CCBS v2 Biodiversity - Rainforest Alliance

Report
CCB
STANDARDS:
biodiversity
©2011 Rainforest Alliance
Climate, Community and
Biodiversity Alliance
In-depth training
OVERVIEW
Biodiv.
Reqs.
Tools
Auditing
1. Introduction to the CCB Standards
biodiversity impact requirements
2. Techniques and tools for biodiversity impact
assessment
3. Assessment against the Standards:
understanding the four stages of biodiversity
impact assessment and monitoring in the CCB
2
© J.Henman
INTRODUCTION
3
STRUCTURE OF THE CCB BIODIVERSITY SECTION
B1. Net Positive Biodiversity
Impacts
B3. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring
B 3.1 Selecting biodiversity variables
CM/B 3.2 Assess the effectiveness of
measures for HCV
B 3.3 Full monitoring plan
B 1.1 Appropriate methodologies to
assess changes in biodiversity as a
result of the project
B 1.2 No negative effect on High
Conservation Value Forests (HVC)
and…
General Criteria
B2. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
G 1.7 Description of biodiversity in
project zone
G 1.8 Evaluation of HCVs
G 2.5 Without project scenario effect
on biodiversity
B 2.1 Identify negative offsite
biodiversity impacts
B 2.2 Impact mitigation
B 2.3 No net negative impacts on
biodiversity
Biodiv.
Reqs.
Introduction
4
The 4 stages of biodiversity impact assessment for project
development
Stage
Brief Description
Relevant CCB
Standards
Criteria
1
an accurate description of biodiversity conditions at the
start of the project;
G1.7; G1.8.1G1.8.3
2
a projection of how those conditions would change, if the G2.5;
project were never implemented (the “without-project”
scenario);
3
a description and justification of the likely [positive and
G3.1; 3.2; 3.3 3.5;
negative] outcomes after the implementation of the
3.6; 3.7; B1; B2,
project (the “with-project” scenario); description of how GL3
negative impacts will be mitigated;
4
design and implementation of a credible system for
monitoring impacts – known as the “biodiversity
monitoring plan”
Biodiv.
Reqs.
Requirements
5
B3
THE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF CARBON PROJECTS:
CAMPO VERDE PROJECT, PERU
Possible positive biodiversity results
•
•
•
•
•
enhance biological corridor
replicate original natural forest
assist the growth of remnant gallery forest, through
protection from annual burning and invasive
grasses
re-establish mahogany which is under risk of
extinction
recover soil fertility
Reforestation with Native Species
Campo Verde, Ucayali, Peru
Validated to the CCB Standards First
Edition
PDD available at CCBA Web site
Possible negative biodiversity results
•contaminate water courses from nursery discharge
•spread waterborne diseases through worker sewage
•soil compaction from machinery and vehicles
•species loss from fishing and hunting by new
immigrant worker population
Biodiv.
Reqs.
Introduction
6
© J.Henman
PROJECT TYPES AND BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Potential impacts on biodiversity differ between project, but
can be generalized by project type. For example….
A/R and Restoration:
•Adequacy of negative impact assessment that land cover change will bring is
particularly significant
- For example, the effect of tree planting on baseline biodiversity or water
quality
REDD and Forest Conservation:
•Adequacy of projected negative impact of deforestation and degradation is
particularly significant
- For example, the causal scenario development for without- project scenario
• Deforestation threat from leakage (activity displacement) and biodiversity
impact is also significant
Biodiv.
Reqs.
Introduction
7
!
© J.Henman
TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS
8
WHAT WILL I LEARN IN THE BIODIVERSITY TOOLS AND
TECHNIQUES SECTION?
You will gain an understanding of:
1. Identifying high conservation values
2. Key biodiversity area assessment
3. Conducting an ecological survey at the project zone
Tools
Introduction
9
1. HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES
• Concept developed in the context of forest certification ( FSC Principle 9)
• To give recognition to forests needing special protection due to:
-Ecosystems
-Environmental services
-Social values
• Now used more widely in conservation planning
•There are national interpretations of HCVs
•HCV forests need to possess at least one of the HCVs
There are six main type of High Conservation Values
Tools
High Conservation Values
10
EXERCISE 1: HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES (G8)
What are the 6 High Conservation Values?
