Disclosure LibraryPractitioner guidance for every reporting disclosure
All disclosures Courses
GRI 304: Biodiversity 2016 · Topic Standard · Cross-sectoral
Disclosure GRI 304-3

Habitats protected or restored

Practical guidance for preparing this disclosure. Use this card to identify datapoints, verify claims and organise supporting evidence. For exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.

Open official GRI source
Dr Ross Kurinko, GRI Certified Trainer
Reviewed by Dr Ross Kurinko · GRI Certified Trainer LRA educational guidance · Not issued or endorsed by GRI
To prepare this disclosure 6 datapoints ↓ 6 claims to verify ↓ 5 evidence areas ↓ 3 report examples ↓
Disclosure focus

This disclosure asks an organisation to explain the habitats it has protected or restored, and to show the scale of that work in a way that is meaningful and comparable. In practice, the focus is on what has actually been done for habitats, not just on policies, intentions, or isolated projects. The organisation should be clear about the habitats involved and the nature of the protection or restoration activity.

The practical emphasis is on coverage and relevance: whether the work applies across the organisation’s operations, specific sites, or selected locations, and how significant those areas are. A useful explanation should help a reader understand whether the reported activity is limited to a few flagship sites or reflects broader action across the business, while staying consistent with the organisation’s own reporting boundary and approach.

* This LRA educational guidance supports disclosure preparation. For the exact requirements, always refer to the official GRI source.

Before you start

A quick mental checklist before you prepare this disclosure — tick each as you settle it.

Preparation
Key datapoints to prepare
DatapointWhat to captureEvidence hintOwner
Protected area sizeThe total area covered by habitat sites that the organisation has protected or restored, using one consistent area measure.Project registers, site maps, land records, restoration plans, GIS outputs, and area calculations signed off by the project lead.Environment / land management
Habitat site locationsThe places where each protected or restored habitat area sits, recorded at site level with enough detail to identify each location.Site lists, maps, coordinates, property records, and project files showing each habitat area and its location.Environment / land management
External review sign-offWhether an outside specialist has reviewed and approved the success of the restoration work, and whether that approval applies now or did so during the period.Independent review letters, consultant reports, assurance statements, or signed evaluation notes.Environment / sustainability
Third-party habitat partnershipsWhether there are joint arrangements with outside parties for habitat protection or restoration that are separate from the organisation’s own managed projects.Partnership agreements, memoranda of understanding, joint project plans, and stakeholder registers.Legal / partnerships / sustainability
Area condition statusThe condition of each habitat area at the end of the reporting period, using the status category applied at that date.End-of-period site assessments, monitoring reports, inspection logs, and status summaries dated to the reporting cut-off.Environment / ecology
Method basis and assumptionsThe methods, calculation rules, and assumptions used to determine the habitat figures and status reported.Method statements, calculation workpapers, monitoring protocols, and internal guidance used for the disclosure.Environment / reporting / methodology
Show GRI 304-3 sub-elements (LRA working checklist)
  • Check whether any outside partners are involved in protecting or restoring habitat areas that are separate from the sites the organisation itself has managed.
  • Record where each protected or restored habitat area is located.
  • Record the area size for every protected or restored habitat site.
  • Set out the standards, methods, and assumptions used.
  • State the condition-based status of each area at the end of the reporting period.
  • Confirm whether an independent external professional has approved, or is approving, the success of the restoration action.

LRA working checklist - paraphrased; see official source

How to prepare
  1. Set the reporting boundary first: decide which habitat areas you will include in this disclosure, and make sure the same boundary is used for every figure and statement that follows.
  2. Define what each area counts as in your records. Separate sites you directly managed for protection or recovery from sites covered through arrangements with outside parties, so the reporting basis is clear.
  3. Gather the supporting material for each included area. You will need the area size, the site location, the current condition at period end, and any proof that an independent external specialist has reviewed the recovery outcome where that applies.
  4. Compile the disclosure in a way that matches the data points. Provide the numeric area total, the location details, the yes/no responses on external review and third-party partnerships, the end-of-period condition for each area, and the methods, standards, and assumptions used.
  5. Record any exclusions, boundary changes, or special treatment of sites so a reader can see why an area is included or left out and how the figures were built.
  6. Check the final draft against the source material and your evidence pack. Confirm that every required item is covered, the wording is consistent with the underlying records, and nothing has been added, omitted, or described differently from the official basis.
Want to do this on a real report? Practise GRI social disclosures live with Dr. Kurinko — GRI Standards Certified Training. Explore →
Request habitat protection and restoration evidence from EHS / site teams

