GRI EcosystèmesReporting

8/3/2019 GRI EcosystmesReporting

1/44

Approach or reportingon ecosystem servicesIncorporating ecosystem services

into an organizations

perormance disclosure

This document is available or ree download on www.globalreporting.org

Topics

ReportingPractices

GRIResearch&DevelopmentSeries

Tools


2/44

2011 GRI

2

About GRIs Research andDevelopment Publication

Series

GRIs research and development program supports

GRIs commitment to the continuous improvement

o its Reporting Framework by investigating

challenging issues around reporting and innovating

new ways to apply the GRI Reporting Framework in

conjunction with other standards.

Publications in the GRI Research and Development

Series are presented in three categories:

Research and implications on reporting

related to subjects such as biodiversity

and gender

Tracking o reporting practices,

implementation o the GRI Reporting

Framework and assessing new scenarios

Guidance or using the GRI Reporting

Framework in combination with other

standards

This document Approach or reporting on ecosystem

services alls under the Reporting Practices

category.

Copyright

This document is copyright-protected by Stichting

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI). The reproduction

and distribution o this document or inormation

is permitted without prior permission rom GRI.

However, neither this document nor any extract

rom it may be reproduced, stored, translated, or

transerred in any orm or by any means (electronic,

mechanical, photocopies, recorded, or otherwise)

or any other purpose without prior written

permission rom GRI.

Global Reporting Initiative, the Global Reporting

Initiative logo, Sustainability Reporting Guidelines,

and GRI are trademarks o the Global Reporting

Initiative.

2011 GRI

ISBN number: 978-90-8866-0528

Topics

ReportingPractices

GRIResearch&Development

Tools

The authors grateully acknowledge the fnancial support rom:


3/44


4/44

2011 GRI

2


5/44

A

pproachforreportingone

cosystems

ervicesIncorporatingecosystems

ervices

intoanorganizationsperformancedisclosure

3

GRI Research and

Development SeriesReportingPractices

Reerences 35

Annex I: Acknowledgements 36

Annex II: Reerence to ecosystem services

in GRI Sector Supplements 37

Table o Contents

Executive Summary 4

Glossary o terms in this paper 6

1. Introduction 10

1.1. Background 10

1.2. Ecosystem services and reporting 10

1.3. Document structure 11

2. What are ecosystem servicesand how do they relate to

organizations? 12

2.1. Introduction 12

2.2. What are ecosystem services? 12

2.2.1. Defning ecosystem services 12

2.2.2. Delivery o ecosystem services 12

2.3. Classifcation o ecosystem services 14

2.4. The linkages between

organizations and ecosystems:

impacts, dependencies and

responses 14

3. Reporting on perormance inrelation to ecosystem services 19

3.1. Introduction 19

3.2. Narrative reporting on strategy

and management 19

3.3. Perormance reporting 20

3.3.1. GRI Perormance Indicators 20

3.3.2. Challenges to developing ecosystem

services perormance indicators 20

3.3.3. Strategies or developing ES

perormance indicators 22

3.3.4. Example reporting indicators in the

feld o ecosystem services 23

3.3.5. Framing perormance data into an

ecosystem service context 31

4. Ecosystem services in utureGRI reporting guidance 33


6/44

2011 GRI

4

Executive SummaryOrganizations around the world interact withthe ecosystems around them: having positive or

negative impact, and reaping benets. Ecosystem

services (ES) is a term used to capture the benets

that people derive rom ecosystems, such as ood,

pharmaceutical products, timber, soil ertility,

pollination, and reshwater. This publication

elaborates on what ES are, and in which ways

organizations interact with them. Companies

impacting the services that ecosystems bring

are increasingly aware o the need to actor ES

into their long term strategy and operations, and

manage them responsibly.

Ecosystems services has become an important

denition. The idea o dening the services that

ecosystems oer to business and society was

considered essential to highlight the importance

o ecosystems to the existence o products and

services, as well as to the quality o lie o all people.

Because o the global scale o the current economic

development model, the health and existence o

ecosystems is under pressure. In order to access

more and scarce natural resources, to extend

already large production scales and to grow

urban areas, societys activities are expanding

and prooundly changing ecosystems power o

regeneration.

This is a pressing topic or companies now and

will be or many generations to come: how to

guarantee societys activities and the maintenance

o ecosystems at the same time. Because o that,

impacts on ecosystems tend to be a very prominent

topic when companies report about their

contribution to the uture o society, and about the

risks they run as a business.

In cooperation with the United Nations

Environment Programme World Conservation

Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and consultancy

CREM, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has

been assessing opportunities to translate emerging

thinking around ES into sustainability reporting

indicators and approaches that can be used as a

starting point by organizations in all sectors.

The linkages between organizations and ES arenumerous and can be described through impacts,

whereby an organizations activities cause a positive

or negative change to ecosystems and their

capacity to supply services, and dependencies,

whereby an organization relies on regular and

stable provision o particular ES or the continuation

o its operations. Impacts and dependencies

may move an organization to undertake actions

that change its relationship to ecosystems and

their services. Organizations respond to changes

in ES through a range o means, such as impact

mitigation strategies and substitution strategies to

reduce dependency.

The approach o the current GRI Guidelines has

been used as a basis or assessing options to report

on ES. A distinction has been made between

narrative reporting on strategy and management,

and data reporting on perormance.

Narrative reporting on strategy and

managementcan be used to elicit the basic

inormation or stakeholders to understand an

organizations relationships to ES. It may challenge

organizations to systematically assess the benets

they receive rom the natural environment in

the context o ES, their dependence on such

benets to continue their activities, any impacts

on the supply o ES or on other beneciaries o

ES, and the economic risk they run under current

management regimes. Reporting on ES will also

enable organizations to communicate their actions

in response to ES perormance.

Perormance reporting contains unique,

individual pieces o numerical inormation that

will change year to year and may reveal trends.

Current reporting in line with the Environmental

Perormance Indicators o the GRI Guidelines

reveals inormation on ecosystems pressures and

responses to a certain extent, or example through

Indicators on water, emissions and biodiversity.

This could be extended with additional Indicators

to communicate better a reporting organizations

perormance in the eld o ES. One option outlined

in this publication is that indicator development


7/44

A


cosystems


ervices


5

GRI Research and


ocuses on the principal threats to ecosystems1 inorder to capture the key ways that organizations

could be contributing to those threats on ES, and

are dependent upon ES that are threatened. A key

challenge here is how to roll up data that by its

nature is very site-specic into aggregate gures

or reporting on an organization-wide basis. Taking

this option into consideration, this publication

eatures a table exploring example corporate-level

indicators based on the principal key threats to

ecosystems. These indicators could be options or

an organization to report on its pressures, impacts,

dependence on and responses to ES.

Many o the example indicators listed do not

directly measure ES, but are used as proxies that

could reveal inormation on the actual ES.

Generally however, they would require additional

1 Habitat loss and degradation; overexploitation and unsustainableuse; climate change; pollution and nutrient load; and invasive alien

species. (Secretariat o the Convention on Biological Diversity,

2010).

data to actually reveal such inormation. For mostperormance data gathered, the only available

techniques are to contextualize it in terms o ES:

providing inormation that enables readers to

understand the implications o reported data or

changes in ES, either in terms o scale, nature o

changes, or chain reactions initiated. Perormance

data could also be reviewed in relation to service

potential and ecological limits, which involves

an assessment o the percentage o an ES supply

consumed by the organization in relation to use by

other stakeholders, and thresholds or sustainable

use.

The publication concludes with an elaboration on

possible uture uptake o ES in GRIs sustainability

reporting guidance.


8/44

2011 GRI

6

Term Defnition

Benefciary A stakeholder who benets rom ecosystem services provided.

