The organization shall:

1. describe its policies or commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, and how these are informed by the 2050 Goals and 2030 Targets in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework;
2. report the extent to which these policies or commitments apply to the organization’s activities and to its business relationships;
3. report the goals and targets to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, whether they are informed by scientific consensus, the base year, and the indicators used to evaluate progress.

The Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (hereafter the Global Biodiversity Framework). The Global Biodiversity Framework lays out its 2050 vision of a world ‘living in harmony with nature’ where ‘biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people’.

The Global Biodiversity Framework recognizes the need to reduce or reverse the drivers of biodiversity loss. The framework proposes the 2050 Goals, together with the related 2030 Targets. The goals with the related targets are designed to stimulate efforts in three key areas:

• reducing the threats to biodiversity;
• meeting people’s needs through sustainable use and benefit-sharing; and
• providing tools and solutions for implementing and integrating practices that conserve and sustainably use biodiversity.

See reference [3] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-1-a
The organization can provide a high-level description of its policies or commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. For example, the organization can describe that it has implemented a policy in line with Target 5 of the Global Biodiversity Framework to source from suppliers that take appropriate measures to prevent exporting species that are alien and invasive to the buying country.

If the policies or commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss are not informed by the 2050 Goals and 2030 Targets in the Global Biodiversity Framework, a brief statement of this fact is sufficient to comply with the requirement. The organization can explain if it intends to do so and, if so, by which timeframe.

If the organization has described its policies or commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss under Disclosure 2-23 in GRI 2: General Disclosures 2021 or under 3-3-c in GRI 3: Material Topics 2021, it can provide a reference to this information under 101-1-a and does not need to repeat the information.

Guidance to 101-1-b
If the policies or commitments apply to all of the organization’s activities and business relationships equally, a brief statement of this fact is sufficient to comply with the requirement.

If the policies or commitments apply to only some of the organization’s activities (e.g., they apply only to entities located in certain countries or to certain subsidiaries) or to some of its business relationships (e.g., they apply only to suppliers), then the organization should report to which activities and business relationships the policies or commitments apply. It can also explain why the policies or commitments are limited to these activities and business relationships.

The organization should also explain whether its business relationships are obligated to abide by the policies or commitments, or are encouraged (but not obligated) to do so. When its business relationships are encouraged to abide by the policies or commitments, the organization can describe how it encourages adoption and what incentives or support it provides.

Guidance to 101-1-c
To halt and reverse biodiversity loss, the organization may have goals and targets to achieve net positive impact, no net loss and net gain of biodiversity, or to contribute to nature positive goals. In such a case, the organization should explain how it has defined these concepts and list the sources used to inform its definition.

When reporting on goals and targets, the organization should report how the goals and targets are set. For example, it can use the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) target-setting tools and guidance [37] or the SBTN and the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) Guidance for corporates on science-based targets for nature [40].

The organization should report how scientific consensus informed its goals and targets. For example, it can use national biodiversity strategies and action plans developed in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity, or independent assessments of the ecological status of an area.

The organization should also report the baseline for the goals and targets and the timeline for achieving the goals and targets.

When reporting progress toward the goals and targets and assessing if the progress is satisfactory, the organization can, for example, report that it sourced 60% of deforestation-free products in 2023. It can further report that it is on track to achieve its target of sourcing 100% deforestation-free products by 31 December 2030.

See references [37] and [40] in the Bibliography.

The organization shall:

1. report how it applies the mitigation hierarchy by describing:
   1. actions taken to avoid negative impacts on biodiversity;
   2. actions taken to minimize negative impacts on biodiversity that were not avoided;
   3. actions taken to restore and rehabilitate affected ecosystems, including the goals of the restoration and rehabilitation, and how stakeholders are engaged throughout the restoration and rehabilitation actions;
   4. actions taken to offset residual negative impacts on biodiversity;
   5. transformative actions taken and additional conservation actions taken;
2. with reference to 101-2-a-iii, report for each site with the most significant impacts on biodiversity:
   1. the size in hectares of the area under restoration or rehabilitation;
   2. the size in hectares of the area restored or rehabilitated;
3. with reference to 101-2-a-iv, report for each offset:
   1. the goals;
   2. the geographic location;
   3. whether and how principles of good offset practices are met;
   4. whether and how the offset is certified or verified by a third party;
4. list which of its sites with the most significant impacts on biodiversity have a biodiversity management plan and explain why the other sites do not have a management plan;
5. describe how it enhances synergies and reduces trade-offs between actions taken to manage its biodiversity and climate change impacts;
6. describe how it ensures that the actions taken to manage its impacts on biodiversity avoid and minimize negative impacts and maximize positive impacts for stakeholders.

This disclosure provides information on the actions taken by the organization to manage its most significant impacts on biodiversity, including impacts in its supply chain. This disclosure covers the most significant impacts at the sites and for the products and services in the supply chain identified under Disclosure 101-4. The organization can manage its negative impacts by managing the contribution to the direct drivers of biodiversity loss reported under Disclosure 101-6 (e.g., avoid pollution or minimize greenhouse gas emissions). The organization should also report actions taken to manage impacts downstream in its value chain.

Organizations are expected to apply the mitigation hierarchy to manage their negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The mitigation hierarchy consists of steps, including avoidance, minimization, restoration and rehabilitation, and offset. An organization should prioritize actions to avoid negative impacts and minimize those impacts when avoidance is not possible. Restoration and rehabilitation measures should be implemented when negative impacts cannot be avoided or minimized. After applying all other measures, offsetting measures can also be applied to residual negative impacts to achieve no net loss or net gain. Building on the mitigation hierarchy, the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) Initial Guidance for Business [38] includes an additional step to cover transformative actions, which aim to change the socio-economic systems in which organizations are embedded. Additional conservation actions can be taken to create a positive impact on biodiversity beyond the management of the organization’s negative impacts.

For more information on the mitigation hierarchy, see the Cross Sector Biodiversity Initiative (CSBI) A cross-sector guide for implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy [15] and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources [25].

This disclosure covers actions taken at the site level and at the organizational level (e.g., a ban on sourcing a certain product across the entire organization).

The organization should describe the traceability mechanisms it uses to identify the origin of products and entities in its supply chain. The organization should also describe actions taken to improve traceability. The organization should explain whether it sources products certified by a third party and specify the certification schemes or standards used. Third-party certification can provide information on whether the products sourced adhere to sustainable management practices. The organization should explain how these certification schemes or standards help manage impacts on biodiversity, as they use different criteria related to biodiversity conservation. The organization can also report the percentage of certified products sourced.

