobacco Production (SRTP) are technical mechanisms similar to certification but designed to encourage company best practice.




• Another common mechanism grouping for this sector is discursive, in the form of numerous forums, partnerships, roundtables and workshops. The shortlist therefore highlights: The Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO); the Better Cotton Initiative (BCI); the Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI); the Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS); the UNEP Sustainable Agri-food Production and Consumption Forum; The British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership; and the SAI (Sustainable Agriculture Initiative) Platform.

8.4.4 The shortlist does not include philanthropic awards, which were less identifiable for this sector, although there are several policy-related initiatives such as the Rural Stewardship Scheme (RSS) and food and agriculture advice such as ADAS Conservation Advice. Of further note is the Agrevolution Conference (March 18-20, 2009): ‘Growing a 21st Century Agricultural Revolution’, that took place as this report was written. 81 There are also numerous examples of company best practice per company in the long list – in this chapter we have instead highlighted partnerships of organisations e.g. SAI Platform (case study) and BATBP.

8.4.5 For each tool or initiative identified at the ‘short list’ stage, a data capture form was sent out to the key contact person (identified at the ‘long list’ stage). Data capture forms were emailed to 21 organisations and groups, in relation to over 25 tools and initiatives. There was a moderate-good response rate for the food sector compared to other sectors, with responses from 10 organisations with 10 completed forms and 2 responses in another format, analysed in the section below:


Institutional – networks and forums, advisory, lobby & research

8.4.6 In addition to an abridged long list based upon biodiversity focus, a low response rate from the institutions contacted in the short list suggests that – despite the high proportion of representative bodies and networks and forums for the food sector (agriculture, fisheries and processors) – there is a lack of biodiversity focus within these groups.

8.4.7 Of those that responded, the NFFO stated that its biodiversity focus is limited, given that it works as a lobby group on technical and policy-related measures, for example advising the industry on how to meet European standards and more broadly in relation to sustainability e.g. its publication: ‘Sustainability Initiatives in Fishing’. It should not be ignored that these networks, however, are widely used within the food sector and offer a useful platform for wide information dissemination.

8.4.8 Larger, global organisations such as MSC, have also set up specific criteria within its environmental standard. The MSC stated in its response that: “Most fisheries have made a series of positive changes to the benefit of target fish stocks and the wider environment in order to achieve and retain certification.”

8.4.9 Some organisations, however, are founded specifically with the environment in mind; such as LEAF (see case study). LEAF has set up several initiatives that specifically assist farmers in controlling biodiversity impacts.

81 For more information: www.agrevolution.org



8.4.10 Initiatives have also been set up in a purely advisory capacity. ADAS and Natural England provide ‘Conservation Advice to farmers and growers’. Such made-for-measure schemes have an extensive biodiversity focus and, in the opinion of respondents, are universally recognised and address at the grassroots ‘primary producers’ end of the supply chain.

8.4.11 An important aspect that needs to be taken in to account is cost and funding. Membership fees usually pay for these institutions and thus organisations must represent members’ needs. Policy (national, EU and international) and consumer-pressure are therefore key drivers in whether biodiversity is a concern within these organisations.

Case study: Linking Environment And Farming (LEAF) LEAF was specifically set up in 1991 to address the widening gap between consumers and farmers by understanding both sides. LEAF is a charity run on limited resources, and is funded through memberships (typically £60-180); corporate memberships; corporate sponsorship and Government grants. LEAF is managed by an Executive Committee that received support and guidance from an Advisory Board ‘governing body’ of representatives from national government departments, farmers, supermarkets, conservation, environmental and consumer groups, educational establishments and industry bodies. It therefore brings together a wide range of actors for one cause, which began with the development and promotion of Integrated Farm Management and has since extended in to a wide range of mechanisms with an extensive biodiversity focus, to include: LEAF Marque – a UKAS accredited and independently verified environmental standard in the form of a list of questions about farming practice and management. LEAF Audit – an annually updated online management tool developed over 15 years for the delivery of sustainable farming systems. LEAF Green Box – A monitoring toolkit, currently under development, for farmers to measure their soil, water, and biodiversity performance. It will offer advice, recording sheets and online support. Currently in pilot stage for roll out next year.

Technical – certification schemes

8.4.12 Many of the networks and forums address biodiversity concerns through certification schemes for the broad number of food sub-sectors, with numerous food-types and levels within the supply chain increasing the potential number of certification standards. In responses received, the MSC standard represents boat-plate wild capture fisheries and LEAF represents field-to-plate fruit and vegetables – both are global in their scope. Conservation Grade Farming (see case study), however, is a national mechanism that looks specifically at onsite farming practises and how they may harm or enhance biodiversity. This raises two issues for certification schemes:

• Large number of certification schemes and marques – this potentially causes consumer confusion and lack of recognition, therefore reducing uptake of the scheme by business

• Global scope and supply chain traceability – increasing scale of mechanism increases difficulty of monitoring and auditing



8.4.13 Monitoring and indicators are therefore an important part of an effective mechanism, with MSC, LEAF and Conservation Grade Farming variously acknowledging the significance of regular auditing by independent and reputable auditors and the development of improved monitoring mechanisms and indicators. Simplicity of use was important to LEAF and Conservation Grade Farming, but MSC – a global mechanism – is seen as: “Complicated, but necessarily so to reflect the complexity and diversity of fishery resources and the nature of the MSC third-party, stakeholder-consultation based processes”. It should also be noted that LEAF is seen as working with primarily with SMEs, and thus the size of businesses involved will also impact on ease of certification process and marque recognition.

8.4.14 Furthermore, if consumers are unaware of the certification schemes and what they represent, then it devalues the certification process as a mechanism. Communicability was self-appraised in responses on the three standards as “some recognition”. This may explain why, despite the self-appraisal of all three schemes as being “very useful” for protecting biodiversity and influencing business, the frequency of use was identified by respondents as being “used by some” by LEAF and MSC. This may contribute to incomplete certification coverage of the food sector.

8.4.15 A consumer demand for ‘sustainably sourced’ and organic food can be supportive and inclusive of certification. However, the processing of food and the use of numerously-sourced foodstuffs can complicate the certification process. Moreover, a consumer market exists for cheap processed goods and affordability that negates the need for the expense that can be associated with certified sustainably sourced produce, thus reducing incentive for business uptake of certification schemes. Moreover, processed food may have several marques as an alternative which can add to consumer confusion. This also raises the issue of an overall accreditation marque that approves and standardises other marques and offers universal recognition.

8.4.16 Complexity within the food sector may therefore suggest that certification does not present the complete solution. This suggests that certification provides part of the solution, but that there is a gap that other mechanisms, such as policy-driven guidance for the food sector, may address.

Case study: Conservation Grade Farming Conservation Grade Farming is a certification scheme specifically established to slow the decline in wildlife on farmland and it is therefore strongly biodiversity focused. Standards support farm management methods that encourage a diversity of wildlife on the land, such as: chemical usage kept to a minimum; crop rotation methods; and planting of trees and hedgerow protection. It utilises and enhances land management skills of farmers and encompasses high standards of food safety for produce. The scheme has its origins in 1985, when a number of food processing companies could not access sufficient organically produced crops to meet consumer demand. A comparable environmentally-led farming protocol was created to ensure an ongoing supply of high quality crops. The system of farming was refined until 2005, when a major initiative to improve biodiversity performance was rolled out after 8 years of independent research by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and others. This system now represents the only market-led farming standard that has a fully-verified delivery record in biodiversity. The logo on packaging provides a business incentive to protect biodiversity for both producers (with manufacturers) and manufacturers (with consumers). The scheme is paid for by a market premium gained



for the crops produced and delivered through farm-based contracts requiring strict adherence to biodiversity standards.

The scheme specifically targets farmland. It is being rolled out over 50 000 acres of UK farmland of over £50 million turnover, which demonstrates its mass potential. Recognition of the logo is increased through endorsement from popular public figures such as David Bellamy and recognition by leading environmental organisations such as the RSPB.

Technical – advisory, company best practice & publications

8.4.17 An advisory role is not only held by institutions with experts such as LEAF (see case study), but also through advisory bodies such as Conservation Advice – set up by Natural England and administered by ADAS. This provides farm walks, workshops, clinics and one-to-one advice. Advice is nationally focused and currently focused on Environmental Stewardship, Defra's agri-environment scheme launched in March 2005. This scheme is applicable to primary producers – both MNCs and SMEs – and is self-assessed as “simple”, “very useful”, “widely used”, “universally recognised” and applicable to both MNCs and SMEs. These schemes, advising on policy, provide an opportunity to make biodiversity gains where perhaps there is no incentive for uptake of a specific mechanism (such as a certification scheme) or in an awareness-raising capacity.

8.4.18 Publications provide one means for networks and forums to disseminate advice, although publications are usually less biodiversity-specific and more in relation to sustainability more generally (e.g. NFFO publication ‘Sustainability Initiatives in Fishing’). Some more sector-wide publications include the IFC and World Bank ‘A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector: The Biodiversity and Agricultural Commodities Program (BACP)’. Other publications may accompany technical advice or new standards – as developed through roundtables and workshops.

8.4.19 LEAFtc is a company providing tobacco companies with business mechanisms similar to certification, but that act to promote company best practice through an annual questionnaire (approx 200 questions) for Social Responsibility in Tobacco Production (SRTP), or 22 Road Maps indicating where the business stands today and where they expect to be in one year and two years time. Feedback on the Road Mapping and the SRTP mechanisms defined them as “not pass/fail certifications, but rather they emphasise "continuous improvement", seeking to guide the supplier (in current applications) towards international best practice”. The Action Plan generated lists specific actions that need to be implemented. Answers are verified and monitored by an evidence-based on-site review of a proportion of suppliers each year. To remain as suppliers, clients expect to see planned and implemented improvements, together with on-site validation of progress – hence "continuous improvement". The original tool was developed by BAT in the late 1990s, and contracted out to LeafTc Ltd in 2003, and the Road Mapping tool was developed in to the STRP system. Although the tool is considered by the respondent as “simple” to use – with user guides and comment boxes available online – and widely used within the tobacco sector, it is considered to have only “some recognition” and also to be still under development: “LeafTc are making a significant focus out of Biodiversity in 2009, since many suppliers are failing to progress on this subject. LeafTc will be challenging underperforming suppliers concerning their perceived barriers to progress. Those performing well will be asked to explain how they dismantled the barriers, so that the underperformers may



benefit. This kind of "technology transfer" is a significant part of the LeafTc approach in managing SRTP and Road Mapping.”

Discursive – roundtables, workshops, partnerships & company best practice

8.4.20 Discursive mechanisms are commonplace for the food sector. This would seem to be due to the extensive and geographically widely felt supply-chain impacts involving numerous stakeholders. Combined with consumer interest for sustainably sourced food, this has resulted in the establishment of numerous workshops and roundtables in order to develop sustainability criteria for different food stuffs. Feedback was received for the Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS) and – in a format other than a data capture form – from the Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI). Both focus on entire supply chains on a global scale and both are not ready for use but are currently developing criteria for consultation and anticipated 2009 implementation. The biodiversity focus may be viewed as “extensive”. As with certification schemes, monitoring and reporting frameworks are again important owing to supply chain impacts as previously discussed – particularly as the RTRS is self-assessed as “moderately user-friendly”, owing to the complexities of supply chain dynamics. The important uniqueness of these certification schemes, however, is with regards to the ‘discursive’ elements of the roundtable. The development of criteria is through an expert panel and a consultation period.

8.4.21 Roundtables may be attributed to partnerships e.g. the BSI is a collaboration of MNCs – sugar retailers, investors, traders, producers and NGOs – and the RTRS was initiated by Unilever, WWF, Coop (Swiss retailer), and a number of Latin American organisations and companies. The discursive element of partnerships allows the knowledge from company best practice – of which there are numerous cases within the food sector e.g. Cadbury Schweppes and Earthwatch partnership82 – to be shared and resources to be combined. Partnerships have resulted in the establishment of many sector-specific institutional mechanisms and certification schemes (see LEAF case study and Conservation Grade Farming case study).

8.4.22 As stated, the food sector has an enormous scope and is difficult to represent in entirety (as reflected in the numerous certification schemes). The SAI Platform (see case study) is an organisation with over 20 members that seeks to represent the entire global food industry – both SMEs and MNCs. It recommends, rather than monitors. It is self-assessed as having an “extensive” biodiversity focus and being “simple” in format, however as only having “some recognition” being “used by some” and “moderately useful” in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business. Recognition by the food sector is essential for effectiveness and business uptake – this is similarly true for policy-related measures such as the Environmental Stewardship scheme. The British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership (BATBP – see case study) despite having a “complete” biodiversity focus – again global in scale looking at the entire supply chain – is also still under development with influence expected to be felt in coming years and so is self-assessed as “widely used / used by some” with “limited recognition” and currently “moderately useful”. The BATBP has a degree of complexity varying with different aspects of the partnership, again reflecting the complexities of supply chain dynamics in the broad and global food sector.

8.4.23 Partnerships also assist with funding business mechanisms for biodiversity e.g. the RTRS is funded via membership fees of member companies, government subsidies and NGO support;

82 For more information: http://www.cadbury.com/ourresponsibilities/ethicaltrading/cocoasourcing/pages/earthwatch.aspx



the SAI Platform is funded through membership. The BATBP cost £12,500,000 to fund from 2001-2010, demonstrating the large sum of money that the importance of biodiversity can generate through partnerships.

Case study: Partnerships Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Platform The SAI Platform demonstrates the significance of supply chains in the food sector and supports a coordinated contribution from agriculture towards society's environmental, economic and social requirements. The organisation was started 7 years ago with three members and now has over 20 members. It was established by the food industry to communicate worldwide and to actively support the development of sustainable agriculture (practices and production systems) involving the different stakeholders of the food chain, including the definition, testing and communication of principles and good practices with regard to sustainable agriculture. British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership (BATBP) BATBP is a cross-sectoral partnership that started in 2001 as a partnership between five NGOs (Fauna and Flora International, Earthwatch Institute, the Tropical Biology Association, The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, WildCru) and Bristish American Tobacco (BAT). BATBP activities have evolved from a philanthropic/CSR related initiative to one which is increasingly focussed on embedding biodiversity across the business operations of BAT. The partnership is run by a management team consisting of members of each constituent organisation and each partner has an equitable role in decision-making. An Assurance Group, consisting of a body of respected academics, is responsible for oversight of Partnership activities. The aspects relating directly to BAT's activities have come under the auspices of its own reporting mechanisms, which are then independently audited.

BAT recognises that its business depends on biodiversity for continued access to resources such as water, healthy soils and timber; and that its activities can impact upon this biodiversity. Its response to these impacts is guided by the objectives of the CBD, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the environmental Target 9 of the Millennium Development Goals. It has donated £1 million a year for the five years to 2005 (first term) and has committed £1.5 million a year for the five years from 2006 (second term) to this end. Half the funding and activity focuses on understanding and managing the impact of BAT operations on biodiversity, and half supports external biodiversity conservation projects through the partner NGOs.

8.5 Conclusions 8.5.1 This is a broad sector with many indirect, direct and cumulative impacts upon biodiversity;

covering agriculture, fisheries (aquaculture / wild capture / shellfish etc) and processing with global-reaching impacts. The sector poses significant opportunities and challenges for sustainable development (and thus the maintenance of ecosystems and genetic resources) that necessitate the improvement of agriculture practices and food production processes. This is reflected in the range of business mechanisms to address biodiversity impact in the food sector, with supply chains, policy (e.g. CAP) and consumer choice key influential factors.



8.5.2 The main mechanisms for the food sector are institutional (networks and forums), technical (certification schemes) and discursive (roundtables and platforms).

8.5.3 Although many institutional bodies exist covering the broad food sector, few have a strong biodiversity focus, although some organisations have specifically been established to address environmental or, more broadly, sustainability issues. This is similarly the case for publications and guidance that encompass biodiversity amongst a range of other issues. Membership fees fund many institutional bodies and so biodiversity needs to be high on the agenda for institutions to focus stakeholders’ funding on the issue. A few bodies provide specific biodiversity-related certification or advice e.g. Natural England and ADAS’s Conservation Advice and Conservation Grade Farming. There is potential to increase the biodiversity focus of networks and forums and publications, and to raise awareness of biodiversity and its importance to all businesses operating in the food sector.

8.5.4 Given the far-reaching supply chain impacts of this sector and strong consumer interest, numerous certification schemes have been developed for different parts of the food sector and for different food sources and products. Schemes also specifically target farming and fishing practices and different geographic scales. A question hangs over how well biodiversity is accounted for in these schemes, and how well-recognised schemes are, particularly given that there is a concern over consumer confusion from the range of marques in circulation. Conservation Grade Farming, as a refined system over many years and with a specific biodiversity-focus, may provide key lessons on potential criteria and transferable elements for other schemes and, indeed, other business sectors. Challenges are also posed by the complexity of supply chains and the cost of e.g. monitoring that may be passed on to the consumer and limit both consumer use and business uptake of certification schemes. It suggests that other mechanisms are a necessary part of the larger solution for the biodiversity impacts of this sector and it also suggests the need for accreditation from an overseeing body and rigorous monitoring and standardisation, partnerships and recognition and awareness-raising.

8.5.5 Discursive roundtables provide a very useful means in the food sector for developing certification criteria – particularly given broad supply chain complexity with impacts for numerous stakeholders and the various “raw ingredients” within the processing of food. Given the broad geographic scope of the food sector they also provide an opportunity for joined-up international thinking and could be supported through wider representation.

8.5.6 Company best practice is one way of addressing areas where certification schemes are not applicable. There are numerous examples of company best practice (e.g. Cadbury, Diageo, Loch Duart etc), which were not all short-listed and could provide for an exhaustive list. Advisory bodies – both independent institutions and those set up through NGOs and government policy – are useful in this respect. Several partnerships between companies (and companies with NGOs) have been established to knowledge-share and improve company best practice, exploiting the enhanced benefits to biodiversity and business that can be achieved through cooperation. Conferences also provide a good means of knowledge-sharing, such as the Agrevolution Conference. There are numerous websources generally outlining the food-



biodiversity relationship. For example, dedicated webpages on the Business and Biodiversity website83 and on the CBD website.84

8.5.7 Lack of recognition is a key issue, both within the sector e.g. of platforms, institutions, criteria and policies, but also in the general public e.g. of certification marques, reducing incentive for business uptake. In addition, some mechanisms are still being rolled out and thus lacking in recognition and usefulness. There is scope to support awareness-raising amongst business (e.g. networks and forums, publications etc) and amongst consumers (e.g. by publishing lists of recognised certification schemes or through award schemes).

8.5.8 There are numerous drivers that provide business incentive to take steps to support the conservation of biodiversity within the agricultural sector:85

• Regulatory – an increasingly demanding compliance environment e.g. CAP reforms, New Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) regulations, groundwater authorisations, waste management controls, genetically modified organisms (GMOs);

• Consumer Pressure – as end users in the food supply chain, consumer choice and growing awareness and concern over food safety and security can combine to reduce agriculture’s impact on biodiversity by increasing standards;

• Incentives and Opportunities – e.g. organic farming capitalising from a consumer desire for higher standards in food production;

• Future-proofing – ensuring the sustainability of future harvests; • Environmental, social and sustainability requirements – from consumers, clients, regulators,

investors; • Maintaining brand value and reputation.

8.5.9 Sustainable agriculture is vital for the long term viability of the agribusiness sector. Private companies play an important role in the type of agricultural biodiversity used in production. The food retail sector is in a particularly influential position with regards to pushing biodiversity up the agenda, being placed between producers (agriculture) and manufacturers, and the end-user (consumers). However, although in principle businesses may wish to mitigate biodiversity loss and enhance biodiversity gain, mechanisms for doing so are sometimes too expensive to research and/or take-on, businesses may be unaware of the opportunity, or the opportunity may not exist. Opportunities for influence, e.g. through policy, awareness-raising (business and consumer), support for and advice to partnerships etc, are therefore important factors in supporting the creation, implementation and uptake of biodiversity-supportive mechanisms in this sector.

8.5.10 There are several areas where business can positively influence biodiversity:86

83 For more information: http://www.businessandbiodiversity.org/agriculture.html 84 For more information: http://www.cbd.int/ibd/2008/business/ 85 Adapted from: International Finance Corporation. A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector [online] available at: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/BiodivGuide_SectorSummary_Agribusiness/$FILE/Agribusiness.pdf (accessed 9 February 2009) & The Business & Biodiversity Resource Centre http://www.businessandbiodiversity.org/agriculture.html (accessed 9 February 2009) 86 Adapted from The Business & Biodiversity Resource Centre [online] available at: http://www.businessandbiodiversity.org/agriculture.html (accessed 9 February 2009)



• Expert knowledge relating to the importance and function of biodiversity and for countryside management and stewardship from farmers and fishermen;

• Assess the impacts the company has on biodiversity; • Site Biodiversity Action Plans; • Supply Chain and farming practices management e.g. reducing tillage and developing

corridors; • Increasing awareness among employees, customers and stakeholders; • Best practice; • Auditing environmental performance on a whole farm approach (Environment Agency

approved) to increase efficiency and save costs whilst managing e.g. land-use, nutrients, pesticides, water and wastes;

• Involvement in business mechanisms.

8.5.11 Our conclusions and recommendations in relation to the food producers and processors sector are summarised in Table 14.

Table 14: Conclusions and recommendations for the food producers and processors sector


This is a difficult question to answer conclusively. On the production side, agri-environment schemes are increasingly well established as well as advisory groups on agriculture and biodiversity (e.g. Linking Environment and Farming, LEAF, set up in 1991). Various food assurance schemes have been set up over the years as food companies and retailers have looked to verify that the farmers supplying them are achieving good agricultural standards. Some of these have a strong biodiversity focus but others are focused primarily on food safety and hygiene and animal welfare.


It proved difficult to establish the effectiveness of the various tools and methodologies identified. However, the study identified effectiveness for some tools; for example,18% of UK fruit and vegetables now achieves LEAF Marque accreditation for example while the LEAF Audit scheme covers 10% of the farmed area. It is early days for many certification schemes; the MSC, for example, is in a rapid growth phase with increasing industry demand for certification. In terms of effectiveness, according to the MSC, most fisheries have made a series of positive changes to the benefit of target fish stocks and the wider environment in order to achieve and retain certification.


It proved difficult to establish the extent of take-up across the food producers and processors sector; however, it was clear from the general thrust of responses that take up of different assurance schemes is increasing.




A range of mechanisms are available particularly on the food production side at the farm level. However, it is early days for many of the certification schemes identified and they face numerous challenges including consumer recognition and complexity.


• Support the work of leading biodiversity organisations within the food sector such as LEAF and the continued development and roll-out of their tools and methodologies.



9 Retail

9.1 Introduction 9.1.1 This chapter details our findings in relation to the retail sector and is organised around the

following sections:







9.2.1 In 2007, there were 297,850 retail outlets in the UK87. Furthermore, the retail sector generates almost 8% of the Gross Domestic Product of the UK and more than a third of consumer spending goes through shops88. Coupled with this growth, we are currently seeing the rise of the ‘green consumer’. As laid out in ‘The Green Consumer Guide’, the Green Consumer avoids products which are likely to89:

• Endanger the health of the consumer or of others • Cause significant damage to the environment during manufacture, use or disposal • Cause unnecessary waste, either because of over-packaging or because of an unduly short

useful life • Use materials derived from threatened species of from threatened environments • Involve the unnecessary use – or cruelty to – animals • Adversely affect other countries, particularly in the Third World.

9.2.2 Consumers are demanding greener products and meeting these expectations is profitable for retailers. In a recent EU wide survey 75% of citizens said that they wanted to buy greener products even if they were more expensive90. In response to this, the consumer-led retail

87 British Retail Consortium ( 2009) Retail Stats & Info [online] available at: http://www.brc.org.uk/latestdata04.asp?iCat=52&sCat=RETAIL+KEY+FACTS (accessed 15 April 2009). 88 British Retail Consortium ( 2009) Retail Stats & Info [online] available at: http://www.brc.org.uk/latestdata04.asp?iCat=52&sCat=RETAIL+KEY+FACTS (accessed 15 April 2009). 89 Elkington, J. and Hailes, J. (1989) The Green Consumer Guide: From shampoo to champagne – high-street shopping for a better environment. Victor Gollancz Ltd, London. 90 European Commission (2009) Promoting sustainable consumption and production [online] available at: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/23854 (accessed 15 April 2009)



sector is stepping up to these demands and becoming more ‘transparent’ in their operations and supply chains (from raw materials and products to services and labour).

9.2.3 As emphasised by the EU, retailers are in a powerful position to lead the way and improve their social and environmental impacts down the supply chain91:

• Retailers can have a major impact on the environment through their own purchasing decisions. To give one example, several retailers have already given a commitment to only sell products made from legally harvested timber. If the whole sector followed suit then there would be a substantial decrease in the pressure to log the world's remaining tropical forests.

• In addition, the retail sector itself has a very significant ecologic footprint with its buildings, its transport fleets, the refrigeration of goods, and the packaging it uses. Reducing this footprint is an obvious first step for the retail sector to look at.

• Finally, retailers are ideally situated to provide clearer information to consumers about the environmental performance of products. Surveys have repeatedly shown that shoppers are confused about competing environmental claims. If we can get rid of this confusion then demand for green goods is certain to increase.

Making the link

9.2.4 Sustainable consumption and production maximises business' potential to transform environmental challenges into economic opportunities and provides a better deal for consumers. The challenge is to improve the overall environmental performance of products throughout their life-cycle, to boost the demand for better products and production technologies and to help consumers in making informed choices92.

9.2.5 What we consume can have a huge impact on the environment. For example, the food and drink sector – from farm to fork – represents some 23% of global resource use, and is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions93. According to the EU, looking at climate change and biodiversity, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that we are still a long way from meeting our most basic environmental objectives: ‘It is important to understand that climate change and the loss of ecosystems are symptoms of a deeper underlying problem – which is the unsustainable way that we are using up the world’s resources’94.

9.2.6 Biodiversity is a key component of retailers’ corporate responsibilities. As shown in the diagram below (Exploring the Boundaries of Corporate Responsibility), retailers are responsible for their impacts on primary producers, communities/regions, staff, wages/conditions, customers and a whole range of other impacts including climate, waste, energy, transport, health/nutrition, access and biodiversity/landscapes.

91 91 European Commission (2009) Promoting sustainable consumption and production [online] available at: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/23854 (accessed 15 April 2009) 92 European Commission (2009) European Sustainable Consumption and Production Policies [online] available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/escp_en.htm (accessed 15 April 2009). 93 European Commission (2009) Promoting sustainable consumption and production [online] available at: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/23854 (accessed 15 April 2009). 94 European Commission (2009) Promoting sustainable consumption and production [online] available at: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/23854 (accessed 15 April 2009).



9.2.7 According to the EU, the building blocks of a policy on sustainable consumption and production include95:

• Retail Forum • Integrated Product Policy (IPP) • Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources • Thematic Strategy on Waste Prevention and Recycling • Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) • Ecolabel Scheme • Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) • Green Public Procurement (GPP) • Eco-design of Energy Using Products Directive (EuP) • European Compliance Assistance Programme - Environment & SMEs

Figure 5: Exploring the boundaries of CR96

95 European Commission (2009) European Sustainable Consumption and Production Policies [online] available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/escp_en.htm (accessed 15 April 2009). 96 Race to the Top (2004) available at: www.racetothetop.org [online] accessed 16 April 2009.




9.3.1 Compared to other sectors, the retail sector has a less direct impact on biodiversity (being further up the supply chain). The retail sector has a range of direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity. For example, the pharmaceuticals industry develops, manufactures and sells diagnostic substances and medicinal products in the form of tablets, capsules, ointments, solutions, suspensions and powders97. Through its operations, the industry can impact in a range of ways, through research and development, supply chain, production processes and site management.

9.3.2 Compared to other sectors, we found a limited range of biodiversity delivery mechanisms in the retail sector, uncovering 27 tools, initiatives and good practice examples. We found that the biodiversity focus varied considerably across the list, from ‘complete focus’ (e.g. Sainsbury’s Operation Bumblebee and the EU’s Retail Forum) to ‘limited focus’ (e.g. Alliance of Independent Retailers and the National Pharmaceutical Association). Having established our ‘long list’, we then put together a ‘short list’ (see Appendix 2), comprised of 11 organisations and groups (some of which had more than one tool or initiative) which showed ‘moderate’, ‘complete’ or ‘extensive’ biodiversity focus.


97 The Business and Biodiversity Resource Centre (2009) Pharmaceuticals [online] available at: http://www.businessandbiodiversity.org/pharmaceuticals.html (accessed 15 April 2009).



Short list table


Effectiveness table


Table 15: Measures of effectiveness of the retail shortlisted mechanisms98




Cost & Funding Timescale Bio focus Communicability Frequency

of use UsefulnessEase of execution / usability

Monitoring

Operation Bumblebee

National SMEs Already within Sainsburys supply chain and there are ambitions to move it further down the supply chain.

Monitoring and agronomy guidance is paid for by Sainsburys. The farmers pay for the seed mix and cultivation costs.

Been running for 3 years as commercial project. Intention is to continue.

Extensive focus – the whole purpose of the field margin work is to increase the biodiversity. The bumblebees

Limited recognition

Widely used – currently only used in UK and with dedicated grower base.

Very useful Moderately user-friendly - Cultivation details must be followed to ensure maintenance of biodiversity within the filed

Indicators – bumblebees are used as indicators of improved biodiversity.




are an indicator species for other species.

margins.

Fairtrade Foundation - Fairtrade Labelling Standards

Global Any size of business can apply for their products to be certified providing they are willing to adhere to the Fairtrade standards

? Companies required to pay a license fee to the Foundation in order to use the Fairtrade Mark (according to the wholesale value of the certified products)

? Moderate focus

Universally recognised – the Fairtrade Mark is widely recognised by both the public and business

Used by some


Monitoring – producers are audited on an annual basis in order to ensure that they are meeting Fairtrade minimum standards and also making progress and continually improving.

The Union for Ethical Biotrade

Global MNC, SME & producer groups

Considers the whole supply chain from producers to final product manufacturers.

Budget 2008-2010 is 3 million US$. Funded by IFC. For members to use the mechanism there are membership fees, audit expenses, implementation of standard Union for Ethical Biotrade.

Created in May 2007, launched in Sept 2007, project funding obtained in June 2008. Fully operational from mid 2008 onwards.

Complete focus – CBD is main objective of this mechanism

Some recognition – as this is a new initiative, the recognition is still limited. This is expected to change over the next 2 years in target sectors of the Union for Ethical Biotrade.

Used by some – start-up mechanism & expected that this will be more widely used in target sectors in next two years.

Very useful. Moderately user-friendly –demanding towards businesses so not too easy to implement. However, designed so that all business types can work with t if truly interested in biodiversity.

Monitoring & indicators – the Union for Ethical Biotrade has a standard that is verified by their party auditors. An impact system is being developed to measure longer term



impact.




9.4.1 From our ‘short list’, we uncovered a handful of active biodiversity initiatives across various retail operations and organisations, both UK-wide and global, covering a range of areas including technical, discursive and institutional. Drawn directly from the ‘short list’, the next section categorises (into certification schemes / company best practice / partnerships / networks and forums / publications) the specific tools and initiatives that we identified as the most active and relevant in promoting biodiversity to business99.

• Certification schemes include: the EU’s Eco-label; the Fairtrade Foundation’s Fairtrade Labelling Standards; the Fairtrade Labelling Organisation’s (FLO) International Fairtrade Labelling Standards; and the Soil Association’s mark for a) food b) textiles c) agriculture and the Multiple Retailers Working Group.

• Company best practice examples include: Sainsbury’s ‘Operation Bumblebee’ and Pesticide Reduction Programme; Tesco’s internal corporate responsibility strategy; and M&S’ Plan A.

• Partnerships and networks and forums include: the EU Retail Forum; IIED & Race to the Top’s ‘Race to the Top’ website; The RITE Group; and The Union for Ethical Biotrade.

• Publications include: the British Retail Consortium’s ‘A Better Retailing Climate’; and Race to the Top’s ‘Stakeholder accountability in the UK supermarket sector: Final report of the ‘Race to the Top’ project’.

9.4.2 For each tool or initiative identified at the ‘short list’ stage, a proforma was sent out to the key contact person (identified at the ‘long list’ stage). Proformas were emailed to a total of 12 organisations and groups, in relation to over 17 tools and initiatives. Compared to other sectors, the response rate for returned proformas was poor and we received just 3 forms covering 3 tools and initiatives, analysed in the section below. We also received feedback from M&S and Tesco (by email and phone, respectively) on their internal activities and commitments, which will also be covered in the section below. Given that these were not active tools / initiatives used to promote biodiversity protection to business (but to their customers), it was not possible to fill out the form.


Company best practice

Tesco

M&S

9.4.3 At the long list stage, we found a large number of leading retailers with biodiversity programmes and policies, often interwoven within their corporate responsibility strategy. Given




that retail is essentially a consumer led sector and given the rise of the ‘conscious consumer’ and a need for retailers to be more accountable and transparent in their operations, being seen to be active in areas such as environment (and biodiversity) and fair labour, is particularly important.

9.4.4 As an example, Marks and Spencer, the UK’s 8th largest food retailer, has embedded sustainability into its M&S brand100. Biodiversity constitutes an inherent part of sustainable sourcing of raw materials and overall operational thinking. Wherever significant sustainability impacts of raw material sourcing are identified, M&S aims to support best practice, avoid bad practice and encourage the bulk of its supply chain operations to improve their performance. The Sustainable Development Manager for Raw Materials at M&S said that ‘we approach biodiversity as part of how we source our key raw materials, such as wood, fish, cotton, palm oil, soy, fresh produce, fresh protein. Where possible we apply independent schemes such as FSC, MSC, BCI, RSPO, RTRS, LEAF audit to address biodiversity as part of a whole farm or field environmental impact assessment’. M&S have also been working with FFI, who have been undertaking a similar exercise looking to assess ecosystem/biodiversity tools and business' approaches to managing biodiversity in their supply chains.

9.4.5 As another example, Tesco, who source from over 15,000 growers in over 70 countries, aim to be transparent in their operations. In terms of biodiversity, Tesco reported several working groups which meet monthly e.g. the Wood & Paper Working Group, and the Fish Sustainability Working Group (health and beauty fish oils), to bring all the technical managers together across different ‘categories’. These technical managers then report back to each buyer to ensure high levels of sustainability. Tesco is also a member of the Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil. Tesco also launched Nurture in 1992 and as an independently accredited scheme. The chain has committed itself to ensuring that all their fruit and vegetables are grown to environmental and responsible standards. By adhering to the Nurture standard, Tesco growers101:

• Ensure all products can be traced back to source.

• Grow and select the highest quality fruit and vegetables available.

• Demonstrate a commitment to protecting wildlife and landscape conservation.

• Encourage sustainable farming practices, such as use of energy, natural resources and recycling.

• Rational use of artificial pesticides, fertilisers and manures – they champion the use of natural methods, such as solar radiation of soils to eradicate pests.

• Ensure all staff are treated in an responsible manner.


Fairtrade Labelling Standards, Fairtrade Foundation

9.4.6 In the retail sector, there are also numerous certification schemes. Many of these are covered in the food producers and processors chapter e.g. the Soil Association’s marks for a) food b)

100 The Business and Biodiversity Resource Centre (2009) Pharmaceuticals [online] available at: http://www.businessandbiodiversity.org/pharmaceuticals.html (accessed 15 April 2009). 101 Tesco (2009) Nurture Standard [online] available at: http://www.tesco.com/nurture/?page=nurturestandards (accessed 15 April 2009).



textiles c) agriculture; the Marine Stewardship Council’s MSC - labelled products / certified fisheries; and LEAF’s Marque standard. Certification schemes are particularly useful for the retail sector, as they provide a guarantee for the consumer, installing trust in the environmental and social/labour conditions that the product was grown or made.

9.4.7 As an example, we received feedback from the Fairtrade Foundation on the Fairtrade Labelling Standards, which is global in scope and available to any business wishing to apply for their products to be certified, providing they are willing to adhere to the Fairtrade standards and pay the license fee (calculated according to the wholesale value of the certified products). As an example, the Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Producers’ Organisations cover social development, socioeconomic development, environmental development and labour conditions102. Within environmental development and in relation to biodiversity, there are sections on agrochemicals, waste, social and water, fire and GMOs. Although biodiversity is just one element of the standards, they were assessed by the respondent as being ‘very useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business. The Standards are well-known and ‘the Fairtrade Mark is widely recognised by both the public and business’. In terms of monitoring, producers are audited on an annual basis to ensure they are meeting Fairtrade minimum standards and also making continual progress.

Partnerships

Operation Bumblebee, Sainsbury’s


9.4.8 At the short list stage, we identified several partnerships in the retail sector, two of which we received feedback on. Sainsbury’s is currently working with Syngenta (research organisation) and 100 farmers to establish ‘Operation Bumblebee’, a project set up to sow and manage 1000 ha of clover rich field corners and boundaries, to re-establish the pollen and nectar food source for bumblebees, whose numbers are seriously declining (see Case Study). National in scope and aimed at SMEs and local farmers, the project is integrated within Sainsburys’ supply chain and there are ambitions to move it further down the supply chain. The project was assessed by the respondent as having an ‘extensive’ focus on biodiversity and to be ‘very useful’ for protecting biodiversity and influencing business: “the whole purpose of the field margin work is to increase the biodiversity. The bumblebees are an indicator species for other species”. Although there is currently limited recognition of the project, it is UK-wide with a dedicated grower base. It is felt that the project is moderately user-friendly; cultivation details must be followed to ensure maintenance of biodiversity within the field margins. In terms of monitoring, bumblebees are used as indicators of improved biodiversity.

Case study: Operation Bumblebee Bumblebee populations on UK arable farms have declined by more than 70% over the past 30 years, primarily through loss of vital nectar food resources and nesting sites as cropping patterns have changed. One of the 20 bumblebee species has disappeared altogether and three other species are on the verge of extinction.

102 Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International (2009) Generic Fairtrade Standards for Small Producers’ Organisations [online] available at: http://www.fairtrade.net/fileadmin/user_upload/content/Jan_2009_EN_Generic_Fairtrade_Standards_SPO.pdf (accessed 15 April 2009).



