Business Ecosystems Training U.S. Understanding and Managing the Links between Ecosystem Services and Business Facilitator Notes May 2013.

Business Ecosystems Training U.S. Understanding and Managing the Links between Ecosystem Services and Business Facilitator Notes May 2013

The World Business Council for Sustainable Development

U.S. Business Council for Sustainable Development Regional partner of the WBCSD Mission: show first-hand the benefits sustainable development can provide to a company’s triple bottom line – generating economic returns while improving the environment and society Demonstrates the business value of sustainable development through: Providing the opportunity to participate in authentic sustainability projects with industry, government and other key stakeholders. Offering meaningful business relationships with leaders from diverse industries to develop new working relationships and share the best ideas in sustainability. Enhancing members’ credibility through groundbreaking projects and partnership with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The US BCSD is active throughout the United States, with member facilities in nearly every region.

4 All content is based on WBCSD material and publically available reports. BET curriculum and structure was designed by The structure and content development of BET was governed by an Advisory Committee consisting of WBCSD member companies and Regional Network partners, NGOs, UN and academic institutions. Business Ecosystems Training – Contributors

5 This US customized version of BET was developed by WBCSD and U.S. BCSD, with support from: Business Ecosystems Training US – Contributors

6 BET US - Understanding and Managing the Links between Ecosystem Services and Business Facilitators’ guide: how it works This Facilitators’ guide is set up to provide all the information needed to present the BET US course to a group of participants The contents of the guide are:  Introduction to the course and course timetable  Facilitators' notes Within the Facilitators' notes, there are three different types of information provided. 1)Session overview and timeline Overview of each section and suggested times for delivering the session 2)Facilitators' notes Facilitators' notes – shown on left hand side of each page, these include:  Detailed notes as to how to run the session, including how long to spend on each slide  Background notes  Crib notes for the facilitator to present from

7 BET US - Understanding and Managing the Links between Ecosystem Services and Business Facilitators’ guide: how it works (cont.) 3)Media/activity/handout guidance Media/activity/handout guidance – shown on the right hand side of each page, these include:  A copy of the PowerPoint slide the participants are seeing as you present  Guidelines as to how to run group sessions and exercises Further information For more information about BET, please refer to the BET Implementation Guide  A separate glossary document is provided for this course  A separate Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) document is also provided for this course

8 BET US - Understanding and Managing the Links between Ecosystem Services and Business Introduction to the course Audience The maximum recommended number of participants is 20. All those attending are assumed to have no technical background in ecosystems. The audience may include:  Any business units / functions  Front line employees  Middle management  New participants The course may be conducted course for participants from a same company, or from a number of companies from different sectors. This course will be an opportunity for participants to understand how different companies or departments consider/account for biodiversity and ecosystem services currently. Pre-requisite participants should have completed the 1 hour introduction webinar before joining the course, and understand the key concepts included in the webinar material (biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services) Key Topics Key topics include:  A quick reminder of the concepts of ecosystems, ecosystem services and managing ecosystem services

9 BET US - Understanding and Managing the Links between Ecosystem Services and Business Introduction to the course (cont.) Key topics (cont.)  The global ecosystems challenge and the drivers of change, and  Case studies to illustrate concepts and the business case Learning Objectives The course is designed to enable participants to:  Demonstrate an understanding of the key terms and concepts around biodiversity, ecosystems, ecosystem services, environment and sustainability  Identify the direct and indirect drivers and causes for biodiversity and ecosystem changes and impacts, and the impacts and dependency of companies on ecosystems services  Understand the link between wider sustainability issues and ecosystems services  Describe the business case for managing ecosystems and identify the specific business case for their own company from the perspective of both risk and opportunity  Understand some of the basic regulatory and policy frameworks currently in place as a key driver of change (Module 4 will cover this topic in detail)  Help participants gain knowledge that will help them add value to their organization

10 BET US - Understanding and Managing the Links between Ecosystem Services and Business Introduction to the course (cont.) Participant binders distributed on arrival at the course  All participants should be given the links to course material and references for further research  Additional handouts should be provided throughout the module and these are located in the annex of this pack  The Facilitators Notes should NOT be made available to the participants in soft copy Facilitators  Two facilitators will be used throughout the training. These should include one specialist with a background in environment or sustainability and a member of the training department  Presenting and facilitating will be shared between both facilitators

11 BET US - Understanding and Managing the Links between Ecosystem Services and Business Timetable Time Duration (mins)SessionFacilitator 09:0030Session 1: Icebreaker and introduction 09:3015Session 2: Biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services – reminder of the basics 09:4520Session 3: Introduction to policy trends 10:0530Session 4: Identifying key ecosystem services – activity 10:3525Coffee break 11:0030Session 5: Case study exercise and discussion 11:3020 Session 6: The global ecosystem challenge 11:5030 Session 7: The business case for action 12:2060Lunch break 13:2030 Session 8: Brainstorming the business case – activity (choose one out of three case studies) 13:5060 Session 9: Introduction to the Ecosystem Services Review (incl case study exercise) 14:5040 Session 10: Introduction to valuing ecosystem services (incl. Short exercise) 15:3030Coffee break 16:0060 Session 11: Managing and Mitigating impacts 17:0030 Session 12: Wrap up and next steps 17:30 End of the training Please note that the timetable should be customized based on participants’ profile

12 Session 1: Icebreaker and Introduction Time guidelines Time guidelinesTime Icebreaker – activity Introduction – presentation and activity 30 mins Session objective To allow the participants to be introduced to each other. To establish participants’ level of knowledge, skills to be acquired, and identify learners’ needs. Session overview This primary focus of this session should be giving participants a warm welcome and ensuring that they feel at ease. This session allows the course facilitators to introduce themselves and give participants an overview of their career history. participants can also introduce themselves to each other as part of an icebreaker exercise. It also explains the structure, content and objectives of the course. Session format This session will be run by the two course facilitators – it is your opportunity to make the participants feel welcome and at ease and to start interactions with other course participants. Handouts participants course material desk pack – hardcopies will be laid out on participant desks in advance of their arrival at the course. This pack contains copies of all of the slides used throughout this course together with relevant handout materials required for each session.

13 Session 1: Icebreaker and Introduction Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 1: <1 minute Welcome participants to the BET course Slide 2: 1 minute Briefly introduce the WBCSD The WBCSD is a CEO-led organization of forward-thinking companies that galvanizes the global business community to create a sustainable future for business, society and the environment. Together with its members, the council applies its respected thought leadership and effective advocacy to generate constructive solutions and take shared action. The Council provides a forum for its 200 member companies - who represent all business sectors, all continents and combined revenue of over $US 7 trillion - to share best practices on sustainable development issues and to develop innovative tools that change the status quo. The Council also benefits from a network of 60 national and regional business councils and partner organizations, a majority of which are based in developing countries. By thinking ahead, advocating for progress and delivering results, the WBCSD both increases the impact of our members’ individual actions and catalyzes collective action that can change the future of our society for the better. Slide 3: 1 minute Introduce US BCSD as a regional network partner of WBCSD. With over 60 member companies, the US BCSD demonstrates the business value of sustainability through collaborative projects. Our successes are measured in reduced carbon emissions, energy conservation, material diversion and reuse, water conservation, job creation, cost savings and new revenue created. Slide 4: 1 minute Tell participants that the course has been developed by the WBCSD in collaboration with KPMG and an advisory committee made up of several WBCSD member companies, Regional Network partners, academic and UN institutions and NGOs. Slide 5: 1 minute Tell participants that the US customized version of BET was developed by WBCSD and U.S. BCSD, with support from Greenopia, Pillsbury, Portland State University, San Francisco State University and Virginia Tech

14 Session 1: Icebreaker and Introduction Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 6-7: 15 minutes (depending on number of participants) Tell participants that, since you will be working together closely for the rest of the day, you would like to start the course by providing them with an opportunity to quickly learn more about each other. This session is to be run by both facilitators, with both taking part in the icebreaker and introducing themselves. Facilitator will put participants into pairs, who are then given 5 minutes to discuss the following three questions:  Current scope of work  Knowledge of ecosystems and biodiversity; and  What they want out of the course Participants then report back to the group, introducing their partner using the information they have learned. Instructions: The facilitator will take notes of expectations and specific learning objectives, including indicators/measures on a flip chart. This will be referenced throughout the day and items checked off. It could also be referred back to at the end of the day ensuring that the training has addressed the expectations and needs of the participants.

15 Session 1: Icebreaker and Introduction Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 8- 10: 3 minutes Instructions Slides 8-9 The facilitator will briefly go through the objectives and the summary objectives for the session and the sections that will be covered in this training module. Facilitator to provide the linkage between the learning objectives (reported by the participants in the icebreaker) and the objectives for the course. Facilitator to offer participants opportunity to ask questions if wanting to check whether a particular topic is covered. Instructions Slide 10 The facilitator will briefly go through the agenda for the session and the sections that will be covered in this training module. The facilitator will leave the course timetable displayed throughout the course as a poster.

16 Session 1: Icebreaker and Introduction Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 11: 3 minutes movie + 4 minute group discussion Source: University of Minnesota, Institute on the Environment: https://www.youtube.com/embed/TartoYpK1yI Awareness material – 3 minutes The facilitator will play a short film on the value of nature.  Description: the film shows the different services that nature provides and gives 3 recommendations about how to factor in nature’s real worth. [Interactive - 4 minute group discussion] Discussion of the material, participants will be asked to provide comments on the film clip to the facilitator. Key questions to be asked by the facilitator should cover: 1.How fast are we losing natural resources? 2.Why should we be worried if we keep losing these resources at present rate? 3.How do we benefit from ecosystems? (name as many as you can) 4.How can we value nature and its ecosystems? The facilitator will gather the main points on flip chart from the discussion that will set the context of the training.

17 Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 12: 1 minute Instructions: Facilitator to talk through these company quotes as examples of how companies are responding to sustainability issues. [Customize Slide: Facilitator to customize the example based on participants’ sector of activity ] Session 1: Icebreaker and Introduction

18 Session 2: Biodiversity, ecosystems and ecosystem services – reminder of the basics Time guidelines Time guidelinesTime Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services – presentation and activity. 15 mins Session objective Remind participants of the key concepts that will be the base-language for the rest of the course. Session overview The primary focus of this session will be to provide participants with the base language and terminology they will use for all the modules. It will allow participants to clarify and strengthen previous knowledge. It also aims to raise awareness of the importance of ecosystem services and the benefits they provide. Session format This session consist in a presentation of the key concepts and definitions.

19 Session 2: Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services – the basics Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 13 & 14: 3 minutes Sources: Slide 9 Connecting the dots (2005), WBCSD http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=23&n osearchcontextkey=true (link to connecting the dots at the bottom of the page). Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (2008) WBCSD [online]. [Accessed 2 August 2011]. Available from: http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=28&n osearchcontextkey=true Instructions: Facilitator to talk through the following: Ecosystems provide businesses—as well as people and communities— with a wide range of goods and services. For example, forests supply timber and wood fibre, regulate climate by absorbing carbon dioxide, and yield genetic resources for medicines. Coral reefs attract tourists, serve as nurseries for commercial fish species, and protect properties along coastlines from storm surges. Wetlands absorb waste, help reduce floods, and purify water. These and other benefits from nature are known as “ecosystem services”. Facilitator to talk through the following definitions: Biodiversity is the variability among living organisms within species, between species, and between ecosystems. It is this genetic variability (phenotype, genotype and environment) which gives organisms within ecosystems the ability to respond to stress. By having a range of organisms adapted to thrive in different circumstances, the ecosystem is more resilient. An Ecosystem is a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and micro- organism communities and their nonliving environment interacting as a functional unit. NOTE this is similar to the structure of a company i.e., each specific unit within a company has their own function e.g. IT, finance, sales and so on. The loss of any one of these functions may compromise the ability of a company to function, just as the loss of a species may compromise the ability of an ecosystem to function. Examples of ecosystems include: freshwater deserts, coral reefs, wetlands, rain forests, boreal forests, grasslands, urban parks, and cultivated farmlands. Ecosystems can be relatively undisturbed by people, such as virgin rain forests, or can be modified by human activity, such as farms. Ecosystem services — The concept of an ecosystem provides a valuable framework for analyzing and acting on the linkages between people and the environment. Sometimes called “environmental services” or “ecological services”, ecosystem services are the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems. Examples include freshwater, timber, climate regulation, protection from natural hazards, erosion control, and recreation. The ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way.

20 Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 15: 2 minutes Sources: Slide 10 Connecting the dots (2005), WBCSD http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=23&n osearchcontextkey=true (link to connecting the dots at the bottom of the page). Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (2008) WBCSD [online]. [Accessed 2 August 2011]. Available from: http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=28&n osearchcontextkey=true Instructions: Facilitator to introduce the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, alongside the different categories of ecosystem services. The facilitator should emphasize that not everyone agrees with Millennium Ecosystem Assessment classification and that some academics have taken the analysis further. However the WBCSD find that this approach is suitable for a business audience. Background: The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) sheds light on the importance of ecosystem services for human well-being and business development. The Assessment was a four-year international audit of ecosystems that involved more than 1,360 scientists, economists, business professionals, and other experts from 95 countries. Its findings provide the first state-of-the-art scientific evaluation of the condition and trends in the world’s ecosystems and the services they provide, as well as the scientific basis for action to conserve and use them sustainably. The MA defined an ecosystem services framework consisting of four categories of services:  Provisioning services: The goods or products obtained from ecosystems such as food, freshwater, timber, and fiber.  Regulating services: The benefits obtained from an ecosystem’s control of natural processes such as climate, disease, erosion, water flows, and pollination, as well as protection from natural hazards.  Cultural services: The nonmaterial benefits obtained from ecosystems such as recreation, spiritual values, and aesthetic enjoyment.  Supporting services: The natural processes such as nutrient cycling and primary production that maintain the other services. Session 2: Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services – the basics (cont.)

21 Session 2: Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services – the basics (cont.) Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 16: 2 minutes Sources: Markets for ecosystem services: New challenges and opportunities (2007), WBCSD http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=27 &NoSearchContextKey=true TEEB. Economic and Ecological Foundations (D0). http://www.teebweb.org/EcologicalandEconomicFoundation/tabid/1018/D efault.aspx Instructions: Facilitator to talk through how biodiversity underpins all Ecosystem Services Facilitator to step through the links between biodiversity and one example of an ecosystem service at each level provided within the table on the slide (i.e. Ecosystem level, species level and gene level).

22 Session 2: Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services – the basics (cont.) Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 17: 2 minutes Sources: Slide 35 Connecting the dots (2005), WBCSD http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=23&n osearchcontextkey=true (link to connecting the dots at the bottom of the page). Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis [online]. Available from: http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf Instructions: Present and explain to the group the conceptual framework developed by the MA. Suggest the following: “We can see that the MA’s framework illustrates the links between each of the service types and their links to each other”, these concepts are similar to the linking concepts demonstrated in the last two sets of slides. The framework shows a direct link between ecosystems, the services they provide and human wellbeing. There are therefore a number of societal links to ecosystem services. This becomes more marked in areas where communities rely on ES directly e.g. substance fishing and so on. Social impacts are covered in more detail in Module 2.

23 Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 18: 2 minutes Sources: Slide 11 Connecting the dots (2005), WBCSD http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=23&n osearchcontextkey=true (link to connecting the dots at the bottom of the page) Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis [online]. Available from: http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf Instructions: Facilitator to talk through the following:  Every company will be able to find themselves operating somewhere in the ecosystem landscape and hence have an impact (positive or negative) or depend on a number of ecosystem services.  This slide shows the different sorts of ecosystem service available from different habitat types. Background (facilitator to read and provide examples or draw on specific points as necessary). Types of ecosystem services provided by different ecosystems. Different combinations of services are provided to humans from the ecosystems represented here. Their ability to deliver the services depends on complex biological, chemical, and physical interactions, which are in turn affected by human activities. Beneficiaries Beneficiaries of these services can be at the local, regional, and/or global scale and may include future generations. For instance, a forest may provide local people with wild food, natural fibers, and fuel wood. At a regional level, it may prevent landslides, filter water, and offer recreation for inhabitants of a nearby city. At a global level, this forest may sequester carbon dioxide—helping to regulate greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere—and be the home of a rare plant with pharmaceutical properties that benefit people around the world. Slide 19: 2 minutes [Optional slide: Company to add own customized ecosystem landscape and to talk through as for the general example in the previous slide] Session 2: Biodiversity, Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services – the basics (cont.)

24 Session 3: Introduction to Policy Trends Time guidelines Time guidelinesTime Introduction to broader policy trends and examples of regulations 20 mins Session objective To give participants a simple overview of the process of addressing global environmental concerns. Session overview The session will be presentation based. The session will use the examples of international conventions to walk through how decisions from an international perspective can filter through to impact on companies. Session format This session will be run by one course facilitator, who will talk through key concepts with participants.

25 Session 3 Introduction to policy trends Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 21: <1 minute In this session, trainees will be introduced to the policy background, general trends and processes by which issues are passed into legislation (and thus impact on businesses), with specific regard to biodiversity and ecosystem based policies. Slide 22: 2 minutes Long history of environmental policy a) Option: ask participants to guess the year the UK introduced environmental restrictions relating to fresh water– 1388 UK water pollution restrictions. This was one of the earliest environmental restrictions outlawing the dumping of animal waste, dung or litter in to rivers. Please refer to: http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=108 http://www.environmentlaw.org.uk/rte.asp?id=108 b)1969 US National Environmental Policy Act The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of the nation’s premier expressions of environmental goals, requires each federal agency to study the effects of any major actions it carries out, funds, or authorizes and to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on its published report of the study, known as an environmental impact statement (EIS). (Ruhr 2006, p19) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires all federal agencies to give consideration to environmental effects in planning all programs. Brundtland Report (1987): original Source: United Nations, http://www.un.org/esa/sustdev/csd/csd15/media/backgrounder_brundtlan d.pdf Updated 20 years on, the Brundtland Report defined sustainable development and called for increased international cooperation. Conventions, treaties, protocols, agreements… Over 250 multilateral environmental agreements exist – the slide after shows just a few as examples. The Earth Summit (1992) – start of ‘The Rio Process’ Source: United Nations, http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html

26 Session 3 Introduction to policy trends Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 23-29: 5 minutes Instructions: Facilitator to show some of the policies that have been put in place since the Rio Earth Summit. Facilitator to chose either ozone, CITES or the CBD as examples of a policy trend moving from issue recognition to mitigation, depending on the audience. The following slides provide background notes for both options. Note: though the following facilitator notes begin with Issue Recognition and move forwards through to Mitigation, the animation in the main presentation slides begin with Mitigation and moves backwards through to Issue Recognition. The facilitator should choose which direction they feel is more appropriate. Option 1: Ozone Source: UNEP, The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, Progress Report 1987-2007, http://ozone.unep.org/Publications/MP_Acheivements-E.pdf Issue recognition: “In 1974, scientists discovered that emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)were depleting ozone in the stratosphere. CFCs were a common aerosol propellant in spray cans and were also used as refrigerants, solvents, and foam-blowing agents. In the 1980s, scientists observed a thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica, and people began thinking of it as an “ozone hole.” Additional research has shown that ozone depletion occurs over every continent.” International response: “As our scientific knowledge about ozone depletion grew, so too did the response to the issue. In 1987, leaders from many countries came together to sign a landmark environmental treaty, the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer. Today, more than 190 Parties have ratified the treaty. These countries are committed to taking action to reduce the production and use of CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances to protect the ozone layer.” National response: In 1989, all developed countries that are parties to the Montreal Protocol freeze production and consumption of CFCs at 1986 levels. All developing countries that are parties to the Montreal Protocol were scheduled to begin phase-out of CFCs, halons and carbon Tetrachloride by 2010. Impact on industry: CFCs were key components of products such as aerosols and polystyrenes, and were used in cleaning and industrial processes and for refrigeration and air-conditioning. Companies had to develop innovative solutions to reduce the use of these chemicals. For example: in 1993, DuPont committed to phasing out CFCs by the end of 1994. Mitigation: The ozone layer has shown signs of recovery, in line with reduced CFC emissions, and some projections estimate it may return to pre-1980s levels by 2050-2075.