The organization should describe how it works with its suppliers to manage their negative impacts on biodiversity, for example, by providing them with financial or technical support to change their practices.

The organization should describe how it works with other organizations and stakeholders to manage cumulative impacts. For example, an organization can describe how it works with other organizations and the local community to reduce their combined water withdrawal to mitigate the negative impact on biodiversity. The organization’s activities may facilitate other organizations and stakeholders to cause impacts on biodiversity. In such a case, the organization should describe how it works with other organizations and stakeholders to manage these impacts. For example, consider an organization that has constructed an access road to a new site. This access road also becomes a pathway to previously inaccessible areas for individuals engaged in hunting. In this example, the organization can describe how it works with the government to limit the use of this road.

Where applicable, the organization should also describe actions taken to ensure the conservation and sustainable use of marine resources in areas beyond national jurisdictions.

See references [9], [15], [25] and [38] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-2-a-i
Avoidance actions aim to anticipate and prevent negative impacts on biodiversity before actions or decisions leading to such impacts are taken. Impacts can be avoided by finding alternative locations for the activities (e.g., relocating the site), changing the timing of the activities (e.g., timing activities when they do not interfere with a species' breeding or migration), or by deciding not to undertake activities when they generate irremediable biodiversity losses (e.g., deciding against expanding the site). Organizations are expected to prioritize avoidance as the primary step in the mitigation hierarchy.

The organization should explain if it avoids activities in or near ecologically sensitive areas, such as protected areas and Key Biodiversity Areas. See Disclosure 101-5 and Table 1 in the Appendix for more information on ecologically sensitive areas.

See references [7] and [15] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-2-a-ii
Actions taken to minimize negative impacts on biodiversity aim to reduce the duration, intensity, and extent of impacts that cannot be completely avoided. The organization should explain why the impacts could not be avoided.

Examples of minimization measures include preventing the spread of invasive alien species, designing ecological corridors to minimize ecosystem fragmentation, or locating sites to areas that are less sensitive to an organization’s activities.

See references [11], [15] and [25] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-2-a-iii
This requirement covers the actions taken to restore or rehabilitate ecosystems that are affected by the organization’s activities. Actions taken outside of the area affected by the organization’s activities are reported as offsets under 101-2-a-iv or as additional conservation actions under 101-2-a-v. Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Rehabilitation is the process of stabilizing the terrain, ensuring public safety, enhancing aesthetics, and restoring the land to a purpose deemed useful within the regional context. Actions taken to restore and rehabilitate affected ecosystems aim to return the environment to its original state or to a state where it has a healthy and functioning ecosystem.

The organization should specify if the restoration and rehabilitation actions are implemented while the organization's activities are ongoing or after the activities have ended (e.g., restoration actions taken after the closure of a site). The organization should also report the stage of its restoration and rehabilitation actions. Examples of stages of restoration and rehabilitation are as follows:

• planning and design;
• implementation;
• monitoring, documentation, evaluation, and reporting;
• ongoing activities and maintenance.

The UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration has identified principles that detail best practices for restoring degraded land, freshwater, and marine ecosystems.

The organization should provide information on the species and ecosystems targeted through the restoration and rehabilitation actions. The organization should also explain how these actions support species recovery.

When reporting on the goals of the restoration and rehabilitation, the organization can report to what extent the actions are proportional, viable, and measurable. ‘Proportional’ means that the area targeted for restoration or rehabilitation is equivalent in size to the area that has been affected. ‘Viable’ means that no known constraints can hinder the successful implementation of the restoration or rehabilitation in the short, medium, and long term, and the set goals are attainable based on the current ecological assessment results. An example of short, medium and long term restoration and rehabilitation is that the land ownership is not limited in time. ’Measurable’ means that objectives have been defined and are regularly monitored.

Stakeholder engagement can include co-design, co-management, co-governance, and regular and inclusive reporting and communication of activities.

Organizations are expected to obtain free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) before and throughout restoration and rehabilitation activities that could have impacts on land or resources that Indigenous Peoples use or own. Organizations are also expected to seek FPIC when restoration and rehabilitation activities have impacts on land or resources that local communities use or own.

See references [8], [9] and [19] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-2-a-iv
Offsets are management interventions in areas not affected by the organization’s activities. These can include the restoration or rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems or actions taken to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

The organization should report the types of offsets used. Examples of biodiversity offsets include averted loss, restoration, and one-off offsets.

The organization should report the phases that the offset projects are in, for example, design, implementation, or completion. It should also report the delivery deadlines and the conservation goals.

The organization should also report the co-benefits and trade-offs associated with the offsets, and how those trade-offs are managed. Examples of co-benefits include the capture and storage of carbon and social or cultural benefits. An example of a trade-off would be replacing non-native trees with native trees, while the local community preferred the non-native species for the purpose of firewood.

See reference [55] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-2-a-v
Transformative actions contribute to systemic change inside and outside the organization’s value chain to generate positive impacts on biodiversity. They address the drivers of biodiversity loss through technological, economic, institutional, and social factors, emphasizing the importance of underlying values and behavioral changes. Transformative actions can happen before, during, and after other avoidance, minimization, restoration and rehabilitation, and offset actions. Transformative actions include actions taken with third parties (e.g., experts, governments, local communities), and actions that enable other organizations to generate positive impacts on biodiversity.

The organization can describe how it ensures that its business model is compatible with the transition to halt and reverse biodiversity loss or the steps taken to transition to a circular economy. The organization can also describe actions that advance the sustainable use of biodiversity, for example, promoting farming practices that support biodiversity.

Additional conservation actions aim to have a positive impact on biodiversity and should not be used to manage the organization’s negative impacts. They include actions taken to conserve or restore biodiversity in collaboration with third parties, such as scientific experts, non-governmental organizations, or local communities. For example, joint research projects, technical and scientific cooperation, capacity-building, training, or knowledge sharing.

See reference [38] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-2-b
Requirement 101-2-b provides information about the size of the area under restoration or rehabilitation and the size of the area restored or rehabilitated for each site with the most significant impacts on biodiversity. The sites with the most significant impacts are those reported under 101-5-a. This information can be compared to the size of the ecosystem affected by the organization’s activities reported under 101-7-a-ii. It can also be compared to the size of the site reported under 101-5-a. These comparisons provide insight into how much of the affected area is under restoration and rehabilitation and how much has been restored and rehabilitated.

See references [15] and [25] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-2-c-i
An offset aims to deliver or contribute to no net loss or net gain goals for a site, a species, or other biodiversity features. The organization can report the delivered outcomes in the case an offset has been finalized.

The organization should report how the goal to achieve no net loss or net gain is demonstrated and verified. The organization should provide information on the species and ecosystems targeted through the actions to offset its residual negative impacts.