© J.Henman
Tools
High Conservation Values
11
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES (HCV)
• Globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values
HCV1 (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia)
• Globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape-level areas where
viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural
HCV2 patterns of distribution and abundance.
HCV3
• Areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems
• Areas that provide basic ecosystem services in critical situations (e.g. watershed
HCV4 protection, erosion control).
• Areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g.
HCV5 subsistence, health)
HCV6
Tools
• Areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity
High Conservation Values
12
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 1
Areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations
of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia)
• Value concerned with maintaining biodiversity
• Areas need to contain unusually high concentrations of biodiversity to qualify
• Assessment is costly and time consuming, so indicators have been defined:
• HCV 1.1 Protected areas
A forest located near a protected area and in the
!
same state is likely to present the same attributes
• HCV 1.2 Threatened / endangered species
• HCV 1.3 Endemic species
Sometimes the presence of a single endangered or
!
endemic specie can be enough
• HCV 1.4 Critical temporal use (e.g. migration, life cycle)
Tools
High Conservation Values
13
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 2
Globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape-level areas
where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist
in natural patterns of distribution and abundance
• Value concerned with large scale forests
• Habitats containing viable populations of
naturally occurring species and maintaining
ecosystems
• OR including important sub-populations of
very wide-ranging species (e.g. tiger, elephants)
even though they might not be viable in the long
term.
• Undisturbed by recent human activity
• Landscape forests can be composed of different
natural forest types
• Defined by forest cover not political boundaries
Tools
High Conservation Values
14
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 3
Areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems
• Value concerned with ecosystems
• Not looking at a specific specie of scale of forest
• Considers 2 aspects:
- Ecosystem that are naturally rare but may not be under threat
(e.g. cloud forests)
- Ecosystems that are under threat globally, nationally and regionally –
they could have once been widespread
Tools
High Conservation Values
15
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 4
Areas that provide basic ecosystem services in critical situations
(e.g. watershed protection, erosion control)
• Value concerned with the environmental services of forests
• Can be used for natural and planted protection forests (unlike HCV 1-3)
• Subdivisions:
- HVC 4.1 Forests critical to the maintenance and regulation of essential water
sources for drinking and irrigation
- HVC 4.2 Forests critical to the prevention of landslide, flash floods, soil erosion,
storm, wind, sedimentation and protection of coast lines
Tools
High Conservation Values
16
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 5
Areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities
(e.g. subsistence, health)
• Value concerned with basic needs of communities (e.g. hunting for subsistence or
recreationally)
• Applicable to communities obtaining essential fuel, food, fodder, medicines, or building
materials from the forest, without readily available alternatives
• Does not apply to excessive extraction, even if communities are
economically/culturally dependant on it
• The following would NOT be considered HCVs forests:
- Forests providing resources that are useful but not fundamental
!
