TNFD Sensitive Locations: Protected Areas, Ecosystem Integrity, Water Risk and Services

Educational practitioner guidance. Not legal, scientific-validation or assurance advice. Apply TNFD to the organisation's facts, stated materiality approach, ecological context and reporting basis.

Nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities vary by ecosystem and geography. A factory may sit outside a protected-area polygon yet depend on water from a stressed catchment, interrupt a migratory route, affect a coastal nursery area or rely on flood protection delivered beyond the legal site boundary. Conversely, an administrative overlap with a large protected landscape does not by itself establish the organisation’s actual interface, pressure or materiality.

The practical task is to connect an activity and potential pathway to the environmental asset, ecosystem service or ecological receptor that matters. A map layer is an input to judgement, not a substitute for the pathway or the review.

The five criteria should be tested with controlled evidence layers. A screening flag identifies where verification or deeper assessment is needed; it is not a final materiality conclusion.

3.1 Areas important for biodiversity

This criterion can include protected or conserved areas, Key Biodiversity Areas, critical or threatened habitats, breeding or feeding grounds, migratory routes and locations significant for threatened or range-restricted species. Record the designation or ecological feature, source, geometry date, relevant species or habitat and why it matters to the activity.

3.2 Areas of high ecosystem integrity

High-integrity ecosystems may be relatively intact, rare or functionally important even when they are not legally protected. Screening can use habitat intactness, fragmentation, connectivity, hydrology or ecological-function indicators, but the metric and scale must be explained.

3.3 Areas of rapid decline in ecosystem integrity

Rapid decline is a trend signal. It requires a time series or defensible comparison period. A single current map cannot establish decline. Record observation dates, classification changes, data comparability and uncertainty.

3.4 Areas of high physical water risk

Physical water risk should normally be assessed at a hydrologically meaningful scale, such as a catchment or river basin. Scarcity, drought, flood, water quality and seasonal variability can produce different results. A global score is screening evidence, not a replacement for local withdrawal, discharge, storage, flood or water-quality evidence.

3.5 Areas important for ecosystem-service provision

A service area may extend beyond the asset boundary. Wetlands can regulate floods downstream, mangroves can reduce wave energy, pollinator habitat can support production across a landscape, and places may have cultural or livelihood importance. Identify who benefits, where the service is produced and received, and whether access or rights are affected.

Spatial scale should follow the ecological pathway. Points, buffers, corridors, basins and service areas answer different questions; no fixed distance is suitable for every activity or receptor.

A fixed distance can be useful as a first operational screen, but it is not a universal ecological rule. One kilometre may be excessive for a contained indoor activity and wholly inadequate for river discharge, groundwater drawdown, a flyway or coastal sediment movement. Treat the buffer as a documented assumption and escalate when pathway evidence requires another scale.

Migratory species require time as well as space

Breeding, feeding, stopover, wintering and movement areas can be used in different seasons. Record species or assemblage, habitat function, relevant route, season and activity timing. An annual-average map can conceal a short but critical interaction.

1. Define the assessment object. Assign a stable location ID and link it to asset, activity, commodity or value-chain stage.

2. Set the best available geometry. Use a point, polygon, route, basin or proxy and record precision and confidence.

3. Select ecological scales. Determine whether footprint, buffer, corridor, catchment or service area is needed.

4. Test all five criteria. Record each as met, not met, uncertain or not yet assessed.

5. Record datasets and thresholds. Capture source, version, date, resolution, indicator, threshold and licence.

6. Review false positives and negatives. Check geometry, date, edge cases and biome suitability.

7. Add local and rights-holder evidence. Use site teams, specialists and engagement where appropriate.

8. Grade confidence. Separate verified, declared, modelled, proxy and unknown evidence.

9. Escalate. Pass relevant locations to Evaluate and retain separate materiality and priority decisions.

10. Set update triggers. Review after asset/supplier changes, ecological events, new datasets or annually.

A weak assessment closes the case because the site is outside the protected-area polygon. A stronger assessment uses the site polygon for footprint, the tributary and catchment for water pathways, the wetland and beneficiary area for flood regulation, and the seasonal route for migratory species. It records global screening as secondary evidence, adds local hydrology and seasonal ecology, and sends the location to Evaluate without predetermining materiality.