Translate the disclosure into an internal business question — then adapt it to your organisation's own language.

What habitat areas did we protect or restore in the reporting period, where are they, what is their current condition, and what supporting evidence shows how the work was assessed and recorded?

Use your organisation’s own site, land, nature, ecology, remediation, or restoration terms first, then map them to this disclosure. Keep the request in the language the operational owner already uses, and only translate into the reporting label after you have the source records.

Weak request

Please send the GRI 304-3 data for habitats protected or restored, including all required disclosures and evidence.

Why it fails: It uses framework language instead of the owner’s operational terms, gives no boundary or period, and does not tell the team what source records or fields to pull. It is too vague to produce a usable table.
Better request

Please send the site and ecology records for [reporting period] covering any areas we protected, restored, or managed for habitat value within [boundary]. For each area, include size, location, end-of-period condition, whether an independent external specialist reviewed the outcome, whether any third-party partner was involved, and the method and assumptions used to assess it. Please attach the source files or links.

Formal email template
Subject: Request for habitat protection / restoration data for [reporting period]

Hi [name/team],

We are preparing the sustainability reporting pack and need the source information for habitat areas that were protected or restored during [reporting period]. Please share the records for [sites/projects in scope], using your own operational terms where possible.

For each area, please include:
- area size and how it was measured
- location details
- current condition at the end of the period
- whether an independent external specialist reviewed the success of the work, and if so the review date and reviewer name
- whether any third-party partnership was involved for areas outside our direct delivery scope
- the standards, methods, and assumptions used to classify and assess the area
- any supporting documents or links to source files

Please return this in a table and attach or link to the underlying evidence. If anything is unclear, please note the source owner and any caveats.

Please adapt this to your organisation’s terminology and check the reporting source before sign-off.

Thanks,
[preparer name]
Short Teams / Slack version
Hi [name] — could you send the habitat protection/restoration records for [reporting period] for [sites/projects in scope]? Please include area size, location, end-of-period condition, any independent external review, any third-party partnership involvement, and the method/assumptions used. A table plus source links is fine. Please use your own site terms and we’ll map them for reporting. Thanks.
Industry examples
Manufacturing

Context. A factory site has a biodiversity strip, a pond, and a restored verge managed by the facilities and EHS teams.

Adapted request. Please share the facilities and ecology records for [reporting period] covering any land parcels, ponds, verges, or green buffers we protected or restored at [site]. Include measured area, exact location, condition at period end, any external ecology sign-off, and the method used to assess the work.

Example response. One restored verge: 0.8 ha; one pond margin: 0.3 ha; both at [site]. Condition at period end: improving. External ecologist review: yes, dated [date]. Method: site survey and internal habitat checklist, with assumptions noted in the attached file.

Infrastructure / Utilities

Context. A utility company manages riverbank and corridor works with contractors and a conservation partner.

Adapted request. Please send the asset and environment records for [reporting period] covering riverbank, corridor, and offset areas where we carried out habitat protection or restoration. Include area size, location, current condition, partner involvement, and any independent review of the restoration outcome.

Example response. Two corridor sections and one riverbank area were restored; total area 2.4 ha. Locations listed by chainage and nearest settlement. Condition at period end: one completed, two under monitoring. Partner involvement: yes, with [partner type]. Independent review: yes, by external ecologist on [date].

The full request pack — response form, data table, evidence metadata and sign-off — is in the Download Centre.

Draft your disclosure

LRA training templates — adapt them to your organisation, and check the official source before sign-off.