- Forests that provide resources that could readily be obtained elsewhere or that could
be replaced by substitutes
- Forests that provide resources to recently established villages, or communities that
move frequently due to land over-usage
Tools
High Conservation Values
17
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 6
Areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity
• Value concerned with protecting the traditional
culture of local communities
• A forest may be designated a HCVF if it contains or
provides values without which:
- A local community would suffer an unacceptable
cultural change AND
- For which the community has no alternative
• Applicable to any group visiting the forest
• Dependent on stakeholder consultations (exception
if some groups refuse contacts – precautionary
approach)
Tools
High Conservation Values
18
FURTHER RESOURCES ON HCVs
• High Conservation Value Resource Network http://hcvnetwork.org/
• Global HCVF Toolkits http://hcvnetwork.org/resources/global-hcv-toolkits
• WWF Ecoregions (Toolkit for the assessment of HCV Forests
http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/global200.html
Tools
High Conservation Values
19
2. KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS (KBA) (GL3)
Key biodiversity areas assessment is only required to assess ‘exceptional
biodiversity benefits’ , which is a GOLD level criteria
• Sites of global significance for biodiversity conservation
• Identified using globally standard criteria and thresholds at the
national level
• Based on the occurrence of species requiring safeguards at the
site scale
• Provide an effective, justifiable and transparent set of conservation
targets
• No maximum or minimum size
• Can be inside or outside a protected area
Tools
Key Biodiversity Areas
20
KEY BIODIVERSITY AREA (KBA) FRAMEWORK: CRITERIA
AND THRESHOLDS
Criterion
Sub-criteria
Provisional thresholds for triggering
KBA status
Vulnerability
N/A
Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered
(EN) species – presence of a single
individual
Vulnerable species (VU) - 30 individuals of
10 pairs
a) Restricted-range species
Species with a global range less than
50,000 km2
5% of global population at site
b) Species with large but
clumped distributions
5% of global population at site
c) Globally significant
congregations
1 % of global population seasonally at the
site
d) Globally significant source
populations
Site is responsible for maintaining 1% of
global population
e) Bioregionally restricted
assemblages
To be defined
Regular occurrence of a globally
threatened species ( according to
the IUCN Red list) at the site
Irreplaceability
Site holds X% of a species’ global
population at any stage of the
species’ lifecycle
From Langhammer et al, 2007
Tools
Key Biodiversity Areas
21
EXAMPLE: DEMONSTRATING VULNERABILTY (GL3.1)
Boden Creek Ecological Preserve, Belize
Validated to the CCB Standards 2st Ed. July 2010
Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits
PDD available at CCBA Web site
•Project site is within the Mesoamerica Biodiversity Hotspot
Identified by Conservation International
•The project site protects the habitat of at least 5 endangered
IUCN Redlist species
-> Proving Vulnerability can be simple
Tools
Key Biodiversity Areas
22
EXAMPLE: DEMONSTRATING IRREPLACEABILITY (GL3.2)
Penablanca Sustainable Reforetation Project, Philippines
Validated to the CCB Standards 2st Ed. December 2009
Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits
PDD available at CCBA Web site
GL3.2.1: Restricted range species, with a global range of
less then 50,000km2 and 5% of the global population at
the site
•Due to the lack of global and local data on species range
and population size endemic species were used as proxy for
restricted-range species
• 18 of the endemic species occurring in the KBA are forest
dependant, only 4% (2,560km2) of the forest cover is closed canopy
-> possibility that the global range of most of these species
is under 50,000km2
• 14 of the restricted range species are endemic to the island of
Luzon, 6% of the remaining forest on the island is part of the project
-> possibility that 5% of the global population is at the site if
uniformed distribution is assumed
Tools
Key Biodiversity Areas
23
FURTHER RESOURCES ON KBAs
• Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT)
https://www.ibatforbusiness.org/
• WWF Ecoregions
http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/global200.html
Tools
Key Biodiversity Areas
24
EXPERIENCE-SHARING
Does anyone have experience to share on
assessing HCVs and KBAs?
• Identification of pitfalls?
• Unusual methods used?
• On the ground examples?
Tools
25
2. ECOLOGICAL SURVEY AT THE PROJECT ZONE
!
All international, national and local legal requirements need to be complied
within the ecological survey approach
• Choose appropriate indicators based on literature review, expert
Step 1 local opinion, talking with local communities or pilot sampling
• Choose sampling approach per species or grouping ( e.g. transects,
Step 2 plots, traps etc)
Step 3
Step 4
Tools
• Stratify the project area (Could align with Climate Criteria)
• Choose sampling frequency and timescale
Ecological Survey
26
POSSIBLE BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS
© J.Henman
© J.Henman
© J.Henman
© J.Henman
Tools
Ecological Survey
27
CHOOSING INDICATORS
• Doesn’t have to be expensive to monitor
• Must relate specifically to the situation of each project
• Must be sensitive to forces driving the ecosystem and ecosystem
change in the project zone ( e.g. reduced water table, reduced fire,
invasiveness, conservation)
• Must be easily identifiable
• Must address important insects e.g. pollinators, disease vector
• Must address endangered/ threatened species
Tools
Ecological Survey
28
EXERCISE 2: BIODIVERSITY SAMPLING TOOLS
Can you list different
techniques for
biodiversity
sampling?