The organization can also report the residual negative impacts of its activities. It can apply a no net loss and loss-gain calculation as described in the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) Resource Paper: No Net Loss and Loss-Gain Calculations in Biodiversity Offsets [10].

See references [10], [15] and [55] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-2-c-iii
The organization should explain whether it identifies, designs, and manages offsets according to applicable national legislation or principles of good offset practices, such as the BBOP Standard on Biodiversity Offsets [11] or the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Policy on Biodiversity Offsets [26]. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Biodiversity Offsets: Effective Design and Implementation [33] also provides lessons learned and insights on good practices, such as additionality, ecological equivalence, and permanence.

‘Additionality’ is a property of a biodiversity offset, where the conservation outcomes are demonstrably new and additional and would not have resulted without the offset (e.g., weed control measures required by legislation cannot contribute to an offset). As no two areas are ecologically identical, ‘ecological equivalence’ means that the biodiversity gains from the offset must be equivalent to the residual impacts. ‘Permanence’ means that the offsets must provide biodiversity gains that correspond to the duration of the biodiversity loss from the residual impacts.

See references [11], [26] and [33] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-2-d
Requirement 101-2-d provides information about which sites with the most significant impacts on biodiversity have a biodiversity management plan. The sites with the most significant impacts are those reported under 101-5-a.

A biodiversity management plan describes how the actions to manage biodiversity impacts are implemented within a particular site. It includes a monitoring plan, a time schedule, milestones, and targets. The plans to manage biodiversity impacts may be integrated into broader site environmental management plans.

Guidance to 101-2-e
Synergies include actions taken to protect biodiversity that contribute to climate change mitigation or adaptation. Actions can also improve the capacity of species or ecosystems to adapt to unavoidable climate change impacts. For example, planting mangroves can protect biodiversity by increasing the wildlife population and contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation by capturing and storing carbon and controlling floods.

In contrast, trade-offs include climate change mitigation or adaptation actions that result in biodiversity loss. For example, foresting an area with non-native species may contribute to climate change mitigation and adaptation by absorbing greenhouse gases and controlling erosion. However, it may also result in the loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services that flow from the affected ecosystems.

If the organization does not enhance synergies or reduce trade-offs between actions taken to manage its biodiversity and climate change impacts, a brief statement of this fact is sufficient to comply with the requirement.

Guidance to 101-2-f
Actions taken to manage impacts on biodiversity may lead to negative impacts on stakeholders. For example, when an organization’s offset measures form a new protected area restricting the local community from using the area and accessing natural resources.

The organization should report which stakeholders are affected or potentially affected and explain how it identifies, addresses, and monitors the negative and positive impacts on stakeholders. The organization should explain how it engages with stakeholders to identify and avoid negative impacts that are considered unacceptable and cannot be mitigated or compensated for. It should also describe the actions taken to achieve equitable social outcomes. For example, a privately owned protected area invests part of its revenue from tourism in local energy and healthcare projects, but it restricts local communities from utilizing the land for agricultural purposes. The organization should also explain how it engages with stakeholders and describe any conflict resolution or grievance mechanisms it has implemented. For more information on good practice principles to generate positive social outcomes while mitigating biodiversity impacts, see reference [8] in the Bibliography.

The organization shall:

1. describe the process to ensure compliance with access and benefit-sharing regulations and measures;
2. describe voluntary actions taken to advance access and benefit-sharing that are additional to legal obligations or when there are no regulations and measures.

This disclosure provides information on how the organization complies with access and benefit-sharing (ABS) regulations and measures regarding access to genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge held by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. These regulations and measures also establish the rules on fair and equitable benefit-sharing arising from the utilization of genetic resources and the associated traditional knowledge. It also provides information on the voluntary actions taken by the organization to advance access and fair and equitable benefit-sharing.

This disclosure is relevant for organizations that use genetic resources to conduct research and development on the genetic or biochemical composition of resources, including through the application of biotechnology. It also applies to organizations that use traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources. These organizations are active in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, and agriculture, among other sectors.

The fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources is one of the objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization (hereafter the Nagoya Protocol) further advances this objective.

The organization can consult the ABS Clearing-House [13] for more information on ABS. The platform intends to provide information on national regulations and measures for accessing genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. In addition, national focal points might be established to provide information on ABS on the national level.

When countries lack ABS regulations and measures, an organization can still take action to share the benefits arising from its use of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge fairly and equitably. These actions are referred to as voluntary actions.

The Nagoya Protocol does not cover ABS of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge found in areas of the sea that are beyond national jurisdiction. Under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, an agreement has been adopted to conserve and sustain marine biological diversity in areas beyond national jurisdiction. This agreement covers access and benefit-sharing of marine genetic resources, including the digital genetic sequence information of resources located in areas beyond national jurisdiction. If an organization has activities on the sea beyond national jurisdiction, it can report if it implements processes and actions to ensure access and fair and equitable benefit-sharing of marine genetic resources.

See references [1], [2], [4] and [13] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-3-a
Where ABS regulations and measures apply, the organization should describe:

• how it allocates responsibility to ensure compliance with ABS regulations and measures across different levels within the organization;
• how it identifies which provider countries have access and benefit-sharing regulations and measures;
• how it integrates ABS regulations and measures into organizational strategies, operational policies, and operational procedures; 
• what training it provides on implementing the ABS regulations and measures.

When the organization has identified significant instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations related to ABS, these are reported under Disclosure 2-27 in GRI 2: General Disclosures 2021.

Guidance to 101-3-b
Examples of voluntary actions include joint research projects, training, or knowledge sharing related to using genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge in research and innovation. The ABS Clearing-House [13] includes examples of good practices, codes of conduct, guidelines, and standards. The UN Nagoya Protocol [4] lists examples of monetary and non-monetary benefits, which can inform the organization’s voluntary actions.

The organization can report how engagement with stakeholders, particularly Indigenous Peoples and local communities, has informed its voluntary actions.

If the organization has not taken any voluntary actions to advance access and fair and equitable benefit-sharing, a brief statement of this fact is sufficient to comply with the requirement.

See references [4] and [13] in the Bibliography.

The organization shall:

1. explain how it has determined which of its sites and which products and services in its supply chain have the most significant actual and potential impacts on biodiversity.

This disclosure enables the organization to explain how it has determined which of its sites and which products and services in its supply chain have the most significant actual and potential impacts on biodiversity. It covers products and services from suppliers throughout the organization’s supply chain, including from suppliers beyond the first tier. This provides an understanding of where in the supply chain, potentially many tiers removed from the organization, the most significant impacts on biodiversity are. The organization can additionally report the information for entities downstream in its value chain.