Method note

Explain how you defined the habitat areas included, how you measured their size, which locations you counted, what rules you used to judge end-of-period condition, and which standards, methods and assumptions underpinned the figures.

Context note

Set out what the numbers show about the scale and spread of habitat work, the condition of the areas at the reporting date, whether outside specialists reviewed restoration outcomes, and whether any work was delivered with third parties on separate sites.

Fluctuation statement

If the figures changed materially, describe whether that was driven by new areas being added, work being completed or reversed, changes in site condition, differences in partner involvement, or the timing of external review.

Content index entry

GRI 304-3 Habitats protected or restored — [location / page] / [notes]

Assurance readiness
For each claim, check the evidence
ClaimRiskEvidence to check
I prepared the coverage figure from the areas we actually managed in the period, using our own site records and a clear inclusion rule so the total reflects only the locations we decided to count.An assurer may question whether the total includes the right sites, whether exclusions were applied consistently, or whether the figure could be overstated by double counting or mixed boundaries.Boundary or inclusion memo; site register; map or GIS extract; working papers showing which areas were counted and which were left out; reconciliation from source records to the published total.
I compiled the location information from documented site references and checked that each area could be traced back to a named place or mapped point before publication.An assurer may probe whether the locations are specific enough, whether any sites are vague or duplicated, and whether the published list matches the underlying records.Location schedule; maps, coordinates or address records; source documents for each area; version-controlled draft showing the final list; review notes confirming traceability.
Where we said the restoration outcome had been independently reviewed, I kept the external sign-off on file and only included cases where a separate professional had assessed the result.An assurer may test whether the independence claim is genuine, whether the reviewer had the right expertise, and whether the approval actually covered the reported work.External reviewer appointment or engagement letter; signed assessment, report or email approval; evidence of reviewer independence; scope note showing which projects were covered by the review.
For work delivered with outside partners, I separated those projects from the ones we ran ourselves and only included them where the third party had a real role in protecting or restoring the area.An assurer may challenge whether the partnership is substantive, whether the project sits outside the organisation’s direct delivery, or whether the same area has been counted in more than one place.Partnership agreements or MOUs; project ownership and delivery notes; list of partner-led sites; evidence showing the organisation’s role versus the third party’s role; duplicate-check working papers.
I based the end-of-period status on the latest condition evidence available at the cut-off date and used a consistent status label for each area.An assurer may ask whether the status reflects the reporting date, whether late changes were missed, and whether the same status rules were applied across all areas.Cut-off date policy; latest inspection or monitoring records; status classification guide; area-by-area status log; evidence of review for late updates before sign-off.
I used a documented method, including the assumptions behind our calculations and classifications, and kept the working papers so the figure can be reproduced from source data.An assurer may probe whether the method is complete, whether assumptions were applied consistently, and whether the calculation can be re-performed from the evidence held.Method statement; calculation workbook; assumption log; source data extracts; audit trail showing formulae, inputs and reviewer checks; approval of the final draft before issue.
Evidence pack to prepare
  • The governing policy or written commitment behind this disclosure
  • A methodology / definition note setting out how the disclosure was scoped and prepared
  • Source-system exports the figures or facts were drawn from
  • The internal approval / sign-off record for the disclosure before publication
  • Minutes or records evidencing the relevant engagement or consultation
Common reporting gaps
  • Figures are stated without the supporting narrative, or narrative without figures.
  • Scope is inconsistent between the text and the numbers.
  • The reporting boundary is left undefined.
  • Material changes since the previous period are not disclosed.
  • Estimates and measured values are not distinguished.
  • Source records for the figures are not identified.
Examples
Illustrative examples

Synthetic, written by LRA — not from a company report, not text from any standard.