Beneft The advantage gained by people as a result o the ecosystem service

provision.

Biodiversity A contraction o biological diversity. Biological diversity means the

variability among living organisms rom all sources including, inter alia,

terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological

complexes o which they are part; this includes diversity within

species (genetic diversity), between species (species diversity) and o

ecosystems (ecosystem diversity).

Cultural services The non-material benets obtained rom ecosystems through spiritual

enrichment, cognitive development, reection, recreation, and aestheticexperience, including or example knowledge systems, social relations

and aesthetic values.

Dependency The reliance that an organization or other beneciary has on ecosystem

services and their continued delivery in the uture.

Ecosystem The dynamic complex o plant, animal, and micro-organism

communities and their non-living environment interacting as a

unctional unit. Humans, where present, are an integral part o

ecosystems. Examples include a rainorest, desert, coral ree, or

a cultivated system. Ecosystems vary in size and complexity o

interactions, and are interconnected and impacted by natural processes

and human-induced actors. Ecosystems have no xed boundaries;

instead their parameters are set to the scientic, management, or policyquestion being examined. Depending upon the purpose o analysis,

a single lake, a watershed, or an entire region could be considered an

ecosystem.

Ecosystem condition The amount or quantity o underlying physical resources which

inuence the ability o ecosystems to support ecosystem processes and

deliver ecosystem services.

Ecosystem unction The physical, chemical and biological processes by which ecosystems

deliver services and benets, including decomposition, production [o

plant matter], nutrient cycling, and uxes o nutrients and energy.

Ecosystem services The benets that people derive rom an ecosystem. These might include:

productionofgoods,e.g.,food,bre,water,fuel,geneticresources,

and pharmaceuticals

regenerationprocesses,e.g.,puricationofairandwater,seed

dispersal and pollination

stabilizingprocesses,e.g.,erosioncontrolandmoderationof

weather extremes

life-fulllingfunctions,e.g.,aestheticbeautyandculturalvalue

conservationofoptionse.g.,maintenanceofecologicalsystemsfor

the uture.

Glossary of terms inthis paper


9/44

A


cosystems


ervices


7

GRI Research and


Term Defnition

Ecosystem service indicators Statistic or other benchmarkable inormation that communicates

trends in the health and stability o ecosystem services in relation to

an organizations activities (e.g., number o operations in water scarce

areas consuming beyond sustainable levels, or change in soil pH rom

natural levels resulting rom pollution and/or nutrient load caused by an

organizations operations). Such indicators can relate to the condition

and unctioning o an ecosystem, its potential to supply services and/or

the quality o the service delivered.

Environmental indicators Statistic or other benchmarkable inormation that communicates

environmental trends in relation to an organizations activities. They

cover perormance related to inputs (e.g., material, energy, and water)

and outputs (e.g., emissions, efuents, and waste). In addition, they

cover perormance related to biodiversity, environmental compliance,

and other relevant inormation such as environmental expenditure and

the impacts o products and services.

Flow The transer o ecosystem services rom the ecosystem to the

beneciary. Benets can be received in the same or dierent

geographical location as they are provided, and the ow o services can

depend upon a number o ecosystem interactions.

Impacts Impacts result rom pressures exerted on ecosystem services by

operational activities. They reer to either a positive or negative change

in the supply o services and can occur through changes to the stock

and/or ow o ecosystem services. The impact o a specic organization

can be dened when such a change can be attributed to activities o

the organization in question or as part o cumulative eects with other

stakeholders.

Signicant impact, as dened in the GRI Guidelines

Impacts that may adversely aect the integrity o a geographical area/

region, either directly or indirectly. This occurs by substantially changing

its ecological eatures, structures, and unctions across its whole area

and over the long term. This means that the habitat, its population level,

and/or the particular species that make that habitat important cannot

be sustained. On a species level, a signicant impact causes a population

decline and/or change in distribution so that natural recruitment

(reproduction or immigration rom unaected areas) cannot return toormer levels within a limited number o generations. A signicant impact

can also aect subsistence or commercial resource use to the degree that

the well-being o users is aected over the long term.

Narrative reporting Description o key impacts, risks, and opportunities. It concerns the

additional inormation an organization provides to supplement

perormance data in order to more thoroughly describe its relationship

with ecosystems and the services provided.

Organization Private, public, or non-prot operating entity, varying in size, sector, and

location.

Other stakeholders See Stakeholders.


10/44

2011 GRI

8

Term Defnition

Overexploitation The utilization o services that exceeds their sustainable limits, so as to

aect the ability o ecosystems to continue their provision, either or

an organization or or other stakeholders. Overexploitation may have

immediate or delayed consequences.

Perormance indicators Indicators that elicit comparable inormation on the economic,

environmental, and social perormance o the organization. This may

concern either qualitative or quantitative inormation about results

or outcomes associated with the organization that is comparable and

demonstrates change over time.

Pressures Human activities aecting an ecosystem, as a result o production or

consumption processes, that can be categorized as: Usage

Usage denes the amount o ecosystem services consumed.

Organizations cause pressures on ecosystem services by using them

as inputs or their operations, such as resh water, raw materials, and

genetic resources.

Discharges

Operations result in the outow o by-products into the natural

environment that may pressure ecosystem services, such as air

emissions, noise, radiation, light, vibration and waste.

Other activities that result in ecological changes

Organizations can cause various impacts to ecosystem services

through which they draw no direct benet. For instance, activities

such as ooding or the introduction o invasive species may be as a

result o shipping trac in a coastal area.

Provisioning services The products obtained rom ecosystems including, or example, genetic

resources, ood and ber, and resh water.

Proxy indicators A representative measure used to provide insight into the area o

interest when it is not possible to measure the issue directly. In the

context o ecosystem services, or example, the number o people

visiting natural areas could serve as a proxy measure or spiritual

services. While the number o visitors does not directly measure the

spiritual benets people garner rom ecosystems, it does serve as a

proxy by providing some insight into the level o this service provided

by the natural areas.

Regulating services The benets obtained rom the regulation o ecosystem processes

including, or example, the regulation o climate and water ows, and

biological control.

Responses An action that can aect any part o the chain between pressures

and benets. An example o a response related to pressures is using

technological solutions to regulate SO2

levels in ue gases.


11/44

A


cosystems


ervices


9

GRI Research and


Term Defnition

Stakeholders Stakeholders are dened as entities or individuals that can reasonably

be expected to be signicantly aected by the organizations activities,

products, and/or services; and whose actions can reasonably be

expected to aect the ability o the organization to successully

implement its strategies and achieve its objectives. This includes entities

or individuals whose rights under law or international conventions

provide them with legitimate claims vis--vis the organization.

Stakeholders can include those who are invested in the organization

(e.g., employees, shareholders, suppliers) as well as those who have

other relationships to the organization (e.g., vulnerable groups within

local communities, civil society).

Stock Stock reers to the capacity o ecosystems to deliver benets. An

ecosystem that is degraded has a reduced stock o services, and the ow

o benets is lower as a result.

Supporting services Ecosystem services necessary or the production o all other ecosystem

services. Some examples include biomass production, production o

atmospheric oxygen, soil ormation and retention, nutrient cycling,

water cycling, and provisioning o habitat.


12/44

2011 GRI

10

1.1 BackgroundEnvironmental conservation has undergone a rapid

paradigm shit in recent years and is increasingly

concerned with maintaining ecosystems or

peoples welare and well-being. This shit has

been driven by both scientic recognition o the

importance o ecosystems as key building blocks

o environmental strategies and the practical goal

o creating clearer links between markets and

environmental and social development. However,

most work to date has been aimed at the scientic

and policy areas and there is now a wish to include

ecosystem services in tools or organizational

perormance measurement and reporting.

