©2011 Rainforest Alliance CCB STANDARDS: biodiversity Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance...
-
Upload
angeline-gillette -
Category
Documents
-
view
222 -
download
1
Transcript of ©2011 Rainforest Alliance CCB STANDARDS: biodiversity Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance...
©2011 Rainforest Alliance
CCB STANDARDS:biodiversity
CCB STANDARDS:biodiversity
Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance
In-depth training
OVERVIEW
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
Auditing
Tools
Biodiv. Reqs.
STRUCTURE OF THE CCB BIODIVERSITY SECTION
4
B1. Net Positive BiodiversityImpacts
B 1.1 Appropriate methodologies to assess changes in biodiversity as a result of the projectB 1.2 No negative effect on High Conservation Value Forests (HVC)
B2. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
B 2.1 Identify negative offsite biodiversity impactsB 2.2 Impact mitigationB 2.3 No net negative impacts on biodiversity
IntroductionBiodiv. Reqs.
and…
General Criteria
G 1.7 Description of biodiversity in project zoneG 1.8 Evaluation of HCVsG 2.5 Without project scenario effect on biodiversity
B3. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring
B 3.1 Selecting biodiversity variablesCM/B 3.2 Assess the effectiveness of measures for HCVB 3.3 Full monitoring plan
The 4 stages of biodiversity impact assessment for project development
5
Stage
Brief Description Relevant CCB Standards Criteria
1 an accurate description of biodiversity conditions at the start of the project;
G1.7; G1.8.1-G1.8.3
2 a projection of how those conditions would change, if the project were never implemented (the “without-project” scenario);
G2.5;
3 a description and justification of the likely [positive and negative] outcomes after the implementation of the project (the “with-project” scenario); description of how negative impacts will be mitigated;
G3.1; 3.2; 3.3 3.5; 3.6; 3.7; B1; B2, GL3
4 design and implementation of a credible system for monitoring impacts – known as the “biodiversity monitoring plan”
B3
Biodiv. Reqs. Requirements
THE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF CARBON PROJECTS: CAMPO VERDE PROJECT, PERU
6
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
© J.Henman
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
Reforestation with Native Species
Campo Verde, Ucayali, PeruValidated to the CCB Standards
First EditionPDD available at CCBA Web site
Biodiv. Reqs. Introduction
PROJECT TYPES AND BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Potential impacts on biodiversity differ between projects, but can be generalized by project type. For example….
7
Afforestation/Reforestation (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
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
9Tools Introduction
1. HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES
10
There are six main types of High Conservation Values
Tools 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
11
What are the 6 High Conservation Values?
© J.Henman
EXERCISE 1: HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES (G8)
Tools High Conservation Values
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES (HCV)
12
HCV1
• Globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia)
HCV2
• 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.
HCV3• Areas that are in or contain rare,
threatened or endangered ecosystems
HCV4• Areas that provide basic ecosystem
services in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control).
HCV5• Areas fundamental to meeting basic
needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health)
HCV6• Areas critical to local communities’
traditional cultural identity
Tools High Conservation Values
• 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)
13
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 1
Tools High Conservation Values
!
!
Areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia)
• 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
14
Tools High Conservation Values
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 2Globally, 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 ecosystems• Not looking at a specific specie of scale of forest• Considers 2 aspects:
- Ecosystems 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
15
Tools High Conservation Values
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 3Areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems
• 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
16
Tools High Conservation Values
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 4Areas that provide basic ecosystem services in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control)
• 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
17
Tools High Conservation Values
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 5 Areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health)
!
• 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 (except if some groups refuse contact – precautionary approach)
18
Tools High Conservation Values
HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 6 Areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity
FURTHER RESOURCES ON HCVs
• High Conservation Value Resource Network http://hcvnetwork.org/
• Global HCVF Toolkits http://hcvnetwork.org/resources/
• WWF Ecoregions (Toolkit for the assessment of HCV Forests http://www.worldwildlife.org/biomes
19
Tools High Conservation Values
2. KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS (KBA) (GL3)
20
Key biodiversity areas assessment is only required to assess ‘exceptionalbiodiversity benefits’ , which is a GOLD level criteria
• Sites of global significance for biodiversity conservation
• Identified applying international 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
KEY BIODIVERSITY AREA (KBA) FRAMEWORK: CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS
Criterion Sub-criteria Provisional thresholds for triggering KBA status
VulnerabilityRegular occurrence of a globally threatened species ( according to the IUCN Red list) at the site
N/A Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) species – presence of a single individualVulnerable species (VU) - 30 individuals or 10 pairs
IrreplaceabilitySite holds X% of a species’ global population at any stage of the species’ lifecycle
a) Restricted-range species
Species with a global range less than 50,000 km25% 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
21
From Langhammer et al, 2007
Tools Key Biodiversity Areas
•Project site is within the Mesoamerica Biodiversity Hotspot Identified by Conservation International
•The project site protects the habitat of at least 5 endangered IUCN Red List species
-> Proving Vulnerability can be simple
22
EXAMPLE: DEMONSTRATING VULNERABILTY (GL3.1)
Tools Key Biodiversity Areas
Boden Creek Ecological Preserve, BelizeValidated to the CCB Standards 2st Ed. July 2010 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 dependent, 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
23
EXAMPLE: DEMONSTRATING IRREPLACEABILITY (GL3.2)
Penablanca Sustainable Reforestation Project, Philippines
Validated to the CCB Standards 2st Ed. December 2009
Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity BenefitsPDD available at CCBA Web site
Tools Key Biodiversity Areas
FURTHER RESOURCES ON KBAs
• Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) https://www.ibatforbusiness.org/
• WWF Ecoregions http://www.worldwildlife.org/biomes
24Tools Key Biodiversity Areas
EXPERIENCE-SHARING
Does anyone have experience to share on assessing HCVs and KBAs?