Operation Bumblebee, pioneered and funded by Syngenta, was created to re-establish habitat that supports the bumblebee across the UK arable farming area. Over 1000 farmers are being encouraged to join the new national scheme, with each committed to establishing at least a hectare (2.5 acres) of specific Operation Bumblebee seed mix. Operation Bumblebee provides farmers and advisors with the training, skills and Syngenta technical support to successfully establish habitats rich in the traditional flowering species red clover, vetches and sanfoin.

Operation Bumblebee has demonstrated that pro-active management of dedicated environmental areas will achieve far greater results for all biodiversity than simply deintensifying farm production. When integrated alongside conventional arable areas, Syngenta Operation Bumblebee claims to offer a practical and workable solution.

9.4.9 We also received feedback from the Union for Ethical Biotrade. The idea behind forming the Union was born out of the need expressed by SMEs in developing countries for ways to differentiate BioTrade products in the market. This stems from efforts initiated by the BioTrade Initiative of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), which was created to contribute to international efforts to promote sustainable development and biodiversity conservation. Today, the Union is an association of private sector and non private sector organisations (MNCs, SMEs and producer groups), who commit to implementing good biodiversity practices (social, conservation benefit sharing) in business practices throughout supply chains (from producers to final product manufacturers). Practices are verified by independent third party auditors.

9.4.10 According to the Union, “members benefit from tool that translates CBD requirements into practice, from technical assistance and networking possibilities”103. The Union is funded by the IFC and the budget for 2008-2010 is 3m US Dollars, with additional cash flow coming from membership fees. Feedback stated that the Union has a ‘complete’ focus on biodiversity and is very useful in protecting biodiversity and influencing business. However, “as this is a new initiative, the recognition is still limited… this is expected to change over the next two years in target sectors of the Union for Ethical Biotrade”. In terms of usability, the Union standards are demanding towards business so not easy to implement; however, they are “designed so that all business types can work with it if truly interested in biodiversity”. In terms of monitoring, an impact system is being developed to measure the longer term impact.

Networks & forums

9.4.11 Although we did not receive any feedback on retail networks / forums, there are some notable examples. Firstly, the European Commission has recently established a Retail Forum, which aims to harness the huge potential that retailers have to improve the quality of the environment. According to the EU, it will allow a sharing of know-how and a benchmarking of best practices, e.g. low-emission refrigeration pioneered by one retailer that could become the industry standard. The EU recognises that retail is “a highly competitive sector” and “would like to see

103 Union for Ethical Biotrade (2009) Scott Wilson Proforma for Business and Biodiversity Project

http://www.biotrade.org/�

http://www.biotrade.org/�

http://www.unctad.org/�



one part of this competition being a "race to the top" to deliver environmental results”104. The Forum also provides a structured dialogue with regulators and will also allow policy makers to tap into the knowledge and expertise of the retail sector: ‘working together can help us to develop much more effective policies’.

9.4.12 As another example, the RITE Group (Reducing the Impact of Textiles on the Environment) was founded by M&S, the University of Leeds and Ecotextile News to provide a steering committee and advisory panel of senior industry executives, from fibres through to brands. The group aims to develop and provide advice and fact based information to reduce/minimise the negative environmental effects of the production, use and disposal of textiles and to drive forward the sustainable and ethical production of textiles and apparel throughout the global supply chain. Through a number of annual conferences (open to anyone at a price of £195/day), the RITE Group provides a forum for different sectors of the textile industry to share views and best practice; the Group’s success is based on the facilitation of discussions between industry, retail, academia, media, scientists, designers and government.

9.5 Conclusions 9.5.1 Compared to other sectors, there is a limited range of biodiversity delivery mechanisms in the

retail sector. At the ‘short list’ stage, we identified mainly certification schemes and company best practice examples, but also a couple of partnerships and networks/forums.

9.5.2 In the retail sector, there are numerous well-known and well recognised certification schemes, including the EU’s Eco-label scheme, the Fairtrade Foundation’s Fairtrade Labelling Standards (national and international) and the Soil Association’s marks for food, textiles and agriculture. Given that the retail sector is consumer led, certification schemes are widely used to communicate the origins of a product, provide a guarantee about the product’s impacts down the supply chain (hopefully meeting number of environmental and social / labour standards) and install trust between consumer and retailer. Therefore, certification schemes and their associated ‘marks’ are immensely powerful tools in this sector.

9.5.3 We also uncovered a great deal of company best practice examples, more than for most other sectors. Whilst there were limitations to how many retailers’ corporate responsibility (CR) policies we could look into, it seems that most leading retailers (such as M&S and Tesco), have a CR policy covering some elements of biodiversity. For both, biodiversity constitutes an inherent part of sustainable sourcing. Being ‘transparent’ and accountable is imperative for retailers, particularly given their long, often complicated supply chains. Furthermore, being such a ‘highly competitive sector’, retailers have actually improved their brand image and reputation by bettering their environmental, social and labour credentials e.g. M&S was particularly successful at this after launching Plan A. However, there is also the concern that some retailers might be over-marketing what is ‘green’ and better (a term referred to as ‘corporate greenwashing’), and could be opening themselves up to potential consumer backlash should standards drop down the supply chain.

9.5.4 There was also evidence that retailers are attempting to go a step further than their corporate responsibility strategies, setting up partnership projects focused entirely on biodiversity.

104 European Commission (2009) Promoting sustainable consumption and production [online] available at: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/23854 (accessed 15 April 2009). gu



‘Operation Bumblebee’, for example, aims to provide a better, more sustainable product for Sainsbury’s customers, but also to bring about wider benefits by working with farmers and advisors to establish dedicated environmental areas for the declining bumblebee population.

9.5.5 It was encouraging to identify key networks and forums. While the RITE Group hosts successful conferences to encourage the textile industry to share views and best practice, the EU’s recently launched Retail Forum aims to harness the huge potential that retailers have to improve the quality of the environment and “working together… to develop much more effective policies”. The EU realises that they need to build a close relationship with retailers for the simple reason that they are the interface where the consumers actually come face to face with products: “if retailers consistently address green issues then the benefits for the environment will be enormous”105. In the future, it will be important to push these networks and forums, increasing membership and awareness-raising amongst retailers (large and small). In such a competitive sector, any form of information sharing around environmental best practice (and biodiversity) will contribute to bringing about change on a large scale.

9.5.6 During the long and short list stages, it was noted that there are very few publications, checklists and guidance notes on the potential impacts and opportunities around biodiversity in the retail sector. Given that this information is not readily available, retailers are left to develop biodiversity policies alone with little guidance. Particularly for the smaller retailers (which might not have the time or resources to develop such a policy), more guidance could be useful. At the very minimum, retailers would probably benefit from a central ‘hub’ of information on retail and biodiversity, perhaps hosted by BBSIG, the British Retail Consortium or the EU’s new retail forum.

9.5.7 Our conclusions and recommendations in relation to the retail sector are summarised in Table 16.

Table 16: Conclusions and recommendations for the retail sector


We identified relatively few tools and methodologies for the retail sector. However, we identified more examples of company best practice than for other sectors (although these tended to be developed by larger, well known companies). Impacts on biodiversity in the first instance are also likely to be addressed through mechanisms employed by the food production and processing sectors and extractive industries (see above).


Relatively few tools and methodologies were identified and it proved difficult to identify the effectiveness of those identified. Retailers obviously sell a huge range of products all of which might ultimately impact on biodiversity; a cross-product approach like that of Marks and Spencer is likely to be the most effective approach.

105 European Commission (2009) Promoting sustainable consumption and production [online] available at: http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/23854 (accessed 15 April 2009).




Although we identified examples of company best practice these tended to be restricted to larger, well known companies. The businessandbiodiversity.org website contains very few examples retail case studies.


We identified relatively few tools and methodologies for the retail sector. The lack of mechanisms likely reflects the ‘distance’ between retail and biodiversity, supply chain complexity and the shear range of products to be considered.


• Support the EU Retail Forum in its aim to reduce the environmental impact of the retail sector and its supply chain and promote the importance of biodiversity within this remit.

• Facilitate communication between larger retailers, e.g. through round table discussions, and promote biodiversity awareness in the sector e.g. at retail conferences.



10 Leisure & Hotels

10.1 Introduction 10.1.1 This chapter details our findings in relation to the leisure and hotels sector and is organised

around the following sections:







10.2.1 The leisure and tourism industry – the ‘leisure’ sector – is one of the world’s largest industries, accounting for more than 10% of global GDP.106 The industry is also projected to increase four-fold in size from 1996 levels by 2010.107 The sector is a massive source of varied employment, including tour operators and their suppliers: accommodation providers and associated hotel facilities and activities, transport, caterers, local businesses, leisure activities and entertainment providers.

10.2.2 The leisure and tourism industry is both global and domestic in its operations. Demand for global holiday packages is high within the UK, but there is also a substantial domestic tourism and leisure market, drawing visitors from overseas in addition to UK residents. Some 52 million overnight holiday trips were taken in 2008 in the UK with a total expenditure of £11,388 million. In the same timeframe, UK residents made 68.8 million trips abroad with a total expenditure of £16.4bn.108

10.2.3 There is a strong reliance, both globally and domestically, on the leisure and tourism attractions offered by the natural environment – its habitats, species & features. Moreover, there is an increasing consumer demand for eco-tourism.

106 IFC (undated) A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector: Tourism and Hospitality [online] available from: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/BiodivGuide_SectorSummary_TourismandHospitality/$FILE/Tourism+and+Hospitality.pdf 107 CELB & CI (undated) Travel & Leisure Program [online] available from: http://www.celb.org/xp/CELB/programs/travel-leisure/ 108 UKTS (undated) United Kingdom Tourism Survey – December 2008 Update [online] available from: http://www.tourismtrade.org.uk/Images/United%20Kingdom%20Tourism%20Survey%20-%20December08%20Update_tcm12-45473.pdf



Making the link

10.2.4 The leisure sector interacts quite closely with the environment – not only does it rely extensively on its resources (e.g. wildlife, landscape, water sports) – but it also impacts heavily upon it. Finding ways of preserving these natural assets are therefore of paramount concern to the industry for survival and for expansion.

10.2.5 Examples of impacts felt may be direct e.g. through trampling on nature walks, or indirect e.g. through the daily operations of hotels. The impacts may have a cumulative effect and may include some of the following:

• Siting & construction of facilities & infrastructure e.g. hotels, airports, roads, golf courses etc • Increased water consumption • Increased waste and pollution • Disturbance of wildlife behaviour by visitor pressure • Strain on local resources or from transporting in non-local resources

10.2.6 Therefore there are potentially extensive impacts upon biodiversity from the leisure and hotels industry, particularly given that it is growing sector – expanding in to new areas of the globe but also increasing visitor pressure on existing sites. Moreover, CELB/CI – which operates a travel and leisure program – state that tourism in areas with significant levels of biodiversity is increasing at a much faster rate than the industry as a whole.

10.2.7 Although tourism and leisure can have a potentially devastating impact on sensitive ecosystems and local biodiversity, the sector is making a substantial and coordinated effort to address these issues and wider sustainability concerns, looking not just to mitigate harm but also for conservation incentives and to enhance gain:

“If undertaken responsibly, tourism can be a positive force for sustainable development, conservation and environmental protection - but if unplanned, tourism can be socially, culturally and economically disruptive, and have a devastating effect on fragile environments”109

10.2.8 The IFC recognises the following drivers for change that apply to businesses:110

• The need to maintain and preserve the natural habitats, species and features upon which many parts of the tourism industry in built

• Responding to increasing consumer interest in sustainable travel choices • Compliance with the expanding number of certification schemes • Opportunities for costs savings – decreased and efficient use of natural resources, more

innovative solutions to waste disposal

109 International Tourism Partnership (undated) http://www.tourismpartnership.org/About_Us/History.html 110 IFC (undated) A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector: Tourism and Hospitality [online] available from: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/BiodivGuide_SectorSummary_TourismandHospitality/$FILE/Tourism+and+Hospitality.pdf




10.3.1 A number of distinctly environmental mechanisms have evolved owing to the strong reliance on biodiversity for many leisure sector ventures, with geographic scope a key factor in number of mechanisms. Our research identified 57 mechanisms in a non-exhaustive ‘long list’ (see Volume 2) for the leisure sector. It should be noted, however, that biodiversity focus and business relevance of these mechanisms varied between mechanisms and in geographic scope. This includes a number of institutions / networks and forums that were included as part of the original Cokeliss (2005) list but that, following investigation, were assigned limited or no biodiversity focus. They were kept on the list owing to their potential to provide a vocal platform for biodiversity.

10.3.2 Having established our ‘long list’, we then put together a ‘short list’ (see Appendix 2), comprised of 16 organisations and partnerships/groups (some of which had more than one tool or initiative – there are therefore 25 identified ‘mechanisms’ from a potentially longer list).




Short list table


Effectiveness table


Table 17: Measures of effectiveness of the leisure & hotels shortlisted mechanisms111




Cost & Funding Timescale Bio focus Communica

bility Frequency of use Usefulness


Monitoring

Blue Flag Global – more than 37 countries

- (Predominantly Local Authority, but implications for all businesses)

Tourist resorts & public perception of high standards & beach facilities increased revenue

£630 Bathing season (May-Sept) when water quality is monitored. Application process = 6 months

Moderate - Widely used – 82 beaches in England in 2008 – strict criteria limits numbers

Moderately useful

Moderately user-friendly (a worldwide award governed by FEE, so the application process & criteria are not flexible)

None – ENCAMS (administrator of standard) does not monitor specific data regarding impact on biodiversity




CITO – Conserving the Park Environment: Training Course

National SME - £150+VAT - Moderate - Not ready for use


-

Green Tourism Business Scheme

National MNC & SME –wide range of business types, including accommodation providers, visitor attractions, corporate offices & others

Rolled out from Scotland initially in Devon, then South West (where seems to be most applicable) and now rest of UK -mainly uptake by hotels. Some sites contain SSSIs & do positive biodiversity actions associated with their management. We encourage sponsorship & positive actions re international biodiversity such as rainforest sponsorship or animal sponsorship

£100-550 Biannual audit

Moderate – One of the criteria - 'Nature & Cultural Heritage' - corresponds to on site measures aimed at increasing biodiversity, e.g. wildlife gardening, growing native species, nesting boxes, as well as providing information for visitors on the wildlife on & around the site

Universally recognised – In UK well-recognised

Widely used – Approx. 500 businesses in South West - uptake across England & Scotland

Very useful – But mainly in relation to energy, waste & water etc - improving biodiversity is just one criteria

Simple – Has to be - independent auditors are trained requiring 30 assesments to be fully trained

Monitoring & indicators – 150 meaures act as indicators of activities

International Tourism Partnership – Environmental Management for Hotels

Global MNC & SME - £50,000 from member contributions

- Limited – only relates to water, waste and energy

Universally recognised – Widespread recognition within the

Widely used Moderately useful – in respect to energy, waste and water;

Simple Monitoring



hotel sector possible grounds, gardens & golf courses

International Tourism Partnership and Conservation International –greenhotelier magazine

Global MNC & SME Distributed to major hotel companies & provides information on supply chains. Features supplier sponsors in each issue

£50,000 pa Published quarterly

Limited – Provides technical information on siting, design & construction of new hotels, information on landscaping golf courses and gardens & water & energy saving

Universally recognized – in the hotel sector

- Very useful – in terms of influencing business

Simple -

International Tourism Partnership and Conservation International –Sustainable Hotel Siting Design and Construction Guidelines

Global MNC & SME The reach within the industry is widespread. It was produced with the support of Accor, Marriott, Hilton, Taj, Intercontinental, Rezidor, Starwood, Four Seasons

£100,000 funded through membership contributions and a grant funding from NGO

- Moderate Universally recognised

Widely used Very useful – Potential impacts to biodiversity from new hotel construction

Simple Monitoring

David Bellamy Conservation Awards

National SME Holiday & residential parks. First year = 200 parks. 13 years later = 700+ and

Basic entry = £250 – varies according to size of park

Annual assessments for those already participating – progress

Complete – no area of biodiversity is excluded from the assessment

Universally recognised – all parks made aware of scheme by BH&HPA

Widely used – 25% (given that not all parks eligible to participate)

Very useful – nature groups monitor the scheme

Moderately user-friendly – simple to participate but requires strong

Monitoring – independent assessment groups



growing annually

taken in to account

evidence of achievement

Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Program

Global Other – work with tourism businesses of all sizes, from micro-enterprises & community-based operations to large hotels & resorts

Work greening all levels of the supply chain, through work in training hotels (increasing supply) to the agreements signed with inbound & outbound tour operators committing them to source from these hotels (increasing demand)

Over $1 million USD/year. Donors include: The Multilateral Investment Fund of the Inter-American Development Bank, the US Agency for International Development, the Overbrook Foundation, the Citigroup Foundation, the Global Environment Facility/United Nations Environment Programme and the Mitsubishi Foundation, among others

2000 - present

Extensive – also work in the socio-cultural & economic arenas, as well as with other environmental practices


Used by some – Current field work is limited to Latin America, but our work with international standards, consumer education, marketing, and agreements with tour operators is worldwide.

Very useful Simple Monitoring & indicators – Please see the press release http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/news.cfm?id=sarapiqui_release and attached study for details for a recent example of our program's impacts

Travelife112 Global TNC & SME High reach –designed for all links in tourism supply chain –

- - Extensive Universally recognised – online system in several

Widely used Very useful Simple None – a new initiative

112 Response received for all Travelife, under which a number of mechanisms have been created adopted and co-produced by numerous organisations. See Case Studies for more detail.



local product/service to international consumer

languages for all tourism supply chain. Validated by several major European tour operator associations

Travelife Sustainability System

Global – Promoted primarily by European Tour Operators to a global audience

MNC & SME –Initially aimed at the leisure accommodation sector.

The mechanism is applicable to all business but used primarily at the Tour Operator - Accommodation Provider interface. Specific criteria relate to continuation of supply through the

Non-commercial organisation, funded by annual subscription according to size of business. Average Tour Operator Subscription €450 per annum (1-3 Million Pax per annum) Average Hotel Subscription €250 per annum (occupancy 500 guests per night)

Verified audits required every two years

Moderate – The Travelife Sustainability System recognises general movement across all areas of sustainable tourism development. It is a tool which measures breadth of engagement rather than depth.

Universally recognised – Disseminated primarily through large Tour Operators and trade Associations

Used by some – Use limited to one or two persons per buisness but likely to become widely used.

Very useful Simple Monitoring – System able to benchmark data year on year to highlight improvement trends




10.4.1 The leisure sector has quite a high reliance on the environment. Whether or not a high quality environment in the leisure sector is associated with a high biodiversity value is debatable, but the sector can have a positive or negative impact on the exsiting biodiversity that is present. There is strong consumer pressure for high quality leisure packages both within the UK and overseas. Although there are numerous networks and forums covering the leisure sector, only a few have a strong biodiversity focus, and efforts are usually consolidated in to mechanisms created on a European or global level and acquired/uptaken by representative bodies. Therefore the sector has numerous global business mechanisms and also damage-limitation mechanisms within the UK, as highlighted in the shortlist.

10.4.2 The mechanisms in the short list are a broad range of institutional, technical, discursive, philanthropic and policy – many of the mechanisms could not be easily categorised in this way and could incorporate elements of several categories. This was also reflected in feedback received where further suggestions for categorisation were given. This reflects how numerous biodiversity programmes have been set up for the leisure sector that ‘feed down’ and influence the whole sector’s tourism operators etc. These mechanisms were loosely categorised by delivery mechanism and the following identifies those that are the most active and relevant in promoting biodiversity to business113.

10.4.3 A summary of key points from the short-list follows:

• There are numerous strategic-level partnerships and programs in the leisure sector with a biodiversity- or environment- focus, some of which may also be described as policy tools and for their project work. They also represent the development of a wide range of business mechanisms that may be described as institutional, discursive and technical. The shortlist includes the International Tourism Partnership (ITP), CELB / CI Travel & Leisure Program, Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Program, and the Tour Operator’s Initiative for Sustainable Tourism Development. It also includes projects set up with support from the EU LIFE ‘Tour Link’ project: Voluntary Initiatives for Sustainability in Tourism (VISIT) and Travelife.

• These partnerships and programs feed down in to numerous institutional organisations which form networks and forums and key advisory bodies, particularly on the aforementioned programs or as part of the partnerships. Shortlisted examples range from the international to the national and regional: Sustainable Travel International (STI), Federation of Tour Operators (FTO), Cornwall Sustainable Tourism Network (CoaST).

• The partnerships, programs and institutions above have developed several technical mechanisms in the form of publications and guidance. The ITP produces the Green Hotelier magazine – and advisory and company best practice championing publication. ITP also produced Environmental Management for Hotels (2008) and, with Conservation International, the Sustainable Hotel Siting Design and Construction Guidelines – these




publications that incorporate company best practise, checklists and control and regulation. Travelife – supported and assisted in the UK by the FTO – has produced the Supplier Sustainability Handbook (2007) and Travelife Animal Guidelines (2008).

• Travelife also provides the Travelife Sustainability System online guidance, which is supported by its partnership members. This online system is also a certification scheme. The leisure sector has many technical certification and award schemes often created by, or supported by, the partnerships, programs and institutions listed above. The shortlist includes the nationally-implemented European and global Blue Flag Programme and the national Green Tourism Business Scheme (GTBS). Other, philanthropic, awards include Tourism for Tomorrow Awards and the David Bellamy Conservation Awards, which reward company best practice and operate as participatory schemes.

• Training and workshops are technical mechanisms offered by the institutions and mechanisms above. The shortlist includes the Conserving the Park Environment - Training Workshop – a course that incorporates policy, company best practice and advice on the David Bellamy Award Scheme.

• The TOI/WWF/MARTI Workshop: Building Partnerships for Sustainable Tourism Business and Biodiversity Conservation, is one of a number of mechanisms that may be described as discursive and which again form part of the partnerships, programs and institutions already listed. E.g. the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Program also carries out workshops and operates in an advisory capacity, and the FTO has its own Responsible Tourism Committee.

10.4.4 For each tool or initiative identified at the ‘short list’ stage, a data capture form was sent out to the key contact person (identified at the ‘long list’ stage). Data capture forms were emailed to the organisations and groups in the shortlist in relation to 25 tools and initiatives. There was a moderate response rate for the leisure sector compared to other sectors, with responses from 7 organisations with 9 completed forms, analysed in the section below:


Institutional – networks and forums, advisory, partnerships, programs

10.4.5 This sector has numerous institutional organisations established for sustainability and responsible tourism, but few have a biodiversity focus. Numerous roles include programs, partnerships, advisory bodies and general networks and forums. Feedback was received from Travelife, the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Program, and the International Tourism Partnership. Although we have broadly grouped them as institutional, respondents instead used numerous categorisations which may denote their primary function as programs for establishing numerous business mechanisms for protecting biodiversity in the leisure sector.

10.4.6 Travelife (see case study) is a mechanism recently set up through funding from EU Life “to support an efficient and cost effective introduction of sustainability principles within the tourism sector”. The respondent describes it as policy, discursive and also “educational” with numerous delivery mechanisms. It targets both MNCs and SMEs and self-assessed to have a high reach within business, being designed for all links in the tourism supply chain from the local product/service to the international consumer. According to the respondent, it has an “extensive” biodiversity focus and is “widely used” (geographic focus is in Europe) and “universally recognised” – it is “an online system available in several languages for all links in



the tourism supply chain. As it is already validated by several major European tour operator associations its communicability is qualified as 'universal'”. It is also described as simple to use and very useful in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business.

10.4.7 The Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Program (see case study) is a global mechanism described by the respondent as having an “extensive” biodiversity focus, in addition to “the socio-cultural and economic arenas, as well as with other environmental practices”. As with Travelife, it was similarly assessed by the respondent as meeting several mechanism categories (technical, discursive, philanthropic), and – importantly for partnerships of this scale – its educational role was highlighted. Furthermore, as with Travelife it is working at greening all levels of the supply chain, for example in: “training hotels (increasing supply) to the agreements we sign with inbound and outbound tour operators committing them to source from these hotels (increasing demand)”. Also in common with Travelife, it works “with tourism businesses of all sizes, from micro-enterprises and community based operations to large hotels and resorts” and it has a geographic focus for its field work – this is mainly in Latin America and thus it may be described as being “used by some”. But this is in addition to worldwide work with international standards, consumer education, marketing, and agreements with tour operators. The program was founded in 2000 and is, as such, older than Travelife. Whereas Travelife is descibed as “a new initiative … has not been monitored yet”, the Rainforest Alliance uses both monitors and indicators and it reports on the program’s impacts. It requires funding of over $1 million USD per year and to this end has numerous donors. 114

10.4.8 Many of these institutions are partnerships, seeking sector-wide solutions but focusing in geographically different areas. They should provide a link between large strategic-level partnership/program to national/regional network to business, but it is unclear if this is always the case given that many representative bodies do not have a biodiversity or, indeed, environmental focus. Travelife is European program and partnership working with national trade associations, such as the UK’s FTO, to advise businesses on the ground. Partnerships demonstrate the importance of knowledge-sharing and cooperation in establishing effective business mechanisms, but are also important in terms of establishing a level playing field for the sector that avoids the problem of competing standards and systems being developed. VISIT (see case study) is a European partnership standardising European certification schemes and advising businesses and the European sector of the various national-level certification schemes, e.g. the UK’s GBTS. The Rainforest Alliance has carried out the same role through its Sustainable Tourism Certification Network of the Americas and Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council (STSC) – seeking to become not only a certification scheme advisory body, but also a global accreditation scheme for a standardised approach in the leisure sector.

Case study: EU - LIFE ENVIRONMENT – VISIT, TOUR-LINK & Travelife The EU – LIFE ENVIRONMENT project is a European policy tool associated with the support and establishment of VISIT, TOUR-LINK and Travelife – a cooperative European effort to address sustainability issues within the tourism and leisure sector through a standardised and common approach. VISIT

114 See: http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/news.cfm?id=sarapiqui_release



Created within the EU LIFE project, the European Voluntary Initiative for Sustainability in Tourism (‘VISIT’) Platform united twelve ecolabels, representing over 2000 tourism enterprises across Europe, and introduced a common standard – an EU Ecolabel for Tourism. It was established in 2004 at Reisepaviliion – a European Green and Ecotourism Fair – as a collaborative movement between distinct certification initiatives towards achieving sustainability in tourism. The organisation is working to ensure that eco-labelling in tourism is “successful, practical and responsible”. It has 21 key criteria for sustainable tourism certification. The VISIT website provides links to European national Ecolabels, including the UK Green Tourism Business Scheme (GTBS). TOUR-LINK TOUR-LINK was proposed in 2003 to the EU – LIFE ENVIRONMENT programme to demonstrate that: “Sustainable tourism can only be achieved if tourism suppliers and tour operators and independent Ecolabels collaborate with each other based on a common strategy”. The project, consisting of nine interrelated activities, ran from July 2004 – December 2007 and developed Europe’s first common model, strategy and platform to demonstrate the benefits from collaboration and to raise the share of ‘sustainable products’ within the market. It worked on creating synergies between the VISIT platform, the EU Ecolabel for Tourism and the European tour operator associations committed to testing supply chain management approaches. Travelife Travelife was created with the support of TOUR-LINK. It was established to “support an efficient and cost effective introduction of sustainability principles within the Tour operator sector“. It provides the European tourism sector with several key business mechanisms, including training, various publications and the online Sustainability System that certifies suppliers and provides tour operators and travel agent associations with validation of tourism products.

The emphasis is on cooperation within this initiative – not only does it draw upon “the individual and collective experiences of tour operators and their associations and builds upon the experiences of other initiatives within the tourism sector”, but it also disseminates good practice and introduces its business mechanisms to over 450 tour operators through national trade associations (e.g. UK’s FTO). It therefore addresses the crucial gap between strategic-level partnership/program and on-the-ground results. Furthermore, it helps avoid the problem of competing standards and systems and instead – as with VISIT and TOUR-LINK – looks to establish a level playing field and a standardised approach.

10.4.9 The International Tourism Partnership (see case study) is another institution that provided feedback on its technical guidance and communication routes with its members (see below for further information). The origins of this initiative are in the early 1990s, and as such it has become well-established and its guidance has had time to develop and be republished following continual improvement and the building of strong sectoral relationships. Industry-wide action and cooperation are acknowledged as key in this initiative, in terms of competitiveness driving the sector forward, and in terms of a standardised playing field and approach. The use of a charter is an effective mechanism to both strengthen partnerships and commit members to continual improvement and a standardised approach – the ITP was originally established in 1992 under a unanimously agreed charter. The partners of the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Program formally sign and announce their commitment to advancement, and the FTO (as with other European national trade associations) commits its members to Travelife



principles and has a Responsible Tourism Committee with its own Statement of Commitment including “a continual attempt to improve our performance”.115

Case study: The International Tourism Partnership The International Tourism Partnership has evolved from an initiative within just one hotel chain to a program that offers numerous business mechanisms sector-wide. In 1990 an environmental manual was commissioned for Inter-Continental Hotels coupled with a bonus scheme incentive for managers based on environmental performance. The importance of competitiveness was recognised as in important factor in improving standards and moving the entire sector forward. Inter-Continental Hotels met in 1991 with The Prince of Wales and Lord Forte to discuss the possibilities of building on the environmental manual. A charter was unanimously agreed upon and the International Hotels and Environment Initiative (IHEI) was formally established in 1992. In 2004, an integrated and industry-wide approach – the International Tourism Partnership – was launched by the International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF) in a multi-stakeholder meeting hosted by the Prince and Wales and comprising of leading international companies, non-profit organisations and intergovernmental agencies. It builds upon the IHEI and works to inspire global leaders in the travel and tourism industry, sharing knowledge and resources, developing policy and actively implementing programmes and mechanisms to achieve economic, social and environmental benefits. Publications include: • Environmental Management for Hotels (published 1993, third edition 2008) • greenhotelier magazine – since 2005, a quarter-annual magazine to inspire, educate and challenge

the industry • Sustainable Hotel Siting and Design Guidelines (2005) – a first for the industry • Going Green: Minimum standards toward a Sustainable Hotel – strategies for hotel management that

increase “positive contributions to biodiversity conservation”

10.4.10 The pattern of inter-linking partnerships from strategic to ground-level dissemination and implementation of business mechanisms is apparent on different geographic scales throughout this sector. E.g. global collaboration (Sustainable Travel International (STI), the CELB / CI Travel & Leisure Program (global collaboration), VISIT (European level), FTO (national level) and Cornwall Sustainable Tourism Network (CoaST – regional level). VISIT, moreover, acknowledges the particular advantage that can be achieved through “a positive collaboration between distinct initiatives working towards achieving sustainability in tourism”.

Technical – publications

10.4.11 The Travelife and the Rainforest Alliance programs have both produced publications as part of their work. Travelife has produced the Supplier Sustainability Handbook (2007) and Travelife Animal Guidelines (2008) which, in part, relate to biodiversity. Other publications offer useful guidance, checklists, control and regulation and company best practice for leisure and hotel sector operators. The International Tourism Partnership (ITP) gave feedback on some of its publications: the Green Hotelier magazine; Environmental Management for Hotels; and, with Conservation International, the Sustainable Hotel Siting Design and Construction Guidelines.

10.4.12 They were assessed by the respondent as “universally recognised”, “simple” and, as publications are easy to distribute amongst the sector and are “widely used”. The Green

115 FTO (2004) FTO Responsible Tourism Committee: Statement of Commitment [online] available at: http://www.fto.co.uk/assets/documents/fto_responsible_tourism.pdf



Hotelier, for example, has a distribution that is “global and highly influencial” with a widespread reach to MNCs and SMEs and are produced with cooperation from major businesses (e.g. Marriott, Hilton etc). The biodiversity focus is, however, “limited” and at best “moderate” – most of the benefit to biodiversity is indirectly through changed attitudes and actions by the sector, although the potential for a large impact is apparent.

Technical / Philanthropic – certification schemes & awards, training and guidance

10.4.13 Awards are a very useful mechanism for the leisure and hotels sector in terms of recognising achievement and generating consumer interest. The Blue Flag Programme, David Bellamy Conservation Awards and the Green Tourism Business Scheme (GTBS) can be described as technical certification schemes and awarding bodies. Although awards, it would be difficult to describe them as truly philanthropic, given that any business can voluntary apply with an incentive in terms of a recongisable standard for consumer appeal. Tourism for Tomorrow, however, is run by the World Travel and Tourism Council and includes a Conservation Award that is open to any tourism business, organisation or attraction, including lodges, hotels or tour operators, recognising tourism development and operations that have made a “tangible contribution to the conservation of natural heritage”.

10.4.14 Although the Blue Flag is predominantly run for and by local authorities, it none-the-less provides an example of a mechanism run by the public sector that is in the interests of the private sector, particularly where beaches are privately owned. Blue Flag beaches are “universally recognised” and thus the standard offers a significant attraction to potential customers. Thus it is in the interest of leisure and hotel businesses operating within or adjacent to a Blue Flag beach to protect and preserve the local biodiversity through improved business practices, or it could have the effect of enouraging uptake of other business mechanisms (e.g. recognised awards and standards) in order to capitalise on ‘environmentally-conscious’ consumers specifically drawn to the local ‘Blue Flag’ status. The feedback respondent states that:

“The use of 'awards' (Blue Flag, AA Rosettes/diamonds etc.) to convey excellence to the public is seen as a key driver for people visiting the coast. In addition beach managers have reported that achieving Blue Flag has had a noticable impact on revenue obtained from facilities such as beach huts.”

10.4.15 Cooperation with Local Authorities in locally-enhancing schemes can be a useful partnership and may be captialised upon through other countryside schemes – for example ENCAMS, which runs the Blue Flag scheme, also runs the Quality Coast Award. Blue Flag is an example of a scheme that was successful overseas and has been successfully transposed to the UK – it originated in France and has spread through Europe, governed by the Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE) but run in the UK by ENCAMS. One drawback, however, is that it can be less user-friendly due “to the fact that this is a worldwide award governed by FEE, the application process and criteria are not flexible”. Again, there is lack of biodiversity focus with this mechanism.

10.4.16 The Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Program is helping develop internationally sound standards for certification programs and is developing a proposed global accreditation body and establishing regional networks of certification programs to share resources and information. It notes the importance of increasing the recognition of certification schemes through marketing support and of providing training and technical assistance to certified



businesses and businesses in the process of becoming certified. It was assessed (by the respondent) as having a “moderate” biodiversity focus and thus “moderately useful” in this respect, the Green Tourism Business Scheme (GBTS) has a “moderate” biodiversity focus but is described as “very useful” due to specific ‘Nature & Cultural Heritage’ criteria for biodiversity amongst several others. Similarly to the Blue Flag – and as is the ambition of other regional schemes such as the Rainforest Alliance work in Latin America – this scheme started in one region and after successful application has been rolled out in other areas across the UK becoming “universally recognised” and “widely used”. It would appear that recognition of the standard by the consumer is essential for these schemes to be uptaken by business. Affordability and simplicity are also important (this scheme cost £100-550) and, as with all certification schemes, rigourous monitoring and auditing are essential to ensure it delivers real biodiversity benefits.

10.4.17 The David Bellamy Conservation Awards are also national but are focused specifically on SMEs and UK holiday and residential parks. This scheme has a complete biodiversity focus and it is well-known through the information dissemination activities of the British Holiday & Home Parks Association (BH&HPA). The Conserving the Park Environment - Training Workshop – is a planned one-day course to assist the delivery of this mechanism and the understanding of requirements by business. It has a high degree of biodiversity-focus and incorporates policy, company best practice and workshops, providing “delegates with inspiration and knowledge to improve their company's biodiversity and conservation policies/practices”. It specifically supports SMEs and it is operated by the widely recognised BH&HPA with training provided by an independent training organisation in accordance to standards set by the David Bellamy scheme (a recognised UK awarding body for the leisure sector).

10.4.18 Travelife also offers a certification scheme and is well recognised and positioned to distribute this mechanism amongst its members. The Travelife Sustainability System offers online guidance and certified Travelife auditors for validation and certification of tourism products and provides businesses with a training level, looking at the supply chain and allowing tour operators and travel agent associations to demand compliance to specific requirements from its members. Whether or not these standards are met can be verified by checking the annually updated and audited information available online. Suppliers are awarded with gold, silver and bronze awards based on acheivement, which are then used by operators in e.g. customer guidance on travel holiday packages offered.

10.4.19 In addition to certification schemes, the leisure sector has the institutions in place for accrediation of these schemes and awareness-raising amongst the sector and consumers. VISIT, for example, brings together European schemes under an EU ecolabel for travel. The Rainforest Alliance is similarly aiming for the role of a global tourism accreditation body through the STSC (see case study) – lending its approval, recognition and support for the most effective certification schemes. It is already rolling this out on a regional basis through the Sustainable Tourism Certification Network of the Americas. Biodiversity focus remains a question for many of these certification schemes.



Discursive – workshops / advisory / partnership

10.4.20 As discussed, partnerships play an important role in this sector, and play a discursive role in terms of developing criteria and in an advisory capacity e.g. through workshops and partnership with local businesses and schemes.

10.4.21 The Rainforest Alliance, for example, is working on a regional scale in numerous projects in Latin America, but for wider implementation and roll-out, The Alliance recognises the importance of “partnering with local and international tour operators to green the entire supply chain”.

Case study: Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Program The Rainforest Alliance has partnered, under signed agreement, with numerous organisations that formally announce their commitment to the advancement of improving environmental, economic and socio-cultural business practices in the tourism industry. Organisations include those local to the Latin Americas, but also those that are global in their scope e.g. the IUCN and the World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). The Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Program provides targeted information not just for tour operators and hoteliers, but also for travellers and certification programs. The numerous tools offered include training and technical assistance, codes of conduct, and toolkits for tour operators and SMEs with tailored and specific publications including practical guidelines, best practice examples and checklists for identifying gains. Many of the tools are targeted at SMEs, such as the Integral Biodiversity Impact System, and tailored specifically to Latin America. Importantly, however, there is potential for these mechanisms to be tailored for application elsewhere once trialled and proven on a local scale. The Alliance also carries out numerous projects in order to inform its advice, such as Biodiversity Conservation through Tourism, which it concluded with Conservation International and UNEP, funded by the Global Environment Facility.

The Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council (STSC) is an initiative set up following an 18-month feasibility study including non-government organizations, inter-governmental agencies and industry representatives. It is working not to produce a new global sustainable tourism certification system, but rather a global accreditation system. Based on international baseline criteria, the system should lend credibility to all existing and future certification systems that meet minimum criteria. The STSC will also promote globally recognized, high-quality certification programs. It is organised as a stand-alone multi-stakeholder NGO, with representation from environment and social groups and the tourism industry, and technical advice from UNEP and UNWTO. Initial financing is delivered by foundation and industry sources, but with the ambition is for the scheme to become self-financing. A regional ‘Americas’ network has been launched of all certification programs, NGOs, academic institutions and other interested parties – the Sustainable Tourism Certification Network of the Americas.

10.5 Conclusions 10.5.1 Similarly to the food sector, this sector is very consumer-driven with regards to biodiversity

concern and resultant business mechanisms to address these concerns. Furthermore, the sector very much relies upon conservation of the holiday environment and natural resources for business operations and survival, and can even capitalise on new holiday markets such as



through eco-tourism. Another similarity between the two sectors includes supply chain impacts that can be global in reach, particularly given the large number of holidays that the UK public take overseas.

10.5.2 The similarities in both the food and leisure sectors are reflected in the abundance of institutional bodies for environmental concerns; technical measures, including certification schemes and guidance; and a large number of discursive mechanisms. It is also reflected in the large number of variations on mechanisms by geographic reach, from UK to European and global scale. There may be value in cooperation and knowledge-sharing between these two sectors in terms of key lessons learnt and transferable effective elements of mechanisms.

10.5.3 The key method for addressing these challenges to business mechanisms for biodiversity within the leisure sector has been the use of strategic-level partnerships and programs. Some of these programs were established and supported through policy-drivers such as EU LIFE and Travelife. They all act as partnerships and discursive mechanisms, often with workshops and projects to develop and test guiding principles for the leisure sector that may be universally recognised and supportive of business uptake and implementation through provision of resources (e.g. marketing and tools).

10.5.4 Some mechanisms developed and designed overseas may have transferable elements for use in the UK. The Blue Flag Programme, for example, has been used to great success in the UK following original success in France and Europe. In terms of administration, however, global mechanisms with inflexible criteria may not always be the best option for national or local implementation. As with the food sector, a difficulty arises for the leisure sector with global supply chains and globally-general versus locally-bespoke mechanisms.

10.5.5 The Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council (STSC) of Rainforest Alliance acknowledges the “need for regional networks to encourage dialogue among stakeholders and act as a clearinghouse for certification information” and hopes to “evolve into a successful model that can be replicated in other regions”. Joined-up thinking, working, information exchange and the harmonisation of systems are useful elements. In the leisure sectors, partnerships allow for universal recognition, cooperation, agreement, mechanism uptake and implementation. Charters and statements of commitment are particularly effective methods of engaging business cooperation and encouraging not just protection of biodiversity – through a one-off change of activities for mitigation and/or enhancement purposes – but continual improvement.

10.5.6 For SMEs operating specifically within the UK, global supply chain issues are perhaps less of an issue than for MNCs, and affordability, simplicity and understanding become more important. As in the food sector, some certification schemes and awarding bodies specifically target the UK, offering recognisable standards to the UK consumer, locally bespoke and fit-for-purpose criteria, ease of auditing and perhaps arguably a greater affordability. An accompanying training scheme may act as a particularly useful supportive mechanism for the uptake and implementation of these awards and for encouraging successive improvement. Benchmarking against a global body, however, provides useful standardisation and helps with universal consumer and leisure sector recognition. One global accreditation body can assist in guaranteeing the integrity of the scheme and consumer confidence. The Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council (STSC) has suggested that global accreditation is a potential future role for which it is developing criteria. Greening the entire supply chain can only happen through national and international cooperation.



10.5.7 As with the food sector, a lack of consumer awareness of certification schemes and standards presents a challenge to delivering real gains and encouraging total business sector uptake of mechanisms that protect and/or enhance biodiversity.

10.5.8 Mechanisms need to be distributed from the strategic-level to the businesses ‘on the ground’. This ‘delivery’ role is played by the various networks and forums – some of which may not carry out any research or development themselves, or which may not have a particularly strong biodiversity focus, but which encourage responsibility amongst their members (e.g. through a charter or commitment) and therefore indirectly provide a biodiversity focus. Our long list, however, identified many other networks and forums within this sector that do not have a biodiversity focus. In other words, a ‘missing link in the chain’ in terms of mechanism delivery by representative bodies to businesses on the ground. However, biodiversity is only of interest to unions if it is of importance to its fee-paying business members. National trade associations, such as the FTO, provide a positive example. The FTO has taken European guidance (e.g. Travelife’s various tools and initiatives) and made it available to its UK members, also allowing the association to contribute to developing these mechanisms, thus creating a top-down and bottom-up development model. The FTO also has its own Responsible Tourism Committee – members that join the Committee also agree to a Statement of Commitment not just to acknowledge impacts, but also to demonstrate continual improvement.116 Allowing members to commit to environmental awareness, or simply making available existing publications, guidance and detail of where the information and resources can be found, could be implemented by all networks and forums within the leisure sector.

10.5.9 Publications are a simple and useful way of distributing guidance, advice, best practice etc. It is important, however, that they have an influential and widespread distribution. Collaboration from major leisure companies is therefore important, e.g. from major hotels, both in terms of collating best practice advice and checklists, but also in ensuring wide readership and uptake. Again, however, the biodiversity focus of these publications could be enhanced.

10.5.10 According to the ITP:

“Shareholders, employees and customers all have higher expectations of a business’ ability to demonstrate responsible behaviour across the triple bottom line of economic, social and environmental management that goes beyond philanthropy. The integration of responsible business into every level of the operation will enhance reputation and improve market share and position. It will provide better risk management, guarantee a license to operate, contribute to a company’s ability to attract and retain the best employees, and ultimately reduce costs.”117

10.5.11 It is also important to acknowledge, however, that a strong reliance on the environment within the leisure industry does not necessarily translate in to high biodiversity value or a need to protect biodiversity. This represents a large hurdle to overcome for this sector:

“Although most forms of tourism rely upon a pristine or healthy environment, it is by no means a given that the key actors in the tourism industry are taking, or will take, the steps necessary to protect the environment. Reasons for this dichotomy include the potential time lag between profit generation and environmental degradation; the fragmented responsibility for managing

116 FTO (2004) FTO Responsible Tourism Committee: Statement of Commitment [online] available at: http://www.fto.co.uk/assets/documents/fto_responsible_tourism.pdf 117 International Tourism Partnership (undated) http://www.tourismpartnership.org/index.html



resources that are often public and the difficulty of developing a coordinated approach among the different actors. Indeed, tourism can have a number of direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity, such as land use conversion, disturbance of species, unsustainable consumption, introduction of invasive or alien species, discharge / disposal of waste, pollution and other emissions.” 118

10.5.12 Increased consumer awareness of biodiversity and certification schemes within the sector will act as a driver for business uptake of these mechanisms and for biodiversity protection and enhancement. Awards provide a very useful mechanism for the leisure and hotels sector by recognising achievement and generating consumer awareness. This sector is very consumer-driven in terms of incentives to protect and enhance biodiversity, as opposed to e.g. the oil and gas sector, where the consumer exerts less influence over source. Some leisure sector award schemes may lack specific biodiversity criteria, or could be better recognised both within business and by the consumer.

10.5.13 Our conclusions and recommendations in relation to the leisure and hotels sector are summarised in Table 18.

Table 18: Conclusions and recommendations for the leisure and hotels sector


At the site scale, biodiversity action plans can be prepared (as they can for all sectors involved in land management). Other assurance schemes were identified; however, biodiversity is only one component of these. Mechanisms have also been established internationally; for example, the Tour Operators' Initiative for Sustainable Tourism Development.


It proved difficult to establish the effectiveness of the various tools and methodologies identified. At the site scale, individual biodiversity action plans may be in place but these cannot easily be evaluated. The same applies to the various guidance documents available. However, the Green Tourism Business Scheme is validated by Visit Britain and businesses opting to join Green Tourism are assessed by a qualified grading advisor against criteria covering a range of areas including biodiversity.


It proved difficult to establish the extent of take-up across the leisure and hotels sector particularly since the sector relies primarily on site action plans and guidance. The Green Tourism Business Scheme website provides links to places to stay and visit with accreditation.


There do not appear to be any obvious gaps in terms of coverage with operators able to prepare site biodiversity action plans, consult guidance and potentially become accredited to the Green Tourism Business Scheme.

Recommendations to There are no obvious gaps within this sector, however:

118 Bishop, J., Kapila, S., Hicks, F., Mitchell, P. and Vorhies, F. (2008). Building Biodiversity Business. Shell International Limited and the International Union for Conservation of Nature: London, UK, and Gland, Switzerland



Defra / BBSIG • Recognition of achievement is an important means of encouraging onsite biodiversity improvements for hotels and holiday parks, e.g. by supporting UK award schemes.

• Facilitate discussion and knowledge-sharing between land managing organisations within the leisure and hotel sector with land managers in other sectors, such as utilities companies and Network Rail.



11 Investment, Insurance & Banking

11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 This chapter details our findings in relation to the investment, insurance and banking sector and

is organised around the following sections:







11.2.1 The financial sector constitutes the largest group of companies in the world in terms of earnings. It includes a variety of different organisations including, inter alia, consumer finance companies, insurance companies, investment funds, credit card companies and banks and therefore, it is one of the most highly fragmented industries in the world.

11.2.2 In the UK, the financial services sector contributed around £67.8bn to the UK government in taxes in the financial year ending 31 March 2007119 which accounts for nearly 14% of the total UK tax take.

11.2.3 Within the financial sector there is an increasing focus towards addressing the risks, challenges and opportunities associated with biodiversity. In particular, the financial sector needs to be able to asses which of their client companies are at risk and then take appropriate action to reduce their exposure through their investment, lending and insurance activities120. Companies are particularly aware of potential reputational risks associated with investments in companies that have a negative impact on ecosystems. Furthermore, long term profitability of investment in companies that rely on natural resources is also dependent upon the provision of these natural services into the future.

Making the link

11.2.4 Biodiversity and ecosystem services underpin humankind’s well being and economic development. However, our increasing consumption patterns and population growth are placing greater and greater pressure on the earth’s precious resources and correspondingly the

119 City of London News Release (2009) [online] at http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/media_centre/files2009/FS_tax.htm 120 IUCN (2007) Biodiversity: New challenge for the financial services industry [online] at http://cms.iucn.org/what/issues/economics/?uNewsID=89



rate and scale of biodiversity degradation is significantly impacting on the planet’s ability to provide key services such as air and water purification and climate regulation.

11.2.5 Although our understanding between ecosystem services and biodiversity is still evolving, it is clear that impacts on biodiversity “is creating a material risk for the financial sector”121 and it is becoming increasingly important for the financial sector to account for the benefits of biodiversity by incorporating its value within existing business risk frameworks. In the short term, there are heightened risks for those institutions who may provide lending to controversial schemes and or invest without due regard to environmental and social concerns, which would particularly impact at the corporate level. There may also be increased liabilities as national laws, banking regulations as well as non-financial requirements, become more stringent and are to be addressed. In the longer term risks may include the failure of clients to meet repayment terms due to themselves not addressing their own risks and exposure to the loss of biodiversity on their business.

11.2.6 In addition to the finance sector providing services to businesses which impact on or may be impacted by biodiversity loss, it is also integral to developing mechanisms such as carbon trading and biodiversity banking/offsetting with the aim to mitigate impacts on biodiversity.


11.3.1 The initial research identified over 20 tools, schemes and good practice examples of biodiversity focussed initiatives in the finance sector. In general, the majority of schemes identified are global in scope representing the nature of the financial sector.

11.3.2 This chapter also includes details of biodiversity banking/offsetting schemes, which are financial mechanism for the conservation of biodiversity. In this context, the financial sector provides the opportunity to essentially ‘trade’ the impacts on biodiversity in one location for the preservation/creation of biodiversity in another area. The benefits and disbenefits of this approach are discussed further below.

11.3.3 We sent data capture forms to those organisations listed in the short list table (see Appendix 2) and have highlighted whether or not we received feedback. Those who returned completed data capture forms are listed in the table below where the effectiveness criteria of each tool and initiative are detailed. Some organisations and companies responded in a format other than a data capture form. Although these responses are not represented in the effectiveness table, we have considered this feedback and where appropriate, it is discussed in the ‘analysis of mechanisms’ and ‘conclusions’.

121 UNEP (2008) Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Bloom or Bust? [online] at http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/bloom_or_bust_report.pdf



Short list table


Effectiveness table


Table 19: Measures of effectiveness of the investment, insurance & banking shortlisted mechanisms122




Cost & Funding Timescale Bio focus Communicability Frequency

of use Usefulness Ease of execution / usability

Monitoring

Fauna & Flora International / UNEP FI, Natural Value Initiative’s Ecosystem Services Benchmark

Global MNCs Focuses almost entirely on agricultural supply chain and sustainable sourcing.

Funded by Dutch Govt, VROM, due to cease in June 2009. Cost approx £50-100,000 / annum.

June 2009 – produced tool, public report of best practice and company report. Plans to repeat

Complete focus – evaluates impacts and dependence of companies on biodiversity and ecosystem services

Some recognition – currently keeping 350-400 stakeholders informed of work. Initiative to become better known June – Dec.

Not ready for use – tool still in pilot phase, will be available June 2009.

Moderately useful – indirect influence by acting as a lever for change to encourage action on biodiversity & ecosystem services.

Complicated – intend to produce a ‘lite’ version

Monitoring




exercise 2010-11 subject to funding.

New South Wales, Biodiversity Banking and Offsets Scheme (Biobanking)

Regional (New South Wales)

All businesses in NSW who have developments that impact on native vegetation can participate in the scheme e.g. major housing property developers, mining companies etc.

Businesses will actively use Biobanking to offset developments. The cost of the offsets required will most likely be passed onto the consumer. Govt also involved.

Cost of scheme’s development approx $1.3M AUD / year. Funded from cost recovery from fees & charges to landowners and developers who participate. Start up costs – Govt.

Taken 3 years to prepare scheme, including legislative change, policy and admin, and now scheme promotion.

Extensive focus

Some recognition – to limited sectors. Ministerial Reference Group has extended reach into business community. Scheme promotion activities now to further this reach.

Used by some – targeted certain groups to date e.g. NSW Roads & Traffic Authority and LandCom. Working with ecological consultants.

Very useful – comprehensive approach to setting up a market to protect against biodiversity loss.


Monitoring & indicators – monitoring and evaluation strategy and key performance indicators.




11.4.1 The shortlist table identifies that there is a range of active and relevant tools for the financial sector. The table identifies tools from both the private and public sectors and cover a range of delivery mechanisms including policy tools, networks/forums and advisory mechanisms, publications, certification/benchmarking, market based initiatives and company best practice. These are briefly introduced below.123

• Policy tools include: The Department of Environment and Climate Change’s (New South Wales, Australia) Biobanking initiative for threatened species protection; and the United Nations Global Compact.

• Networks/forums and advisory mechanisms include: Forest Trends’ Business and Biodiversity Offset Program; IFC’s Biodiversity Markets Program; INCAE’s Ecobanking Project; IFC’s Biodiversity Markets Program; the Conservation Finance Alliance initiative to promote sufficient and sustainable funding for biodiversity conservation worldwide; World Bank Biodiversity Community of Practice; UNEP Finance Initiative’s Biodiversity Workstream; and the UNEP Finance Initiative and the Ecobanking Project Environmental & Social Responsibility Observatory.

• Publications include: The IFC’s Creating New Value Based on Nature; UNEP (FI) Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services: Boom or Bust; and the UNEP Finance Initiative UN Principles for Responsible Investment.

• Certification/benchmarking schemes include: United Nations Equator Principles; Flora and Fauna International / UNEP Finance Initiative Natural Value Initiative’s Ecosystem Services Benchmark; INCAE’s Ecobanking Project; and The Department of Environment and Climate Change’s (New South Wales, Australia) Biodiversity Certification.

• Market based initiatives include: The Department of Environment and Climate Change’s (New South Wales, Australia) Biobanking initiative for threatened species protection; and the Victoria Department of Sustainability and Environment’s BushBroker and BushTender initiatives.

11.4.2 For each tool or initiative identified at the short list stage, a pro forma was sent out to the key contact person. Although pro formas were emailed to a total of 15 organisations and groups only two detailed responses were received from the following organisations:

• Fauna & Flora International / UNEP FI Natural Value Initiative’s Ecosystem Services Benchmark

• New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change Biodiversity Certification and Biobanking

11.4.3 These mechanisms, in addition to those highlighted in the short list table are discussed below.





Policy Tools

11.4.4 A couple of policy tools were identified during the analysis of existing mechanisms. In addition to New South Wales’ Department of Environment and Climate Change policy initiates, further discussed in the case study below, the United Nations Global compact was also identified. The UN Global compact is a necessarily strategic level policy initiative for businesses committed to ensuring their operations and strategies are aligned with ten universally accepted principles covering environment, labour, human rights and anti-corruption. Although not specifically biodiversity focussed, principles seven and eight in particular identify the importance of “support[ing] a precautionary approach to environmental challenges” and “encouraging the development and undertak[ing] initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility”124. Principally, they provide a starting point for business to begin to address key environmental challenges.

Case study: New South Wales Biodiversity Certification and Biobanking Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) New South Wales Biodiversity Certification and Biobanking was developed to help address the loss of biodiversity in New South Wales. It is both a policy tool and a market based mechanism that provides the opportunity for ‘positive conservation action’ to generate maximum biodiversity gains in the most effective locations whilst enabling developers and local governments to forecast potential offset costs. Biobanking was developed throughout 2006 by DECC. It incorporates import from ecological practitioners, scientists, local councils, developers and other stakeholders. In 2007 a ministerial reference group was established to enable representatives from the development industry and landowners to contribute to the development of the scheme, an approach credited with having a ‘significant input into shaping the clear and transparent framework for biodiversity assessment and calculation of offsets’. The approach is based on a new objective method to assess biodiversity value which takes account of both future gains and losses. It is an improvement on existing offset practices and uses a rule-based approach to quantify offset requirements supported by a database of different vegetation types and threatened species. The number of credits required to offset a development are calculated by accredited private consultants, and the subsequent credits can be traded on the market. BioBanking is an additional tool available for the conservation of biodiversity. It recognises that avoiding or minimising biodiversity loss should be first addressed before considering the opportunity of offsetting. It is understood that individuals can set up “biodiversity bank sites” whereby the lands are secure and managed to protect and enhance their biodiversity value. These “biobanks” would then be eligible to generate credits which can be sold and used to offset development impacts elsewhere with the funds from the sale being used for future management of the biobank site. In total, the scheme has taken approximately 3 years to prepare, including legislative change, policy and necessary administrative arrangements. Scheme promotion is currently being undertaken. The annual development cost of the scheme has been around $1.3 million AUD. This cost will be recovered through fees and charges to developers and landowners who participate in the scheme, however, the start up costs for the project have been covered by Government consolidated revenues.

124 United Nations Global Compact (2009) [online] available at: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/AboutTheGC/TheTenPrinciples/environment.html



By including key business leaders the Ministerial Reference Group has facilitated greater reach into the business community, however there is still only ‘some recognition’ of the scheme. This is likely to improve with greater promotion and increasing the ‘target’ audience from existing Government led contractors to a wider audience. Other industries likely to benefit from the wider implementation of Biobanking include ecological consultancies that will provide services in the form of biodiversity assessment and credit verification/validation.

In terms of ensuring real and tangible benefits, key indicators and a monitoring and evaluation strategy have also been developed to assess performance over time.

Networks/forums and advisory mechanisms

11.4.5 Perhaps the largest group of mechanisms identified were within the network/forums and advisory mechanisms section and in total eight mechanisms were brought forward to the short list stage. In general, the focus of the networks is based on ensuring financial profitability through environmental and socially responsible investment initiatives. One example is the INCAE’s Ecobanking project aimed at improving the Latin American financial sector’s competitiveness whilst ensuring better environmental management and reduced environmental and social risk. The UNEP Finance Initiative Biodiversity Workstream also assists the financial services sector by raising the issue of biodiversity loss and the degradation of ecosystem services.

11.4.6 The World Bank’s Environmental Strategy sets out criteria of how it will “work with client countries to address their environmental challenges and ensure that Bank projects and programs integrate principles of environmental sustainability”. In particular, it addresses biodiversity through the links between agriculture and biodiversity and also through building capacity in developing countries to help them better meet their environmental commitments, including the Convention of Biological Diversity.

11.4.7 Other networks/forums such as Forest Trend’s Business and Biodiversity Offset Program (BBOP) works with stakeholders to explore the opportunities for biodiversity offsetting. The BBOP is also developing guidance on the design and implementation of a “how to” toolkit to be made widely available to industry. The International Finance Corporation’s Biodiversity Markets Programme on the other had differs slightly in its approach and provides an advisory role to companies interested in contributing to sustainable use of biodiversity resources.

Publications

11.4.8 There are a number of publications aimed at the financial sector. The International Finance Corporation’s (IFC) ‘Creating New Value Based on Nature’125 takes the IFC’s approach whereby they “invest in innovative business models that are protective of nature as well as socially and economically beneficial”. This document presents four models of engagement encompassing: Developing Standards for Sustainable Supply Chains; Tapping New Revenue Streams; Piloting Biodiversity Offsets; and Adapting Finance to Nature.

125 International Finance Corporation (undated) Creating New Value Based on Nature [online] available at: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/fly_BiodiversityBrochure2008/$FILE/Biodiversity+Brochure+2008.pdf



11.4.9 Another publication brought forward to the short list is the UNEP’s Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services: ‘Bloom or Bust’, which sets out to increase the understanding of the emerging risks, opportunities and potential next steps for the finance sector in terms of addressing issues relating to biodiversity.

Certification/benchmarking

11.4.10 Perhaps the most evident of the certification/benchmarking schemes in the financial sector is the United Nations Equator Principles – ‘A financial industry benchmark for determining, assessing and managing social & environmental risk in project financing’126. To date, 67 financial institutions from 27 countries have adopted the principles. The Equator Principles were established in 2003 by a small number of banks and the IFC with the aim to develop a common set of guidelines that could be applied globally to improve environmental and social policies across all industry sectors.

11.4.11 Other mechanisms include Fauna and Flora International / UNEP’s Natural Value Initiative’s Ecosystem Services Benchmark, which is presented in more detail below.

Case study: The Fauna & Flora International / UNEP FI Natural Value Initiative’s Ecosystem Services Benchmark (ESB) The Fauna & Flora International / UNEP FI Natural Value Initiative’s Ecosystem Services Benchmark (ESB) was developed to enable institutional investors to ‘understand the risks and opportunities associated with the impacts and dependency of their investments on biodiversity and ecosystem services’. Principally, the focus is on industries associated with the production and processing of raw materials with agricultural supply chains. The benchmark is based on five independent broad categories of performance: policy and strategy, governance, competitive advantage, management and implementation, and reporting; and although initially designed to cross check these measures against a number of key indicators of performance, a piloting stage identified that this was largely unused and is not therefore included within the current version of the benchmark. The ESB evaluates company performance against specific criteria representing each of the five categories outlined above, and for each criteria, a company’s performance is ranked on a scale of 1-4. The resulting score enables the companies to be ranked. The ESB was initially pilot tested on 31 companies in the food, drinks and tobacco industries and the results are to be reported in mid 2009 at which time a finalised tool and public report of best practice will be produced. At present, the benchmark has limited recognition with approximately 400 key stakeholders being regularly updated, however, further to the reports publication later this year much wider recognition is expected.

The ESB is global in its scope and it is understood that it can be applied to the Retail and Investment, Insurance and Banking sectors as well as Food Processors and Producers. The benchmark has a “complete” biodiversity focus. The response to the pro forma also identified the initiative as “moderately useful” although it is highlighted that the ESB could provide a positive indirect influence by acting as a “lever for change to encourage corporate action on biodiversity and ecosystem services”. Fundamentally, the key element is to raise awareness of, and communicate the link between, ecosystem services and corporate value and risk. At present the tool is considered relatively complicated to implement, however, a ‘lite’ version which asks a series of questions to be addressed as part of a wider sustainability analysis is

126 The Equator Principles (2009) [online] available at: http://www.equator-principles.com/principles.shtml



intended to be produced.

Market based mechanisms

11.4.12 Market based mechanisms include the Biodiversity Banking and Offset Scheme, a market and science based scheme for the Department of Environment and Climate Change in New South Wales (NSW). Two other mechanisms identified included “Bushbroker” and “BushTender” administered by the Department of Sustainability and Environment in Victoria. Both the NSW biodiversity banking and Victoria Bushbroker schemes enable the offsetting of biodiversity loss in one area with the preservation of creation of similar value biodiversity in another location.

11.5 Conclusions 11.5.1 The finance sector’s impact on biodiversity is primarily indirect through its financing of third

parties’ projects. Correspondingly, all mechanisms identified are strategic in their approach (excluding biodiversity banking/offsetting) and outline at an appropriate level overarching policies and investment principles to help facilitate greater environmental conservation.

11.5.2 The identified mechanisms are principally client focussed and can be broadly classified into two areas: 1) those mechanisms addressing the potential risks and opportunities to business in the context of biodiversity conservation, particularly in terms of valuing and accounting for the benefits of biodiversity within business frameworks; and 2) mechanisms that employ innovative solutions to harness the power of the financial markets to arrest biodiversity loss, such as biodiversity offsetting/banking, which can reduce risk and increase business opportunities.

11.5.3 With regards to 1) mechanisms addressing the potential risks and opportunities, it is not unsurprising to note that the majority of mechanisms are ‘high-level’ and strategic in their approach, and correspondingly many of the mechanisms focus in general on environmental issues rather than specifically on biodiversity. Such mechanisms include the Equator Principles, where biodiversity is covered under Principle 3 (applicable social and environmental standards) and Principle 2 (where applicable), the UNEPFI Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI) and the UN Global Compact. Whereas the Equator Principles provide a benchmark for more ethical financing at the project level, the UNEPFI PRIs and UN Global Compact guidelines are much more strategic in scope and provide a common framework for integrating environmental, social and governance within investment decision making and operational practices. All three mechanisms are voluntary participation schemes, however, it is becoming increasingly important for institutions to show their commitment to ethical practices and the value to the brand that membership can bring. In essence, they are becoming all but voluntary in name only.

11.5.4 The question that arises is whether the nature of the current schemes is effective at ensuring biodiversity conservation at the project level and how schemes can be developed to ensure this is possible. At present, the strategic nature of all three mechanisms ensures high-level buy-in seen as necessary for their effective adoption, however, whether they can be developed to ensure greater effectiveness at the project level is questionable.



11.5.5 Some mechanisms do focus solely on biodiversity. These include the UNEPFI’s Biodiversity Work Stream, the IFC’s Biodiversity Markets Program and Fauna & Flora International / UNEPFI Natural Value Initiative’s Ecosystem Services Benchmark. The UNEPFI’s Biodiversity Work Stream and IFC’s Biodiversity Markets Program both seek to identify both risks and opportunities for the financial sector in capitalising on the benefits of effectively addressing biodiversity within their lending and operations. The IFC mechanism, in particular, looks to capitalise on the value of biodiversity value through investment in companies directly looking to utilise biodiversity resources. The Fauna and Flora International / UNEPFI Natural Value Initiative’s Ecosystem Services Benchmark, however, differs slightly as it takes this initial understanding further and has developed a tool to enable institutional investors to better understand how companies are managing their operations in relation to biodiversity.

11.5.6 The identified mechanisms and their approach clearly indicate their awareness of a greater need to appropriately take into consideration their impact on biodiversity loss and to gain a greater understanding of the extent to which its client companies are themselves minimising the risk and maximising the opportunity presented by taking account of biodiversity.

11.5.7 Mechanisms such as biodiversity offsetting/banking were also identified. However, unlike the mechanisms identified above, these mechanisms simply employ tools of the financial sector for administration purposes. Other than facilitating the management of these biodiversity protection mechanisms, it is difficult to identify how the financial sector’s involvement through these mechanisms could influence the schemes impact on biodiversity, other than through mechanisms such as the Equator Principles identified above. Hence, investments are only being made in biodiversity offsetting/banking companies that meet the criteria. It is through these mechanisms that additional and sustainable offsetting/biobanking can be ensured, not through the enabling tools themselves.

11.5.8 Biobanking and biodiversity offsetting is already an established and effectively administered approach to mitigating the impacts on biodiversity from development in Australia127 and the OOO in the UK is currently undertaking ongoing research to its application within the UK. Whether this is an approach which is suitable for the UK is a question that remains to be conclusively answered, as is the willingness of developers to engage in biobanking and how to raise awareness of opportunities.

11.5.9 All mechanisms identified are outward looking – no mechanisms were identified that the finance industry that could directly impact positively on biodiversity – e.g. within their building infrastructure such as through green/brown roofs.

11.5.10 Overall, it is clear that financial institutions themselves have very little direct impact on biodiversity, however, their potential indirect impact is considerable. They control access to project finance and therefore the extent to which all development can proceed and provide the financial mechanism necessary to enable schemes such as offsetting/biobanking to operate. Therefore, they have significant control over potential impacts on biodiversity. Unfortunately however, the strategic level of operations is in disjunction with the project level at which biodiversity is predominantly impacted and whether this disjunction can be bridged is the key issue. In some respects, this presents an interesting dilemma for the financial sector in terms of the extent to which it wishes to and can effectively engage on the biodiversity agenda.

127 It is also noted that similar schemes exist in America. The list of mechanism presented are in no way exhaustive but do provide a snapshot of the scope of mechanisms being widely operated.



Furthermore, the key drivers of these approaches are consumer led and the growth of ‘ethical funds’ has provided a consumer led in-road into greater indirect impacts of banks and financial institutions in the market place. Due to the associated lower risk of environmentally and socially responsible investment, ethical funds continue to score highly in returns for investors due to reduced risk from socially and environmentally investment.

11.5.11 If mechanisms could be developed and effectively administered, financial institutions could help drive forward greater ethical investment practices. The sector possesses the necessary skills and expertise in assessing and modelling risk management and the benefit of them being able to monetise and ameliorate risks into financial balance sheets acts as a strong and tangible argument in convincing business of the need to realistically address the value of biodiversity within their operations.

11.5.12 Our conclusions and recommendations in relation to the investment, insurance and banking sector are summarised in Table 20.

Table 20: Conclusions and recommendations for the investment, insurance and banking sector


We identified several tools and methodologies to assist the finance sector in managing its biodiversity impacts; in general, these were global in scope given the nature of the sector.


The mechanisms identified are in the early days of implementation with the Equator Principles launched in 2003. The Principles have been the subject of some controversy regarding the difference they make in practice128.


By October 2009, 67 financial institutions had adopted the Principles. Concern has been expressed that most emerging market banks have not adopted the Equator Principles129. The Fauna & Flora International / UNEP FI Natural Value Initiative’s Ecosystem Services Benchmark (ESB) currently has relatively limited recognition.


Arguably the Equator Principles provide a potentially useful mechanism for the finance sector to consider its biodiversity impacts.

128 For example, BankTrack (2004). Principles, Profits, or Just PR? Triple P investments under the Equator Principles [online] available at: http://www.banktrack.org/show/news/equator_principles_principles_profits_or_just_pr_ (accessed 30 November 2009). 129 Wright, C. (2007). Why Have Most Emerging Market Banks Not Adopted the Equator Principles? - Exploring the Limits of Private Environmental Governance [online] available at: http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/0/2/2/9/pages202290/p202290-1.php (accessed 30 November 2009).




• Develop a better understanding of the link between strategic banking/management and risks and opportunities for biodiversity at the project level.

• Promote greater awareness of the importance of biodiversity assets by putting biodiversity risks and opportunities in a language that can be understood by financial institutions.



12 General / Cross-sector

12.1 Introduction 12.1.1 This chapter details our findings in relation to the mechanisms we found cross-sector and is


• Context / Findings – Introduction and the short list table • Discussion – Summary of the short list and analysis of mechanisms • Case studies / key mechanisms • Conclusions


12.2 Context / Findings 12.2.1 In addition to uncovering sector specific business mechanisms for biodiversity, we also

identified numerous initiatives which are cross-sectoral or general in nature. Our preliminary research uncovered 114 tools, initiatives and good practice examples cross-sector. We found that the biodiversity focus varied considerably across the list, from ‘complete focus’ e.g. the ‘Biodiversity Neutral Initiative’, the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program and the London Wildlife Trust’s ‘Wildlife & Business’, to ‘limited focus’ e.g. BSI Group’s 14001 and the UN Global Compact. Having established our ‘long list’, we then put together a ‘short list’ (see Appendix 2), comprised of over 30 organisations and groups (some of which had more than one tool or initiative) which showed ‘limited’, ‘moderate’, ‘complete’ or ‘extensive’ biodiversity focus.

12.2.2 We sent data capture forms to those organisations listed in the short list table and have highlighted whether or not we received feedback. Those who returned completed data capture forms are then discussed and conclusions are drawn. Some organisations and companies responded in a format other than a data capture form. We have considered this feedback and, where appropriate, it is discussed in the ‘analysis of mechanisms’ and ‘conclusions’.

The short list

12.2.3 The complete ‘long list’ of mechanisms identified can be found in Volume 2 of this report. This list was sifted to identify those mechanisms with the most extensive biodiversity focus and/or the most potential. The ‘short list’ is outlined in Appendix 2 of this report.

12.3 Discussion Summary of short list

12.3.1 From our ‘short list’, it is clear that there is a wide range of tools and initiatives cross-sector. These mechanisms are both UK and international in scope, covering a range of areas including technical, discursive, institutional and philanthropic. Drawn directly from the ‘short list’, the next



section categorises (into advisory / websites; networks & forums; market-based incentives; voluntary measures / participatory schemes; certification schemes; partnerships / projects; publications; training; and strategies) the specific tools and initiatives that we identified as the most active and relevant in promoting biodiversity to business130.

• Publications include: the International Finance Group and World Bank Group’s ‘A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector: Building Alliances to Address Biodiversity Issues’; IUCN & Shell’s ‘Building Biodiversity Business’; ‘Integrating Biodiversity into Business Strategies: The Biodiversity Accountability Framework’ (Foundation pour la recherché sur la biodiversite (FRB) & Orre); UNDP & GEF’s ‘Local Business for Global Biodiversity Conservation: Improving the Design of Small Business Development Strategies in Biodiversity Projects’; ‘The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review: Guidelines for Identifying Business Risks and Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change’ (WRI, WBCSD and Meridian Institute); ‘Business & Ecosystems: Ecosystem Challenges and Business Implications’ (WBCSD, Earthwatch Institute, IUCN & WRI); ‘Business & Biodiversity: A Handbook for Corporate Action’ (Earthwatch Institute Europe / IUCN / WBCSD); ‘Business & Biodiversity: A Guide for the Private Sector’ (WBCSD & IUCN); ‘Business & Ecosystems – Markets for Ecosystem Services: New Challenges and Opportunities for Business & the Environment: A Perspective’; IUCN ‘Developing Biodiversity Business Assessment Tools’; IUCN ‘Operational Guidelines for Private Sector Engagement: Business & Biodiversity Programme’.

• Advisory / websites include: the Biodiversity Neutral Initiative; the International Finance Group and World Bank Group’s ‘A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector’; Earthwatch Institute, English Nature & Defra’s ‘The Business & Biodiversity Resource Centre’; Conservation International’s Center for Environmental Leadership in Business ‘Initial Biodiversity Assessment and Planning Methodology’; ‘Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool’ (Birdlife International, Conservation International and UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre); the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA Biodiversity Section) ‘Biodiversity in Impact Assessment’; Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management’s ‘Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment’; UNEP’s ‘Biodiversity Global Programme: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Economic Sector & Governance Systems and Product Supply Chains’.

• Partnerships / Projects include: Forest Trends & Conservation International’s ‘Business & Biodiversity Offsets Programme’; University of Cambridge ‘Cambridge Conservation Initiative’; University of Cambridge ‘Cambridge Conservation Initiative: Shared Challenges Project’; ‘German Business and Biodiversity Initiative’ (The Agency for Technical Cooperation on behalf of the Federal Environment Ministry); the International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA Biodiversity Section) ‘Capacity Building for Biodiversity-inclusive Impact Assessment’; UNEP-WCMC and the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas ‘World Database on Protected Areas’ (WDPA).

• Certification schemes include: The British Standards Institution’s BS7751; the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS operated by the Federal Environment Agency of Austria on behalf of Austria on behalf of the EU, Environment DG); BSI Group ISO14001; ‘The Wildlife Trusts’ Biodiversity Benchmark’ (Middlemarch Environmental – a wildlife trust consultancy).




• Networks & forums include: Conservation International and The Center for Environmental Leadership in Business ‘Business & Biodiversity Council’; London Wildlife Trust’s ‘Wildlife and Business’; WBCSD’s ‘Business Role Workstream’.

• Voluntary measures / participatory schemes include: the Institut Francais de la Biodiversite Working Group (Oree) ‘Business and Biodiversity Interdependence Indicator’; ENTRUST’s ‘The Landfill Community Fund (LCF); The UN Global Compact.

• Training includes: The University of Cambridge ‘Cambridge Conservation Initiative: Cambridge Masters in Conservation Leadership’; WBCSD’s presentation ‘Connecting the Dots: The Nexus Between Business and Ecosystems’.

• Strategies include: IUCN ‘Part of the Solution – Business, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development: A Strategy for Enhancing IUCN’s Interaction with the Private Sector’.

• Market-based incentives include: EC DG Environment and RSPB’s ‘Biodiversity Technical Assistance Unit (BTAU) Project’.


Advisory

Biodiversity Global Programme: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Economic Sector & Governance Systems and Product Supply Chains, UNDP

Biodiversity Neutral Initiative

Initial Biodiversity Assessment and Planning Methodology (IBAP), Conservation International’s Center for Environmental Leadership in Business

Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT), Birdlife International, Conservation International and UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

12.3.2 At the short list stage, we found several advisory mechanisms, more in the general sector than any other. UNEP have produced an upcoming guide for mainstreaming biodiversity into the economic sector and product supply chains, providing decision-makers with a framework of analysis to define the costs, benefits and tradeoffs inherent in pursuing production in areas of high biodiversity. The guide also provides a set of decision making tools for supply chain transformation to address biodiversity management and economic development. Aimed at MNCs and SMEs across the whole value chain (from grass roots to consumer opinion), the mechanism operates across a wide range of sectors, including mining (e.g. coal and diamonds), oil and gas, leisure and hotels (e.g. tourism and travel/transport), forestry and paper (e.g. plantation forestry), food (e.g. coffee, cocoa, fruits, tuna) and investment. Feedback assessed the manual as having ‘complete’ biodiversity focus: “this manual will act as guide to improve biodiversity conservation through supply chain initiatives… to date, such a guide does not exist’”. Furthermore, according to UNDP, “‘the Biodiversity Mainstreaming guide will assist businesses, local government and policy makers to conserve biodiversity within global production landscapes”. The guide has been deemed ‘very useful’ and will be created in an ‘easy to read’ friendly format: “all interested parties, irrespective of field, will be able to understand how biodiversity can be incorporated into production landscapes with ideas, suggestions and advice provided along the way”. It is intended that the manual will function as



a guide to businesses wishing to engage biodiversity conservation. However, UNDP are exploring how this task might be achieved in reality.