Organizations traditionally measure environmental

perormance in terms o inputs and outputs related

to their operations. Such ows are expressed in

environmental indicators that can be identied,

managed, and ultimately measured by an individual

organization. Measuring the quality and ow

o ecosystem services is a more complex task,

with shared responsibilities or those aecting

and beneting rom them. Such complexity isshown, or example, when looking at nutrient

cycling. The relevance o nutrient cycling is clear

at a conceptual level or a company reliant on

agricultural produce, but it is not obvious how to

dene or measure an organizations perormance

with respect to this service. Measuring the

nancial value o ecosystem services to support

corporate decision making is also challenging. To

date, tools developed or organizational use have

ocused mainly on communicating the concepts

o ecosystems and ecosystem services, and on

helping organizations to understand dependencies,

impacts and associated risks, while perormance

measurements and reporting on ecosystem services

are generally ocused on management activities

and consumption o a ew natural resources such as

water.

The GRI Sustainability Reporting Guidelines include

Perormance Indicators that elicit comparable

inormation on the economic, environmental,

and social perormance o an organization.

The GRI Environmental Indicators coverperormance related to inputs (e.g., material,

energy and water) and outputs (e.g., emissions,

efuents and waste). In addition, these cover

perormance related to biodiversity, environmental

compliance, and other relevant inormation such

as environmental expenditure and the impacts

o products and services. Some o the GRI Sector

Supplements reer to ecosystem services; these

reerences are included in Annex II.

1.2 Ecosystem services and reporting

In cooperation with the United NationsEnvironment Programme World Conservation

Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and consultancy

CREM, the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) has

been assessing opportunities to translate emerging

thinking around ecosystem services (ES) into

sustainability reporting indicators and approaches

that can be used as a minimum starting point by

organizations in all sectors. The aim has been to

provide a blueprint or how to more eectively

measure, assess, and benchmark an organizations

perormance in relation to ES. In this context,it should be stressed that the GRI Guidelines

can support sustainability reporting across an

organization, while ES are generally characterized

by their site-specic nature. The challenge to

combine these into an approach or reporting

on ES has been discussed with participants at

our expert meetings2. Drat conclusions have

been shared with an Advisory Group established

or project consultation, which then provided

written eedback. The approach or reporting on

ES presented in this publication demonstrates

that progress can be made in this eld, despite the

challenges.

It is acknowledged that individual companies in

particular sectors, such as ood and agriculture,

could take greater steps and use more specic

sector-based ES perormance metrics than

proposed in this report. Complexities arise when

discussing ES perormance in standardized

2 Nagoya, side event at the tenth Conerence o the Parties to the

Convention on Biological Diversity, 25 October 2010.

London, Ecosystem Services Indicator Workshop, 3 February 2011.Sao Paulo, Ecosystem Services Indicator Workshop, 16 March 2011.

Rio de Janeiro, Ecosystem Services Indicator Workshop, 17 March

2011.

1. Introduction


13/44

A


cosystems


ervices


11

GRI Research and


sustainability reporting applicable across all sectors.This report presents an approach to help tackle

such complexities.

1.3 Document structureThis publication has been written in a sequence

that will give the reader an insight into the eld

o ES, the realities o monitoring their status and

the inuence o organizational activities, and

the easibility o incorporating this inormation

into sustainability reporting. It concludes with a

description o the process or possible inclusion

in the development o new generations o the GRISustainability Reporting Guidelines.

The ollowing questions orm the basis or the

dierent sections:

What are ecosystem services and howdo they relate to organizations?

Section 2 considers the background theory on

ES, and explains the relationships between ES

and organizations. It highlights the challenges

in measuring impacts and dependency on ES.

How could reporting on ecosystemservices perormance be shaped?Section 3 deals with the question o how

to measure relationships between ES and

organizations. It explains how narrative

reporting can be used to elaborate the basics

or stakeholders to understand a reporting

organizations relationship to ES. In addition,

example perormance indicators to report on

pressures, impacts, dependencies and response

actions in respect to ES are presented, together

with an approach o ES contextualization in

respect to perormance data.

Ecosystem services in uture GRI

reporting guidance

Section 4 looks at the potential to include

disclosure requirements on ES in uture updates

o the GRI Reporting Framework.


14/44

2011 GRI

12

2.1 Introduction

All organizations are dependent on ES, regardless

o their size, sector or location. The extent to which

each organization is reliant on ES, and the specicES that are critical, depends on the nature o their

activities and/or those o their value chain partners.

For example, the availability o hardwood trees

may be especially essential or companies involved

in urniture production and construction, but may

not be as important to a service industry such as

catering.

This section explains what ES are (Section 2.2) and

elicits their classication (Section 2.3). Section 2.4

elaborates on the ways in which organizations

interact with ES in terms o impacts, dependenciesand responses.

2.2 What are ecosystem services?

2.2.1 Defning ecosystem services

Ecosystem services (ES) is a term used to capture

the benets people obtain rom ecosystems. These

benets are also oten relevant or other species in

the ecosystem, but in order to be classied as an

ES there must be a human beneciary. The benets

provided include ood, pharmaceutical products,

timber, drinking water, liveable climate, soil ertility,

pollination, purication o air and resh water. They

vary considerably in geographic scale, whereby

some services are local (such as soil ormation),

others regional (such as tidal regulation) and some

global (such as climate regulation). There is also

variation in the spatial distribution and degree

o overlap between services, whereby some are

received in the same geographical area in which

they occur (such as raw materials), while others are

received in dierent areas (such as pollination o

plants in the surrounding area, and downstream

water regulation services rom upland orested

areas).

Another important characteristic o ES is the

connectivity between them, whereby impacts on oneecosystem can impact adjacent ecosystems and

aect the provision o other ES. This is illustrated or

a system o mangroves, seagrasses and coral rees in

Figure 1. For example, when a company clears areas

o natural orest to build inrastructure, it is at risk

o impacting coastal ecosystems through increased

sedimentation, leading to a loss o storm buering

services and a potentially resulting (uture) damage

to that inrastructure.

2.2.2 Delivery o ecosystem servicesThe delivery o ES is a process that starts with a

minimum condition o an ecosystem and its ability

to unction. Condition and unction are the core

ingredients to enable an ecosystem to maintain

a supply o ES. Although healthy ecosystems

generally provide a greater array o services,

even degraded ecosystems can still deliver some

services. A healthy and unctioning wetland is

needed, or example, or water purication, but less

healthy wetlands can still deliver salt production.

Figure 2 illustrates the concept o ES. The stock oES comprises the ecosystem condition and unction

that indicates the capacity o that ecosystem to

yield services (e.g., soil organic matter, air quality

regulation and aesthetic enjoyment). The realization

o these services depends on both the existence

o a beneciary and the ow o that service to the

beneciary.

For the purpose o this publication, the role o

biodiversity as a core component o ES, and to some

extent underpinning their provision, is inerred.

There is ongoing debate as to the extent o thisunderpinning (e.g., Balvanera et. al. 2006).

2. What are ecosystemservices and how

do they relate toorganizations?


15/44

A


cosystems


ervices


13

GRI Research and


Figure 1. An example of ecosystem connectivity, showing mangroves, seagrasses and coral reefs.

Ecological and physical connectivity between ecosystems is depicted or each ecosystem: terrestrial (brown

arrows), mangroves (green arrows), seagrasses (blue arrows), and coral rees (red arrows). Potential eedbacks

across ecosystems rom the impacts o dierent human activities on ecosystem services are also shown

(yellow arrows). (Silvestri & Kershaw 2010).