Tools
Ecological Survey
29
BIODIVERSITY SAMPLING TOOLS
Traps
Quadrat
counts
Interviews
Example
Techniques
Nets
Transects
Camera
Traps
Tools
Ecological Survey
30
TRAPS
•
•
•
•
•
Mechanical devices to capture animals
Bated (e.g. food, pheromones)
Usually catered for small mammals or insects
Cheap
Time consuming – need regular checks
TRANSECTS & QUADRATS
•
•
•
•
•
Transects are of fixed distance
Quadrats can be used in conjunction
Useful to measure plant diversity
Widely used
Time consuming
Tools
Ecological Survey
31
CAMERA TRAPS
• Automated camera
• Photo taken when motion or infra-red sensor is
activated
Useful:
• For nocturnal or rarely seen animals
• Not time consuming
Pitfalls:
• Some flashes can make animals relocate
• Expensive (US$100-650)
• Cameras can be damaged by animals or
poachers
Tools
Ecological Survey
32
EXPERIENCE-SHARING
Does anyone have experience to share on
using biodiversity sampling tools and
techniques?
• Most effective method?
• Identification of pitfalls?
• On the ground examples?
Tools
33
POTENTIAL PITFALLS IN PROJECTS’ MONITORING
OF BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
• Data are collected that are of no use, and/or key questions cannot be
answered
• Poor study design leads to inconclusive results
• Indicators selected are not sensitive to project activities
• Multiple observers differ in field skills and use inconsistent methods
• Methods are changed during the monitoring program, and thus survey
results cannot be compared
• Inappropriate methods are chosen for habitats or species
• Timing or frequency of data collection is insufficient to draw
conclusions
Tools
Ecological Survey
34
!
EXAMPLE: BIODIVERSITY IMPACT MONITORING PLAN
Boden Creek Ecological Preserve, Belize
Validated to the CCB Standards 2st Ed. July 2010
Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits
PDD available at CCBA Web site
Tools
Ecological Survey
35
EXERCISE 3: IDENTIFYING BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Green Resources Reforestation Project,
Tanzania
Penablanca Sustainable Reforetation Project,
Philippines
Validated to the CCB Standards 1st Ed.
October 2009
PDD available at CCBA Web site
Validated to the CCB Standards 2st Ed.
December 2009
Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits
PDD available at CCBA Web site
Case Study: Green Resources or Penablanca
Reforestation projects
(see community exercise 3 additional resources)
•Objective: Identify a project’s negative impacts, mitigation measures and
completeness of its monitoring strategy
Tools
Ecological Survey
36
© J.Henman
EVALUATION AGAINST THE
STANDARD
37
OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION SECTION
This section covers the following elements, which auditors should be
particularly careful of:
1.Establishing the original conditions of a project site (G1.7-8)
2.How to make and evaluate baseline projections (without project scenario)
(G2.5)
3.Establishing net biodiversity impact (with project scenario) (B1)
4.Offsite impacts (B2)
5.Monitoring biodiversity impacts (B3)
6.Gold-level impacts (GL3)
38
G1. ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
• What does the standard require? Original conditions of the project area
(including the surrounding area) before the project commences must be
described.
• Why? Provides the core information for establishing a baseline of future
socio-economic conditions either with or without the project.
Auditing
1. Original Conditions
39
G1. ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Requirements:
Biodiversity Information
• Description of the biodiversity in the project zone (G1.7)
• Evaluation of whether the project zone includes any of the following HCVs (G1.8)
- Globally, regionally or nationally significant concentration of biodiversity values (G1.8.1)
- Globally, regionally, or nationally significant large landscape areas (G1.8.2)
- Threatened or rare ecosystems (G1.8.3)
- Critical ecosystem services (G1.8.4)
- Meeting the basic need s of local communities (G1.8.5)
- Traditional cultural identity of communities (G1.8.6)
Auditing
1. Original Conditions
40
G1.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE IN THE PROJECT ZONE
A description of current biodiversity within the project zone (diversity of species and
ecosystems) and threats to that biodiversity, using appropriate methodologies,
substantiated where possible with appropriate reference material.