12.3.3 The Biodiversity Neutral Initiative (BNI) is global in scope, collaborating with major international conservation groups, energy and mining companies, socially responsible investors, auditing and certification companies, and government regulators. BNI helps companies assess biodiversity impacts, implement best practices with respect to the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy and then offset net residual damage to become biodiversity neutral. The long-term goal of developing voluntary standards for biodiversity offsets is to allow leading companies to become ‘biodiversity neutral’. The initiative is thought to have ‘complete’ biodiversity focus, has ‘some recognition’ but is still quite complicated to use.

12.3.4 The Initial Biodiversity Assessment and Planning Methodology (IBAP) methodology helps companies (in the mining, oil and gas, forestry and paper, and food sectors) incorporate biodiversity into their risk analysis, decision-making and planning processes, from the conceptual phase through the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) to the development of the Environmental Management Plan (EMP). The IBAP methodology consists of:

• A desktop assessment characterising the project's global and regional biodiversity context and the level of potential biodiversity risks

• Biological and socio-economic field surveys of the project site • A biodiversity action plan that encompasses site specific and regional conservation

recommendations for all stakeholders • The plan also includes recommendation indicators and monitoring protocols

12.3.5 ‘Complete’ in biodiversity focus, the responded stated that “the methodology is designed to assist companies in integrating biodiversity considerations at the earliest stages of the project development and planning cycle”. To date, IBAP has been used primarily by large-scale producers of raw materials and has recognition amongst large-scale companies within the energy and mining sectors. The methodology is apparently ‘used by some’ but ‘very useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business: “by identifying biodiversity issues at the earliest stages of project development, the IBAP methodology enables companies to plan appropriate avoidance, mitigation and offset strategies to minimise their impacts on biodiversity”. The methodology is moderately user-friendly, but it is emphasised that some knowledge of biodiversity is needed to carry it out (most companies hire consultants).

12.3.6 When planning new operations and assessing the risks associated with sourcing practices, businesses need accurate biodiversity information at the finest scale possible. The Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT), launched in October 2008, can be used across almost all sectors and is a map viewing tool that allows users to view priority areas for conservation and drill down into the data to understand why the area is a priority. By providing information on high priority sites for conservation, protected and unprotected, IBAT can help inform the practical implementation of environmental safeguard policies of several major development banks and businesses. “Providing access to this information at the earliest stages of project planning will make it easier to consider alternative projects, approaches or locations at a time when such changes are still economically viable”. The tool is thought to have ‘complete’ biodiversity focus and similar to IBAP, “designed to provide decision-makers with access to



some initial biodiversity data to enable the integration of biodiversity considerations within project planning and development processes”. The tool was assessed by the respondent as simple to use and ‘very useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business. It is also closely monitored and the partners are working to develop aditional indicators regarding the overall success of the initiative.

Voluntary Measures

Business and Biodiversity Interdependence Indicator, Institut Francais de la Biodiversite Working Group (Oree)

The Landfill Community Fund (LCF), ENTRUST

12.3.7 The Business and Biodiversity Interdependence Indicator is a self-assessment multi-criteria indicator which helps business (both MNCs and SMEs cross-sector) assess their interdependence with biodiversity. Developed in 2007 by Orée (Institut Français de la Biodiversité Working Group) the indicator has ‘complete’ biodiversity focus, with 23 criteria, all looking at a specific business - biodiversity interface. The majority of the companies using the indicator operate in France; some worldwide. Feedback rated the Indicator as ‘very useful’ in terms of raising the awareness of the links between a business and biodiversity service (e.g. interdependence, risks and opportunities) and ‘moderately’ user-friendly, although some criteria (e.g. referring to ecological concepts) may not be that familiar to business.

12.3.8 ENTRUST is an innovative tax credit scheme which enables operators of landfill sites to contribute money to enrolled Environmental Bodies (EBs) to carry out projects that meet environmental objectives contained in the Landfill Tax Regulations. ENTRUST have 2,500 EBs, ranging from established funders e.g. Biffaward, to National Trust, to Broomsgrove Village Hall. Instead of paying the compulsory UK landfill tax to the Government, companies have the option of investing a percentage of that tax payment into environmental projects. The scheme, aimed mainly at SMEs, in feedback received was considered to have ‘extensive’ biodiversity focus and to be ‘very useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business.

Partnerships / Projects

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program, Forest Trends, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society

Capacity Building for Biodiversity-inclusive Impact Assessment, International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA Biodiversity Section)

World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), UNEP-WCMC and the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas

12.3.9 The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP) has already been mentioned in the forestry and paper chapter. However, this is an expanding cross-sector initiative, with BBOP methodologies currently being pilot tested in a range of industry sectors, from mining, to oil and gas, to real estate. Furthermore, during BBOP’s second phase work beginning in 2009, there are plans to expand the portfolio of projects and include agriculture commodities and supply chain offsets. The Business and Biodiversity Offset Program (BBOP) is a partnership between companies, governments and conservation experts to explore biodiversity offsets. The BBOP



partners wish to show, through a portfolio of pilot projects in a range of industry sectors, that biodiversity offsets can help achieve significantly more, better and more cost-effective conservation outcomes than normally occurs in infrastructure development. The BBOP partners also believe that demonstrating no net loss of biodiversity can help companies secure their license to operate and manage their costs and liabilities.

12.3.10 We also received feedback on another global cross-sector partnership project ‘Capacity Building for Biodiversity and Impact Assessment’. The aim of the project is to strengthen EIA and SEA as tools to ensure that biodiversity and its role in providing ecosystem services, alleviating poverty and meeting the Millennium Development Goals, is recognised as a fundamental issue in the planning, assessment and execution of projects and plans in developing countries. The project set out to develop capacity amongst stakeholders in a number of regions, particularly southern Africa, south and south-east Asia, Central America and the Small Island Developing States. The project also operates a small grant scheme to support capacity building efforts at grass-roots level and there is a range of capacity building activities developed around biodiversity-inclusive impact assessment. It is thought that the project is ‘complete’ in biodiversity focus: “the primary motivation of the initative was to enhance the extent to which biodiversity is addressed through impact assessment”.

12.3.11 The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), a joint project by UNEP-WCMC and the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, is the only global dataset on protected areas. The WDPA is available to private sector companies across almost all sectors (but mainly used by oil/gas and mining companies) to help them make better informed decisions on where and how to operate. The WDPA supports corporate decision-making by informing risk assessment procedures for existing and potential operations. It also helps extractive and other industries in their project planning and allows them to consider alternative approaches or locations early on in the planning process. The WDPA also informs the practical implementation of environmental safeguard policies of several major development and investment banks and businesses. Assessed in the returned pro forma as ‘complete’ in biodiversity focus, the database is also considered to be simple to use and widely used.


Biodiversity Benchmark, the Wildlife Trust & Middlemarch Environmental – a wildlife trust consultancy

12.3.12 We received feedback on one cross-sector certification scheme, the Biodiversity Benchmark, the first award to recognise continual biodiversity improvement. The Biodiversity Benchmark is a management process which enables any organisation which owns or manages land to assess its impact on the natural world, improve its contribution to the environment and demonstrate its commitment to biodiversity. The Benchmark is flexible and adaptable so it can be applied to any organisation with land, from commercial enterprises and industries, to local authorities, utilities, the NHS, developers, charities, hotels and recreational/tourism facilities. Organisations that are familiar with Environmental Management Systems such as ISO14001 will find similarities with the management process of the Biodiversity Benchmark which sets out detailed requirements for organisations to achieve. Biodiversity Benchmark awards are issued for three categories:



• Single site - where a single certificate is issued for a designated site; for example this could be an area of land around a Head Office.

• Multiple sites - where all sites selected by the client organisation are visited and evaluated with individual certificates issued for each site that achieves the Biodiversity Benchmark standard. This could apply to a multiple retailer, in the process of enhancing land around their stores but not all sites are yet up to scratch.

• Whole organisation - this is for an organisation with several sites who wishes to achieve the Biodiversity Benchmark ‘across the board’. Initially a selection of the organisation's sites will be visited and assessed. During subsequent years, surveillance visits will be made to the remainder of the organisation's sites.

12.3.13 The Benchmark was assessed in feedback as having a ‘complete’ biodiversity focus and is well recognised in certain sectors (e.g. aggregates) but less so in others (e.g. tourism). The Benchmark is considered ‘very useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business and is moderately user-friendly.

Market-based incentives

Biodiversity Technical Assistance Unit (BTAU) Project, .EC DG Environment and RSPB

12.3.14 The BTAU project is a market-based incentive scheme, about directing investments into micro, small and medium enterprises (operating in Natura 2000 sites in Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland) which maintain or enhance biodiversity. The scheme is mainly used across primary sectors e.g. agriculture, forestry and fisheries, but also secondary and tertiary e.g. processing and tourism. Technical Assistance units have been created in Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland to assist the process of development of ‘Pro-Biodiversity Businesses’ in each of these countries. The BTAU project focuses on those areas of nature that have been recognised as high value and that are included in the NATURA2000 network. These include the large majority of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) as defined under the Habitats and Birds Directives. The key activities of each BTAU are to identify enterprises which are eligible for funding within or around Natura 2000 sites and to explore a package of financing options to produce long-term, site and region-specific economic and nature benefits. Each BTAU provides advice, guidance, training and monitoring services for both small enterprises, financial institutions, and for officials involved in nature conservation. After a loan has been awarded, the BTAU helps to monitor the business activities of each enterprise to ensure the benefits to nature are positive and will have a long-term and sustainable impact.

12.3.15 Although the project was assessed in feedback as having an ‘extensive’ biodiversity focus, it only has ‘limited recognition’. This is due to the fact that BTAU is a pilot project and communications must be carefully managed until investment funds are available; communications are made on a small scale at the local level to test the market. However, the project is deemed to be ‘very useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business: “the potential is large for further roll-out of the model across Europe and internationally”.

Publications

The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review: Guidelines for Identifying Business Risks and Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change, WRI, WBCSD and Meridian Institute



12.3.16 The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) consists of a structured methodology that helps managers proactively develop strategies to manage business risks and opportunities arising from their company’s dependence and impact on ecosystems. Businesses can either conduct an Ecosystem Services Review as a stand-alone process or integrate it into their existing environmental management systems. In both cases, the methodology can complement and augment the environmental due diligence tools companies already use. The Ecosystem Services Review can provide value to businesses in industries that directly interact with ecosystems such as agriculture, beverages, water services, forestry, electricity, oil, gas, mining, and tourism. It is also relevant to sectors such as general retail, healthcare, consulting, financial services, and others to the degree that their suppliers or customers interact directly with ecosystems. General retailers, for example, may face reputational or market risks if some of their suppliers are responsible for degrading ecosystems and the services they provide.

12.3.17 The publication describes the five steps for performing an Ecosystem Services Review. It provides an analytical framework, case examples and helpful suggestions for each step. Global degradation of ecosystems and the services they provide threatens to alter the landscape in which business operates. The Ecosystem Services Review is a proactive approach for companies to manage the risks and opportunities that are emerging. Furthermore, by helping companies make the connection between healthy ecosystems and the bottom line, it can encourage not only more sustainable business practices, but also corporate support for policies to protect and restore ecosystems. The publication was assessed in feedback as having a ‘complete’ biodiversity focus and to be ‘widely used’ with increasing business interest. It was also rated as ‘very useful’ in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business, and as simple to use (although businesses might require the involvement of ecosystem experts).

12.4 Conclusions 12.4.1 Most of the mechanisms we short listed for the general / cross-sector had a strong biodiversity

focus. For example, while the Biodiversity Neutral Initiative and BBOP help companies assess biodiversity impacts, implementing best practices and then offset net residual damage, the BTAU project is a market-based incentive scheme aimed at directing investments into enterprises which maintain or enhance biodiversity.

12.4.2 We found a wide range of publications which were general in scope and could be applied to a number of different sectors. For example, the UNDP’s ‘Biodiversity Global Programme’ is aimed at MNCs and SMEs across the whole value chain in numerous sectors, including mining, oil and gas, leisure and hotels, forestry and paper, food and finance: “all interested parties, irrespective of field, will be able to understand how biodiversity can be incorporated into production landscapes with ideas, suggestions and advice provided along the way”. The authors of these business and biodiversity publications were mainly large institutions e.g. the International Finance Group, the World Bank Group, IUCN, Shell, UNDP, WRI and WBCSD.

12.4.3 We also found a wide range of advisory mechanisms, aimed at more than one sector. These included biodiversity initiatives, guidelines, resource centre websites, biodiversity assessment and planning methodologies, and impact assessment tools. Both IBAP and IBAT (a biodiversity methodology and a biodiversity tool, respectively) emphasised that they assist



companies in integrating biodiversity considerations at the earliest stages of the project planning and development processes.

12.4.4 Cross-sector, there are numerous partnerships and projects. Whilst some of those identified tend to be more focused on one sector or a handful of sectors, e.g. BBOP is mainly engaging with the forestry sector, many of them are aiming to branch out into other sectors, e.g. BBOP methodologies are currently being pilot tested in a range of industry sectors including mining, oil and gas, real estate, agriculture commodities and supply chains more generally. Again, the biodiversity focus of these mechanisms is substantial e.g. according to the IAIA Biodiversity focus, “the primary motivation of the initiative [Capacity Building for Biodiversity-inclusive Impact Assessment] was to enhance the extent to which biodiversity is addressed through impact assessment”.

12.4.5 We found a handful of general (not sector specific) certification schemes e.g. the British Standards Institution’s BS7751 and ISO14001, the EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme, and the Wildlife Trust’s Biodiversity Benchmark. In some cases, the biodiversity focus could be enhanced, and the Biodiversity Benchmark provides a useful example for criteria and roll-out.

12.4.6 Finally, the research indentified a couple of networks and forums (e.g. WBCSD’s ‘Business Role Workstream’ and the Wildlife Trust’s ‘Wildlife and Business’), three voluntary measures / participatory scheme (e.g. the UN Global Compact and ENTRUST’s ‘The Landfill Community Fund), training mechanisms (e.g. the University of Cambridge’s Masters in Conservation Leadership), a biodiversity strategy (e.g. IUCN) and a market-based incentive scheme (e.g. EC DG Environment and RSPB’s BTAU Project). For the BTAU project, the comment was made that “the potential is large for further roll-out of the model across Europe and internationally”.



13 Conclusions

13.1 Introduction 13.1.1 This chapter draws key conclusions on the findings for all nine business sectors. It also

synthesises general conclusions based upon the findings per business sector, the general/cross-sector findings and the stakeholder workshop held in London on 1st April.

13.2 Business sector-specific Construction & building

13.2.1 A range of guidance on protecting and enhancing biodiversity as part of spatial planning and development is available although much of this is aimed primarily at local authorities. Certification schemes for new development have emerged in recent years in response to the sustainable design and construction agenda (driven, in turn, by the need to mitigate and adapt to climate change). Biodiversity is generally a minor and low profile element of these schemes, the emphasis being firmly on energy and water efficiency (for example, CEEQUAL’s131 biodiversity section accounts for only 8.5% of the total score available).

13.2.2 Notwithstanding the current downturn, the Government’s house building target - three million homes by 2020 - and associated infrastructure presents an opportunity to firmly ‘mainstream’ biodiversity in spatial planning and development. In particular, the recent shift in emphasis away from ‘open space’ provision to ‘green infrastructure’ - defined in Government guidance as “a network of multi-functional green space, both new and existing, both rural and urban, which supports the natural and ecological processes and is integral to the health and quality of life of sustainable communities”132 – provides a real opportunity to integrate biodiversity in planning and development. Although much of the responsibility for planning and delivering green infrastructure will rest with local authorities, the construction sector will have a key role at the site scale. In terms of buildings themselves, biodiversity’s minor role in certification schemes could present a barrier. In addition, there are broader issues with the schemes themselves: “The development industry faces a panoply of standards – the Code for Sustainable Homes, BREEAM, Lifetime Homes, Building for Life, HCA Standards, tightening Building Regulations, many of which overlap and are inconsistently applied depending on the Local Authority and the Client”133. Generally speaking, pressure for developers to provide green infrastructure and biodiversity enhancements – particularly as part of large developments such as urban extensions - is likely to grow with the publication of the Planning Policy Statement on Eco-towns which requires forty per cent of the eco-town’s total area to be allocated for multifunctional green space and, moreover, that eco-towns should demonstrate a net gain in local biodiversity134.

131 The Civil Engineering Environmental Quality Assessment and Award Scheme 132 Communities and Local Government (2008). Planning Policy Statement 12: Local Spatial Planning [online] available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps12lsp (accessed 16 July 2009). 133 Fraser, P. (2009). Eco-Towns. Urban Design 111: 34-35. 134 Communities and Local Government (2009). Planning Policy Statement: Eco-towns - A supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1 [online] available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/pps-ecotowns (accessed 16 July 2009).



13.2.3 Several emerging tools and methodologies are beginning to fill the gaps in terms of coverage for the construction sector. For example, Natural England has recently published guidance on green infrastructure135 and the Town and Country and Planning Association (TCPA) and others have recently prepared a worksheet on green infrastructure for eco-towns136. It is important to recognise that biodiversity is only one component of ‘multi-functional’ green space (others including recreation, urban cooling and flood risk management); the degree of emphasis on wildlife within green infrastructure will be a key determinant of its success in promoting biodiversity. In terms of buildings themselves, the establishment of the UK Green Building Council Biodiversity Taskforce represents a positive step forward; its objectives include raising awareness of the role of biodiversity in delivering a sustainable built environment and encouraging the construction industry and its clients to incorporate biodiversity into all new and refurbishment schemes.

Mining

13.2.4 Government guidance on minerals development emphasises that planning authorities should take account of the opportunities for enhancing biodiversity which might be achieved through the appropriate restoration of former extraction sites137. Tools and methodologies identified to assist the minerals industry include www.AfterMinerals.com, a website run by the Nature After Minerals Programme, a partnership between Natural England and the RSPB with support from the Minerals Products Association. The Programme is committed to helping to deliver more appropriate, high quality and sustainable priority biodiversity habitat on minerals sites and promoting high quality restorations and raise awareness of the huge conservation potential of minerals sites. Individual companies also have tools and methodologies for managing biodiversity on site; for example, around 30% of UK quarries run by Hanson currently have Biodiversity Action Plans. Beyond the UK we identified a range of mining and biodiversity initiatives with publications including Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity138; Mining and Biodiversity: Towards best practice139; and 2005 Benchmark of Biodiversity Management Practices in the Extractive Industry140. However, the global industry is quite different from the remnants of the UK mining industry and therefore, a significant proportion of the international literature might not be relevant or would need to be adapted to the UK context.

13.2.5 Generally speaking, there are a range of tools and methodologies available to assist the mining sector in managing its biodiversity impacts. In the UK, the Nature After Minerals Programme is focused on the key issue of site restoration and the website includes a series of case studies. In addition, it is committed to creating a new web-based tool that will investigate the restoration potential of new minerals sites and preferred areas.

135 Natural England (2009). Green Infrastructure Guidance [online] available at: http://naturalengland.etraderstores.com/NaturalEnglandShop/Product.aspx?ProductID=cda68051-1381-452f-8e5b-8d7297783bbd (accessed 17 July 2009). 136 Town and Country Planning Association, Communities and Local Government and Natural England (undated). The essential role of green infrastructure: eco-towns green infrastructure worksheet [online] available at: http://www.tcpa.org.uk/data/files/etws_green_infrastructure.pdf (accessed 17 July 2009). 137 Communities and Local Government (2006). Minerals Policy Statement 1: Planning and Minerals [online] available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/mineralspolicystatement5 (accessed 17 July 2009). 138 International Council on Mining & Metals (undated). Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity [online] available at: http://www.icmm.com/page/1182/good-practice-guidance-for-mining-and-biodiversity (accessed 17 July 2009). 139 The World Conservation Union and the International Council on Mining & Metals (undated). Mining and biodiversity: towards best practice [online] available at: http://liveassets.iucn.getunik.net/downloads/doc1.pdf (accessed 17 July 2009). 140 Foxall, J., Grigg, A. and ten Kate, Kerry (2005). 2005 benchmark of biodiversity management practices in the extractive industry [online] available at: http://earthmind.net/eibb/docs/workshop-b-2006-insight-shareholder-natural-vaule.pdf (accessed 17 July 2009).

http://www.afterminerals.com/�



Forestry & Paper

13.2.6 There is a well established body of tools and methodologies aimed at guiding forest owners through to paper companies and consumers on how the sector’s impacts on biodiversity can be measured, monitored and minimised. We identified a wide range of mechanisms, including advisory services, grants, certification schemes, networks and forums, partnerships and projects (and relatively few publications and guidance notes). There are a large number of well-known and well recognised certification schemes, including the Forest Stewardship Council UK’s ‘Forest Management and Chain of Custody Certification’; the PEFC Council’s ‘Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes’; the Soil Association’s ‘Woodmark’, and the UK Woodland Assurance Standard. To take an example, the UK Woodland Assurance Standard is an independent certification standard for verifying sustainable woodland management in the UK and ‘conservation and enhancement’ is one of eight sections within the standard. Fifty per cent of all UK woodland and eighty per cent of the timber harvest is certified against the standard.

13.2.7 It was clear from the feedback we received that certification schemes are useful tools for protecting biodiversity and influencing business on a large scale. For example, according to the Forest Stewardship Council, “forest certification has helped forest managers / owners to consider and to include ecological issues in forest management planning”. However, a respondent from the UK Woodland Assurance Standard pointed out that while the uptake for larger enterprises to join the scheme is high, there is a low uptake amongst the smallest owners, due to the relatively complexity of the process.

Utilities

13.2.8 Land owned or occupied by utility companies (electricity, gas and water) often has biodiversity value and many utility companies own or have infrastructure located on or adjacent to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). As such, utility companies are often actively involved in managing on-site biodiversity, exploring and mitigating the biodiversity impacts of their operations and ensuring compliance with environmental regulations. In terms of tools and methodologies these tend to be company specific and often include biodiversity policies, frameworks and / or strategies. For example, EDF Energy has a biodiversity policy, RWE npower a biodiversity framework and Northumbrian Water a biodiversity strategy. RWE npower’s biodiversity framework includes a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) for every site. United Utilities has developed an Operational Site Biodiversity Management tool which has been devised “to assist in the identification and subsequent management of biodiversity features (species and habitats) on operational sites within the United Utilities estate. It is currently deployed as part of a biodiversity pilot project on 6 sites”. Many of the utility companies have, or are developing, GIS-based tools and methodologies to identify and evaluate biodiversity impacts. Northumbrian Water has developed ZEBRA - Zones of Environmental and Biodiversity Risk Assessment - to determine the risk to designated conservation areas from any accidents that might occur at one of its operational sites. The company also screens all projects for their potential impact on biodiversity. Generally speaking, obligations to conserve and enhance biodiversity have led to utility companies developing in-house expertise; Thames Water commented, as part of the research, that “it greatly assists the business to have in-house expertise in biodiversity”.



13.2.9 It is notable that there appear to be few sector-wide biodiversity initiatives. Tools and methodologies tend instead to be company-specific; however, the mechanisms developed by different companies tend to be similar in terms of objectives and scope, reflecting common drivers. Nonetheless, there are examples of wider initiatives. Water for Wildlife aims to co-ordinate the wetland work of The Wildlife Trusts, working with water companies, the Environment Agency and other key partners, to provide a more consistent and targeted approach to wetland conservation. Water UK – which represents all UK water and wastewater service suppliers at national and European level – prepares an annual report showing how the water industry is performing across a range of sustainability indicators, including an indicator on the status of SSSIs; plans are afoot to develop a new biodiversity indicator(s)141.

Oil & Gas

13.2.10 Although renewable energy sources are growing in importance, the UK is set to continue to rely on oil and gas to supply the majority of its energy needs over the coming decades. At the same time, domestic supplies of oil and gas will continue to decline; the UK will therefore become significantly more dependent on energy imports from overseas to satisfy demand. The environmental – including biodiversity - impacts of the UK’s energy consumption will therefore become more and more distant from the domestic market. It is also important to note that declining reserves and accessibility have resulted in oil and gas exploration moving further afield to remoter areas of the world, with potentially significant impacts on biodiversity.

13.2.11 Our research identified a range of biodiversity-related tools and methodologies for the oil and gas sector. Examples of guidance documents included ‘Key Biodiversity Questions in the Oil and Gas Lifecycle’142 and ‘A Guide to Developing Biodiversity Action Plans for the Oil and Gas Sector’143 both produced by the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP). Various forums were also identified, for example, the IPIECA – OGP Biodiversity Working Group and the Oil and Gas UK Environment Forum. Although now disbanded, the Energy and Biodiversity Initiative (EBI) was established to ‘develop and promote’ practices for integrating biodiversity conservation into upstream oil and gas development. We also identified examples of company best practice, for example, Shell’s biodiversity standard and biodiversity strategy. Overall, there appears to be reasonably comprehensive range of tools and methodologies available to the oil and gas sector.

13.2.12 In addition to oil and gas, we also investigated the availability of tools and methodologies to the biofuels industry. The risks to biodiversity associated with biofuels have been the subject of considerable discussion with a UN report arguing that “Ultimately, the problems associated with bioenergy land use (particularly of virgin land), including deforestation, biodiversity loss, soil erosion, and nutrient leaching, will remain the most vexing and deserve the most attention”144.

141 Water UK (2008). Summary of the process to review the Water UK sustainability indicators [online] available at: http://www.water.org.uk/home/news/press-releases/sustainable-water/revised-water-uk-sustainability-indicators-jun08.pdf (accessed 20 July 2009). 142 International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (2006). Key Biodiversity Questions in the Oil and Gas Lifecycle [online] available at: http://www.ipieca.org/activities/biodiversity/downloads/publications/bdwg_lifecycle.pdf (accessed 20 July 2009). 143 International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association and the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (2005). A Guide to Developing Biodiversity Action Plans for the Oil and Gas Sector [online] available at: http://www.ipieca.org/activities/biodiversity/downloads/publications/baps.pdf (accessed 20 July 2009). 144 UN-Energy (2007). Sustainable Bioenergy: A Framework for Decision Makers [online] available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a1094e/a1094e00.htm (accessed 20 July 2009).



UK demand for biofuels could have indirect impacts on biodiversity overseas. Our research identified emerging tools and methodologies including publications such as the IUCN’s Implementing Sustainable Bioenergy Production: A Compilation of Tools and Approaches145 and fora including the Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels.

Food Processors & Producers

13.2.13 The food producers and processes sector is broad with many direct and indirect effects on biodiversity. The sector is complex, encompassing agriculture, fisheries and food processing with impacts in part determined by policy instruments including the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Defra acknowledges that “much of the CAP still has a negative impact on the environment” and is working towards a reformed CAP that addresses these challenges, “creating a sustainable environment and protecting natural resources”146.

13.2.14 We identified a broad range of tools and methodologies to assist food producers and processors in managing their biodiversity impacts. In terms of farming itself, agri-environment schemes are key to addressing environment impacts, including on biodiversity, and the Environmental Stewardship in particular scheme provides funding to farmers and land managers in England who deliver effective environmental management on their land. There are numerous networks, fora and advisory bodies for the food production and processing sector with an environment / biodiversity focus, for example, the Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG); Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF); the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) and the Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS). The sector has given rise to numerous certification schemes (including some run by the organisations above) which have a strong biodiversity focus: the LEAF Marque; the MSC Standard; Conservation Grade farming - farming for wildlife; Sustainable Farm Certification by the Rainforest Alliance and the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN); and the Soil Association standard. It is relatively early days for many certification schemes; the MSC, for example, is in a rapid growth phase with increasing industry demand for certification. According to the MSC, most fisheries have made a series of positive changes to the benefit of target fish stocks and the wider environment in order to achieve and retain certification. Consumer recognition is a key issue for certification schemes; a respondent from the Conservation Grade Farming – farming for Wildlife scheme anticipated greater recognition in the future while LEAF stated that there was growing recognition amongst consumers for the LEAF Marque. Certification schemes can also be complicated; the MSC Standard was acknowledged as “Complicated, but necessarily so to reflect the complexity and diversity of fishery resources and the nature of the MSC third-party, stakeholder-consultation based processes”. In addition, we also identified examples of company best practice, for example, the British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership, which started in 2001 as a partnership between five NGOs (Fauna and Flora International, Earthwatch Institute, the Tropical Biology Association, The Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, WildCru) and British American Tobacco.

13.2.15 The food production and processing sector is perhaps the hardest to gauge in terms of whether or not the identified tools and methodologies provide an appropriate degree of coverage, in part because of the broad nature of the sector and the complexity of global supply chains.

145 Keam, S. and McCormick, N. (2008). Implementing Sustainable Bioenergy Production; A Compilation of Tools and Approaches [online] available at: http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/2008-057.pdf?bcsi_scan_F6892CABA15785B4=0&bcsi_scan_filename=2008-057.pdf (accessed 20 July 2009). 146 Defra (2009). CAP Reform [online] available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/capreform/index.htm (accessed 20 July 2009).



Generally speaking, it can be concluded that organisations and certification schemes with a strong biodiversity focus have emerged in recent years but it is early days for many of these and they face numerous challenges including consumer recognition and complexity.

Retail

13.2.16 We identified relatively few tools and methodologies to assist the retail sector in managing its biodiversity impacts and identifying opportunities associated with biodiversity. Tools and methodologies included certification schemes, for example, the European Union’s Eco-label and the Fairtrade Labelling Standards; however, these have only a partial biodiversity focus. We also identified examples of company best practice including ‘Operation Bumblebee’, a partnership between Sainsbury’s and Syngenta and 100 farmers to sow and manage 1000 ha of clover rich field corners and boundaries, to re-establish a pollen and nectar food source for bumblebees, whose numbers are in serious decline. M&S is endeavouring to embed sustainability and the Sustainable Development Manager for Raw Materials stated that “we approach biodiversity as part of how we source our key raw materials, such as wood, fish, cotton, palm oil, soy, fresh produce, fresh protein. Where possible we apply independent schemes such as FSC, MSC, BCI, RSPO, RTRS, LEAF audit to address biodiversity as part of a whole farm or field environmental impact assessment”. In terms of tools and methodologies, the retail sector was missing the guidance notes and checklists associated with other sectors; however, we identified more examples of company best practice than for other sectors.

Leisure & Hotels

13.2.17 We identified a range of tools and methodologies for the leisure and hotels sector; however, many of these were broader environment or sustainability-related initiatives with biodiversity only one component. Examples include the Green Tourism Business Scheme, which includes a criterion on 'Nature & Cultural Heritage'. Internationally, we investigated the Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Program which includes an extensive focus on biodiversity. Examples of guidance include the Sustainable Hotel Siting Design and Construction Guidelines produced by the International Tourism Partnership and Conservation International. Other identified initiatives, again with an environment / sustainability / responsible tourism focus included Travelife, recently set up through funding from EU Life “to support an efficient and cost effective introduction of sustainability principles within the tourism sector”.

Investment, Insurance & Banking

13.2.18 There is an increasing focus within the financial sector on addressing the risks, challenges and opportunities associated with biodiversity. A 2007 IUCN report argued that certain sectors are more exposed to biodiversity risks than others and that financial institutions (FIs), such as retail and commercial banks, asset managers, private and institutional investors and insurers that provide financial services to companies with exposure to biodiversity risks can themselves be exposed to these risks directly and indirectly147. The report emphasises that FIs can be directly exposed to, for example, reputational risks, liability risk or regulatory scrutiny or indirectly through loans to, or investment, in companies with exposure to biodiversity risks.

147 Mulder, I. (2007). Biodiversity, the Next Challenge for Financial Institutions? [Online] available at: http://www.iucn.org/fr/news_events/news/?89/Biodiversity-New-challenge-for-the-financial-services-industry (accessed 20 July 2009).



13.2.19 We identified a range of tools and methodologies to assist the finance sector in managing its biodiversity impacts; in general, these were global in scope given the nature of the finance sector. Tools and methodologies identified included the Equator Principles which provides a benchmark for the financial industry to manage social and environmental issues in project financing148. To date, 67 financial institutions from 27 countries have adopted the principles. For projects with potential adverse social or environmental impacts, the borrower must conduct a Social and Environmental Assessment and the assessment documentation should include, if relevant, the “protection and conservation of biodiversity, including endangered species and sensitive ecosystems in modified, natural and critical habitats, and identification of legally protected areas”149. In addition to the Equator Principles, we explored the Fauna & Flora International / UNEP FI Natural Value Initiative’s Ecosystem Services Benchmark (ESB) which was developed to enable institutional investors to “understand the risks and opportunities associated with the impacts and dependency of their investments on biodiversity and ecosystem services”. The focus is principally on industries associated with the production and processing of raw materials with agricultural supply chains. The ESB evaluates company performance against specific criteria and for each criteria, a company’s performance is ranked on a scale of 1 – 4. The benchmark currently has relatively limited recognition with approximately 400 key stakeholders being regularly updated; however, wider recognition is expected in the future with the publication of further reports.

13.2.20 As part of our research into the finance sector, we also investigated biodiversity banking / offsetting schemes including the New South Wales (NSW) Biodiversity Certification and Biobanking scheme in Australia. All businesses in NSW with developments that impact on native vegetation can participate in the scheme, for example, major housing property developers and mining companies. The scheme has taken three years to develop including legislative change, policy and administration, and now scheme promotion. To date, there has been some recognition of the scheme and uptake by certain organisations (e.g. the NSW Roads & Traffic Authority).

General or cross-sectoral

13.2.21 In addition to the sector-specific tools and methodologies outlined above, we also identified numerous initiatives which are generally applicable or cross-sectoral in application (our preliminary research identified 114 such tools and methodologies). These included publications such as ‘A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector: Building Alliances to Address Biodiversity Issues’150; ‘Integrating Biodiversity into Business Strategies: The Biodiversity Accountability Framework’151; ‘Business & Biodiversity: A Handbook for Corporate Action’152; and A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector’153. We also identified resources /

148 See http://www.equator-principles.com/principles.shtml (accessed 20 July 2009). 149 The "Equator Principles": A financial industry benchmark for determining, assessing and managing social & environmental risk in project financing [online] available at: http://www.equator-principles.com/documents/Equator_Principles.pdf (accessed 20 July 2009). 150 International Finance Corporation (undated). A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector [online] available at: http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/BiodivGuide_Partnerships/$FILE/Partnerships.pdf (accessed 20 July 2009). 151 Houdet, J. (undated). Integrating Biodiversity into Business Strategies: The Biodiversity Accountability Framework [online] available at: http://www.fondationbiodiversite.fr/Documents_files/BiodiversityGuide.pdf?bcsi_scan_F6892CABA15785B4=0&bcsi_scan_filename=BiodiversityGuide.pdf (accessed 20 July 2009). 152 Earthwatch Institute, the World Conservation Union and World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2002). Business & Biodiversity: The Handbook for Corporate Action [online] available at: http://www.wbcsd.org/DocRoot/ob3ZstqTvcmXQVtEtMxh/20020819_biodiversity.pdf (accessed 20 July 2009).



websites including, for example, the Biodiversity Neutral Initiative and the Business & Biodiversity Resource Centre (www.businessandbiodiversity.org) (an initiative of the Earthwatch Institute, Natural England and Defra). Other initiatives identified included Forest Trends and Conservation International’s ‘Business & Biodiversity Offsets Programme’ and The Wildlife Trusts’ Biodiversity Benchmark.

13.3 Stakeholder Workshop Effectiveness

13.3.1 Several key messages emerged in relation to effectiveness. First and foremost, for a tool or methodology to be effective and secure senior buy-in it must represent a clear ‘win-win’ for both business and biodiversity, with the ‘win’ measurable for both. Tools and methodologies which transform the market will eventually deliver greater and lasting biodiversity gains e.g. markets for offsets and tools that speak the financial language of business. Legislation was felt to be an important driver for effectiveness and can result in the biggest wins. Some of the other points made included:

• Tools and methodologies should be easily recognisable in order to enhance reputation and buy-in; awards and recognition, such as benchmarks, are easy to sell to managers

• Simple, easy-to-use mechanisms are the most transferable and easiest to train employees up on, allowing greater employee engagement and encouraging greater business up-take

• Mechanisms that are robust, ongoing and enduring and which deliver impact over time can assist in making the business case to managers

• Different sectors are influenced by different drivers so it can make more sense to develop sector-specific mechanisms

• Tools and methodologies which provide the opportunity to join networks and forums and which facilitate the development of business contacts and relationships can help make the case

Barriers to implementation

13.3.2 Biodiversity is intrinsically complicated. Furthermore, a disconnect between strategic decision-making and impact on the ground makes it harder for business to visualise quantifiable benefits and ensure senior-level buy-in. The cultural barriers between businesses and environmental bodies also need to be broken down. The point was made that there needs to be a clear link between biodiversity and ecosystem services, moving away from a species-led approach to a more holistic understanding of the resources that business will be safeguarding through implementation of a mechanism. Attitudes and perceptions within business can act as a barrier; this can be exacerbated by lack of leadership or a ‘biodiversity champion’ within a business. Six ‘Cs’ were identified as major barriers to implementation: cost (the onus is usually on business and the challenge of meeting expectations is particularly difficult for SMEs); commercial viability; complexity; confusion; consumer awareness; and communication. The point was also made that there is insufficient evidence on the costs and benefits of

153 International Finance Corporation (2009). A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector [online] available at: http://www.ifc.org/BiodiversityGuide (accessed 20 July 2009).

http://www.businessandbiodiversity.org/�



implementing a mechanism and not enough understanding of the economic value of biodiversity to business. Furthermore, businesses may not have the necessary resources and capacity to implement a mechanism in terms of, for example, budget and staff time. Measuring the impact of an initiative – both from a business and a biodiversity perspective - can be challenging as the supporting data is often not available. Benchmarking – in the form of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) - could be used as means of driving forward company performance and allowing businesses to make incremental and manageable wins for both business and biodiversity. The point was raised that government should set a value for biodiversity in order to establish a level playing field to which all businesses must adhere.