Figure 2. The concept of ecosystem services. Ecosystem condition and unction comprise the stock o

ecosystem services. These ow to benefciaries to become realized, now or in the uture.


16/44

2011 GRI

14

2.3 Classifcation o ecosystem servicesThe concept o ES gained signicant attention

through the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

(MA, 2005), which classied them as supporting

(e.g., liecycle maintenance), regulating (e.g.,

regulation o water ows), provisioning (e.g., ood)

and cultural (e.g., recreation). Nonetheless, the

concept is continually evolving. A number o urther

denitions and classication systems have been

developed as the concept becomes increasingly

applied to valuation, assessment and reporting on

ecosystems and their ability to sustain lie. Some othe key rameworks developed are those o Fisher

et. al. (2007), Balmord et. al. (2008), de Groot et.

al. (2010), and the Ecosystem Services Indicators

Database (ESID) ramework developed by the World

Resources Institute (WRI, 2010). For the purpose o

this paper, the categorization in conormity with the

MA classication is ollowed. Table 1 presents the

classication o ES and details the service types that

all within each category.

2.4 The linkages between organizationsand ecosystems: impacts,

dependencies and responses

The linkages between organizations and ES

can be described through impacts, whereby

an organizations activities cause a positive or

negative change to ecosystems and their capacity

to supply services, and dependencies, whereby

an organization relies on regular and stable

provision o particular ES or the continuation o its

operations. Impacts and dependencies can move

an organization to respond, i.e., undertaking actions

that can afect any part o the chain between

pressures and benets.

Impacts

Impacts reer to either a positive or negative change

in the supply o services and can occur through

changes to the stock and/or ow o ES.

The impact o a specic organization can be dened

when such a change can be attributed to

Table 1. Classifcation o ecosystem services into provisioning, regulating, habitat/supporting and cultural

services (UNEP-WCMC, 2011).


17/44


18/44

2011 GRI

16

Box 1: The complexity o impacts and dependencies

Typically, impacts and dependencies are tied to the activities o an organization and its stakeholders, can

be the result o single (such as tree elling) or multiple (such as inrastructure development) actions, and are

oten the result o cumulative actions and eects. Thereore, it can be dicult or individual organizations

to isolate them.

Impacts can be categorized as ollows:

Directimpact including excessive water use reducing water availability or all users in the area,

pollution reducing numbers o pollinators, and carbon emissions aecting climate regulation.

Indirectorsecondaryimpact including impacts resulting rom direct eects o activities, such as water

use causing a change in river ow that indirectly aects mangroves, leading to a loss o ood deence.Other examples include immigration to certain areas as a result o the availability o jobs or roads,

leading to an increase in bushmeat hunting reducing wildlie populations. Indirect impacts also reer to

eects urther up or down the value chain o an organization - a trader in wood, or example, may itsel

cause little impact on the provision o ES but its activities cause impacts to occur elsewhere, such as

increased demand potentially leading to unsustainable deorestation.

Cumulativeimpact impacts that occur in conjunction with other parties actions. Examples include

climate change as a result o cumulative GHG emissions, and water scarcity caused by a number o

organizations using water rom the same aquier.

Dependency can be categorised as ollows:

Directdependence natural resources needed or used or an organizations operations (e.g., resh water

availability, timber products).

Indirectorsecondarydependence many o the regulating and supporting services will indirectly

benet organizations (e.g., oceanic nutrient cycling essential to sh productivity, ood deence to

inrastructure provided by a mangrove ecosystem). Moreover, indirect or secondary dependence reers

to ES depended upon by supply chain partners, or example natural resources on which key suppliers

depend.

The above impacts and dependencies can result in both linear and non-linear changes:

Linearchange whereby changes to the provision o ES occur as a direct, straightorward consequence

o a change in pressure produced by an organization, or example water quality declines with an

increased level o efuent output.

Non-linearchange whereby increases in pressure rom an organization cause changes to the provision

o ES in a more convoluted ashion. For example, changes only occur once a threshold o pressure is

reached, oten known as tipping points, which could lead to ecosystem collapse that is prohibitively

expensive or even irreversible. Eutrophication is a good example o a non-linear ecosystem change.

Box 1 provides a synopsis o the diering orms that impacts and dependencies may take.


19/44

A


cosystems


ervices


17

GRI Research and


It should be realised or both dependencies andimpacts that:

These relationships are not mutually

exclusive: more than one o the above

relationships can take place at the same

time. In act, an organizations dependence

on a service may also lead to an impact,

although this is not always the case. Also,

many o the direct impacts will lead to

indirect impacts to occur. Reduced water

availability leading to a loss o habitat and

associated services is one example. All o these can occur over dierent

geographical scales, rom local to global

impacts and dependencies, as well as over

dierent timerames.

All o these can occur throughout the value

chain, rom production and manuacturing

through to consumption and disposal.

ResponsesImpacts and dependencies may move an

organization to undertake actions that changeits relationship to ecosystems and their services.

Responses comprise all actions organizations take

in relation to their linkages with ES. For example, an

organization may implement mitigation measures

to reduce negative impacts on ES as well as to

maintain the capacity o ecosystems to render

services, especially when an organization depends

on specic ES. Apart rom reducing a negative

impact, an organization may also want to promote

positive eects on ES through the adoption o

sustainable management systems, or undertaking

o specic initiatives such as payments or

environmental services (PES) schemes. An example

o the latter is when an organization reimburses

orest owners or armers or their contributions to

conserve ES the organization uses. Responses can

also include actions to adjust activities in order to

shit away rom the use o certain ES, or example

because these ES are in decline.

The relationships between organizations and ES

are numerous and are illustrated in Figure 3. The

gure ollows the ow o how combined pressures

o an organization and other stakeholders, as

well as natural causes, drive changes to the stock

and ow o ES. At the same time, an organization

and other stakeholders are drawing upon ES or

their own activities (NB: ES impacted through

operational pressures are not necessarily the same

ES an organization depends upon). Organizations

respond to changes in ES through a range o

means (such as impact mitigation strategies,

substitution strategies to reduce dependency). Each

o these relationships provides an opportunity or

developing metrics and indicators and these are

detailed below (the numbers corresponding to

those in Figure 3):

1. Organizational pressures. These consist o all

pressures that an organization places on ES,

including usage, discharge, and other activities

that result in ecological changes (e.g., habitat

clearance, introduction o invasive species).

2. Pressures o other stakeholders (usage,

discharge, other activities that result in

ecological changes).

Figure 3. The linkages between organizations

and ecosystem services. The organization and other

stakeholders generate pressures that can impact the

stock and fow o ES. They also derive benets rom ES

in the orm o provisioning, cultural services, supportingand regulating services. ES stock and fow can also be

impacted by natural causes o change, as well as by the

responses o the organization.


20/44

2011 GRI

18

3. Benets gained by other stakeholders rom ES(directly and indirectly).

4. Benets gained by the organization rom ES

(directly and indirectly).

5. Changes in the stock and ow o ES. Those

linked to identied pressures provide

inormation on impacts, whereas changes in

the stock and ow o ES depended upon can

give inormation on the sustainability o

supply.

6. Responses o an organization to mitigateimpacts, reduce dependency and/or increase

the stock and ow o ES.

7. Natural causes o change aecting ecosystems

and services rendered.

Indicators developed on the pressures and resulting

change in ES stock and ow can be generically

reerred to as IMPACT indicators, whereas those that

look at the benets derived and the sustainability

o supply can be reerred to as DEPENDENCE

indicators.

Box 2: Examples o the overall picture o linkages between organizations and

ecosystem services

Examples o measurements that can be made to capture the important relationships between an

organizations activities and ES illustrated in Figure 3 are presented or two hypothetical case studies below.