Auditing
1. Original Conditions
G1.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE BIODIVERSITY
IN THE PROJECT ZONE
Conformance
• List of the difference in fauna, flora species and ecosystems in the
project area to a reasonable extent.
• An ‘appropriate’ methodology will have been peer reviewed and has
been used in similar conditions/project type/area
• An Assessment of existing threats need to be carried out through
interviews with stakeholders (e.g. government, local experts…)
• These descriptions should be based on ecological surveys and grey
literature (e.g. government documents, scientific studies…)
Common Pitfalls
•There is no scientific basis to the methodology used
•There is no evidence stakeholder were consulted in the assessment
of existing threats
•All external documents used are not correctly referenced or made
available to the auditors
Auditing
1. Original Conditions
42
G1.8 EVALUATION OF HCVs
An evaluation of whether the project zone includes any of the following High
Conservation Values (HCVs) and a description of the qualifying attributes:
Auditing
1. Original Conditions
G1.8 EVALUATION OF HCVs
Conformance
• ‘Evaluation’ of HCVs means that the project site needs to be assessed
against the HCV toolkit
• The project needs to be assessed against all 6 of the HCVs
• The presence of HCV forests needs to be supported by national and
international documents, stakeholder interviews or biological
surveys carried out in the region
Common Pitfalls
• No evidence that the local communities have been consulted to
establish HCV areas
• The evaluation is not in concordance with national HCV guidelines
• Secondary literature used is not directly relevant to the project zone
Auditing
1. Original Conditions
44
G2. ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
• What does the standard require? Baseline conditions of the project area
(including the surrounding area) in the absence of project activities.
• Why? Project impacts will be measured against this ‘without-project’
reference scenario.
Auditing
2. Baseline Projection
45
G2. ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Requirements:
Biodiversity Information
• Description of ‘without project’ scenario affect on biodiversity in the project
zone (G2.5)
Auditing
2. Baseline Projection
46
G2.5 WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO AFFECT ON
BIODIVERSITY
Describe how the ‘without project’ reference scenario would affect biodiversity in the
project zone (e.g., habitat availability, landscape connectivity and threatened species).
Auditing
2. Baseline Projection
G2.5 WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO AFFECT ON
BIODIVERSITY
Conformance
• Describe the baseline indicators chosen for the ‘without project’
scenario projection of the biodiversity conditions
• The projection should be done using a causal model and local
biodiversity expert interviews
• The baseline biodiversity indicators should reflect potential changes in
ecosystem services, link to the causal model of the project and be
appropriate for the project zone
Common Pitfalls
• Unsupported methodological framework for baseline biodiversity
indicators
• Baseline Indicators are not suitable for detecting change with-project.
• There is not a clear differentiation between output, outcome, impact
indicators
• No evidence that local communities were consulted concerning the
without-project impacts on HCVs
Auditing
2. Baseline Projection
48
B1. NET POSITIVE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
• What does the standard require? The standard requires that the project
generate net positive impacts on biodiversity within the project zone.
• Why? Projects must maintain or enhance HCVs present in the project zone,
without causing an increase in invasive species, or using GMOs
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
49
B1. NET POSITIVE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Requirements:
• Use of appropriate methodologies for the impact assessment (B1.1)
• Demonstrate that no HCVs are negatively affected (B1.2, CM1.2)
• Identification of species used by the project (B1.3)
• Effects of non-native species used by the project (B1.4)
• Guarantee that no GMOs will be used (B1.5)
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
50
B1.1 USE OF THE APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES FOR
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Use appropriate methodologies to estimate changes in biodiversity as a result of the
project in the project zone and in the project lifetime. This estimate must be based on
clearly defined and defendable assumptions. The ‘with project’ scenario should then be
compared with the baseline ‘without project’ biodiversity scenario completed in G2.