Water utilities · synthetic · written by LRA

Synthetic example for illustration only. During the year, we reported on 1,250 ha of habitat that we either protected or helped recover, all in river catchments in northern England and south Wales. For each site, we noted the condition at period end, and the recovery work was externally reviewed and accepted by independent specialists; we also worked with third parties on 430 ha of additional habitat outside the areas where we directly carried out the measures.
- Site status at year-end: 780 ha were stable or improving, 320 ha were fully restored, and 150 ha still needed follow-up work.
- Our approach used site surveys, baseline ecological mapping, and agreed restoration plans; the figures are based on area records held by the project teams and rounded to the nearest hectare.

Illustrative only: shows how to describe the area covered, where it sits, end-of-period condition, external sign-off, partner involvement beyond directly managed sites, and the methods used.
Food manufacturing · synthetic · written by LRA

Synthetic example for illustration only. We disclosed 860 ha of habitat protection and restoration work across coastal wetlands in eastern Scotland and upland peatland in Cumbria. The restoration outcomes were checked and approved by independent external professionals, and we also had partnerships with local conservation bodies covering 210 ha of habitat away from the places where we directly delivered the work.
- End-of-period condition: 510 ha were in good or improving condition, 220 ha were partially recovered, and 130 ha were still under active repair.
- We used project boundary maps, field inspections, and agreed ecological assumptions to compile the figures; all areas are shown in hectares and rounded to whole numbers.

Illustrative only: shows a second plausible reporter with different locations and figures, while still covering area, geography, external review, partner activity, year-end status, and the basis for the numbers.
Draft output & visualisation ideas

How to turn the collected data into a draft disclosure. Suggested visuals and a GRI content-index line generated from this disclosure's datapoints.

Suggested visuals

  • Area covered by each site or habitat — table: A site-by-site list of the habitat areas that were safeguarded or brought back into better condition, with the size of each area and its current status at period end.
  • Where the protected or restored areas are located — map: The geographic spread of the habitat areas covered, so readers can see where the work took place.
  • Area by condition at period end — stacked bar: How the total habitat area is split across end-of-period condition categories, showing the relative share of each status.
  • Protected versus restored area — bar: A simple comparison of the area that was safeguarded against the area that was improved through restoration.
  • External review of restoration success — donut: The share of restoration work that was checked and signed off by outside specialists versus work not externally reviewed.
  • Third-party partnership coverage — bar: Whether habitat protection or restoration was carried out with outside partners on areas separate from those directly managed by the organisation.
From a number to a disclosure

What separates a figure from a disclosure.

Basic

We protected or restored 12 hectares of habitat.

Better

We protected or restored 12 hectares across two sites in Kent and Wales, and an external ecologist reviewed the outcome.

Best

We protected or restored 12 hectares across two sites in Kent and Wales during 2025, with the result assessed by an independent ecologist using our internal field surveys and agreed habitat-condition criteria; the total was lower than last year because one planned restoration area was delayed by access restrictions.

From company reports
Real published reports Compare side by side →Get it free

Real reports where this topic is disclosed. The confidence label shows how closely each match maps to GRI 304-3 — these are report practice, not exact disclosure examples.

CompanySector · CountryYearMatchPageReportAssurance
Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL Electric Utilities / IPP / Energy Traders · Brazil 2024 Partial p. 12 →p. 184 →p. 185 → Integrated Report 2024 → ey
Evidence in Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL’s report

What the report shows

Companhia Paranaense de Energia - COPEL's Integrated Report 2024 provides a numeric value related to areas of high biodiversity value located outside environmental protection areas, specifically mentioned on page 313. The report also references protected areas and priority conservation areas such as the Atlantic Forest Biodiversity on page 288, and details on operational sites and species affected by operations appear on pages 291 and 294. However, there is no clear narrative or methodological explanation provided for these data points, as several narrative items are not found or remain unclear in the report.

Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict.