They do not comprise the ull range o potential measurements.

Example 1 production o bottled water

1. Organizational pressures withdrawal o water

2. Other stakeholders pressures water withdrawal, pesticide use, land conversion, soil erosion all

likely to aect water quality and quantity

3. Other stakeholders dependence reshwater quality and quantity rom aquier or irrigation,

recreational use

4. Organizational dependence reshwater quality and quantity rom aquier

5. Change in ES change in aquier water quality and quantity

6. Responses by organization mitigation measures to ensure required quantity and quality o

reshwater or an organizations operations: improve water quality through payments or environmental

services (PES) schemes and decrease water withdrawal through implementation o new technologies in

organizations bottle production

7. Natural causes precipitation rate variation aecting groundwater table levels

Example 2 - shrimp arming

1. Organizational pressures conversion o a natural system causing a loss o mangrove

2. Other stakeholders pressures any clearing o mangrove caused by local activities

3. Other stakeholders dependence aquatic resources, land protection, and water desalination

4. Organizational dependence nutrients or shrimp production, water purication, water supply

5. Change in ES change in water quality and nutrient supply, change in sh and other aquatic resource

production, measurement o erosion and water salinity

6. Responses by organization mitigation measures or an organizations operations, including

replanting o mangrove, community support projects through supply o water, employment

7. Natural causes precipitation rate variation aecting seawater level


21/44

A


cosystems


ervices


19

GRI Research and


3.1 IntroductionAs illustrated in Figure 3 (Section 2.4), relationships

between organizations and ES are numerous

and can be categorized as impact relationships

(pressures on and changes in ES), dependence

relationships (direct and indirect benets and

sustainability o supply), and responses o an

organization that can reer to both its impact anddependence on ES. This section searches or a line

in reporting that captures these relationships.

In assessing options to report in the eld o

ES, the approach o the current GRI Guidelines

has been ollowed. A distinction can be made

between narrative reporting on strategy and

management, and data reporting on perormance.

Generally, narrative reporting on strategy

and management (Section 3.2) entails semi-

structured text, usually in paragraph orm,

oering, or example, strategic and managementimplementation inormation, while perormance

reporting (Section 3.3) contains unique, individual

pieces o inormation that change year-to-year

and may reveal a trend. Both narrative reporting

on strategy and management and perormance

reporting are needed in the eld o ES reporting

since they are complementary to provide the

ull picture o a reporting organizations impacts,

dependence and responses.

3.2 Narrative reporting on strategy andmanagement

GRI has included sections on Strategy and Prole

and Management Approach in its Guidelines. These

are dened in the current GRI Guidelines (p.19, G3

and G3.1 versions) as:

StrategyandProfle:Disclosures that set the

overall context or understanding organizational

perormance such as its strategy, prole and

governance.

ManagementApproach:Disclosures that

cover how an organization addresses a given

set o topics in order to provide context or

understanding perormance in a specic area.

As such, reporting on strategy and management

oers an opportunity to elaborate on how an

organization acts in specic elds, and how

societal concerns and trends are responded toby an organization. A narrative discussion can

be used to elicit the basics or stakeholders to

understand an organizations relationship to ES.

The broad themes o impact and dependency may

serve as stepping stones or reporting on strategy

and management, which require the reporting

organization to provide an analysis o the data

gathered on pressures, benets and any impacts on

the supply o ES, as well as on other beneciaries

o ES, and enable the communication o responses

(e.g., impact mitigation strategies). Consistentmeasurement, analysis and reporting will enable an

organization to detect long term issues and trends

in ES impacted and depended upon in contrast to

a once-only occasion, since in some systems there

will be a lag between decline in the condition and

unction o ecosystems and delivery o benets

derived rom them.

While a number o related assessment processes

already exist (e.g., environmental impact

assessments, social impact assessments, internal

risk assessments), many organizations do notsystematically assess the benets they receive rom

the natural environment in the context o ES, their

dependence on such benets to continue their

activities, and/or the economic risk they run under

their current management regimes. In order or an

organization to properly assess its relationship with

ES, a number o undamental questions should be

considered:

Key impacts and dependencies

1. Does the organization understand which key

ES it uses and on which it is dependent orcontinued supply to support its operations?

3. Reporting onperformance in relation

to ecosystem services


22/44

2011 GRI

20

2. Has the organization mapped the key ES it hasan impact on, both positively and negatively,

quantitatively and/or qualitatively?

3. Do the organizations impacts limit or enhance

the ability o others to benet rom these ES?

4. Which methodologies have been applied to

identiy and monitor key ES impacted and/or

depended upon?

5. Has the organizations supply chain been

included to identiy key ES impacted and/or

depended upon?

ES-related risks and opportunities

6. What are the conditions and trends in supply

and demand o key ES services impacted and/or

depended upon?

7. Has the organization assessed which risks and

opportunities arise due to these trends?

8. Has a strategy been articulated in response

to risks and opportunities? For example: Have

eorts been undertaken to address potential

risks related to a diminished supply o key ES?

Will operational management be adjusted to,

or purchasing procedures anticipate, possible

changes in the availability o ES the value chain

depends upon?

9. Has inormation on the availability o key ES

and a potential rise in costs been actored into

management plans?

10. Do key ES depended upon have cost-eective

substitutes?

11. What are the linkages between an organizations

activities, sustainable ecosystem service

provision, and the long term viability andcontinuity o the organization?

ES governance

12. What is within the organizations scope or

monitoring and mitigation/restoration activities

to maintain the health o underlying ecosystems

and contribute to the long-term provision o the

quantity and quality o key ES? What is outside

the organizations control (e.g., natural changes,

use by other stakeholders)?

13. How does the organization manage trade-os

when prioritizing some ES over others?

14. Does the organization take into account valuesplaced upon ES by local communities?

3.3 Perormance reporting

3.3.1 GRI Perormance Indicators

Current reporting in line with the Environmental

Perormance Indicators o the GRI Guidelines

reveals inormation on ES pressures and responses

to a certain extent, or example through Indicators

on water, emissions and biodiversity (see Table 3)3.

The data in response to these Indicators could be

used to assess an organizations ES perormance.

Reporting on environmental pressures and

responses could, however, be extended with

additional indicators to better communicate a

reporting organizations perormance in the eld o

ES, especially since the Indicators currently included

in the GRI Guidelines mainly cover only provisioning

services.

In order to adequately qualiy as a GRI Perormance

Indicator, certain criteria have to be met. These are

explained in Box 3.

An indicator can be either qualitative or quantitative.

An example o a qualitative GRI Indicator is Water

sources signicantly aected by withdrawal o

water (EN8). Quantitative perormance reporting

requires a unit o measure to report upon in order

to be comparable, consistent, and benchmarkable.

Potential units o measure are in volume, numbers,

mass, or size (e.g., litres, hectares, kilogram and

CO2e). As Table 2 shows, in relation to the indicator

criteria in Box 3 there are a number o (mostly

provisioning) types o ES or which a direct unit omeasurement is known and thereore can acilitate

reporting on ES.

3.3.2 Challenges to developing ecosystemservices perormance indicators

ES include a wide variety o service types:

provisioning, cultural, regulating and supporting.

Each individual ES can require a range o

measurements to eectively capture its

environmental and social dimensions, and its

interconnectedness with other ES. Selecting a ew

3 ES are also specically mentioned in several GRI Sector Supple-

ments, such as in the Mining and Metals Sector Supplement and

the Food Processing Sector Supplement (see Annex II).


23/44

A


cosystems


ervices


21

GRI Research and


to report on is quite challenging. Taking the list o

ES types (see Table 1), it may be considered that

all are important, but the ocus and materiality

would be dierent depending on actors such as a

reporting organizations sector, a specic point in

time, specic activities and a particular situation.