Transferability and where we go from here

13.3.3 The simpler and more valuable a mechanism is to business, the more transferable it is likely to be. However, the differences between business sectors suggest the need to develop sector-specific mechanisms. The biodiversity dimensions of existing schemes with a wide up-take – for example environmental management standards such as ISO 14001 – could be strengthened. Clear monitoring and auditing, assessment and corrective action are also useful principles for mechanisms which promote transferability.

13.3.4 In terms of where we go from here, there is value in exploring mechanisms that speak the ‘financial’ language of business and could transform the market such as offset trading. In addition, awareness raising for successful schemes was also suggested as was the provision of information hubs, a central database or a portal for collating research.

13.3.5 There was also said to be a need to move away from the species led approach to a more holistic view of biodiversity; perhaps targets in the future will be focussed on ecosystem services. However, biodiversity must be relevant to business and customers; the species led approach has been successful in gaining support for biodiversity in the past.

13.4 Overall conclusions and recommendations Conclusions

13.4.1 First and foremost, the research has identified a large number of tools and methodologies to assist businesses in managing their biodiversity impacts and identifying opportunities associated with biodiversity. For each of the sectors investigated, it was possible to identify mechanisms which could be used to address biodiversity impacts.

13.4.2 Different types of tools and methodologies predominate in different sectors, reflecting the underlying drivers influencing each sector and the sector’s ‘proximity’ to biodiversity. The utilities sector, for example, is subject to regulatory requirements and utility companies manage biodiversity on the ground. The sector is therefore dominated by individual companies’ biodiversity policies, strategies and frameworks together with site-based biodiversity action plans as well as tools for identifying and evaluating the impacts on biodiversity from future activities. The food production and processing sector is subject to increasing consumer pressure and has witnessed the emergence of an increasing number of certification schemes to appeal to greener consumers. The finance sector is remote from biodiversity but is increasingly subject to reputational, liability and other forms of risk as a result of investment



decisions. Tools and methodologies such as the Equator Principles which provide a benchmark for the financial industry to manage social and environmental issues in project financing have therefore begun to emerge.

13.4.3 Although we identified a wide range of tools and methodologies, their effectiveness in terms of promoting biodiversity on the ground was generally difficult to gauge. For almost every sector we identified sector-specific guidance on managing biodiversity; however, many of these guidance documents have been developed by governmental bodies or NGOs and there is often little, if any, evidence on the extent to which the guidance has been reflected in company operations. For those sectors involved in land management a common approach involves preparing site biodiversity action plans; however, for various reasons it is difficult to assess their effectiveness. One means to assess their effectiveness would be to benchmark individual company performance in relation to agreed indicators (e.g. maintaining SSSIs under their management in favourable or recovering condition). The scope for this exists; for example, the current Water UK sustainability indicator on SSSIs focuses on water industry land holdings but is not reported on a company-by-company basis.

13.4.4 We identified several partnerships between companies and NGOs which appear to have many of the hallmarks of an ‘effective’ mechanism identified at the stakeholder workshop (e.g. easily recognisable, having specific objectives, being robust, ongoing and enduring, facilitating employee engagement, making a difference on the ground etc.). Partnerships identified included the Nature After Minerals Programme, a partnership between Natural England and the RSPB with support from the Minerals Products Association; RSPB and CEMEX also in the mining sector; Water for Wildlife, a partnership between the Wildlife Trusts, water companies, the Environment Agency and other stakeholders; and the British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership, a partnership between five NGOs and BAT. Other partnerships identified included ‘Operation Bumblebee’, a partnership between Sainsbury’s and Syngenta and 100 farmers.

13.4.5 We also identified a range of certification schemes which involve third party assurance – a key dimension of effectiveness. These were particularly prevalent in the construction and building, forestry and paper and food production and processing sectors, reflecting the plethora of other sustainable development concerns that these sectors should ideally take account of; however, biodiversity, is generally speaking, only one component of the different standards and there are few focused purely on biodiversity. Exceptions include Conservation Grade – Farming for Wildlife and the Wildlife Trusts’ Biodiversity Benchmark which can be applied to any organisation with land. To genuinely deliver for biodiversity, the standards underpinning certification are likely to be tough and relatively complicated; the MSC Standard was acknowledged as “Complicated, but necessarily so to reflect the complexity and diversity of fishery resources and the nature of the MSC third-party, stakeholder-consultation based processes”. According to the Wildlife Trusts’ “it will take a site a minimum of three months to obtain the Biodiversity Benchmark but 6 -12 months is more typical”.

13.4.6 For many of the tools and methodologies investigated it is early days. For example, the construction sector has witnessed the emergence of a range of standards (e.g. the Code for Sustainable Homes and BREEAM) and initiatives (e.g. the UK Green Building Council Biodiversity Taskforce) and their success at promoting biodiversity in new development remains to be seen.



13.4.7 In general, workshop participants emphasised that for a tool or methodology to be effective and secure senior buy-in it must represent a clear ‘win-win’ for both business and biodiversity, with the ‘win’ measurable for both. For a mechanism to be effective participants also emphasised that clear monitoring and auditing, assessment and capacity for corrective action were important. More widely, participants highlighted the need to break down the cultural barriers between businesses and environmental bodies, particularly in terms of language.

13.4.8 More broadly, it may be that a considerable shift in terms of the prospects for business engagement in biodiversity is on the horizon. The impacts of carbon markets, the trend towards payment for ecosystem services and the emergence of biodiversity banking / offsetting schemes may signal a new era for business and biodiversity; “Twenty years ago, few people imagined that an entire industry could be created around mitigating climate change. Today it is a reality – the international carbon trade, for example, topped US$30 billion in 2006 and is expected to exceed US$50 billion by 2008. Why not the same for biodiversity?”154

Recommendations

13.4.9 In light of our research, we propose the following recommendations for the future work of the BBSIG:

• Recognise that certain sectors (such as forestry, mining and utilities) have relatively well developed tools and methodologies for biodiversity with wide up-take, and consider prioritising the following sectors for further research and support: construction and building; food processing, retail; leisure and hotels and investment, insurance and banking

• Focus attention on those tools with an environment / sustainability focus and a wide take-up but a relatively minor biodiversity dimension and investigate the possibilities for strengthening the biodiversity dimension

• Undertake a formal review of the success of the different company – NGO partnerships identified in this report since these appear to have many of the hallmarks of effective mechanisms

• Given the differences between the different sectors in terms of drivers for addressing biodiversity-related concerns, consider establishing sub-groups or working groups within the BBSIG devoted to particular sector(s),

• In particular, establish a land managers group - including utilities, quarrying companies, tourist attractions and organisations such as Network Rail – to share experience and of site-based management for biodiversity

• Monitor the effectiveness of the new tools and methodologies emerging in sectors such as construction and building and act to remedy any failure to promote biodiversity interests

• Consider undertaking formal reviews or evaluations of particular tools and methodologies in order to firmly demonstrate the gains to both business and biodiversity

• Consider a firmer focus on the future for business and biodiversity, namely the emergence of markets for biodiversity and ecosystem services and prepare UK businesses for the transition and the challenges and opportunities this presents

154 Bishop, J., Kapila, S., Hicks, F., Mitchell, P. and Vorhies, F. (2008). Building Biodiversity Business. Shell International Limited and the International Union for Conservation of Nature: London, UK, and Gland, Switzerland



Appendix 1 – Workshop

13.5 Introduction 13.5.1 In order to disseminate and discuss the emerging findings of the business and biodiversity

research project, Defra and Scott Wilson hosted a stakeholder workshop in London on the morning of April 1st 2009. The invitation list was drawn from research contacts and the attendance list is attached at the end of this document. The key findings from the workshop are set out below.

13.6 Approach 13.6.1 Three break-out sessions were devised to tackle the following issues and related questions:

• Session 1 – Effectiveness

• What makes an effective mechanism for businesses to manage their biodiversity impacts?

• What attracts businesses to certain mechanisms?

• Which mechanisms really make the biggest difference in biodiversity terms?

• Session 2 – Barriers to implementation

• What are the barriers to take-up and effective implementation of schemes?

• How could these barriers be overcome?

• Session 3 – Transferability and where we go from here

• What mechanisms are most transferable and why?

• What new or expanded mechanisms might be necessary?

• What could Defra / BBSIG / representative bodies do to encourage more participation in successful schemes?

13.6.2 The questions were circulated with an agenda before the workshop and delegates were split in to six groups to discuss the questions. Feedback from these sessions was shared with all delegates at the close of the workshop.

13.7 Session 1 - Effectiveness What makes an effective mechanism for businesses to manage their biodiversity impacts?

13.7.1 In order to assess whether a mechanism is effective it is important to assess its costs and benefits to both business and biodiversity, although it was also stated that often benefits are ‘common sense’ and not necessarily financial thus hard to quantify. Effective mechanisms are



‘win-win’ for both business and biodiversity. The mechanism should be measurable and should also assist in decision-making.

13.7.2 It was considered that a mechanism is not effective if it is not recognised by both consumers and business, and thus effective mechanisms need to be promoted well. Promotion of the tool should allow for a ‘brand differentiation’ and a recognised trademark that commands a premium price, is low cost and user-friendly. The ability to integrate the mechanism in to wider Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and the business sustainability agenda can help in its promotion to, and recognition by, consumers. It was also suggested that effective mechanisms look not just at biodiversity, but at the wider sustainable development perspective. Also important for recognition and thus effectiveness is whether of not the mechanism is universal – this also underpins the key issue of credibility.

13.7.3 In order for a mechanism to be effective and taken up by business it needs to make the business case and make ‘business logic’. Moreover, the mechanism needs to deliver business level benefits and be based on micro-level business logic, not just macro economic arguments. These benefits could include:

• risk engagement • corporate social responsibility • employee engagement • reputation

13.7.4 Mechanisms that incorporate a risk focus and risk assessment were felt to be particularly effective at making the business case, ensuring that an initiative endures and providing environmental insurance. Key performance indicators were thought to be particularly useful in terms of measuring effectiveness and success but it was suggested that the most effective mechanisms are independently assessed. Effective mechanisms should also have clear deliverables, with the applicability to both business and biodiversity clearly understood.

13.7.5 Another important attribute of an effective mechanism is simplicity and ease of use. The mechanism should offer an easy route and the mechanism should be robust, ongoing and enduring, with impact delivered over time. There should be ‘security of long-term supply’ that will assist in making the business case. The example of EIA was given as a tool that is easier for MNCs to implement on a large scale, but which is more difficult at a smaller scale.

13.7.6 In order for mechanisms to be considered effective they also need to readily integrate into existing business systems and the decision-making process, working within the arrangements in which the business gets its advice. Staff training was also considered to be important in ensuring mechanism effectiveness.

13.7.7 It was stated that the most effective mechanisms move from discussion in to taking positive action. Multi-stakeholder approaches were mentioned for effectiveness, as were sector-specific mechanisms.

13.7.8 Legislation was felt to be an important driver of effectiveness, as it forces business to take the issues seriously. However, it was also stated that going beyond the statutory framework and enhancing biodiversity is a challenge, and that legislation is not necessarily implemented in developing countries.



What attracts businesses to certain mechanisms?

13.7.9 It was felt that how attractive a mechanism varies between different business sectors as they are influenced by different drivers. Furthermore, the size of the business can also be important in determining which mechanisms are the most appealing and best fit the business model.

13.7.10 It is important that there is a benefit to the business in addition to biodiversity. This may be financial or reputational, and this ties back to making the business case. Mechanisms that can quantify and monetise the benefits as well as the risks make it easier to engage with, and pitch to, board members. Awards and recognition, such as benchmarks, are easy to sell to managers

13.7.11 The effectiveness of the mechanism is also key to its appeal. Values already discussed include:

• Promotion and brand differentiation • Cost and return • Risk management • Credibility and endorsement – verifiable • Ease of incorporation of mechanism into business plans / structures and CSR • Ease of incorporation of biodiversity in to existing environmental remit • Fulfilment of legislative targets and requirements

13.7.12 Mechanisms that offer added (perhaps secondary or indirect) advantages provide further incentive for business uptake. For example, the opportunity to join networks and forums associated with the mechanism that facilitate trade, the building of new business contacts and relationships, and the exploration of new products. Mechanisms that promote employee engagement also have an added incentive.

13.7.13 There needs to be clear incentives for uptake of mechanisms. For example, grants are a big attraction for SMEs. Many NGOs can benefits from tax breaks and government support and it was felt that there needs to be similar incentives available to businesses that address biodiversity.

13.7.14 Another suggestion was that there needs to be a clear link between biodiversity and ecosystem services, thus the resources that business will be safeguarding through implementation and uptake of a mechanism.

13.7.15 Mechanisms that allow for sustainable procurement and offer security of the supply chain are also appealing.

Which mechanisms really make the biggest difference in biodiversity terms?

13.7.16 It was suggested that mechanisms applied to owned and managed land often make the biggest different in biodiversity terms. Big differences are also achieved through mechanisms that are required in order to meet legislation that are statutorily enforced and backed by the government.



13.7.17 It is important that the tools that are adopted actually deliver – they need to deliver wildlife improvements and must also be effective in preventing biodiversity loss. In order to do this it was suggested that tools need to be integrated in to existing environmental management. It is important that they are not just ‘tick-box’ measures but that they offer additional biodiversity benefits such as on-site staff training and skills.

13.7.18 Also important in terms of making the biggest difference is that the mechanisms offer a continuous process with measuring and monitoring over time. Examples include the Biodiversity Benchmark and ISO 14001.

13.7.19 Tools need to promote behavioural and attitudinal change within business towards truly becoming a good corporate citizen. It was also suggested that tools offering both pro-active engagement and public engagement and buy-in are associated with larger biodiversity gains.

13.7.20 Mechanisms that encourage strategic-thinking, such as working groups (e.g. British Retail Consortium has a Palm Oil working group attended by M&S), and that link to site level, should also contribute to larger biodiversity gains. Greater collaboration can lead to greater biodiversity wins e.g. between industry, academia, NGOs and cross-sector. A central database could help provide an overview of biodiversity-related issues to non-specialists in order to facilitate understanding and improvement. Mechanisms that transform the market will eventually deliver greater and lasting biodiversity gains e.g. markets for offset and tools that speak the business ‘financial’ language.

13.7.21 The biodiversity gains delivered again depends upon the business sector. In some cases, business-led tools can be most effective and have more buy-in, but on contentious issues they need to be stakeholder-led.

13.7.22 Another important point made is that there needs to be a change in emphasis from mechanisms that deliver negative costs (ie risk) to mechanisms that deliver a positive value of biodiversity.

13.8 Session 2 – Barriers to implementation What are the barriers to take-up and effective implementation of schemes?

13.8.1 One stakeholder stated that: “Biodiversity is intrinsically complicated”, which in itself is a major barrier. This can also cause business distrust of mechanism effectiveness.

13.8.2 One major barrier to implementation is language and terminology. For example, business understanding of what ‘biodiversity’ and ‘ecosystem services’ actually mean. There is a lack of connection with the terminology and phrases are used that aren’t business friendly or biodiversity friendly. Better terms for business engagement and understanding include ‘sustainable sourcing’ and environment ‘risk’. There is a need to put it in the “language of business and not biodiversity”. Furthermore, it was also suggested that lack of understanding of the business case by NGOs also makes it harder to develop mechanisms that businesses will want to implement.



13.8.3 Cost is another key barrier. The onerous is usually on business, and this is particularly an issue for SMEs. There is not enough evidence on the cost-benefit of implementing a mechanism and not enough understanding of the economic value of biodiversity to business. Furthermore, businesses may not have the necessary resources and capacity to implement a mechanism in terms of e.g. staff, administration and budget put aside. Many mechanisms can be quite demanding of time from business which can also be a resourcing issue, as an the difficulty of monitoring.

13.8.4 A lack of a business case compromises uptake. In order to make the business case there needs to be guidance, rational and a way to measure impact (e.g. KPIs), but it is difficult to find supporting data as much is unpublished and unavailable. There is a need for data access, data sharing, and practical advice and guidance. Measurability in terms of biodiversity impact is not enough – mechanism effect also needs to be measurable in terms of business impact.

13.8.5 Six ‘Cs’ were identified as major barriers to implementation: Cost (especially for SMEs but even for large organisations), Commercial viability, Complexity, Confusion, Consumer awareness and Communication.

13.8.6 Biodiversity is often low down on the business agenda and there is a lack of buy-in from CEOs and senior management. Attitudes and perceptions within business can act as a barrier. There is a lack of leadership within business to champion biodiversity within a company and to act as a central contact.

13.8.7 Indirect impacts on biodiversity are less clear to business (e.g. supply chains) than direct impacts (e.g. for land owners). Approaches need be different to meet the context but there also needs to be a level playing field.

13.8.8 A disconnection between policy level and impact on the ground can pose a barrier. There is a need to link corporate reporting level and project level.

13.8.9 Barriers in some industries are easier to overcome for example the cement industry is very vertically and horizontally integrated with only a few large players

How could these barriers be overcome?

13.8.10 One way of overcoming barriers is through routes of communication, but the question is through which route e.g. through government, trade association or NGO etc. Where the business case is discussed, who carries out the research, what language is used (it should be people and business friendly) and who communicates the findings or mechanisms.

13.8.11 There needs to be greater availability of information and gaps in information need to be addressed. This will help to set out the business case. This includes identification of business needs from the environment and why business should take action to look after it, the costs and benefits both indirect and direct. Mechanisms need to be “realistically possible” and take in to account other pressures on business. This will also help overcome the ‘cultural barrier’, by translating a mechanism in to how a business works and by recognising that businesses work differently, how and why. In order to overcome internal business barriers, there needs to be senior management understanding of the importance of biodiversity. Training and resources may be needed for this.



13.8.12 Lesson can be learnt from other organisations, particularly those with a strong marketing/communications focus, e.g. Marks and Spencers’ ‘Plan A’. There is a strong educational role that can be played and there could be greater engagement at all levels and representations across all sectors. This also links to awareness creation and mechanism credibility. Healthy competition between companies could be encouraged.

13.8.13 Creating legislation with a biodiversity focus could provide an effective means of overcoming barriers to business and biodiversity. One group commented that “There has to be legislation”. There is a role for government in terms of regulation and regulators need to be involved in a positive way. Furthermore, it was felt that government needs to set a value for biodiversity in order to set a level playing field to which all must adhere.

13.8.14 There may be value in looking at the ongoing TEEB study and the Convention on Biological Diversity for useful guidance. Natural England could also produce guidance about protected species, linked to licensing requirements of each sector.

13.8.15 The suggestion was made that there is a need to move away form the species led approach to conservation for a few charismatic mega fauna, towards protecting whole ecosystems. Targets should be based around ecosystem services.

13.8.16 Benchmarking can help drive company performance forward. Internalisation of costs was also suggested.

13.9 Session 3 – Transferability and where we go from here What mechanisms are most transferable and why?

13.9.1 It was felt that the simpler the mechanism the more transferable it is. In-built training helps to simplify the mechanism and ease business up-take.

13.9.2 Adaptability aids transferability of tools. In particular, it was suggested that successful international models could be replicated and adapted for use in the UK.

13.9.3 It was felt that quantitative mechanisms are generally more transferable than qualitative. The incorporation of targets and timeframes was also mentioned for increasing transferability. It was suggested that an overall common framework (perhaps set by government) rating performance across biodiversity indicators (same across every sector) – within framework, organisations tailor mechanisms to meet targets – would be of use. Another suggestion was the creation of central shared resource with basic information and set of rules, with expanded information for sector specific issues

13.9.4 Clear monitoring and auditing, assessment and corrective action are also useful principles of transferable mechanisms. It was also stated that the most transferable mechanisms are those that are most valuable to companies.

13.9.5 Specific types of tools that were listed for good transferability include:

• Certification • Benchmarking



• Portals (allowing for information dissemination) • Trading scheme • Environmental Stewardship Schemes

What new or expanded mechanisms might be necessary?

13.9.6 It was felt that the differences between business sectors requires the development of sector-specific mechanisms.

13.9.7 Boundaries are an important issue to explore. It is not enough to simply look at the UK when e.g. supply chain impacts and the operations of MNCs are global in practice and in terms of impacts on biodiversity.

13.9.8 In terms of expanding existing mechanisms, it was suggested that there is a need for integration of biodiversity into, or strengthening biodiversity within, existing schemes that are already widely used e.g. ISO 14001 and EIA.

13.9.9 Other suggestions for new mechanisms include:

• Service charges – valuing ecosystems services • Ecosystem service based targets and valuing ecosystems services • Offset trading (a financial incentive / opportunity for business)

What could Defra / BBSIG / representative bodies do to encourage more participation in successful schemes?

13.9.10 Suggestions for the where business and biodiversity representatives could encourage more participation in successful schemes included:

• Awareness-raising • Setting a concrete business case • Leadership and peer pressure • More engagement with business • Communication of the benefits • Stakeholder analysis • Engagement with SMEs on biodiversity at the local level, not the national level e.g.

integration with Business Link to help SMEs get advice • Hubs of information or a portal in order to collate research • Research e.g. evaluation and identification of what is successful for both business case and

biodiversity impact, and sector-specific discussions • Funding Natural England posts

13.9.11 There was also a need to move away from the species led approach to consultation to a more holistic view of biodiversity. Perhaps targets in the future will be focussed on ecosystem services. However this needs to be considered against the idea of making biodiversity relevant to business and through this its stakeholders (customers and consumers). The language issues



mentioned above is important but the species led approach has been successful in gaining support for biodiversity in the past.

13.10 Attendance list Name Company / Group

Ben Vivian Aggregate Industries

Gwen Vaughan BAT Biodiversity Partnership

Daniel Coward Bourne Leisure

Héloïse Chardigny cemex

Brin Hughes Conservation Grade farming - farming for wildlife

Jenny Keating Defra

Vicki Giles Defra

Steph Godliman Defra

Phil Lewis Defra

Jean Smyth Defra

Elaine Carr Defra

Jon Hutton Director, UNEP-WCMC

Jonathan Foot EDF

Ed King ekologika

Harald Schneider European Petroleum Industry Association

David Watson Ex-Springfield Fuels

Laura Somerville Fauna and Flora International

Annelisa Grigg Fauna and Flora International

Charles Thwaites Forest Stewardship Council UK

Silja Dressel German Business and Biodiversity Initiative

Andy Duncan Hanson

Sophie Bennett IEMA

Joanna Willott IFC

Erica Dholoo IPIECA

Adrian Barnes LeafTC

Lauren Orme M&S

Phil Denham Natural England

Will Williams Natural England

Joël Houdet Oree

Jack Foxall RSPB

Robin Wynde RSPB

Steve Smith Scott Wilson



Jeremy Richardson Scott Wilson

Rowan Secrett Scott Wilson

Ian Brenkley Scott Wilson

Liz Clarke Scott Wilson

Vanessa Barri Scott Wilson

Paul Armsworth Sheffield University

Andy Tomczynski Thames Water

Darren Towers Thames Water

Rosie Abdy Collins The Union for Ethical BioTrade (UEBT)

Emily Creamer Tomorrow's Company

Aditi Mehta Tomorrow's Company

Carol Williams UKGBC Working Group / Bat Conservation Trust

Charles Besancon UNEP

Andy Turner United Utilities - Environment and Sustainability

Bruce Horton Water UK

Howard Park Wildlife Trusts

George White WWF Global Forest & Trade

Nicole Pay Yorkshire Water



Appendix 2 – Short List Tables

Construction & building Organisation Name of initiative Category & delivery

mechanism description

Brief description Returned Pro forma

Association for Environment Conscious Building

Forum to promote environment conscious building

Discursive – networks and forums

The Association for Environment Conscious Building (AECB) is the leading network for sustainable building professionals in the United Kingdom. Membership of the AECB includes local authorities, housing associations, builders, architects, designers, consultants and manufacturers. Members share a 'broad green vision', reflected in their approaches to the design of buildings and their environment.

Association of Local Government Ecologists (ALGE)

Developing Naturally - A Handbook for Incorporating the Natural Environment into Planning and Development (2001) Framework for Biodiversity: Integrating Biodiversity into Local Development Frameworks Web-based biodiversity toolkit

Technical publication – publication / checklist / company best practice / advisory Technical – publication / policy tool / advisory Technical – publication / checklist / advisory / policy tool / company best practice.

This is in an A4 book format with text guidance and a series of checklists to illustrate how biodiversity and geodiversity can be incorporated into various elements and stages of the planning, development and construction process. This document is a review of Government planning policy statements and supporting documents that describe the process by which local planning authorities should prepare their Local Development Frameworks (LDFs). The mechanism describes how biodiversity conservation should and can be intergrated into LDF policy and proposal forumlation. The toolkit will provide advice and information on a wide variety of issues that affect biodiversity as it is encountered by applicants and local planning authorities. The toolkit will include information on species and habitats, relevant legislation and government policy, and detailed advice on what sort of biodiversity information should be submitted with various forms of planning applications. The latter will include advice on wildlife surveys, impact assessment,



mitigation and compensation and measures for biodiversity enhancement. Case studies will be used to illustrate good practice.

BREEAM

Various initiatives Technical – certification scheme / control and regulation

Initiatives at BREEAM include: BRE Environmental Assessment Method; Eco-homes; Code for Sustainable Homes; LCA Environmental Profiles; Specification: the Green Guide; Envest: Whole Building LCA Software; BREEAM Awards.

CEEQUAL

Assessment Manual for Projects V4 (2008) Working with Wildlife: A Resource and Training Pack for the Construction Industry (2004) The Drainage Channel Biodiversity Manual

Technical – certification scheme Technical – publications Technical – publications

Companies applying for a CEEQUAL award must work through the assessment manual. There is a section in the CEEQUAL Manual dedicated to ecology and biodiversity. Working with Wildlife assists all involved in civil engineering or public realm projects to better address and manage wildlife issues on development sites. Written principally for the staff and members of Internal Drainage Boards operating in England. The focus of the guidance is on artificial channels and modified natural watercourses containing slow flowing water.

CIRIA Construction Industry Environmental Forum ‘Building Greener’ and ‘SUDs’ websites

Discursive – networks and forums Discursive – websites

Mission is to improve the sustainability and environmental performance of construction, by providing a cross-sector and independent forum for the exchange of new ideas and demonstration of best practice. The ‘Building Greener’ guidance is intended for use by those who require independent advice on the planning, design, construction and maintenance of green roofs, green walls and other biodiversity features. The SUDs website is aimed at disseminating and promoting good practice in the implementation of sustainable drainage in the built environment.



Publications and training packs

Technical – publications / partnership / awards

CIRIA has produced a number of guidance documents including: Biodiversity Indicators for Construction Projects; Working with Wildlife Pocket Book; Working with Wildlife: A Resource and Training Pack for the Construction Industry; Building Greener (green roofs, green walls etc.); Biodiversity Indicators for Construction Projects; Invasive Species Management for Infrastructure Managers and the Construction Industry; Environmental Good Practice on Site; Biodiversity and Buildings; Habitat Translocation – a Best Practice Guide; CEEQUAL industry scheme that covers a range of environmental issues including biodiversity. CIRIA publications are openly available on a sale basis. CIRIA members receive free copies and on-line access.

Considerate Constructors Scheme

Considerate Constructors Awards

Technical / Philanthropic - awards

The Considerate Constructors Scheme is the national initiative, set up by the construction industry, to improve its image. Sites that register with the Scheme sign up and are monitored against a Code of Considerate Practice, designed to encourage best practice beyond statutory requirements. Biodiversity focus?

Environment Agency Building a Better Environment: A Guide for Developers

Technical / policy – publications / checklist / critical friend

The Guide for Developers gives practical advice on each of the environmental issues that may affect development sites. This ranges from how to reduce flood risk through to creating quality green space in developments. It gives pointers for building sustainable, cost-effective homes, helping create an environment in which people will really want to live. It also provided examples of sites where this good practice has already been applied. Additionally included is a checklist for to use to put the Agencies advice into action; details of the consents and permissions needed to move developments forward.

Hanson Company Biodiversity Action Plan

Institutional – company best practice

Company BAP requires operational sites to develop site BAPs which generate site objectives and targets that relate to national and local UK BAP targets.



London Development Agency (LDA), Greater London Authority (GLA), Groundwork London and London Wildlife Trust

Design for Biodiversity

Discursive / technical – networks & forums / publications / advisory

Design for Biodiversity (D4B) is a partnership project which aims to secure positive ecological/biodiversity outcomes through developing design solutions (including, for example, living roofs, sustainable drainage, climate-change-proofed landscapes) that can be integrated into new developments in Greater London. D4B supplies biodiversity conservation advisors to work alongside developers and their design teams and also provides a web site providing information and advice on biodiversity conservation for the construction/regeneration industry.

Quarry Products Association Minerals and Nature Conservation Forum (MNCF)


Formed in 1998 to instigate and develop projects benefiting conservation objectives of the UK minerals industry.

Quarry Products Association (in partnership with RSPB, Natural England, Miro and CLG)

Nature After Minerals Technical – web-based 'After Minerals' is a website set up to offer a mapping tool and guidance on quarry restoration. Minerals sites offer an opportunity to create important habitats on a huge scale, benefiting wildlife.

Regional Development Agency

North West Green Infrastructure Guide

Technical – publication / good practice

The North West Green Infrastructure Guide has been prepared to support the Green Infrastructure Policy in the North West Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) by providing more detailed information on the concept of Green Infrastructure (GI) than appears in RSS and to provide initial guidance on producing a Green Infrastructure Plan. A very good example of work being done to push green infrastructure through planning.

Royal Town Planning Institute Environment Planning and Protection Network Planning for Biodiversity A Good Practice Guide. David Tyldesley and RTPI (1999)

Discursive (institutional) – networks and forums Technical – publications / good practice

The Environmental Planning and Protection (EPP) Network is concerned with: the management of the environment through the planning system and; controls affecting the environment applied through other legislation that impact on the operation of the planning system. This includes wildlife, landscape and pollution issues, to a much wider consideration of short and long term impacts on the human environment. A good practice guide that aims to help raise awareness of biodiversity conservation in the planning system and to improve understanding, help resolve conflict and create opportunities and provide practical



guidance on planning instruments that may contribute to biodiversity conservation.

SEEDA Building for Nature Discursive – networks and forums

The Building for Nature initiative was established in summer 2001 with the aim of assisting the development sector to incorporate biodiversity into construction projects. The project is guided by a steering group consisting of government and industry bodies. The first two years of the project was funded from numerous sources and since summer 2003 the South East England Development Agency has taken the lead on supporting the project.

The Biodiversity Partnership for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough

Biodiversity Checklist for Land Use Planners in Cambridgeshire & Peterborough (2001)

Discursive – publication / checklist

This checklist aims to aid strategic and development control planners when considering biodiversity in relation to their work, both in policy development and when dealing with planning proposals. It has been put together following the production of the Habitat and Species Action Plans by the Biodiversity Partnership. The complete list of Action Plans is available on the internet.

Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA)

‘Biodiversity by Design: A Guide for Sustainable Communities’ (2004) ‘Eco-towns Green Infrastructure Worksheet’ (2008)

Technical – publications Technical – policy tool / publication

The aim of ‘Biodiversity by Design’ is to provide guidance on how to maximise the opportunities for biodiversity in the planning and design of sustainable communities. A technical advice note aimed at developers of eco-towns to guide the development of their proposals for green infrastructure in the master plan for their eco-town. It also sets the policy context and provides wider advice and good practice examples. Commissioned by CLG and produced by TCPA in partnership with other expert groups.

UK Green Building Council Biodiversity Taskforce Discursive – networks and forums

The Taskforce aims to: 1. Raise the awareness of the role of biodiversity in delivering a sustainable built environment, and to encourage the construction industry and its clients to incorporate biodiversity into all new and refurbishment schemes. 2. Develop the roadmap in order to maintain and enhance biodiversity in the built environment through



the production of simple and clear guidance. The Taskforce have two pieces of work due on 31st March, comprising guidance for companies advising which biodiversity tools to use and recommendations on how industry can enhance biodiversity through development. The Taskforce is currently in talks with CEEQUAL (Roger Venables) and BREEAM (Nick Corker) about trialling these tools with them.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

Biodiversity Working Group, Cement Sustainability Initiative

Technical – network & forum

This is a collaborative industry effort to share best practice, internally and externally and raise standards of biodiversity management and rehabilitation in the cement sector, or at least amongst member companies.

Mining Organisation Name of initiative Category & delivery


Brief description Returned pro forma

International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)

Business and Biodiversity Programme


The programme assists businesses in containing their environmental footprint and enhance their positive contribution to the environment, notably to sustaining ecosystems, the biodiversity they contain, and the values and services they provide. To achieve this, the programme encourages and supports businesses to develop and follow good practice in biodiversity management, work for raising biodiversity performance standards across the different sectors of the economy, and catalyze productive relationships among members of the business and conservation communities.

International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM)

Mining Dialogue


The overarching aims of the dialogue are: to improve the performance of mining industries in the area of biodiversity conservation, with a focus on reducing the negative impacts of the industry’s operations and enhancing the industry’s positive contribution to biodiversity; and to raise mutual awareness and understanding between the conservation community and the mining industry.



International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) International Council for Mining and Metals (ICMM) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM), the United Nations Conference of Trade and Development (UNCTAD), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the UK Department for International Development (DfID)

Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity Mining and Biodiversity: Towards Best Practice Good Practice Sustainable Development in the Mining and Metals Sector

Technical – publication / checklist / company best practice Technical – publication Technical – good practice website

The guidance has been published as a result of extensive dialogue between ICMM and IUCN. It explores different aspects of biodiversity conservation in the mining and metals sector providing informative, accessible and practical reference sources on biodiversity. These can be used at all stages of operations, from initial exploration to mine closure planning and implementation. Although ended in 2008, a new phase is under development. This publication provides a discussion and summary of the results of an IUCN-ICMM workshop on Mining, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation: Searching and Pursuing Best Practice and Reporting in the Mining Industry. A website was developed to provide access to a database of good practice guidelines, legislation, case studies, standards and other relevant material that are leading examples of their kind globally. The aim of the site is to provide a resource for guidance on the implementation of good practice at mining and metals operations around the world. The website is targeted at people who are directly and indirectly involved in the design, operation and regulation of mining and metals facilities.

Global Reporting Initiative Mining and Metals Sector Supplement

Technical – publication

The Mining & Metals Sector Supplement consists of exploration, feasibility, construction, mining and metal processing and decommissioning. The supplement calls for highlighting materials stewardship activities. Furthermore, thirteen supplementary indicators (one of which is biodiversity) have been developed to address economic, environmental and social aspects of mining & metals companies.

Flora & Fauna International (FFI) & Insight Investment

Protecting shareholder and natural value: Benchmark of biodiversity management practices in the extractive industry

Technical – Publication / research

Insight Investment and Fauna & Flora International in cooperation with the Dutch Social Investors’ Forum (VBDO) and the Netherlands Ministry of Housing, assessed the performance of 36 utility and extractive companies against standards of best practice in



biodiversity management.

The Centre for Environmental Leadership in Business

Energy and Mining Program Technical – advisory / networks and forums

The Centre works with leading corporations in the mining and energy sectors to minimise industry’s impact on biodiversity and maximise the opportunities for companies to contribute to biodiversity conservation.

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

Minerals, Mining and Sustainable Development (MMSD)

Room to Manouvre: Mining, Biodiversity and Protected Areas

Discursive – networks and forums / Technical publication Technical –publication

The MMSD project, launched in 1999, was set up by 9 leading mining companies in response to the intense local impact of mines and their operations. It releasted its first results in 2002 in Breaking New Ground: Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development. Based on the opinions of different stakeholders it aimed to find a way forward on the key sustainability challenge facing the sector, in particular, it outlined ‘boundaries of responsibility and called for transparent and accountable processes’. Following up on the MMSD’s research findings, a progress report was published in 2003 - Finding the Way Forward – How Could Voluntary Action Move Mining Towards Sustainable Development?. It assessed the role of voluntary initiatives in the mining sector. Subsequent publications addressed mining’s operations in terms of biodiversity and protected areas.

Business and Biodiversity Resource Centre (Earthwatch Institute, English Nature and Defra)

Mining and Quarrying Discursive – good practice website

The website looks at the impacts on and uses of biodiversity; integrating biodiversity into the mining life cycle; drivers; 'what you can do' in terms of planning for biodiversity; and benefits of biodiversity.

Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (IOM3)

Sustainable Development Group

Technical / discursive –networks and forums

The Sustainable Development Group (SDG) is the centre of expertise on Sustainability and the Environment in IOM3. Its members are drawn from across the Divisions and Societies within IOM3, from key industrial sectors and from leaders of UK and EU R&D projects. The main aim of the SDG is to promote life-cycle thinking and to coordinate the activities of the Institute's divisions and committees in life-cycle thinking where this concept impinges on the professional and industrial interests of the Institute and its members.



Forestry & Paper Organisation Name of initiative Category & delivery


Brief description Returned Proforma

Conservation International / CELB

Sustainable Production and Biodiversity Conservation in Forest Mosaics Initiative

Technical – Project The Sustainable Production and Biodiversity Conservation in Forest Mosaics Initiative brings together pulp and paper companies, other companies including personal care product producers and retainers, and NGOs to promote sustainable forest landscapes through monitoring and effective land use planning for conservation, restoration, and production. This initiative presents a unique three-level hybrid strategy to deepen conservation work in plantation forest landscapes in the Atlantic Forest in Brazil while beginning to effect transformational change on strategic land use planning by the pulp and paper industry worldwide. The Sustainable Production in Forest Mosaics Initiative will achieve this vision by strengthening the integrated land-use planning model being implemented in the Mesopotamia region of the Central Atlantic Forest Corridor, and creating the foundation needed to replicate this model in other parts of the Atlantic Forest. The project further creates opportunities for global impact by applying the same science-based prioritization methodology to other key production regions, laying the groundwork to incorporate plantation forestry into sustainable conservation landscapes throughout the world.