Datapoint coverage

DatapointStatusPage
Protected area sizeA reported value was found on this page. covered p. 313
Habitat site locationsNo quotable evidence was found in this report. not found —
External review sign-offNo quotable evidence was found in this report. not found —
Third-party habitat partnershipsNo quotable evidence was found in this report. not found —
Area condition statusNo quotable evidence was found in this report. not found —
Method basis and assumptionsNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative). unclear —

Source trail

  • p. 313areas and areas of high biodiversity value located outside of environmental protection areas 184, 288 N/A N/A N/A 304-2 Significant
  • p. 288Areas for the Conservation of Atlantic Forest Biodiversity 198.55 APCBs - Priority Areas for the Conservation of Atlantic
  • p. 288protected areas and areas of high biodiversity value outside protected areas GRI 304-1 Geographic
  • p. 316areas 183 N/A N/A N/A Greenhouse Gas Emissions & Energy Resource Planning IF-EU- 110a.2 Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
  • p. 291protected area Biodiversity value Size of operational site in ha APCB Amazon AMZ-529 (UHE Colíder) 320.0 Geographic location
  • p. 294areas affected by the Organization’s operations | GRI 304-4 Number of species according to the level of extinction
Firstsource Solutions Limited Professional Services · India 2025 Exact p. 212 →p. 66 →p. 121 → ESG Report FY 2024-25 → BSI
Evidence in Firstsource Solutions Limited’s report

What the report shows

Firstsource Solutions Limited’s ESG Report FY 2024-25 includes a numeric assurance statement on page 204 and references to IUCN Red List species and national conservation list species with habitats in areas on page 213. The report also contains various narrative elements related to governance and social topics, such as the mention of an Independent Director on page 247. However, specific narrative items (b) and (c) are not found, and narrative item (d) remains unclear due to lack of quotable evidence in the report.

Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict.

Datapoint coverage

DatapointStatusPage
Protected area sizeA reported value was found on this page. covered p. 204
Habitat site locationsA reported value was found on this page. covered p. 213
External review sign-offA reported value was found on this page. covered p. 247
Third-party habitat partnershipsNo quotable evidence was found in this report. not found —
Area condition statusNo quotable evidence was found in this report. not found —
Method basis and assumptionsNo quotable evidence was found (methodology/narrative). unclear —

Source trail

  • p. 204Assurance Statement 204 Introduction Highlights Our Approach Governance Social Environment Annexure Assurance Statement GRI Content Index Mapping with UNGC Principles Mapping with UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) Glossary of Terms & Abbreviations
  • p. 205205 Introduction Highlights Our Approach Governance Social Environment Annexure Assurance Statement GRI Content Index Mapping with UNGC Principles Mapping with UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) Glossary of Terms & Abbreviations
  • p. 206206 Introduction Highlights Our Approach Governance Social Environment Annexure Assurance Statement GRI Content Index Mapping with UNGC Principles Mapping with UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) Glossary of Terms & Abbreviations
  • p. 203Annexure Assurance Statement Glossary of Terms & Abbreviations GRI Content Index Mapping with UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) Mapping with UNGC Principles 203 Introduction | Highlights | Our Approach | Governance | Social | Environment | Annexure
  • p. 245S.No Abbreviation Full Form 39 CRPF Central Reserve Police Force 40 CS Customer Service 41 CSA Corporate Sustainability Assessment 42 CSA Credit Services Association 43 CSAT Customer Satisfaction Score 44 CSD Centralized Support Desk 45 CSR Corporate Social Responsibility 46 CX Customer Experience 47 DE&I Diversity,…
  • p. 213Location Page No: Omission 304-4 IUCN Red List species and national conservation list species with habitats in areas
  • p. 221Location Page No: Omission 303-3 Water withdrawal Environment Commitment Impact in Actions - Performance and Progress - Total Water Consumption and Withdrawal
  • p. 222Location Page No: Omission GRI 305: Emissions 2016 305-1 Direct (Scope 1) GHG emissions Environment Commitment: Impact in Action
  • p. 210Location Page No: Omission Powering People, Driving Change: Our Social Impact - Human Capital - Human Rights - Key Policies 130 Powering People
  • p. 207Location Page No: Omission General disclosures GRI 2: General Disclosures 2021 2-1 Organizational details About Us 12 2-2 Entities
  • p. 218Location Page No: Omission 301-3 Reclaimed products and their packaging materials Not applicable. The organization does not produce physical
  • p. 219Location Page No: Omission 302-3 Energy intensity Impact in Actions: Environment Commitment - Energy Management - Performance and Progress - Total Energy
  • p. 247Independent Director 134 NLP Natural language processing 135 NPS Net Promoter Score 136 NSE National Stock Exchange 137 OECD
  • p. 178measure and report on performance. 1. In FY2023-24, the water withdrawal calculation is based on per capita
  • p. 33external fraud cases and customer data breaches at 0. • Achieved 100% success in annual third-party penetration testing
  • p. 20success and innovation. They drive our performance, innovation, and cultural vibrancy through their skills, dedication, and ongoing professional development. • Town
  • p. 31External Stakeholder(s) / Impact Area(s) Evaluated Consumers/end-users, external employees (contractors/vendors) Environment, Society Consumers/end-users Topic Relevance
Port of Melbourne Water Transportation — Ports and Services · Australia 2025 Exact p. 64 →p. 59 →p. 42 → Port of Melbourne 2025 Sustainability Report → EY
Evidence in Port of Melbourne’s report