The difference (i.e., the net biodiversity benefit) must be positive.
© J.Henman
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.1 USE OF THE APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES FOR
IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Conformance
• An ‘appropriate methodology’ should have sampling techniques
approved for the species/project type/area and the staff carrying out
the surveys must be competent
• ‘Estimating’ changes in biodiversity means that they need to be
quantified and that they can be part of a range
• For with and without scenarios to be ‘compared’ similar biodiversity
indicators need to be chosen for the projections
Common Pitfalls
• No evidence of the biodiversity sampling staff qualifications or training
• Sampling is not effective e.g. misses key migratory season…
• The sampling results are not statistically significant or sensitive to
project impact – consider project type-specific impacts carefully.
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
52
B1.2 NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HCVs
Demonstrate that no High Conservation Values identified in G1.8.1-3 will be
negatively affected by the project.
© J.Henman
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.2 NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HCVs
Conformance
• The PDD must map the threats to the HCVs identified using a reputable
threat analysis methodology
• The PDD must explain how the biodiversity indicators chosen for the
projections are applicable to the HCVs identified
Common Pitfalls
• Indicators are not sensitive to the forces driving the ecosystem and
ecosystem change in the project zone (e.g. reduced water table, reduced
fire, invasiveness conservation).
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
54
B1.3 IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES USED
Identify all species to be used by the project and show that no known invasive
species will be introduced into any area affected by the project and that the
population of any invasive species will not increase as a result of the project.
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.3 IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES USED
Conformance
• List all species introduced as part of the project and appropriately
justify that they are not considered invasive in the region through
reference to national documents, expert opinions
• Demonstrate that sampling has occurred for all the invasive species
identified at the national level to be in the project area
• Demonstrate that any invasive species in the project site has been
chosen as an indicator in the project scenario and is being monitored
adequately
Common Pitfalls
• The project scale can post challenges to sampling of invasive species.
• No evidence of sampling or referring to invasive species with a
range identified to be within close proximity of the project area
(especially if the reference documents are out-dated)
• Patterns and responsive of invasive species not known, no adaptive
management in place
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
56
B1.4 EFFECTS OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES USED
Describe possible adverse effects of non-native species used by the project on the
region’s environment, including impacts on native species and disease introduction or
facilitation. Project proponents must justify any use of non-native species over native
species.
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.4 EFFECTS OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES USED
Conformance
• The effects of non-native species used should be enumerated and
justified using appropriate references such as case studies and expert
opinions
• Examples should be cited of the use of the non-native species in the
project country and if there is no usage, it should be detailed why
• A cost-benefit analysis should be carried out on the use of non-native
over native species
Common Pitfalls
• The effects of the non-native species are not analyzed according to the
precautionary principle.
• No adaptive management plan used for invasive where little information is
available.
• No case studies are used to demonstrate that the use of the non-native
species is common practice
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
58
B1.5 NO GMO USE
Guarantee that no GMOs will be used to generate GHG emissions reductions
or removals.
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.5 NO GMO USE
Conformance
• ‘Guarantee’ that no GMO’s will be used means that a statement of
compliance must be issued by the project developer
• The PDD must refer to the carbon reduction model and prove that no
GMO’s are accounted for
• The PDD must provide an accounting mechanism for all the species not
provided by the project developer, to insure they could not be GMOs
Common Pitfalls
• Seed containers or traceability documents for all the trees planted
are not available
Auditing
3. Net Positive Impacts
60
B2. OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
• What does the standard require? The standard requires that the project
must evaluate and mitigate likely negative impacts on biodiversity outside the
project zone and resulting from project activities.
• Why? Projects should at least maintain biodiversity outside the project zone
Auditing
4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
61
B2. OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Requirements:
• Identify negative offsite biodiversity impacts (B2.1)
• Describe the project plan to mitigate these impacts (B2.2)
• Demonstrate the project will not result in net negative impacts (B2.3)
Auditing
4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
62
B2.1 IDENTIFY NEGATIVE OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Identify potential negative offsite biodiversity impacts that the project is likely
to cause.