Fauna & Flora International Step-by-step approach to Biodiversity Action Planning

Technical – advisory / control and regulation / company best practice

The step-by-step approach to Biodiversity Action Planning is a guidance to support Rio Tinto Business Units to prepare a site level BAP for the lease with a goal of achieving Net Positive Impact on Biodiversity. The guidance helps the operation to identify and manage biological features, considering the mitigation hierarchy of avoidance, minimization, rehabilitation and offsetting.

Forest Stewardship Council UK

Forest Management and Chain of Custody Certification

Technical – certification scheme

The Forest Stewardship Council enables you to buy forest products of all kinds with confidence that you are



not contributing to global forest destruction. FSC certified forests are managed to ensure long term timber supplies while protecting the environment and the lives of forest-dependent peoples. FSC certification can also cover non-timber forest products such as latex and foods. A system of Chain of Custody certification traces forest products through the supply chain to the end-consumer. Within the FSC Principles and Criteria document, there is a section on preserving biodiversity.

Forest Trends, Conservation International and Wildlife Conservation Society

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program

Discursive - partnerships

The Business and Biodiversity Offset Program (BBOP) is a partnership between companies, governments and conservation experts to explore biodiversity offsets. TheBusiness and Biodiversity Offset Program (BBOP) is a partnership between companies, governments and conservation experts to explore biodiversity offsets. TheBBOP partners wish to show, through a portfolio of pilot projects in a range of industry sectors, that biodiversity offsets can help achieve significantly more, better and more cost-effective conservation outcomes than normally occurs in infrastructure development. The BBOP partners also believe that demonstrating no net loss of biodiversity can help companies secure their license to operate and manage their costs and liabilities.

Forestry Commission England Biodiversity Group UK Forest Partnership for Action

Discursive – networks and forums Discursive – partnerships

Co-ordinates implementation of woodland sector of the England Biodiversity Strategy and the Habitat Action Plans for native woodland in England. Membership includes all key stakeholders with support provided Forestry Commission England. E.g. Woodland Trust, National Trust The UK Forest Partnership launched a publication describing its work and committing the partners to continue to work together. This was presented by Michael Meacher on behalf of the partnership at the Summit at an event which gave delegates the opportunity to share the UK's experience of promoting sustainable development in the forestry sector. The initiative stimulated a wide-ranging discussion covering sustainable forestry issues around the world as well as the value of government, business and civil society



English Woodland Grant Scheme

Institutional – grant

working in partnership. The English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) is the Forestry Commission's suite of grants designed to develop the co-ordinated delivery of public benefits from England's woodlands. EWGS is supported via the Rural Development Programme for England. The aims of the EWGS are to: sustain and increase the public benefits given by existing woodlands and help create new woodlands to deliver additional public benefit.

International Council of Forest and Paper Associations

? Discursive – networks & forums

The International Council of Forest and Paper Associations (ICFPA) is an organization of the world's forest and paper industry associations. The ICFPA has adopted a position statement against illegal logging. Policy issues that the ICFPA forum has dealt with include mutual recognition of sustainable forestry standards, climate change, and the environmental preferability of forest products.

PEFC Council Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification schemes


PEFC promotes sustainable forest management - environmentally, socially beneficial and economically viable management of forests for present and future generations - through independent third party forest certification.

Soil Association Woodmark - UK Forest Management

Institutional – certification scheme

The Soil Association Woodmark programme only certifies to standards which meets their requirements for quality and integrity. Internationally, they recognise and certify to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) approved standards. Their Woodmark generic forest standard meets FSC's international requirements. In the UK the SA also recognise the UK Woodland Assurance Scheme (UKWAS) standard which is supported by the Forestry Commission, FSC and environmental groups including the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Greenpeace and the Woodland Trust.

Sustainable Forestry Initiative SFI® label Technical – certification scheme

The Sustainable Forestry Initiative® (SFI®) label is for wood and paper products from well-managed forests, backed by a rigorous, third-party certification audit. SFI Inc. is improving sustainable forest management in



North America and supporting responsible procurement globally. Set standards for forest management and products designed by American Forest & Paper Association industry. System of principles, objectives and performance measures developed by professional foresters, conservationists and scientists in the USA. The standards help manage the quality and distribution of wildlife habitats. They also contribute to the conservation of biological diversity by developing and implementing stand and landscape-level measures that promote habitat diversity and the conservation of forest fauna and flora.

Timber Trade Federation Responsible Purchasing Policy

Policy – participatory scheme

The RPP is a risk management tool for members of the TTF to assess timber products for evidence of the legality and sustainability of supply and encourages suppliers to improve their sourcing practices. The aim is to progressively reduce the risk of illegal timber being imported into the UK over time. RPP signatories are independently audited for compliance by the Soil Association.

UK Woodland Assurance Standard

Biodiversity focus in standard Technical – certification scheme

The UK Woodland Assurance Standard is an independent certification standard for verifying sustainable woodland management in the United Kingdom.

West Midlands Biodiversity Partnership

Trees, Woods & Forests Task Group

Policy – networks & forums / partnership

The Task Group use, amongst other tools, a Biodiversity Opportunity Mapping initiative and a Woodland Opportunity Mapping product.

Woodland Trust Range of corporate partnership WoodWatch

Philanthropic - partnerships Philanthropic - Control & regulation / campaigning

Some of the opportunities open to business include: Woodland creastion ('Plant a Tree'), Woodland Carbon, cause related marketing through off-the-shelf products, conservation and biodiversity, payroll giving and waste and recycling. WoodWatch is an exciting new campaign to enable andempower local communities like yours to take effective action and save ancient woods in your neighbourhood.

World Bank / WWF Forest Alliance Institutional – partnerships

The Alliance works with governments, the private sector and civil society to create new protected areas of forest, improve the management of existing protected



areas and promote independent certification of the world's production forests.

WWF UK Forest and Trade Network Discursive – networks and forums

The mission of the WWF-UK Forest & Trade Network (FTN) is to improve the management of the world's production forests by using the purchasing power and influence of UK businesses to bring about change.

Utilities Organisation Name of initiative Category & delivery



EDF Energy

Biodiversity Policy Institutional / Policy – Company Best Practise

This policy sets out EDF Energy’s approach to the management of biodiversity. It is complementary to, and consistent with, EDF Energy’s overall environmental policy and its ISO14001 environmental management systems. EDF Energy states that it will take account of biodiversity in: • Managing the land it occupies • Carrying out activities on behalf of others • Its education and partnership activities In 2006 EDF introduced branch-specific Biodiversity Actions Plans (BAPs), each focused on ways to maintain and improve biodiversity by mapping potential risks and ensuring they are managed effectively. EDF also developed a framework to help identify sites with non-operational land, assess them and then categorise their value as a current and future wildlife habitat. The company also plans to assess all Grid and Primary substations to ensure no protected species or habitats are disturbed during major works. EDF has partnered with the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust to turn Cottam ash lagoons into a wildlife haven for bird species, water voles and other species. It also educates, with 1,500 visiting children a year. In 2008 EDF began developing a soil strategy to identify, assess and minimise risks to soils on all EDF Energy sites.



NETMAP - GIS Tools Technical (/ Policy) – Checklist / Control & Regulation / Voluntary Measure

NETMAP - Environmental impact assessments are commonplace to EDF Energy. It has its own teams on a day-to-day basis, as well as external consultants to carry out environmental assessments. It also has 100 project managers who have been on a week-long environmental course. Netmap shows an electronic picture of the network based on an OS map, including –on a layered format – cables, SSSIs, features such as ponds and landfills. It highlights sensitivities which may impact on the company’s work. Desktop interrogation of these layers sometimes goes much further than the law requires. EDF takes publically available information covering environmental issues, and then overlays them on to its network. The information is also available in a locked form to all EDF Energy staff via the intranet. New updates of the system will include additional biodiversity information/ interests from the NBN Gateway and aerial photographs. The mechanism has been in place and operational since 2004.

Energy Institute

Energy Institute Institutional – Networks & forums

With a combined membership of over 13,500 individuals and 300 companies across 100 countries, the Energy Institute (EI) is the leading chartered professional membership body for those working in energy. The EI provides an independent focal point and engages business and industry, government, academia and the public. It promotes safe, environmentally responsible and efficient supply and use of energy in all its forms and applications. The EI aims to address the depth and breadth of energy and the energy system, from upstream and downstream hydrocarbons and other primary fuels and renewables, to power generation, transmission and distribution to sustainable development, demand side management and energy efficiency. The EI offers learning and networking opportunities and provides a home to all those working in energy, and a scientific and technical reservoir of knowledge for industry.

Chartered Environmentalist accreditation

Technical – Personal qualification / certification scheme

The EI can award Chartered Environmentalist status to Members or Fellows of the Energy Institute. One of the thirteen CEnv Competences is to: 'Explain the critical importance of maintaining and enhancing natural cycles



and biodiversity in achieving sustainability'. Chartered Environmentalist is a professional grade of registration granted by the Society of the Environment – EI is one of a number of bodies with a licence to award the grade. It is awarded on the basis of qualifications and experience of an individual who works in an environmental field. Within EI it began in 2008 but has existed for longer. Society for the Environment sets the standards and grants the licences to award it.

EI Awards Philanthropic – Awards The EI Awards 2008 acknowledge the contribution that energy professionals make on a daily basis and whose achievements stretch the boundaries of excellence and commitment to their work. They include an Environment Award with the following judging criteria: • Demonstrable benefit to the environment • Management commitment • Good prospects for wider application • Sustainable benefit Environmental considerations are an increasingly important driving force for the energy industry and the sustainability of activities is key to success. The judges for this Award consider projects and products that enhance environmental considerations, looking for examples of intelligent and sustainable responses from the energy industry. The Award began in 2000. The EI appoints the independent judging panel of industry experts.

Argonne National Laboratory for the Electric Power Research Institute

Enhancement Strategies for Mitigating Potential Operational Impacts of Cooling Water Intake Structures: Approaches for Enhancing Environmental Resources (2003)

Technical – publication A report prepared by Argonne National Laboratory for the Electric Power Research Institute (a research organization of the U.S. power industry). It was intended to evaluate voluntary ecological restoration approaches that could serve to mitigate the effects on aquatic organisms caused by entrainment and impingement at cooling water intakes. At the time the report was prepared, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was preparing detailed regulations for cooling water intakes at power plants. They included restoration (EPA's term for enhancement of mitigation of ecological resources) as one of the options for complying with the new regulations. The report was

- in different format



designed to help power companies identify mechanisms for enhancement/restoration. However, shortly after the regulations were finalized, a consortium of environmental groups sued EPA over the regulations. A year later, a court ruled that the restoration part of the regulations was not acceptable and returned the regulations to EPA for additional work. As a result, the information in our report has not had much opportunity to be put to work.

Northumbrian Water

Biodiversity Strategy Institutional / Policy – Company Best Practice

Northumbrian Water carries out regional biodiversity work in partnership with the Wildlife Trusts, Natural England, the RSPB and local authorities. Through partnership it has developed its Biodiversity Strategy as a “comprehensive approach to conservation across the whole range of the company’s activities and sphere of influence”. Developed in 1996 and one of the first in the UK and Europe to be published in 1998, the Biodiversity Strategy is a coordinated programme of work to protect and enhance biodiversity through various mechanisms. The Strategy is based on its unique four-stage approach to biodiversity. Northumbrian Water identified two major challenges and two supporting opportunities for involvement in conservation of biological diversity: (a) as a landowner and manager (b) as an operator (c) as a funder (d) as an advocate, facilitator and champion

Biodiversity Annual Focus Institutional – project/training

Northumbrian Water focuses on one biodiversity topic each year, rotating between a species, a habitat and a specific activity such as training. A work program is drawn up and local groups are identified to work with towards BAP targets. This approach allows local, county and regional targets to be incorporated as well as wider national targets. It also allows Northumbrian Water to involve company staff in addition to partnership conservation organisations and other interested groups. The approach incorporates shared learning between business and conservation organisation, to share skills and expertise with partners and to enhance the skills base and capability of each



organisation.

ZEBRA (Zones of Environmental and Biodiversity Risk Assessment)

Technical – Risk assessment

Determines the risk to designated conservation areas from any accidents that might occur at one of the company's operational sites.

National Champions Other – Voluntary measure

National Champions for the Roseate Tern BAP (Britain’s rarest seabird), and the Round-mouthed Whorl Snail BAP (rare arctic snail, occurring only in England on land adjacent to the Northumbrian Water Cow Green Reservoir in the Pennines).

Wetland Bird Indicators Technical – Checklist Northumbrian Water (along with DETR, BTO, and RSPB) have developed Wetland Bird Indicators on a regional basis in line with the Government’s own Headline Indicators for Sustainable Development.

Business and biodiversity seminars

Discursive – Conferences

Two organised in Durham and Chelmsford. Targeted specifically at local businesses, including production of a specific business plan for the Durham event.

Using water wisely at home and work

Technical – Publication / Guidance

A booklet targeted at local authorities and businesses and featuring biodiversity actions.

Wildlife surveys Technical – Survey Habitat surveys are carried out on all landholdings over 0.5Ha, including commenting on suitability of habitats for species not present. Detailed targeted surveys are also carried out on key sites and species. The information is used to guide conservation management.

Power Plant Research Program (PPRP)

Power Plant Research Program (PPRP)

Institutional – Research

Website last updated 1997. PPRP's goal is to support utility biodiversity conservation efforts through technical guidance, incentives, and technology transfer. It was established under the Power Plant Siting and Research Act of 1971, which provided a model for addressing power plant licensing issues. The enabling legislation established an Environmental Trust Fund to support the PPRP through an environmental surcharge assessed on all electricity used in the State. PPRP functions to ensure that Maryland meets its electricity demands at reasonable costs while protecting the State's valuable natural resources. It provides a continuing program for



evaluating electric generation issues and recommending responsible, long-term solutions. PPRP conducted three initiatives to address the potential impacts of power generation and transmission on biodiversity, and to facilitate increased biodiversity management and restoration activities by electric utilities:

1. Biodiversity Partnerships with the Electric Industry

2. DNR Conference on Biodiversity 3. Mapping of Biodiversity Hotspots in Maryland

PPRP was one of the few state agencies attending the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) conference "Managing for Biodiversity: Emerging Ideas for the Electric Utility Industry." It used that conference as a springboard to investigate opportunities for facilitating biodiversity conservation as a partnership effort with the utilities in Maryland. PPRP also conducted a survey of public service commissions and natural resource agencies in all 50 states and presented its results at the 1997 International Rights-of-Way conference. It concluded that, while few states had advanced very far in considering biodiversity in regulating power generation and transmission, many saw as an emerging issue where state requirements will likely increase.

RWE npower

Biodiversity Framework Institutional / Policy – Company Best Practice

The areas around RWE npower sites include diverse wildlife habitats of ecological importance. RWE npower has a biodiversity framework that focuses on conserving and enhancing biodiversity within its power station boundaries. The company also aims to minimise the effects of its operations beyond its boundaries where it has a direct effect and it promotes biodiversity by supporting broader initiatives. In 2007, its biodiversity programme covered both direct action and education within the local community: • Interest and awareness-raising of local

environmental issues through a programme of power station conservation days

• Partnership with the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust on the Wildlife Wealth project (and received a Green



Apple Award as a result) • RWE npower’s Landfill Tax Credit Fund (renamed

the Landfill Community Fund in 2008) gave over £97,000 to environmental and conservation organisations around the UK.

Conservation Day Philanthropic – Voluntary measure / Participatory scheme / Educational

Following the success of the inaugural conservation day at Aberthaw in 2006, RWE npower supported conservation enthusiasts from Aberthaw Power Station, the local community and nearby schools in the site’s second conservation day in 2007.

Scottish Power

Biodiversity Approach Institutional / Policy – Company Best Practice

Scottish Power aims to both minimise the effects of its operations on biodiversity and to promote wildlife and habitats by implementing positive conservation management and research at its sites and in the wider countryside. Scottish Power has significant land holdings – power stations, windfarms and substations –ranging from southern England to the Scottish Highlands, many of which are rich in wildlife. Biodiversity has been an integral part of its Environmental Policy for many years. Scottish Power works closely with statutory agencies such as Scottish Natural Heritage, Natural England, Fisheries Boards and non-governmental organisations, including the RSPB, WWF and Wildlife Trusts. Its approach includes: • Carrying out Environmental Impact Assessments

(EIAs) for new build developments e.g. overhead lines, and ensuring Environmental Management Plans are developed for projects where conservation issues are identified

• Following a Biodiversity Procedure to protect wildlife and habitats during overhead line or substation construction

• Implementing Biodiversity Action Plans at its electricity generation sites as a minimum standard

• Working in partnership with Fisheries Boards, particularly at its hydroelectric facilities, to protect and enhance the aquatic environment, and linking in to local authority biodiversity plans and projects

• Developing its windfarms in accordance with industry leading policies that focus on careful site



selection, extensive consultation and proactive conservation management

• Developing Windfarm Habitat Management Areas. Setting aside 3,426 hectares of land to promote biodiversity at four of its windfarms

• Playing a key role in pioneering research into bird and bat interactions with windfarms, blanket bog and vegetation restoration, including tree-felling techniques, and supporting the development of best practice habitat management in a partnership with WWF, Scottish Natural Heritage and RSPB

• Going beyond statutory obligations or planning conditions e.g its Habitat Management Plans at UK windfarms go beyond mitigation for the effects of the windfarm and aim to preserve special wildlife species such as Golden Eagles, Hen Harriers, Black Grouse and Otters

Windfarm Sustainable Development Strategy and Biodiversity Conservation Strategy

Policy – Company Best Practice

ScottishPower is a leading wind energy company that develops, builds, owns and operates windfarms. It is committed to sustainable windfarm development which maximises benefits for the environment, communities and the economy. ScottishPower has adopted the goal to “fully integrate the concept of sustainable development into ScottishPower’s decision making and development processes including site selection, design and the Environmental Impact Assessment through the construction, operational and decommissioning stages.”Achieving this goal involves employing best practice methodologies and adopting and applying new knowledge of the environmental impacts of windfarm development to improve upon the EIA process. ScottishPower has published the following two strategies: Windfarm Sustainable Development Strategy: Aim 1-8: Site Selection; Consultation; Assessment; Construction; Operation; Decommissioning; Biodiversity Conservation; Socio-economic benefits Windfarm Biodiversity Conservation Strategy: Aim 1: “Promote and implement positive management of nationally and internationally important habitats and species throughout windfarm sites and the wider



countryside.” Objective 1.1 - For all existing operational windfarm sites that don’t have HMPs, develop site Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs). Objective 1.2 - For all operational sites with HMPs, review objectives and incorporate additional Local Biodiversity Action Plan and UK Biodiversity Action Plan objectives. Objective 1.3 - Support initiatives to promote conservation of nationally and internationally important habitats and species in the wider countryside. Aim 2: “Promote ecologically sustainable windfarm development by conducting research into ecological impacts and developing best practice mitigation measures.” Objective 2.1 - Implement research into the interaction of protected species with windfarm sites. Objective 2.2 - Implement research into habitat restoration to aid the development of mitigation measures. Objective 2.3 - Develop partnerships with nature conservation organisations to fully disseminate research results throughout the industry.

The Kintyre project Other – Project / research

ScottishPower is leading pioneering research into the interaction between birds of prey and its windfarms in Argyll. Almost 10 years of studies into Golden Eagles at Beinn an Tuirc Windfarm in Kintyre. Research at Cruach Mhor in Cowal is looking at how Hen Harriers have adjusted to their new neighbours. The results are being used by ScottishPower to help forge a best practice approach to windfarm development and conservation management. The project is being used to show that habitat management by ScottishPower is enabling eagles to coexist successfully with the 46 turbine windfarm at Beinn an Tuirc.



Severn Trent Water

Company Best Practice

Institutional / Policy – Company Best Practice

Severn Trent Water produces CARE and BAP Progress reports that contribute significantly to the delivery of local and regional biodiversity targets and environmental education and promotion of conservation. Staff training is used by the company to raise awareness of biodiversity issues and to provide employees with guidance and skills on how to manage sites. Local communities and staff participate in conservation volunteer days, on and off site, learning about the opportunities for biodiversity enhancement. The company owns 21,992 ha of land encompassing almost 6000 sites of which 24 are Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI’s). It has agreements and partnerships in place to manage these SSSI’s for biodiversity and public access. The Charnwood Reservoirs Catchment Project is a partnership with the Environment Agency, Natural England, FWAG, Defra and Leicestershire & Rutland Wildlife Trust. It included speaking to almost 66% of the landowners around the reservoirs, encouraging several of them to take up Environmental Stewardship to help reverse the declining condition of the three SSSI’s in the area.

Outdoor recreation sites Other – voluntary measure

Conservation of the sites by Severn Trent Water incentivised with visitor access for recreation and educational walks.

Thames Water

Company Best Practice / Biodiversity Policy

Institutional / Policy – Company Best Practice

Thames Water has operational and development activities linked with water management and usage that can potentially impact on biodiversity. The company owns land that has important biodiversity interest much of which is legally protected. It is committed to sustainability and acknowledges corporate responsibilities towards protecting the various species and habitats associated with land holdings and the broader landscape. The company knows that the community and stakeholders expect the company to protect and manage biodiversity and contribute to national and local biodiversity targets. The company biodiversity policy is reviewed every 3 years. The company addresses biodiversity through the following company best practice:




• UK BAP led to undertaking of Phase 1 (enhanced) audits of land holding, to identify the company’s biodiversity assets (see screening mechanism)

• Biodiversity Action Plan initiated closer involvement with local biodiversity partnerships – now attended on a regular basis. These provide an opportunity to discuss with stakeholders their plans and activities and get a broader perspective. Where possible, Thames Waters supports their biodiversity actions on land holding or supports their projects through sponsorship or match-funding

• Raising biodiversity awareness with employees and site managers and engaging them with biodiversity. This is done through the company intranet or publications

• Employees can support biodiversity projects by way of the company's "Time to Give" programme. This allows an employee to spend two days a year supporting e.g. the RSPB

• Employees have also benefited biodiversity though small projects during "away days" or team building events

• Employs two nature reserve managers who have set up "Friends of" schemes. This allows community volunteers to contribute to site biodiversity management

• Leases several sites to organisations that take a lease or licence to manage its biodiversity interest

• Allows public access to many sites. Species records gained from visitors support understanding of the biodiversity value of these sites and can lead to enhancement projects

• Broader biodiversity benefits can be obtained by way of the company business plan, agreed with theregulator, and its capital development programme. E.g. improved effluent discharges through treatment plant upgrades to benefit riverine biodiversity. E.g. biodiversity benefit may occur where abstraction licences have been amended or



borehole locations have altered, perhaps following low flow studies.

GIS and associated databases

Technical – programme / software

The UK BAP led to undertaking of Phase 1 (enhanced) audits of company land holding to identify biodiversity assets. Thames Water states that it is self evident that biodiversity cannot be managed without data and an understanding of the biodiversity interest of a site. The company uses GIS and associated databases to screen each scheme and identify statutory or non statutory protected sites and landscapes. It also undertakes site visits to survey and assess for the presence of protected species using licences where required, and contacts local record centres for information. The Phase 1 maps are digitised and are used by the company’s ecology and heritage team for screening projects. With the Phase 1 data the company was able to classify Sites of Biodiversity Interest, write biodiversity schedules for Operations and prescriptive Site Management Statement to inform the business. These are being using these to further integrate biodiversity management into grounds maintenance. A biodiversity service requirement is written into rounds maintenance contracts.


United Utilities

Biodiversity Policy Institutional / policy – company best practice

United Utilities updated its Biodiversity Policy in February 2008. The Policy set out to ensure compliance with the NERC Biodiversity Duty. It includes commitments to integrate the management of biodiversity into business policies and processes, including day to day operations and to protect and enhance biodiversity where possible, on all land owned by the business. Company commitments are: • To comply with all national and international

biodiversity legislation and plans either directly or through our contractors;

• Integrate the management of biodiversity into appropriate business policies and processes, including day to day operations;

• To protect biodiversity and enhance it where



possible on all land owned by the business; • To communicate, share and embed where possible

best practise in biodiversity across UU employees, partners and contractors;

• To work with external partners and stakeholders to actively influence the development of policy and future developments affecting biodiversity.

The policy is supported by a more detailed strategy covering UU’s regulated water business. The company has a series of company biodiversity action plans (BAPs), covering species and habitats that are present on its land or that it impacts on through operations.

Operational Site Biodiversity Management

Institutional / Policy (/Technical) – Company Best Practice

Following Biodiversity Policy sign off, approval was given to a pilot project to investigate Operational Site Biodiversity Management and investigate the costs and benefits arising from an active management approach. The process / mechanism described here has been developed and tested as part of that pilot. This mechanism / process has been devised to assist in the identification and subsequent management of biodiversity features (species and habitats) on operational sites within the United Utilities estate. It is currently deployed as part of a biodiversity pilot project on 6 sites. Operational sites include water and wastewater treatment facilities, office sites, pumping stations and impounding and service reservoirs. Water catchments are outside the scope of this process. The process comprises 5 high level steps: • Step 1: Site selection • Step 2: Baseline site survey

• Step 3. Site Biodiversity Action Plan development • Step 4. Plan delivery

• Step 5. Review The process is supported by a Biodiversity Toolkit (under development) comprising on line resources, guidance for field staff, best practice sharing etc. Over time, individual site survey summaries can be summated to provide an overall view of biodiversity



across UU operational assets. This information is likely to be of value to external interested parties, including local authorities, in delivering on regional biodiversity targets.

Sustainable Catchment Management Programme (SCaMP)

Technical – Programme

UU owns 58,000 hectares of land in the North West, which it holds to protect the quality of water entering the reservoirs. Much of this land is home to nationally significant habitats for animals and plants, with around 30% designated as Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). The Sustainable Catchment Management Programme (SCaMP), which has been developed in association with the RSPB, aims to apply an integrated approach to catchment management in two key areas of United Utilities land, Bowland and the Peak District area. The aim is to help: • deliver government targets for SSSIs • enhance biodiversity • ensure a sustainable future for the company's

agricultural tenants • protect and improve water quality

Water UK

Water UK

Institutional / Policy – networks & forums

The water industry has a significant impact on biodiversity and spends a lot of time/money working to improve this. There are statutory duties under the NERC Act, SSSI PSA target, as well as obligations to protect/improve sites with various designations. There are also a range of initiatives which Water UK is involved in, from Catchment Sensitive Farming to Water for Wildlife. All companies have active programmes in this area, including education, site-based work, monitoring & investigations, public access, etc, plus there are a whole range of catchment management schemes in business plans for the 2010-15 Periodic Review. Water UK actively seeks to develop policy and improve understanding in areas that involve the industry, its customers and stakeholders. Water UK has hosted workshops and produced reports to increase awareness and develop ideas about biodiversity: the Water UK Sustainable Water Resources Think Tank




and the Water UK Challenges Event. Publications include the Water UK ‘Towards Sustainability’ Report.

Sustainability Indicators 2007/08

Technical – Checklist Water companies have a duty to promote conservation and to protect sites of environmental importance. Public service agreement targets for SSSIs have helped focus on the goals to be achieved. Indicators are used to report how the water sector is performing across a range of sustainability issues. Information is collected from each of the companies every year and published by Water UK in an indicators report. The indicators are designed to be relevant to water companies, regulators, and those interested in the performance of the sector. Water companies are able to consider their performance against that of other companies in the sector. Water companies and others are able to use the information to support an assessment of sustainability in the sector that includes consideration of performance against the indicators between companies and over time, and qualitative information. The indicators assess the water companies' progress towards sustainability and includes environmental criteria e.g. state of SSSIs. Information is used to identify where a new approach may be needed for the companies/industry.

Yorkshire Water

Biodiversity Strategy Institutional / policy – company best practice

Yorkshire Water aims to contribute to national biodiversity objectives and seeks to enhance the biodiversity of the Yorkshire region where the benefits clearly exceed the costs by: • Supporting the UK Government’s national strategy

and regional biodiversity plans, whilst managing and taking action to implement biodiversity as an integral part of business planning and operations

• A formal biodiversity management process (i.e. a Company Biodiversity Action Plan), integrated into the company’s EMS and other management systems

• Assessing any significant impacts on biodiversity for relevant business planning and operational practices and procedures.

• Using the environmental aspects identified through its EMS to prioritise work in the area of biodiversity



and set goals • Developing a tool to enable us to clearly identify

benefits and costs associated with biodiversity work and to assist with our EMS based decision process

• Managing landholdings to achieve biodiversity goals, seeking to conserve and enhance biodiversity where possible

• Managing woodlands to achieve the standards contained within the UK Woodland Assurance Scheme, leading to UKWAS/Forestry Stewardship Council accreditation

• Managing supply chain and investment decisions to reduce risks of indirect adverse impacts and to enhance biodiversity

• Developing partnerships with stakeholder groups to assist the delivery of a diverse and sustainable ecology for the region

• Taking an active role in the Yorkshire and Humber Biodiversity Forum

• Setting goals annually and reporting on biodiversity performance through web-based CSR and Environment Report

• Gaining awareness of the commitments of other BAPs, to ensure maximise use of available data and, where possible, to share biodiversity data and survey work

• Consulting with an independent Environmental Advisory Panel on biodiversity actions and progress

GIS-based biodiversity tool Technical – programme / software

Developing a GIS-based biodiversity tool



Oil & Gas Organisation Name of initiative Category & delivery



BP BTC satellite monitoring and biodiversity

Technical - software Sensitivity mapping for BTC Pipeline Project including environmental, human-use and archaelogical features as well as drainage patterns indicating potential oil flow and downstream sites for spilled oil containment. All info is compiled and stored using GIS. Key issues are:− The approach is a management tool for site selection rationale − As with any modelling tool, ground truthing and calibration is essential − Satellite imagery will be used for geohazards, land issues, crop productivity etc − The approach is helping us manage generic vegetation targets, derived irrespectively of habitat type, set at the beginning of the project − The approach is to be considered alongside other mitigation measures such as offset mitigation; nontechnical risk mitigation (EIP), rare species management etc, each having their own monitoring andevaluation procedure.

CONservation of Clear Air and Water in Europe (CONCAWE)

CONservation of Clear Air and Water in Europe (CONCAWE)

Institutional – research /advisory

The oil companies’ European association for environment, health and safety in refining and distribution. CONCAWE was established in 1963 by a small group of leading oil companies to carry out research on environmental issues relevant to the oil industry. Its membership has broadened to include most oil companies operating in Europe. The scope of CONCAWE’s activities has gradually expanded in line with the development of societal concerns over environmental, health and safety issues. The main objectives of CONCAWE are: - To acquire pertinent scientific, economic, technical and legal information on environmental, health and safety issues relating to the refining of crude oil and the distribution and use of petroleum products - To communicate the findings in order to improve



understanding of these issues by all stakeholders including the industry, authorities and the public at large

European Petroleum Industry Association (EUROPIA)

European Petroleum Industry Association (EUROPIA)

Institutional – network / forum

EUROPIA has a dedicated head of biodiversity and a webpage for environment. It supports the EU ambitions to continue to reduce the negative impacts of industrial operations on human health and the environment and recognises the need to respond to the concerns of the community about living and working in a safe and healthy environment. They consider it part of their industry’s responsibility to self-initiate actions or programmes to provide protection of health and safety of individuals and of the environment. EUROPIA acknowledges that legislation has a role in this respect and therefore actively contributes to the proposed environmental policies and regulations. Key areas of focus for EUROPIA are: - Air quality , in the context of air quality legislation such as the Ambient Air Quality Directive, National Emission Ceilings Directive, and the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive - Site emissions, in the context of rules controlling Airborne, Water and Soil pollutants from industrial operations - Waste management, in the context of Waste Directives

IUCN Implementing Sustainable Bioenergy Production: A Compilation of Tools and Approaches

Technical - publication This paper is a compilation of example principles, frameworks and tools already in use in the conservation community which may be applied to bioenergy production to identify and reduce environmental as well as socio-economic risks and promote opportunities. The aim is to provide the range of stakeholders who are engaged in the bioenergy agenda (governments, businesses, communities, land owners, and individuals) the tools to achieve more sustainable outcomes in relation to ecosystems and livelihoods. Key recommendations from this paper are: - Do not re-invent the wheel - Think broadly about objectives - Do not wait - Expand and adapt existing tools - Use common sense

- in other format



- Bioenergy is not just about biofuels

International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP)

International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) – IPICEA-OGP Biodiversity Working Group and publications

Institutional – network / forum / advisory / publications

OGP has joined forces with the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association IPIECA on biodiversity and sustainability issues. It has published a number of biodiversity-related documents: - Fate and effects of naturally occurring substances in produced water on the marine environment (2005) - Seismic Surveys & Marine Mammals: Joint OGP/IAGC position paper (2004) - Environmental aspects of the use and disposal of non aqueous drilling fluids associated with offshore oil & gas operations (2003) (Joint E&P Forum / UNEP Technical Publication) - Oil & gas exploration & production in arctic offshore regions: Guidelines for environmental protection (2002)- Environmental management in oil and gas exploration and production: An overview of issues and management approaches (1997) (Joint E&P Forum / UNEP Technical Publication)

International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPICEA)

IPICEA-OGP Biodiversity Working Group and numerous publications

Institutional / -network/forum / advisory / publications / software

IPIECA has been addressing biodiversity issues since 1992, and in 2002 formed a joint industry Biodiversity Working Group (BDWG) with the International Association of Oil and Gas Producers (OGP). Overall co-ordination of the group lies with IPIECA. The IPIECA-OGP Biodiversity Working Group is an international oil and gas forum fostering improved industry management of biodiversity impacts and positive engagement on biodiversity conservation goals. Working groups: - Impact Assessment, Biodiversity and the Extractive Industries Workshop, 24-26 March 2009, Beijing China- Biodiversity & the Oil and Gas Industry in the Caspian Region, 23-24 May 2007, Atyrau, Kazakhstan Publications: - An Ecosystem Approach to Oil and Gas Industry Biodiversity Conservation (2007) - Guide to the Convention on Biological Diversity for the



Oil and Gas Industry (2007) - Key Biodiversity Questions in the Oil and Gas Lifecycle (2006) - A Guide to Developing Biodiversity Action Plans for the Oil and Gas Sector (2005) - The Oil and Gas Industry: Operating In Sensitive Environments (2003) - Biodiversity and the Petroleum Industry – a Guide to the Biodiversity Negotiations (2000) Other: - Key Biodiversity Questions in the Oil and Gas Lifecycle - online lifecycle tool

Oil & Gas UK Oil & Gas UK Issue Forum: Environment DEAL

Institutional – network / forum Technical (Financial / Policy / Philanthropic) - database (policy tool / partnership)

Oil & Gas UK has established a strategic environmental objective to guide the industry's environmental management process, which is to ‘understand and manage environmental risks to achieve demonstrable no harm levels by 2020’. This means that the industry will undertake the work necessary to find out about the impacts and take action where it needs to, so that by 2020 it can show to stakeholder satisfaction that its operations are not harming the environment. Oil & Gas UK works with its members on a wide range of policy issues through five directorates including Health, Safety and Environment (HSE), and the directorates are supported by nine specialist forums. The environment forum provides a focal point for communication between Oil & Gas UK and member companies on all environmental issues affecting the UK upstream oil and gas industry. It allows industry specialists to exchange views and information. DEAL is a PILOT initiative sponsored by Oil and Gas UK and DTI. DEAL is a free, public, web-based service, designed to promote and facilitate access to data and information relevant to the exploration and production of hydrocarbons on the UK Continental Shelf (UKCS). Through DEAL, users can access networked repositories of UKCS geoscientific data as a single unified data resource. Data available includes Strategic Environmental Assessments and Coastlines.

- for DEAL



UNEP WCMC Proteus 2012 Technical - web tool / database / project

Proteus, launched in 2003, was a five year programme to make biodiversity information more freely available. In 2006 its focus was to rebuild the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and improve its quality in priority areas. Further to its success, Proteus 2012 is anew five year partnership which recognises that more needs to be done to deliver comprehensive protected area information. The goal by 2012 is for decision-makers in industry and elsewhere to have access to the best possible data and information on the location and distribution of biodiversity of the highest value, as determined by globally important priority setting frameworks. Proteus 2012 has three major objectives: - Populate the new WDPA with the best available information and this will entail inter alia significant rebuilding of the IUCN expert network within the World Commission on Protected Areas - Work with leading biodiversity organisations to combine other key biodiversity datasets with the WDPA, integrating them or making them fully interoperable, so that decision-makers have the best available data on irreplaceable, but unprotected biodiversity and prospective protected areas - Develop an online resource on critical coastal and inshore marine ecosystems and pioneer the use of ‘citizen science’ (using ‘Wiki-style’ web tools) for creating a continually updated online resource.

EPFL (École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) Energy Center

Roundtable on Sustainable Biofuels (RSB)

Discursive / / Technical ( / Policy) - Roundtable (Checklist / Partnership / Advisory / Certification Scheme / Company Best Practice / Participatory Scheme / Networks & Forums / Workshops / Voluntary Measure)

The RSB was officially launched in April 2007 and is hosted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL). It brings together farmers, companies, non-governmental organizations, experts, governments, and inter-governmental agencies concerned with ensuring the sustainability of biofuels production and processing. It hosts a series of meetings, teleconferences, and online discussions with the aim of achieving global, multistakeholder consensus around the principles and criteria of sustainable biofuels production. The Roundtable's multi-stakeholder Steering Board has been responsible for overseeing this standards drafting process, according to the ISEAL Alliance Code of Good Practice



for Standard Setting. The RSB has developing Principles and Criteria (P&C) for sustainable biofuels production which were inspired by other existing sustainability schemes (FSC, RSPO, RTFO, etc) and include economic, social and environmental aspects. These are the rules producers should follow in order to claim for genuine sustainability over their supply chain. The official RSB strategy is to implement a certification scheme, however, it is also possible for governments, companies and other actors to freely use the P&Cs to develop other types of tools or pick some of the good practices mentioned to improve their supply chain.

Shell Biodiversity Standard Institutional - Company Best Practice

Shell’s Biodiversity Standard outlines the company’s commitment to work with others to maintain ecosystems, respect protected areas and make a positive contribution to the conservation of global flora and fauna. The standard’s commitments include: - Working with others to maintain ecosystems - Respecting the basic concept of protected areas - Seeking partnerships to enable the Group to make a positive contribution towards the conservation of global biodiversity The standard requires all Shell companies to: - Conduct environmental assessments, including the potential impacts on biodiversity, prior to all new activities and significant modifications of existing ones - Bring focused attention to the management of activities in internationally recognised hotspots, including the identification of, and early consultation with, key stakeholders In 2003, Shell made commitments with regard to protected areas, including a commitment not to explore for or develop, oil and gas in natural World Heritage Sites and in 2005 it developed a biodiversity strategy through to 2010.