27 Session 3 Introduction to policy trends Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 23-29: 5 minutes Option 2: CITES Sources: CITES, http://www.cites.org/ Issue recognition: “Widespread information nowadays about the endangered status of many prominent species, such as the tiger and elephants, might make the need for such a convention seem obvious. But at the time when the ideas for CITES were first formed, in the 1960s, international discussion of the regulation of wildlife trade for conservation purposes was something relatively new. With hindsight, the need for CITES is clear. Annually, international wildlife trade is estimated to be worth billions of dollars and to include hundreds of millions of plant and animal specimens. “ International response: “CITES was drafted as a result of a resolution adopted in 1963 at a meeting of members of IUCN (The International Union for the Conservation of Nature). The text of the Convention was finally agreed at a meeting of representatives of 80 countries in Washington DC., United States of America, on 3 March 1973, and on 1 July 1975 CITES entered in force.” Countries (states) enter into the agreement voluntarily. National response: Signatory states translate the agreement into national laws. CITES subjects international trade in specimens of selected species to import, export and re-export controls. The species covered by CITES are listed according to the degree of protection they need, covering over 30,000 species of animal and plant. Impact on industry: two examples relating to the industry Pharmaceutical industry - Prunus Africana: A unique African plant species with a wide range of benefits to local people, including medicinal. It came under pressure after it began being used as a medicine for commercial purposes. Under CITES, governments in range countries effectively fostered implementation of management plans for sustainable harvesting and population monitoring – Source: CITES, http://www.cites.org/common/prog/african-cherry/11- CUNNINGHAM.pdf Fashion industry - Crocodiles and alligators: all species of the order Crocodylia are protected by CITES. Crocodilian leather has been a desirable commodity for many years, and has been under increasing pressure from increases in technology. Whilst some commercial ranch- farmed products are produced sustainably, with little impact on wild populations, some species are prohibited from trade due to population numbers being unable support any trade levels – Source: CITES, http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/about- doc/role/international/cites-crocs.pdf Mitigation: Management and monitoring of plant and animal trade is an ongoing issue that requires continued international-level attention.

28 Session 3 Introduction to policy trends (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 23-29: 5 minutes Option 3: Convention on Biological Diversity Source: United Nations, http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/envirp2.html Introduction to the Convention on Biological Diversity Instructions: Facilitator to refer to source and broadly present the CBD and its 3 objectives – briefly mentioning the Aichi targets (this will be further developed in later Modules). The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) states that the ecosystem approach is a strategy for the integrated management of land, water, and living resources that promotes conservation and sustainable use in an equitable way. This approach recognizes that humans, with their cultural diversity, are an integral component of many ecosystems. In order to implement the ecosystem approach, decision-makers need to understand the multiple effects on an ecosystem of any management or policy change. By way of analogy, decision-makers would not make a decision about financial policy in a country without examining the condition of the economic system, since information on the economy of a single sector such as manufacturing would be insufficient. The same need to examine the consequences of changes for multiple sectors applies to ecosystems. For instance, subsidies for fertilizer use may increase food production, but sound decisions also require information on whether the potential reduction in the harvests of downstream fisheries as a result of water quality degradation from the fertilizer runoff might outweigh those benefits. Issue recognition: heightened concern over damage / loss of species and ecosystems (1970s) Aichi targets: “The Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, in 2010 in Nagoya, Japan, adopted the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011- 2020 with the purpose of inspiring broad-based action in support of biodiversity over the next decade by all countries and stakeholders. In recognition of the urgent need for action the United Nations General Assembly has also declared 2011-2020 as the United Nations Decade for Biodiversity. The Strategic Plan is comprised of a shared vision, a mission, strategic goals and 20 ambitious yet achievable targets, collectively known as the Aichi Targets. The Strategic Plan serves as a flexible framework for the establishment of national and regional targets and it promotes the coherent and effective implementation of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity” For a full definition of the Aichi targets refer to http://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/2011-2020/Aichi-Targets-EN.pdf

29 Session 3 Introduction to policy trends (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 23-29: 5 minutes Instructions: Facilitator to describe 2 of the targets as an example Background: International response: Convention on Biological Diversity established at UN ‘Earth Summit’ (Rio 1992); the 10th Conference of the Parties (COP10) in Nagoya in October 2010 set out the strategic goals, and the headline Aichi targets which include: Target 2 – biodiversity values integrated into planning processes, national accounting, and reporting systems Target 3 – phase out of incentives and subsidies negatively impacting biodiversity, and implementation of positive incentives Target 5 – halving rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, and where feasible brought close to zero Target 7 – agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity Target 11 – protection of at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas Target 15 – restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems Examples on national response (facilitator pick one dependant on time) National response: signatories translate these targets into national laws, e.g. EU Biodiversity Action Plan Another potential example: Brazil “Brazil launched a national consultation to develop National Targets for Biodiversity on 8 April 2011. The initiative entitled "Dialogues on Biodiversity: building the Brazilian strategy for 2020" is meant to engage Brazilian society in a process to strengthen the implementation of the agreements reached at the 10th Conference of the Parties on Biological Diversity (CBD CoP-10) which took place in October 2010 in Nagoya, Japan. “ https://www.cbd.int/nbsap/about/targets/ Impact on Industry: innovative solutions; change of business as usual. Mitigation: management and conservation of the impact of human activity on damage or loss of ecosystems / biodiversity is an ongoing issue.

30 Session 3 Introduction to policy trends (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 30: 5 minutes Instructions: Facilitator to go through the list of US specific policies and explain the ones that are specifically relevant to the participants’ sector of activity Background: The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), one of the nation’s premier expressions of environmental goals, requires each federal agency to study the effects of any major actions it carries out, funds, or authorizes and to provide the public an opportunity to review and comment on its published report of the study, known as an environmental impact statement (EIS). Ruhr 2006, pp19 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires all federal agencies to give consideration to environmental effects in planning all programs. http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=4354807 Born in the wake of elevated concern about environmental pollution, EPA was established on December 2, 1970 to consolidate in one agency a variety of federal research, monitoring, standard-setting and enforcement activities to ensure environmental protection. http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/history/ Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers administers a regulatory program that protects waters of the United States, including wetlands. Under this program the Corps has issued “wetland mitigation banking” guidelines that allow a developer intending to eliminate wetlands to compensate for that resource loss by purchasing “credits” from landowners who have created, enhanced, or restored wetland resources in large contiguous blocks. Yet nothing in the guidelines requires the Corps or the parties engaged in the “trade” of wetlands to consider the impact of the transaction on the delivery, location, and possible redistribution of ecosystem service values (Ruhl & Gregg 2001; Ruhl & Salzman 2006). Ruhr 2006, pp20 The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act or CWA) provide the statutory basis for the NPDES permit program and the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants from point sources to waters of the United States. Section 402 of the CWA specifically required EPA to develop and implement the NPDES program. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/cwa.cfm?program_id=45 The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must conduct a cost benefit analysis of the impacts of designating the “critical habitat” of species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Although it has acknowledged that preservation of ecosystem service values is one benefit of protecting critical habitat, the agency has routinely refused to attempt to quantify those values in specific cases where it has proposed critical habitat designations (Millen and Burdett 2005; National Wildlife Federation 2004; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). Ruhr 2006, pp 20 When Congress passed the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1973, it recognized that our rich natural heritage is of “esthetic, ecological, educational, recreational, and scientific value to our Nation and its people.” It further expressed concern that many of our nation’s native plants and animals were in danger of becoming extinct. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/index.html http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/index.html

31 Session 3 Introduction to policy trends (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 30: 5 minutes (cont.) Background: It wasn't until March 3, 1849, the last day of the 30th Congress, that a bill was passed to create the Department of the Interior to take charge of the Nation's internal affairs: http://www.doi.gov/whoweare/history.cfm The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a bureau within the Department of the Interior. Our mission is to work with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. History and Statutory Authority A 1940 reorganization plan (54 Stat. 1232) in the Department of the Interior consolidated the Bureau of Fisheries and the Bureau of Biological Survey into one agency to be known as the Fish and Wildlife Service. The Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife was created as a part of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of the Interior on November 6, 1956, by the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1119). That act was amended on July 1, 1974, by Public Law 93-271 (88 Stat. 92) to, among other purposes, abolish the position of Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife and designate the Bureau as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/help/about_us.htmlDepartment of the Interior.History and Statutory Authority the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act seeks to protect the “remarkable scenic, recreational, geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural, and other similar values” of free-flowing rivers.10 The Endangered Species Act acknowledges that imperiled species “are of esthetic, ecological, educational, historical, recreational, and scientific value to the Nation and its people.”11 The National Wild and Scenic Rivers System was created by Congress in 1968 (Public Law 90-542; 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) to preserve certain rivers with outstanding natural, cultural, and recreational values in a free-flowing condition for the enjoyment of present and future generations. The Act is notable for safeguarding the special character of these rivers, while also recognizing the potential for their appropriate use and development. It encourages river management that crosses political boundaries and promotes public participation in developing goals for river protection. http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/wsr-act.php The country changed in the 1960s, including our treatment of the environment, leading to the Wilderness, Clean Air, Clean Water and National Environmental Policy Acts – and the Wild & Scenic Rivers Act. http://www.rivers.gov/rivers/ Because of The Wilderness Act, Americans have a way to protect their most pristine wildlands for future generations. This 1964 law created the National Wilderness Preservation System, which protects nearly 110 million acres of wilderness areas in states throughout the nation. http://wilderness.org/article/wilderness-act The Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 was the first federal legislation involving air pollution. This Act provided funds for federal research in air pollution. The Clean Air Act of 1963 was the first federal legislation regarding air pollution control. It established a federal program within the U.S. Public Health Service and authorized research into techniques for monitoring and controlling air pollution. In 1967, the Air Quality Act was enacted in order to expand federal government activities. In accordance with this law, enforcement proceedings were initiated in areas subject to interstate air pollution transport. As part of these proceedings, the federal government for the first time conducted extensive ambient monitoring studies and stationary source inspections. And the Federal Land Policy and Management Act directs federal agencies to manage public lands so as to “provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals...[and] for outdoor recreation and human occupancy.”12 Ruhr 2006, pp 39

32 Session 4: Identifying key ecosystem services (exercise) Time guidelines Time guidelinesTime Identifying key ecosystem services – activity.30 mins Session objective Objective: short group exercise to make link between ecosystem services. Build awareness of the extension and relevance of ecosystem services to participant employers. Session overview The session starts with an open question to enable discussion between the participants, and initiate a dialog between them to think how ecosystem services link to their business. Later on, participants will be reminded of the different goods from ecosystems, allowing them to rethink and evaluate what their business should take into consideration, and what might be taken for granted. Finally, the session will close with a discussion analyzing how different business sectors are using ecosystem services and their goods. Session format This session will be run by the two course facilitators – one will be leading the session and the second should facilitate material and/or address questions/queries from participants/groups. Handouts participants course material desk pack Materials:  A1 wall charts or A4 print out of the “Links between business and ecosystem services” table  Flipchart (one per group)

33 Session 4 Identifying key ecosystem services (exercise) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 33-34: 10 minutes Background: The BET Score Card is inspired by the Dilemma Assessment Card that was developed by the WBCSD’s Future Leaders Team in 2007. The Card (as illustrated on the slide) was designed as a discussion tool. There are 6 questions covering the key ecosystem challenges facing business, the main ecosystem services and key drivers for addressing ecosystems alongside questions on the above mentioned dilemmas and how they are being managed inside a company. To use the card successfully, the interviewer will need a solid understanding of ecosystems and their services and their impact on business. Note that this score card must have been given to participants ahead of the training as a pre-work Instructions: 1.The Facilitator will ask participants to discuss the most commonly identified challenges at their table, and discuss their answers. Allow 5 minutes. 1.5 minutes to debrief in plenary about the main findings. Facilitator to ask groups to provide feedback to the overall audience by collecting the top three challenges from each group. Then compare and contrast the thoughts gathered on the flip chart. Key points for the facilitator to look for include:  Risk to operations, supply chain from decreased access to resources,  Commodity price shocks,  Problems/new conditions for licenses to operate,  Problems relating to reputation,  Environmental liability issues.

34 Session 4: Identifying key ecosystem services (exercise) Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 36-39: 10 minutes for discussion+ 10 minutes to feedback Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (2011), http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=10 4&NoSearchContextKey=true Instructions: Facilitator to introduce the slide using the following text:  “The following slide shows a table taken from the WBCSD CEV guide that can be used to provide a summary of the most likely biodiversity and ecosystem services related to different industries” (table to be provided to participants as a handout). Facilitator to set the context of incorporating biodiversity and ecosystem service risks by presenting the following challenge:  “Companies base risk assessment on the potential for the issues to harm their business interests and account for them using financial terms. This results in a lack of accounting for those risks, such as impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, that do not have a direct financial impact on the company and those that are more difficult to translate into economic losses and gains.” (TEEB CH4., pp 7). Facilitator to give the following example:  “As traditional oil producing regions mature and yield progressively less oil, the petroleum industry is increasingly forced to explore and produce in ever more sensitive environments. In socially and environmentally sensitive areas, access to reserves can be denied, restricted, or unresolved.” (TEEB CH 4 pp.5). Note: Different types of risk will be introduced in Session 8.

35 Session 4: Identifying key ecosystem services (exercise) Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 36-39: 10 minutes for discussion, + 10 minutes to feedback Instructions:  Facilitator will split participants into groups of 4 or 5  Use a blank A1 wall chart of slide 36 (one per group) and distribute  participants will be given 10 minutes to discuss and capture responses to the question, participants given black pens to modify the wall chart. The facilitator should tailor this question to the audience as appropriate, for example: 1.Which ecosystem services might your company rely on or benefit from? 2.Which ecosystem services might your department rely on or benefit from? 3.Choose a company you want to assess within your group and think about which ecosystem services it might rely on or benefit from? Note: If it is more appropriate for the audience, the facilitator may wish to describe a theoretical example (e.g. A mining company operating in South America) or encourage participants to think beyond their own companies and consider customers/suppliers.  Depending on the companies selected, the groups may complete the exercise for several or only 1 example. The facilitator should note this and encourage participants to take the exercise at their own speed.  Ask groups to provide feedback in turn – consider which ecosystem services are most common.  Discuss why not all ecosystems services are mentioned (i.e. if a service is not included, this does not necessarily mean it is not in use, but perhaps that it is less well known/understood).  During the debrief, highlight that selecting the scope is critical to the assessment – the narrower the scope, the more refine the assessment.

Coffee Break 30 minutes

37 Session 5: Case study exercise and discussion Time guidelines Time guidelinesTime Exercise30 mins Session objective Introduce the audience to the case study to be used in the exercise. There are a choice of case studies available in the accompanying slide pack. These should be reviewed in advance and the most appropriate case study selected based on the audience. This session will enable participants to identify: the basic concepts that apply to each case study, the business case for action and how a company might choose to respond to these drivers. Session overview The session will start with the introduction of a case study, which will be selected in advance by the facilitator based on the audience. Through a group discussion, participants will be able to compare their analysis against the case study. This will allow the participants to see the concepts that they have learned and/or strengthened through previous sessions actively applied in a case study that they can relate to. Session format This session will be run by one course facilitator, talking through the case study phases and enabling interaction and discussion between participants. Handouts & Material  “The issue” slide- to be distributed at the discussion stage.  “The response and results” are covered in session 7  One flipchart per group

38 Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 41-53 : 30 minutes Objective: This session will enable participants to identify the rationale for the approach used, the basic concepts applied and why business acted in the case study example. Total time for exercise: 20 minutes, followed by 10 minutes discussion about the participants’ own company Instructions: Introduce the audience to the case study, choice of three available. Description of material: The facilitator sets the context for the case study, and states what the desired outcome of the project. [Option of one of four case studies, facilitator to select appropriate case study] Case Studies:  ArcelorMittal  Lafarge  BASF  Philip Morris USA Session 5: Case study exercise and discussion

39 Session 5: Case study exercise and discussion Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance 41-53 : 30 minutes (cont.) Source: WBSCD case studies Instructions The facilitator should split the participants into 3 groups and explain that a business issue from a real case study will be presented. The facilitator should explain the 3 sections of the exercise: understanding of “the issue”, “the response” from the business and “the final results”. Each section will be provided in different stages (i.e. “the response” and “the results” will be provided in Session 7). The case study “issue” will be provided for participants to read after it has been read through on the slide by the facilitator. Questions to the participants In your groups, discuss the following questions: 1.What ecosystems and ecosystem services apply to this case study? 2.What are the company’s ecosystem service impacts/dependencies? 3.Based on your answers to 1 and 2, how can the company start to address their impacts and dependencies? The groups will have 15 minutes to discuss about the case study and answer to the questions on their flip chart. Once the groups have completed their discussions, the facilitator should ask one member from each group to present back the key points from their discussion, recording very simple bullets on a flipchart.. The facilitator should allow time for questions at that point. It is important to emphasize that there are no right answers in this discussion – the company’s actual response and outcomes will be presented later (Session 7) but there may well be other responses and outcomes possible! Materials: Handouts:  “The issue” slide, to be distributed at the discussion stage..  1x flipchart per group

40 Session 6: The global ecosystem challenge Time guidelines Time guidelinesTime The Global Ecosystem Challenge – presentation and activity 20 mins Session objective The session aims to raise key reflection questions that help illustrate the importance of ecosystem management and evaluation. Also, enable participants to understand the business case for ecosystem management Session overview This session will give participants an introduction to world wide trends and how these interlink with business and ecosystem service provision. The session introduces the work of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) among others. Session format This session will be run by the two course facilitators – one will be leading the session and the second should facilitate material and/or address questions/queries from participants/groups. Handouts participants course material desk pack – hardcopies will be laid out on participant desks in advance of their arrival at the course. This pack contains copies of all of the slides used throughout this course together with relevant handout materials required for each session.