Moreover, as detailed in Section 2, or each ES

in question, it is possible to report on a number

o dierent actors including organizational

pressures, impacts, dependencies and responses

on the ES stock and ow, as well as dependence

and impacts o other beneciaries. There are,

thereore, a multitude o potential measurements

that can be made. Measurements o pressures

can oten be carried out with a high degree o

accuracy, since these data are generally held by

an organization itsel. Reporting on the change in

ES stock and ow can be particularly challenging

Box 3. Criteria or indicator design

GRI has dened Perormance Indicators as indicators that elicit comparable inormation on the economic,

environmental and social perormance o the organization. When Perormance Indicators or GRI are being

developed, there are ve basic criteria to adhere to. These are:

Relevance Indicators should result in inormation about the organization that is relevant to decision

making by report users. In addition, an indicator needs to be able to address the overall objectives o

organizations and stakeholders.

Comparability Indicators should result in inormation that shows change over time and that can be

compared with other similar institutions.

Unbiased/neutral Qualitative indicators should be unbiased/neutral in their phrasing or intent. Forexample, they should not use adjectives or other terms that imply a judgement. They should ocus

on objective inormation that enables readers to make decisions, and allow or changes over time to

be recorded. Thereore, rather than asking: whether the organization has implemented adequate

management plans, an indicator should ask how many management plans the organization has in

place that contain x, y, z.

Clarity Indicators should be clear to a report preparer or user about what impacts or aspects o

perormance they are trying to measure. The language and terminology o an indicator should be clear

enough that it will be interpreted and applied in a consistent manner.

Feasibility Indicators need to be easible to measure and reasonable in order to expect disclosure.

Table 2. Ecosystem Services and their units o measurement.

Ecosystem Service Potential unit o measurement or (part o the) quality and/or volume

Food Volume or weight, e.g., kg, litre; area planted in hectares

Fiber Volume or weight, e.g., kg, litre, area planted in hectares

Biomass uel Volume or weight, e.g., kg, litre; area planted in hectares

Freshwater Litre

Genetic resources % o DNA diversity

Biochemicals, natural medicines,

and pharmaceuticals

Volume or weight, e.g., kg, litre; area planted in hectares

Recreation and tourism Number (e.g., o visitors or jobs related to nature-based or eco-tourism),

(e.g., revenue rom nature-based or eco-tourism)


24/44

2011 GRI

22

or some ES, and oten beyond the capabilitieso individual organizations. Companies typically

lack sucient scientic sta and resources to

undertake the necessary eld assessments. Also,

it can be questioned whether companies can

be expected to undertake such exercises rather

than this inormation being supplied by scientic

institutions or authorities, or example. Moreover,

scientic knowledge in the eld o ecosystem

services and the relationship between changes to

unction and condition, and changes (enhancement

or disruption) to dierent services provided bya particular ecosystem, is still the ocus o much

ongoing research.

Another challenge or reporting is the act that

changes in ES may be the result o natural changes

and may be caused by a combination o dierent

pressures rom a variety o stakeholders. Separating

the changes in ES caused by an organization

rom natural changes and pressures o other

stakeholders may prove very dicult. This is urther

conounded by the connectivity between dierent

ES, whereby it may be dicult to determine thepressure that has caused any change identied.

Developing ES-related indicators is also challenged

by their site-specic nature. Apart rom a ew

exceptions, such as climate regulation, the optimal

way to measure ES is site-specic, since the

ecological characteristics and beneciaries vary

by location. To serve organization-wide reporting,

indicators need to be developed in such a way

that the inormation rom various sites can be

meaningully aggregated.

To overcome such challenges, the ollowing

strategies or perormance reporting are outlined:

1. Develop indicators based on the ve key threats

to ES (Section 3.3.3), using proxy indicators

or ES perormance in case metrics about the

ES themselves are not deemed easible or

corporate level measurements.

2. Frame perormance data in an ES context,

in case additional inormation is needed to

provide insights into a reporting organizations

ES perormance.

3.3.3 Strategies or developing ESperormance indicators

As one option, it is suggested that indicator

development ocuses in part on the principal

threats to ecosystems (CBD, 2010 - see Reerences)

in order to capture the key ways that organizations

could be contributing to these threats, as well

as being dependent upon those ES that are

threatened. Moreover, these threats can be

considered relevant or all organizations and

sectors. Per the approach suggested in Figure

3, indicators are also suggested that will help totell a story about the organizations impact and

dependence on ES, as well as their response to

mitigate threats and support those ES depended

upon.

The main threats on ES or which indicators are

suggested are:

Habitat loss and degradation (impacting ES such

as water cycling and erosion prevention)

Overexploitation and unsustainable use

(impacting ES such as the provision o ood and

raw materials)

Climate change (impacting ES such as climate

regulation and regulation o water ows)

Pollution and nutrient load (impacting ES such

as pollination and recreation)

Invasive alien species (impacting ES such as

biological control and genetic resources)

Perormance Indicators within the GRI Framework

are aimed at reporting on an organization-wide

basis4. The key challenge here is combining ES-

related data, which by its nature is site-specic,

into aggregate gures. Some pressure data can

be aggregated at the group level by adding up

perormance metrics, such as the amount o CO2

emitted, the volume o pesticides used, or the

size o natural land converted into production

locations. Other metrics could be summarized

4 This paper addresses attention or ES in organization-wide report-

ing in conormity with GRIs general Reporting Guidelines. GRI has

also issued Sector Supplements that would be t or inclusion o

specic ES indicators that take into account the characteristics

o the sector in question (in this respect, see also Annex II orexamples obtained rom the Mining and Metals Sector Supplement

and the Food Processing Sector Supplement).


25/44

A


cosystems


ervices


23

GRI Research and


by describing trends or requency o occurrenceacross the organizations portolio. For example, a

site-based indicator may show the actual change

in soil depth or soil pH, whereas a corporate-level

indicator would show the number and location o

sites where soil degradation is occurring. Scorecards

or site-level application could be developed to

obtain data to be aggregated on group level. Other

examples are the percentage o arming operations

that have access to healthy pollinator populations,

or the percentage o production locations in water

scarce regions. A basis or this kind o indicatorcan be the use o global ecosystem services maps

provided by international institutions, and research

organizations that provide inormation on ES

around the world, such as water availability and soil

quality. The location o production sites could be

associated with inormation given on ecosystems.

Some o the important pressures may be located

urther down the value chain and thereore not be

within the direct scope o an organization. However,

given that impacts on ES are oten most severe at

the production side o the supply chain, eorts

need to be made to address them in reporting.

Obtaining inormation on sites not directly

managed poses the challenge o ull transparency

and cooperation throughout the supply chain.

In addition to indicators that work to aggregate

site-level inormation on ES, corporate level

indicators could work to highlight progress

regarding management o ES. For example,

the number o operations that have management

plans on ES and their threats (such as the

introduction o invasive species, climate change).

Such management-based perormance indicatorswould work particularly well or individual sectors.

For example, agricultural companies could report

on the number o operations that use integrated

pest management or precision agriculture,

indicating limited use o pesticides and other agro-

chemicals. Or, paper and wood-based companies

could disclose the percentage o inputs rom

certied sources, serving as an indication o their

impact on natural orests and the ES they provide.