The Energy and Biodiversity Initiative

The Energy and Biodiversity Initiative

Institutional - Technical – networks & forums / research / advisory / publications

The Energy and Biodiversity Initiative (EBI) was created in 2001 (ceased in 2007) to develop and promote practices for integrating biodiversity conservation into upstream oil and gas development. The EBI produced practical guidelines, tools and models to improve the



environmental performance of energy operations, minimize harm to biodiversity, and maximize opportunities for conservation wherever oil and gas resources are developed. The EBI was formed by four energy companies – BP, Chevron, Shell and Statoil – and five conservation organizations – Conservation International, Fauna & Flora International, IUCN – The World Conservation Union, Smithsonian Institution and The Nature Conservancy. The first phase of the EBI was dedicated to the development of guidance and resources for integrating biodiversity conservation into oil and gas development. The second phase of the EBI was designed to promote the ideas and practices outlined in the EBI products. Although the formal partnership has now ceased, partners continue more informally to explore opportunities to be a positive force for biodiversity conservation within the oil and gas industry.

UNEP-WCMC World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) - marine

Technical (/Policy) – web tool / database / partnership / policy tool

Started 2003. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), a joint project by UNEP-WCMC and the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, is the only global dataset on protected areas. The private sector can use the WDPA to make better informed decisions on where and how to operate. The WDPA supports corporate decision-making by informing risk assessment procedures for existing and potential operations. It helps extractive and other industries in their project planning and allows them to consider alternative approaches or locations early on in the planning process. The WDPA is the most comprehensive global spatial dataset on marine and terrestrial protected areas available. Protected areas are internationally recognised as major tools in conserving species and ecosystems. Corporate members of the Proteus Partnership - mainly oil & gas and mining - have supported UNEP-WCMC since 2003 and in that time have made a very significant contribution in both cash and in kind to help bring biodiversity data together and make it more freely available. The new WDPA is an important output of that collaboration.



Food Producers & Processors Organisation Name of initiative Category & delivery



ADAS & Natural England ADAS Conservation Advice to farmers and growers

Technical – advisory ADAS is working on behalf of Natural England to provide conservation advice to farmers and growers throughout England. Advice is currently focused on Environmental Stewardship, Defra's new agri-environment scheme launched in March 2005. ADAS is working with Natural England and the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust with additional support from the RSPB to deliver practical farm walks and workshops. The objective of these events is to offer Best Practice advice and explain to farmers and land managers how they can participate in different levels of the Environmental Stewardship Scheme (Entry Level and Higher Level Stewardship) to improve the wildlife, landscape and habitat value of their farm, and to protect the natural resources of soil and water.

British American Tobacco plc working with three conservation NGOs - Earthwatch Europe, Fauna & Flora International and the Tropical Biology Association

British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership

Other – Partnership (Publication / checklist / partnership / critical friend / advisory / company best practise / participatory scheme / policy tool / networks and forums / workshops / voluntary measure / project)

A cross-sectoral partnership operating under a memorandum of understanding between British American Tobacco, Fauna and Flora International, Earthwatch Institute, and the Tropical Biology Association. Company Best Practice and a work programme supports the development of two parallel project streams: • Projects which embed biodiversity assessment,

management and conservation into British American Tobacco’s operations. These projects are developed jointly between NGO partners and British American Tobacco Operating Companies.

• Projects which aim to achieve improved conservation of biodiversity in areas of mutual interest. These projects are proposed by individual NGO partners and are usually part of their ongoing areas of programme focus.

All projects are selected according to criteria laid out in the Memorandum of Understanding. These include compliance with conservation priorities identified by the



conservation partners and with relevance to British American Tobacco activities world wide and location in countries that are important leaf growing areas. Project selection is through a process of comment and review at the Management Team meetings. The British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership is currently supporting over 35 projects in over 18 countries. They include both projects which embed biodiversity assessment, management and conservation into British American Tobacco, and projects proposed by individual NGO partners and are usually part of their ongoing areas of programme focus.

Conservation Grade farming - farming for wildlife

Conservation Grade farming -farming for wildlife

Technical - certification scheme (/ market-based incentives)

The Conservation Grade standard is a market-based mechanism for biodiversity management and enhancement on over 50,000 acres of British farmland. It is paid for by a market premium gained for the crops produced and delivered through farm-based contracts that require strict adherence to biodiversity standards. Conservation Grade had its genesis in 1985, when a number of food processing companies could not access sufficient Organically Produced crops to meet their consumer demand. They hence decided to create a comparable environmentally-led farming protocol to ensure an ongoing supply of high quality crops to meet their growing markets. The system of farming was gradually refined until 2005, when a major initiative to improve biodiversity performance was rolled out after 8 years of independent research by the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology and others. This system now represents the only market-led farming standard that has a fully-verified delivery record in biodiversity. Standards produce a farming system that slows the decline in wildlife on farmland. Manufacturers which use conservation grade farming products use the logo on their packs. Farm management methods encourage a diversity of wildlife on the land; chemical usage is kept to a minimum; crop rotation methods are used; planting of trees and hedgerow protection is implemented. Farmers have to use all the skills they employ to manage their farmland to create conditions in which wildlife can flourish. The system encourages



biodiversity and ensures a sound environmental provenance for food manufactured from the farms’ produce. It encompasses the highest standards of food safety and is recognised by leading environmental organisations such as the RSPB and is endorsed by Green campaigners like Professor David Bellamy.

Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG)

Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group (FWAG)

Institutional – networks & forums, advisory

The UK's leading independent and dedicated provider of environmental and conservation advice and consultancy to farmers and crofters. Formed in 1969, FWAG has grown into a network of 120 highly skilled Farm Conservation Advisers located within 55 regional and county groups across the UK. FWAG is made up of two registered companies / charitable organisations seeking to support and enthuse farmers to secure environmental benefits on their land: FWAG Ltd & FWAG Scotland Ltd.

International Finance Corporation (IFC) World Bank Group

A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector. The Biodiversity and Agricultural Commodities Program (BACP)

Technical – publication This guide is designed to help companies operating in emerging markets better understand their relationship to biodiversity issues and how they can effectively manage those issues to improve business performance and benefit from biodiversity. The expansion of agriculture is the leading cause of habitat destruction and a major threat to global biodiversity. BACP will seek to reduce these threats by leveraging market forces at all levels of the value chain. This will help to mainstream the use of so-called Better Management Practices (BMPs) – under development with WWF – that decrease the impact of production on biodiversity. BACP will work in partnership with major players in four commodity markets who are willing to adopt more sustainable practices.

leafTc Road Mapping / Social Responsibility in Tobacco Production (SRTP)

Technical – Company Best Practice

Neither the Road Mapping nor the SRTP mechanism are pass/fail certifications, but rather they emphasise "continuous improvement", seeking to guide the supplier (in current applications) towards international best practice. Suppliers are required to indicate, against 200 (approx) questions (SRTP) or 22 Road Maps, where they stand today (in the case of SRTP by selecting from a multiple choice questionnaire) and where they expect to be in one year and two years



time. These answers generate an Action Plan, (automatically in the case of SRTP), which list the specific actions that need to be implemented to achieve the plan. The completed document forms an Annual Return. The exercise is repeated annually and is backed up by an evidence-based On-Site Review (usually occupying 2 people for 2 days, i.e. a total of 4 man-days) of a proportion of suppliers each year. Note that this is not an audit, but a check that the answers provided in the Annual Return are realistic. To remain as suppliers, clients expect to see planned and implemented improvements, together with on-site validation of progress - hence "continuous improvement". LeafTc Ltd specialises in systems which promote continuous improvement in Social Responsibility in the Supply Chain. They provide a specialist, bespoke service to Manufacturers, Wholesalers & Retailers in relation to monitoring and On-site Reviews of Suppliers in the agricultural sector.

Linking Environment and Farming (LEAF)

LEAF

Institutional – Networks & Forums / Advisory

LEAF acts as a key network for Integrated Farm Management Principles (IFM): carrying out demonstrations; supporting farmers; collaborating; informing and discussing with the public; influencing policy; building strategic alliances.

LEAF Marque Technical – Certification Scheme / Networks & Forums / Policy Tool / Checklist / Voluntary Measure / Online

The organisation also provides a certification scheme: The LEAF Marque standard is a list of questions about farming practice and management. It is a UKAS accredited independently verified environmental standard.

LEAF Audit Technical – Networks & Forums / Policy Tool / Checklist / Voluntary Measure / Online

LEAF Audit: Management tool for the delivery of sustainable farming systems - updated annually developed over the last 15 years.



LEAF Green Box Technical – Networks & Forums / Policy Tool / Checklist / Voluntary Measure / Advisory / Online

LEAF Green Box: Monitoring toolkit for farmers to measure their soil, water, biodiversity performance on farm. Helpful advice, recording sheets and online support. Currently in pilot stage for roll out next year.

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

MSC organisation and standard

Institutional – networks & forums, advisory

The MSC is an international non-profit organization. It: sets standards; fisheries outreach; commercial outreach; raise awareness with consumers; education; work with developing countries.


It also runs a third party, independent and voluntary certification programme; using two MSC methodologies: The Fisheries Certification Methodology and The Fishery Assessment Methodology.

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)

National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations (NFFO)

Institutional - Network and forums / publication

The representative body for fishermen in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Mission to contribute to and advance EU and National Fisheries Policy to ensure a profitable, viable and sustainable fishing industry. At the forefront of all major fisheries negotiations affecting British fishermen, including the Council of Ministers, and highly active in the Regional Advisory Councils. The NFFO has been closely involved in the preparation of a paper describing some of the initiatives that British fishermen are involved in as they strive to ensure that the future of fishing is sustainable. Its central point is that sustainability is not just an ideal decided by environmentalists. The fishing industry shares the goal of sustainability and can demonstrate in a number of concrete ways what it is doing to achieve it. Published paper: Sustainability Initiatives in Fishing

- in other format

Rainforest Alliance and the Sustainable Agriculture Network (SAN)

Sustainable Farm Certification, Intl.

Technical - certification scheme

Developed global social and environmental standards for sustainable farm management that cover worker welfare, the use of agrochemicals and biodiversity. The Alliance certifies bananas, cocoa, coffee, cut flowers and oranges at more than 470 farms and cooperatives in 12 nations. The standards provide guidelines for the



protection of wildlife and forests and other valuable habitats in and around farms. Mission: Sustainable Farm Certification, Intl. contributes to the advancement of social and environmental best practices through high quality, transparent certification in accordance with the SAN's standard. Making certification decisions as a result of its evaluation of audit reports provided by authorized organizations. Once agricultural producers receive certification for their farms, they can apply to use the Rainforest Alliance Certified seal on their products. Individual farms or farm groups can apply for certification. The SAN is a coalition of leading conservation groups that links responsible farmers with conscientious consumers by means of the Rainforest Alliance Certified seal of approval. Its collective vision is based on the concept of sustainability, recognizing that the well-being of societies and ecosystems is intertwined and dependent on development that is environmentally sound, socially equitable and economically viable. Companies, cooperatives and landowners that participate in its programs meet rigorous standards that conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods.

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)

Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO)

Discursive – roundtable RSPO is an association created by organisations carrying out their activities in and around the entire supply chain for palm oil to promote the growth and use of sustainable palm oil through co-operation within the supply chain and open dialogue with its stakeholders. Mission: To advance the production, procurement and use of sustainable oil palm products through: 1) the development, implementation and verification of credible global standards and, 2) the engagement of stakeholders along the supply chain RSPO also: Undertake practical projects designed to facilitate implementation of sustainable best practices; develop solutions to practical problems related to the adoption and verification of best practices for plantation establishment and management, procurement, trade and logistics; acquire financial resources from private and public funds to finance projects under the auspices



of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil; communicate the Roundtable's work to all stakeholders and to a broader public.



Discursive – Networks and Forums (Certification Scheme / Company Best Practice / Critical Friend / Participatory Scheme / Voluntary Measure / Advisory / Market-based incentives)

The RTRS is an international platform in which soy producers, soy merchants, the soy processing industry, banks and societal organizations are collaborating in order to establish and implement in practice sustainability criteria for the worldwide cultivation of soy. Social and environmental themes were agreed upon in a 2007 meeting, and included 'protection of biodiversity'. The RTRS aims to develop criteria for sustainable soy with clear indication of how these can be applied and monitored in practice. An international working group with representatives from the soy chain and societal organizations are currently working on this. Public consultation sessions have also been planned.

Sea Fish Industry Authority (SFIA)

Sea Fish Industry Authority (SFIA)

Institutional - networks & forums / lobby / project / research

Seafish, the authority on seafood, works across all sectors of the seafood industry to promote good quality, sustainable seafood. Research and projects are aimed at raising standards, improving efficiency and ensuring that our industry develops in a viable way. SFIA is the UK’s only cross-industry seafood body working with fishermen, processors, wholesalers, seafood farmers, fish friers, caterers, retailers and the import/export trade. Seafish is a Non Departmental Public Body (NDPB) sponsored by the four UK government fisheries departments and funded by a levy on seafood.

Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)

Shellfish Association of Great Britain (SAGB)

Institutional - networks & forums / lobby / project/ research

The SAGB is the Shellfish industry’s trade body. Shellfish farmers, groups of fishermen, commercial traders and companies, the Seafish Industry Authority, consultants and many of the Sea Fisheries Committees are members. The association provides support on various topics of interest to the UK Shellfish industry, which is the most valuable component of the UK seafood industry. It provides technical advice and mediates in a range of environmental issues ranging from coastal pollution, aggregate dredging and stock conservation. It maintains a working relationship with many important conservation agencies and government departments.



Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center (SMBC)

Bird Friendly Coffee

Technical After years of scientific research to determine the best conditions for birds and other wildlife, the SMBC has developed a set of strict criteria for evaluating shade-grown coffee farms. All farms are subject to an independent, third-party inspection to determine whether a farm meets these criteria or not. In addition, all farms must meet organic certification standards to be eligible to be certified as "Bird Friendly®". "Bird Friendly®" coffees are the only coffees on the market that are certified as 100% shade-grown and organic, meaning that they are grown without the use of chemical pesticides that poison the environment. Companies that sell coffee with the "Bird Friendly®" seal of approval contribute 25 cents per pound to support SMBC research and conservation programs. The objective of the "Bird Friendly" program is to verify that the product (coffee) has been grown using shade management practices. The goal of the program is to foster conditions on coffee plantations that provide good bird habitats. Maintenance of the tree canopy, diversity in tree and plant species, shade at specific times of the day, and establishment of plant borders around streams or rivers are all included into the Bird Friendly label criteria. Organic inspectors must complete a “Shade Certification Check List” and sign a certificate before the SMBC will allow the use of the Bird-Friendly seal of approval.

Soil Association Soil Association

Institutional - certification scheme / research

The Soil Association is the UK's leading campaigning and certification organisation for organic food and farming. The Soil Association exists to research, develop and promote sustainable relationships between the soil, plants, animals, people and the biosphere, in order to produce healthy food and other products while protecting and enhancing the environment. It develops and upholds the highest standards of organic integrity with a widely-recognised and trusted symbol. The Soil Association campaigns for safer, healthier produce and production methods. It recognises the following organisational functions: building public awareness to influence government and industry attitudes;



certification; inspection; market development; influencing and policy work; information and education; and local food links.



Discursive (Technical / Policy) – Networks & forums (Publication / Checklist / Partnership / Policy Tool / Workshops)

SAI Platform is an organisation created by the food industry to communicate worldwide and to actively support the development of sustainable agriculture involving the different stakeholders of the food chain. SAI Platform supports agricultural practices and agricultural production systems that preserve the future availability of current resources and enhance their efficiency. This increases agriculture's contribution to the optimal satisfaction of society's environmental, economic and social requirements. SAI Platform's ultimate goal is the development of sustainable agricultural practices which are harmonised along the food chain. In this view, SAI Platform conducts a number of activities around four main themes: 1) Knowledge building & management 2) Awareness raising 3) Stakeholder involvement 4) Support to the implementation of SA practices (within the supply chain as well as in compliance with trade policies and regulations).

The Better Cotton Initiative (BCI)

The Better Cotton Initiative (BCI)

Discursive – roundtable / networks & forums / advisory / participatory scheme

Established to respond to the impacts of cotton cultivation. BCI aims to promote measurable improvements in the key environmental and social impacts of cotton cultivation worldwide to make it more sustainable (economically, environmentally, and socially). BCI endeavours to initiate global change in the mass market, with long-term benefits for the environment, farmers and other people dependent on cotton for their livelihood. 'Better Cotton' is being defined through a collaborative multi-stakeholder approach that leverages the commitment of global buyers of cotton and/or cotton products to demand large and increasing amounts of 'Better Cotton'.



The Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI)

The Better Sugarcane Initiative (BSI)

Discursive – roundtable / networks & forums / advisory / participatory scheme

The Better Sugarcane Initiative is a multi-stakeholder collaboration whose mission is to promote measurable improvements in the key environmental and social impacts of sugarcane production and primary processing. The group recognises the wide range of (geographically different) issues connected with sugarcane production and primary processing. To address the key impacts the BSI will initially focus on the most significant issues in sugarcane production and primary processing. It is committed to engaging stakeholders in a constructive dialogue to define, develop and encourage the adoption and implementation of practical and verifiable performance-based measures and baselines for sugarcane production and primary processing on a global scale.

- in other format

The Center for Environmental Leadership in Business (CELB)

Agriculture and Fisheries Program

Other – Program / Networks & Forums

In partnership with leading companies within agriculture and fisheries supply chains, the Agriculture and Fisheries Program is conserving biodiversity in key ecosystems impacted by food production: Bunge Limited; Colombian Coffee Federation (FNC); the Rainforest Alliance and the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center; McDonald's; Starbucks.

UNEP Sustainable Agri-food Production and Consumption Forum

Discursive - Networks and Forums

A web site designed to help users access information on key issues related to agri-food production and consumption, such as: agrobiodiversity, water, energy, climate change, chemicals, desertification, consumption, trade and poverty. The website allows users to browse different opinions, study reports and information on on-going activities by stakeholders through annotated and hyper linked lists of information sources. Over the last decade UNEP has been working on a number of key issues as an active partner in the agri-food sector. It is now strengthening its work in this sector. The Sustainable Agri-food Production and Consumption Forum is its latest initiative and through which it aims to: build a network linking key information sources; raise awareness about the link between the environment and the agri-food sector; provide information on good practices and the efforts of different actors from the agri-food sector; and facilitate discussion.



Retail Organisation Name of initiative Category & delivery



British Retail Consortium A Better Retailing Climate Technical – publication The BRC have drawn up five climate goals, which reflect the impact of retailers on climate change.

EU Eco-label Retail Forum

Technical – certification Discursive – networks & forums

European-wide labelling scheme aimed at certifying goods and services (not food, drink and pharmaceuticals) which have met strict environmental criteria. No specific biodiversity focus but certifies goods and services produced in ways where the environmental footprint has been reduced relative to other comparable products. Uses life cycle analysis to assess environmental footprints. The creation of the Retail Forum represents a significant contribution in the implementation of the EU Action Plan on sustainable consumption and production and sustainable industrial policy presented by the Commission in July 2008. The Forum aims to reduce the environmental impact of the retail sector and its supply chain, promote more sustainable products and better inform consumers about 'green' purchasing opportunities.

Fairtrade Foundation Fairtrade Labelling Standards Technical – certification

The Fairtrade Foundation is the independent non-profit organisation that licenses use of the FAIRTRADE Mark on products in the UK in accordance with internationally agreed Fairtrade standards. Fairtrade certified producers are required to meet environmental standards which prootect the natural environment and make environmental protection a part of farm management.

FLO E.V. (Germany) Institutional – certification

Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International (FLO) is a non-profit, multi-stakeholder association involving 23 member organizations (Labelling Initiatives and Producer Networks), traders and external experts. The organization develops and reviews Fairtrade standards and provides support to Fairtrade Certified Producers



by assisting them in gaining and maintaining Fairtrade certification and capitalizing on market opportunities.

IIED & Race to the Top Race to the Top Website Stakeholder accountability in the UK supermarket sector: Final report of the 'Race to the Top' project (2004)

Technical – networks & forums / good practice programme Technical – publication

The Race to the Top project ended prematurely following a confidential pilot year (2002) in which six supermarkets took part and one publicly reported year (2003), in which only three supermarkets participated. A full report on the lessons learned from the project is available. This document records the experiences of a project entitled Race to the Top: tracking supermarket progress towards a fairer and greener food system.

M&S Plan A Institutional – good practice / programme

As part of Plan A, M&S approach biodiversity as part of how they source their key raw materials, such as wood, fish, cotton, palm oil, soy, fresh produce, fresh protein. Where possible, they apply independent schemes such as FSC, MSC, BCI, RSPO, RTRS, LEAF audit to address biodiversity as part of a whole farm or field environmental impact assessment. M&S have been working with FFI (Annelisa Grigg) who have been undertaking a similar exercise looking to assess ecosystem/biodiversity tools and business' approaches to managing biodiversity in their supply chains.

(email)

Sainsburys Operation Bumblebee Pesticide Reduction Programme

Institutional – good practice / programme Institutional – good practice / programme

The project involves training farmers and growers to dramatically increase the amount of food available to bumblebees, by growing vital pollen and nectar rich habitats on their farms. Currently, over 500 growers are involved in the project, 91 of which are Sainsbury’s growers who have planted over 460 acres to date. Operation Bumblebee is improving biodiversity on over 130,000 acres of UK fields. Work with suppliers and farmers to help achieve more sustainable ways of agriculture.

Soil Association Soil Association Mark for a) food b) textiles c) agriculture

Institutional – certification

Biodiversity built into Soil Association standards.



Multiple Retailers Working Group

Institutional – networks & forums

?

Tesco Internal corporate responsibility strategy

Institutional – company good practice

Tescos has three strands in its corporate resonsibility strategy: 1) Getting house in order e.g. energy use, waste etc. 2) Working with others e.g. suppliers, government, academia 3) Empowering customers - buying greener products, recycling. Various working groups e.g. Fish Sustainablility Working Group (health and beauty, fish oils) and the Wood and Paper Working Group. These working groups bring together all the technical managers across different categories, the messages from which feed down to the buyers (who each have their own technical manager to ensure that operation are as sustainable as possible). Tescos is a member of Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil and is in regular contact with NGOs. Tesco also launched an assurance standard for various different products called Nurture. To qualify, growers must meet a number of criteria e.g. pesticide use, water use, land management etc. Tesco have been branding produce since January 2009.

(phone conversation)

The RITE Group (founding members were M&S, University of Leeds and Ecotextile News)

- Discursive – networks & forums / partnership

The RITE Group is an industry association dedicated to Reducing the Impact of Textiles on the Environment. They aim to develop and provide advice and fact based information to reduce/minimise the negative environmental effects of the production, use and disposal of textiles and to drive forward the sustainable and ethical production of textiles and apparel throughout the global supply chain.


- Technical – participatory scheme / advisory / market-based incentives / networks & forums / critical friend

Launched in October 2007, the Union is the flagship association for the Ethical BioTrade movement. Members are from a wide range of industries, including cosmetics and personal care products, food and beverage, pharmaceutical, complementary medicine, and fashion and accessories. Mission is to bring together actors committed to Ethical BioTrade and to promote, facilitate and recognise ethical trade practices in goods that meet the sustainable development goals in the Convention of Biological Diversity. Trading



members need to adhere to the Ethical BioTrade Verification Framework. This framework guides members towards compliance with the Principles and Criteria of Ethical BioTrade.

Leisure & Hotels Organisation Name of initiative Category & delivery



SkillsActive UK Ltd prvoide the course, standards set by the David Bellamy Scheme Caravan Industry Training Ltd (CITO) promote the course

Conserving the Park Environment - Training Workshop

Technical / policy – company best practise / workshops / training

Development of a new one day course / training workshop that incorporates the principles of the David Bellamy Conservation Award Scheme and builds on to the NVQ Unit 'Contributing to Environmental Conservation in Active Leisure & Recreation'. It provides delegates with inspiration and knowledge to improve their company's biodiversity and conservation policies/practices The aim is to help delegates develop an environment plan for their parks, by discussion, example and good practice. It is also under development to inform and assist companies improve their parks ranking within the David Bellamy Conservation Scheme, and aid parks wishing to join the scheme by: • Increased awareness of environmental

conservation and sustainability issues • An appreciation of why conservation is such a vital

issue • Identifying park responsibilities for preventing

pollution and managing resources • Showing how money can be saved by reducing

resource use • Boosting use of local products, services and

facilities • Showing how outdoor areas can enhance the

natural environment and benefit wildlife • Helping the environment by working together



Participants will be given work to complete after the course – for example to show that they can implement what has been discussed by influencing environmental impact on the park, and considering routes for improvement. It is aimed mainly at the actual staff who put good environmental principles into practice in the parks. Any delegates who may subsequently wish to complete the environmental unit of the parks NVQ will be able to use the coursework as prior learning.

CELB / CI

Travel & Leisure Program Institutional – programs

Working with tour operators, hotel and resort owners, and cruise lines to integrate biodiversity conservation into their operating practices and protect environmentally sensitive destinations. Workstreams include: • Cruises: Engaging cruise companies to integrate

biodiversity conservation practices into their management systems and become a positive force for biodiversity conservation in the destinations that they visit.

• Hotels: Developed guiding principles for sustainable hotel siting, design and construction in partnership with the Prince of Wales International Business Leaders Forum (IBLF).

• Tour Operators: Working with over 20 of the world's leading tour operators to integrate environmental and social criteria into their supply chain management systems through the Tour Operators' Initiative for Sustainable Tourism Development (TOI).

• Tourism & Biodiversity in the Caribbean: Collaborating with the private sector, government and the conservation community to better manage tourism activities and development in sensitive regions of the Caribbean Basin.

Cornwall Sustainable Tourism Network (and other regional networks)

Cornwall Sustainable Tourism Project (CoaST)

Institutional / Networks and Forums

CoaST aims for a sustainable tourism industry by getting all businesses, groups, communities – from all tourism and non-tourism sectors – working collectively. CoaST is working in three ways: 1 working to influence policy & helping business get involved



2 helping deliver practical projects on the ground 3 running an interactive cross-sector business support network with an events and training programme Working with businesses, CoaST offers face to face, phone, email, networking and training support. Such as: • briefings on specific issues with its partners such

as renewable energies, carbon literacy and emerging grant regimes green team development workshops

• motivational sessions - from front line staff to senior managers bespoke sessions on green accreditation for business clusters presentations and workshops on sustainable tourism per se



Philanthropic / Institutional – Awards / certification scheme / company best practice / participatory scheme

The David Bellamy Conservation Award recognises holiday and residential parks which have made exceptional achievements in protecting and enhancing the natural world. The award programme was started 13 years ago as the result of an initiative between botanist Professor David Bellamy and the British Holiday and Home Parks Association which represents some 3000 parks in the UK. It is an annual award scheme to highlight the many remarkable wildlife achievements of holiday parks and to inspire others to follow suit. Those awarded must prove commitment to preserving and enhancing the natural world. Many of the parks included in the scheme take a special pride in helping guests to come closer to the countryside. Importantly, the parks included are a mix of both ”peaceful, hideaway parks” and also “larger centres with family entertainment and leisure facilities”. Three levels of excellence can be achieved: Gold, Silver and Bronze.



EU LIFE

TOUR-LINK Other / project TOUR-LINK is a project funded by EU LIFE – Environment that ran from July 2004 to December 2007. It demonstrated how an integrated ecolabeling and tour operating supply chain management strategy can foster sustainability in tourism. It was one of only a few schemes demonstrating a co-ordinated and strategic co-operation between eco-labels, tour operators and suppliers (e.g. accommodations, transport carriers). In 2003 the existing European eco-labels joined forces within the VISIT association and the EU eco-label for tourism made certification available all over Europe. At the same time, Dutch and UK tour operator associations committed themselves to introduce a sustainability management approach among their members to create a stronger demand for certified suppliers at the holiday destinations. The TOUR-LINK project aimed to test and demonstrate the effectiveness of a common co-ordinated approach through 9 interrelated tasks. TOUR-LINK outcomes: • A European sustainable tourism supply chain

management model that was tested and broadly accepted.

• Practical and tested training strategy, curricula, manuals and tools for different tour operator staff members and product groups.

• Implementation of sustainable supply chain management systems (over 75 tour operators, more than five countries).

• Common indicators revealed environmental benefits.

• Standardised tour operators’ checklists and inspection systems for suppliers.

• Co-operation between EU Ecolabel and VISIT (the European platform for Tourism Ecolabels) in standards and marketing.

• A common tour operator destination approach methodology.



• More certified hotels and other suppliers in Catalonia and Austria.

• European Business to Business matching service for certified suppliers and tour operators.

• Well-informed tourism businesses in Europe about tour operators’ expectations.

• European tour operators aware of available certified tourism products.

• Sustainability as a factor in purchasing and contracting.

• Tour operators’ communication channels promote green products and raise consumers’ awareness.

• Sustainability images and messages in tour operators’ catalogues.

• Common logo for certified products.

Federation of Tour Operators (FTO)

Federation of Tour Operators (FTO)


FTO work on behalf of its members to ensure the continued long term success of the air inclusive holiday. Through partnership, education, information and support, it raises awareness and lobbies governments and other bodies regarding benefits to consumers and other stakeholders of air inclusive holidays compared to other forms of holiday arrangements. As the UK national trade association, the FTO is a member of Travelife and therefore on its website it has made available the following documents: • Supplier Sustainability Handbook (2007) • Travelife Animal Guidelines (2008)155

Responsible Tourism Committee

Discursive – networks & forums

FTO members – aware of the socio-cultural, economic and environmental impacts of their products and services – formed a Responsible Tourism Committee in 2003. The Committee is developing a series of initiatives to assist tour operators to integrate responsible tourism practices into their core business. All Committee members have signed a 'Statement of Commitment'. The Committee believes that:

155 See Travelife in this table for more information on these mechanisms endorsed by FTO and other Travelife business mechanisms



“Responsible tourism is about making a positive difference when we travel”, and highlights the following principles: • Enjoyment but taking responsibility for actions –

respecting local cultures and the natural environment.

• Giving fair economic returns to local people – helping to spread the benefit to those who need it most.

• Recognising that water and energy are precious resources to be used carefully.

• Protecting endangered wildlife and preserving the natural and cultural heritage of the places visited for the future enjoyment of visitors and the people who live there.

Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE) / ENCAMS in the UK

Blue Flag Programme

Technical / Certification Schemes (/ Awards)

The Blue Flag is an environmental award for beaches and marinas. The Programme seeks to: “promote sustainable development in the coastal areas through high water quality standards, safety standards, environmental management standards and environmental education. It works to bring together the tourism and environmental sectors at the local, regional and national levels.” Starting in France in 1985, the Programme began operating in Europe in 1987 and outside of Europe in 2001. It is now global and has become a very well known and recognised eco-label for tourists and tour operators. The Blue Flag therefore acts as an incentive for businesses to help the Programme by also taking actions to protect the environment. Only local authorities can apply for the Blue Flag for beaches and it is only awarded per season. Criteria for Blue Flag status have been developed over time and encourage participating communities to keep working on solving relevant environmental problems. The criteria cover four main areas:

1. Water quality 2. Environmental information and education



3. Environmental management 4. Safety and services.

If criteria are not met the Award is invalid. The national FEE organisation checks the Blue Flag sites during the season – ENCAMS is the UK national administering body and reviews all applications which are made in paper every Autumn and submit a range of information/evidence. A national jury (RNLI/RoSPA/RLSS, VisitBritain, WaterUK, LGA and Defra) then meet to check and approve all applications in England. An international Blue Flag jury meet in April to review all Blue Flag applications in the Northern Hemisphere before approving those beaches that are awarded a Blue Flag for the bathing season (May-September) that year.

Green Tourism Business Scheme (GTBS)

Green Tourism Business Scheme (GTBS)

Technical / Certification Schemes / Awards

The GTBS is the leading sustainable tourism certification scheme in the UK. Businesses are assessed by a qualified grading advisor against a rigorous set of criteria, covering a range of areas (e.g. energy and water efficiency, waste management etc) and including biodiversity. If the required standard is met, businesses then receive a Bronze, Silver, or Gold award based on their level of achievement. Accommodation providers, visitor attractions, corporate offices and others from a wide range of business types make up the current network of members. Originally developed in partnership with Visit Scotland, GTBS is now the only certification scheme validated by Visit Britain, through the International Centre for Responsible Tourism (ICRT).

International Tourism Partnership

International Tourism Partnership

Institutional – Networks & forums

The International Tourism Partnership (ITP) assists the industry to make a valuable contribution to the countries and cultures in which they operate, to their customers, their shareholders and future generations. It was founded by HRH The Prince of Wales to: • inspire global leaders in the travel and tourism

industry on a non-competitive platform • share knowledge and resources



• develop policy and actively implement programmes and initiatives that have a positive impact on social, economic and environmental issues

The ITP is a non-profit organisation and the tourism programme of the International Business Leaders Forum. ITP was established in 2004 but evolved from the International Hotels Environment Initiative (IHEI). IHEI was created in 1992 when a group of chief executives of twelve multi-national hotel companies joined forces to promote continuous improvement in environmental performance by the hotel industry worldwide. Several industry specific mechanisms have been developed including: • benchmarkhotel (www.benchmarkhotel.com) • publications including ‘Going Green’ – checklist for

minimum standards toward a sustainable hotel • greenhotelier quarterly magazine

(www.greenhotelier.com) • partnerships with other environmental bodies and

associations • a credible speaking platform giving members the

opportunity to share their experiences and achievements

Green Hotelier magazine

Technical ( / Discursive / Policy) – Publication / Company Best Practice / Advisory

A globally-distributed and highly influential magazine for a more environmentally and socially responsible hotel industry and its contribution to sustainable travel and tourism. greenhotelier is a quarterly subscription magazine that profiles industry leaders, showcases best practice and provides a highly respected "know how" section with technical information and case studies. greenhotelier sets the agenda for hotels and encourages higher standards by providing practical and technical information. The magazine has been in print for ten years and is a key ITP communication tool.

http://www.benchmarkhotel.com/�

http://www.greenhotelier.com/�



Environmental Management for Hotels

Technical – publication / checklist / control & regulation / company best practice

Environmental Management for Hotels is a standard setting guide to eco-friendly practices in hotel operations. The guide provides practical solutions in many key areas including, energy management, water conservation, waste management, purchasing and supply chains and food safety and environmental health. The 3rd edition was published in 2008.

International Tourism Partnership and Conservation International

Sustainable Hotel Siting Design and Construction Guidelines

Technical – publication / checklist / control & regulation

The guiding principles are a practical and accessible resource to help guide the thinking of planners, investors, hotel owners, developers and their advisors. It draws on the knowledge and expertise of international experts from the hotel industry and specialists in sustainable building. It addresses key issues such as building efficiency, future flexibility and environmental and societal impact and provides a compendium of good practice principles. The tool was produced with the support of Accor, Carlson, Four Seasons, Hilton, Intercontinental, Marriott, Rezidor, Starwood and Taj.

Rainforest Alliance

Rainforest Alliance Sustainable Tourism Program

Technical / Discursive / Philanthropic – Partnership / Advisory / Market-based incentives / Workshops / Project

The Rainforest Alliance promotes sustainable practices in the tourism industry by: • supporting certification programs, by increasing

their international recognition through marketing support and developing a proposed global accreditation body

• establishing regional networks of certification programs to share resources and information

• helping to develop internationally sound standards for certification programs

• providing marketing support, training and technical assistance to certified businesses and businesses in the process of becoming certified

• partnering with local and international tour operators to green the entire supply chain

• educating consumers about the importance of their travel choices

Sustainable Tourism Stewardship Council (STSC)

Technical – Certification Schemes

The STSC is a proposed global accreditation body for sustainable tourism and ecotourism certification programs. Standards and criteria for certification are



still in the process of development.

Sustainable Tourism Certification Network of the Americas

Technical / Institutional – Certification Schemes / networks & forums

A January 2003 STSC study established the need for regional networks to encourage dialogue among stakeholders and act as a clearinghouse for certification information. As a result, the network of the Americas was launched in Bahía, Brazil in September 2003 with support from the Inter-American Development Bank. Significant interest in certification exists in Latin America and the region boasts the largest concentration of certification programs of all developing nations – the Rainforest Alliance therefore aspires for the Sustainable Tourism Certification Network of the Americas to evolve into a successful model that can be replicated in other regions. Mission: to promote sustainable tourism in the region through: • strengthening tourism initiatives based on mutual

respect and recognition • joint efforts • harmonizing systems • sharing information and experience Network objectives: • establishing common work tools by and for

member programs • creating and executing a joint marketing strategy • defining strategies to promote application of best

practices and certification processes to tourism operations, especially SME

Sustainable Tourism: Visit Scotland

Going Green Technical – checklist VisitScotland has devised a new initiative for businesses interested in "greening" their operations. At present, 10% of Scottish businesses are taking part in VisitScotland’s Green Tourism Business Scheme. To enable more businesses to benefit from greater awareness of greener practices, VisitScotland has developed the Going Green checklist. VisitScotland was also a partner assisting the development of the GTBS.

Response from GTBS



Sustainable Travel International (STI)

Sustainable Travel International (STI)

Institutional – networks and forums

Founded in 2002, Sustainable Travel International (STI) is a non-profit organization, dedicated to providing education and outreach services that help travellers, travel providers and related organisations support environmental conservation and protect cultural heritage while promoting cross-cultural understanding and economic development. Current priorities for assisting travellers and travel providers include: • Provision of educational resources to assist in

making positive contributions to environmental conservation and socio-cultural sustainability.

• The development, adoption and marketing of sustainable tourism standards and practices through the Sustainable Tourism Eco-Certification Program™ (STEP).

• Supporting the use of carbon offsets enabling offsetting of unavoidable greenhouse gas emissions related to travel, business and personal lives.

• Facilitating donations of financial resources, time, talent and economic patronage for the purpose of protecting and positively impacting cultures and environments around the world.