The activities undertaken by the organization in its sites can have impacts on biodiversity. Sites include sites owned, leased, or managed by the organization and locations where it conducts its activities. Examples are a mine site owned by an organization or a fishing ground where an organization operates. Sites also include those for which future operations have been announced but not yet started, as well as those no longer active. Sites include subsurface infrastructures under the land or seabed surface, such as underground mining tunnels, cables, and pipelines.

The organization may also be involved with negative impacts on biodiversity as a result of its business relationships with suppliers. Suppliers are entities upstream from the organization, which provide products or services used to develop the organization’s own products or services. The activities undertaken by the suppliers to develop their products or services can have impacts on biodiversity. Suppliers that provide products to the organization can provide raw materials, semi-manufactured goods, or final products.

Guidance to 101-4-a
The organization should describe the methods used and the assumptions made to determine which of its sites and which products and services in its supply chain have the most significant actual and potential impacts on biodiversity.

It is up to the organization to set the threshold to determine which sites and which products and services in its supply chain have the most significant impacts on biodiversity. For example, the organization can determine that all of its sites have the most significant impacts on biodiversity, except for its headquarters. An organization that sources many products or services can determine to prioritize the products or services in its supply chain that are likely to have the most significant impacts on biodiversity and of which it sources a high volume or on which it spends a large amount.

The organization should describe any limitations or exclusions, for example, whether it has excluded certain parts of its supply chain when identifying the impacts.

The organization should describe the sources and the evidence it has used to identify the impacts. It should also explain whether and how it engages with stakeholders to identify impacts on biodiversity.

The organization should explain which information draws on primary, secondary, or modeled data. When reporting secondary or modeled data, the organization should report which datasets it has used and if it plans to improve the accuracy of data.

Most significant impacts on biodiversity

The following provides guidance for organizations on how to identify the most significant impacts on biodiversity. The organization is not required to comply with this guidance.

Locating where impacts are most likely to be present and significant

The organization should identify impacts on biodiversity across its sites, and products and services in its supply chain. In some cases, the organization might be unable to identify actual and potential negative impacts across all its sites, and products and services in its supply chain. This could be, for example, because the organization has diverse or multiple global operations or because its supply chain comprises many entities. In such cases, the organization may carry out an initial assessment or scoping exercise to identify general areas across its sites and products and services in its supply chain (e.g., product lines, suppliers located in specific geographic locations) where negative impacts are most likely to be present and significant.

Once the organization has conducted the initial assessment or scoping exercise, it can identify and assess actual and potential negative impacts for these general areas.

Activities undertaken by organizations lead or could lead to direct drivers of biodiversity loss (hereafter direct drivers). These direct drivers can in turn lead to impacts on biodiversity and related ecosystem services. To identify which activities in its operations and supply chain are likely to have the most significant impacts on biodiversity, the organization can use the following:

• The ENCORE tool and the SBTN Materiality Screening Tool¹ provide ratings of materiality for direct drivers associated with different activities.
• The SBTN High Impact Commodity List² shows the direct drivers commonly associated with the production of the high-impact commodities on the list.

The organization can also prioritize products that are or contain threatened species listed in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species or species listed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) Appendices.³

Activities that occur in different geographic locations can have different impacts on biodiversity, depending on factors such as the sensitivity of the local ecosystem, the presence of threatened species, or people’s reliance on a natural resource. Information on the location of the organization’s sites, and its suppliers’ activities and their proximity to ecologically sensitive areas, helps understand where these activities could be particularly harmful to biodiversity.

The organization should assess which of its sites are in or near ecologically sensitive areas. If the organization has information about the location of its suppliers, it can also assess which of those suppliers are in or near ecologically sensitive areas. See Disclosure 101-5 and Table 1 in the Appendix for more information on ecologically sensitive areas.

The organization can refer to the Scoping and Locate phases of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) Guidance on the identification and assessment of nature-related issues: The LEAP approach [41] for more guidance on locating where impacts are most likely to be present and significant.

Identification of the most significant impacts

To identify and assess the significance of its impacts on biodiversity, the organization should identify and measure the direct drivers associated with the activities in its operations and its

supply chain, as well as identify and measure the changes to the state of biodiversity. It can also identify changes in the provision of ecosystem services.

If no primary data is available, the organization can estimate the direct drivers and changes to the state of biodiversity. The indicators in Disclosure 101-6 can be used to measure the direct drivers (e.g., the size of the natural ecosystem converted, or the quantity of the pollutants generated). See Disclosure 101-7 for more information on changes to the state of biodiversity.

To determine which of the impacts are most significant, the organization should assess the severity and likelihood of the impacts. The severity of a negative impact is determined by the following characteristics:

• Scale: how grave the impact is.
• Scope: how widespread the impact is, for example, the number of species affected or the extent of ecosystem damage.
• Irremediable character: how hard it is to counteract or make good the resulting harm.

Any of the three characteristics (scale, scope, and irremediable character) can make an impact severe.

The contribution to the direct drivers, the proximity to ecologically sensitive areas, and the changes to the state of biodiversity can make the severity and likelihood of an impact on biodiversity greater. For example, when a site or supplier is in or near an ecologically sensitive area, it can increase the likelihood of an impact on biodiversity. When a site or supplier is in or near an ecosystem close to a tipping point, or where threatened species are present, it can increase the severity of an impact on biodiversity, for example, because the impact would result in irremediable harm.

See section 1 in GRI 3: Material Topics 2021 for more guidance on assessing the significance of impacts. For more guidance on how to identify biodiversity impacts, the organization can use the following sources:

• Aligning accounting approaches for nature (Align) Recommendations and implementation guidance;
• Natural Capital Protocol from the Natural Capital Coalition;
• Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) Technical Guidance: Step 1: Assess;
• The Locate and Evaluate phases of the TNFD LEAP approach.

Methodologies

Where possible, the organization should use primary data to identify its sites and products and services in its supply chain with the most significant impacts on biodiversity (e.g., using data collected through field or supplier surveys or derived from satellite imagery).

The organization can use secondary or modeled data when primary data is unavailable (e.g., data layers on ecosystem extent and condition, life cycle impact assessments). For example, the organization can use secondary data to identify and measure changes to the state of biodiversity. In such a case, geospatial data layers can be overlaid with geographic location data to reflect the size and condition of ecosystems or identify species that may be present at specific sites. For example, the WWF Biodiversity Risk Filter⁴ [57] provides information on the ecosystem condition in different locations and the direct drivers most likely to be present and significant for an organization’s or its suppliers’ activities.