41 Session 6: The global ecosystem challenge Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 54: <1 minute Objective: raise key reflection questions that help illustrate the importance of ecosystem management and evaluation. Enable understanding of the business case. Instructions: Facilitator should read the content of this document thoroughly before the training to familiarize themselves with the terminology and prepare to deliver clear messages. Background: Description of findings of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and TEEB

42 Session 6: The global ecosystem challenge Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 55 : 5 minutes Sources: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well- being: Biodiversity Synthesis [online]. Available from: http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well- being: Opportunities and Challenges for Business and Industry [online]. pp. 10-17 [Accessed 3 August 2011]. Available from: http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.353.aspx.pdf Instructions: Facilitator to talk through the main drivers of change identified in the MEA:  By the end of the century, climate change and its impacts may be the dominant direct driver of biodiversity loss and changes in ecosystem services globally,  Harm to biodiversity will grow worldwide with increasing rates of change in climate and increasing absolute amounts of change,  Some ecosystem services in some regions may initially be enhanced by projected changes in climate. As climate change becomes more severe the harmful impacts outweigh the benefits in most regions of the world. Facilitator to mention that there are inter-linkages between these drivers and that this may lead to cumulative damages. The balance of scientific evidence suggests that there will be a significant net harmful impact on ecosystem services worldwide if the global mean surface temperature increases more than 2 o C above preindustrial levels (medium certainty). This would require CO 2 stabilization at less than 450 parts per million, a target needed to keep climate change at bay. Facilitator to step through two of the six interconnected challenges identified in the MA depending on audience type: Water Scarcity, Climate Change, Habitat change, Biodiversity Loss and Invasive Species, Overexploitation of Oceans and Nutrient Overloading. Pick one to cover in greater detail. Background: Everyone in the world depends completely on Earth’s ecosystems and the services they provide, such as food, water, disease management, climate regulation, spiritual fulfilment, and aesthetic enjoyment. Over the past 50 years, humans have changed these ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and fuel. This transformation of the planet has contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development. But not all regions and groups of people have benefited from this process—in fact, many have been harmed. Moreover, the full costs associated with these gains are only now becoming apparent.

43 Session 6: The global ecosystem challenge Facilitators' notes Slide 55 (cont.): 5 minutes Ecosystem Trends of Particular Importance to Business – Six major changes are having or will have profoundly negative impacts on ecosystems: water scarcity, climate change, habitat change, biodiversity loss, invasive species, overexploitation of oceans, and nutrient overloading. Individually and collectively, these changes will have an impact on business. 1. Water Scarcity Potentially of greatest importance to business is water scarcity. The MA found that 5–20% of freshwater use exceeds long-term sustainable supply and is met by water transfer or unsustainable mining of groundwater. Roughly 15–35% of irrigation withdrawal is estimated to be unsustainable. Scarcity of water supply will affect all businesses either directly or indirectly, just as increases in the price of petroleum affect the state of the global economy. Governments will be called on to allocate supplies and adjudicate water rights. Increasingly, markets and market mechanisms are being used to help achieve efficient use through prices that reflect scarcities.  Businesses will find themselves in competition with others -including other businesses- for water.  The cost of water may result in substantial increase in the cost of business operations.  Decisions about locating operations must address long term water supply.  Increasingly, businesses will need to find ways of recycling supplies.  New technologies and modes of operation that reduce the consumption of water per unit of output and address water quality will be valuable.  Marketing and selling water is a new business opportunity already being pursued in some places. 2. Climate Change Observed recent changes in climate, especially warmer regional temperatures, have already had significant impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems, including changes in species distributions, population sizes, the timing of reproduction and migration events, and an increase in the frequency of pest and disease outbreaks. Many coral reefs have undergone major bleaching episodes. By the end of the century, climate change may be the dominant direct driver of biodiversity loss and changes to ecosystem services globally. The balance of scientific evidence suggests that harm to biodiversity and degradation of ecosystem services will grow on a worldwide basis (although some ecosystem services in some regions could be initially enhanced) if the global mean surface temperature increases more than 2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels or at rates greater than 0.2 degrees per decade. 3. Habitat Change More land was converted to cropland in the 30 years after 1950 than in the 150 years between 1700 and 1850. Cultivated systems now cover one quarter of Earth’s terrestrial surface. A further 10–20% of grassland and forestland is projected to be converted between 2000 and 2050, primarily to agriculture. The projected land conversion is concentrated in low- income countries and dryland regions. Conversely, forestland is projected to continue to increase within industrial countries. 4. Biodiversity Loss and Invasive Species The total number of species on the planet is declining and the distribution of species is becoming more homogeneous. Over the past few hundred years, humans have increased species’ extinction rates by as much as 1,000 times over the background rates that have been more typical throughout the planet’s history. Some 10–30% of mammal, bird, and amphibian species are currently threatened with extinction. Freshwater ecosystems tend to have the highest proportion of threatened species. In addition, the majority of species are seeing their populations fragmented and their population sizes and ranges decline.

44 Session 6: The global ecosystem challenge Facilitators' notes Slide 55 (cont.): 5 minutes Genetic diversity has also declined globally, particularly with respect to cultivated species. The spread of invasive alien species and disease organisms continues to increase due to both deliberate translocations and accidental introductions related to travel and trade. Invasive species generally threaten native species and many ecosystem services. 5. Overexploitation of Oceans Increasing demand for seafood has been matched by increasing fishing capacity and technological advances. Reported catches from oceans increased steadily over the last century, reached a peak in the mid-1980s, then began to decline. A number of economically important fisheries, such as the Atlantic cod off Newfoundland, have collapsed abruptly under intense fishing pressure, causing significant social, economic, and ecological system disruption. Widespread collapses, overfishing of top predators, and declining catches are all symptoms of seriously disrupted ocean ecosystems. Such systems are not able to provide the full range of services they did in the past, including the provision of food. The ability of an ecosystem to absorb threats or to be resilient may be compromised with such massive disruption to the integrity of the natural system. 6. Nutrient Overloading Humans have doubled the flow of reactive nitrogen on the continents. Some projections suggest this may increase by roughly two thirds by 2050 and that the global flux of nitrogen to coastal ecosystems will increase by 10–20% by 2030, with most of this increase occurring in developing countries. Excessive flows of nitrogen contribute to eutrophication of freshwater and coastal marine ecosystems and acidification of freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems, with associated harm to biodiversity. Nutrient pollution in coastal areas often triggers harmful algal blooms and is increasing the number and size of zones of low or no oxygen (so called “dead zones”).

45 Session 6: The global ecosystem challenge Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 56: 5 minutes Sources: WBCSD, Connecting the dots (2005), Slide 21 http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=23&n osearchcontextkey=true (link to connecting the dots at the bottom of the page). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well- being: Synthesis. Pp. 1-5 [online]. Available from: http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf Instructions: Facilitator to read through the main ecosystem changes listed on the slide. These should be linked to the four main findings shown opposite. Approximately 20% of the world’s coral reefs were lost and an additional 20% degraded in the last several decades of the twentieth century, and approximately 35% of mangrove area was lost during this time (in countries for which sufficient data exist, which encompass about half of the area of mangroves). The amount of water impounded behind dams quadrupled since 1960, and three to six times as much water is held in reservoirs as in natural rivers. Water withdrawals from rivers and lakes doubled since 1960; most water use (70% worldwide) is for agriculture. The structure and functioning of the world’s ecosystems changed more rapidly in the second half of the twentieth century than at any time in human history. Four main findings Pick one to present in further detail 1.Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth. 2.The changes that have been made to ecosystems have contributed to substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development, but these gains have been achieved at growing costs in the form of the degradation of many ecosystem services, increased risks of nonlinear changes, and the exacerbation of poverty for some groups of people. These problems, unless addressed, will substantially diminish the benefits that future generations obtain from ecosystems.

46 Session 6: The global ecosystem challenge Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 56 (cont.): 5 minutes Sources: WBCSD, Connecting the dots (2005), Slide 21 http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=23&n osearchcontextkey=true (link to connecting the dots at the bottom of the page). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well- being: Synthesis. Pp. 1-5 [online]. Available from: http://www.maweb.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf Further background information Four main findings (cont.): 3.“The degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of this century and is a barrier to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. 4.The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands for their services can be partially met under some scenarios that the MA has considered, but these involve significant changes in policies, institutions, and practices that are not currently under way. Many options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies with other ecosystem services.”

47 Session 6: The global ecosystem challenge Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 57-58: 2 minutes Instructions: These two slides aim to demonstrate that these issues are tangible and already represent material risks in the US. Background: Source (slide 55) Huffington Post (2012) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/superstorm-hurricane-sandy- deaths-2012_n_2209217.html Losses Sandy is being blamed for about $62 billion in damage and other losses in the U.S., the vast majority of it in New York and New Jersey — a number that could increase. It's the second-costliest storm in U.S. history after 2005's Hurricane Katrina, which caused $128 billion in damage in inflation-adjusted dollars. Sandy caused at least $315 million in damage in the Caribbean. Damages Sandy damaged or destroyed homes and businesses, more than 72,000 in New Jersey alone, Gov. Chris Christie said Wednesday. In Cuba, the number of damaged homes has been estimated at 130,000 to 200,000. Source (slide 56) Huffington Post (2012) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/us- drought-2012-midwest-winter_n_2214061.htmlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/29/us- drought-2012-midwest-winter_n_2214061.html USDA (2012) http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/in-the-news/us-drought- 2012-farm-and-food-impacts.aspx#.UUzAIVd4-5Mhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/in-the-news/us-drought- 2012-farm-and-food-impacts.aspx#.UUzAIVd4-5M 2012 U.S. Drought: severity is on par with the droughts of the 1950s:  Economic impacts: damage estimates already ranging between $75 billion to $150 billion  Impacts on agriculture: major field crops destroyed or damaged, especially field corn and soybeans  Commerce: threatened on the Mississippi River

48 Session 6: The global ecosystem challenge Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 59-62: 2 minutes Source: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, http://www.teebweb.org/ Instructions: Facilitator to introduce TEEB and some of the figures that are introduced in the slides that follow Background: TEEB – ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity’ History The TEEB study is hosted by UNEP with financial support from the European Commission, Germany, the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Japan. At the meeting of the environment ministers of the G8 countries and the five major newly industrialising countries that took place in Potsdam in March 2007, the following wording was agreed: "In a global study we will initiate the process of analyzing the global economic benefit of biological diversity, the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation.” The TEEB study is being conducted in phases. Preliminary findings from the first phase were presented in May 2008. Phase I’s Interim Report demonstrates the huge significance of ecosystems and biodiversity and the threats to human welfare if no action is taken to reverse current damage and losses. The Interim Report clearly showed that the economic size of the losses is enormous, as is their impact on human welfare. It illustrated the tensions between biodiversity loss and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, especially ending extreme poverty by 2025. For economists, Phase I showed that discount rates are an ethical choice and that we must measure what we manage. Despite the huge complexity of the task ahead, the study also showed that biodiversity must become the responsibility of everyone with the power and resources to act. Ecosystem service degradation is not just a biological or ecological problem. It also has serious economic consequences – for all industries, sectors and social groups. Just over a decade ago, one of the first attempts was made, by 13 environmental economists, to value the world’s ecosystem services. The results, which were published in an article in the scientific journal Nature, argued that the world’s ecosystem services were worth some US$33 trillion a year (Constanza et al.) – a figure that was then almost twice as high as global gross domestic product (GDP). In contrast, the TEEB interim report calculated that the degradation of biodiversity & ecosystems, due to deforestation, means that each year the world loses natural capital worth between €1.35 trillion and €3.10 trillion (US$1.9 trillion and US$4.5 trillion).

49 Session 6: The global ecosystem challenge Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 59-62: 2 minutes (cont) Source: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, http://www.teebweb.org/ Background: Examples of figures from TEEB  €1.35 trillion/year: minimum estimate of natural capital loss, just from deforestation  Approx. total GDP of UK or France in 2010. (reference: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2011/02/weodata/ index.aspx This provides a list of countries' gross domestic product (GDP) (the value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year). The GDP dollar estimates given are derived from purchasing power parity (PPP) calculations.)  Global fisheries underperform by US$50 billion annually  US$190 billion/year: contribution of insect pollination to agriculture output  Approx. 8 times Walmart’s 2010 total operating income) (US$24 billion). Source: http://walmartstores.com/sites/annualreport/2010/  Conserving forests avoids greenhouse gas emissions worth US$3.7 trillion

50 Session 6: The global ecosystem challenge Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 63 & 64: 2 minutes Source: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, http://www.teebweb.org/ Instructions: Facilitator to introduce some of other values to demonstrate the benefits to conserving biodiversity Background (slide 61) Sources: Birdlife International, Environment News Service, FAOBirdlife InternationalEnvironment News ServiceFAO The cost of biodiversity loss & ecosystem degradation  Net global value of ecosystem services being lost annually: from USD 2 - 6.6 trillion.  Forest loss and degradation in past 10 years are estimated to have cost the global economy up to US$4.5 trillion / year.  Biodiversity loss is costing the European Union Euros 450 billion a year, adding to the stress of the ongoing financial crisis.  Cost of protecting biodiversity: 1-4% of the value of the loss, i.e. less than 20% of annual global consumer spending on soft drinks. Background (slide 64) Source: WRI, http://www.wri.org/stories/2008/03/ironically-flood-control- flooding-new-orleanshttp://www.wri.org/stories/2008/03/ironically-flood-control- flooding-new-orleans The Louisiana wetlands have disappeared at an alarming rate making New Orleans vulnerable to hurricanes. Scientists estimate that up to 65% of the destruction is due to the loss of shoreline protection provided naturally by wetlands. Wetlands act like speed bumps, slowing down the speed and intensity of water during storms and hurricanes. This is a very real example of the development impacts of ecosystem degradation – in this case the loss of the storm protection function of wetlands. Louisiana has lost up to 40 square miles of marsh per year for several decades, which equates to 80% of the entire country’s annual coastal wetland loss (USGS). Every 30 minutes, a football-field-sized segment of wetlands disappears into open water (Kennedy). Let’s look at the value of wetlands, that provide natural storm protection. They act like speed bumps, slowing down the speed and intensity of water during storms and hurricanes. In the Gulf of Mexico, before Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, wetlands were being destroyed for development. It cost over $200 billion to restore New Orleans after Katrina. But there was a proposal to restore the wetlands before the hurricane that would only have cost US$ 14 billion over 30 years. It was rejected because it was considered too costly and today we wish we had accounted for the true value of the wetlands before the damage was done.

51 Session 7: The Business case for action Time guidelines Time guidelinesTime The business case for action – presentation30 mins Session objective This session aims to explain:  Why biodiversity and ecosystem services matter to business  The importance of building a business case for ecosystems and their services Session overview This session will introduce the case for including ecosystem considerations within business decision making. Session format This session will be run by one course facilitator, who will talk through key concepts and definitions with participants.

52 Session 7 The Business case for action Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 67: 1 minute Source: WBCSD,Connecting the dots (2005), http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=23&n osearchcontextkey=true (link to connecting the dots at the bottom of the page) Instructions: Facilitator to talk through the following:  All businesses depend and impact on ecosystems and their services – either as part of their core operations or through their value chain Provisioning, Regulating, Cultural & Supporting Ecosystem Services.  Ecosystem degradation can undermine a business license to operate by posing significant risks to companies, their suppliers, customers and investors.  Sustainable ecosystem management can create new business opportunities and markets.

53 Session 7 The Business case for action Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 68: 1 minute Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (2011). Detailed Presentation April 2011 p8 http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/adm/download.aspx?id=5921&objecttypeid= 7 Instructions: There are 5 broad categories of risk/opportunity for biodiversity and ecosystems which can be considered. The facilitator should introduce these categories and use examples from the background notes below to illustrate examples, depending on the time available. When introducing this group of slides, the facilitator should acknowledge that the recommendations are intended to build upon existing business processes. It is not intended that businesses should undertake new processes to manage these risks and opportunities, but should aim to slightly modify their current approaches. Introduce the main categories of risk and opportunity.

54 Session 7 The Business case for action Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 69-72: 2 minutes Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (2011). Detailed Presentation April 2011 p8 http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/adm/download.aspx?id=5921&objecttypeid= 7 Instructions: Talk through the following Operational risks relate to a company’s day-to-day activities, expenditure and processes. Risks may include having to pay more for ecosystem dependencies such as water, and for environmental externalities. Operational opportunities can improve operational efficiencies and save costs, for example, by finding lower-cost ways of securing clean water supplies and flood control through maintaining ecosystems rather than investing in expensive technological solutions.  For example, Dow uses household wastewater on its Terneuzen industrial site in The Netherlands, which not only allows water to be re-used three times but also saves energy and chemicals previously used for water treatment. Operational opportunities can also include building awareness and understanding amongst employees/stakeholders. US-Specific examples: Resource shortage - E.g. Midwest drought in US (summer 2012)  Drought jeopardized efficient commerce on this river system Note: one 15-barge tow equals 216 rail cars or 1,050 trucks  Additionally, chronic problems with record floods in recent years A combination of nature and human interaction via policy  Cross-sector partnership “America’s Great Watershed Initiative” to address these highs and lows Source: http://www.greenbiz.com/video/2013/03/14/what-climate-change-means- business-mississippi?ms=45801 Resource shortage - E.g. Pollination bees in California Corporate Ecosystem Services Review v2, pp 24: “…the productivity of almond, avocado, and melon growers in California has been under threat in recent years as the population of bees—important pollinators—has declined precipitously.” Reference: Committee on the Status of Pollinators in North America, National Research Council. 2007. Status of Pollinators in North America. Available at: http://books.nap.edu/openbook. php?record_id=11761

55 Session 7 The Business case for action Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 69-72: 2 minutes (cont.) Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (2011). Detailed Presentation April 2011 p8 http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/adm/download.aspx?id=5921&objecttypeid= 7 US-Specific examples (cont.): Walmart to Save $150 Million Thanks to Sustainability Programs  Could save as much as USD150 million during the company’s 2013 fiscal year due to several of its sustainability programs.  For example, by expanding waste diversion and recycling programs, Walmart reported it saved $231 million alone in 2011. Source: Triple Pundit, http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/10/walmart-save- 150-million-sustainability-programs/http://www.triplepundit.com/2012/10/walmart-save- 150-million-sustainability-programs/

56 Session 7 The Business case for action Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 73-74: 2 minutes Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (2011). Detailed Presentation April 2011 p8 http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/adm/download.aspx?id=5921&objecttypeid= 7 Regulatory and legal risks include government policies, laws, and court actions. In terms of regulatory and legal opportunities, companies can demonstrate the value of improving ecosystem management policies, regulations and incentives to stakeholders and regulators. For example, companies dependent on ecosystem services, such as water or storm protection, could benefit from more sustainable catchment management practices. For example, Mondi, an integrated paper and packaging producer, is leading a multi-stakeholder program in South Africa to help restore wetlands, incl. by lobbying for policy changes – even if this means the loss of commercial forests, it helps preserve all of its operations that are highly dependent on water availability. Examples of laws that currently consider the value of ecosystems include:  The water framework directive,  The marine strategy framework directive,  South African water white paper,  The Environmental liability directive,  Access and benefit sharing [Customize: Companies to customize this slide for inclusion of local legislation, i.e. according to audience need.] US-specific example: Litigation risks, E.g. Gibson Guitar  U.S. Lacey Act makes the import and sale of illegally-produced timber illegal. Amended in 2008 to include a wide range of commercial timber species  July 6, 2012: After a protracted and politically charged media campaign protesting its innocence, Gibson Guitar Corp entered into a criminal enforcement agreement with federal officials resolving a criminal investigation into allegations that the company violated the Lacey Act by illegally purchasing and importing protected woods from Madagascar and India Source: Nashville Post, http://nashvillepost.com/news/2012/8/6/gibson_changes_its_tune_settles _with_feds http://nashvillepost.com/news/2012/8/6/gibson_changes_its_tune_settles _with_feds

57 Session 7 The Business case for action Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 75-76: 2 minutes Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (2011). Detailed Presentation April 2011 p8 http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/adm/download.aspx?id=5921&objecttypeid= 7 Reputational risks affect a company’s brand, image, “goodwill” and relationships with their customers and other stakeholders. Reputational opportunities could include implementing and communicating sustainable purchasing, operating or investment practices in order to differentiate corporate brands. A number of big businesses are familiar with these risks and opportunities. In 2008, Unilever’s CEO announced that all Unilever’s palm oil will be certified sustainable by 2015. Before this announcement, Unilever had been targeted by pressure group Greenpeace as part of a campaign to highlight the environmental impact of the global increase in demand for palm oil. Unilever buys about 1.6 million tons of palm oil each year so this is a significant commitment. US specific example:  McDonalds accused of destroying Amazon rainforest by Greenpeace in 2006  Highly visible protests in McDonalds restaurants in Europe  Illegal farming techniques and labor practices in Brazil Source: Mongabay, http://news.mongabay.com/2006/0406- greenpeace.html

58 Session 7 The Business case for action Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 77-78: 2 minutes Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (2011). Detailed Presentation April 2011 p8 http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/adm/download.aspx?id=5921&objecttypeid= 7 Market and product risks relate to product and service offerings, consumer preferences, and other market factors that affect corporate performance. Market and product opportunities include potential new revenue streams when participating in emerging environmental markets. For example, Henkel’s eco-friendly “Terra” cleaners and detergents use active ingredients that are based predominantly on plant-derived raw materials rather than petrochemicals. Car manufacturers developing hybrid cars are another example. US organic food sales are growing at 3 times the rate of the food sector as a whole (ref. TEEB for Business). US-specific examples Risks Apple vowed reforms in China plants operated by its supplier Foxconn after violations of working hours and wages were identified in 2012. “Electronic Giant Vowing Reforms in China Plants. the manufacturing giant Foxconn has pledged to sharply curtail working hours and significantly increase wages inside Chinese plants making electronic products for Apple and others. The move could improve working conditions across China. “ Source: NY Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/business/apple- supplier-in-china-pledges-changes-in-working-conditions.html?_r=0http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/30/business/apple- supplier-in-china-pledges-changes-in-working-conditions.html?_r=0 Opportunities Patagonia became the first company in California to elect to be a “benefit corporation.” Legal status affords a company’s directors legal cover to consider environmental and social benefits over financial returns. Source: Bloomberg, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01- 04/patagonia-road-tests-new-sustainability-legal-status.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01- 04/patagonia-road-tests-new-sustainability-legal-status.html The launch of Unilever’s Rainforest Alliance Certified tea in Australia saw 12% growth in sales Source: KPMG, Flora and Fauna International, Acca, Is natural capital a material issue? (2012)Is natural capital a material issue?