3.3.4 Example reporting indicators in thefeld o ecosystem services

Table 3 explores a range o organization-wide

indicators based on the ve key threats to

ecosystems. These example indicators provide

options or reporting organizational pressures,

impacts, dependence on, and responses to,

ES. In addition to presenting indicators that

address pressures on ecosystems and ES, Table

3 suggests indicators that address impacts on

other beneciaries o ES,and responses to those

impacts. Also included are GRI Environmental

Perormance Indicators rom the current Guidelines

that are relevant, but mostly do not suciently

invite comprehensive reporting on ES in their

current ormat. Many o the indicators listed do not

measure ES directly; nevertheless, they may serve as

meaningul proxies at organization-wide level.

Recognizing that, in some cases, an organizations

dependence on a particular ES can also be a pressure

(e.g., water consumption), there is some overlap

between the pressure and dependence indicators.


26/44

2011 GRI

24

Table 3. Examples o indicators related to the key threats to ecosystems5.

Key threats

to ecosystem

services

Available and potential perormance indicators or reporting on ecosystem services

Possible uture reporting indicators GRI Environmental Perormance

Indicators with a (potential)

link to ecosystem service

related Pressures/impacts (P),

Dependence (D) and Response (R)

Pressures/Impacts on

ecosystem services and

their beneciaries

(P)

Organizations

Dependence (D)

Response

(R)

Habitat loss

and

degradation

- Change in extent o

natural land and/or

intact biomes altered,

broken down by size

and type o alteration

- Number o hectares

o land area o buer

zones converted toother uses by the

organization

- Economic loss due

to disruptions rom

organization-induced

land-use change

- Number o natural

resource-dependent

people impacted by

organization-induced

land-use change

- Number o land

disputes raised

- Number o people

with denied accessto natural resources

within areas o

operation

- Location and size o

land used directly (i.e.,

land owned, leased

and/or managed by

the organization)

or indirectly (i.e.,

land exploited

by value chainpartners to produce

input materials)

or the purpose o

the organizations

operations, broken

down by size and

ecosystem type

- Ecosystems/

ecosystem services

present rom which

benets are derived

by the organization

(e.g., ood deense,

aquier protection,

raw materials, pasture)- Amount o natural

resources needed in

5 years (e.g., (ertile)

cultivated land,

undeveloped land,

raw materials (sh,

timber) and water) to

continue operations

o the organization

and those o its value

chain partners

- Level o exposure o

the organization to

natural disasters (e.g.,

ooding) as a resulto habitat loss and

degradation

- Number and nature

o pollinating species

needed or operations

o the organization

and those o its value

chain partners

- Adoption o credible,

internationally

recognized

responsible

production standards

or natural resources

harvested, produced,

traded and consumedby the organization

- Percentage o

providers complying

with credible,

internationally

recognized

responsible standards

(including nature o

label and volume and

identity o products)

against the total

number o providers

- Number o

community-based

habitat restorationprojects, including

number o people

addressed through

these projects

- Number o

compensation

programs or people

impacted by land-use

change, including

number o people

addressed through

these projects

- Number o hectares

and type o restored

habitats or reorestedareas

- Number and nature o

policies implemented

to counteract habitat

degradation

- Location and size o land

owned, leased, managed in,

or adjacent to, protected areas

and areas o high biodiversity

value outside protected areas

(EN11) (P)

- Description o signicant

impacts o activities, products,and services on biodiversity in

protected areas and areas o

high biodiversity value outside

protected areas (EN12) (P)

- Habitats protected or restored

(EN13) (R)

- Strategies, current actions,

and uture plans or managing

impacts on biodiversity (EN14)

(R)

5The relevance o indicators will vary by company and sector and can be assessed through the same types o materiality analysisas used on other issues and indicators. For example, a shipping and logistics company will be more likely than an automotive

producer to have a direct role in increasing or slowing the spread o invasive species.


27/44

A


cosystems


ervices


25

GRI Research and


Key threats

to ecosystem

services









their beneciaries

(P)

Organizations

Dependence (D)

Response

(R)

Habitat loss

and

degradation

- Revenues and

employment realized

rom nature-based

tourism

- Area o production

site set aside to

protect stocks o

natural resources

- Number o hectares

o natural land and/

or intact biotopes

within production/concession areas

being managed by the

organization

Overexploi-

tation and

unsustainable

use

- Volume o water

consumed by the

organization by source

related to total water

availability in areas o

operation, including

identication o water

sources signicantly

aected by

withdrawal o water

- Nature and amount

o natural resourcesharvested, produced,

traded and/or

consumed (e.g., crops,

sh, timber, ber)

by the organization

in relation to sae

ecological limits

- Number o operations

in water scarce areas

consuming beyond

sustainable levels

- Number o water

disputes raised

- Total demand

or reshwater o

sucient quality

- Number and location

o operations in water

scarce areas, set out

against importance o

sites or continuation

o activities (e.g., in

relation to supply)

- Level o availability

o natural resources(e.g., crops, sh,

timber, ber) needed

or the continuation

o the organizations

operations

- Level o genetic

diversity indispensible

or input natural

resources and uture

product development

- Number o production

sites under sustainable

management (e.g.,

related to water,

maintenance o soil

ertility or pollinating

species, ood

protection)

- Percentage o natural

resources used that

are recycled input

materials- Volume o inputs rom

sources produced

in compliance

with credible,

internationally

recognized

responsible


(including nature o

label)

- Number o

community-based

restoration or stock

management projects,

including number

o people addressed

through these

projects

- Implementation

o activities to

compensate or

the exploitation o

natural resources (e.g.,

support o protected

areas)

- Materials used by weight or

volume (EN1) (P)

- Percentage o materials

used that are recycled input

materials (EN2) (R)

- Total water withdrawal by

source (EN8) (P)

- Water sources signicantly

aected by withdrawal o water

(EN9) (P)

- Percentage and total volume

o water recycled and reused(EN10) (R)

- Initiatives to mitigate

environmental impacts o

products and services, and

extent o impact mitigation

(EN26) (R)


28/44

2011 GRI

26

Key threats

to ecosystem

services








ecosystem services andtheir beneciaries

(P)

OrganizationsDependence (D)

Response(R)

Overexploi-

tation and

unsustainable

use

-Number o operations

where people have

denied access

to, or insucient

abundance o natural

resources (e.g., sh,

timber), as a result

o the organizations

operations

-Economic cost o

compensation to local

communities or lost

natural resources

-Number o sourcing

areas prioritized or

ecosystem service

management and

actions due to high

ecosystem stress (e.g.,

water scarcity, land

conversion or erosion)

and/or input o natural

resources o which

the production is

linked to degradation

o ecosystems (e.g.,due to agricultural

practices or extraction

methods)

Climate

change

-Nature and total

amount o direct and

indirect greenhouse

gas emissions and

ozone-depleting

substances

-Total loss or gain

in area o orest

as a result o

organizational

operations or thoseo its value chain

partners

-Mass o CO2

emissions

rom deorestation

as a result o

organizational

operations or those

o its value chain

partners

-Economic cost to

the organization due

to climate related

disasters (e.g.,

ooding, crop ailure)

-Amount o natural

CO2

sequestration

needed to make

the organizations

operations CO2

neutral

-Adoption o energy

saving devices and

strategies

-Area o orest planted

by or by order o

the organization,

including amount o

CO2

sequestrated

-Percentage o

sustainably produced

green energy (ownor purchased) in

comparison to total

energy consumption

-Direct energy consumption by

primary energy source (EN3) (P)

- Indirect energy consumption by

primary source (EN4) (P)

-Energy saved due to

conservation and eciency

improvements (EN5) (R)

- Initiatives to provide energy-

ecient or renewable energy

based products and services,

and reductions in energyrequirements as a result o

these initiatives (EN6) (R)

- Initiatives to reduce indirect

energy consumption and

reductions achieved (EN7) (R)

-Total direct and indirect

greenhouse gas emissions by

weight (EN16) (P)