Secondary data may be appropriate to gain initial information about an organization’s impacts on biodiversity across its sites and products and services in its supply chain. Once the sites and products and services in its supply chain with the most significant impacts have been identified, the organization may collect primary data for those sites and products and services in its supply chain.

The organization should use precise locations to assess the proximity to ecologically sensitive areas and to assess the changes to the state of biodiversity.

For products and services in its supply chain, the organization can use sourcing regions or countries if it does not know the precise locations of its suppliers. The organization can also use life cycle assessment tools, pressure or impact assessment tools, and global trade datasets to make assumptions about likely locations, which are usually countries associated with its supply chain (e.g., the soy used in its products is likely to come from the United States, Brazil, or Argentina).

The organization can use the data it has collected on the direct drivers, the proximity to ecologically sensitive areas, and the changes to the state of biodiversity to identify its impacts on biodiversity for reporting the information required under Disclosures 101-5 to 101-8.

See references [14], [20], [27], [32], [35], [36], [39], [41], [47], [48], [49], [51] and [57] in the Bibliography.

The organization shall:

1. report the location and size in hectares of its sites with the most significant impacts on biodiversity;
2. for each site reported under 101-5-a, report whether it is in or near an ecologically sensitive area, the distance to these areas, and whether these are:
   1. areas of biodiversity importance;
   2. areas of high ecosystem integrity;
   3. areas of rapid decline in ecosystem integrity;
   4. areas of high physical water risks;
   5. areas important for the delivery of ecosystem service benefits to Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and other stakeholders;
3. report the activities that take place in each site reported under 101-5-a;
4. report the products and services in its supply chain with the most significant impacts on biodiversity and the countries or jurisdictions where the activities associated with these products and services take place.

This disclosure provides information about the locations of the organization’s sites with the most significant impacts on biodiversity. It also provides information on the location of the activities associated with the products and services in its supply chain with the most significant impacts on biodiversity. The sites and products and services with the most significant impacts on biodiversity are identified under Disclosure 101-4. These sites and products and services are the focus of Disclosure 101-2 and Disclosures 101-5 to 101-8 of this Standard.

If available, the organization can additionally report the information for entities downstream in its value chain with the most significant impacts on biodiversity.

For an example of how to present information on requirements in Disclosure 101-5, see Tables 3 and 4 in the Appendix.

Guidance to 101-5-a
The organization should use polygon outlines or maps to report on the location of its sites with the most significant impacts on biodiversity. A polygon is a geographic feature defined by a series of grid references, points, or vertices connected to form an enclosed shape. If available, the organization should also report the names and coordinates of its sites.

Providing the coordinates for the sites of transport and fishing activities may not be possible. In these cases, the organization can report departure and arrival locations and transport routes for transport activities. For fishing activities, it can report FAO major fishing areas and subareas.

See reference [17] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-5-b
The Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) defines ecologically sensitive areas as areas of biodiversity importance, areas of high ecosystem integrity, areas of rapid decline in ecosystem integrity, areas of high physical water risks, and areas important for the delivery of ecosystem service benefits to Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and other stakeholders.

The organization can consult the criteria listed in Table 1 in the Appendix to identify ecologically sensitive areas. An area is ecologically sensitive when it meets one or more criteria.

For more guidance and examples of tools to identify ecologically sensitive areas, see the TNFD Guidance on the identification and assessment of nature-related issues: The LEAP approach [41], pages 57-63.

A site is in an ecologically sensitive area when it is completely or partially located in the ecologically sensitive area. A site is near an ecologically sensitive area when the ecologically sensitive area falls within the area affected or potentially affected (sometimes referred to as the area of influence) or within the radius set by the organization. The organization can use a radius if it cannot identify the area affected or potentially affected by its activities. If the organization uses a radius, it should explain this and report the distance of the radius used.

The organization is required to report the distance only in cases where the site is near an ecologically sensitive area.

The organization should report the size in hectares of the ecologically sensitive areas within its sites.

The organization can also report polygon outlines, or maps of the ecologically sensitive areas and overlay them with the polygon outlines or maps of its sites.

The organization can also report the percentage of sites in or near ecologically sensitive areas. This information provides a high-level understanding of the significance of biodiversity across the organization’s operations.

The percentage of sites in or near ecologically sensitive areas is calculated using the following formula:

See reference [41] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-5-b-i
The organization should specify whether the areas of biodiversity importance are:

• protected through legal or other effective means;
• scientifically recognized for their importance to biodiversity;
• important for species;
• important for ecosystems; or
• important for ecological connectivity.

See Table 1 in the Appendix for more information on areas of biodiversity importance.

Guidance to 101-5-d
Where possible, the organization should also report the location within the country or jurisdiction (e.g., state, city, Exclusive Economic Zone) or a precise location, such as polygon outlines or maps. The organization can report departure and arrival locations and transport routes for transport activities. For fishing activities, it can report FAO major fishing areas and subareas.

For each product and service with the most significant impacts on biodiversity, the organization should describe the level of traceability in place, for example, whether the product or service can be traced to the national, regional, or local level, or a specific point of origin (e.g., farms). The organization can also report the volume sourced or the amount spent on each product and service.

If available, the organization should also report the information on ecologically sensitive areas required by 101-5-b for the products and services in its supply chain with the most significant impacts on biodiversity.

If the products in its supply chain are or contain high-impact commodities⁵, the organization can report the quantity of each high-impact commodity sourced (e.g., tons of avocado) and the

proportion of total high-impact commodities sourced. This information provides a high-level understanding of the significance of biodiversity across products in the organization’s supply chain. The organization can use the SBTN High Impact Commodity List to identify whether it sources products that are or contain high-impact commodities.

The proportion of total high-impact commodities sourced is calculated using the following formula:

See references [17] and [35] in the Bibliography.

The organization shall:

1. for each site reported under 101-5-a where its activities lead or could lead to land and sea use change, report:
   1. the size in hectares of natural ecosystem converted since a cut-off or reference date, the cut-off date or reference date, and the type of ecosystem before and after conversion;
   2. the size in hectares of land and sea converted from one intensively used or modified ecosystem to another during the reporting period, and the type of ecosystem before and after conversion;
2. for each site reported under 101-5-a where its activities lead or could lead to the exploitation of natural resources, report:
   1. for each wild species harvested, the quantity, the type, and extinction risk;
   2. water withdrawal and water consumption in megaliters;
3. for each site reported under 101-5-a where its activities lead or could lead to pollution, report the quantity and the type of each pollutant generated;
4. for each site reported under 101-5-a where its activities lead or could lead to the introduction of invasive alien species, describe how invasive alien species are or may be introduced;
5. for each product and service in its supply chain reported under 101-5-d, report the information required under 101-6-a, 101-6-b, 101-6-c, and 101-6-d, with a breakdown by country or jurisdiction;
6. report contextual information necessary to understand how the data has been compiled, including standards, methodologies, and assumptions used.