59 Session 7 The Business case for action Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 79-80: 2 minutes Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (2011). Detailed Presentation April 2011 p8 http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/adm/download.aspx?id=5921&objecttypeid= 7 Financing risks affect the cost and availability of capital to companies. For example, project finance loans can only be received if the company complies with the ‘Equator Principles’ and the underlying IFC biodiversity performance standards or a bank’s own biodiversity policies. Financing opportunities could potentially include companies obtaining more favourable lending terms, or access to new green funds. For example, ChevronTexaco received approval in 2005 to convert a tapped- out drilling site in Louisiana into a 2,800-hectare wetland to generate credits for the U.S. wetland mitigation banking market – the company could earn more than $150 million selling the credits to developers. Rabobank has specific requirements regarding impacts on biodiversity for palm oil and soya (ref. TEEB for Business). Risks linked to investors  Credit risk is being managed on major infrastructure and industrial projects by the use of the Equator Principles  78 adopting financial institutions are applying this framework developed by 9 international banks and the International Finance Corporation in 2002  70% of international project finance debt in emerging markets are be managed for environmental and social risk Source: Equator Principles, http://www.equator- principles.com/index.php/about-ep/the-eps/38-about/about/195http://www.equator- principles.com/index.php/about-ep/the-eps/38-about/about/195 [optional slides, 81-82] Videos from Unilever and Puma showing that sustainability is profitable

60 Lunch break 60 min.

61 Session 8: Brainstorming the business case Time guidelines Time guidelinesTime Brainstorming the business case – activity30 mins Session objective The session aims to deepen understanding of the main arguments for action on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Session overview This session will help relate the business case arguments to concrete company example. Session format This session will be run as a group exercise, both facilitators will be available to answer questions during the session. Handouts  “The issue” slide (already distributed in Session 4)  “The response and results” – to be handed out during the exercise debrief  One flipchart per group

62 Session 8: Brainstorming the business case (exercise) Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 85-108 : 30 minutes Objective: deepen understanding of the main arguments for action on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Sources: WBCSD case studies Instructions: [The case study used here should be the same as the one used in Session 4] The facilitator will recap the issue presented in the original case study anecdote in session 4. The participants will already be familiar with the case studies so the facilitator should focus on providing a high level recap, highlighting the key factors in both the situation and company response. Once the audience has had the recap from the previous slide. 1.Facilitator to divide participants in groups of 4 or 5. 2.Facilitator will provide each group with a A1 print out of a table covering different groupings for risks and opportunities (as presented in the current slide). 3.Based on the case study presented at the beginning of the module, the facilitator will ask the participants to identify the potential business risks and opportunities and capture them under the relevant section head on the wall chart provided.

63 Session 8: Brainstorming the business case (exercise) Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 85-108 : 30 minutes Feedback Ask groups to provide feedback in turn; facilitator to consolidate points from the discussion on a whiteboard/flipchart. Instructions The facilitator should distribute the “response and results” slides handout. Then compare and contrast the thoughts gathered on the flipchart against the actual response from ArcelorMittal / Lafarge / BASF / Philips Morris USA and the results that were achieved.

64 Session 9: Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) Time guidelines Time guidelinesTime Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review60 mins Session objective For participants to understand how to measure impacts & dependencies on ecosystems and apply the Ecosystems Services Review (ESR) methodology. Session overview This session provides an introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR). The first half is a presentation that explores ESR as a tool to proactively develop strategies to manage business risks and opportunities, then reviews the key steps involved in the methodology. participants then have the opportunity to implement some of their learning through a group exercise, using a simplified version of the Ecosystem Services Dependence and Impact Tool. Session format This session will be run by the two course facilitators. The session is split into two halves: a presentation to the group followed by an interactive group exercise. Handouts Print Outs: A1 Wall Chart “Dependence on ecosystem services table” and “Impact on ecosystem services table” slides

65 Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 111-112: 1 minute Source: WBCSD Instructions: these two slides aim at strengthening the case for measuring ecosystem impact and dependence. Slide: 113: 1 minute Source: WRI, Ecosystem Services Review Standard Presentation, slide 1, http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review/training Instructions: Facilitator 1 to explain that this presentation is designed to complement The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review guidelines, which are available at www.wri.org/ecosystems/esr These guidelines provide detailed information on the implementation of ESR and are recommended reading following this presentation.

66 Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 114: 1 minute Source: WRI, Ecosystem Services Review Standard Presentation, slide 9, http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review/training Instructions: Facilitator 1 to explain what Corporate ESR is used for. Background The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) is designed to help managers make the connection between the health of ecosystems and corporate performance. The 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.

67 Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 115: 4 minutes Source: WRI, Ecosystem Services Review Standard Presentation, slide 18, http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review/training Instructions: To set appropriate expectations and help participants to maximize value of conducting an ESR in future, it is important that the facilitator 1 highlights what the methodology is not. Facilitator 1 should spend some time conveying these messages and take questions from the audience if any of these points are unclear. Background: It does not identify or address every environmental issue. For instance, it does not provide an exhaustive inventory or quantification of a company’s total environmental footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, water effluents, or toxic releases. Nor does it track a company’s mineral or energy consumption. It is not strictly quantitative. Quantitative information about a company’s dependence and impact on ecosystem services or about trends in ecosystem services can be very useful when conducting a corporate ESR. However, quantitative information for some services is often sparse or nonexistent. Nevertheless, this shortcoming does not preclude a successful review. The road tests proved that qualitative analyses can be sufficient input for identifying many potential business risks and opportunities. It is not dependent upon economic valuation of ecosystem services. The ESR does not require managers to estimate the economic value of each ecosystem service. Risks and opportunities arising from a company’s dependence and impact on ecosystems can be identified through other approaches. Likewise, many strategies for addressing these risks and opportunities – such as making internal operational changes, launching new products, working with governments to develop new policies – do not require economic valuation of ecosystem services. Nevertheless, some companies may find that conducting an economic valuation of selected ecosystem services may be a valuable input to strategy development – as with the Allegheny Energy example covered earlier in the course. (for more background on ecosystem valuation please refer to Module 3) It does not require a long, multiyear analysis. The time required to conduct an ESR will vary among companies and is a function of the scope chosen, the availability of data and the amount of staff involved in the review.

68 Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 116: 3 minutes Source: WRI, Ecosystem Services Review Standard Presentation, slide 12, http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review/training Instructions: Facilitator 1 to outline the 5 key steps of the ESR supported by background notes below. The facilitator should make sure to go through the steps thoroughly, spending at least 5-10 minutes on this slide. Interactive (options): Facilitator 2 may add questions during the presentation of the next few slides (marked as Interactive) combined with use of flipcharts and/or small group discussions to ensure that the participants are engaged. Example questions include: ‘Why do you think this is important?’ or ‘What are the most relevant factors for your organisation?’ Background: The ESR methodology consists of five steps: 1.Select the scope. Choose the ‘scope’ or boundary within which to conduct the ESR. Candidates include a business unit, product, market, corporate landholdings, infrastructure project, major supplier, or major customer segment, among others. 2.Identify priority ecosystem services. Systematically evaluate the company’s dependence and impact on the ecosystem services included in the tool (companies can add to this list). Determine which of these are ‘priority’ services – the ones most relevant to corporate performance. 3.Analyze trends in priority services. Research and evaluate the condition and overall trends in the priority ecosystem services as well as the drivers of these trends to help understand of impact and dependency within their company. 4.Identify business risks and opportunities. Identify and evaluate the business risks and opportunities that might arise due to trends in the priority ecosystem services. 5.Develop strategies. Outline strategies for managing the risks and opportunities. The ESR bridges ecosystem and business considerations by starting with an evaluation of a company’s interaction with ecosystems and finishing with an assessment of implications for business performance.

69 Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 117: 2 minutes Source: WRI, Ecosystem Services Review Standard Presentation, slide 13, http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review/training Instructions: Facilitator 1 to talk through the scoping step of the ESR supported by background notes below, referring participants to pages 13-14 of the ESR publication for more information. Background: The first step is to select the ‘scope’ of the ESR. The purpose of this step is to define clear boundaries within which to conduct the analysis in order to keep the process manageable and yield more actionable results. Three questions can help managers select an ESR scope: Which stage of the value chain? An ESR could focus on a company’s own operations, providing insight into the direct implications that trends in ecosystem services would pose for the company. One alternative is to look ‘upstream’ in the value chain to shed light on the implications of ecosystem service trends for key suppliers and the business risks and opportunities that these, in turn, may pose to the company conducting the ESR. Another alternative is to look ‘downstream’ at a major customer segment. Who and where specifically? If conducting the ESR on the company itself, then select a certain aspect of the business. Options include a particular business unit, product line, facility, project, or natural asset owned by the company. [Interactive option, facilitator 2 to add participant questions and note answers on a flip chart ] If the ESR is focused on key suppliers, then choose a specific supplier or category of suppliers and perhaps further narrow the scope by selecting a particular geographic market in which these suppliers operate. Do likewise if focused on major customers. Is the candidate scope strategic, timely, and supported? The scope should be of high strategic importance to the company. Examples include the company’s fastest growing market, an upcoming major product line, or the business unit with the greatest market share. The scope should offer a window of opportunity for the ESR to influence upcoming important business decisions. In addition, there should be sufficient internal management support for conducting an ESR within the selected scope.

70 Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 118-119: 3 minutes Source: WRI, Ecosystem Services Review Standard Presentation, slide 14, http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review/training Instructions Facilitator 1 to talk through the second step of the ESR (identifying priority ecosystem services) supported by background notes below, referring participants to pages 14-20 of the ESR publication for more information. Facilitator 1 to state ‘shown here is an example of how to identify priority ecosystem services’, facilitator 1 to draw out 2-3 of the high impact/dependency services listed. Note: the tables have been drawn from the Syngenta ESR case study in India and relate to agriculture. [Interactive option – participants to call out main services, before they are revealed on the slide] Background The second step is to evaluate in a structured yet rapid manner the company’s dependence and impact on more than 20 ecosystem services. This evaluation will help identify which of these are ‘priority’ services – the ones most likely to be a source of risk or opportunity for the company. These priority ecosystem services are the focus of analysis in subsequent steps; the other services are screened out. To identify its priority services, a company needs to understand its level of dependence and impact on each ecosystem service. This is because the ecosystem services that are sources of business risk or opportunity typically are those that the company highly depends upon and/or highly impacts. For instance, if a company highly depends upon an ecosystem service and that service becomes scarce or degrades, then the company may face business risk in the form of higher input costs or disruption to its operations. If a company negatively impacts an ecosystem service by depleting or degrading it, then the company’s actions may pose regulatory or reputational business risks. Conversely, if a company positively impacts an ecosystem service by supplying or enhancing it, then the company’s actions may give rise to possible new business opportunities or reputational benefits. The ESR has a spreadsheet tool that asks users 5 questions per ecosystem service in order to determine the degree to which a company depends upon and impacts each service. The tool then translates the answers into a simple summary matrix (example shown) that helps managers identify which 5-7 services are the priority services. Note: the tool is introduced later in this session Link to the spreadsheet tool: http://docs.wri.org/esr_dependence_impact_assessment_tool.xls

71 Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 120: 3 minutes Source: WRI, Ecosystem Services Review Standard Presentation, slide 15, http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review/training Instructions: Facilitator 1 to talk through the third step of the ESR supported by background notes below, referring participants to pages 20-23 of the ESR publication for more information. Facilitator to link back to how drivers and trends may influence the identification of priority ecosystem services in step 2. Background: The third step is to research and analyze the status and trends in the priority ecosystem services that were identified in step 2. The purpose of this research is to provide managers with a sufficient amount of relevant information and insights so that they can later identify business risks and opportunities that may arise from these trends. For the trends analysis, managers should conduct research to answer the following five questions for each of the ecosystem services identified as a priority:  What are the conditions and trends in the supply and demand for the ecosystem service?  What direct drivers underlie these trends?  What is the company’s contribution to these drivers?  What is the contribution of others to these drivers?  What indirect divers underlie these trends? [Interactive – the questions listed here can be used to create more interaction in this content, e.g. asking the group to call out ideas/examples to answer some of the drivers/trends before displaying the slide]

72 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 121-122: 3 minutes Source: WRI, Ecosystem Services Review Standard Presentation, slide 16, http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review/training Instructions: Facilitator 1 to talk through the fourth step of the ESR supported by background notes below, referring participants to pages 24-30 of the ESR publication for more information. Background: The fourth step is to evaluate the implications for the company arising from trends in their priority ecosystem services. The purpose of this step is to identify the business risks and opportunities that might develop from these trends. Start by holding a structured brainstorming session to identify the business risks and opportunities that the trends identified in step 3 might pose for the company. To help trigger ideas, systematically consider each of the five types of risk and opportunity against each priority service. Once completed, move on to the next priority ecosystem service and go through the same process, continuing until all priority services have been covered. Desk research can supplement the results of the brainstorming session. Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) (cont.)

73 Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 123: 2 minutes Source: WRI, Ecosystem Services Review Standard Presentation, slide 17, http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services-review/training Instructions: Facilitator to talk through the fifth step of the ESR supported by background notes below, referring participants to pages 30-32 of the ESR publication for more information Background: The fifth step is to develop and prioritize strategies for minimizing the risks and maximizing the opportunities identified during step 4. Once the fifth step has been completed, managers will have a prioritized set of strategies to implement. Strategies for responding to ecosystem service-related risk and opportunities fall into three broad categories:  Internal changes. Companies can address many of the risks and opportunities through changes in operations, product/market strategies, and other internal activities. Potlatch, for instance, developed a strategy to establish a new revenue stream from its forests through visitor user fees.  Sector or stakeholder engagement. Companies can also address some of these risks and opportunities by partnering with industry peers, collaborating with other sectors, or structuring transactions with stakeholders. Vittel, for instance, addressed its water contamination problem by paying farmers in the watershed to switch to more sustainable land use practices and restoring the ecosystems surrounding the springs.  Policy-maker engagement. Another productive corporate strategy for addressing some ecosystem service-related issues can be to engage policy-makers and government agencies to establish good policies. Companies can voice support for (or provide input to) incentives or effective rules for sustainable management of ecosystem services.

74 Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 127-169: Total time for the exercise, 30 minutes (incl. discussions) Instructions: [Facilitator to pick one of the 3 case studies proposed: Syngenta, Mondi or Nissan.] [Customization option: participants could be asked to consider how their companies impact and depend upon ecosystems as pre-work in advance of the course. This session could then involve one participant per group volunteering to provide the context for their own company and the group conduct this exercise using that company as the example.] Facilitator to explain the structure of the group exercise to participants:  Split the participants into groups of 4-5  Each group will examine the same company example, considering the evidence given on the next slides and filling out the two tables provided as wall charts (shown opposite). These tables reflect the Questionnaire from the excel-based Dependence and Impact Assessment Tool, available at http://docs.wri.org/esr_dependence_impact_assessment_tool.xls  Each group of participants should be asked to complete the wall charts for the case study company, discussing the issues as a team.  To start the exercise, the facilitator should present the case study context provided (2 slides: Issue and Scope), then give participant groups 10 minutes to complete the two tables for the case study. The facilitator should emphasise to participants that not all the information to conduct a full ESR step 2 is necessarily provided - therefore there are no ‘wrong’ answers in this exercise. If there is sufficient time available, the facilitator may wish to print A4 handout copies of the case study “issue” slides for the participant groups to review individually. Slide examples: Syngenta

75 Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 124-169: 5 minutes Instructions Facilitator to refer to the full case studies to get more familiar with the different steps of the ESR – so as to be able to answer participants’ questions during the debrief section  Mondi case study: http://powerpoints.wri.org/esr_training_case_study_mondi.ppt http://powerpoints.wri.org/esr_training_case_study_mondi.ppt  Syngenta case study: http://powerpoints.wri.org/esr_training_syngenta_case_study.ppt http://powerpoints.wri.org/esr_training_syngenta_case_study.ppt  Nissan case study: http://www.nissan- global.com/EN/DOCUMENT/PDF/ENVIRONMENT/SOCIAL/ecosyste m_services_and_the_automotive_sector.pdfhttp://www.nissan- global.com/EN/DOCUMENT/PDF/ENVIRONMENT/SOCIAL/ecosyste m_services_and_the_automotive_sector.pdf Facilitator to gather feedback from one member of each group on a flipchart, highlighting the group’s consensus and disagreement on the key ecosystem service impacts and dependencies for the example provided.  After the group work, one member of each group will feedback the results to the facilitator, who will collect the results on a flipchart: 1.Choose the boundary for the project 2.Does this ecosystem service serve as an input or does it enable/enhance conditions for successful company performance? 3.Does this ecosystem service have cost-effective substitutes? If "no" skip to question ? 4.Does the company affect the quantity or quality of this ecosystem service? 5.Is the company's impact positive or negative? 6.Does the company's impact limit or enhance the ability of others to benefit from this ecosystem service? Slide examples: Syngenta After this the Facilitator should distribute the results handouts, outlining the key ecosystem service impacts and dependencies for this example. The facilitator should note that these results for Syngenta were presented earlier in the session as the generic example for stage 2 of the ESR

76 Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 170-171: 2 minutes Source: WRI Website, http://www.wri.org/project/ecosystem-services- review Instructions Following the exercise the facilitator is to download the ESR Dependence & Impact tool from the web using the below steps, and to show how to fill the different sections. http://www.wri.org/publication/corporate-ecosystem-services-review

77 Session 9 Introduction to Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) (cont.) Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 172: < 1 minute Facilitator to recap what has been covered in the module so far.