Auditing
4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
B2.1 IDENTIFY NEGATIVE OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Conformance
• Use of case studies to identify general risk categories of project
impacts on biodiversity
• Detail negative offsite biodiversity impacts resulting from change in
activity, livelihood change and/or market demand and equilibrium
due to the implementation of the project
• Detail negative offsite biodiversity impact resulting from the introduction
of species and their effect on species assemblages outside of the
project area
Common Pitfalls
• The offsite biodiversity impacts are not described
• The offsite biodiversity impacts are not quantified to a reasonable degree
Auditing
4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
64
B2.2 IMPACT MITIGATION PROJECT PLAN
Document how the project plans to mitigate these negative offsite biodiversity
impacts.
Auditing
4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
B2.2 IMPACT MITIGATION PROJECT PLAN
Conformance
• The PDD must contains a list of relevant leakage mitigation measures
and justification for how they have been chosen and their
appropriateness.
• There should be evidence that a participatory approach has been used
to determine appropriate activities
Common Pitfalls
• No evidence that the participatory approaches used to determine activity
shifts differentiated between stakeholder groups
• No evidence that all the stakeholders have agreed to a change in
livelihood
Auditing
4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
66
B2.3 NO NET NEGATIVE IMPACTS DEMONSTRATION
Evaluate likely unmitigated negative offsite biodiversity impacts against the biodiversity
benefits of the project within the project boundaries. Justify and demonstrate that the
net effect of the project on biodiversity is positive.
Auditing
4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
B2.3 NO NET NEGATIVE IMPACTS DEMONSTRATION
Conformance
• Similarly to B2.1 use case studies to identify general risk categories of
unmitigated off-site negative biodiversity impacts due to the project activity
• To ‘demonstrate’ there is no net nagative impacts, the quantified
unmitigated offsite biodiversity impacts and the biodiversity benefits within
the project boundary need to be quantified and compared
• Describe all long-term alternative solutions to compensate for
negative impacts
Common Pitfalls
• The indicators and sampling methods used to assess offsite impacts
and project benefits are not comparable
Auditing
4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
68
B3. BIODIVERSITY IMPACT MONITORING
• What does the standard require? That the project must have a
monitoring plan indicating what biodiversity indicators will be monitored,
and identifying the types of measurements, the sampling method, and the
frequency of measurement.
 It is accepted that some of the plan details might not be
defined at the Validation stage as long as there is an
explicit commitment to do so later
• Why? Projects should quantify and document changes in biodiversity
resulting from the project activities
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
69
B3. BIODIVERSITY IMPACT MONITORING
Requirements:
• Develop an initial plan for selecting the biodiversity indicators to be
monitored and the frequency of monitoring (B3.1)
• Develop an initial plan to assess the effectiveness of measures used to
maintain or enhance HCVs (B3.2, CM3.2)
• Commit to developing and disseminating a full monitoring plan (B3.3)
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
70
B3.1 MONITORING VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY
Develop an initial plan for selecting biodiversity variables to be monitored and the
frequency of monitoring and reporting to ensure that monitoring variables are directly
linked to the project’s biodiversity objectives and to anticipated impacts (positive and
negative).
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
B3.1 MONITORING VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY
Conformance
• Insure that the indicators chosen, sampling methods and frequency are
comparable with the one in GI.
• Insure that the indicators chosen are adequate for the monitoring of
impacts on flora, fauna and ecosystems
• Justify the how the indicators chosen are adequate for the causal
model
• Ensure that the sampling method and frequency are appropriate for
the project site and species encountered
Common Pitfalls
• There is no clear differences between the output, outcome and impact
indicators
• There are no peer-reviewed references to justify the appropriateness of
sampling methods used and frequency
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
72
CM/B3.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF HCVs MEASURES
B3.2. Develop an initial plan for assessing the effectiveness of measures used to
maintain or enhance High Conservation Values related to globally, regionally or
nationally significant biodiversity (G1.8.1-3) present in the project zone.