Tour Operators' Initiative for Sustainable Tourism Development

TOI/WWF/MARTI Workshop on Building Partnerships for Sustainable Tourism Business and Biodiversity Conservation

Discursive – workshops

A Workshop on Building Partnerships for Sustainable Tourism Business and Biodiversity Conservation was held on 25 June 2008 in Playa del Carmen. The expected outcome was to start up an international dialogue with local key stakeholders and tourism source markets on sustainable business in Riviera and Costa Maya, aimed at developing a strategic action plan for the region.

Travelife / International Tourism Services

Travelife Institutional (Discursive / Policy / Educational) / advisory (publication / checklist / critical friend / certification scheme / company best practice / policy tool /

Travelife was established with the support of the EU LIFE – Environment funded project Tour-Link with the aim to support an efficient and cost effective introduction of sustainability principles within the Tour operator sector. It believes that co-operation is essential to work towards sustainability within the tourism sector: co-operation between the tour operators themselves, between tour operators and their

one overall response received for Travelife



workshops) suppliers, and between tour operators and the people at the destinations. Travelife brings together the individual and collective experiences of tour operators and their associations and builds upon the experiences of other initiatives within the tourism sector. By introducing a common approach Travelife aims to support a rapid introduction and dissemination of the knowledge and desirable practices within the sector, thus helping to avoid the emergence of competing standards and systems which would create confusion within the sector and among consumers. Travelife works through national trade associations to create a critical mass, to stimulate a standardised approach and to establish a “level playing field”. The UK’s FTO is one of a number of supporting trade associations that have committed their members to implement the Travelife management systems and tools. This growing set of integrated industry-wide instruments and tools include: • Management system – An international

management standard for the implementation of sustainable tourism by tour operators.

• Training – State of the art course with best industry practises.

• Action Planning – Setting and monitoring company commitments through an “action planning system”.

• Suppliers Assessment – Industry wide best practise standards and assessment for tour operator suppliers through the Sustainability Store.

• Market place – Informing tour operators about best practice suppliers and initiatives world wide.

Travelife offers a sustainable tourism supply-chain management model with: • A practical training strategy including manuals,

tools and advice for tour operators and tourism product/service suppliers

• Standardised tour operators checklists and inspection systems (for their tourism suppliers)

• Common tour operator destination approach



methodology • Business to Business matching service for certified

suppliers and tour operators Best practice standards have been developed for accommodations, animal attractions and marine recreation providers. They were developed to inspire suppliers, provide a clear direction and to avoid confusion. They can also be used by tour operators to evaluate and compare suppliers. They include both social and environmental criteria and are comparable with established sustainability standards such as the European VISIT ecolabel standard, the EU Flower for Hotels and Campsites and international fair trade and social standards.

The Travelife Sustainability System

Technical – web-based resource

The Travelife Sustainability System is a web-based resource providing access to sustainability data for the travel industry. It aims to increase:

• The quality of life in tourist destinations • The level of environmental sustainability and CSR

in the tourism sector The System is used by consumers, tour operators and industry professionals, and provides a unique method of linking industry partners through their sustainability efforts. Suppliers can evaluate their own social and environmental performance by completing checklist questions relating to criteria for good environmental and social management once per year. The system can then compare this rating with those of other tourism businesses and provides suppliers with help, advice and support on how they can improve. Tourism professionals / tour operators can then view their supplier’s present performance. Suppliers reaching a certain performance level can apply for an audit and the opportunity to be noted in the catalogues of tour operators through the Travelife bronze, silver or gold sustainability logos.

one separate response



Supplier Sustainability Handbook (2007)

Technical – publication / guidance

A set of guidelines for suppliers to help them to understand and manage the environmental and social issues that affect their businesses. The ‘minimising environmental impacts’ section includes guidelines on conservation and biodiversity. The guidelines were developed over several years through a multi-stakeholder process. It presents a preferred code of Environmental and Social Practice. The handbook for Sustainable Tourism has been developed to respond to three factors recognised by the FTO:

1. This makes long term business sense. Statistics in the handbook illustrate that environmental and social issues are becoming increasingly important in the holiday decisions of customers. Responding to these issues ensures survival in a competitive market.

2. To deliver the right balance between the local economy, nature and the community the tourism sector must work together.

3. The FTO is not alone. A recent global survey found that more than 70% of tour operators consider 'sustainable' tourism important to the quality of experience they are able to offer their customers.

By publishing the Travelife guide, the FTO aims to clarify the many crucial issues relevant to the business and to give suppliers a useful source of reference.

Travelife Animal Guidelines (2008)

Technical – publication / guidance

Travelife members actively work to improve the standards of animal welfare by promoting good practice as illustrated in the Travelife Animal Guidelines. The Handbook aims to improve the environmental and social sustainability of tourism businesses which make use of animals during the delivery of their products and services. The phrase “Animal Attractions” may refer to traditional businesses (zoos, aquaria, dolphinaria, circuses, animal parks and sanctuaries), horse and camel rides, night club stage performances, magic shows and a wide variety of businesses displaying animals in a captive environment i.e. caged animals in hotels, and wildlife attractions such as wildlife safaris



and whale-watching trips. This preferred code is used if an animal is displayed to, or interacts with the general public, and that animal is not free in its natural non-captive environment, or is in its natural habitat but its lifestyle may be affected by tourism behaviour.

Voluntary Initiatives for Sustainability in Tourism (VISIT)

Voluntary Initiatives for Sustainability in Tourism (VISIT)


VISIT stands for “Voluntary Initiative for Sustainability in Tourism”, and was created within the frame of an EU funded LIFE project in tourism eco-labelling. The concept of the organisation is to achieve a positive collaboration between distinct initiatives working towards achieving sustainability in tourism. Established in 2004 at REISEPAVILLON, Europe’s leading Green and Ecotourism Fair, the association is the culmination of ongoing liaison and co-operation between a dozen leading tourism eco-labels from 2001 onwards. Seven of these labels (based in the Netherlands, Italy, Denmark, Latvia, United Kingdom, Switzerland and Luxembourg) founded the organisation and together represent over 2,000 participating tourism enterprises. Mission Statement: “To promote and support sustainable tourism development through the representation, promotion and mutual co-operation of international, national and regional certification schemes and other voluntary initiatives for sustainable tourism at an international level.”

World Travel and Tourism Council

Tourism for Tomorrow Awards

Philanthropic – Awards The Tourism for Tomorrow Awards are now in their fifth year under World Travel and Tourism Council's stewardship. They are aimed at recognising best practice in sustainable tourism within the Travel & Tourism industry worldwide. The Tourism for Tomorrow Awards focus on four key categories, including recognising best practices that are helping to protect rare and endangered species and safeguard nature. There is a conservation award which includes but is not limited to: • the protection of wildlife • expanding and restoring natural habitats • supporting biodiversity conservation.



Investment, Insurance & Banking Organisation Name of initiative Category & delivery



Department of Environment and Climate Change, New South Wales

Biodiversity Certification and BioBanking

Technical / policy – policy tool / participatory scheme / market - based

The Biodiversity Banking and Offset Scheme (BioBanking) is a market and science-based scheme for NSW. It provides a streamlined biodiversity assessment process for development, and is accompanied by a rigorous and credible offsetting scheme. This scheme means positive conservation action can be taken to generate maximum biodiversity gains in locations where it is most cost effective to do so, allowing developers to forecast the cost of potential offsets.

Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria

Bushbroker Victoria Australia BushTender

Technical - voluntary measure Technical - voluntary measure

BushBroker represents a new direction for native vegetation management. It provides a system where offsets can be located on a different property to where the native vegetation is being cleared through the purchase of native vegetation credits (a gain in the quantity and/or quality of native vegetation that is subject to a secure and ongoing agreement). In Victoria, Australia, a programme called BushTender pays landowners for conserving biodiversity on privately-held land. The program mainly benefits threatened types of vegetation. Landowners contractually agree to preserve plant life through changed land use activities, as well as through active management of vegetation. Subject to satisfactory progress in these areas, the landowners receive payments for their services. Payments are allocated using auctions to achieve an efficient price.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on behalf of the Queensland Government, Australia

Biodiversity Offsets Technical The EPA has developed a consultation draft policy on biodiversity offsets. A final policy will be prepared following consultation between December 2008 and March 2009, and consideration of written submissions from individuals and organisations. The aim of a policy on biodiversity offsets is to provide a consistent and



transparent approach to the use of environmental offsets for impacts on biodiversity. Offsets are one of a range of tools to address the impacts on biodiversity in Queensland.

Fauna & Flora International / UNEP (FI)

Natural Value Initiative’s Ecosystem Services Benchmark (ESB)

Institutional / financial –checklist / advisory / company best practice

A programme working with the finance sector to develop a toolkit to evaluate the financial risk and opportunity of companies' dependence and impact on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The ESB considers five broad categories of performance: competitive advantage, governance, policy and strategy, management and implementation, and reporting.

Forest Trends Business and Biodiversity Offset Program (BBOP)

Institutional – partnership guidance

The Business and Biodiversity Offset Program is a partnership between companies, governments and conservation experts to explore biodiversity offsets. BBOP is also developing guidance on designing and implementing a “how to” toolkit which will be made widely available to industry, development agencies, financial institutions, policy makers and conservation organisations.

INCAE’s Centro Latinoamericano para la Competitividad y el Desarrollo Sostenible – CLACDS; Internationale Weiterbildung und Entwicklung GMBH - InWent (Germany); the United Nations Environmental Programme and its Finance Initiative (UNEP FI); and the AVINA Group

The Ecobanking Project Technical - adivsory The Project’s purpose is to improve the Latin American financial sector’s competitiveness through better environmental management, environmental and social risk reduction, and by designing innovative financial products. The Ecobanking Project seeks to: 1) Improve the Latin American financial sector’s understanding of the positive relationship between their organisation’s environmental and financial performance; and 2) Encourage the Latin American financial sector to use international “best practices” – practices that have been proven to create value for financial institutions and their customers around the world.

International Finance Corporation (IFC) World Bank Group

Biodiversity Markets Program Institutional - Advisory IFC's work in biodiversity aims to enhance the achievement of the triple bottom line of financial profitability, environmental sustainability, and social responsibility of private companies that are interested in contributing to sustainable utilization of biodiversity resources.

International Finance Creating New Value Based Technical - publication The IFC approach to biodiversity conservation and



Corporation (IFC) World Bank Group

on Nature sustainable use is to invest in innovative business models that are protective of nature as well as socially and economically beneficial. In order to meet this challenge, IFC partners with industry, NGOs, and other financial institutions to develop four categories of tools: metrics to measure biodiversity impact and value; customized services blending investment and technical assistance targeting nature-based business; methodology and trading rules for biodiversity offsets; and specific financial products that conform to the reality of longer term returns.

The Conservation Finance Alliance (CFA)

- Discursive - partnership The CFA was created to catalyze increased and sustainable public and private financing for biodiversity conservation to support the effective implementation of global commitments to conservation. The CFA is a collaborative effort to promote sufficient and sustainable funding for biodiversity conservation worldwide.

The World Bank Environmental Strategy Institutional The World Bank's Environmental Strategy sets out three principle objectives for how its programs and projects will affect environmental conditions. These objectives are to improve the quality of life, improve the quality of growth, and protect the quality of the regional and global commons. The Bank's investments in biodiversity protection contribute to meeting these objectives by protecting the biological resources and systems that underpin well-being and livelihood on local, national, regional, and global scales. The World Bank makes use of a number of tools and frameworks in reviewing, assessing and monitoring, and designing biodiversity projects. These tools use practices that may prove useful and applicable to non-Bank projects and may be of interest to colleagues in the biodiversity community at large.

United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEPFI)

Biodiversity workstream Biodiversity & Ecosystem

Institutional - Participatory scheme / certification Technical - publication

Aims to assist the financial services sector in addressing the challenges arising from the loss of biodiversity and the degradation of ecosystem services. Sets out to enhance the appreciation of these issues



Services: Bloom or Bust (March 2008)

but also translates this into an understanding of the emerging risks and opportunities as well as practical next steps for the finance sector. It is clear that the business world will not be able to function unless we can get these critical ecosystems and the services they provide back into balance.

UNEPFI UN Principles for Responsible Investment (PRI)

Institutional – participatory scheme

The UN PRI have been developed by the UNEP Finance Initiative and the UN Global Compact. The Principles for Responsible Investment aim to help investors integrate consideration of environmental, social and governance issues into investment decision-making and ownership practices, and thereby improve long-term returns to beneficiaries.

United Nations The Equator Principles Institutional - Participatory scheme / certification

The Equator Principles are a set of environmental and social benchmarks for managing environmental and social issues in development project finance globally. Biodiversity is covered under Principle 3 (applicable social and environmental standards) and Principle 2 (if relevant).

United Nations Global Compact Institutional - Participatory scheme / certification

The UN Global Compact is a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of environment, human rights, labour and anti-corruption.

United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (UNEP FI) and the Ecobanking Project

Environmental & Social Responsibility Observatory (ESRO)

Technical Through an online database of real world case studies, UNEP FI, in collaboration with the Ecobanking Project, will soon start showcasing how its Signatories and other financial institutions are successfully managing to align financial and sustainability performance by channelling funds into activities that have a net positive impact – on environment, society and their own bottom line.

General / Cross-sector Organisation Name of initiative Category & delivery

mechanism Brief description Returned

Pro



description forma

International Finance Group (IFC) World Bank Group

A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector A Guide to Biodiversity for the Private Sector: Partnerships: Building Alliances to Address Biodiversity Issues

Technical – Website Technical – Publication

This guide is designed to help companies operating in emerging markets better understand their relationship to biodiversity issues and how they can effectively manage those issues to improve business performance and benefit from biodiversity. To develop and implement an effective, lasting biodiversity strategy, most companies will need to reach out and form relationships with non-governmental organizations, government agencies, local communities, civil society groups, academia, competitors, and other industry sectors. This is true both because few companies have sufficient in-house biodiversity expertise to manage the issue alone and because the public good aspect of biodiversity resources means that collaborative approaches will be the most effective long-term strategies. This guide provides a useful summary.

Biodiversity Neutral Initiative (BNI)

Biodiversity Neutral Initiative (BNI)

Technical – Advisory BNI helps companies assess biodiversity impacts, implement best practices with respect to the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy, and then offset net residual damage to become biodiversity neutral.

EC DG Environment & RSPB Biodiversity Technical Assistance Unit (BTAU) Project

Technical – Market-based incentives

The BTAU project seeks to direct commercial loan funding along with public subsidies to create or develop profitable micro, small and medium enterprises which maintain or enhance biodiversity. Technical Assistance units have been created in Bulgaria, Hungary and Poland to assist the process of development of "Pro-Biodiversity Businesses" in each of these countries. The BTAU project focuses on those areas of nature that have been recognised as high value and that are included in the NATURA2000 network. These include the large majority of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) as defined under the Habitats and Birds Directives.



The British Standards Institution

BS7751 Technical – Certification Scheme

A British standard for specifications for an EMS. It is compatible with EMAS and ISO14001 No specific biodiversity focus although the standard requires an Environmental policy to be in existence and supported by management. Biodiversity can be incorporated into this and the company's EMS.

IUCN & Shell Building Biodiversity Business (2008)

Technical – Publication

This report is the fruit of collaboration between IUCN and Shell International Limited, which aim to identify potential market-based mechanisms and new business opportunities to conserve biodiversity. It represents the results of consultation with more than 60 organisations, including commercial banks and insurance companies, private foundations, multilateral and bilateral aid agencies, NGOs, think-tanks, academics and investment fund managers. Based on in-depth interviews and a detailed literature review, this report provides a snapshot of the biodiversity business landscape. It reviews a range of biodiversity business sectors, assesses what has worked (or not) and why, describes the main constraints and identifies opportunities to expand market-based biodiversity conservation within each sector. The report also reviews the policy frameworks, technical resources and financing mechanisms needed to enable biodiversity businesses to grow, in each case highlighting lessons learned from experience and future opportunities.

Conservation International (CI) - The Center for Environmental Leadership in Business (CELB)

Business & Biodiversity Council IBAP (Initial Biodiversity Assessment and Planning Methodology)

Institutional – Networks/Forum Technical – Advisory

A community of business leaders committed to taking positive environmental actions in their businesses that contribute to the conservation of biodiversity. Benefits to council members include: opportunities for learning and networking; access to business and environment expertise visibility; and acknowledgment of council members’ participation. IBAP methodology helps companies incorporate biodiversity into their risk analysis, decision-making and planning processes from the conceptual phase through the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) to the development of the Environmental



Management Plan (EMP). The IBAP methodology consists of: 1) desktop assessment characterising the project's global and regional biodiversity context and the level of potential biodiversity risks 2) Biological and socio-economic field surveys of the project site 3) A biodiversity action plan that encompasses site specific and regional conservation recommendations for all stakeholders. The IBAP methodology developed out of CI's work with the energy and mining sector and their need to better understand the biodiversity at sites during the earliest stages of project development processes, for example during the exploration stage before a formal environmental and social impact assessment is conducted for the site. This provided the basis for our work with companies on planning new operations and developments in other sectors to inform ESIA processes.

Forest Trends (& Conservation International)

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP)

Discursive – Partnership

The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Program (BBOP) is a partnership of some 40 companies, governments, conservation experts and financial institutions exploring and testing biodiversity offsets. BBOP aims to develop, test and disseminate good practice on biodiversity offsets and to demonstrate, through a portfolio of pilot projects in a range of contexts and industry sectors, that biodiversity offsets can deliver improved and additional conservation and business outcomes than have often resulted in the context of development projects to date that achieve no net loss of biodiversity and where possible a net gain.

Earthwatch Institute, English Nature, Defra

businessandbiodiversity.org The Business & Biodiversity Resource Centre

Technical – Advisory / Website

Website offering advice to business with regards to biodiversity impacts.



University of Cambridge (and leading conservation organisations)

Cambridge Conservation Initiative Cambridge Conservation Initiative - Cambridge Masters in Conservation Leadership Cambridge Conservation Initiative - Shared Challenges Project

Institutional – Partnership Technical – Training Discursive – Project

The Cambridge Conservation Initiative (CCI) is a collaborative partnership created by the University of Cambridge and leading conservation organisations. It represents a critical mass of expertise at the interface of research and education, policy and action for the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystems. Its vision is to secure a sustainable future for biodiversity and humanity through an innovative interdisciplinary partnership of leaders in conservation. Its aim is to inform decision-making by government, industry and civil society in local, national and international contexts. The Cambridge Masters in Conservation Leadership will be launched in 2010 and its outcomes will be twofold: 1) To equip conservation leaders with the strategic skills that they need for effective action by their organisations; 2) To build a networked global community of conservation leaders who will be a force for change. The broad aim of this project is to establish a new and coordinated process across the Cambridge Conservation community to identify and address key and emerging challenges. It is identifying current and newly emerging policy issues most relevant to the scope of the Cambridge Conservation Initiative and promoting new opportunities for collaboration through policy-focused research (and other) partnerships. A set of issues is being explored in depth during the project, through a series of workshops and other activities. A Project Manager post for this project has been funded by the founder organisations for an initial period of two years from April 2008. The project seeks to involve a wide range of staff from the agencies, NGOs and research groups around the Cambridge area, and representatives of key decision-makers. The project is steered by an Advisory Group comprising representatives from the CCI founder organisations and the Cambridge Conservation Forum (CCF).



EMAS Helpdesk is operated by the Federal Environment Agency of Austria on behalf of the European Commission, Environment DG

EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS)

Technical – Certification Scheme

The EU Eco-Management and Audit Scheme is a management tool designed to evaluate, report and improve company environmental performance. There is no specific biodiversity focus, although biodiversity can be incorporated into the EMS and therefore become an indicator of performance.

The Agency for Technical Cooperation (GTZ) on behalf of the Federal Environment Ministry

German business and biodiversity initiative


The aim of this initiative is to involve the private sector more closely in achieving the CBD objectives, through active participation of companies and their organisations in the UN meeting voluntary commitments by companies, consortiums and sectors regarding concrete contributions to the objectives of the Convention. By signing a leadership declaration, industry will be visibly involved in supporting the Convention's objectives. The goal is to win over companies from all sectors to greater commitment and concrete activities. Different sectors require different concepts and approaches and some companies have more experience than others in dealing with biodiversity.

BirdLife International, Conservation International and United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre

IBAT (Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool)

Technical – Advisory When planning new operations and assessing the risks associated with sourcing practices, businesses need accurate biodiversity information at the finest scale possible. The Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) for business is a direct response to this need. For the first time users can access critical biodiversity information at the site level to inform risk assessment procedures for existing and potential operations. IBAT can also be used to take into account conservation priority areas when designing national development agendas.



International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA - Biodiversity Section)

Biodiversity in Impact Assessment

Technical / Advisory

These principles are intended to promote ‘biodiversity-inclusive’ impact assessment (IA), including Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for projects and strategic environmental assessment (SEA) for policies, plans and programs. They should help practitioners to integrate biodiversity in IA, decision-makers to commission and review IAs, and other stakeholders to ensure their biodiversity interests are addressed in development planning. The principles build on work carried out by IAIA’s Biodiversity and Ecology Section to support the work of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) and other biodiversity related Conventions (the Conventions on Wetlands (Ramsar) and Migratory Species (CMS)) and to strengthen IA as a tool for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

Capacity Building for Biodiversity-inclusive Impact Assessment (CBBIA)

Technical / Financial / Policy – Project

IAIA is running a program of Capacity Building for Biodiversity and Impact Assessment (CBBIA) funded by the Dutch Government and guided by a Steering Committee with representation from the CBD and Ramsar. The aim of the project is to strengthen EIA and SEA as tools to ensure that biodiversity, and its role in providing ecosystem services, alleviating poverty and meeting the Millennium Development Goals is recognised as a fundamental issue in the planning, assessment and execution of projects and plans in developing countries. The project set out to develop capacity amongst stakeholders in a number of regions, particularly southern Africa, south and south-east Asia, Central America and the Small Island Developing States. The project also operates a small grant scheme to support capacity building efforts at grass-roots level in countries outside these focal regions. A range of capacity building activities developed around the theme of biodiversity-inclusive impact assessment. Focal regions in Southern Africa, S/SE Asia and Latin America. Several country activities supported through a small grant scheme. Training provided through the International Association for Impact Assessment at annual international conferences and regionally on demand.



Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management (IEEM)

Guidelines for Ecological Impact Assessment (EcIA)

Technical – Advisory

These Guidelines provide a recommended procedure for the ecological component of Environmental Impact Assessment. The Guidelines set new standards for the assessment of the ecological impact of projects and plans, so as to improve the consideration of the needs of biodiversity and thereby reduce the impacts of any development. They can also be used, for example, to provide environmental information to accompany an application for a consent, to guide a development brief or to inform a management plan. The Guidelines are intended for ecologists, developers, planners, local and national planning authorities, environmental managers, statutory organisations, NGOs or for local groups.

Fondation pour la recherche sur la biodiversite (FRB) & Orée - Institut Français de la Biodiversité Working Group Orée - Institut Français de la Biodiversité Working Group

Integrating Biodiversity into business strategies: The Biodiversity Accountability Framework Business & Biodiversity Interdepenence Indicator (BBII)

Technical –Publication Technical –Voluntary Measure

Reconciling economic activity with biodiversity calls for a twofold initiative: firstly encouraging businesses to take action and secondly creating new methods for them to do so. Integrating biodiversity into business strategies is designed to meet this dual need. The research performed by the Orée-Institut français de la biodiversité Working Group has confirmed that biodiversity determines the development of a great number of enterprises. Self-assessments, through the application of the Business and Biodiversity Interdependence Indicator, present the self-perceptions of a range of businesses and local governments relative to their interdependence with biodiversity. These self-perceptions underline the fact that the economy as a whole interacts directly and indirectly with living systems. A self-assessment multi-criteria indicator which helps business assess its interdependence with biodiversity. Developed in 2007 by Orée - Institut Français de la Biodiversité Working Group, which included scientists and about 25 companies. There are 5 groups of criteria and 23 criteria all looking at a specific business - biodiversity interface. The indicator may be used by any business unit, subsidiary etc. There is no information available yet regarding its use outside the Working Group since its publication. Businesses which have used the BBII are mainly French Companies.



They mainly operate in France; some worldwide. Methodology published.

BSI Group ISO14001 Technical – Certification Scheme

International standard of the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) which provides guidance on and verification of Environment Management Systems (EMS). Does not contain specific biodiversity criteria or focus, relying on the identification of biodiversity as a significant aspect of a company's impact.

IUCN Developing Biodiversity Business Assessment Tools Part of the Solution – Business, Biodiversity and Sustainable Development: A Strategy for Enhancing IUCN’s Interaction with the Private Sector (2004) Operational Guidelines for Private Sector Engagement: Business & Biodiversity Programme (2007)

Technical – Publication Technical – Strategy Technical – Publication

Publication summary: Private sector activities can contribute to biodiversity conservation. It is a case of having the correct tools to identify the problems and resolve by using biodiversity business investment. This strategy has been developed in response to IUCN Council Decision C/58/41, which requested the Director General to develop a ‘transparent, measured, and thoughtful strategy for engagement with the private sector’. The existing Guidelines for IUCN Engagement with the Private Sector, approved by the IUCN Council in 1999, provide a basic framework for collaboration with business (see Annex 1). However, additional guidance is needed to implement this framework. The present document sets out a strategy to support IUCN’s engagement with business during the next inter-sessional period (2005 - 2008) and beyond. This strategy seeks to facilitate and encourage interaction between IUCN and the private sector, based on clear principles and priorities, while minimising unnecessary restrictions or structural changes that would undermine the ability of IUCN to achieve its mission. In 2004, drawing on its diverse experience, IUCN developed a Strategy for Enhancing IUCN Interaction with the Private Sector, which seeks to provide an overall framework for collaboration with business. Resolutions 3.060 and 3.061, adopted at the 3rd IUCN World Conservation Congress (Bangkok, November 2004), provided further direction on IUCN's private sector engagement, including a request that guidelines



be developed. The current document is a response to this request. It draws on the findings and recommendations of a survey of existing guidelines for not-for-profit / private sector interaction carried out August-December 2005. It also benefits from the report on IUCN engagement with the private sector over the years 2001-2005 (prepared January-March 2006). The extensive consultation on the draft Guidelines (February-March 2006) resulted in many improvements in the Guidelines. However, the core structure of the Guidelines has been maintained to ensure conformity with the Private Sector Strategy. This is a living document open to further improvements, and will be updated as lessons are learned through field testing.

ENTRUST The Landfill Community Fund (LCF)

Technical – Voluntary Measure

This innovative tax credit scheme enables operators of landfill sites to contribute money to enrolled Environmental Bodies (EBs) to carry out projects that meet environmental objects contained in the Landfill Tax Regulations. All landfill in the UK is taxed. Instead of paying tax to government, however, companies have the option of investing a percentage of that tax payment into environmental projects. This way they have control over where the money goes. ENTRUST is the LCF regulator.

UNDP & GEF Local Business for Global Biodiversity Conservation: Improving the Design of Small Business Development Strategies in Biodiversity Projects (2003)

Technical – Publication Guidebook to conservation planners, policy makers and practitioners to assist them in improving strategies for the conservation of globally important biodiversity. The guidebook is specifically targeted to stakeholders designing small business development strategies within biodiversity conservation and sustainable use projects to be co-financed by the Global Environment Facility. The guidebook provides guidance for conservation planners and project designers to: assess the role of small business development in biodiversity conservation; determine if a small business could be socially, economically and environmentally viable and sustainable; and incorporate into project or strategy design, issues important to small business development.



UNDP Biodiversity Global Programme: Mainstreaming Biodiversity into the Economic Sector Governance Systems and Product Supply Chains

Technical – Advisory A ‘primer guide’ for mainstreaming production landscapes will provide decision-makers with a framework of analysis to define the costs, benefits and tradeoffs inherent in pursuing production in areas of high biodiversity facilitated informed decision making. Also a set of decision making tools for supply chain transformation to address biodiversity management and economic development. Has yet to be created. In the starting process of development.

London Wildlife Trust Wildlife and Business Institutional – Network / Forum

London’s businesses have a key role to play in the future of nature and the environment, both locally and globally. Forging relationships with the business community is essential to the Trust’s vision for London. Activities include:

• Employee volunteering • Corporate membership • Long term partnerships with London’s

business community • Case studies (Garden in a Skip was conceived

as a part of a campaign to raise awareness that a huge area of London’s gardens are being lost)

• Venue hire

UN The UN Global Compact Technical – Voluntary Measure / Participatory Scheme

The UN Global Compact is a strategic policy initiative for businesses that are committed to aligning their operations and strategies with ten universally accepted principles in the areas of human rights, labour, environment and anti-corruption. By doing so, business, as a primary agent driving globalisation, can help ensure that markets, commerce, technology and finance advance in ways that benefit economies and societies everywhere. Over 4700 corporate participants and stakeholders from over 130 countries. A leadership platform, endorsed by Chief Executive Officers, and offering a unique strategic platform for participants to advance their commitments to sustainability and corporate citizenship. Structured as a public-private initiative, the Global Compact is policy framework for the development, implementation, and



disclosure of sustainability principles and practices and offering participants a wide spectrum of specialised work streams, management tools and resources, and topical programs and projects.

WBCSD WRI, WBCSD & the Meridian Institute

Business Role Workstream Connecting the Dots - The Nexus Between Business and Ecosystems The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review - Guidelines for Identifying Business Risks and Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change (March 2008)

Institutional – Network / Forum Technical – Training Technical – Publication

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) is a CEO-led, global association of some 200 companies dealing exclusively with business and sustainable development. The Council provides a platform for companies to explore sustainable development, share knowledge, experiences and best practices, and to advocate business positions on these issues in a variety of forums, working with governments, non-governmental and intergovernmental organisations. Members are drawn from more than 35 countries and 20 major industrial sectors. The Council also benefits from a global network of about 55 national and regional business councils and regional partners. This PowerPoint presentation builds on past and present work of the WBCSD's Ecosystems Focus Area, as well as on information generated by The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the World Resources Institute. It aims to raise awareness around the links and relationships between business and ecosystems. The presentation is structured in modules, which can be used independently or together. The target audience is WBCSD member companies and the broader business community, and anyone else interested in learning more about the nexus between business and ecosystems. The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) consists of a structured methodology that helps managers proactively develop strategies to manage business risks and opportunities arising from their company’s dependence and impact on ecosystems. It is a tool for strategy development, not just for environmental assessment. Businesses can either conduct an Ecosystem Services Review as a stand-



alone process or integrate it into their existing environmental management systems. In both cases, the methodology can complement and augment the environmental due diligence tools companies already use. The Ecosystem Services Review can provide value to businesses in industries that directly interact with ecosystems such as agriculture, beverages, water services, forestry, electricity, oil, gas, mining, and tourism. It is also relevant to sectors such as general retail, healthcare, consulting, financial services, and others to the degree that their suppliers or customers interact directly with ecosystems. General retailers, for example, may face reputational or market risks if some of their suppliers are responsible for degrading ecosystems and the services they provide.

Earthwatch Institute, IUCN, WBCSD, WRI

Business and Ecosystems - Ecosystem Challenges and Business Implications (November 2006) Business & Biodiversity: A Handbook for Corporate Action (July 2002)

Technical – Publication Technical – Publication

Ecosystem Challenges and Business Implications warns that companies must transform business models and operations if they are to avoid major economic losses caused by the current degradation of ecosystems and the vital services they provide. Produced by Earthwatch Institute (Europe), the World Conservation Union (IUCN), the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), and the World Resources Institute (WRI), this publication is based on global scientific facts and projections from the UN's multi-year Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and interviews with a range of business leaders to assess the implications and strategies needed to respond to environmental challenges. The research indicates that many companies recognise the risks associated with degrading ecosystems and are trying to adapt accordingly, but most fail to associate healthy ecosystems with their business interests. A collective business response is therefore needed to address the scale of environmental change currently taking place. The handbook provides information on the business case for biodiversity, as well as current biodiversity issues for business, corporate biodiversity strategies and key biodiversity resources. This report argues that



WBCSD & IUCN

Business and Biodiversity: A Guide for the Private Sector (1997) Business and Ecosystems. Markets for Ecosystem Services – New Challenges and Opportunities for Business and the Environment. A Perspective (2007)

Technical – Publication Technical – Publication

biodiversity can be associated with good environmental, economic, and social performance. These elements are consistent with the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity: conservation, sustainable use and equitable sharing of benefits. The status of the debate is illustrated by specific case stories, thus providing an opportunity for WBCSD members and other companies to highlight their renewed commitment to an issue of high importance to business and other groups. This guide has been devised specifically to represent business interests, to tell business people how to become more engaged in implementing the Convention, and to encourage the private sector to contribute its valuable experience to the process under way. To achieve this, the guide proposes a medium-term work program for business. The information in this guide is both theoretical and practical and has beendesigned to be as relevant to the chief executive officer as it is to corporate or environmental affairs managers or local site managers. At the same time, it also servesas an introduction for conservationists to the way business manages biodiversity. The report argues that the opportunities provided through the Convention will help businesses to work more closely with conservation organizations – to their mutual benefit. However, for such partnerships to develop successfully, business people must have a clear understanding of the implications of the Convention. The report shows how at a fundamental level, all economies and businesses depend directly or indirectly on the conservation of biodiversity and the sustainable supply of ecosystem services. The perspective paper is intended for both the business and conservation communities, in an effort to establish a shared vision of market-based approaches to nature conservation. The report seeks to demonstrate that market mechanisms are a powerful complement to existing strategies for conserving ecosystems. Market-based instruments can achieve some environmental objectives at lower



economic cost than conventional approaches, such as uniform pollution standards or technology mandates. Three categories of market mechanisms – that can be voluntary or mandatory – are described: direct payments, tradable permits and certification.

UNEP-WCMC and the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas

The World Database on Protected Areas


The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), a joint project by UNEP-WCMC and the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas, is the only global dataset on protected areas. The private sector uses the WDPA to make better informed decisions on where and how to operate. The WDPA supports corporate decision-making by informing risk assessment procedures for existing and potential operations. It helps extractive and other industries in their project planning and allows them to consider alternative approaches or locations early on in the planning process. The WDPA also informs the practical implementation of environmental safeguard policies of several major development and investment banks and businesses.

Middlemarch Environmental, a wildlife trust consultancy (UK)

The Wildlife Trusts’ Biodiversity Benchmark

Technical – Certification Scheme

The Biodiversity Benchmark is the first award to recognise continual biodiversity improvement. Started as an initiative of a local Wildlife Trust, it was later adopted modified and strenghtened as a national certification programme. The Benchmark is a management process which enables any organisation which owns or manages land to assess its impact on the natural world, improve its contribution to the environment and demonstrate its commitment to biodiversity. The Biodiversity Benchmark is flexible and adaptable so it can be applied to any organisation with land, from commercial enterprises and industries, to local authorities, utilities, the NHS, developers, charities, hotels and recreational/tourism facilities.



Appendix 3 – Data Capture Form

Business mechanisms for biodiversity – data capture form The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has commissioned Scott Wilson and its partners to provide a comprehensive picture of the currently available tools and methodologies to assist business across key sectors in managing their biodiversity impacts and identifying opportunities associated with biodiversity.

Several mechanisms (tools and initiatives) have been identified for further investigation. In order to support this important workstream, please help us by providing additional information regarding the description and effectiveness of the initiative/tool below. If there are any other tools or initiatives that you think should be identified in this project, please provide a brief description at the end of this form.

Description of mechanism

Name of mechanism

Geographic scope

Please provide an indication of the primary geographic use of this mechanism

Global European National

Comments:

Business sector

Which business sector does this mechanism operate within? (if more than one, please indicate)

Construction & Building Mining Forestry and Paper

Utilities Oil and Gas Food Processors & Producers

Retail Leisure & Hotels Investment, Insurance and Banking

Other (please state below): Cross-sector

Type/category of mechanism

Please indicate the category that the mechanism falls within

Technical Institutional Financial

Discursive Philanthropic Policy

Other (please state):

Delivery mechanism

How would you best describe the delivery mechanism of the initiative? (e.g. as a publication, certification scheme etc). Please indicate more than one if necessary

Publication Certification Scheme Policy Tool

Checklist Control and Regulation Networks and Forums

Partnership Company Best Practice Workshops

Critical friend Participatory Scheme Voluntary Measure

Advisory Awards Project

Market-based incentives

Other (please state):

Description of mechanism

Please provide a brief description of the mechanism

History of mechanism

Please provide any information relating to the history of the mechanism (e.g. when, where and how it began)

Contact details

Can you provide any contact details for the mechanism? (e.g. website, person)

Governance

Who controls and manages this mechanism? (e.g. specific auditors or awarding body)

Effectiveness of mechanism

Biodiversity Focus

Please indicate how you would rank the extent of biodiversity focus within the mechanism

Complete focus Extensive focus Moderate focus Limited focus

Any comments on the reasoning behind your ranking?

Business size / Users of mechanism

Please provide an indication of the business scale applicable for this mechanism

Multi-national corporation SME Other (please state below)


If applicable, can you provide an indication of mechanism ‘reach’ within the business community? e.g. the extent to which it might / does cascade down the supply chain?

Cost and Funding

Please provide an indication of mechanism cost (state £, $ or €) and how it is funded

Timescale

If applicable, please provide an indication of mechanism timescale

Communicability

Please provide an indication of how easily this mechanism is disseminated within the business sector(s)

Universally recognized Some recognition Limited recognition

Any further comments on communicability:

Frequency of use

How much use is made of the mechanism within the business?

Used by all Widely used Used by some

Limited/no uptake Not ready for use

Any further comments on frequency of use:

Usefulness

Please provide an indication of the usefulness of the mechanism (e.g. in terms of protecting biodiversity and influencing business)

Very useful Moderately useful Limited usefulness

Any further comments on usefulness and usability:


Please provide an indication of the user-friendliness and ease of execution of the mechanism

Simple Moderately user-friendly Complicated

Any further comments on ease of execution and usability:

Monitoring

Is the mechanism monitored in any way in terms of implementation and / or ultimate impact on biodiversity? Are there any indicators for this mechanism? If so, please provide details

Monitoring Indicators

Additional recommended mechanisms

If there are any mechanisms (initiatives/tools) that you think should be identified in this project, please provide a brief description below

Thank you for your time. Please email the completed form(s) to [email protected]

If you have any further questions or comments regarding this project please contact: Liz Clarke or Rowan Secrett

Policy and Strategic Assessment Scott Wilson Ltd.

6 – 8 Greencoat Place London

SW1P 1PL 02077985000

[email protected] or [email protected]