78 Session 10: Introduction to valuing ecosystem services Time guidelines Time guidelinesTime Brief introduction to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (CEV) – presentation. 40 mins Session objective Overview of CEV guide and the description of its stages. Session overview This session delivers a comprehensive look at what CEV covers, and how the guide is outlined in stages. The session starts by a short exercise to get participants understand the difference between price and value and then explains what CEV is and sets out clearly when participants can use the guide. Session format This session will be run by one course facilitator, who will talk through key concepts and definitions with participants. Handouts Flipcharts for the exercise

79 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 174: 2 minutes Source: WBCSD, Connecting the dots (2005), Slide 37. http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=23&n osearchcontextkey=true Instructions: Facilitator to introduce the concept of public, private goods and externalities. Background – Private versus Public good dilemma: This slide is critical to understanding the underlying causes of ecosystem service degradation. Despite the fact that ecosystem services underpin markets everywhere, they are rarely traded. As a consequence, many ecosystems and the services they provide are undervalued making their use low or zero cost. The main underlying cause for the market failure is that many ecosystem services have the characteristics of public goods! This is what is commonly known as the ‘tragedy of the commons’, see next slide. Public goods A product that one individual can consume without reducing its availability to another individual and from which no one is excluded. Public goods have two distinct aspects: non-excludability and non-rivalrous consumption. “Non-excludability” means that the cost of keeping non- payers from enjoying the benefits of the good or service is prohibitive. The second aspect of public goods is what economists call “non-rivalrous consumption”, meaning that a number of people can enjoy a resource at the same time (e.g. visiting a park without preventing another individual from visiting). An examples of this are shown in the facilitator notes for the next slide. Private good: A product that must be purchased in order to be consumed, and whose consumption by one individual prevents another individual from consuming it. If there is competition between individuals to obtain the good and if consuming the good prevents someone else from consuming it, a good is considered a private good (e.g. growing crops on private land). Externality: An activity whose effects are not completely reflected in prices and market transactions.  “Environmental externalities refer to the economic concept of uncompensated environmental effects of production and consumption that affect consumer utility and enterprise cost outside the market mechanism. As a consequence of negative externalities, private costs of production tend to be lower than its “social” cost.” Source: Glossary of Environment Statistics, Studies in Methods, Series F, No. 67, United Nations, New York, 1997. Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

80 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 175-176: 2 minute Source: Adapted from Patrick ten Brink, TEEB Instructions: Facilitator to  Explain that decision making is often biased towards short term economic benefits as the (long-term) value of ecosystem services is poorly understood.  Go through the list of ecosystem services and highlight those who have market values vs. those who don’t and are thus not taken into account in decision-making.  Also explain that the market value can’t be considered as the “true value” of the service. For example the price of water rarely reflects its real value, Full cost pricing involves setting a price for water usage that reflects the true economic value of water resources and related services, including the societal costs (e.g. environmental damages) incurred from using them, as well as the financial costs incurred from providing the water (e.g. sourcing, treatment and distribution).  More information on the value of water: WBCSD (2012) Water valuation: Building the business case.Water valuation: Building the business case. Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

81 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 177-183: 15 minutes for the totality of the exercise Instructions participants to be split into groups.  participants to consider1 ha area of forest [or other relevant resource, e.g. wetland]  Facilitator to ask participants to list all the ecosystem services associated with the forest (5 min.)  Facilitator to ask participants to price the piece of forest by guessing the price on the open market. [Facilitator to specify 2 country locations for different forest areas]. (2 min.)  Facilitator to request participant groups to call out some of their answers. (1 min)  Facilitator to go through the actual price of each piece of land currently in the chosen countries, and to display a list of the ecosystems services associated with each land type.  Facilitator to challenge the participants to consider the difference between price and value and to draw out the discrepancy between the market price and the number and types of ecosystem services actually supported in different forest types located in different areas. Please see the main presentation pack for all of the slides for this exercise Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

82 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 177-183: 15 minutes for the totality of the exercise [Customize: the facilitator should choose a relevant resource for relevant countries and insert current market prices. ] Debrief – sources of the prices:  Forest in the US: http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/janfeb06/breaking_up.html “ Across the state average prices for undeveloped forest parcels of 20 acres or more have increased sixfold since 1989, from an average price of about $220 per acre to more than $1,300 per acre in 2004, according to a report by University of Minnesota forestry expert Mike Kilgore. Some prime forest land is going for more than $2,000 an acre.”  Eucalyptus farm in Brazil: http://www.braziloverseasproperty.co.uk/Brazil_Property_For_Sale/All_Sta tes/All_Areas/Farms/ USD 165,100 for 50 ha of Eucalyptus, i.e. USD 3300 per ha, or USD 1335/acre  Rainforest land in Brazil: http://www.viviun.com/AD-167194/ £650 per hectare (£263/acre or USD 403/acre). One of the largest tracts of land for sale in the world – 2,300,000 acres (912,000 hectares). Price is based on carbon credit value. Perhaps the most pristine, biologically diverse and productive tract of land on the planet earth. At 2,300,000 acres, it's like having your own county. Humanitarian and development potential limited only by your budget and your imagination.” Background notes: the value of the services provided by natural forests have been calculated as part of different studies. As an example, here are the values calculated for a tropical forest (annual values): climate regulation, $223 per ha / disturbance regulation, $5 / water regulation, $6 / water supply, $8 / erosion control, $245 / soil formation, $10 /nutritional cycling, $922 / waste treatment, $87 / food production, $32 / raw materials, $315 / genetic resources, $41 / recreation, $112 / cultural, $2. Total value per hectare per year of $2007 Source: Costanza, R., et al, The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital, Nature, Vol 387, pp. 253-259 (1997)he value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

83 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 184: 3 minutes Sources: WBCSD, Corporate Ecosystems Valuation – Building the Business Case pp. 9-12, http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=135 54 WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation, p.21 Instructions: Facilitator to talk through the slide using the background notes below as context. The next page has optional additional background material around specific categories of business benefits that may be gained by using CEV. This additional information is required reading for the facilitator to understand the content of this slide. However the facilitator may wish to draw upon this additional material during the presentation to highlight one additional example. Background: The aim of corporate ecosystem valuation is to identify the ways in which businesses can better secure the operational, regulatory and legal, reputational, market and product, and financing opportunities afforded by ecosystem services, and more effectively avoid or mitigate the risks. These opportunities and risks, and the use of corporate ecosystem valuation, relate both to enhancing business performance and the financial bottom line, as well as to complying with external demands and requirements. Corporate ecosystem valuation can provide an important source of decision-support information for internal management planning – identifying ways to capture new income streams, saving costs, reducing taxes, sustaining revenues or revaluing company assets, for example. It also generates data that can assist businesses in assessing, complying with and reporting on the external requirements and demands that are placed on them by governments, regulators, shareholders, customers and the general public – such as assessing liability and compensation (including environmental offsets and credits), measuring company value and share price and reporting on performance. Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

84 Facilitators’ notes Slide 184: 3 minutes (cont.) Capturing and pricing new income streams: Corporate ecosystem valuation can help to identify opportunities for businesses by diversifying their product and customer base.  Carbon credits, biodiversity offsets, payments for watershed services, nature-based recreation and eco-labelling or certification have all emerged as lucrative markets over recent years.  Corporate ecosystem valuation provides a tool for informing the development of new markets/products, assessing how much ecosystem services are worth, and determining at what levels they might be priced or sold by the company and whether the returns are sufficiently high to warrant investing in market or product diversification. Saving costs: Corporate ecosystem valuation can identify ways to reduce costs and expenditures.  Investing in securing ecosystem services such as water regulation, waste treatment and natural hazard regulation can generate considerable cost savings and avoided expenditures for businesses. Measuring company value and share value: Corporate ecosystem valuation can improve how companies and their shares are being valued by external sources.  Traditionally, environmental performance indicators have not been included when measuring a company’s value. However where good environmental performance is generating clear benefits for the company or society, including these impacts can make a substantial difference to measures of company and share value. Reporting performance: Corporate ecosystem valuation can allow for certain aspects of a company’s environmental performance (i.e. its impacts on ecosystem services or resource/energy use efficiencies) to be measured in financial terms. Reducing taxes: Corporate ecosystem valuation may identify opportunities to reduce a company’s tax burden.  In some countries companies may be eligible for tax relief or preferential tax rates when they own assets that generate ecosystem services, or choose to carry out their business in ways that generate broader social benefits for environmental reasons (for example conserving important biodiversity, using resources and energy efficiently or avoiding pollution).  For example, in the US, Allegheny Power, an electric utility company, made use of a “bargain sale” provision in the federal tax code to claim a property’s environmental value as a charitable contribution in connection with a sale, resulting in significant tax- related savings. Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

85 Facilitators’ notes Slide 184: 3 minutes (cont.) Sustaining revenues: Corporate ecosystem valuation can assess the monetary benefits of investing in ecosystem conservation and show how revenues can be sustained over the longer term.  Ecosystem services such as forest erosion control, for example, help to avoid reservoir siltation, while shoreline protection and flood attenuation assist in safeguarding buildings and other infrastructure. Revaluing assets: Corporate ecosystem valuation is a way of more accurately valuing company assets.  Traditionally, ecosystems are not considered to be part of a company’s asset register, even though in many cases they constitute a valuable stock of natural capital and generate substantial income flows and returns on investment. Assessing liability and compensation: Corporate ecosystem valuation can quantify in monetary terms a company’s ecosystem impacts, thereby assessing its liabilities.  As environmental regulations become evermore stringent, companies face an increasing array of penalties, fines and compensation claims when their operations damage ecosystems.  Corporate ecosystem valuation provides a means for businesses to calculate the monetary risks of environmental harm when they are appraising projects and investments (for example as part of more conventional cost-benefit analysis, natural resource damages assessment, environmental and social impact assessment and strategic environmental assessment procedures). Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

86 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 185-187: 9 minutes Source: WBCSD, Corporate Ecosystems Valuation – Building the Business Case p11-12 http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=135 54 Instructions These slides provides examples for how Corporate Ecosystem Valuation may be applied in a business context, using a range of sectors to illustrate the issue.  The facilitator should pick a selection of examples from the slides to talk through. If possible, the facilitator should prepare a hypothetical or real-life example of their own to further elaborate for the participants. Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

87 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 188-189: 2 minutes Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation – Detailed Presentation (April 2011), p15 http://www.wbcsd.org/work-program/ecosystems/cev/downloads.aspx Instructions slide 180 This section of the module gives a brief introduction to the WBCSD Corporate Ecosystem Valuation guide. The aim is to highlight the key features of the CEV approach so that the participants understand what is involved and how the approach might apply (or not) to their operations. The facilitator should position this session as a high level review, this course is designed to make participants aware of valuation and to determine whether they need to use it but not be a substitute for full training in environmental economics. This will manage participant expectations and help the facilitator to keep to time (as participants will be less likely to request additional information and take the discussion to a greater level of detail). Instructions slide 181 The facilitator should introduce the guide and focus participants on what it is specifically designed for. For example, many participants may hope for an “off-the-shelf” solution for ecosystem valuation. Unfortunately there is no ‘one size fits all’ where valuation is concerned, so the guide is designed to be a framework and set of resources that will help companies to undertake their own ecosystem valuation, tailored to their unique situation. For the last point (the Guide is not a stand-alone methodology) it is meant that the guide is complementary to other business tools (e.g. Environmental and Social Impact Assessment tools (ESIAs) or Life-Cycle Analysis tools (LCAs)). See “In summary” slide notes for more information on linkages. Complementary tools are discussed further in Session 10. Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

88 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 190: 2 minutes Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation – Detailed Presentation (April 2011), p24 Background There are four generic applications of CEV in business decision-making which have, in turn, been used in different ways by the CEV road testers. They can also be used in combination. How can CEV help? Trade-off analysis can assess the net financial and economic costs and benefits associated with different impacts to ecosystems caused by an intervention. This application is useful for impact assessments, option appraisals, pricing products, etc. Total valuation can determine the total value in terms of the flow of financial and economic benefits that ecosystems contribute to a business and society. This application is useful for asset revaluations, land management and risk assessments. Distributional analysis can identify the extent to which stakeholders depend and impact upon ecosystem services. This application is useful for determining winners and losers from any intervention, and for equitability, liability/compensation, practical and incentive-related reasons. Sustainable financing and compensation analysis can help identify ways a business can develop new or enhanced revenue streams and best compensate stakeholders in relation to ecosystem service dependencies and impacts. This application is useful for enhancing revenues and evaluating compensation claims. Can CEV support existing company analytical approaches? CEV aims to generate information that can be integrated into existing corporate planning and analysis processes. It essentially provides businesses with a more complete set of information (on ecosystem costs and benefits). Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

89 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 191: 2 minutes Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation – Detailed Presentation (April 2011), p15 Instructions: The facilitator should highlight the hierarchy of valuation approaches to participants, as this underpins the CEV methodology. Background It is a common misconception that valuation must be expressed in terms of money (£X, $X etc.). The valuation methodology must be flexible to account for situations where monetary values cannot be calculated or are not required. CEV should generally begin with a qualitative assessment, then a quantitative and monetary approach if appropriate. Some situations might only require qualitative or quantitative assessments to inform the business decision to be made. However, monetary valuation does provide a particularly important means of aggregating, comparing and communicating different ecosystem service values. Different approaches and methods Imagine how a business impact could reduce the productivity of a lake fishery affecting revenues or local people.  A qualitative review may represent low, medium or high loss of value.  A quantitative assessment may say there was a reduction of 25% in fish caught by 40 fishermen.  A monetary valuation would say this resulted in losses of US$20,000/year. Even though monetary values are particularly powerful for decision making and communicating, they are not always necessary, or in fact available (not all ecosystem services have associated monetary values). Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

90 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 192: 1 minute Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation – Detailed Presentation (April 2011), p17 Background Following the hierarchy of evaluation approaches, the CEV guide is separated into two parts: an initial screening procedure to determine whether CEV is appropriate for the company/situation, followed by a 5- stage methodology to undertake the valuation. The GO/NO GO decision is perhaps the most important stage within the CEV guide. Correctly identifying whether CEV is appropriate is crucial to ensure that your time and resources are spent most effectively. An ideal methodology to assist/complement this screening process is the Corporate Ecosystem Services Review covered in module 2, (WRI, WBCSD and Meridian Institute, 2008). The CEV guide provides a decision tree (illustrated in the next slide) to help guide companies through the GO/NO GO decision process. The screening process is examined in more detail during a group exercise later in this course. Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

91 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 193: 1 minute Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation – Detailed Presentation (April 2011), p17 Note Slide 2 shows the decision tree included as part of the CEV to aid the screening process, we will step through this in detail in an exercise during the next session. The facilitator should discuss with the group what constraints might prevent undertaking a CEV, i.e. budget, time, lack of evidence in addition to the main points below. The facilitator should highlight that an exercise will be used to help them consider these points later in the module. Main questions include:  Is there a mandatory requirement for reporting?  Does the company depend or impact upon ecosystem services or cause any environmental/social externalities?  Might these dependencies/impacts result in significant business risks?  Would knowing the value of these dependencies/impacts aid decision making? Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

92 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 194: 3 minutes Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation – Detailed Presentation (April 2011), p18 Instructions: Facilitator to give a high-level overview of Part 2 and the CEV stages (see below). Part 2 – Summary Once the GO/NO GO decision has been taken. The methodology for undertaking ecosystem valuation is split into 5 key stages: Stage 1 – Scoping: This stage helps a company define the scope for the valuation exercise, using a checklist of questions. Only brief responses are required, and the process may involve numerous iterations. Stage 2 – Planning: This stage develops a suitable plan to undertake the valuation effectively. The plan should be more specific in terms of detail as compared to stage 1. Stage 3 – Valuation: This stage involves the actual valuation, which may be qualitative, quantitative and/or monetary. It begins by fully defining the company aspect to be valued, and ends up with subjecting the results to a sensitivity analysis. This is the most technical stage and is structured around 9 steps. Stage 4 – Application: This stage involves companies using and communicating the valuation results to influence internal and external decision-making. Stage 5 – Embedding: The final stage is to embed the CEV approach within company processes and procedures. Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

93 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 195-199: 5 minutes Source: WBCSD, Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (April 2011), http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/adm/download.aspx?id=253&objecttypeid=7 Instructions: Facilitator to pick one or several CEV case study and present how ecosystem valuation helped improve company sustainability strategy and practices. The full version of the case studies is available on the WBCSD website at: http://www.wbcsd.org/work-program/ecosystems/cev/roadtesters.aspx http://www.wbcsd.org/work-program/ecosystems/cev/roadtesters.aspx Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

94 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 200: 2 minutes Source: WBCSD, Eco4Biz(April 2011), LINK TO BE ADDED Instructions: Facilitator to briefly explain that besides ESR and CEV, a number of business-specific tools are available for business to better measure and value their ecosystem impact and dependence. They are mapped out in “Eco4Biz”, a publication the WBCSD released in April 2013. Eco4Biz provides a structured overview of existing tools and approaches that are publicly available. The aim is to help companies make better- informed decisions about which tool they could apply when assessing and managing their ecosystem impacts and dependencies, in order to ultimately lower risk, and enable companies to be more competitive over time. Eco4Biz clusters tools around two questions corporate managers might ask themselves:  At what scale would you like to carry out an assessment, i.e. global, landscape (including individual site and portfolio of sites), or product level?  What outputs would best support your decision-making, e.g. a map (including supporting reports), a quantitative value, or a score showing priority areas? The decision tree in the slide aims to provide guidance on which tool might best suit companies’ needs. It does not reflect every element of each tool, but is supposed to help the reader sift through the tools more effectively. First companies should think about the scale of assessment needed, and then what sort of outputs are preferred. Also, tools have been identified as primarily focusing on either ecosystem services (e.g. provisioning, regulating and cultural services), or biodiversity (e.g. species, protected areas), although some tools address elements of both. 1. Scale At what scale would you like to carry out an assessment? Global: These tools provide information on where priority areas (e.g. biodiversity hotspots) are, in relation to operations around the world, as well as tools that are designed for a company-wide, high-level assessment that can also include the supply chain. Landscape (including individual site and portfolio of sites): These tools provide area specific information on the supply or value of ecosystem services, as well as tools that are designed for a local assessment (e.g. a site and its surrounding area). Product: These tools provide guidance using a product or service as the starting point. 2. Outputs What outputs would best support your decision making? Map (including supporting reports): Tools that generate a geographic map, e.g. based on a modeling program including background datasets. Quantify/value: Tools that quantify and/or value a company’s impact and/or dependence on nature, and include tools that focus on monetary valuation. Check/score: Tools that provide guidance in the form of checklists, or internal ranking or scoring, to allow companies to prioritize areas of activity. Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

95 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 201-203: 2 minutes Source: US EPA [Optional slides – Depending on the audience ] Instructions: Facilitator to briefly explain that US EPA is developing a number of different ecosystems based tools. References and contacts are provided in the slides. Session 10 Introduction to valuing ecosystem services

96 Coffee 30 min.

97 Session 11: Managing and mitigating impacts Time guidelines Time guidelinesTime Basic Concepts – presentation60 minutes Session objective Audience to understand how to manage their impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems. Session overview The primary focus of this session should be to provide participants with the base language and concepts that will help them better manage their company’s impacts and dependencies. Session format This session will be run by the two course facilitators. It mainly consists in presentations and include one interactive group exercise. Handouts participants course material desk pack – hardcopies will be laid out on participant desks in advance of their arrival at the course. This pack contains copies of all of the slides used throughout this course together with relevant handout materials required for each session. A glossary of terms used during the module will also be available in the course material desk pack.