This disclosure provides an understanding of the direct drivers of biodiversity loss (hereafter the direct drivers) leading to the most significant impacts. The organization should additionally report the information on the direct drivers for its downstream value chain.

According to the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), direct drivers are the drivers that ‘unequivocally influence biodiversity and ecosystem processes’. Direct drivers are sometimes referred to as ‘pressures’ or ‘impact drivers’. The IPBES global assessment has identified land and sea use change and the exploitation of natural resources as the main direct drivers, followed by climate change, pollution, and the introduction of invasive alien species. These direct drivers can also lead to the fragmentation and degradation of ecosystems. See Box 1 for more information on direct drivers of biodiversity loss.

Information on the direct drivers informs decisions on prioritizing actions to manage biodiversity-related impacts by applying the mitigation hierarchy. See Disclosure 101-2 for more information on the mitigation hierarchy. The organization’s actions to mitigate direct drivers are reported under Disclosure 101-2.

Through its activities, an organization can use natural resources for its production processes (e.g., sand used in a construction project) or produce non-product outputs (e.g., pollutants or greenhouse gas emissions). These activities, responsible for the direct drivers of biodiversity loss, can have negative impacts on biodiversity.

The organization needs to report only the information for the direct drivers relevant to its activities and its supply chain. Direct drivers can vary by location. For example, an organization has activities in site A that lead to pollution. It also has activities in site B that lead to the exploitation of natural resources. In this case, the organization only needs to report the information on pollution for site A and on the exploitation of natural resources for site B.

For an example of how to present information on requirements in Disclosure 101-6, see Tables 3 and 4 in the Appendix. See references [32], [43] and [44] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-6-a 
The organization should report which ecosystem classification it uses to identify the types of ecosystems converted. The organization can report ecosystem types using the biomes or ecosystem functional groups in the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology.⁶ Alternatively, the organization can report according to another global classification, national classification, or register. If the organization cannot use ecosystem classifications, it can utilize land use classifications (e.g., Globio land use categories). 

See reference [28] in the Bibliography. 

Guidance to 101-6-a-i 
The Accountability Framework initiative defines a natural ecosystem as an ecosystem that substantially resembles – in terms of species composition, structure, and ecological function – one that is or would be found in a given area without major human impacts. It includes human-managed ecosystems where much of the natural species composition, structure, and ecological function are present. Natural ecosystem conversion is the human-induced change of a natural ecosystem to another use or profound change in an ecosystem's species composition, structure, or function. It can include severe degradation or introducing management practices that lead to substantial and sustained change in the ecosystem's former species composition, structure, or function. 

Natural ecosystem conversion is measured from a cut-off date⁷ associated with an organization’s policy related to natural ecosystem conversion (e.g., deforestation-free policy). If the organization does not have such a policy in place, it should select a reference date to measure natural ecosystem conversion. For instance, if 2015 has been set as a cut-off date or reference date, the organization reports the size of the ecosystem converted from 2015 until the reporting period. Common cut-off dates apply to organizations operating in the same or similar context. They support the monitoring, verification, and management of natural ecosystem conversion, including in supply chains. Cut-off dates can, therefore, be selected based on sector-wide or regional cut-off dates (e.g., the 2008 cut-off date from the Brazil Soy Moratorium) or those specified in certification programs (e.g., Forest Stewardship Council), legislation (e.g., EU regulation on deforestation-free products), or voluntary initiatives (e.g., Science Based Targets for Nature). Cut-off dates may differ between commodities and regions. More guidance can be found in the Accountability Framework initiative Operational Guidance on Cutoff Dates [6].

The organization should explain why it has determined the cut-off or reference dates as appropriate. 

See references [5] and [6] in the Bibliography. 

Guidance to 101-6-a-ii
Intensively used and other modified ecosystems are ecosystems where human activity has substantially modified an area’s primary ecological functions and species composition to ecosystems dominated by agriculture, urban, and other industrial activities. Intensively used ecosystems are those covered by the intensive land-use systems biome (T7) in the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology. Other modified ecosystems include anthropogenic subterranean freshwaters (SF2), artificial freshwaters (F3), anthropogenic marine systems (M4), and anthropogenic shorelines (MT3). 

See reference [28] in the Bibliography. 

Guidance to 101-6-b-i 
Harvesting wild species involves gathering, catching, or hunting wild organisms (animal, fungi, and plant species) by the organization, including those incidentally taken.

The organization can report if the species are listed in one of the CITES Appendices. It can also report if the species are harvested from ecologically sensitive areas (e.g., from a Key Biodiversity Area, which aims to protect or conserve the harvested species). 

To report on the extinction risk of a species, the organization can use information from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 

See references [14] and [27] in the Bibliography. 

Guidance to 101-6-b-ii 
The organization should use information reported under Disclosures 303-3 Water withdrawal and 303-5 Water consumption in GRI 303: Water and Effluents 2018⁸ to report water withdrawal and water consumption for each site. 

Guidance to 101-6-c 
The organization is only required to report the type and quantity of pollutants that lead or could lead to the most significant impacts on biodiversity. 

To report on air pollution, the organization should use, where relevant, information reported under Disclosure 305-7 Nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), and other significant air emissions in GRI 305: Emissions 2016 for: 

• NO_x; 
• SO_x; 
• Persistent organic pollutants (POP); 
• Volatile organic compounds (VOCs); 
• Hazardous air pollutants (HAP); 
• Particulate matter (PM); 
• Other standard categories of air emissions from relevant regulations. 

To report on water and soil pollution, the organization should use, where relevant, information reported under: 

• Disclosure 303-4 Water discharge in GRI 303: Water and Effluents 2018 to have information on priority substances of concern that may cause water pollution (e.g., those leading to eutrophication). 
• Disclosure 306-3 Significant spills in GRI 306: Effluents and Waste 2016. 

For heat, light, noise, or vibration pollution, the organization should report instances that do not comply with legal requirements for permitted pollution levels. 

Guidance to 101-6-d 
Non-invasive alien species are not required to be reported under 101-6-d. 

Invasive alien species can be introduced accidentally (e.g., transport, discharge of ballast waters) or on purpose (e.g., for pest control, horticulture, pets, zoological gardens, and aquaria). The organization should report the species that are or may be introduced. For example, an organization imports ornamental plants to new areas, which may threaten local biodiversity. A maritime shipping organization may introduce shellfish, crustaceans, and other species to new areas through contaminated ballast water or encrusted organisms on ships. It can also inadvertently introduce other species, such as insects and rodents, through the transport of goods. 