• Identification of pitfalls?
• Unusual methods used?
• On the ground examples?
25Tools
Step 1 •Choose appropriate indicators based on literature review, expert local opinion, talking with local communities or pilot sampling
Step 2 •Choose sampling approach per species or grouping (e.g. transects, plots, traps, etc.)
Step 3 •Stratify the project area (Could align with Climate Criteria)
Step 4 •Choose sampling frequency and timescale
26Tools Ecological Survey
2. ECOLOGICAL SURVEY AT THE PROJECT ZONE
All international, national and local legal requirements need to be complied within the ecological survey approach !
POSSIBLE BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS
27
© J.Henman
© J.Henman
© J.Henman
© J.Henman
Tools Ecological Survey
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 vectors
• Must address endangered/ threatened species
28Tools Ecological Survey
EXERCISE 2: BIODIVERSITY SAMPLING TOOLS
Can you list different
techniques for biodiversity sampling?
29Tools Ecological Survey
BIODIVERSITY SAMPLING TOOLS
30
Example Techniqu
es
Interviews
Nets
Traps
Camera
Traps
Transects
Quadrat
counts
Tools Ecological Survey
31
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 are of fixed distance• Quadrats can be used in conjunction• Useful to measure plant diversity• Widely used• Time consuming
TRANSECTS & QUADRATS
Tools Ecological Survey
32
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
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?
33Tools
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
34
!
Tools Ecological Survey
35
EXAMPLE: BIODIVERSITY IMPACT MONITORING PLAN
Boden Creek Ecological Preserve, BelizeValidated to the CCB Standards 2st Ed. July 2010 Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits
PDD available at CCBA Web site
Tools Ecological Survey
Case Study: Green Resources or Penablanca Reforestation projects
•Objective: Identify a project’s negative impacts, mitigation measures and completeness of its monitoring strategy
36
EXERCISE 3: IDENTIFYING BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Green Resources Reforestation Project, Tanzania
Validated to the CCB Standards 1st Ed.October 2009
PDD available at CCBA Web site
Tools Ecological Survey
Penablanca Sustainable Reforestation Project, Philippines
Validated to the CCB Standards 2st Ed. December 2009
Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits
PDD available at CCBA Web site
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
39
• 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
G1. ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA
40Auditing
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 needs of local communities (G1.8.5)
- Traditional cultural identity of communities (G1.8.6)
1. Original Conditions
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.
G1.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE BIODIVERSITY IN THE PROJECT ZONE
Auditing 1. Original Conditions
• List of the major fauna, flora and ecosystems in the project area.
• 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…)
42
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 1. Original Conditions
G1.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE BIODIVERSITY IN THE PROJECT ZONE
• 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
An evaluation of whether the project zone includes any of the following High Conservation Values (HCVs) and a description of the qualifying attributes:Key points8.1. Significant concentrations of biodiversity values8.2. Significant large landscape-level areas where viablepopulations of native species occur 8.3. Threatened or rare ecosystems8.4. Areas that provide critical ecosystem services 8.5. Areas that are fundamental for meeting the basic needs of local communities 8.6. Areas that are critical for the traditional cultural identity of communities
G1.8 EVALUATION OF HCVs
Auditing 1. Original Conditions
• ‘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
44
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
Conformance
Auditing 1. Original Conditions
G1.8 EVALUATION OF HCVs
G2. BASELINE PROJECTIONS
45Auditing 2. Baseline Projection
• 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.
G2. BASELINE PROJECTIONS
46Auditing
Requirements:
Biodiversity Information
• Description of ‘without project’ scenario effect on biodiversity in the project zone (G2.5)
2. Baseline Projection
Describe how the ‘without project’ reference scenario would affect biodiversity in the project zone (e.g., habitat availability, landscape connectivity and threatened species).
G2.5 WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO EFFECT ON BIODIVERSITY
Auditing 2. Baseline Projection
• 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
48
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
Conformance
Auditing 2. Baseline Projection
G2.5 WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO EFFECT ON BIODIVERSITY
B1. NET POSITIVE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
49Auditing 3. Net Positive 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
50Auditing
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)
B1. NET POSITIVE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
3. Net Positive Impacts
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.