98 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 206: 2 minutes Instructions This slide reviews the different levels of the mitigation in detail as preparation to help participants understand the prioritization of different approaches. The facilitator should talk through the slide supported by the background notes below Mitigation hierarchy – This is a set of steps taken to reduce and alleviate residual environmental harm as much as possible, through mitigation, reduction, restoration, and avoidance. Offsetting and compensation are the last two steps of the hierarchy when all other steps have been taken (see later session). Background Avoidance: Activities that either change or stop actions before they take place, preventing their expected impacts on biodiversity. Avoidance involves a decision to change the expected or normal course of action. E.g. A haulage road may be redesigned during project development or expansion to avoid the clearance of habitat with high conservation significance, changing the normal course of action and resulting in longer haul distances. Mitigation: Reducing the severity of impacts on biodiversity that result from actions already under way; reducing the likelihood/magnitude of biodiversity impacts (though not completely preventing them). E.g. The confined deposition of benign tailings material to create beaches on which wetlands can be established. Restoration: Sites must be restored to a state where biodiversity values are equal or higher to the originally disturbed habitat. E.g. Restoration of littoral forest habitat on brown field sites. Offsets: Designed to compensate for the unavoidable impacts on biodiversity caused by a company’s actions. Not to be employed in place of appropriate on-site avoidance/minimisation measures, but seek to address the residual gap. Either ‘averted disturbance” (offset demonstrates that the disturbance was inevitable without their intervention) or restoration of degraded habitat. Preventing unsustainable forest use through community based conservation, or establishing a protected conservation reserve. Additional Conservation Actions: measures where benefits are more difficult to measure. These benefits can be measured using some of the valuation frameworks and techniques discussed in the session on Corporate Ecosystem Valuation. Source: BBOP Gossary http://bbop.forest- trends.org/guidelines/glossary.pdf

99 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 206: 2 minutes (cont) Background Instructor can give the example of Rio Tinto  British-Australian multinational mining and resources company.  Rio Tinto’s goal is to have a ‘net positive impact’ (NPI) on biodiversity. Their strategy was launched in 2004 at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Bangkok.  They find that “biodiversity can present opportunities to build business value – opportunities to build better relationships with our stakeholders, understand emerging ecosystem services markets and achieve our sustainable development goals”.  To achieve NPI, they first need to reduce their impacts on ‘biodiversity values’ through applying the mitigation hierarchy. In Rio Tinto’s biodiversity strategy each of its operations must be able to:  Identify important biological values on and off site at the species, habitat and ecosystem service level.  Understand what impacts mining activities and infrastructure have on these features.  Plan.Have a plan to mitigate the impact (considering the mitigation hierarchy). Rio Tinto have their own biodiversity action planning (BAP) tool to complete these steps in a standardised way. The guidance for the BAP was developed in partnership with Fauna & Flora International (FFI) through trials at four Rio Tinto sites with different needs, complexity and resources to ensure robustness: Rössing, Namibia; Palabora, South Africa; QIT Madagascar Minerals (QMM), Madagascar; and, Corumbá, Brazil. Source: Rio Tinto and Biodiversity (2008) http://www.riotinto.com/documents/ReportsPublications/RTBidoversitystrat egyfinal.pdf

100 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 207: 2 minutes Sources: BBOP – Within The Mitigation Hierarchy http://bbop.forest-trends.org/site/misc/Slide1.ppt http://bbop.forest-trends.org/offsets.php Background Currently the world is witnessing an unprecedented loss of biodiversity in ecosystems around the globe. Some 10-30% of all mammal, bird, and amphibian species are threatened with extinction. A major cause of this loss is the destruction of natural habitats by developments in the agriculture, forestry, oil and gas, mining, transport, and construction sectors, among others. At the same time, countries rely on these developments for economic growth and for products, services, and jobs. A growing number of companies, governments and NGOs are now aware that biodiversity offsets could achieve more, better and higher priority conservation and livelihood outcomes. Biodiversity offsets not only rehabilitate sites but also address the company's full impact on biodiversity at the landscape scale. Biodiversity offsets can also support sustainable livelihoods by addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and can assist companies to manage their risks, liabilities and costs. Source: BBOP for WBCSD Information Call on biodiversity offsets (Oct2011) (WBCSD Members only. Accessible at: http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=137 49&NoSearchContextKey=true) Biodiversity offsets – There are numerous approaches to what are broadly termed ‘biodiversity offsets’; some with strict and complex criteria others based on simple quantity metrics (e.g. area of land or number of breeding pairs). The Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) definition: “Measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development and persisting after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been implemented.” “The goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss and preferably a net gain of biodiversity on the ground with respect to species composition, habitat structure, ecosystem function and people’s use and cultural values associated with biodiversity.” Each offset must demonstrate additional, measurable conservation outcomes. While appropriate offset activities will vary from site to site, a range of different land (and marine) management interventions could typically be involved in biodiversity offsets.

101 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 207: 2 minutes (cont.) Sources: BBOP – Within The Mitigation Hierarchy http://bbop.forest-trends.org/site/misc/Slide1.ppt http://bbop.forest-trends.org/offsets.php Background (cont.) Q&A: Ask the audience if they know any other terms for biodiversity offsetting Answers: conservation credits/habitat, species or conservation banking Types of offset activities Developers should pursue biodiversity offsets only at the end of the mitigation hierarchy, after they have reduced and alleviated residual environmental harm as much as possible. Biodiversity offsets can be used to compensate for the residual impact to biodiversity that cannot be mitigated onsite and therefore balance the impact of the project. Three different types of offsets:  Individual offset  Aggregated offset  Conservation bank

102 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 208: 2 minutes Sources: Madsen et al, State of Biodiversity Markets: Offset and Compensation Programs Worldwide (2007) Instruction Instructor to go through the different definitions related to biodiversity offsetting Background  Conservation Bank A parcel of land approved by regulators to sell mitigation credits for endangered, threatened of other imperiled species or habitats  Mitigation banking Refers to wetland and stream mitigation banking; in the global setting the terms includes the banking of any environmental credit including species, habitat, ecological function or other.  Credit A unit of measure representing the environmental commodity that is able to be traded, based on the environmental activity.  No net loss A development project in which the impacts on biodiversity are balanced our outweighed by measures taken to avoid and minimize the project's impacts, to undertake restoration and finally to offset the residual impacts, so that no loss remains.

103 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 209: 2 minutes Source: WBCSD, CEV Helpdesk Call (Jul 2011) (WBCSD Members only: http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=137 52&NoSearchContextKey=true) [Customize: Facilitator to use biodiversity offset specific slides if relevant to the audience] Instructions Facilitator to talk though the following slide showing an extremely simple example of how offsetting works. Example: A developer impacts one hectare of natural habitat, but pays a third party to protect or restore more than one hectare. (Credits can also be defined by other quantities and qualities e.g. breeding pairs, ecosystem services, habitat quality). Conservation bank: “A conservation bank is a parcel of land managed for its conservation values. In exchange for permanently protecting the land, the bank owner is allowed to sell credits to parties who need them to satisfy legal requirements for compensating environmental impacts of development projects. (See Carroll et al. 2008)” Source: BBOP Glossary http://bbop.forest- trends.org/guidelines/glossary.pdf Important to make distinction between biodiversity ‘offsets’ (the units) and biodiversity ‘banking’ (collated offsets – usually ex ante) Offsets vs. Compensation (according to BBOP definitions) A biodiversity offset is:  Designed to achieve “no net loss” or “net gain ‟  Meets BBOP Principles and draft Standard Compensatory conservation do not meet the BBOP principles when they:  The conservation actions were not planned to achieve no net loss.  The residual losses of biodiversity caused by the project and gains achievable by the offset are not quantified.  No mechanism for long term implementation has been established.  It is impossible to offset the impacts (for instance, because they are too severe or pre-impact data are lacking, so it is impossible to know what was lost as a result of the project).  The compensation is through payment for training, capacity building, research or other outcomes that will not result in measurable conservation outcomes on the ground. Sources: Conference call on biodiversity offsets, BBOP for WBCSD (3 Oct 2011) (WBCSD members only: http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=137 49&NoSearchContextKey=true) BBOP, Standard on Biodiversity Offsets. (2012), http://bbop.forest- trends.org/guidelines/Standard.pdf

104 Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 210: 2 minutes Source: WBCSD, Connecting the dots (2005), Slide 76 http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/edocument/edocumentdetails.aspx?id=23 (link to connecting the dots at the bottom of the page). WBCSD, CEV helpdesk presentation (Jun 2011) (WBCSD Members only: http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=137 53&NoSearchContextKey=true ) Instructions: Facilitator to continue introducing the key concepts and terminology presented in the slide, supported by background information. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) – “PES can be defined as voluntary transactions where a well-defined ecosystem service (ES) (or land-use likely to secure that service) is ‘bought’ by at least one ES buyer from at least one ES provider, if and only if the ES provider secures ES provision (conditionality)”. Quote source: TEEB for National and International Policy Makers, Chapter 5, page 6 http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=vYOqLxi7aOg%3d&tabid =1019&language=en-US Linking beneficiaries with providers of services to directly incentivise behavioural change. In its strictest terms PES is:  A voluntary transaction  A well-defined environmental service, or land-use likely to deliver that service  A service is ‘bought’ by at least one buyer  From at least one provider  Conditional on the provider securing continued provision Direct payments include buying and selling the delivery of specific ecosystem services or, more commonly, payments for maintaining or adopting land uses that are thought to provide such ecosystem services. Governments in several countries have developed subsidies and tax incentives to encourage resource conservation. For example, payment for watershed protection: conserving natural forests in watersheds and reducing pollutant loads in run-off from upland areas can be a cost- effective means of providing reliable supplies of clean water for hydroelectric power generation, irrigation, industrial, domestic and recreational uses. Key messages  PES can help mitigation or management of risks where dependencies on ecosystem services are identified  PES can provide opportunities for new revenue streams if businesses identify where they are providing ecosystem service benefits to others  Proactive engagement in PES-like schemes can help to avoid unforeseen costs of regulation Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts

105 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 211: 1 minute Source: Conservation Trust for North Carolina, http://www.ctnc.org/land- trusts/statewide-land-protection-programs/upper-neuse-clean-water- initiative/http://www.ctnc.org/land- trusts/statewide-land-protection-programs/upper-neuse-clean-water- initiative/ Instructions: Facilitator to talk through example of a payment for ecosystem services. Background: Piedmont area of North Carolina Upper Neuse Clean Water Initiative (UNCWI). CTNC coordinates this partnership of seven nonprofit organizations and local governments that seeks to protect the lands most critical for ensuring the long-term health of drinking water supplies in the Upper Neuse River Basin. 770-square-mile Upper Neuse basin contains nine public drinking water reservoirs (Falls Lake, Lake Michie, Little River Reservoir, Lake Holt, Lake Orange, New Hillsborough Lake, Corporation Lake, Lake Ben Johnson and Lake Rogers) that together serve more than 600,000 people in Wake, Durham, Orange, Granville, Franklin, and Person counties. Generous financial support from local and state government agencies has been critical to this success. In particular, the N.C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund, the City of Raleigh, Durham County and City, and Orange County have contributed substantial resources to protect high priority lands. UNCWI partners worked closely with Raleigh and Durham to help establish “watershed protection fees,” small monthly allocations (averaging only 40 cents a month per household in Raleigh) based on water use, to fund purchases of properties and conservation easements. These dedicated revenue sources ensure that there will be significant funding available in the future for protecting land to safeguard water quality. The U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities believes that developing water as a forest ecosystem service market is an important strategy to help conserve forests and protect water supplies. To advance our understanding of this issue we have compiled a database of different watershed protection programs that are based on a payment for watershed service or similar approach. The goal is to include all of the municipalities around the country that have set up programs of this type. This allows to study and analyze successful programs, which in turn gives a better understanding of how watershed protection programs could proceed in the future. http://www.usendowment.org/watersheddatabase.html

106 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 212-213: 1 minute Sources: Madsen et al, Ecosystem Marketplace (June 2011) http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2848.pdf [Customize: Facilitator to use biodiversity market specific slides if relevant to the audience] Background on biodiversity markets  The State of Biodiversity Market research (Madsen et al, 2011) finds 45 existing compensatory mitigation programs around the world, ranging from programs with active mitigation banking of biodiversity credits to programs channeling development impact fees to policies that drive one-off offsets. There are another 27 programs in various stages of development or investigation. Within each active offset program, there are numerous individual offset sites, including over 1,100 mitigation banks worldwide.  The global annual market size is USD 2.4-4.0 billion at minimum, and likely much more, as 80% of existing programs are not transparent enough to estimate their market size. The conservation impact of this market includes at least 187,000 hectares of land under some sort of conservation management or permanent legal protection each year.  North America continues to dominate activity in biodiversity markets, with 15 active programs and 4 in development.

107 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 214-215:3 minutes Sources: Madsen et al, Ecosystem Marketplace (June 2011) http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2848.pdf [Customize: Facilitator to use biodiversity market specific slides if relevant to the audience] Background on biodiversity markets  One of the most striking features of the US offset programs is the private actor participation in creating and selling offsets. The US has created an environment where entrepreneurs can, and do, create and sell environmental services for profit. This system supports a niche industry which combines expertise in environmental restoration, finance, law, real estate, construction, and knowledge of local market conditions, as the programs only allow trading within areas defined by watershed if habitat boundaries  The US has two major national offset programs: o One directed at wetland and stream ecosystems o The other directed at endangered species, known as conservation banking Wetland and Stream Mitigation:  Compensatory mitigation in the US is a national wetland and stream offsets program (called ‘compensatory mitigation’) driven by compliance to the Clean Water Act (§404) and the principle of ‘no net loss.’ After following the mitigation hierarchy, applicants filing for permits to drain, fill, or dredge a wetland (or stream) may offset their impact.  Permittees may create their own offsets (called permittee- responsible mitigation), or pay for offsets via third-party mitigation banks or ILF programs. The agency in charge of oversight is the US Army  Corps of Engineers (US ACE), who interprets and implements regulations at the regional level (38 ‘Districts’).  Wetland and stream offsets in the US are created via: restoration, enhancement, creation, and preservation; indirect offsets (e.g., payments to fund research) are not allowed. Offsets must be located within the same watershed (‘service area’) as the impact, usually designated by US Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit Codes (i.e., HUC 0166900 indicates the Lower Rappahannock watershed in northern Virginia).  Previous guidance on compensatory mitigation created differing drivers and standards for the three categories of offset supply (permittee responsible, mitigation bank, ILF). New regulations (‘new rules’) that came into effect in June of 2008 have a watershed focus and give a preference to larger, landscape-scale offsets created before the impact (versus previous guidance favoring on-site restoration).  The new rules give a stated preference hierarchy of offsets from mitigation banks (first preference) or ILF programs (second) as opposed to permittee responsible offsets (third). The new rules also

108 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 214-215: 3 minutes Sources: Madsen et al, Ecosystem Marketplace (June 2011) http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2848.pdf [Customize: Facilitator to use biodiversity market specific slides if relevant to the audience] Background on biodiversity markets (cont.)  provide equivalent standards for all categories of supply credits. Now, anyone creating credits – be it a developer, non-profit, government, or for-profit organization – will have to create most of their credits before they can sell them and will have long-term funding requirements.  While there is this general guidance in national regulations, there is no standard method dictated for determining impact and offset requirements nationwide. Consequently, differing methods have been adopted in different US ACE Districts across the US. Methods range from acre-based, acre-based with ratios, to functionally-based methods. Thus, a credit may represent acres of restoration in one District and wetland functions in another. Conservation banking  Impacts to US threatened, endangered, or other imperiled species are regulated by the national Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. Like US wetland and stream mitigation, any impact to endangered species must be permitted and approved by the US FWS or NMFS, and must follow the mitigation hierarchy after which permittees may offset their residual impacts by either developing their own offset, paying into an in-lieu fee fund, or buying a credit from a conservation bank.  There are not yet official regulations for conservation banking like wetland and stream mitigation, but agency guidance was created in 2003 to allow public and private conservation banks or in-lieu fee programs.  Developers or others with projects that may impact a threatened or endangered species require an authorization (called ‘incidental take’) under section 7 or 10 of the ESA through consultation with the regulating agency – US FWS or NMFS, depending on which agency has jurisdiction for the species likely to be impacted.  If the regulating agency determines the impact can be offset at a conservation bank, the agency then determines the number of credits needed to offset the impact should the permittee choose to offset the impact at a bank. The ‘buyers’ of species offsets are the same as buyers of wetlands offsets: organizations developing infrastructure projects like roads and bridges, residential and commercial developers, the Department of Defense, extractive industries, and utilities.  The unit of credit is most often an acre of habitat. Occasionally, due to specifics of an organism’s ecology the unit may be a breeding pair or combination of habitat and the actual species, or in the case of aquatic species, the unit may be a liner foot of riparian habitat.

109 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 214-215: 3 minutes Sources: Madsen et al, Ecosystem Marketplace (June 2011) http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2848.pdf [Customize: Facilitator to use biodiversity market specific slides if relevant to the audience] Background on biodiversity markets (cont.)  The US has considerable institutional infrastructure for biodiversity offsets: strong policy drivers, enforcement, detailed regulations (for compensation mitigation), industry association (The National Mitigation Banking Association) and an annual conference (the National Mitigation and Ecosystem Banking Conference)  Although US Wetland and species conservation is driven by federal policy, implementation occurs at a regional level in 38 ‘Districts’ of the US Army Corps of Engineers (for wetland mitigation), in seven regional offices and 15 field offices of the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and the National Marine Fisheries Service.  One can see a range of differences in the regional interpretation of national regulations. Characteristics that vary across regions include the level of supply from private parties vs in-lieu fee programs, methods of measuring impacts and offsets, and level of enforcement.  Another signature of the US system is the preservation and long- term management of offsets. Offsets must be preserved ‘in perpetuity’ via a conservation easement agreement, which basically restricts the use of land for conservation purposes on the title that is legally tied to the piece of property. In addition, offsets are required to have funding set aside for long term management. US Wetland and Stream Mitigation Banking  Conservatively, 450,000 acres have been permanently protected in wetland and stream banks in the US over the history of their use, or roughly 22,000 acres each year. US Conservation Banking (i.e. endangered species credit banking)  There are currently 74,807 acres permanently protected under conservation banks in the US (this figure does not include banks whose status is pending or unknown). The average annual acreage added to the program over the last 10 years was 4,398 acres.  California is the largest participant in conservation banking in the US, with a total of 82 active and sold out banks. Very few new banks have been established outside of California, with just two additional banks in Washington, two in Florida, one in Utah, and one in Mississippi. Of the banks pending approval (not shown on the map above), the majority are located in California, with a handful in the Northwest and Florida.