What the report shows

Port of Melbourne’s 2025 Sustainability Report provides numeric data on habitat protection, reporting 1,248 hectares of habitat protected overall and 663 hectares protected on-site (p.59). The report also includes narrative disclosures on environmental standards and energy consumption aligned with GRI 300 and 302 standards (p.64), as well as occupational health and safety data, including lost time injuries defined under Australian Standards (p.68). However, some narrative items related to the disclosure are not found in the report, indicating gaps in certain expected details.

Evidence-based summary of this company’s own report — not a disclosure template to copy, and not a compliance verdict.

Datapoint coverage

DatapointStatusPage
Protected area sizeA reported value was found on this page. covered p. 59
Habitat site locationsA reported value was found on this page. covered p. 64
External review sign-offA reported value was found on this page. covered p. 62
Third-party habitat partnershipsNo quotable evidence was found in this report. not found —
Area condition statusNo quotable evidence was found in this report. not found —
Method basis and assumptionsA reported value was found on this page. covered p. 68

Source trail

  • p. 59Habitat protected ha NR 1,248 1,248 1,248 Habitat protected on-site ha NR 663 663 663 Habitat
  • p. 66protected areas or areas of protected conservation status - (TR-MT-160a.1) Planet: Biodiversity
  • p. 42habitat management status 1,248ha Habitat protected 6,244ha Habitat maintained 0ha Habitat removed or use change
  • p. 61Health, safety & wellbeing Health and safety Unit FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate (TRIFR) rate 0 8.13 8.32 4.35 Employees rate 0 0 4.09 3.45 Contractors rate 0 11.96 10.99 5 Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR) rate 0 0 2.77 0 Employees rate 0 0 0 0 Contractors rate 0 0 4.39 0 Lost…
  • p. 64Standard/Topic Disclosure Report location or additional commentary GRI 300: environmental standards  GRI 302: Energy 302-1: Energy consumption within the organisation Planet: Climate resilience & decarbonisation Appendix: ESG Data 302-4: Reduction of energy consumption Planet: Climate resilience & decarbonisation GRI…
  • p. 67location or additional commentary Activity Metrics Number of shipboard employees - (TR-MT-000.A) Not applicable. Relevant to shipping lines
  • p. 62location or additional commentary GRI 1 used GRI 1 Foundation 2021 GRI 2: General Disclosures 2-1 Organisational details About
  • p. 62External assurance Independent assurance 2-6 Activities, value chain and other business relationships About Us 2-7 Employees
  • p. 6816)  Total number of lost time injuries  GRI 403-9: Occupational Health and Safety (Work-related injuries) 2018  Lost time injuries as defined under the Australian Standards AS1885.1 Workplace Injury and Disease Recording Standard 1990 What we assure (‘Subject Matter’) What we assure it against…
  • p. 52Areas Community Investment Outcomes Framework In FY25, we continued our long-term partnership with Foodbank Victoria, continued our support
  • p. 69The procedures we performed included, but were not limited to: ► Conducting interviews with PoM personnel and collating evidence to understand PoM’s process for reporting selected performance metrics as well as risks of misstatement and quality controls to address risks ► Conducting limited assurance procedures…
  • p. 70Independent assurance A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional
  • p. 68Independent assurance A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional
  • p. 43Restoration project PoM, in collaboration with The Nature Conservancy (TNC), delivered a targeted shellfish reef restoration initiative within
  • p. 69Independent assurance A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional
  • p. 69Independent assurance A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation operate a system of quality management including policies or procedures regarding compliance with ethical requirements, professional standards and applicable…
  • p. 71Independent Limited Assurance Report to the Management and Directors of Port of Melbourne Operations Pty Ltd Our conclusion We were