National regulations define which species are considered invasive alien species in a particular country. The Global Invasive Species Database and Global Register of Introduced and Invasive Species also provide information on invasive alien species. 

The organization can also describe how those species affect or may affect surrounding species and ecosystems. 

See references [21] and [22] in the Bibliography.

Guidance to 101-6-e 
It may not be feasible for the organization to obtain primary data on direct drivers from suppliers. In such a case, the organization can estimate the direct drivers using multi-regional input-output models and lifecycle impact assessments in combination with data on the volume or amount spent on products and services. Multi-regional input-output models can provide estimates of the environmental inputs (e.g., water use) and outputs (e.g., air emissions) associated with the products and services in its supply chain. See Aligning accounting approaches for nature (Align) Measuring and valuing biodiversity across supply chains [47] for more information on the methodologies and data to measure direct drivers in supply chains. 

If the organization cannot report the size of the natural ecosystem converted for the products in its supply chain, it can report, for each product, the percentage of sourced volume determined to be deforestation- or conversion-free and describe the assessment methods used. For example, out of 100 tons of soy sourced, an organization has determined that 90% is deforestation-free. Assessment methods can include monitoring, certification, sourcing from low-risk jurisdictions with no or negligible recent conversion, or sourcing from verified suppliers. To be deemed conversion- or deforestation-free, products must be assessed as not causing or contributing to natural ecosystem conversion, including deforestation, after an appropriate cut-off date. 

See reference [47] in the Bibliography. 

Guidance to 101-6-f 
The organization should use primary data to report information on the direct drivers where possible. When primary data is unavailable, the organization can use secondary or modeled data (e.g., lifecycle impact assessments). However, such data are less accurate and may not reflect the effectiveness of actions to manage the organization’s impacts. 

The organization should explain which information draws on primary, secondary, or modeled data, as well as any limitations of methodologies and data used. When reporting secondary or modeled data, the organization should report which datasets it used and if it plans to improve the accuracy of data.

The organization shall: 

1. for each site reported under 101-5-a, report the following information on affected or potentially affected ecosystems: 
   
   1. the ecosystem type for the base year; 
   2. the ecosystem size in hectares for the base year;
   3. the ecosystem condition for the base year and the current reporting period; 
2. report contextual information necessary to understand how the data has been compiled, including standards, methodologies, and assumptions used. 

This disclosure provides information about the changes in the condition of the ecosystem affected or potentially affected by the organization. 

The state of biodiversity is the holistic quality of the components of biodiversity (genes, species, and ecosystems), and is a function of the condition and size of its components. This disclosure focuses on the condition and size of affected ecosystems. By reporting this information for the base year and the current reporting period, the organization provides information about the ecosystem's overall health over time. 

Changes in the state of biodiversity may reflect the cumulative impacts of the organization's activities and the activities of others, such as governments, local communities, or other organizations. It is not always possible to determine how much of the change in the state of biodiversity is due to the activities of the organization or others. However, the information reported under this disclosure, together with Disclosure 101-6, helps to understand the organization’s actual and potential impacts on biodiversity and can inform the management of these impacts. 

The organization should report information on changes to the state of biodiversity for each product and service reported under 101-5-d by country or jurisdiction. It should also report this information for its downstream value chain. 

The organization can organize the information on the state of biodiversity into structured biodiversity accounts. Biodiversity accounts enable more accurate monitoring of gains and losses of biodiversity over time. A core component of biodiversity accounts is the compilation of an asset inventory for each ecosystem type so that gains in one type do not compensate for losses in another. They are also useful in tracking progress against targets to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. See the Endangered Wildlife Trust Biological Diversity Protocol [16] for more information on biodiversity accounts. 

For an example of how to present information on requirements in Disclosure 101-7, see Table 3 in the Appendix. 

See references [16] and [54] in the Bibliography. 

Guidance to 101-7-a 
When reporting information on the affected or potentially affected ecosystems, the organization should consider all ecosystem types in the area that is or could be affected by its activities, including beyond its sites, if relevant. The state of the overall ecosystem, which extends beyond the areas affected by the organization, is not required for reporting. For example, an organization that owns a soy plantation in the Amazon is required to report information on the type, size, and condition of the affected part of the ecosystem rather than reporting on the entire Amazon region. 

The base year is when the organization collects baseline information on the ecosystem type, size, and condition. The base year may be the start of an organization’s activities, the date from which it owned, leased, or managed a particular site, or when it committed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. 

Baseline information can be collected through environmental impact assessments, which provide information on the condition of and trends in biodiversity in a particular area before an organization’s activities start. For more information on best practices to conduct baseline studies, see references [23] and [25] in the Bibliography. 

The organization should report the base year. It should report how it has determined the base year and baseline information under 101-7-b. 

The size and condition of an affected ecosystem can be combined into one unit: condition-adjusted area. This is the size of the ecosystem adjusted for its condition, and the unit (e.g., equivalent hectares) represents the residual condition within that area. The organization can also report impacts on affected ecosystems using condition-adjusted hectares. See Align Measuring Ecosystem Condition – A primer for business [50] and the Endangered Wildlife Trust Biological Diversity Protocol  [16] for more information on condition-adjusted areas. 

See references [16], [23], [25] and [50] in the Bibliography. 

Guidance to 101-7-a-i 
The organization should report which ecosystem classification it uses to identify the types of ecosystems. The organization can report ecosystem types using the biomes or ecosystem functional groups in the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology.⁹ Alternatively, the organization can report according to another global classification, national classification, or register. If the organization cannot use ecosystem classifications, it can use land use classifications (e.g., Globio land use categories) instead. 

See reference [28] in the Bibliography. 

Guidance to 101-7-a-ii  
Ecosystem size, also referred to as ecosystem extent, is the area coverage of the ecosystem that is affected or potentially affected by the organization’s activities. This is a fixed area over which the condition of the ecosystem is measured over time. 

See reference [49] in the Bibliography. 

Guidance to 101-7-a-iii 
Ecosystem condition is the quality of an ecosystem measured by its living and non-living characteristics against a reference condition.¹⁰ Living and non-living characteristics include: 

• the ecosystem’s composition, function, and structure; 
• the landscape characteristics (e.g., connectivity); and 
• the physical and chemical state characteristics (e.g., soil structure and soil nutrient levels). 

Ecosystem condition can also provide information on the ecosystem’s capacity to supply ecosystem services now and in the future. 