CM3.2 Develop an initial plan for how they will assess the effectiveness of measures
used to maintain or enhance High Conservation Values related to community wellbeing (G1.8.4-6) present in the project zone.
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
CM/B3.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF HCVs MEASURES
Conformance
• Measures for G1.8.1-3 need to be based on globally, regionally or
nationally approved assessment methodologies
• Measures for G1.8.4-6 need to be based on participatory approaches
• Justify that the indicators used reflect the ecological and social
conditions needed to maintain the value and that they accurately
monitor disturbances to the HCVs
Common Pitfalls
• The type of data collected cannot be used to reliably determine effectiveness
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
74
B3.3 COMMITING TO A FULL MONITORING PLAN
Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months of the project start
date or within twelve months of validation against the Standards and to disseminate
this plan and the results of monitoring, ensuring that they are made publicly available
on the internet and are communicated to the communities and other stakeholders.
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
B3.3 COMMITING TO A FULL MONITORING PLAN
Conformance
• The PDD should contain a statement of intention for the development
of the full monitoring plan and timelines for this
• Evidence that the plan and monitoring results will be disseminated to all
stakeholders, ideally the list of variables and frequency of monitoring
should have already been disseminated
Common Pitfalls
• Some stakeholders are not aware of the monitoring process or
don’t understand what it entails
• No demonstration that the steps required to deliver a full monitoring plan
are achievable within the timeline
Auditing
5. Impact Monitoring
76
GL3. EXCEPTIONAL BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS
GOLD STATUS (OPTIONAL)
• What does the standard require? The project must benefit globally
poorer communities and the poorer, more vulnerable households and
individuals within them.
– This optional criterion requires innovative approaches that enable poorer
households to participate effectively in land-based carbon activities.
• Why? Carbon projects may be developed that have benefits for some
members of communities, but not necessarily the poorest.
Auditing
6. Gold Status
77
GL3. EXCEPTIONAL BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS
GOLD STATUS (OPTIONAL)
Requirements:
• Vulnerability (GL3.1)
• Irreplaceability (GL3.2)
Auditing
6. Gold Status
78
GL3.1 VULNERABILITY
Regular occurrence of a globally threatened species (according to the IUCN Red List)
at the site:
1.1. Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) species - presence of at least a
single individual; or
1.2. Vulnerable species (VU) - presence of at least 30 individuals or 10 pairs.
Auditing
6. Gold Status
GL3.1 VULNERABILITY
Conformance
• The PDD must demonstrate the presence of IUCN Redlist species
through sampling surveys, reference to peer-reviewed literature or expert
opinions (for elusive species)
Common Pitfalls
• Only fauna or flora species are taken into account
• The peer reviewed literature used is out-dated
Auditing
6. Gold Status
80
GL3.2 IRREPLACEABILITY
A minimum proportion of a species’ global population present at the site at any
stage of the species’ lifecycle according to the following thresholds:
2.1. Restricted-range species - species with a global range less than 50,000 km2
and 5% of global population at the site; or
2.2. Species with large but clumped distributions - 5% of the global population at
the site; or
2.3. Globally significant congregations - 1% of the global population seasonally at
the site; or
2.4. Globally significant source populations - 1% of the global population at the site;
Auditing
6. Gold Status
GL3.2 IRREPLACEABILITY
Conformance
• One or more of the 4 minimum proportion of species thresholds
needs to be met
• Species data must come from reference to peer-reviewed studies,
NGO/government report and expert opinions
• When no global or regional population data is available, a conservative
extrapolation of available data can be accepted if it is adequately justified
Common Pitfalls
• The references used are out of date and have not been confirmed by
recent biodiversity sampling
Auditing
6. Gold Status
82
PHOTO COPYRIGHT AND RE-USE
•
•
•
All photos are copyright to Jenny Henman and/or Leo Peskett
Written permission is required for re-use of photos outside of these training materials from
Jenny Henman ([email protected])
Any re-use must acknowledge on the photo Jenny Henman and/or Leo Peskett as per the
current copyright
© J.Henman
83

similar documents