Check your understanding
A site team has finished work on two habitat areas this year: one wetland of 12.5 hectares and one woodland edge of 3.0 hectares. The reporting pack also notes that the wetland is in Kent and the woodland edge is in Cumbria.Have we captured the area size and location for each habitat area in a way that can be traced back to the underlying records?
Model answer. Yes. The disclosure needs the size of every habitat area that was protected or restored, together with where each one is located. In this case, both areas are listed separately with their own measurements and locations, so the information is complete at item level and can be checked against site records.
Why this matters. Keep the area and place details together for each habitat area, not as one combined summary.
A restoration project was signed off internally, but the only external input was a contractor who carried out the planting work. No independent specialist has reviewed whether the habitat recovery has been successful.Can we say the restoration outcome was checked by an outside professional?
Model answer. No. An outside professional needs to have independently assessed the success of the restoration measure. A contractor who delivered the work is not the same as an independent reviewer, so this point should be marked as not supported unless there is evidence of a separate external professional assessment.
Why this matters. Only count an external check when the reviewer is independent from the work being assessed.
The organisation restored 8.0 hectares on land it manages directly and also supports a local conservation group that is restoring 5.0 hectares on a separate site. The two projects are in different locations and use different delivery teams.Do we need to show that there is a partnership with a third party for the separate site, and keep it distinct from the organisation-led work?
Model answer. Yes. If there is a third-party partnership for habitat work that is separate from the areas the organisation itself has overseen and carried out, that relationship should be identified. The 5.0-hectare project should be treated as distinct from the 8.0-hectare organisation-led project, rather than merged into one figure.
Why this matters. Separate your own delivery from partnered delivery when the work is not the same project.
At year-end, one restored meadow is fully established, one woodland strip is still being monitored, and one riverbank area has been paused after flood damage. The team has used its own ecological scoring method, but the method note is missing from the draft.Have we described the year-end condition of each area and explained the approach used to judge that condition?
Model answer. Not yet. The disclosure needs the condition of each area at the reporting date, plus the standards, methods, and assumptions used to reach that view. The draft should state the status of the meadow, woodland strip, and riverbank separately, and it should also explain the basis for the assessment so the reader can understand how the status was determined.
Why this matters. Report the end-of-period condition for each area and explain the method behind that judgement.
Analyse this disclosure across real reports

See how companies actually report GRI 304-3 — drawn from their own published reports, with the exact pages, and an LRA AI-assistant that works through it with you. Available to LRA Community members and to students throughout their platform access.

Compare across reports → Open in the Cabinet → What is LRA Community? →
Related framework references

How this disclosure maps across the major reporting frameworks.

GRIPrimary
GRI 304-3
within GRI 304: Biodiversity 2016
Open official source →
→
ESRSRelated
ESRS E4
Biodiversity and Ecosystems — closest topical match (post-Omnibus ESRS catalogue).
→
IFRSNo equivalent
—
No direct IFRS S1/S2 topical equivalent.
Related & explore
Operational sites owned, leased, managed … Guide ✓Significant impacts of activities, produc… Guide ✓IUCN Red List species and national conser… Guide ✓
More in GRI 304 → Browse full catalogue → Disclosure Library home → Search all disclosures →
Questions this page answers
For GRI 304-3, what data do I need to gather before I start drafting the disclosure?