The activities of an organization may degrade the condition of affected ecosystems through the direct drivers of biodiversity loss (hereafter direct drivers). For example, the emission of pollutants, partial deforestation, or water withdrawal in an area with water stress, may affect the ecosystem's structure, composition, or function. If land and sea use change is the primary direct driver of biodiversity loss, the activities of an organization lead to the conversion of an ecosystem into a different type of ecosystem. In this case, the conversion of the ecosystem results in a complete reduction in ecosystem condition. 

Methods to measure ecosystem condition should reflect the relevant characteristics of the ecosystem. The organization can use methods that directly measure characteristics or estimate ecosystem conditions based on direct drivers. These methods can be specific to certain types of ecosystems (e.g., types of wetlands or forests) or applicable to different ecosystem types (i.e., applicable across terrestrial, freshwater, or marine realms). See Table 2 in the Appendix for

examples of methods to measure or estimate ecosystem condition. See Align Measuring Ecosystem Condition – A primer for business [50] and Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) Guidance on the identification and assessment of nature-related issues: The LEAP approach [41] for more information on how to measure ecosystem condition. 

If the organization monitors the condition of affected or potentially affected ecosystems at a frequency different from its sustainability reporting frequency, it should report the most recent information and does not need additional measurement to meet the requirement. 

See references [41], [49], [50] and [54] in the Bibliography. 

Guidance to 101-7-b 
The organization should use primary data to report on direct drivers where possible (e.g., data collected through field surveys, eDNA, or derived from satellite imagery). 

When primary data is unavailable, the organization can use secondary or modeled data (e.g., data layers on ecosystem extent and condition, life cycle impact assessments). Modeled data are issued from models that quantify how the different direct drivers affect the state of biodiversity. These models use globally collected data, and the results are applied locally to estimate how the organization’s activities can lead to ecosystem changes. They include geospatial data layers that can be used to identify changes in the size and condition of ecosystems, such as the level of habitat fragmentation and connectivity, or identify species that may be present at specific sites. 

The organization should explain which information draws on primary, secondary, or modeled data, as well as any limitations of methodologies and data used. When reporting secondary or modeled data, the organization should report which datasets it has used and if it plans to improve the accuracy of data. 

Guidance to 101-7 
The organization should additionally report information on affected or potentially affected species for the sites reported under 101-5-a. The organization can report the species, its extinction risk, and population size for the baseline and current reporting period. 

The extinction risk measures the threat status of a species and how an organization’s activities may affect the threat status. The global, regional, and national IUCN Red Lists can be used to determine the species extinction risk (i.e., Critically Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable, Near Threatened, and Least Concern). Change in the available species habitat can potentially be used as a proxy to measure impact on local or global extinction risk, noting that other factors can drive extinction risk (e.g., hunting, climate change). 

Population size measures the number of individuals of a species within an area. It can be measured by the number of mature individuals or the number of breeding pairs. When the population size is unavailable, trends in relative population abundance or in species area of habitat can be used as a proxy. 

The organization can report information for the following species: 

• Species whose local or overall populations have or could be changed significantly. 
• Species that are legally protected by local, national, or international laws and conventions (e.g., species listed in one of the CITES Appendices). 
• Species that are recognized as a priority species at the local, national, or international level (e.g., species listed as threatened on the international IUCN Red List or species that trigger a Key Biodiversity Area designation).
• Species that have a critical role in the ecosystem (e.g., keystone species). 
• Species that have a significant cultural or economic role for stakeholders (e.g., hunting, harvesting, pollination). 

See references [27] and [49] in the Bibliography.

The organization shall: 

1. for each site reported under 101-5-a, list the ecosystem services and beneficiaries affected or potentially affected by the organization’s activities; 
2. explain how the ecosystem services and beneficiaries are or could be affected by the organization's activities. 

Ecosystem services occur through an ecosystem's normal functioning and can fall into one or more of the following categories: 

• provisioning services; 
• regulating and maintenance services; and 
• cultural services. 

Provisioning services contribute to benefits extracted or harvested from ecosystems. Examples are timber in a forest, freshwater from a river, and subsistence hunting. Regulating and maintenance services result from the ability of ecosystems to regulate biological processes and influence climate, hydrological, and biochemical cycles, thereby maintaining environmental conditions beneficial to people. An example is the role of forests in preventing soil erosion. Cultural services are the non-material benefits people (beneficiaries) obtain from ecosystems through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development, reflection, recreation, and aesthetic experiences. Examples are the recreational value of a forest and the cultural importance of a heritage landscape for a local community. 

Biodiversity plays an important role in maintaining the quality, quantity, and resilience of ecosystem service flows, and it provides ecosystem services that beneficiaries rely upon now and into the future. The diversity of genes, species, and ecosystems provides a greater range of ecosystem service and higher overall quantity, quality, and resilience of ecosystem services and improves the capacity of ecosystems to function effectively. A change in the state of biodiversity can lead to changes in ecosystem services. This, in turn, can have an impact on the beneficiaries of these ecosystem services. For example, a decline in the number of bees caused by the organization’s activities can lead to decreased pollination services. If the crops are not properly pollinated by the bees, the quality and quantity of the crops produced may be affected, reducing the available food for the local community that grows the crops. 

This disclosure gives insight into the ecosystem services and beneficiaries affected or potentially affected by the organization’s activities. The organization should also list the ecosystem services and beneficiaries affected or potentially affected by its suppliers’ activities for each country or jurisdiction reported under 101-5-d and those affected or potentially affected by the activities of its downstream entities. 

For an example of how to present information on requirements in Disclosure 101-8, see Table 3 in the Appendix. 

See references [31] and [54] in the Bibliography. 

Guidance to 101-8-a  
Beneficiaries can include Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and other organizations. The reporting organization can also be one of the beneficiaries. The organization can report the number of beneficiaries when disclosing information for this requirement (e.g., 50 farmers located in the area). 

The organization should describe the approach used to identify the ecosystem services reported under 101-8-a. The organization can explain if it engages with stakeholders to identify the ecosystem services and beneficiaries affected. It can also use the following methodologies and tools to identify ecosystem services: 

• the ENCORE tool; 
• the Natural Capital Protocol from the Natural Capital Coalition; 
  
   
• the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) LEAP approach, which draws on the UN SEEA Ecosystem Accounting; 
• the World Resources Institute (WRI) Corporate Ecosystem Services Review. 

See references [20], [32], [41], [54] and [56] in the Bibliography. 

Guidance to 101-8-b 
The organization’s activities may lead to an increase or decrease in the quality and quantity of ecosystem services. For example, the organization can explain that cutting trees in the forest has decreased food provisioning services, which has a negative impact on the local community that needs to find an alternative food source. In another example, the organization can explain that switching to agroforestry has resulted in an increase in soil erosion control services, which has a positive impact on the local community that will face fewer risks from flooding.