-Other relevant indirect

greenhouse gas emissions by

weight (EN17) (P)

-Emissions o ozone-depleting

substances by weight (EN19) (P)

-NO, SO, and other signicant air

emissions by type and weight(EN20) (P)

Pollution and

nutrient load

-Change in soil pH rom

natural levels resulting

rom pollution and/or

nutrient load caused

by the organizations

operations

-Economic cost o

articial pollination

services within

operation areas

-Economic cost o

water purication

technologies adopted

-Number o production

sites using precision

agriculture

-Volume o inputs rom

sources complying

with credible,

internationally

recognized

responsible


(including nature o

label)

-NO, SO, and other signicant air

emissions by type and weight

(EN20) (P)

-Total water discharge by quality

and destination (EN21) (P)

-Total weight o waste by type

and disposal method (EN22) (P)

-Total number and volume o

signicant spills (EN23) (P)


29/44

A


cosystems


ervices


27

GRI Research and


Key threats

to ecosystem

services








ecosystem services andtheir beneciaries

(P)

OrganizationsDependence (D) Response(R)

Pollution and

nutrient load

-Proportion o

production sites with

water pH and salt

content above set

threshold levels

-Total liters o efuents

discharged measured

against critical loads

-Total water discharge

by quality and

destination, including

identication

o ecosystemssignicantly aected

-Economic loss due

to lost ecosystem

services resulting

rom an organizations

pollution (e.g., oil spill)

and runo

-Economic loss

resulting rom a

decline in harvested

natural resources (e.g.,

sh, crops) as a result

o polluted habitats

-Number o people

aected by polluted

habitats as a result

o organizations

activities, e.g., through

declines in harvested

species and lack o

clean water

-Change in catchment

level o river sediment

yields caused by

the organizations

operations

-Nature and amount o

natural resources used

(e.g., reed elds, orest,

wetlands) to puriy

discharges

-Management o

natural vegetation

by an organization to

control erosion


sites under sustainable

management directed

at the mitigation

o pollution (e.g.,

proper discharge o

hazardous waste,

ecologically sae

discharges and

reduced articial

nutrient application)

- Identity, size, protected status,

and biodiversity value o water

bodies and related habitats

signicantly aected by the

reporting organizations

discharges o water and runo

(EN25) (P)

Invasive alien

species (IAS)

-Number o IAS

introduced as a

result o operations(e.g., construction o

new production site,

transport)


sites economically

impacted by IAS (e.g.,

as a result o reduction

o water quality or

quantity)

-Economic cost o

articial pollination

services withinoperation areas due

to IAS

-Economic costs

o a loss o native

harvested species as a

result o IAS

-Number o operations

with a monitoring

plan or theidentication o entry

o IAS

-Number o

implemented

policies to avoid the

introduction o IAS

(e.g., through special

measures during

transport)

-Signicant environmental

impacts o transporting

products and other goodsand materials used or the

organizations operations, and

transporting members o the

workorce (EN29) (P)


30/44

2011 GRI

28

Figure 4. Example of reporting on possible future ES indicator: Sourcing regions mapped against

global water stress and scarcity. An organization could prioritize its ecosystem service management and

actions by focusing on sourcing regions that face high ecosystem stress (e.g., water scarcity, land conversion

or erosion). The example given maps sourcing regions for the organizations operations against a global

ecosystem service map with respect to water stress and scarcity.

(Source of map: http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/global-waterstress-and-scarcity)

Europe: 12%

South-East

Asia: 34%

Arica: 18%

South America:

27%

North

America: 9%

Key threats

to ecosystem

services









their beneciaries

(P)

Organizations

Dependence (D)

Response

(R)

Invasive alien

species (IAS)

- Number o people

afected by a loss

o native harvested

species as a

result o IAS rom

organizations

activities

-

Economic impact ocontrolling diseases

caused by introduced

crop pests associated

with the organizations

operations

- Number o sites with

an eradication plan or

IAS in place, including

the status o the plan

Some example indicators are visualized in Figures

4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. They show how reporting could be

based on aggregated site-level inormation to

measure and monitor perormance over time, and

how global maps can present an organizations

activities related to ES.


31/44

A


cosystems


ervices


29

GRI Research and


Figure 5. Example o reporting on possible uture ES indicator: Water consumption perormance

o production sites in water-scarce areas. The volume o water consumed by the production sites

assessed against the total water availability in areas o operation may indicate whether or not consumption

is beyond sustainable levels. It should be noted that such levels, or thresholds, may change over time due to

reduced supply, an increase in the number o beneciaries, or other reasons. These levels should, thereore, be

investigated regularly.

Figure 6. Example o reporting on possible uture ES indicator: Economic costs to the organization

due to climate related disaster.Climate change could result in lost revenues or additional costs as a result

o fooding or crop ailure, or example. Figure 6 shows the economic cost to an organization due to climate

related crop ailure.


32/44

2011 GRI

30

Figure 7. Example o reporting on possible uture ES indicator: Percentage o production sites

under sustainable management. Sustainable management can relate to, or example, water, maintenance

o soil ertility or pollinating species, or food protection. An organization could develop a scorecard inserting

items that are relevant in terms o sustainable management or its production sites.

Figure 8. Example o reporting on possible uture ES indicator: Purchase o certifed sustainable

raw materials. Credible, internationally recognized responsible production standards help to address key

threats to ecosystem services such as overexploitation and unsustainable use. Organizations could adopt

these standards or natural resources they harvest, produce, trade and/or consume.


33/44

A


cosystems


ervices


31

GRI Research and


No single indicator can tell the ull story; however,a combination o indicators addressing pressures,

impacts, dependence and responses, in addition

to a narrative on strategy and management,

ought to provide a comprehensive overview o an

organizations ES perormance.

Organizations may want to connectreporting on

indicators, as some impacts and dependencies

may not exist in isolation. Management and

mitigation indicators can then be used to help an

organization demonstrate to its stakeholders how

it is responding to specic issues over time andat dierent sites. For instance, changing natural

habitat or the purpose o road construction may

also inadvertently cause the introduction o an

invasive alien species, pollute nearby water courses,

and increase CO2

emissions, which the organization

will address with dierent strategies on dierent

sites.

3.3.5 Framing perormance data into anecosystem service context

Table 3 includes Indicators rom the GRI Guidelines,

as well as other potential indicators that could

be used to assess a reporting organizations

perormance in the eld o ES. These are linked to

operational pressures, impacts, dependencies and

responses, though generally are not ES metrics

alone (section 3.3.2 explains the challenges in this

respect). As such, some o the listed perormance

indicators are merely proxies or actual ES stock and

ow; these indicators generally require additional

inormation.

In a ew limited cases, it is possible to rely on

standard coecients to estimate the impact on ES

o particular levels o perormance. For example,

it is possible to estimate global warming potential

o dierent air pollutants and place these in the

context o their overall contribution to climate

change. However, this can only be done or a small

set o data. For most perormance data gathered,

the only available techniques are to contextualize

the inormation in terms o ES, i.e., providing

inormation that allows readers to understand the

implications o reported data or changes in ES,

either in terms o scale, nature o changes, or chainreactions initiated.

Context reportingPlacing reported data into an ES context can

include techniques to present perormance

data in relation to total loading (e.g., placing an

organizations specic discharges in relation to the

total number o such discharges, as well as in the

context o the capacity o ecosystems to process

such discharge). Perormance data could also

be reviewed in relation to service potential and

ecological limits, which involves an assessment o

the percentage o an ES supply consumed by the

organization in relation to use by other stakeholders

and thresholds or sustainable use. While some o

these data may have already been gathered as

Documents

GRI EcosystèmesReporting