110 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 216: 1 minute Sources: Acres for America, Wal-Mart, http://corporate.walmart.com/global- responsibility/environment-sustainability/acres-for-americahttp://corporate.walmart.com/global- responsibility/environment-sustainability/acres-for-america Examples of biodiversity offsets: Wal-Mart’s ‘Acres for America’ Program The retail giant Wal-Mart voluntarily introduced a program to permanently protect an acre for every acre of land developed for its stores. Although the program is offset in nature, the impact is not measured, and there is no specific intention to match the offset with the type or quality of habitat impacted by development. Wal-Mart uses a competitive grant process to distribute funds to non-profit and government organizations to make the conservation take place. Wal- Mart pledged $35 million for land acquisition to offset the store footprint for all of its development from 2005- 2015. To date, the program has helped conserve nearly 690,000 acres.

111 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 217: 1 minute Sources: http://bbop.forest-trends.org/pages/biodiversity_offsets Case study on City of Banbridge Forest Trends, Conservation International and the City of Bainbridge Island. 2009. BBOP Pilot Project Case Study. Bainbridge Island, Washington State, USA, http://www.forest- trends.org/documents/files/doc_3120.pdfhttp://www.forest- trends.org/documents/files/doc_3120.pdf Examples of biodiversity offsets:  In 2006, the City of Bainbridge Island agreed to participate as a pilot project in the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP). The pilot project is exploring the application of a methodology for developing biodiversity offsets for a public infrastructure project and a residential project on the same property.  Biodiversity offsets are measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development and persisting after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been implemented. The goal of biodiversity offsets is to achieve no net loss, or preferably a net gain, of biodiversity on the ground with respect to species composition, habitat structure and ecosystem services, including livelihood aspects. This case study provides a detailed description of the process used to develop the offset pilot project in the context of U.S. residential and infrastructure construction. It summarises the pilot project components, describes the offset development process, explains the conceptual design for the proposed offsets and makes recommendations for their implementation and long-term maintenance. The process has been complex in that the methodology used to assess impacts to biodiversity is still under development. The project is further complicated by changing budgetary and capital facilities priorities that affect the schedule for implementation of the infrastructure component of the proposal.  Rapid growth and residential development are severely impacting biodiversity on Bainbridge Island by reducing forest cover, altering intertidal habitats, fragmenting wildlife corridors and allowing invasive species to compromise native vegetation. This pilot project intends to demonstrate how sustainable developments can result in the conservation of native vegetation and preservation of ecosystem services. It is anticipated that long-term implementation of a biodiversity offset programme could result not only in additional open space preservation throughout both the urban and rural areas of the island, but also restoration of degraded habitats on existing private and public open space. In order for this concept to be successfully adapted in the development context, a clear framework for implementation of biodiversity offset projects needs to be established by the local jurisdiction, to include well-defined methodologies, policy motivations for participation, clear guidelines and expectations for implementation, and guidance for long-term preservation of offsets.

112 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 217: 1 minute (cont.) Sources: http://bbop.forest-trends.org/pages/biodiversity_offsets Case study on City of Banbridge Forest Trends, Conservation International and the City of Bainbridge Island. 2009. BBOP Pilot Project Case Study. Bainbridge Island, Washington State, USA, http://www.forest- trends.org/documents/files/doc_3120.pdfhttp://www.forest- trends.org/documents/files/doc_3120.pdf Examples of biodiversity offsets (cont.):  This could be achieved by: o Simplifying the methodology to assess biodiversity impacts and offsets to encourage broader application for smaller scale projects. o Local land use planning agencies providing incentives, or adopting a certification incentive system as a motivation for development projects to consider biodiversity offsets. o Using habitat banks managed by private companies or public land trusts to potentially facilitate the implementation of biodiversity of fsets and ensure the long-term success of habitat preservation.  The City of Bainbridge Island Department of Planning and Community Development continues to explore opportunities to encourage developers to implement biodiversity offsets. Various policy incentives have been considered, including expedited permitting, flexible regulatory requirements and density bonuses for residential or commercial developments that propose offsets beyond those already required by federal, state or local regulation. It is important to note that no such incentives yet exist and that this case study involves a private landowner that is participating on an entirely voluntary basis.  The offset designs discussed in this case study have not been finalised and implementation plans for the offsets have not yet been developed. Until the biodiversity offsets discussed in this case study are implemented and then monitored over the long term it will be impossible to assess whether the goal of ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity has been achieved. However, it is clear that biodiversity offsets, if planned and implemented carefully, can result in conservation gains above and beyond those required through regulatory means.

113 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 218-223: 20 minutes Objective: participants to take part in an exercise to apply the mitigation hierarchy Source: WBCSD, Responding to the Biodiversity Challenge (2010) http://www.wbcsd.org/Pages/EDocument/EDocumentDetails.aspx?ID=22& NoSearchContextKey=true Instructions Facilitator to go through the Suncor case study Facilitator to describe the case study context and the objective for the exercise (3 minutes). A handout including the mitigation hierarchy and summarizing the key points will be handed out to participants. Facilitator to ask for a quick hands up to see who has had to put conservation measures in place for their company (2 minutes – facilitator to note down the number) Facilitator to put participants into groups of 4-5 participants will be given 20 minutes in their groups to discuss: 1.The ecosystem services impacted in the case study example 2.Based on the information available the approach they would use to minimise impacts Facilitator to collect feedback from each group as it is shared with the group, with key points summarised on a flip chart (5-10 minutes). The facilitator may wish to run through the company’s actual response and results, depending on audience.

114 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 224: 2 minutes Source: all information is publicly available TEEB for Business Chapter 3 http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=26aoFB8xrwU%3d&tabid =1021&language=en-US Instructions: Facilitator will explain to the audience some common issues with biodiversity reporting. The facilitator will then introduce the concept of integrated reporting and full environmental cost accounting. Background: “Whilst few organisations in the public or private sectors report comprehensively (or at all) on biodiversity and/or ecosystems in their annual report and accounts, a few more do so in separate annual sustainability or corporate responsibility reports. Here, unlike in financial reporting, there are no mandated standards that all companies or organisations must follow. Increasingly, many stakeholders are exploring how to integrate financial and non-financial information in a single report that provides a balanced and meaningful picture of a company. Early examples from companies such as Natura and Telefonica are based around providing annual reports and CSR/sustainability reports as a single package. Some companies produce these as paired documents and others as a single volume. Alongside the pioneering efforts of individual companies, other networks and standards bodies are also exploring how to promote more integrated reporting. With respect to Biodiversity and ecosystem services (BES), the challenges are based around how to manage and track information within a company and how to ensure that the economic values of BES are properly reflected at a level of detail that can influence corporate financial analysis.” Full (environmental) cost accounting: An accounting approach that recognizes all costs and benefits associated with an activity, including economic, environmental, health and social costs. The assessment sometimes only includes internal costs and benefits, but it can also include externality costs and benefits too (either monetized or non-monetized). NOTE: for a more in depth understanding of reporting and management systems relating to ecosystem services, facilitators can also refer to the publication from WRI on the topic: Nature in Performance: Initial Recommendations for Integrating Ecosystem Services into Business Performance Systems (2011) (http://www.wri.org/publication/nature-in-performance )

115 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 225: 1 minute Source: SASB, http://www.sasb.org/sustainability-standards/http://www.sasb.org/sustainability-standards/ Instructions: Facilitator to briefly present the SASB initiative around the development of a sustainability accounting standard. Background: SASB is currently developing a sustainability accounting standard for each of the 88 SICS industries. Each standard will consist of Performance Indicators and Management disclosures, grouped into Impacts and Innovation Opportunities. (See slide graphic). The standards are based on performance metrics and management disclosures that are commonly tracked and reported on in the industry. Where there are no common metrics or disclosures, SASB will create them. By creating an industry based standard, SASB is streamlining the reporting process. Performance Indicator Criteria As part of the process of developing the standards, SASB will evaluate possible performance indicators against the following criteria:  Relevant: Adequately describes performance related to the material issue, or is a proxy for performance  Useful: Provides decision-useful information to companies and investors  Applicable: The KPI is applicable to most companies in the industry  Cost-effective: The data are already collected by most companies or can be collected in a timely manner and at a reasonable cost  Comparable: The data allow for peer-to-peer benchmarking within the industry  Complete: Individually, or as a set, the indicator provides enough information to understand and interpret performance associated with the material issue  Directional: The KPI provides clarity about whether an increase/decrease in the numerical value signals improved/worsened performance  Auditable: The data underlying this KPI can be verified

116 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 226: 1 minute Source: all information is publicly available and taken from GRI portal, available from: http://www.globalreporting.org Instructions Facilitator will explain the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) indicators and the work done by GRI regarding new indicators. Also, facilitator will introduce the work done by companies to link Net Positive Impacts and impact indicators. Background: “The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) is a network-based organization that produces a comprehensive sustainability reporting framework that is widely used around the world. GRI is committed to the Framework’s continuous improvement and application worldwide. GRI’s core goals include the mainstreaming of disclosure on environmental, social and governance performance.” “GRI's Reporting Framework is developed through a consensus-seeking, multi-stakeholder process. participants are drawn from global business, civil society, labor, academic and professional institutions.” “The Sustainability Reporting Framework provides guidance on how organizations can disclose their sustainability performance. It consists of the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Sector Supplements and the Technical Protocol – Applying the Report Content Principles.” “The Framework is applicable to organizations of any size or type, from any sector or geographic region, and has been used by thousands of organizations worldwide as the basis for producing their sustainability reports.” NOTE: Facilitator to highlight the fact that the details of this framework and the biodiversity/ecosystem indicators are contingent on the release of the GRI G4 guidelines, currently in development.

117 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 227: 1 minute Source: all information is publicly available and taken from GRI portal, available from: http://www.globalreporting.org Instructions facilitator to introduce the sustainability reporting framework and it’s guidelines. Background “The Sustainability Reporting Framework provides guidance on how organizations can disclose their sustainability performance. It consists of the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines, Sector Supplements and the Technical Protocol – Applying the Report Content Principles.” “The Framework is applicable to organizations of any size or type, from any sector or geographic region, and has been used by thousands of organizations worldwide as the basis for producing their sustainability reports.” The Sustainability Reporting Guidelines “The Guidelines are the foundation of the Framework and are now in their third generation (G3). They feature Performance Indicators and Management Disclosures that organizations can adopt voluntarily, flexibly and incrementally, enabling them to be transparent about their performance in key sustainability areas.” “The G3.1 Guidelines are the latest and most complete version of GRI's G3 Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. These Guidelines are based on G3 but contain expanded guidance on local community impacts, human rights and gender. While G3-based reports are still valid, GRI recommends that reporters use G3.1, the most comprehensive reporting guidance available today.” GR3.1 Guidelines can be accessed at: https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/latest-guidelines/g3-1- guidelines/Pages/default.aspx Sector Supplements “Sector Supplements are tailored versions of the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines that cover sector specific issues.” Sector supplements can be accessed at: https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/sector- guidance/Pages/default.aspx The Technical Protocol “The Technical Protocol – Applying the Report Content Principles, provides process guidance on how to define the content of a sustainability report. It helps organizations to produce relevant reports more easily and can be used with the G3.1, G3 Guidelines and with Sector Supplements.” The Technical Protocol can be accessed at: https://www.globalreporting.org/reporting/guidelines- online/TechnicalProtocol/Pages/default.aspx

118 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 228: 1 minute Source: all information is publicly available GRI portal. G3.1 Guidelines including Technical Protocol Final. Available from: http://www.globalreporting.org Instructions: Facilitator to introduce the indicators available within the GRI framework Background: The section on sustainability Performance Indicators is organized by economic, environmental, and social categories. Social Indicators are further categorized by Labour, Human Rights, Society, and Product Responsibility. “Each category includes a Disclosure on Management Approach (‘Management Approach’) and a corresponding set of Core and Additional Performance Indicators.” “Core Indicators have been developed through GRI’s multi-stakeholder processes, which are intended to identify generally applicable Indicators and are assumed to be material for most organizations.” “An organization should report on Core Indicators unless they are deemed not material on the basis of the GRI Reporting Principles.” “Additional Indicators represent emerging practice or address topics that may be material for some organizations, but are not material for others. Where final versions of Sector Supplements exist, the Indicators should be treated as Core Indicators.” [Interactive options: (2 minutes) participants asked to think up and shout out examples of performance indicators, and recording these on a flip chart] “Reporting on the Performance Indicators, the following guidance on data compilation applies:  Reporting on Trends  Use of Protocols  Presentation of Data  Data aggregation  Metrics”

119 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 229: 1 minute Source: all information is publicly available GRI portal. G3.1 Guidelines including Technical Protocol Final. Available from: http://www.globalreporting.org [Interactive option: participants given a few minutes to explain the importance of each indicator and asked to feedback to the group] Instructions: Facilitator to introduce biodiversity related indicators available from the GRI Background: “EN11 Location and size of land owned, leased, managed in, or adjacent to, protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas.” Relevance: “By reporting on the potential impact on land that lies within, contains, or is adjacent to legally protected areas, as well as areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas, an organization can identify and understand certain risks associated with biodiversity. Monitoring which activities are taking place in both protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas makes it possible for the reporting organization to reduce the risks of impacts.” “It also makes it possible for the organization to manage impacts on biodiversity or avoid mismanagement. Failure to adequately manage such impacts may result in reputational damage, delays in obtaining planning permission, and the loss of a social license to operate.” “EN12 Description of significant impacts of activities, products, and services on biodiversity in protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas.” Relevance: “This Indicator provides information on the significant direct and indirect impacts of the reporting organization on biodiversity in protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas. It also provides the background for understanding (and developing) an organizational strategy to mitigate these impacts. By asking for structured, qualitative information, the Indicator enables comparison across organizations and over time of the relative size, scale, and nature of impacts.”

120 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 229: 1minute (cont.) EN13 Habitats protected or restored. Relevance “A biodiversity strategy contains a combination of elements related to the prevention, management, and remediation of damage to natural habitats resulting from the organization’s activities. This Indicator measures the implementation of a specific strategy for preventing or redressing negative impacts associated with activities. Ensuring the integrity of natural habitats can enhance the reputation of the organization, the stability of its surrounding natural environment and resources, and its acceptance by surrounding communities.” EN14 Strategies, current actions, and future plans for managing impacts on biodiversity. Relevance “Performance against biodiversity policies, objectives, and commitments depends on having structured programs in place for managing impacts. The presence and structure of programs is particularly important when national regulations do not provide clear reference points for an organization planning its biodiversity management.” “Members of local communities often have unique knowledge of bio- diverse areas and their value to local communities that is important for managing impacts on biodiversity.” “This Indicator enables both internal and external stakeholders to analyze how well the reporting organization’s strategies, current actions, and future plans address potential impacts on biodiversity. The quality of the organization’s approach to managing impacts on biodiversity (as identified in EN11 and EN12) will affect its exposure to risks such as reputational damage, fines, or rejection of planning or operating permissions. Actions to protect or restore habitats and species are of particular relevance.” EN15 Number of IUCN Red List species and national conservation list species with habitats in areas affected by operations, by level of extinction risk. Relevance “This Indicator helps the reporting organization to identify where its activities can pose a threat to endangered plant and animal species. By identifying these threats, the organization can initiate appropriate steps to avoid harm and to prevent the extinction of species. The IUCN Red List and national conservation list species can serve as authorities on the sensitivity of habitat in areas affected by operations, and on the relative importance of these habitats from a management perspective.”

121 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 230: 1 minute Source: GRI Focal Point USA, https://www.globalreporting.org/network/regional-networks/gri-focal- points/focal-point-usa/Pages/default.aspx https://www.globalreporting.org/network/regional-networks/gri-focal- points/focal-point-usa/Pages/default.aspx Instructions Facilitator to give explain the outlines of sustainability reporting in the US Background: The GRI Focal Point USA provides guidance and support to local organizations, driving GRI’s mission to make sustainability reporting standard practice. https://www.globalreporting.org/network/regional- networks/gri-focal-points/focal-point-usa/Pages/default.aspx Reporting in the United States The USA is a leading global economic power. Uptake of sustainability reporting is rising sharply, partly due to the large number of multinational enterprises that want to demonstrate leadership and address calls for increased transparency. There has been a clear need for a GRI representative in the USA to drive the practice of sustainability reporting. According to research, more than 75% of the top 100 companies in the United States report on their corporate responsibility performance. There are three key drivers behind this statistic: ethical considerations, economic considerations, and innovation and learning. The USA was the world’s largest GRI reporting country in 2010, with the number of reports increasing by 30 percent, from 140 in 2009 to 183 in 2010. Some US organizations have been producing sustainability reports with GRI’s Guidelines since 1999. There are nearly 90 Organizational Stakeholders – core supporters – in the USA. About Focal Point USA The GRI Focal Point USA plays a crucial role in mainstreaming sustainability reporting. The Focal Point USA aims to boost the number of US companies reporting on sustainability, to improve the quality of those reports, and to increase US organizations’ input into developing new guidance for sustainability reporting. The key objectives of the Focal Point USA are: To drive the mainstreaming of sustainability reporting by engaging with new sectors and industries throughout the USA Communicate the latest developments in sustainability reporting to stakeholder groups Channel local stakeholder feedback to GRI to increase local ownership of sustainability reporting and GRI’s Framework. As part of its regional expansion strategy, GRI entered into an agreement in October 2010 to establish a Focal Point in the United States. The Focal Point is supported by founding sponsors Deloitte LLP, Ernst & Young LLP, KPMG LLP, and PwC U.S., and is now hosted by IFAC; having been formerly hosted by The Conference Board.IFAC

122 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 231-232: 1 minute Sources: BAT managing biodiversity strategy: http://www.bat.com/groupfs/sites/BAT_89HK76.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO 8D3ED7?opendocument&SKN=1 BAT Biodiversity Partnership: http://www.batbiodiversity.org/ Latest BAT Biodiversity Partnership progress report: http://www.batbiodiversity.org/groupms/sites/BAT_8A7ED8.nsf/vwPages WebLive/DO8A9FHA?opendocument&SKN=1 Goals for managing biodiversity: http://www.bat.com/groupfs/sites/BAT_89HK76.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO 8D3EC9?opendocument&SKN=1 Instructions: Facilitator to choose one of the 3 examples (British American Tobacco, Rio Tinto and Dow) to illustrate how companies can measure and manage biodiversity. Background Example 1 (British American Tobacco): Since 2001, BAT have worked with Fauna & Flora International, the Tropical Biology Association and the Earthwatch Institute, forming the BAT Biodiversity Partnership. BAT funds projects that are focused on:  Reducing unsustainable use of forests for fuel and restoring natural forests;  Enhancing freshwater ecosystems, through improved vegetation cover and water management; and  Promoting agricultural practices that enhance soil health and biodiversity.

123 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 231-232: 1 minute (cont.) GRI indicators: The BAT Biodiversity Partnership produces annual progress reports, separate from BAT’s main sustainability report. Within their main sustainability report, BAT disclose information on all GRI biodiversity indicators:  EN11: Location and size of land owned, leased, managed in, or adjacent to, protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas.  EN12: Description of significant impacts of activities. Products and services on biodiversity in protected areas and areas of high biodiversity vaue outside protected areas.  EN13: Habitats protected or restored.  EN14: Strategies, current actions, and future plans for managing impacts on biodiversity.  EN15: Number of IUCN Red List species and national convservation species with habitats in areas affected by operations by level of extinction risk. The facilitator can refer to BAT’s latest sustainability report for details on their reporting, available online at: http://www.bat.com/groupfs/sites/bat_89hk76.nsf/vwPagesWebLive/DO7 QJMQZ/$FILE/medMD8FANND.pdf?openelement Goals for managing biodiversity:  Review and revise our biodiversity risk and opportunity assessment tool for use in our next round of assessments of tobacco leaf growing operations by end 2011;  Use our biodiversity risk and opportunity assessments to help us identify and, where necessary, mitigate possible biodiversity risks associated with our leaf operations;  Continue to raise awareness of biodiversity issues through training workshops, engagement with farmers and our leaf managers and our online biodiversity learning module; and  Conduct research to verify the apparent return of wildlife to trial areas of re-established natural forest in Sri Lanka by end 2013.