The page says to prepare six datapoints: protected area size, habitat site locations, external review sign-off, third-party habitat partnerships, area condition status, and the method basis and assumptions. Use those as your starting checklist before you draft anything. ↑ section

How should I set the scope for a GRI 304-3 biodiversity disclosure using this page?

Use the step-by-step preparation section to define what sites, areas and partnerships are in scope, then align the scope to the datapoints the page asks you to prepare. The page is designed to help you turn that scope into a draft, not to replace your own internal methodology. ↑ section

Who should own the GRI 304-3 data collection in practice?

The page is aimed at sustainability/ESG managers, HR or data owners, and assurance reviewers, so ownership should sit with the people who can confirm the site, partnership, condition and sign-off data. The workbook and evidence pack are there to help you assign and track that ownership. ↑ section

What evidence should I keep ready for assurance on GRI 304-3?

The page includes an evidence pack with five items and also lists six assurance claims to verify, each with a claim, risk and evidence prompt. Use those together so you can show where each datapoint came from and how it was checked. ↑ section

What are the common mistakes people make when preparing GRI 304-3?

The page has a section on common reporting gaps and mistakes, which is meant to help you avoid missing data, weak assumptions or unclear scope. It also points you back to the method basis and assumptions so your draft is easier to defend. ↑ section

How do I use the Prep & Assurance workbook for GRI 304-3?

The Download Centre includes a Prep & Assurance workbook in .xlsx format. Use it to organise the required datapoints, track evidence, and work through the preparation and assurance checks before you draft the disclosure. ↑ section

What can I use the printable Library Card PDF for on GRI 304-3?

The Download Centre includes a printable Library Card in PDF format. It is there as a quick reference alongside the workbook, so you can keep the disclosure checklist and key prompts to hand while you prepare the data. ↑ section

How do I turn the GRI 304-3 data into a draft disclosure?

The page has a draft-output section with visualisation ideas, narrative starters and a GRI content-index line. That gives you a practical way to move from raw data to a first draft without starting from a blank page. ↑ section

What does the synthetic example on the GRI 304-3 page help me check?

The page includes synthetic illustrative example disclosures, including a quantitative table, to show how the disclosure might look in practice. You can use it as a formatting and consistency check, but it is only an example and should be replaced with your own data. ↑ section

Can I reuse GRI 304-3 biodiversity data for ESRS E4 reporting?

The page says the closest ESRS correspondence is ESRS E4 (Biodiversity and Ecosystems), so there is a useful cross-framework link. You can treat the data as reusable where it fits your reporting needs, but the page does not say the requirements are identical. ↑ section

More questions this page can help with
  • GRI 304-3 biodiversity disclosure checklist for protected area size and habitat site locations
  • How to evidence external review sign-off for GRI 304-3
  • GRI 304-3 method basis and assumptions examples for a draft disclosure
  • What evidence pack do I need for GRI 304-3 assurance readiness
  • How to use the GRI 304-3 workbook download
  • GRI 304-3 common reporting gaps and mistakes to avoid
  • How to write a draft narrative for GRI 304-3 biodiversity
  • GRI 304-3 content index line example
  • GRI 304-3 third-party habitat partnerships data collection
  • GRI 304-3 area condition status what data should I collect
  • GRI 304-3 assurance claims and evidence prompts
  • ESRS E4 reusable biodiversity data from GRI 304-3
Dr Ross Kurinko
✓ LRA AI Assistant · human-in-the-loop
Ask Study Studio AI assistant about this disclosure

Get a practical answer for your reporting context. Your first answer is free — create a free account to continue the conversation.

Try
1 free answer
Sources, status and disclaimer

This LRA assistance tool is designed for educational and internal data-collection purposes. It is not an official interpretation of the GRI Standards, IFRS Sustainability Disclosure Standards or EU CSRD/ESRS requirements. When applying these frameworks in professional practice, users should consult and double-check the official standards, guidance and applicable regulatory sources.