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.1 USE OF THE APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT
© J.Henman
• 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 project scenarios to be ‘compared’ similar biodiversity indicators need to be chosen for the projections
52
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.
Conformance
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.1 USE OF THE APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Demonstrate that no High Conservation Values identified in G1.8.1-3 will be negatively affected by the project.
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.2 NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HCVs
© J.Henman
• 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
54
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, management of invasive species).
Conformance
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.2 NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HCVs
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
• 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 and 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
56
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 responsiveness of invasive species not known, no adaptive management in place
Conformance
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.3 IDENTIFICATION OF 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
• 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
58
Common Pitfalls• The effects of the non-native species are not analyzed
according to the precautionary principle.
• No adaptive management plan used for invasive species where little information is available.
• No case studies are used to demonstrate that the use of the non-native species is common practice
Conformance
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.4 EFFECTS OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES USED
Guarantee that no GMOs (genetically modified organisms) will be used to generate GHG emissions reductions or removals.
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.5 NO GMO USE
• ‘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
60
Common Pitfalls• Seed containers or traceability documents for all the
trees planted are not available
Conformance
Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts
B1.5 NO GMO USE
B2. OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
61Auditing 4. 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
62Auditing
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)
B2. OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
Identify potential negative offsite biodiversity impacts that the project is likely to cause.
Auditing
B2.1 IDENTIFY NEGATIVE OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
• 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 impacts resulting from the introduction of species and their effect on species assemblages outside of the project area
64
Common Pitfalls• The offsite biodiversity impacts are not described
• The offsite biodiversity impacts are not quantified to a reasonable degree
Conformance
Auditing 4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
B2.1 IDENTIFY NEGATIVE OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS
Document how the project plans to mitigate these negative offsite biodiversity impacts.
Auditing
B2.2 IMPACT MITIGATION PROJECT PLAN
4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
• 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
66
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
Conformance
Auditing 4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
B2.2 IMPACT MITIGATION PROJECT PLAN
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
B2.3 NO NET NEGATIVE IMPACTS DEMONSTRATION
4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
•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 negative 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
68
Common Pitfalls• The indicators and sampling methods used to assess
offsite impacts and project benefits are not comparable
Conformance
Auditing 4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts
B2.3 NO NET NEGATIVE IMPACTS DEMONSTRATION
B3. BIODIVERSITY IMPACT MONITORING
69Auditing 5. 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
70Auditing
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)
5. Impact Monitoring
B3. BIODIVERSITY IMPACT MONITORING
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
B3.1 MONITORING VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY
5. Impact Monitoring
• 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 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
72
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
Conformance
Auditing 5. Impact Monitoring
B3.1 MONITORING VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY
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 well-being (G1.8.4-6) present in the project zone.
Auditing
CM/B3.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF HCVs MEASURES
5. Impact Monitoring
• 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
74
Common Pitfalls
Conformance
Auditing 5. Impact Monitoring
CM/B3.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF HCVs MEASURES
• The type of data collected cannot be used to reliably determine effectiveness
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
B3.3 COMMITING TO A FULL MONITORING PLAN
5. Impact Monitoring
• 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
76
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
Conformance
Auditing 5. Impact Monitoring
B3.3 COMMITING TO A FULL MONITORING PLAN
GL3. EXCEPTIONAL BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS GOLD STATUS (OPTIONAL)
77Auditing 6. Gold Status
• What does the standard require? The project must demonstrate the vulnerability OR irreplaceability of certain species. The project area must show proof of the frequent presence of threatened species recognized as such at the global level, or that the site is critical to a specific species population
• Why? Some sites have critically threatened species and it is important to incentivize the development of carbon projects in these areas.
GL3. EXCEPTIONAL BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS GOLD STATUS (OPTIONAL)
78Auditing
Requirements:
• Vulnerability (GL3.1)
• Irreplaceability (GL3.2)
6. Gold Status
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; or1.2. Vulnerable species (VU) - presence of at least 30 individuals or 10 pairs.
GL3.1 VULNERABILITY
Auditing 6. Gold Status
• The PDD must demonstrate the presence of IUCN Redlist species through sampling surveys, reference to peer-reviewed literature or expert opinions (for elusive species)
80
Common Pitfalls• Only fauna or flora species are taken into account
• The peer reviewed literature used is out-dated
Conformance
Auditing 6. Gold Status
GL3.1 VULNERABILITY
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;
GL3.2 IRREPLACEABILITY
Auditing 6. Gold Status
• 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
82
Common Pitfalls• The references used are out of date and have not been
confirmed by recent biodiversity sampling
Conformance
Auditing 6. Gold Status
GL3.2 IRREPLACEABILITY
PHOTO COPYRIGHT AND RE-USE
83
© J.Henman
• 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