124 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 233: 1 minute Source: all information is publicly available TEEB for business.Chapter 3, p 32 – example of Reporting by Rio Tinto, http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=26aoFB8xrwU%3d&tabid =1021&language=en-US Background Example 2 (Rio Tinto): “Rio Tinto is a major international mining company with operations in more than 50 countries, employing approximately 102,000 people. In 2004, Rio Tinto launched its biodiversity strategy which includes the over-arching goal to have a ‘net positive impact’ (NPI) on biodiversity. The company has developed practical tools and methodologies to assess the biodiversity values of their land holdings and has commenced, in association with its conservation partners, the application of offset methodologies in Madagascar, Australia and North America. In 2009, Rio Tinto completed a methodology for developing Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) in collaboration with Fauna and Flora International (FFI). Rio Tinto reports on the biodiversity value of its sites, the amount of land in proximity to biodiversity rich habitats, and the number of plant and animal species of conservation significance within these land holdings. This information is reported on their corporate website.”

125 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 234: 1 minute Source: Dow, http://www.dow.com/sustainability/pdf/23489-Sustainability-Report- interactive.pdfhttp://www.dow.com/sustainability/pdf/23489-Sustainability-Report- interactive.pdf Background Example 3 (The Dow Chemical Company): 2011 marks the first year that Dow has compiled its global efforts related to biodiversity and Ecosystem Services into one public report. It also started collaborating with The Nature Conservancy to determine the business value of ecosystems service. Dow and The Dow Chemical Company Foundation are collectively committing $10 million to the collaboration with TNC over five years Aspect biodiversity Reported in the Dow Sustainability Report (pp 52–57)  En 11 Land in/adjacent to protected areas pp 52–53 Partial Response: EN11 reporting has been significantly expanded with this report but we do not report on the size of land area. We intend to report fully by 2014.  En 12 Biodiversity impacts pp54 Reported  En 13 Habitats protected or restored pp54–55 Reported  En 14 Strategies/plans related to biodiversity pp56 Reported  En 15 IUCN Red List species in areas affected pp57 Reported

126 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 235-237: 1 minute Instructions Facilitator to give definition of environmental management systems and discuss the Holcim/IUCN biodiversity management system as an example. Environmental management systems A structured framework for managing an organization’s significant environmental impacts. It includes an assessment of a company’s activities, products, processes and services that might affect the environment, and an environmental improvement program. Source: WBCSD, Corporate Ecosystem Valuation, Additional Notes A, Selected Ecosystem Valuation Concepts and Issues. http://www.wbcsd.org/pages/adm/download.aspx?id=5923&objecttypeid=7 “In 2007, Holcim made the strategic choice to engage proactively with IUCN on the theme of biodiversity to better understand the opportunities and risks linked to biodiversity and ecosystem conservation. The relationship has helped Holcim structure a corporate approach and prioritize biodiversity related activities at site level over the full life cycle of its operations. This engagement has resulted in an operational Biodiversity Management System (BMS) that enables better management of biodiversity in new projects and implements the appropriate corrective actions in sites of varying sensitivity. An important first step in the BMS is the establishment of a biodiversity risk matrix followed by the introduction of measures appropriate for the risk level encountered at each site (see table in presentation slide). The risk level is determined first by the biodiversity importance (proximity to high biodiversity value areas) and second by the potential direct impact level. This methodology also takes into account the biodiversity value given by relevant local stakeholders.” “The matrix is used as part of three implementation steps in the BMS:  Stage 1. Know the potential impact – annual environmental questionnaire collects (self reported) biodiversity information per site used for risk mapping. Where risk or impacts are unknown, there is a need to close knowledge gap.  Stage 2. Match the level of effort to risk – sensitive sites are required to implement full Biodiversity Action Plans and monitor progress. Collaboration with expert partners can assist sites to develop needed biodiversity inventories, set appropriate targets, and determine actions.”

127 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 235-237: 1 minute (cont.)  “Stage 3. Monitor results to demonstrate progress towards targets – At most sites, monitoring can be conducted by internal staff. For sensitive sites, external expert monitoring can provide additional credibility to the results. Biodiversity activities need to be integrated into existing operations management processes, such as rehabilitation planning and environmental management systems. A full inventory of all 500+ extraction sites owned by Holcim in over 70 countries has been conducted and all sites are categorized on the risk matrix. Top management has been informed of the sites which need attention first and a global biodiversity target has been set in order to monitor progress: by 2013, 80% of sensitive sites will have a biodiversity action plan in place. Results and progress made will be published in Holcim’s sustainability report. Holcim recognizes it lacks the capacity to adequately monitor and conduct the required biodiversity assessments. Therefore, Holcim will continue to work with external partners where appropriate whilst building capacity internally. There is also an opportunity to define smarter and more pragmatic performance indicators to measure the long term impact on biodiversity. The outputs of Environmental and Social Impact Assessments, walkover surveys and more detailed biodiversity assessments have to serve as a basis for the operational environmental management of each site and as the point of departure for rehabilitation plans of the extraction sites. These tasks will remain the responsibility of the local operations.” Source: TEEB For Business Chapter 4, pp 8-9 http://www.teebweb.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=tcneop1kys4%3d&tabid= 1021&language=en-US

128 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 238-239: 2 minutes Graphic source: WBCSD, Collaboration, innovation, transformation. Ideas and inspiration to accelerate sustainable growth – A value chain approach, (2012) http://www.wbcsd.org/work-program/systems- solutions/sustainable-consumption-and-value-chain.aspx Sustainable Procurement Policies Instructions: Facilitator to recap the concepts of sustainable supply and value chains (introduced in module 2) in order to have a more in depth description of sustainable procurement policies and initiatives. Background: Value chains are an integral part of strategic planning for many businesses today. A value chain refers to the full life cycle of a product or process, including material sourcing, production, consumption and disposal/recycling processes Sustainability is a means of securing the future of the planet. In conditions of heightened competition and economic instability, businesses that develop more sustainable value chains can gain a competitive edge, augmenting the bottom line, while increasing productivity and growth A sustainable value chain approach enables both business and society to better understand the environmental challenges associated with the life cycle of products and services. Sustainable procurement In what is often described as “sustainable procurement”, organizations are looking beyond price, quality, availability and functionality to consider other factors in their procurement decisions including environmental (the effects that the products and/or services have on the environment) and social aspects (labor conditions, indigenous peoples’ and workers’ rights, etc.) (Environmentally and Socially Responsible Procurement Working Group, 2007). Sustainable procurement can help maintain a company’s social license to operate (Kemp, 2001). It can help reduce reputation risks and, ultimately, help secure sustainable supplies (Kennard, 2006). Sustainable procurement can also be used to align companies with their stakeholders’ values and make organizations along the supply chain (from forest owners and producers to retailers) more resilient to changing business conditions. Source: WBCSD, Sustainable Procurement of Wood and Paper-Based Products, http://www.sustainableforestprods.org/node/4

129 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 240: 2 minutes Source: Unilever website, http://www.sustainable-living.unilever.com/our- approach/sustainable-sourcing/ Instructions: Facilitator to walk through some examples of sustainable procurement policies Background (Unilever) “Today we source 10% of our agricultural raw materials sustainably. By 2012 we will source 30%; by 2015 50%; and by 2020 100%.” Their metric “Raw or packaging material sourced from verifiable sustainable renewable sources or made from recycled materials (% by weight).” Working with suppliers “Half our raw materials come from farms and forests. For us, sustainable sourcing means meeting the needs of people today without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. In practice this means working closely with our suppliers to help them improve their farming practices and minimise their environmental impacts.” Best practice “In 1998 we established our Sustainable Agriculture Programme. With the help of an external advisory board and expert agronomists, we developed the Unilever Sustainable Agriculture Code (the Code) – a detailed guideline for agricultural best practice. The Code is based on the following 11 indicators:” “Soil health; soil loss; nutrients; pest management; biodiversity; farm economics; energy; water; social and human capital; local economy; and animal welfare. Measuring sustainable sourcing and tracking progress Certification: there are certain bodies such as Fairtrade, the Rainforest Alliance and the Forest Stewardship Council, whose certification schemes match the principles and practices of the Code. We count suppliers certified by one of these standards as a ‘sustainable source’. Self-verification: not all the raw materials in all the geographies from which we source are covered by such organisations. We therefore supplement our certified partnerships with a system based on self- verification. Using our software tool, suppliers carry out self-assessments against the Code. The tool helps identify areas of best practice and areas for improvement. It also provides a basis for us to work with the supplier to create a plan for continuous improvement. Any sources that are self- verified are audited by a third party, whose process is endorsed by an independent external advisory board.”

130 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 241: 2 minutes Sources: Campbell’s, http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/csr/pages/planet/supply-chain- logistics-and-transportation.asp#.UVBAFFd4-5M http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/csr/pages/planet/supply-chain- logistics-and-transportation.asp#.UVBAFFd4-5M Background (Campbell’s) Managing the sourcing of our products from farm to fork, including procurement and distribution  Our manufacturing facilities continue to produce over 90% of all Campbell-labeled products.  Embedded CSR criteria as part of our procurement sourcing processes  We also require our suppliers to follow rigorous CSR and sustainability standards.  Campbell also assures effective implementation of standards through our Supplier Sustainability Scorecarding efforts.  Audits have been conducted at over 80% of our suppliers' manufacturing facilities in 55 countries over the past two years. We have completed more than 1,700 vendor audits against our audit standards that include CSR and sustainability requirements. In addition to our internal auditors, we have also initiated third-party audits to keep accountability and performance high.  Campbell has implemented stringent policies and procedures for managing noncompliance among suppliers.

131 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 241: 2 minutes (con.) Sources: Coca Cola, http://www.coca-colacompany.com/our-company/suppliers/suppliers http://www.coca-colacompany.com/stories/sustainable-agriculture Background (Coca-Cola)  Our suppliers are expected, at a minimum, to conduct business in an ethical manner and comply with all applicable laws and regulations. Our Supplier Guiding Principles (SGPs) communicate our values and expectations for our bottling partners and business partners. The SGPs are a part of all supplier agreements, and a pre-certification practice is in place for trademark marketing suppliers. Suppliers also are provided training and assistance programs on an as-needed basis for areas where they need to improve their operations.  This Code of Business Conduct for Suppliers establishes related requirements for our suppliers.  Our Supplier Guiding Principles (SGP) communicate our values and expectations of suppliers and emphasize the importance of responsible workplace practices that respect human rights and comply, at a minimum, with applicable environmental and local labor laws and core international conventions.  Since the inception of our SGP program we have collaborated with our bottling and supplier partners to complete nearly 12,000 workplace assessments.  The Coca-Cola Company does not own any farms and therefore has less direct control over the agricultural supply chain. However, we have significant opportunities within our global supply chain to develop and encourage more sustainable practices to benefit suppliers, customers and consumers. While we are still in the early stages of exploring these opportunities, we are committed to the health and economic vitality of the farming communities our supply chain engages.

132 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 242: 1 minute Source: WBCSD, Sustainable Procurement of Wood and Paper-Based Products (2011), http://www.sustainableforestprods.org/node/4 Examples of sustainable procurement guides and advice Instructions: Facilitator to refer to the slide and discuss the 10 key issues surrounding sustainable procurement for wood and paper. Background: Sustainable Procurement Guide for Wood and Paper-Based Products This guide focuses on 10 key issues, formulated as essential questions, central to the sustainable procurement of wood and paper-based products. Wood and paper-based products can be an environmentally and socially sound purchasing option. The essence of sustainable procurement is to select these products with acceptable and even beneficial environmental and social impacts. While sustainable procurement is an investment in a better world, it is also an investment in a better bottom line. Good environmental claims that accurately convey the environmental attributes of products help consumers to make informed choices. Misleading, false, meaningless or unclear information can result in consumers losing confidence in environmental claims and labels in general, lead to unfair business competition and discourage companies from making truthful claims. So this guidance aims to:  Support business in making robust environmental claims;  Give firms confidence that their claims meet good practice standards in the domestic market, Europe and internationally;  Improve the standard of environmental claims found in the domestic market; and  Reduce unfair competition by minimising claims that may be unfair or misleading. Other procurement examples: Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) Source: EPA., http://www.epa.gov/epp/ Environmentally Preferable Purchasing (EPP) helps the federal government "buy green," and in doing so, uses the federal government's enormous buying power to stimulate market demand for green products and services. Geared first to help federal purchasers, this site can help green vendors, businesses large and small – and consumers. Use the easy index to:  Find and evaluate information about green products and services;  Identify federal green buying requirements;  Calculate the costs and benefits of purchasing choices;  Manage green purchasing processes.

133 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 243: 1 minute Source: WWF and sustainable agriculture, http://worldwildlife.org/industries/sustainable-agriculture Optional slide – mechanism to address agriculture related challenges Background information: WWF and sustainable agriculture  When agricultural operations are sustainably managed, they can preserve and restore critical habitats, help protect watersheds, and improve soil health and water quality. But unsustainable practices have serious impacts on people and the environment.  WWF identifies and implements better management practices for agriculture. We create financial incentives to encourage biodiversity conservation, improve agricultural policies, and identify new income opportunities for producers. When agricultural operations are sustainably managed, they can preserve and restore critical habitats, help protect watersheds, and improve soil health and water quality. WWF works in collaboration with a wide range of players to: o Convene multi-stakeholder roundtables that define and measurably reduce the impacts of growing priority commodities o Identify and implement better management practices that protect the environment and producers' bottom line o Create financial incentives to encourage biodiversity conservation o Improve agricultural policies o Identify new income opportunities to ensure producers’ economic viability

134 Session 11 Managing and mitigating impacts Facilitators’ notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 244-249: 3 minutes Source: US BCSD (www.usbcsd.org) US BCSD Collaborative Project Opportunities Water & Ecosystem synergy project – A focus on water in the Southern Louisiana area has demonstrated the transferability of the US BCSD synergy process to water and ecosystems. The Green Brownfields Initiative provides a framework to analyze a broad variety of properties and sites for ecological restoration potential Ecological Life Cycle Assessment was demonstrated in the US BCSD’s CEV case studies. The method can also be applied to analyze supply chain ecosystem impacts.

135 Session 12: Wrap up and next steps Time guidelines Time guidelinesTime Wrap up – interactive30 mins Session objective Session will review the key points of the module, compare it with the original needs of participants (flip chart from icebreaker) and plan for next steps (participants) Session overview participants will be reminded of the module’s agenda, which will enable them to recognise the knowledge acquired throughout the different sessions (set the scene). The session will then continue with a high level evaluation of the module’s objectives and whether they have been achieved. Finally, the session will conclude with participants developing steps going forward, considering actions needed by them and/or their company/business. Session format This session will be run by the two course facilitators – one will be leading the session and the second should facilitate material and/or address questions/queries from participants/groups. Handouts participants course material desk pack – includes a handout with references for later study.

136 Session 12 Wrap up and next steps Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 250 & 251: 1 minute Objective: review the key points of the module, compare with original participant needs (flip chart from icebreaker), plan for next steps Instructions: Facilitator to:  Recap: review the key learning points, module summary.

137 Session 12 Wrap up and next steps Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 252: 5 minutes to note the ways that participant companies may benefit Instructions: The facilitator should ask participants to evaluate the extent to which their learning objectives and outcomes have been achieved, referring back to the learning objectives captured on the flip chart at the beginning of the session. Slide 253: 5 minutes to note the ways that participant companies may benefit + 5 minutes debrief Instructions: Interactive session: action planning Facilitator to ask participants to document 3 actions which they could take in relation to the potential risks and opportunities relevant to their own organisation. These actions should be as specific and time bound as possible. For example:  Identify how ecosystem services relate to your own company’s situation,  Arrange meetings with site managers from our three largest facilities over the next 2 months to discuss potential risks and opportunities,  Schedule a meeting this month with the Group Head of Risk to highlight impacts and dependencies on Ecosystems within our supply chain and review our management responses,  Review the WBCSD Responding to the Biodiversity Challenge report this week and prepare a briefing note for the team the following week. Source: WBCSD, Responding to the Biodiversity Challenge,(2010), http://www.wbcsd.org/web/nagoya/RespondingtotheBiodiversityChall enge.pdf The facilitator should gather responses from the participants and consolidate them on a whiteboard/flipchart to share ideas for next steps.

138 Session 12 Wrap up and next steps Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slide 254: 1 minute [Optional slide to be completed by facilitator] Instructions: Give participant a few tips to help them plan for their work Slide 255: 5 minutes + 5 minutes debrief Instructions: Ask participant to write on a post it what are the next steps for them following the training. When debriefing, cluster the responses by themes (e.g.: brief my management about ecosystems risks and opportunities; secure budget for the organization of an ESR, etc)

139 Session 12 Wrap up and next steps Facilitators' notesMedia/activity/handout guidance Slides 256-257: 3 minutes [Optional slides] Instructions: Facilitator to refer to references provided in the main presentation. The facilitator can also signpost to alternatives/other materials that will help continue their learning journey. This is supported by the action planning slides in the main presentation. Facilitator to talk through what participants can do next to integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services thinking into their company and working life: 1.Build awareness within your company 2.Review WBCSD case study examples, publications and other publications 3.Consider joining the WBCSD’s Ecosystems Focus Area and Water Project working groups, and making use of the WRI’s ecosystems experts directory 4.Piloting the use of a specific tool e.g. The CEV and/or ESR for measuring impacts within a small project, 5.Contact the WBCSD’s Ecosystems Work Program team for further information about implementing BET Facilitator will refer to the Action Planning slides within the participants slide packs (as shown opposite)

140 Disclaimer Business Ecosystems Training (BET) is a capacity building program released in the name of the WBCSD. It is the result of a collaborative effort by members of the secretariat and senior executives from KPMG and an Advisory Committee composed of member companies, Regional Network partners, NGOs, UN and academic institutions, and others. A wide range of members reviewed drafts, thereby ensuring that BET broadly represents the majority of the WBCSD membership. It does not mean, however, that every member company agrees with every word. Business Ecosystems Training (BET) has been prepared for capacity building only, and does not constitute professional advice. You should not act upon the information contained in BET without obtaining specific professional advice. No representation or warranty (express or implied) is given as to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained in BET and its translations in different languages, and, to the extent permitted by law, WBCSD, KPMG, members of the Advisory Committee, their members, employees and agents do not accept or assume any liability, responsibility or duty of care for any consequences of you or anyone else acting, or refraining to act, in reliance on the information contained in this capacity building program or for any decision based on it. Copyright © World Business Council for Sustainable Development May 2013

Business Ecosystems Training U.S. Understanding and Managing the Links between Ecosystem Services and Business Facilitator Notes May 2013.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Business Ecosystems Training U.S. Understanding and Managing the Links between Ecosystem Services and Business Facilitator Notes May 2013."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Business Ecosystems Training U.S. Understanding and Managing the Links between Ecosystem Services and Business Facilitator Notes May 2013.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Business Ecosystems Training U.S. Understanding and Managing the Links between Ecosystem Services and Business Facilitator Notes May 2013."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback