br.fsc.org · Web viewPrepared for The World Temperate Grasslands Conservation Initiative Workshop...

Common Guidance for the Identification of High Conservation Values

Draft for Consultation| Version 13 May 2013

HCV Common Guidance

Background to this documentThis document is the product of a decision by the Steering Group of the HCV Resource Network www.hcvnetwork.org to develop common guidance for the interpretation of HCVs globally, for any type of ecosystem, and across all land use sectors and standards. It builds on work carried out in 2011 and 2012 by FSC in partnership with the HCV Network, and on consultation with HCV experts and stakeholders from relevant standards and schemes. The editorial board for this document includes: Ellen Brown, Nigel Dudley, Anders Lindhe, Dwi R. Muhtaman, Christopher Stewart and Timothy Synnott. With additional valuable input from Robin Abell, Marcus Colchester, Michael Senior and Tim Rayden.

This common guidance is part of a broader quality control scheme in development by the HCV Resource Network, whose final elements will include: • Common global interpretation of HCV definitions (this document)• Guidance on HCV assessment (this document) • HCV assessor training and capacity building • “HCV professional” assessor registration/certification • Peer review of HCV assessment reports

HCV definitions were first set forth by FSC in 1999 in version 4.0 of its Principles and Criteria1. Guidance was further elaborated in 2003 by Proforest in its HCV Forest (HCVF) Toolkit. In 2005, the newly established HCV Resource Network adopted a slightly simplified version of the HCVF2 Toolkit formulations in its founding Charter3 and widened their scope to include “HCV Areas” i.e. both forest and non-forest ecosystems. Between 2009 and 2011, the HCV Resource Network and FSC worked together to revise the HCV definitions, involving experts and stakeholders in other sustainability schemes; this process, resulting in the FSC P&C version 5.0, brought a focus on ‘values’ rather than ‘areas’, clarified definitional language and provided better alignment between the FSC’s 2012 P&C and the HCV Network’s Charter. Since the second half of 2012 Proforest has been engaged in a consultative process to develop a practical user manual for the common interpretation and identification of High Conservation Values (HCV), known as the “HCV Common Guidance”.This document draws principally from a June 2012 paper by Timothy Synnott with contributions from Marcus Colchester (Forest Peoples Alliance) Nigel Dudley (Equilibrium Research), Nilofer Ghaffar (HCV Resource Network), Angeline Gough (FSC), Daniel Hall (ForestEthics), Anders Lindhe (WWF International), Dwi R. Muhtaman (ReMark Asia), John Palmer (Forest Management Trust), Richard Robertson (FSC), Grant Rosoman (Greenpeace New Zealand), Christopher Stewart (Proforest), Christoph Thies (Greenpeace International), Maria Tyschianouk (FSC Russia). The original paper by Synnott focused on the interpretation of HCVs in a forest context and particularly under FSC.

1 FSC-STD-01-0012 High Conservation Value Forest3 www.hcvnetwork.org

2

http://www.hcvnetwork.org/

HCV Common Guidance

The Common Guidance also builds on earlier practical guides for HCV assessments, maintaining valuable information from the earlier guides. It draws most heavily on: Good practice guidelines for High Conservation Value assessments: A practical guide for practitioners and auditors (2008) and Assessment, management and monitoring of High Conservation Value Forest: A practical guide for forest managers (2008).

Please send comments on this draft to:Ellen [email protected]

Table of contents

3

HCV Common Guidance

1 Introduction 61.1 The High Conservation Value approach...................................................6

1.2 The six High Conservation Values.............................................................7

1.3 HCV areas and HCV management areas...................................................7

1.4 Responsible land management................................................................8

1.5 Common guidance....................................................................................91.5.1 Ecosystems......................................................................................................9

1.5.2 Commodities.................................................................................................10

1.5.3 Other uses of the HCV approach...................................................................11

1.5.4 Common guidance and national interpretations...........................................11

2 Key steps in the HCV process 132.1 Identification..........................................................................................13

2.2 Management..........................................................................................14

2.3 Monitoring.............................................................................................14

3 Key considerations throughout the assessment process15

3.1 The “significance” of High Conservation Values.....................................15

3.2 Landscape scale......................................................................................16

3.3 Precautionary approach.........................................................................16

3.4 Stakeholder consultation.......................................................................18

4 HCV Identification 184.1 Preparation and planning.......................................................................19

4.1.1 Gathering Preliminary Data...........................................................................19

4.1.2 Dealing with data gaps..................................................................................20

4.2 Scoping...................................................................................................21

4.3 Assessment............................................................................................21

5 Identification of the six HCVs 225.1 HCV 1: Biodiversity.................................................................................22

5.1.1 Key terms and concepts................................................................................23

5.1.2 Indicators and data sources..........................................................................26

5.1.3 Case study.....................................................................................................28

5.2 HCV 2: Landscape-level ecosystems and mosaics..................................29



5.2.3 Case study.....................................................................................................35

5.3 HCV 3: Ecosystems and habitats............................................................355.3.1 Key terms and concepts................................................................................36


5.3.3 Case study.....................................................................................................37

5.4 HCV 4- Critical ecosystem services.........................................................384

HCV Common Guidance



5.4.3 Case study.....................................................................................................43

5.5 HCV 5 Community needs........................................................................44


5.5.2 Data sources..................................................................................................50

5.5.3 Methods for assessing HCV 5........................................................................50

5.5.4 Case study.....................................................................................................51

5.6 HCV 6 Cultural Values.............................................................................525.6.1 Key terms and concepts................................................................................52


5.6.3 Case study.....................................................................................................56

6 References 57Annex 58

1. HCV assessment general checklist..........................................................58

2. HCV Resources.......................................................................................60

5

HCV Common Guidance

1 IntroductionThis document builds on a series of Good Practice guides for High Conservation Value (HCV) practitioners and auditors. Over the past few years, as global HCV definitions are amended and as the HCV approach has been adopted by ever more and diverse initiatives, it is useful to take stock of current guidance and provide an update. This document does not intend to completely replace the existing guidance, but it aims to widen the scope of use of HCV and to provide some advice/guidance based on practical field experience. In recent years there has been growing concern amongst members of the HCV Resource Network, HCV practitioners and other interested parties, that the HCV approach has not been applied consistently across different land use sectors or geographies. The identification of values within a specific landscape and site should be based on a common interpretation of the HCV definitions, as set out in this document. This document is intended for HCV assessors and land managers, especially those working without the benefit of national interpretations, to provide guidance on interpreting the HCV definitions and their applications, with the goal of providing some degree of standardization in use of the HCV approach. The document can also help developers of HCV national interpretations. See Annex 2 for additional HCV guidance materials which can supplement this document.

1.1 The High Conservation Value approachThe Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) developed the HCV concept in 1999 to ensure maintenance of significant environmental and social values in the context of responsible forest management. Since then, the HCV concept has been adopted by other natural resource sustainability standards (see Box X) and by many organisations which aim to maintain and/or enhance critical social and environmental values as part of responsible land management4. The six HCVs have been applied principally to land-based production practices such as forestry and agriculture. These sectors are the primary focus of this document, but an HCV assessment should consider all ecosystems – terrestrial and aquatic – that occur within a production site, and ideally within the larger area of influence as well. International sustainability standards use the HCV concept as a way of ensuring that environmental and social principles are met. Whilst many ecosystems contain environmental and social values deserving of protection, the HCV framework deems some values to be more important than others. These HCVs demand a greater degree of protection, and therefore precautions and extra management efforts are necessary to ensure their long term maintenance, particularly if they may be negatively impacted by practices undertaken in logging concessions, agricultural plantations or other production sites. These measures may exceed what is required for ‘normal’ good practice, and must be sufficient to address the threats to HCVs.

4 HCV Resource Network Charter6

HCV Common Guidance

The High Conservation Value (HCV) concept was first developed as a component of a certification process, applied at management unit level, rather than as a stand-alone conservation tool. Certification schemes usually incorporate critical safeguards, such as requirements to comply with national law, to protect endangered species, to respect indigenous peoples’ tenure rights, and a mechanism to check that management plans are effectively implemented. Outside of the context of certification, HCV is used to inform land-use planning, conservation advocacy, and designing responsible purchasing and investment policies (e.g. governmental and commercial).

1.2 The six High Conservation Values

1.3 HCV areas and HCV management areas

To be elaborated…

1.4 Responsible land management

7

The six High Conservation ValuesHCV 1 - Species diversity: Concentrations of biological diversity including endemic species, and rare, threatened or endangered species, that are significant at global, regional or national levels. HCV 2 - Landscape-level ecosystems and mosaics: Large landscape-level ecosystems and ecosystem mosaics that are significant at global, regional or national levels, and that contain viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species in natural patterns of distribution and abundance. HCV 3 - Ecosystems and habitats: Rare, threatened, or endangered ecosystems, habitats or refugia. HCV 4 - Critical ecosystem services: Basic ecosystem services in critical situations, including protection of water catchments and control of erosion of vulnerable soils and slopes. HCV 5 - Community needs: Sites and resources fundamental for satisfying the basic necessities of local communities or indigenous peoples (for livelihoods, health, nutrition, water, etc.), identified through engagement with these communities or indigenous peoples. HCV 6 - Cultural values: Sites, resources, habitats and landscapes of global or national cultural, archaeological or historical significance, and/or of critical cultural, ecological, economic or religious/sacred importance for the traditional cultures of local communities or indigenous peoples, identified through engagement with these local communities or indigenous peoples.

HCV Common Guidance

The HCV assessment should occur prior to proposed development activities or operations rather than retrospectively. But also, a High Conservation Value assessment and management plan is not a stand-alone guarantee of sustainability. It should be integrated with responsible land use management which respects the principles of application as set out by the HCV Resource Network. Legality

There is compliance with all applicable with national and local laws and international treaties and agreements.

Secure tenure, customary rights and consent The right to use the land can be demonstrated, and is not legitimately

contested by local communities with demonstrable rights. Use or management of the land does not diminish the legal or customary

rights, of indigenous peoples, local communities or other users, without their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).

Conversion Areas necessary at the site and landscape scale to maintain or enhance

HCVs shall not be converted to other land uses. The absence of HCVs, and the application of the HCV approach, alone

should not be used to justify the conversion of natural ecosystems.

Forest management was the original context for HCV assessments. This assumes that the areas supporting HCVs will remain forested and will likely even be surrounded by continuous forest cover. However, there is a growing demand for HCV assessments both for managing the impacts of existing agricultural/tree plantations, and for responsibly planning the expansion of plantations (e.g. for RSPO-certified palm oil). In this context, the HCV process is used as a safeguard against the destruction of critical values through conversion of natural vegetation to plantation forestry or agriculture. Regardless of whether the HCV process is employed within a certification system (such as RSPO) or outside it, a more thorough and cautious approach is needed both in identifying and managing HCV areas, and in reviewing the results of HCV assessments.

An HCV assessment should always be completed prior to any irreversible forest clearance or land preparation activities. Compared to natural forest management, conversion generally has a more severe and irreversible impact on biodiversity, ecological functions and social systems. Measures of protection for HCVs must therefore reflect the severity of the impact. For conversion of non-HCV natural ecosystems to be justified, benefits resulting from proposed land use development should outweigh the combined economic, environmental and social impacts and the decision should be documented through a rigorous, fair and transparent multi-stakeholder consultation process.

8

HCV Common Guidance

1.5 Common guidanceThis document aims to widen the scope of HCV guidance and provide common interpretations and guidance which can be universally applied to different ecosystems, different commodities and land uses, and across different geographies.

1.5.1 EcosystemsThis Common Guidance document has adopted the updated HCV definitions (FSC P&C v. 5) which widen the scope of application beyond the forest context to include ecosystems and mosaics more broadly. The HCV definitions are general and can be applied to several ecosystem types, however it is useful to provide some additional guidance for widespread/major ecosystem types which are also affected by the production of food, fuel, fibre and timber.

GrasslandsThe extension of the HCV concept into grasslands is driven by concern about the rate at which grasslands are being converted into plantations, particularly for soy, oil palm and pulp. The existence of certification schemes for these industries and the integrated nature of the market means that some companies involved in debates about crop and biofuels plantations are already familiar with the HCV concept through forest operations. The existence of European Union legislation aimed at promoting sustainability in biofuels production, and explicitly at protecting grassland values (see Bowyer et al, 2010), is providing further impetus.

Freshwater

All agricultural and plantation developments are intrinsically reliant on water resources, but also have major impacts on freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater ecosystems are already more integrated into HCV concept than grasslands, through the consideration of some water-related ecosystem services in HCVs4 & 5, and the accepted reliance of these services on forest ecosystems, e.g. watershed protection. But these ecosystem services are just a fraction of freshwater conservation values and so HCV assessment teams often lack freshwater experts. There is a need for the full suite of freshwater conservation values (see Box X) to be integrated as a central part the HCV concept. Another stimulus for these changes is the variation in freshwater protection legislation, and the enforcement of this legislation, across countries. Expanding the freshwater scope of the HCV concept can help to standardise application across different commodities and countries.

Because the HCV definitions are general and universal, there is a large amount of overlap in how assessors can identify HCVs in different ecosystem types. For this reason, it would be too repetitive to produce separate guidance for these different ecosystems at this point, or even to devote different chapters to them in this document. Instead, for each HCV section below, special mention will be made as relevant for identifying HCVs in grasslands, freshwater systems or other ecosystems.

9

HCV Common Guidance

1.5.2 Commodities

Certification schemesHCV began in forestry and it continues to be important for sustainable production of timber, pulp and paper and paperboard. In addition to forestry, HCV is now incorporated into sustainability schemes and standards for plantation crops such as oil palm, biofuels, soy and sugar. Some commodities have multi-stakeholder processes/groups which coordinate/facilitate the sustainable production and supply chain issues for these crops. Some of the key Roundtables, as they are called, have endorsed this document and they support/agree with the Network’s efforts to standardize the HCV approach and to further build capacity of assessors.

It is important to realize that the HCV concept does not cover all social and environmental issues of concern in forestry, agriculture and other projects. In addition to HCV, other principles in sustainability schemes recognize local people’s customary claims to land and resources even when these are not formally recognized by national governments.

For example:

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

Principle 3 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights Principle 4 Community Relations Principle 6 Environmental values and impacts

Roundtable for Responsible Palm Oil (RSPO)

Principle 2 Just land acquisition Principle 5 Environmental responsibility and conservation of natural

resources and biodiversity Principle 6 Responsible consideration of employees and of individuals and

communities affected by growers and mills Principle 7 Responsible development of new plantings (respecting local

people’s land and conserving primary forest and peat lands)

International Finance Corporation (IFC)

Performance Standard 2: Labour and working conditions Performance Standard 5 Land acquisition and involuntary resettlement Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity conservation and sustainable

management of living natural resources Performance Standard 8 Cultural heritage

In line with national law, most impact assessments tend to carry out identification and valuation for private property such as farms, fruit trees, gardens, houses, etc. However, these sorts of valuation and compensation schemes are unlikely to recognize important communal resources such as hunting territories, natural areas where NTFPs are gathered, fishing grounds, etc. This is where the HCV concept can greatly contribute to the identification and maintenance of valuable ecosystem resources.

10

HCV Common Guidance

PolicyIn addition to the commodity Roundtables mentioned above, some companies and financial institutions (lenders) have developed policies which consider HCVs. In other words, the presence of HCVs would affect the development options and management needs for companies who are producing, sourcing or trading forest and agricultural commodities. Increasingly, private sector companies are also including HCV assessments in their due diligence activities and in their social and environmental management systems.

1.5.3 Other uses of the HCV approach

Land use planning, systematic conservation planning

1.5.4 Common guidance and national interpretationsThough National Interpretations are important, many countries have not yet elaborated an NI for various reasons (e.g. application of the HCV approach may be relatively new). For these cases, this document can provide guidance on how to consider the subjective terms like significant, critical and concentration and can recommend how to work through the identification process including useful data sources and potential indicators or proxies for HCV.

Whenever a National Interpretation is available for a country, it should be used by the assessor. However, it is important to complement the HCV NI with current HCVRN-endorsed guidance and stakeholder consultation. There is no rule for how often HCV NIs should be updated, but good practice would be to review and update NIs after changes to HCV definitions, with the publication of updated guidance and after lessons learned from the HCV process can be capitalised on and fed back to improve the quality of the NI.

National interpretation of the six generic values is an important part of the application of the HCV process, because this provides more specific information and guidance relevant to land managers in each country. National interpretation is important for two reasons: Firstly because the generic values include terms like significant, critical and concentration which need to be qualified according to the local context. Secondly because appropriate management of a high conservation value depends on the level of threat to the value, which can vary dramatically between countries. For example: the way the term large landscape level forest (HCV2) is understood and applied will be different in Canada (where the country retains large tracts of undisturbed forest) from the way it will be treated in Ghana, where there are only a few remaining forest blocks, none of which are un-disturbed.

The process of national interpretation is also a useful way to build consensus in the way each value is understood and applied. Ultimately this enables more consistency in the use of the concept within the country. For guidance on national

11

HCV Common Guidance

interpretation processes see http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/global-hcv-toolkits/hcvf-toolkit-part-2-final.pdf

The quality of the NI will depend on the amount of data already available (biodiversity, ecology, socio-cultural), the capacity of participants in the NI process to define values and thresholds, and the amount of consultation and field testing which has been conducted to further refine what HCVs mean in the local and national context. In some cases, national processes have redefined the values so that the resulting indicators and guidance correspond poorly to the original concepts framed in the definitions. We recommend that national processes adopt the following principles to ensure consistency of interpretation:

National Interpretations should adopt the definitions of Box X as the basis for interpretation. The HCVs should not be renumbered, and new HCVs should not be added. Other important values that are deemed essential by stakeholders should still fit within the spirit of the original six HCVs. Where National Interpretations adopt subdivisions of the HCVs for clarity or by national necessity, these should not introduce novel concepts that do not directly relate to the global definition or which imply thresholds of responsibility which are very different to those implied by the key terms of the global definitions.

2K

ey steps in the HCV process

The HCV process comprises three key steps:

12

Best Practices in National InterpretationA recent review of National HCV interpretations in 19 countries identified a total of 28 best practices in six categories (adapted from Neugarten and Savy 2012):

1. Comprehensiveness: all six HCV categories are addressed. Guidance is reviewed and updated with stakeholders.

2. Practicality and ease of application: guidance includes checklists of potential HCV species or ecosystems, technical methods for mapping, quantitative thresholds, or HCV areas that are already mapped at landscape or national scales.

3. Adherence to recognized key principles such as stakeholder consultation and the precautionary principle (as per HCV Network Charter).

4. Adherence to IUCN Red List or the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

5. Justification or rationale for distinguishing HCV from non-HCV areas, such as citations from published literature, if available, to validate the

use of quantitative thresholds.6. Links to adaptive management: guidance that includes management or

monitoring guidelines

http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/global-hcv-toolkits/hcvf-toolkit-part-2-final.pdf

http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/global-hcv-toolkits/hcvf-toolkit-part-2-final.pdf

HCV Common Guidance

2.1 Identification Interpret what the six HCVs mean in the local or national context, decide which HCVs are present in the area of interest (plantation, concession, etc.), and determine where the HCVs are located (HCV areas). Map HCVs, including consideration of the wider area of influence of the project and their significance at the landscape level (see Box x). The presence or absence of each HCV is determined based on an analysis of existing information and the collection of additional information where necessary to fill gaps. The identification process can be further subdivided into preparation and planning, and may include scoping studies before full HCV assessments.

HCV identification should lead to clear advice on the presence or absence of values, their location, status and condition, and as far as possible to provide information on areas of habitat, key resources, and critical areas etc. which are important in supporting the values. This will be used to develop management recommendations to ensure that HCVs are maintained or enhanced.

2.2 Management Once the assessment is completed the responsible party (e.g. company) should develop plans for maintaining and enhancing HCVs, and managing threats, informed by a precautionary approach5 (see section XXX). Identifying an HCV area and its management regime involves:

Investigating existing and potential threats to the HCVs identified. These may be threats from proposed management activities, such as logging operations or plantation establishment, or from external activities such as hunting of wildlife, illegal logging or construction of a new road or dam.

Establishing both the location and the management requirements for the HCV area with the aim of ensuring that the HCVs are maintained or enhanced. This can include delineating areas which need total protection and identifying areas which can be used for production provided that management is undertaken in a way consistent with maintaining or enhancing HCVs.

Key questions the management team need to consider:

What are the management options for maintaining HCVs already defined by assessment?

How can the internal and external threats be mitigated or eliminated?

5 See Box X13

HCV Common Guidance

The aim is to define clear objectives for management, with the purpose of maintaining or enhancing6 the HCVs, and to set out a precautionary management plan based on best available data and advice.

2.3 Monitoring Establish an appropriate monitoring regime to ensure that the management practices are effective in their aim of maintaining or enhancing the HCVs. The monitoring regime needs to translate the strategic objectives of the management regime into operational objectives. Appropriate indicators must be chosen to assess the status of the HCVs, and thresholds for action must be established to ensure that the HCVs are maintained or enhanced.

This document focuses on the first step. Guidance on HCV Management and Monitoring will be provided in a future document.

3 Key considerations throughout the assessment process

3.1 The “significance” of High Conservation ValuesHCV identification relies on significance, which is inherently subjective. But, there are certain guidelines that, if followed, will lead to a more standardized interpretation of the term. In practical terms, significant values are those recognized as being either unique, or outstanding relative to other examples in the same region, because of their sizes, numbers, frequency, quality, density or socio-economic importance, on the basis of existing priority frameworks, data or maps, or through field assessments and consultations. Land owners and managers may recognise and designate HCV status on the basis of any one of the following processes:a) A designation, classification or recognized conservation status, assigned by an

international agency, (e.g. IUCN Red List)b) A designation by national or regional authorities, or by reputable NGOs, (e.g.

countries signed up to the CBD should all have biodiversity strategies which may include species action plans)

c) Designations of specific values through a balanced multi-stakeholder process,d) A voluntary designation (e.g. by a forestry or agriculture organization), on the

basis of available information and consultations about known, suspected or reported values, even when not officially recognized by other agencies.

6 Note that some agricultural standards using HCV don’t require maintaining or enhancing – they just say that HCVAs can’t be converted.

14

HCV Common Guidance

Note that for HCV 1, 2, and 3, the values need to be significant at a national or regional scale (or higher) – with the understanding that countries are highly variable and what is significant in one country may not be significant in another. HCV 4, 5, and 6 are significant to the communities that rely on them – so they are not relative to any scale but absolute in their irreplaceability to that community.

The wording of the values leaves some important decisions open to the interpretation by the assessor or land manager. For example, when does the use of an important forest resource become critical for the local community, or how many threatened species make a concentration? In some countries workshops have been convened to produce a national HCV interpretation. This is usually achieved through discussions about how to define and interpret each value for a given national context. However, some interpretation by the assessor will always be required. For this reason, the HCV approach emphasises consultation with local stakeholders and the involvement of independent experts. In many cases, where no national HCV interpretation exists or limited data needed to identify HCVs is available, a process of stakeholder consultation is vital. The concept of significance, and the processes of designating an HCV are crucial in determining whether an HCV is present. If an area or value is designated as an HCV by one of these processes, then it will be treated as such by the land manager, certification body, etc. An area or value is not formally an HCV until so designated. If it has not been designated by one of these processes, it is only a candidate (potential HCV).

3.2 Landscape scaleAn HCV assessment should be conducted at the production site scale (e.g. forest concession, agricultural planation). However, ignoring the wider landscape context (e.g. activities in neighbouring land units, other land use plans being made in the region, the presence and status of protected areas etc.), can mean that habitat fragmentation and threats to or disappearance of some HCVs becomes inevitable. This is a common problem with ‘standard’ EIAs, which are often limited to the boundaries of a production site and ignore cumulative impacts across the wider area. Some HCVs are present at the landscape level itself (e.g. landscape level ecosystems, large watersheds), others depend for their continued existence on the presence of a mosaic of suitable habitat in the wider landscape (e.g. some critical water values, populations of rare, threatened or endemic species).

Some countries have undertaken landscape level conservation assessments (e.g. ‘ecoregional plans’ developed by TNC, ‘landscape forest’ maps by WRI/Greenpeace, landscape level HCVF maps by WWF, etc.). HCV National interpretations may give additional guidance on equivalent national frameworks (e.g. PROBIO systematic conservation planning process, Brazil). Assessors should in every case look at how the following elements affect the HCVs identified:

Land use adjacent to the assessment area

15

The precautionary approachIf an HCV is present (or can reasonably be assumed to be present), and if any activity is known to be a threat to that HCV (or can reasonably be believed to be a threat, when the evidence is unclear), then there must be “explicit and effective measures to prevent the damage and avoid the risks”.

HCV Common Guidance

Other active players in the landscape (e.g. settlements, forestry, agriculture, infrastructure)

Presence and status of a regional land use plan Presence and condition of protected areas in the landscape Distribution and connectivity of ecosystems across the landscape Forest cover and condition, soil and geology Biogeographic barriers affecting movement into and out of the

assessment area Watershed maps and criticality of area for maintaining water

supply/quality

3.3 Precautionary approachMany land management activities have some negative impacts on environmental or social values which should be taken into account in management decisions. Managers cannot afford to damage or diminish HCVs, which are by definition the most important features of a landscape or ecosystem. Managing such important features requires a precautionary approach to risk. For HCV assessment/identification, when there are credible and reasonable indications that an HCV is present, the assessor should assume that it is present and should take the appropriate decisions for management strategies, actions and monitoring. They should also take measures to resolve doubts, by obtaining more data or expert advice, until such time as there is clear evidence of the absence of a particular HCV. For the purposes of HCV management, the Precautionary Approach means that when there is “a threat of severe or irreversible damage to the environment or a threat to human welfare”, responsible parties need to take explicit and effective measures to prevent the damage and risks, even when the scientific information is incomplete or inconclusive, and when the vulnerability and sensitivity of environmental values is uncertain7. What this means in practice depends on the situation and on the intended land/water use. In the context of land conversion for plantations or agriculture the threats are likely to be more severe than for development scenarios which are limited to habitat disturbance/degradation. Where the stakes are higher in terms of habitat loss or displacement of local peoples’ resource use, the precautionary approach is even more important.

Box: Landscape Scale or Area of Influence

The area of influence of a project (e.g. forest management unit, agricultural plantation) may extend to off-site areas that could be affected by infrastructure developed to support production activities (e.g. roads), by altered disturbance

7 See Precautionary Approach, FSC P&C Glossary 16

HCV Common Guidance

regimes (e.g. fires), or by displacement of resource use by local communities to new areas. It may also include downstream, and possibly even upstream, areas that could be affected by hydrologically-mediated impacts of production practices.

Box: HCV framework and systematic conservation planningThe HCV approach is aimed at site-level assessment, in places where conversion or intensified management is planned. It does not replace land use planning, systematic conservation planning or protected areas gap analysis, used to develop national or regional conservation strategies. In fact, large-scale planning and gap analysis can inform HCV assessments in three main ways. First, they can serve as a filter, informing how deeply to look at the site scale. Second, the data used as inputs to those analyses can also be used in an assessment, assuming it is at an appropriate resolution. Third, in some cases priorities identified through those analyses can be integrated into HCV assessments. But, it is important to understand the criteria and methods used to identify those priorities and to recognize that there may be a mismatch between them and the HCV framework (e.g., systematic conservation planning exercises often select sites based on efficiency and complementarity of the final solution, and so sites may be prioritized not because they contain absolute high values but because those values complement other selected sites). It is important to know about the data gaps of existing exercises and not take the exercises’ outputs as a comprehensive set of priorities.

3.4 Stakeholder consultationEnsure key stakeholders are aware that an HCV assessment is being made and they have an opportunity to participate. Participation can come in many ways, either in planning, being directly involved with an assessment team, participating in review meetings, participation on focussed consultations or peer-reviewing the written outputs. Consultation allows the assimilation of different views and opinions. Over time these can help steer management in a more sustainable and conflict-free direction. Though it may be difficult to reconcile contrasting views at first, it is important to approach the process with the idea of a compromise in mind.

Box: list of potential stakeholders

Identify stakeholders, who will be directly affected by or bear the cost of a potential activity (e.g. forestry, agriculture, etc.), directly from the beginning of the process. Common examples include: local communities who use forest products or services

17

The link with SEIAsNational rules and regulations generally require an ESIA to be carried out for significant developments. While HCV assessments are generally carried out as part of voluntary standards processes, the two can potentially be coordinated in terms of data gathering. However, regulatory ESIAs may not cover the full range of HCVs, or provide the depth of information necessary to establish a credible HCV assessment.

HCV Common Guidance

organisations and institutions that represent themthose whose legitimate commercial use of the natural resources will be altered by development activitiesEnvironmental organisations who represent the wider public and have an interest in the way the ecosystems are managedGovernment bodies will always need to be kept informed of discussions even if they are not directly affected

4 HCV IdentificationThe main objective of an HCV assessment is to determine whether any of the six HCVs (Box X) are present in the area. The HCV assessment should involve appropriate experts and knowledge holders, local communities, and other stakeholders throughout the process. Decisions will often have to be made in the absence of full information, but this does not mean that reasonable, informed decisions cannot be made. One of the important roles of the HCV assessor is to involve experts who have informed opinions based on experience and a good grasp of what is already known.

4.1 Preparation and planning

In the preparation stage, the assessor8 needs to collect enough information to make a preliminary judgement on the likely HCVs to be found and the likely impact of operations – this will guide decisions on team composition and data gaps to be addressed9. A preliminary judgement should be made concerning data quality and reliability, and any gaps identified should be filled either by data collection or consultation.

Key questions: What HCVs are known to occur or are likely to occur in the area? What is the likely impact of the operations on potential HCVs? What data currently exists, and what is still needed, to identify HCVs? Is there a National HCV Interpretation10?

Answering these questions will help reach decisions on the skills and expertise required for a credible HCV evaluation and it will also help plan the consultation process.

8 The ‘assessor’ may be a manager or an external contractor, depending on the situation.9 It is sometimes useful to conduct a scoping study, especially in new sites, to gather local information and ensure that preparations are adequate for a full assessment.

18

HCV Common Guidance

4.1.1 Gathering Preliminary DataThe data should aim to cover the following:

1. Size of the operational area.2. Landscape context of the operational area.3. Type of land and water use and associated level of alteration to the

original ecosystem.4. Likely high conservation values present within the surrounding landscape 5. Likely increased access to remote areas from operations6. Likely time of recovery after the end of the operations.7. Existing reports (e.g. has a SEIA been conducted?)8. Outcomes of priority-setting exercises

For detailed guidance on how to address these questions, see Good practice guidelines for High Conservation Value assessments: A practical guide for practitioners and auditors (Proforest 2008) page 8-20.

4.1.2 Dealing with data gaps In practice HCV assessments often take place in conditions of poor information – global data gaps, uncertain ecological history etc. – in those cases an even greater investment of time and resources may be required of an assessor. In general, the investment into different aspects of an assessment (different HCVs, different taxa, different habitats) should be broadly commensurate with the likelihood of those values occurring, but at the same time it is vital that assessments do not falsely conclude that there are no HCVs present. Where data are incomplete (spatially, temporally, taxonomically, etc.), expert assessment will be especially important.

10 National Interpretations vary in their age and detail. It is always useful to consult the NI, but depending on whether or not it has been well-tested in practice, it is advised to complement the NI with HCVRN guidance and stakeholder consultation.

19

HCV 1 - 3Maps of ecosystemsList of threatened or endangered species and distribution maps (local or national law, IUCN Red List, national or regional Red Books, CITES listsProtected areas (location, status, threats)Conservation NGOs’ information sourcesNational inventory data

HCV 4Soil maps, topographic mapsWatersheds/catchment boundariesFire incidence

HCV 5 & 6 Maps of human settlements and community dataSocial studies conducted by companies, NGOs, research institutionsSocial impact assessments available for the area or affected communitiesNGO projects and current campaigns by the communities in the areaCultural data and information from cultural organisations

Scale and Impact (all HCVs)Existing or planned land use plansOperational plans for the areaExisting ESIAs for the area

HCV Common Guidance

Ultimately, all assessments must be supported by ground-truthing. But given that it may be impractical or impossible to survey an entire site and its area of influence, ground-truthing should focus on those areas most likely to contain HCVs. Previously unidentified HCVs may be added to a management and monitoring plan if they are ‘discovered’ post-assessment.

4.2 ScopingDepending on the potential impacts of operations, policies in place, etc. a land manager may first arrange for an HCV scoping study prior to a full HCV assessment. A scoping study can help to identify available information and initial stakeholder concerns; enabling the assessor to identify information gaps, high priority issues and to form a team with the necessary expertise and qualifications for the assessment. A scoping study can help land managers save resources (time and money). A scoping study is not necessary in every case. For example in forestry, a manager can organize an internal HCV assessment, without drawing on third-party assessors. Scoping studies are often useful when the assessor is not familiar with a particular site.

4.3 AssessmentThe presence or absence of all six HCVs should always be assessed (where studies only address some HCVs, it should be explicitly stated which HCVs were analysed and made clear that it was a partial HCV analysis). Interpretation of HCV definitions is outlined in greater detail below (section X) with a clarification of key terms and concepts, indicators and data sources for each HCV. Data sources are most useful in the early stages of the HCV scoping and assessment to identify potential values in the area. Indicators can include existing ecosystem classifications, conservation assessments, socioeconomic profiles, or other data sources which do not specifically quantify HCVs but which may be interpreted as HCVs based on guidance (HCV National Interpretation, HCV RN guidance and stakeholder consultation). See Annex 2 for a list.

20

Internal versus external involvement in the HCV processLike any other process of management and decision-making, the whole HCV assessment exercise may be carried out by the company management team, including engagement and consultations which are planned or have already been carried out for other purposes. In some cases, a standard may require that HCV assessments are carried out by an independent team (e.g. New Plantings for RSPO certification). In other cases, the management may contract specialists to carry out certain tasks if internal capacity is lacking, if the credibility of the assessment would be enhanced by an independent team, or if the trust of local people requires 3rd party involvement.

HCV Common Guidance

HCV identification is a combination of fact-based assessment, drawing on scientific studies, maps, social surveys etc. But at the same time, identifying values is inherently subjective. Herein lies a challenge, when seeking to provide sound guidance for HCV identification. On the one hand, assessors would understandably like to have clear thresholds defined (X hectares of forest, X number of endangered species present, X degree of dependence on ecosystem services, X degree of rarity, etc.), but on the other hand, some practitioners are cautious about setting out specific numbers (area, population size, degree dependence) or making judgement calls that could have serious impacts on local people (e.g. food security). The HCV definitions (FSC v.5) are necessarily general and somewhat open to interpretation, as many standards are, so that they can be applied as widely as possible. However, the downside of general, universal definitions is that the range of interpretation can be so wide as to dilute, and in some cases change/ignore the intent of the definitions. This is one reason that HCV National Interpretations can be so useful; they provide a more detailed interpretation of HCV definitions that can guide assessors in the field. However, in practice not all HCV National Interpretations have been field tested and most should be considered living documents. Most countries do not yet have HCV NIs, and therefore they should rely on this Common Guidance, complemented by previous manuals as relevant.

This section provides an interpretation for each HCV definition with guidance on how to approach identification (evaluating existing data, methods, consultation). Useful references and sources of information are provided as well as examples from case studies.

Key terms: This document provides globally applicable guidance for key terms which describe the scope of each Value especially words such as ‘significant’, critical’, ‘basic’ and ‘fundamental’. National interpretations should aim to address these key terms, conforming to the level of importance or priority described in this document.

Indicators: This document provides a range of indicators which could be used as a filter for determining whether an HCV might be present. National Interpretations will need to adapt or supplement the indicators provided here. Any new indicators proposed by National Interpretations should address the categories and thresholds of significance described in the key terms.

21

HCV Common Guidance

5 Identification of the six HCVs

5.1 HCV 1: Biodiversity

Concentrations of biological diversity including endemic species, and rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) species that are significant at global, regional or national levels.

HCV 1 covers significant concentrations of biodiversity, recognized as unique or outstanding in comparison with other areas within the same country or region, on the basis of existing priority frameworks, data or maps, or through field assessments and consultations. Any area that contains HCV 1 species (rare, threatened, endangered, endemic), or which contains habitat critical to the survival of these species, will be an HCV area. However, there will be many areas that contain rare or endemic species that are not HCVs because there is not a globally, regionally or nationally significant concentration. These areas should still be managed appropriately, but they are not HCVs.

5.1.1 Key terms and concepts

It is important to not worry too much about the technical interpretation of terms such as biological diversity. Biodiversity, if defined literally, could give HCV 1 a different meaning, because it is not necessarily important to have a certain amount of biological diversity to qualify as an HCV; even a single species can be considered important enough to be an HCV on its own; if the species is for example, listed in the IUCN Red List or on the National Protected Species list and is found in a population large enough to qualify as a concentration or significant in the country in question.

Box: Biological diversity: The variability among living organisms from all sources including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems (Source: Convention on Biological Diversity 1992, Article 2, included in FSC v5 P&C glossary).

Over the past decade many practitioners have found it useful to sub-divide HCV 1 into four subheadings.11 These are: 1) Protected areas, 2) Rare, threatened or endangered species, 3) Endemic species and 4) Seasonal concentrations of species. Protected areas are a useful proxy for the likely presence of biodiversity and high value habitat. Threatened, endangered and endemic species are included in the official definition of HCV 1. Critical temporal use is more relevant to the fourth point, concentrations of species which can occur in a given area at different times. These subdivisions are not exhaustive, but are only meant to

11 Good practice guidelines for HCV assessments: A practical guide for practitioners and auditors. http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/folder.2006-09-29.6584228415/HCV%20good%20practice%20-%20guidance%20for%20practitioners.pdf

22

HCV Common Guidance

provide some common examples. This document does not maintain the subdivision numbering (1.1 – 1.4) but in spirit they are all still relevant.

The term rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) species is part of the original definition of HCV 1. RTE is used as shorthand for the wider set of species that risk severe population decline. Whether or not they are categorized as threatened, endangered or vulnerable by a classification schemes such as IUCN is less important. Although the HCV definition mentions threatened and endangered species, these are often, together with ‘vulnerable’, subsumed under the overarching term threatened in a IUCN red list context (as in FSC’s glossary).

Rare is scale dependent and includes species that are Naturally rare, existing only at very low densities in undisturbed habitat,

or Rare because of human activities e.g. habitat destruction, overhunting

(whether or not they are yet classified as Threatened or Endangered) At the limit of their natural distribution (even if they are common

elsewhere)Species may or may not be classified as rare (or some equivalent category) in an official or widely recognized national or regional classification. In an ideal case, where there are robust national IUCN red lists for all major organism groups it should be redundant. Where this is not the case, rare could mean ‘likely red list candidate if there were more data’.IUCN considers that species with fewer than 10,000 mature individuals (and declining) to be globally vulnerable (VU) to extinction; species with smaller population sizes are often more threatened. However, this is not always the case. For example, species at the top of the food chain in small countries may well have natural populations far below 10,000 individuals but may not be particularly vulnerable12.Threatened and endangered species are species that are classified as such in accepted national or international systems because they are more vulnerable to continued habitat loss, hunting, disease etc. They include species classified by IUCN as Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN) and Critically Endangered (CR) at a global or regional level, or whose trade is regulated under international agreements (e.g. CITES), as well as nationally protected species in equivalent categories (even if many of those species are not classified as globally threatened). Species that have been formally proposed, or are under consideration for such classifications, can also be included under this heading. In areas where no official designation exists, the assessor can rely on expert consultation to determine the conservation status of species.

12 But many tropical forest species, regardless of their trophic position are very rare, or specialised and so will have very small populations and population densities. May be reliant on one plant species only found in a particularly restricted area, or occurring at very low densities. As a result, almost any forest conversion could be threatening these species.

23

HCV Common Guidance

Endemic species are those which are only found within a specific geographical region, which may range from a unique site or a geographical feature (such as an island, a mountain range or river basin), to a political boundary such as a province or country. Species which have a very limited distribution are also included. Endemic and range-restricted species are particularly vulnerable to threats as they have a limited distribution and may have smaller populations than widespread species. Species range is a criterion that contributes to the IUCN Red List criteria for threatened species. Species (other than birds) with an overall extent of occurrence of less than 20,000 km2 or a known area of occupancy of less than 2,000 km2 should be considered restricted range. For birds, the threshold is 50,000 km2.13

Critical temporal use: Many species use a variety of habitats at different times of the year or at different stages in their life-history. These may be geographically distinct or within the same region and include seasonal breeding sites, migration routes or corridors (latitudinal as well as altitudinal) or areas that contain globally important seasonal concentrations of species. In temperate and boreal regions, these critical concentrations will often occur seasonally (e.g. winter feeding grounds or summer breeding sites), whereas in the tropics, the time of greatest use may depend more on the particular ecology of the species concerned (e.g. riverine forests within tropical dry forests may be seasonally critical habitat for many vertebrate species and many migratory, temperate species may be critically dependent on tropical habitats for parts of the year). HCV 1 could also include habitat that is used only in extreme years, when it is critical to the survival of a population.

Refuges: Seasonal and ecological refuges which provide temporary breeding, roosting, hibernation, migration sites or habitats essential for RTE species qualify for HCV 1.

Protected areas: Under the precautionary approach, a protected area is an HCV 1, because it is assumed that it harbours significant concentrations of biodiversity values. Of course, in practice much depends on the effectiveness of protected area management, but as an initial data gathering exercise the presence of a protected area can alert the assessor to potential HCVs.

Genetic diversity: HCV 1 may include cases of exceptional genetic diversity within species, or particularly important genetic variants, subspecies or varieties. For example, the Cross River Gorilla (ca. 250 individuals remaining) is a genetically distinct subspecies of Western Gorilla (ca. 95,000 individuals).

13 Birdlife International 201224

HCV Common Guidance

Significant concentrations of biodiversity, which may be recognized as HCVs include:

High overall species richness, diversity or uniqueness within a defined area when compared with other sites within the same ecoregion.

Populations of multiple endemic or RTE species. Important populations or a great abundance of individual endemic or RTE

species, representing a substantial proportion of the regional, national or global population which are needed to maintain viable populations either:

o Year-round (e.g. key habitat for a specific species) or ,o Seasonally including migratory corridors, sites for breeding,

roosting or hibernation, or refuges from disturbance. Small populations of individual endemic or RTE species, in cases where

the national, regional or global survival of that species is critically dependent on the area in question (such species are likely to be restricted to a few remaining areas of habitat, and to be classified as EN or CR on the IUCN Red List).

Presence of small numbers of nationally or globally iconic species, where there is a consensus that every surviving individual is globally significant (e.g. flagship species such as Panda, Indian Rhino, Mountain Gorilla).

5.1.2 Indicators and data sources

Identifying HCV 1 requires basic data on species and their habitats. That is: what species commonly occur in the area and which species are likely to occur based on their habitat requirements? Results of biodiversity assessments (e.g. IUCN) which show species ranges can be consulted to see if species’ ranges overlap with the production site and larger area of influence, and then see if any of those species are RTE, endemic, etc.

The sources of information can be used as starting points for desk-based HCV assessment before field assessment and ground-truthing begins. The relevance of different sources of information to the project area may be an “indicator” that an HCV is present (e.g. if the new plantation site is within an important bird area). This will then need to be verified during the assessment, through methods such as surveys, mapping and consultation.

Of course all data sources have their limitations, and should ideally be used in combination with other data sources and consultation.

Landcover classifications that have been used either in the design of protected area networks or, commonly, as decision-making tools for forestry and agricultural planning. In the best scenario, the ecosystem descriptions are highly

25

HCV Common Guidance

detailed with extensive species associations listed and a conservation status assigned (e.g. habitats of conservation interest listed in the EC Habitats Directive; threatened ecosystems listed under the Biodiversity Act of South Africa).

National priority schemes (e.g. European classifications under the EC Habitats Directive; PROBIO areas in Brazil; bioregional plans produced under the Biodiversity Act in South Africa) are usually led by public institutions, government agencies or ministries as part of spatial planning, environment water and forest management, or agriculture. Many priority areas identified through such schemes may not receive protected area status, but may meet HCV criteria. Schemes vary from country to country and their criteria correspond to some aspects of HCV 1, 2, or 3. Such schemes have the advantage of having a legislative framework in their support, which may stiffen the resolve of stakeholders to apply credible conservation measures.

It may be necessary to consult with an experienced ecologist to produce a list of what one would expect to find. Following this, if the area contains habitat types that are known to support rare, threatened, endangered or endemic species, it will be necessary to define where in the production area (i.e. concession or plantation) these species are likely to occur.

Independent experts may be able to make informed judgements on this (e.g. using literature resources or though the analysis of remote sensing information) but it may be necessary to carry out a survey of the area considering:

Bird and mammal survey for forest dependent, endemic or threatened species

Consultation with local people and workers (if applicable) about recent sightings

Survey effort should concentrate on the confirmed/potential presence of habitat-dependent, endemic or red-listed species.

The Global IUCN Red List of threatened species or the national red-data book of threatened species should be consulted. Those that are listed as Vulnerable (VU or equivalent) Endangered (EN) or Critically Endangered (CR) are most likely to be considered HCV species.If available information and/or survey results indicate that a number of endemic, vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species occur in the area, the part or parts of the natural ecosystem on which these species depend will be HCV areas. Therefore survey results should be represented on a map to show the actual or likely distributions of the species in question.Sites with RTE species richness, or populations (including temporary concentrations) of priority species approaching those of key protected areas or other priority sites (e.g. KBAs) within the same biogeographic boundary should share an HCV 1 designation. The reference scheme(s) should enjoy a high degree of support for conservation stakeholders, and will vary from country to country.

26

HCV Common Guidance

Where it is very difficult to determine the presence or population status of individual endemic or RTE species in practice, suitable habitat for RTE species may be simpler to define and map.

There are several conservation priority schemes (see http://www.biodiversitya-z.org/ and Box XXX) which can be useful during initial desk-based studies to gain an idea of potential values in the area.

Indicators of a potential HCV 1 include:At national, regional or local levels many areas have been designated with an official conservation status based on their biodiversity importance or for water and soil conservation. These could include:

The presence of a recognized biodiversity priority area (e.g. IUCN category I-IV Protected Area, Ramsar Site, UNESCO World Heritage Site)

A designation by national or regional authorities, or by reputable conservation organizations, recognizing concentrations of biodiversity

Designations at regional or national level of areas, species lists and species categories, by a relevant sustainability standard scheme or stakeholder group, through a balanced stakeholder process. The usefulness of the scheme depends on the scale and quality of the descriptive information and associated data resources. Some priority schemes are too large-scale to provide reliable indications at the local level, e.g. the whole of Central America is classified as a Biodiversity Hotspot. However, some categories such as Protected Areas, World Heritage Sites and the Key Biodiversity Area group of priority areas (IBAs, IPAs and others) can provide species and habitats information for HCV 1 and HCV 3 assessment, at a relevant scale e.g. for rarity and threat analysis. The presence of natural habitat in good condition within such designations is a strong indicator (but not a guarantee) of the presence of HCV 1 and HCV 3.

The absence of an official classification may lower the probability that biodiversity HCVs are present at the site level, but it does not mean that HCVs are absent.

Important Bird Areas (IBAs) have been mapped for over 200 countries and territories, but few countries have gone through an equivalent process for plants, reptiles or fish. If there has not been a prioritization exercise in the region, the best way to proceed is to consult with experts who may be aware of relevant information or to use proxy data such as a biological survey from a similar habitat within the region (which is likely to have many of the same species and vegetation types). It is important to note that many priority-setting processes have not yet

27

http://www.biodiversitya-z.org/

http://www.biodiversitya-z.org/

HCV Common Guidance

considered freshwater species and other lesser-studied taxa. Also, many areas either have not been evaluated or are so data poor that they cannot be evaluated.

5.1.3 Case study

HCV1: Areas containing globally, regionally, or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversitySite: East Kalimantan, IndonesiaEcosystem: Secondary riverine and lowland rain forestAssessment context: HCV assessment for RSPO certification

Tropical forests of the Sundaland biodiversity hotspot support a high biodiversity and high rates of endemism. However, much of this biodiversity is threatened with extinction (e.g. >100 threatened species of endemic birds and mammals)1. The majority of the lowland forest in the region has been heavily logged, but this logged forest is still able to support the majority of species found in pristine forest, including higher densities of Bornean Orangutans (EN) than are found in pristine forest2. An HCV assessment was carried out for a new oil palm planting in eastern Kalimantan seeking RSPO certification3. The concession area of around 7,000 ha consisted predominantly of logged and fire-disturbed forest. On site HCV assessment revealed the presence of Proboscis monkeys (EN), and False Gharials (EN) in the site’s riverine forest. Bornean Orangutans (EN) were also deemed to be present at the site, based on the observation of nests. The presence of these three Endangered species, two of which are endemic to Borneo, qualifies as HCV1. Along with other management recommendations, the HCV assessment recommended the protection of 500 m of riverine forest, throughout the concession on both sides of the main river, to protect these species.References:

1. http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/asia- pacific/Sundaland/Pages/default.aspx

2. Berry NJ, Phillips OL, Lewis SL, Hill JK, Edwards DP, Tawatao NB, Ahmad N, Magintan D, Chey VK, Maryati M, Ong RC, Hamer KC. 2010. The value of logged tropical forests: lessons from northern Borneo. Biodiversity and Conservation. 19: 985-997.

3. Control Union. 2011. High Conservation Value Assessment of PT Kutai Mitra Sejahtera http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/PT%20KMS%20HCV%20Assessment%20Summary%20MECFINAL.pdf

28

http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/PT%20KMS%20HCV%20Assessment%20Summary%20MECFINAL.pdf

http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/PT%20KMS%20HCV%20Assessment%20Summary%20MECFINAL.pdf

http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/asia-pacific/Sundaland/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/asia-pacific/Sundaland/Pages/default.aspx

HCV Common Guidance

5.2 HCV 2: Landscape-level ecosystems and mosaics

Large landscape-level ecosystems and ecosystem mosaics, that are significant at global, regional or national levels, and that contain viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.

HCV 2 includes ecosystems and ecosystem mosaics that are sufficiently large and relatively undisturbed to support viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species and (implicitly) the great majority of other environmental values occurring in such ecosystems. HCV 2 may include large, contiguous and relatively unfragmented ecosystems, or large-scale mosaics of relatively undisturbed land cover (e.g. forest) alongside other natural ecosystems (e.g. lakes, wetlands, some types of grasslands, open peat bogs of northern boreal forests etc.) or traditionally managed ecosystems (especially grasslands and savannas, which are often maintained by humans and fire). For freshwater ecosystems, consider intact land cover within a catchment, whether the hydropattern of the system has been impaired (e.g. through dams, water withdrawals), and whether lateral and longitudinal connectivity is intact. If the terrestrial landscape is highly degraded or converted, the freshwater systems running through it or downstream will be affected. However, freshwater systems can be impaired (e.g. through water withdrawal) without serious consequences for upland terrestrial systems.


The significance of HCV 2 areas is linked to their size, quality and function in a global, regional or national context. SIZE: Large, landscape level ecosystems and ecosystem mosaicsIn principle, threshold size for HCV 2 should be related to the area needed to maintain viable populations, especially of large or wide-ranging species. An area threshold of 500 km2 (50,000 ha) has been widely used as a guideline, but this should be determined by National Interpretations or expert consultations. Smaller area thresholds may be appropriate in regions that have experienced substantial ecosystem and habitat fragmentation and degradation. This definition was first written for forest ecosystems, however it is relevant for all ecosystems such as large, mainly native and/or long-established grasslands and grassland mosaics. Additionally, for freshwater ecosystems consider other factors such as the length of undisturbed rivers and areas of freshwater mosaics.

Large areas (e.g. could be greater than 50,000 ha, but this is not a rule) that are relatively far from human settlement, roads or other access.

Landscape Level Ecosystems and Mosaics including smaller ecosystems or habitats dependent on human interventions, especially certain cultural landscapes.

29

HCV Common Guidance

Smaller areas that provide key landscape functions such as connectivity and buffering (e.g. protected area buffer zone or a corridor linking protected areas together). These smaller areas are only considered HCV 2 if they have a role in maintaining larger areas in the wider landscape.

QUALITY and FUNCTION: Viable populations of the great majority of species: Most large landscapes, which have not been affected by clearance, heavy logging, damming or straightening of waterways, the dominance of domesticated or invasive species or other major anthropogenic disturbances for several decades, probably contain viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species. HCV 2 often includes ecosystems that contain important sub-populations of wide-ranging species (e.g. wolverine, tiger, elephant) even though the sub-populations may not in themselves be viable in the long term. To qualify for HCV 2, it is not necessary that the area is totally undisturbed or pristine. Some species may be locally extirpated or missing, especially vulnerable or selectively hunted or harvested species, but only a few. HCV 2 status can apply even when the few species lost happen to include large, keystone or iconic species.

Box: mammals: the great minority of species

A scientific interpretation of the HCV 2 definition should lead us to consider that the vast majority of species are actually organisms such as insects, plants and fungi, which would be viable within even fairly small areas. It must be recognized (sorry beetles) that there tends to be a bias towards larger, more charismatic species, particularly mammals and birds. HCV 2 was originally meant to safeguard species with large habitat ranges, such as tigers, elephants and other charismatic mega fauna and migratory species, however, these are not literally ‘the great majority of naturally occurring species’. Though the definition may not be perfect, the intent is that large landscapes need to be protected for viable populations of large and migratory species. The intent is also for all of the other, less charismatic and mobile, species to be protected under an HCV 2 designation.

FUNCTION: Natural patterns of distribution and abundance: This element of the definition is a recognition that relatively intact ecosystems, where ecological processes and functioning (e.g. natural disturbance regimes, species distributions and abundance) are wholly or relatively unaffected by recent human activities have special importance. The key here is to maintain not only the extent of the ecosystem and the viable populations of species, but also their ranges and their patterns of abundance. It is not necessary to measure or estimate accurately the distribution and abundance of species or populations. However, a large ecosystem may not qualify for HCV 2 status if it has lost many of the species typical of such ecosystems in their natural state, or been so heavily disturbed that the spatial distribution of species and their relative abundance and regeneration has been seriously and permanently altered. HCV 2 does not include man-made, converted, heavily degraded or fragmented ecosystems, extensively modified, by human

30

HCV Common Guidance

activity, especially land clearance and farming. HCV 2 is also ruled out in l arge ecosystems with features such as a dominance or significant presence of invasive species, disrupted age/size class distributions of populations, and a loss of significant ecosystem processes (e.g. fruit masting, dispersal of key species).


Box: National Interpretations of HCV 2 National HCV Interpretations should define HCV 2 based on common sense, landscape size, quality and function. (e.g. biodiversity corridors that connect two nationally important conservation areas or buffer zones to an important National Conservation Area). The occurrence of landscape scale ecosystems differs greatly from country to country. In countries where there has been extensive forest conversion, there may be no forests that would be considered under this HCV. However, some countries retain a relatively large proportion of forest cover and in such cases the extent to which patterns of historical and current use as well as current threats have reduced the ability of forests to support the natural array of species should be assessed. In some countries, where the HCV concept and FSC are well-established (e.g. Canada) it will be up to the National FSC interpretation to determine whether or not a particular ecosystem qualifies as HCV 2. There are also countries or regions where HCV 2 is absent, as no forest or other important ecosystem-type is large or intact enough to qualify.

HCV 2 identification can benefit from GIS and land cover analysis (e.g. data sets on forest blocks and intact watersheds and catchments) and maps of areas that have high landscape importance either as corridors or buffer zones.

Priority LandscapesIn some cases, areas have already been recognized as high value landscapes (e.g. Ramsar sites, Congo Basin CARPE landscapes, Intact Forest Landscapes, Priority Tiger Conservation Landscapes). These designations may target a number of different benefits provided by large and relatively undisturbed ecosystems such as species protection, climate change resilience, mitigation and adaptation, weather regulation, nutrient and water cycling, carbon storage, or cultural values. Existing landscape-level designations are a good starting point, during an initial desk-based review, to investigate whether or not HCV 2 might be present.

However, the absence of a pre-existing landscape designation does not rule out the presence of an HCV2 area! As mentioned above, areas with low levels of overall disturbance and high connectivity have a high chance of being HCV 2. Verification of HCV 2 status does not necessarily require detailed biological surveys. The likely presence of the great majority of species may be estimated from a range of proxies including habitat structure, condition, composition,

31

HCV Common Guidance

connectivity, and intensity of human pressures (e.g. shifting agriculture and hunting).Habitat structure: GIS and/or ground-truth by straightforward field measurements (forester’s measurements of tree size, density etc…)Condition: similar to structure but more of a value judgment? Better to just use structure?Composition: Does this mean species composition? Or habitat types? Former much harder to find, but later easier with GISConnectivity: GIS – land cover or satellite imageryHuman pressures: Again hard to quantify. Interviews with local communities, signs of trapping, hunting, clearance etc…time consuming to do thoroughly

Conservation experts can also provide more detailed guidance in specific priority landscapes14. For freshwaters, indicators of HCV could include:

Intact hydropatterns Unfragmented longitudinal and lateral connectivity Natural water quality conditions Intact watersheds/catchments Intact native species communities

Box: Small Forest Management Units contained within HCV 2 ecosystemsA large, landscape-level ecosystem or mosaic may contain more than one FMU. Equally, FMUs may have some portions which form part of an HCV 2 forest, and other portions which do not. Although these areas are smaller in size, they should still be classified as HCV 2, as they support the larger HCV 2. Small, isolated FMUs, which are not a functional part of such a larger ecosystem or mosaic, do not qualify as HCV 2.

14 See for example the landscape species approach: http://wcslivinglandscapes.com/WhatWeDo/LandscapeSpeciesAnalysis/tabid/3737/Default.aspx

32

HCV Common Guidance

Intact forest landscapes

An important source of information on large, undisturbed landscape-level forests comes from the World Resources Institute, which has mapped ‘Frontier Forests’ and ‘Intact Forest Landscapes’ at a global and regional level since the 1990’s.

WRI defines an Intact Forest Landscape (IFL)15 as “a territory within today's global extent of forest cover which contains forest and non-forest ecosystems minimally influenced by human economic activity, with an area of at least 500 km2 (50,000 ha) and a minimal width of 10 km (measured as the diameter of a circle that is entirely inscribed within the boundaries of the territory). Areas with evidence of certain types of human influence are considered disturbed and consequently not eligible for inclusion in an IFL:

Settlements (including a buffer zone of 1 km);

Infrastructure used for transportation between settlements or for industrial development of natural resources, including roads (except unpaved trails), railways, navigable waterways (including seashore), pipelines, and power transmission lines (including in all cases a buffer zone of 1 km on either side);

Agriculture and timber production;

Industrial activities during the last 30-70 years, such as logging, mining, oil and gas exploration and extraction, peat extraction, etc.

Areas with evidence of low-intensity and old disturbances are treated as subject to "background" influence and are eligible for inclusion in an IFL. Sources of background influence include local shifting cultivation activities, diffuse grazing by domestic animals, low-intensity selective logging, and hunting.” http://www.intactforests.org/concept.html

Such Intact Forest Landscapes typically contain one or more HCVs. In particular, the presence of an IFL may be taken as a strong indicator of the presence of HCV 2. However, HCV 2 is not solely restricted to areas that show no signs of significant human activity, and “intactness” per se is not explicitly included in the HCV 2 definition, which rests on the ‘global, regional or national significance’ of large, landscape level ecosystems, and specifically the presence of ‘viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species’.

5.2.3 Case study

HCV2: Large, landscape-level ecosystems and mosaics

15 www.intactforests.org33

http://www.intactforests.org/concept.html

http://www.intactforests.org/

HCV Common Guidance

Site: Mistik FMA, Saskatchewan, CanadaEcosystem: Boreal forestAssessment context: HCV assessment for FSC certificationThe Mistik Forest Management Area (MFMA) covers 1.8 million hectares in Saskatchewan, Canada1. This area is part of Canada’s extensive boreal forest belt and as Saskatchewan has a relatively short history of large-scale timber harvesting, much of the management area can be classified as intact, landscape-level forest. Furthermore, Canadian forestry practices traditionally use a “coarse filter” strategy which aims to preserve the range, age, and distribution of forest types found naturally in the landscape. These natural forest landscapes are maintained by major, natural fire disturbance events, and so sustainable logging practices aim to mimic natural levels of disturbance. With reference to the Canadian national interpretation of HCV (REF), logging practices include the protection of “core forest areas”, which are broadly similar to large, landscape level forest areas and are deemed HCV2. These core forest areas are defined as areas that are at least 20 years post-harvest, at least 500 m from a permanent cultural feature, and at least 500 m from areas that have been harvested within the last 20 years. About 50% of the Mistik FMA is defined as “core” forest1 that supports viable populations of the majority of species in their natural distribution and abundance patterns (REF). References:

1. Clark, T. and Burkhardt, R. 2009. High Conservation Value Forest in the Mistik FMA Area, Version 1.4. http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/Mistik%20HCVF%20vers%201.4%202008Ju7%20PDF-1.pdf

5.3 HCV 3: Ecosystems and habitats

Rare, threatened, or endangered ecosystems, habitats or refugia.

HCV 3 is designed to ensure that rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems, habitats or refugia are maintained. It includes ecosystems which were previously widespread or typical of large regions. They also include rare associations of species, even when the constituent species may be widespread.

Native ecosystems that are characteristic of a region but are not rare or endangered should not be considered HCV 3. HCV 3 includes ecosystems and habitats which are recognised as being of special importance because of their rarity or the level of threat that they face, their rare or unique species composition (e.g. ecological and evolutionary refugia) or certain ecological characteristics (e.g. age and size structure).

34

http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/Mistik%20HCVF%20vers%201.4%202008Ju7%20PDF-1.pdf

http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/Mistik%20HCVF%20vers%201.4%202008Ju7%20PDF-1.pdf

HCV Common Guidance


Ecosystems are a “dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit”16 , defined at a relevant scale for decisions in land use management. A practical and widespread approach is to use vegetation classifications which are easily recognizable in the field as well as on satellite images, aerial photographs and other remote sensing imagery. It is important to note that the available classifications tend to be terrestrial focused and there is no global freshwater ecosystem map.

Habitat is the place or type of site where a population or organism occurs17 (and is therefore essential for species level (HCV 1) management). Habitats may be synonymous with ecosystems as defined above, or be defined at a smaller scale– e.g. rocky outcrops may be a key habitat for rare or localised plants within a forest ecosystem. Habitats defined at the site scale are usually too small to be significant at a national level or above. Interpretation of HCV 3 should therefore focus on higher-level ecosystem priorities and habitats for key species should be considered under HCV 1.

Refugia: There are two types of refugia (or refuges) which may have a high conservation value (in addition to seasonal refuges considered under HCV 1):

Ecological refugia: Isolated areas which are sheltered from current changes (e.g. human threats or climatic events), and where plants and animals typical of a region may survive; and

Evolutionary refugia: areas where certain types or suites of organisms persisted during a period when climatic events (e.g. glaciations) greatly reduced habitable areas elsewhere. Such refugia often support high overall species richness and significant numbers of endemic species.

Rare, Threatened or Endangered Thresholds of significance (such as rarity and threat levels) for species and ecosystems are relative and scale-dependent. To define rare ecosystems, one must consider the presence of similar ecosystems in the same biogeographic region and/or country. For example, in regions where old-growth forests are rare they may be considered HCV 3. However they would not qualify as HCV 3 if ancient, undisturbed forests are widespread.

Ecosystems or habitats may be HCV 3 when they are: Naturally rare because they depend on highly localised soil types,

locations, hydrology or other climatic or physical features, such as some types of limestone karst forests, mountain tops, cliffs, or riverine forests in arid zones.

16 FSC FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship V5-0. 17 Idem.

35

HCV Common Guidance

Anthropogenically rare, because the extent of the ecosystem has been greatly reduced by human activities compared to their historic extent, such as natural seasonally-flooded grasslands on rich soils, or fragments of primary forests in regions where almost all primary forests have been eliminated.

Threatened or endangered by current or future degradation or conversion to other land uses.


Where available, nationally recognised classification system of ecosystems and habitats and their rarity should be consulted. Where little is known about the species composition of ecosystems, several biophysical factors, e.g. soil type and climate, can be combined to give suitable proxies for vegetation units. Next an assessment must be made of whether the ecosystems present are rare, threatened or endangered in the wider context. Ecosystems may be deemed HCV 3 if they are naturally rare or significantly reduced from their original extent by the effects of humans.

Identifying HCV 3 is normally done through a land cover classification and rarity/threat analysis. Confirming the presence of HCV 3 may require remote sensing, field surveys or in some cases a biological survey to identify specific ecological components or indicator species. Managers can choose to voluntarily presume the presence of HCV3 if certain indicators are present, for example:

In regions where many natural ecosystems or habitats have been eliminated, and others have been heavily impacted by development, remaining natural ecosystems of reasonable quality are likely to be HCV 3.

Where ecosystem proxies indicate the presence of RTE ecosystems, even if these are inaccessible or have not been confirmed on the ground.

Where suitable habitat is present within the distribution range of multiple RTE or endemic species, especially critically endangered species, and could credibly be supposed to support such species.

The size, age, structure and species composition of an ecosystem may also be important criteria. For example, in some regions, only large patches of undisturbed natural forest may be considered ‘significant’ at the global or regional level; elsewhere, forests may be so scarce and fragmented that even small patches of heavily degraded natural forests may be considered HCV 3.

5.3.3 Case study

HCV3: Rare, threatened or endangered ecosystemsSite: ArgentinaHabitat: Humid and semi-arid Pampas ecoregions Assessment context:

36

HCV Common Guidance

The La Plata basin supports the main grassland area in South America and includes the Pampas ecoregions in Argentina1. The area supports a unique community of species with over 550 grass species and approximately 500 bird species, and the distinctive climate allows plant species with both C3 and C4 metabolisms to coexist2. Endemism in these grasslands in low, but biodiversity high3. Across the La Plata basin grasslands historically covered a vast area of 750,000 km2, but the humid and semi-arid pampas grasslands of Argentina have become anthropogenically rare due to the increase in livestock grazing and soy croplands1. Only around 30% of the Argentinian Pampas remain in natural or semi-natural condition, and just 1% of the Pampas is formally protected1. WWF considers the status of the humid and semi-arid pampas ecoregions to be Critical/Endangered3. The speed of agricultural expansion across the Pampas over the last 40 years, means that these previously widespread ecoregions have now been greatly reduced in size. Therefore, they could potentially qualify as a nationally or regionally threatened ecosystems under the HCV3 criterion. Typical species of the pampas such as the grassland-dependent Greater Rhea and Elegant Crested-Tinamou have also had their distributions substantially reduced1, but these reductions would probably be insufficient to justify HCV1 classification.References:

1. Michelson, A. 2008. TEMPERATE GRASSLANDS OF SOUTH AMERICA. Prepared for The World Temperate Grasslands Conservation Initiative Workshop Hohhot, China - June 28 & 29, 2008. http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pastizales_templados_de_sudamerica.pdf

2. Bilenca, D. and Miñarro F. 2004. Conservation strategy for the natural grasslands of Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil Phase II. Identification of Valuable Grasslands Areas (VGAs). http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/folder.2006-09-29.6584228415/Valuable%20Grassland%20Areas%20Argentina.pdf

3. http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0806 , http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0803

5.4 HCV 4- Critical ecosystem services

Basic ecosystem services in critical situations including protection of water catchments and control of erosion of vulnerable soils and slopes.


Basic ecosystem services are those processes and functions of nature that serve to regulate and maintain the environment in which people live. These are ecosystem outputs that are not consumed but which directly or indirectly affect the livelihoods, health and wellbeing of individuals and communities. It may be useful to think about HCV 4 as regulation and maintenance services (see Table XXX). Such basic services become HCV 4 in critical situations (see below).

37

http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0803

http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0806

http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/folder.2006-09-29.6584228415/Valuable%20Grassland%20Areas%20Argentina.pdf

http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/folder.2006-09-29.6584228415/Valuable%20Grassland%20Areas%20Argentina.pdf

http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pastizales_templados_de_sudamerica.pdf

http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pastizales_templados_de_sudamerica.pdf

HCV Common Guidance

Table 1 Types of ecosystem services - adapted from the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (2012). Regulation and maintenance services contribute to HCV 4, ‘Provisioning’ to human well-being and livelihoods (HCV 5) and ‘Cultural’ ecosystems services contribute to cultural identity (HCV 6). Note that there are significant overlaps between some service ‘Groups’ e.g. water flow regulation (HCV 4) and drinking water provision (HCV 5).HCV Theme Class Group

HCV 4

Regulation and

maintenance

Regulation of wastes

Bioremediation Dilution and sequestration

Flow regulation

Mass flow regulation (including erosion control)Water flow regulation (rivers and streams)

Regulation of physical

environment

Atmospheric regulation Water quality regulationSoil formation and quality regulation (e.g. soil fertility and renewal)

Regulation of biotic

environment

Lifecycle maintenance and habitat protectionPest and disease control

HCV 5

Provisioning

Nutrition and health

Terrestrial plant and animal productsFreshwater plant and animal productsMarine plant and animal productsDrinking water

Materials Plant, animal and mineral materials

EnergyRenewable biofuels (e.g. fuelwood)Renewable abiotic energy (e.g. hydroelectric)

HCV 6

CulturalSymbolic

Aesthetic, heritageReligious and spiritual

Intellectual and experiential

Recreation and community activities Information and knowledge

In practice, HCV Toolkits and national interpretations have used three main headings under HCV 4: areas critical to water catchments, areas critical to erosion control, and areas providing barriers to destructive fire. The latter category has rarely been used successfully as a management tool. However, with this guide we encourage stakeholders to think about other critical regulating and maintenance functions of ecosystems. Some national toolkits have added other critical ecosystems, such as areas critical in providing services to agriculture (e.g. pollination services in Indonesia, fisheries in Romania) and protecting against wind (e.g. forest belts in Ghana). Where relevant, these could also be considered in the absence of a national HCV interpretation.

38

HCV Common Guidance

Critical situations: An ecosystem service is critical where a disruption of that service poses a threat of severe, catastrophic or cumulative negative impacts on the welfare, health or survival of local communities, on the functioning of important infrastructure (roads, dams, reservoirs, hydroelectric schemes, irrigation systems, buildings, etc.), or on other HCVs

The concept of critical situations relates to two complementary issues:

Cases where loss of or major damage to an HCV 4 would cause serious prejudice or suffering to recipients of the service either immediately or periodically (e.g. regulation of water provision during critical drought periods), or

Cases where there are no viable, readily available or affordable alternatives (e.g. pumps and wells) that can be relied on if the service fails.

An area may be considered HCV 4 if it is protecting or providing one of these services in a critical situation. For example a forest may provide a function in regulating the flow of water within a catchment. This service may be considered critical when people are dependent on the water for drinking or irrigation, or where the regulation of water flow guarantees the existence of fishing grounds or agricultural land on which the local people are dependent. Similarly, a forest area may provide a vital function in stabilising slopes above a settlement, or, in the upper reaches of an important stream catchment. This service may be critical when disturbing operations in the forest would lead to drastic soil erosion with impacts on people’s property or livelihoods. Critical protection against destructive fire is likely to occur in areas which are prone to serious fires, which contain or are adjacent to human settlements, important cultural sites, protected areas or other HCVs, and where the natural ecosystem is a barrier to fire. In these examples, what defines the value is the existence of people who are making use of, or dependent on, an environmental service.

Areas within water catchments that are critical to flow regulation and water quality: HCV 4 may apply to river and stream regulation in natural catchments where these water supplies are critical for human uses including drinking water, cooking, washing and irrigation, fishing, and there are no viable or readily available alternatives. There is often an overlap between water catchment protection and erosion control. These services can be disrupted by poor production practices even in well-located production sites, e.g. if a management unit produces point or nonpoint source pollution or dams a stream. Virtually all activities on the terrestrial landscape will affect downstream freshwaters – it is just a matter of how much and how far. Some types of production may be unacceptably harmful to downstream freshwaters no matter what, whereas good management could minimize impacts within some types of production.

39

HCV Common Guidance

Possible HCV 4 areas include those critical to: Managing extreme flow events Vegetated riparian buffer zones or intact floodplains Groundwater recharge zones Maintaining downstream flow regimes Maintaining water quality characteristics Grasslands providing buffering against flooding

Erosion control: HCV 4 may apply to steep slopes, fragile soils and other sites which are critically vulnerable to erosion, flooding, landslides or sedimentation, and where such processes have a severe impact on communities, infrastructure, livelihoods and other HCVs. Such impacts might be catastrophic (landslides) or pernicious and difficult to reverse (gradual loss of soil fertility and land productivity).

Excessive soil erosion and sedimentation have ecological and economic consequences important at a landscape scale. Surface erosion causes the loss of top-soil, which leads to decreasing land productivity. Landslides and ravines reduce the area of productive lands, damage infrastructure, change a watershed’s hydrology characteristics, and increase sediment loads, which causes siltation of water bodies and irrigation channels. This is particularly important for farming and fishing communities, and for freshwater or coastal biodiversity. HCV 4 occurs in areas that contain natural vegetation types (e.g. forest or native grasslands) in good condition that help to prevent erosion, landslip, gulleying, dust storms and desertification, where such events would have a critical impact on people or the environment.

Barriers to destructive fire: HCV 4 may apply to forests, wetlands and other ecosystems which provide a protective barrier against destructive fires that could threaten communities, infrastructure or other HCVs. This appears to be a rare or exceptional service in practice; however, poor fire management (in forests especially) may increase the risk of destructive fires.

Other ecosystem services: Depending on the location and the ecosystem in question, other services may be of critical importance. For example, pollination of subsistence crops provided exclusively by native bees for smallholders in the Kenyan highlands, or of commercial Durian crops by bats in SE Asia. In both cases, the pollinators are dependent on the presence of suitable forest habitat and do not survive in purely agricultural landscapes. Other services that may be critical in some circumstances include the maintenance of soil fertility, local protection against winds, and the regulation of humidity, rainfall and other climatic elements. Disruption of natural ecosystems may also result in increases in vector-borne diseases and natural crop pest regulation by predators, although these effects are complex and unpredictable. Local stakeholders should be given

40

HCV Common Guidance

opportunities to identify important ecosystem services. However, interpretation of HCV 4 applies only to “critical situations”, and does not extend to every useful ecosystem service in all situations.

Why isn’t Carbon Storage considered to be an HCV 4 service?Carbon storage is not currently considered an HCV although this could change in time, if a suitable formulation can be developed and agreed. Carbon does not fit particularly well with the way HCV 4 is currently defined and interpreted: while carbon storage may qualify as a basic service of nature, it does not have the same close linkage to local communities implied in the examples given in this guide, nor does it fit with the interpretation of “critical situations”, since climate change is a gradual and long term problem for all of humanity. Many international standard setting organisations (e.g. CCBA, RSPO, RTRS, RSB, Bonsucro) have either discussed or established specific criteria related to greenhouse gas emissions in land use management, and some organisations have begun to define “High Carbon Stock” as a separate (non-HCV) issue.


HCV 4 is likely to occur wherever local communities are largely dependent on natural rivers and springs for drinking water, or where natural ecosystems (often forested areas) play an important role in stabilising steep slopes. These two values frequently occur together and the area which provides the critical services (water provision and erosion control) may overlap partially or completely. Assessors will need to analyse hydrological and topographic maps, soil maps with erosion risk indicators, human habitations and infrastructure (such as major transport routes, reservoirs, hydroelectric dams etc). Many countries have systems for identifying critical watersheds, and this is often part of national forest regulations.

Consult national classification systems and laws regulating water catchment areas and disturbance to steep slopes to determine whether such sites occur in the assessment area. Any relevant classifications and the areas to which they correspond (including steep slope areas, watersheds, catchment boundaries) should be presented on maps. Streams, rivers and settlements will also need to be mapped in detail. The following questions should be considered:

Are all the relevant regulations and guidelines on slope protection and water course management being observed?

Are there any slope/catchment areas that appear particularly significant to local people?

It is then necessary to consider whether current regulations and restrictions for such areas effectively protect this conservation value. This is a difficult judgement that may mean management goes beyond the existing requirements of the law. Expert opinion should be sought, and consultations held with organisations

41

HCV Common Guidance

working with the local people before a final decision on the presence of this value is made.

The location of HCV 4 can be derived from a variety of maps (land cover, topographic and hydrological maps, human settlements and infrastructure), requirements from national regulations and guidance in national interpretations, and expert opinion. Where it is necessary to assess the status of the HCV, this may be linked to the quality of the service provided and to the ecological integrity of the ecosystem.

In the absence of detailed information, HCV 4 is more likely to be present: In remote or poor rural areas where people rely directly on natural

resources to supply most of their needs, including water. Upstream of extensive or important wetlands, fish nurseries and

spawning grounds, or sensitive coastal ecosystems (e.g. mangrove forests, coral reefs etc.)

In steep or mountainous areas, or areas of high rainfall, where the risk of catastrophic erosion is high

In areas of naturally low soil fertility, especially on sandy, peaty or fragile soils, where land clearance, drainage, use of heavy machinery or other intensive land use might affect soil structure and fertility.

5.4.3 Case study

HCV4: Areas that provide basic ecosystem services in critical situationsSite: Southern Portugal Ecosystem: Cork and holm oak woodlands and water catchmentsAssessment context: Regional HCV assessment for conservation prioritisationCork oak and Holm oak woodlands (or montados in Portugese) are silvi-pastoral systems covering around 1 million hectares in Spain and Portugal. They produce sustainable, and in many cases FSC-certified, outputs of cork and also support high biodiversity. Although they are well known for the provisioning service of cork production, they are less known for their other ecosystem services. However, an HCV assessment by WWF showed that watershed protection, prevention of soil erosion, and carbon storage1 could be as valuable as cork production. Watershed protection provided by montados is especially important in the Mediterranean region, where water can be seasonally scarce. In the Tejo-Sado River Basin, the Low Tejo Basin supports several key aquifers, including the Margem Esquerda aquifer that supplies water for urban and industrial populations in the Santarém and Setúbal districts. The Margem Esquerda aquifer supports 36% of all cork oak forests, and these are located primarily on sites of medium to high aquifer recharge. Crucially, recharge of the Margem Esquerda aquifer is largely reliant on water infiltration and atmospheric precipitation that are thought to be facilitated by the tree cover and management of the montados ecosystem. The montados in the Low Tejo Basin qualify as HCV4 because they are crucial to aquifer recharge and water quality.

42

HCV Common Guidance

References:1. Branco, O. et al. 2010. Hotspot areas for biodiversity and ecosystem

services in montados. WWF Mediterranean – Portugal. http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/HABEaSReport2010FINAL.pdf

5.5 HCV 5 Community needs

Sites and resources fundamental for satisfying the basic necessities of local communities or indigenous peoples (for example for livelihoods, health, nutrition, water), identified through engagement with these communities or indigenous peoples.

HCV 5 refers to sites and resources that are fundamental for satisfying the basic necessities of local people. The social values of natural ecosystems are likely to be more important in areas where whole communities or significant portions of them are heavily dependent on those ecosystems for their livelihoods, and where there is limited availability of alternatives. In general, if local people derive benefits from natural or traditionally managed ecosystems, HCV 5 may be present. The role of the HCV assessment is to characterize the level of importance of the resource and to guide management responses to peoples’ needs. If the scale and impact of the proposed project are expected to significantly threaten resources and sites upon which local people depend, such sites and resources must be protected to the extent necessary to supply or satisfy their identified role. Where insufficient areas are secured for basic needs, communities may feel obliged to make use of other lands and resources, thereby putting at risk other HCVs or investments. The designation and maintenance of an HCV 5 site or resource is only one element of what should be a wider rights-based approach to responsible land management, including appropriate impact assessment, consultative processes and negotiation.

Key terms and conceptsA site or resource is fundamental for satisfying basic necessities if the services it provides are irreplaceable (i.e. if alternatives are not readily accessible or affordable), and if its loss or damage would cause serious suffering or prejudice to affected stakeholders. The importance of natural resources to local communities can be characterized by the intensity of use, length of use, quality of use and legitimacy of claims. Basic necessities in the context of HCV 5 may cover any or all of the provisioning services of the environment (see Table XXX) including tangible materials that can be consumed, exchanged or used directly in manufacture, and which form the basis of daily life. Possible HCV 5 resources include:

43

http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/HABEaSReport2010FINAL.pdf

http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/HABEaSReport2010FINAL.pdf

HCV Common Guidance

hunting and trapping grounds (for game, skin and furs), non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as nuts, berries, mushrooms,

medicinal plants, fish (as essential protein sources), fuel for household cooking, lighting and heating freshwater animal and plant species relied on by local communities, building materials (poles, thatching, timber), fodder for livestock and seasonal grazing forest fallows for rotational farming. water sources necessary for drinking water and sanitation. items which are bartered in exchange for other essential goods, or sold

for cash which is then used to buy essentials including medicine or clothes, or to pay for school fees.

The degree of dependence on HCV 5 resources may alter rapidly due to changes in the area such as the creation or repair of a road, improved communication infrastructure or an influx of migrants. It is important, is to ensure that HCV 5 resources are not abruptly restricted without a transition plan with suitable alternatives using highly participative methods, and ideally with a full FPIC process. Even where FPIC is obtained, managers need a far-sighted approach to ensure that changes in population needs are foreseen. In cases where insufficient or unsuitable land is assigned for present and future farming there is a risk that livelihood activities such as farming will conflict with the maintenance of biodiversity HCVs.

Agricultural and pasture land

Due to its origins as a concept covering priority forests (in FSC), to date, HCV 5 has not been interpreted as including monoculture tree plantations, short rotation crops or other heavily modified agrisystems, or “land banks” (fallows and reserves of land which are essential for future agricultural expansion by communities or indigenous peoples), but it has been applied to traditionally managed landscapes such as ancient coppiced woodlands in Europe, wild rattan gardens or complex agroforestry systems in some parts of the tropics.

As the HCV concept refocuses on values, the question of farming should be re-evaluated. Most rural communities require land for agriculture or pasture; subsistence farming as practised by many of the poorest rural communities is a clear case of a “basic necessity”. Therefore, some propose including the provisioning services of agriculture (especially subsistence farming), and future production value of ‘land banks’ within HCV 5. This HCV status would require essential farmland to be protected from conversion to plantations, for example, if such protection is essential to safeguard basic community needs. It is important to include the essential needs derived from farming in the scope of HCV assessments, as an incomplete picture of human activities is likely to undermine the validity of recommendations both to protect affected communities, and the ecosystems in the landscape.

44

HCV Common Guidance

However, the HCV concept was not originally designed to address provisioning services that depend on, or derive from, the clearance of natural ecosystems, and inclusion of farmland and land banks as HCV 5 could result in unintended consequences, such as reducing the safeguards against the clearance of natural ecosystems and creating conflicts between the aims of the different HCVs (e.g. biodiversity vs. conversion value of natural forests). Until this question is resolved through further work, we recommend that in every HCV assessment, specific attention should be given to the question of subsistence farming and how this impacts food security and other values contained or dependent on natural ecosystems.

Box: HCV 5&6 Lessons learned and on-going initiativesThe HCV approach is an important tool for responsible land management and responsible sourcing by the private sector, and is now a keystone component of voluntary sustainability schemes (e.g. FSC, RTRS, RSPO, Bonsucro). Experience with using the HCV approach to identify values concerned with safeguarding the needs of communities (HCV5) and their cultural values (HCV6) has presented challenges: In some cases the HCV approach fails to secure basic community needs due to

ambiguities in the definition of HCV areas; There are uncertainties about how actions to protect HCVs best fit with other

processes such as Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA) and the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC);

Where community lands and livelihoods are not secured, people may feel compelled to open up new lands, often putting in jeopardy other HCVs;

HCV Resource Network members, Forest Peoples Programme, Proforest Initiative and Solidaridad Network are working on a three-year multi-stakeholder project that includes participatory action research, capacity-building, a review of existing tools and guidance, and the creation of a practitioners’ group to strengthen the identification, management and monitoring of HCVs 5 & 6 in practice.For more information on this project please contact NAME.

Identification through engagement with communitiesDetermining whether or not a resource qualifies as “fundamental for satisfying basic necessities” is largely subjective and local communities and/or indigenous peoples should play a key role in proposing and identifying potential HCVs through a participative process. This should be done with a recognition that local communities contain variation in age, sex, wealth or ethnicity which creates very diverse needs and aspirations. When evaluating sites and resources as HCV 5 it is necessary to consult widely and ensure that participatory mapping and social surveys include representatives from minority, vulnerable and marginalized groups.

Local communities need to be involved in a consultative process and agree to decisions through a process of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). This means that any decision or consent derived should be made without coercion or intimidation, with all relevant

45

HCV Common Guidance

information provided and prior to any damaging activities or operations taking place. In addition to local consultation, experts, local authorities and NGOs can often provide helpful information and context.


In practice HCV values, which are fundamental for satisfying basic necessities, tend to be identified where at least some people, including the most impoverished or dependent members of a community, derive most of their daily nutrition and other livelihood needs from surrounding ecosystems. Resources that are important to the community should be verifiable independently with different individuals or groups within that community (triangulation of responses).

A word of caution: quantifying dependence on natural resourcesSome national HCV interpretations have used numerical thresholds to define dependence on sites and resources. These tools must be used with caution, and seen as indicators rather than absolutes e.g. the difference between 29% and 31% dependence on a resource cannot be accurately measured, and is not very meaningful. Rather than trying to quantify degrees of dependence, it is more useful for managers to understand the different resources and activities which contribute to local livelihoods, to assess how any new project may impact those livelihood resources and then to mitigate the impacts.

There is a high likelihood of HCV 5 in the area if:

Communities are far from main roads or towns, and have poor quality access roads or tracks

Access to health centres or hospitals is difficult, Most houses are built from locally available traditional/natural materials, People have a low capacity to accumulate wealth Farming and livestock raising are done on a small or subsistence scale Indigenous hunter-gatherers are present Hunting is a major source of protein and income18 Subsistence fishing Presence of permanent or nomadic pastoralists A food resource constitutes a significant part of their diet, either

throughout the year or only during one critical season

18 This does not refer to commercial hunting but to small-scale hunting where people obtain cash for basic needs such as cooking oil, salt, medicine, school fees, etc.

46

HCV Common Guidance

47

Hunting In areas where some people rely exclusively on hunting or where most people hunt occasionally/seasonally to supplement their diets and incomes there is a likelihood of HCV 5 (i.e. essential provision of animal protein). However, hunting frequently conflicts with biodiversity conservation (unsustainable harvesting of target species, hunting endangered species), and/or may involve illegal practices such as killing protected species, using prohibited methods, and hunting in prohibited places or during closed hunting seasons. In trying to determine if hunting is fundamental for basic needs, assessors have tried to consider whether the level of hunting is subsistence or commercial, but this is difficult to distinguish in practice and in any case may not relate to sustainability. The table below provides some useful examples of how to recognize when hunting may provide basic necessities for local people in the project area. Managers need to maintain or enhance the HCV (in this case the protein provisioning service), but must also discourage illegal and unsustainable harvesting of key species. This may require regulating or controlling hunting rates. In practice, there should be negotiation (ideally through FPIC) over reduced access to resources and a transition to alternative sources of protein and income.

Customary Hunting (likelihood of HCV 5) Commercial/Extractive Hunting (HCV absent)

Hunters have customary rights to particular territories.

People consume a portion of their catch, trade a portion for basic products (e.g. flour, bananas, cooking oil) and may also sell some or most of their catch in order to buy basic products (cooking oil, salt, paraffin/kerosene) or pay for basic services (school fees, medicine).

Meat is consumed, sold and traded locally.

Indigenous people live in the forest in temporary hunting camps, rotating throughout a hunting territory over the course of the year.

Domestic livestock are fairly rare, or they are rarely consumed. Instead used for insurance, dowries, etc.

Hunters may negotiate access to hunting territories and use local guides, but they do not have customary rights to a hunting area.

Larger quantities of meat are transported greater distances for cash sale.

HCV Common Guidance

Where the community’s use of resources is extractive, and particularly if the uses may affect biodiversity HCVs such as endangered species, assessors should gather data on the past and present status and likely future trends, to help assess the current and future sustainability of the activities.

5.5.2 Data sources It is strongly recommended that an independent organisation is used to carry out social surveys as independence from the owner or manager of the production site is necessary to facilitate open discussion. Assessors will need to collect or review information on natural resource use by communities (food, construction materials, firewood, medicines etc.), the level of dependence of communities on these resources and the areas used.

Valuable sources of information include:

Review of any social assessments/socio-economic assessments carried out in the area

Consultations with relevant organisations working on community development with the communities in question (or other similar communities in the area)

A survey of the relevant communities, to determine their interactions with the assessment area and the products and services they use

Review of all results/findings to determine the levels of use of each resource.

Studies on natural resource use and livelihoods by conservation and development NGOs, local or national agencies etc.

Anthropological works on diet and subsistence activities Consultation with experts

5.5.3 Methods for assessing HCV 5If existing data on HCV 5 are sparse then assessors may need to collect new data. The tools or methods used will depend on several factors including the scale of potential risks and impacts and the assessment budget and timeline. Below we list some tools which may be used or adapted depending on the assessment. Participatory methods normally require social assessment expertise.

Participatory mapping can be used to map the forms of current and historical land use, the extent of rights and different areas of customary management

Participatory surveys or land transects can also be used to identify the key elements in landscapes basic to livelihoods

Community workshops and discussion groups help identify vital activities and resources and explore how values are maintained or enhanced

48

HCV Common Guidance

Socioeconomic studies on household income sources, diet, hunting practices, etc.

Seasonal calendars: Helps to identify changes according to seasons and circumstances, such as seasonality of forage and habitat uses, and migration patterns of animals.

Coping mechanisms: This kind of questioning or exercise can reveal the economic drivers that trigger the use of a resource (e.g. famine foods, wild game).

Wealth definition and ranking exercises Basic Needs Survey: BNS tends to cover household items, but it can be

adapted to ecosystem services and natural products such as fish, game, building materials, etc.

5.5.4 Case study

HCV5: Areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communitiesSite: Cabo Delgado Province, MozambiqueEcosystem: Mosaic landscape of agricultural land, forest, woodland and wetland areas. Assessment context: Field test of HCV assessment for large-scale sugarcane agriculture

Biofuel feedstock production for renewable energy is set to increase in coming years and this case study focuses on an HCV assessment for potential sugarcane production in Mozambique1. The assessment was conducted to try and define best practice for HCV assessment in this context1. The site chosen in the Cabo

49

Guidance for FPICThe right to FPIC includes the right of indigenous peoples and local communities to give, withhold or withdraw consent to those activities that would affect their rights. FPIC is different from an engagement process which gives the Organization the right to take the final decision. Guidance on the use of FPIC has been prepared for FSC, RSPO and climate change activities (REDD+) and these guidance documents should be consulted for a comprehensive explanation of the process. For the case of HCV 5 & 6, FPIC can be used to identify values with local people and to consider the positive and negative impacts that a project could have. At this point, local people should be “informed” about how the proposed development project could impact their use of HCVs, and can decide whether or not they are still interested in engaging with the company and negotiating changed access to these values. For example, in cases where significant portions of hunting territories could be cleared for agriculture, local communities would need to decide on whether alternatives (e.g. fish farming, livestock and employment with company) are acceptable forms of compensation. A full FPIC process can take anywhere from weeks to months depending on the number of communities involved and the scale of impact. Managers may need to make a provisional identification and assessment of HCVs 5 and 6, based on available information and pending the completion of full consultative processes or FPIC negotiations.

HCV Common Guidance

Delgado Province, Mozambique is a mosaic landscape of agricultural land, as well as some secondary and more pristine woodland and forest areas. There are a number of villages within the site boundaries, and social surveys revealed that all communities within 3-5 km of forest or woodland areas were heavily dependent on natural resources from these areas. The resources included building materials, meat, and firewood. For all communities, these were the only available sources of these products. In many cases, water was also being transported up to 3 km from wetland areas to villages without water pumps. The dependence of the communities on these forest and wetland resources classifies these forest and wetland areas as HCV5. However, this study was only a field test and so detailed village-level evaluations would be required before a project area is finalised. The study also identified the presence of HCV1 at the site, and so overlap and potential conflict of HCV1 and HCV5 areas would require further consideration.References:

1. Proforest. 2009. An assessment of potential High Conservation Values within Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique. http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/Mozambique%20HCV%20Cabo%20Delgado%20report%20final%20v1.1.pdf

5.6 HCV 6 Cultural Values

Sites, resources, habitats and landscapes of global or national cultural, archaeological or historical significance, and/or of critical cultural, ecological, economic or religious/sacred importance for the traditional cultures of local communities or indigenous peoples, identified through engagement with these local communities or indigenous peoples.


The definition of HCV 6 is extremely broad and it is useful to divide it into two different categories: cultural values of global or national significance, and values critical for local people at the site scale.

Values of global or national significance

Cultural, archaeological or historical values: Sites, resources, habitats or landscapes which are significant at the global or national level are likely to have widely recognised historical, religious or spiritual importance and in many cases will have an official designation by national government or and international agency like UNESCO19. Occasionally, new sites or resources of extraordinary cultural significance may be discovered through exploration of sites for development (such as ‘lost cities’, important archaeological relics such as monumental ancient burial sites or prehistoric cave

19 United Nations Environmental, Social and Cultural Organisation50

http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/Mozambique%20HCV%20Cabo%20Delgado%20report%20final%20v1.1.pdf

http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/Mozambique%20HCV%20Cabo%20Delgado%20report%20final%20v1.1.pdf

HCV Common Guidance

art,); these can qualify as HCV6 based on expert and stakeholder opinion, without an official designation.

Cultural landscapes20

The term "cultural landscape" often includes specific techniques of sustainable land-use, considering the characteristics and limits of the natural environment they are established in, and a specific spiritual relation to nature. The continued existence of traditional forms of land-use, or sometimes measures mimicking such practises, can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape.

Unesco Cultural Landscapes

In 1992 the UNESCO World Heritage Convention became the first international legal instrument to recognise and protect cultural landscapes. UNESCO acknowledges that cultural landscapes represent the "combined works of nature and of man" designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural forces, both external and internal.

UNESCO cultural landscapes fall into three main categories namely:

Clearly-defined landscape designed and created intentionally by man: This embraces garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons which are often (but not always) associated with religious or other monumental buildings and ensembles.

Organically evolved landscape: This results from an initial social, economic, administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form by association with and in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes fall into two sub-categories.

A relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an evolutionary process came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in material form.

Continuing landscape: retains an active social role in contemporary society closely associated with the traditional way of life. At the same time it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time.

Associative cultural landscape. The inclusion of such landscapes on the World Heritage List is justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence, which may be insignificant or even absent.

Values of critical importance for traditional cultures

20 http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/#151

HCV Common Guidance

At the local level, HCV 6 includes sites and resources of critical cultural, ecological, economic or religious/sacred importance for the cultures of local communities or indigenous peoples, identified through their engagement. Much like HCV 5, which is defined at a local level, it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of culturally important sites and resources. Some countries will have such lists – at least at national level. Local considerations may add to these HVC 6 should be expected to have even more variation than HCV 5 given the diversity of cultures, languages and ethnic groups which could be encountered during HCV assessments. HCV 6 covers a wide range of significant areas and resources with importance according to traditional customs, religions and belief systems, including burial grounds, sites used for traditional ceremonies, sacred mountains, forests, rivers, caves, waterfalls, trees, rocks, totem animals and many more.HCV 6 should be identified through engagement with local communities or indigenous peoples, when critical for them. Many of the same methods and sources of information used for HCV 5, such as participatory mapping and consultations, will be useful. Certain sites and resources qualify as HCV 6 even if those who value the cultural resources do not live locally (for example, where communities maintain active cultural rituals linked to areas inhabited by their ancestors, or perform pilgrimages to sacred sites far from their homes); therefore it is important to identify all affected communities, not just those immediately adjacent to the sites or resources, with special attention to groups with less power and influence so stakeholders do not get missed out of the process.HCV 6 represents areas of cultural significance that have traditional importance to local or indigenous people. These may be religious/sacred sites, burial grounds or sites at which regular traditional ceremonies take place. These are frequently well known by the local people, and most national laws require them to be identified and protected. However, if the value is present, you will need to assess whether existing laws are sufficient to safeguard the sites/areas.

52

HCV Common Guidance


There is no universal approach for identifying cultural values. HCV 6 cultural values are linked to human needs and perceptions, and to the cultural values of communities and peoples, which may change over time and vary within and between communities. HCV 6 may be identified through consultation with informed stakeholders and experts (e.g. at the national or subnational level) and with local people in affected communities. If there is clear evidence of a community agreement (agreement by consensus, by a majority or by legitimate representatives) that the sites or resources are culturally significant or critical for them, then they should be considered HCV 6.

Global and national UNESCO Museums, heritage lists, national data sets, authorities and any

organizations which specialize in particular geographic areas or cultures Some countries have specific directives concerning archaeological sites

and resources in their EIA regulations Consultation with anthropologists, historians and archaeologists

LocalParticipatory consultations with all affected settlements and communities, with special attention to affected indigenous peoples. Consultations should be direct, not only through government authorities or NGOs, inclusive of all interest groups, and neutral for age, gender, caste, nationality and class.

53

Economic values in HCV 6Most critical economic issues naturally fall within HCV 5 (i.e. extractive use of natural resources for subsistence purposes). However, HCV 6 includes any critical situations where the economic and the spiritual or cultural value are strongly linked, e.g. where local communities’ basic income is related to cultural sites or resources. This income may derive from payment in kind (e.g. offerings) or in cash for culturally important services (e.g. religious ceremonies); from tourism to sites of cultural importance (where communities are critically dependent on such tourism); or from the collection and sale of culturally important natural products (e.g. magic or religious herbs, roots etc), where such products are of critical importance for the traditional culture of affected communities. However, HCV 6 does not include the commercial-scale extraction and sale on an open market of natural resources with cultural resonance, where the link to the traditional cultural identity of the communities has been broken (e.g. many natural aphrodisiacs such as ‘Tongkat Ali’, many ‘traditional’ but mass-produced ceremonial objects carved from bone and horn, natural narcotics etc.). Care must also be taken to ensure that designation of HCV 6 does not create conflicts with national or international law (e.g. harvesting protected species for magic or religious purposes).

HCV Common Guidance

However, in practice, consultations of this kind should be held with the appropriate people as there are often certain people who hold this kind of specialized knowledge (e.g. shaman, elders). Another challenge is that cultural information such as this may be secret and it can therefore be difficult to obtain accurate information. The choice of methods is important as it may not always be culturally appropriate to take photos and video, for example. It is also important to understand any possible sensitivity or risk involved with sharing customary tenure maps. This is why it is important to establish trust and to work with social experts such as anthropologists if possible.

5.6.3 Case study

HCV6: Areas critical to communities’ cultural identitiesSite: Konkan region, Western Ghats, IndiaEcosystem: Dry and moist tropical forestAssessment context: HCV assessment for prioritising forest conservation

The Western Ghats have a long history of human habitation, and the relatively high population density is seen as a threat to the region’s forests. Although agricultural expansion has left forest in the region highly fragmented, many communities in the Western Ghats still attach great cultural significance to certain forest areas and so protect these areas against any disturbance. A pilot HCV assessment in the Konkan region of the Western Ghats found that virtually every village in the region had a sacred grove, and these ranged in size from about 1 hectare to several hundred hectares1. These sacred groves are of great religious importance to the communities and in some cases any disturbance as slight as the removal of leaf litter is thought to be a sin. These forest areas classify as HCV6. Given the dwindling forest extent in the region these groves are often the only undisturbed areas of forest and so are also of conservation importance for the 325 threatened species found in the forest. The recent declaration of the Western Ghats rainforest as a UNESCO World Heritage Site should improve biodiversity conservation in the region, and possibly the protection of sacred forest groves2.References:

1. Punde, S. 2007. Prioritising areas for Forest Conservation in the Konkan region of the Western Ghats hotspot (India) – a pilot study. http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/SEPG707_821.pdf

2. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1342/

54

http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1342/

http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/SEPG707_821.pdf

HCV Common Guidance

6 ReferencesProforest. 2008 (July). Good practice guidelines for High Conservation Value assessments: A practical guide for practitioners and auditors.

Proforest. 2008 (April). Assessment, management and monitoring of High Conservation Value Forest: A practical guide for forest managers.

HCV Resource Network. 2010 (September). Reviewing High Conservation Value Reports: HCV Resource Network guidance for peer reviews of HCV assessment reports - Version 2.1.

More to be added

55

HCV Common Guidance

Annex

1. HCV assessment general checklistThe HCV RN provides guidance on best practice for the contents of an HCV Report; the main elements are summarized below. Note that sustainability standards such as RSPO have specific reporting formats for HCV public summary reports. The appropriate format must be followed depending on the assessment context.1. Executive summary

a) Are the key findings clearly presented and summarised?b) Does the summary accurately reflect the findings and recommendations of the main document?

2. Scope of the assessmenta) Is the assessment area and surrounding landscape clearly defined?b) Is there a basic summary of the company and its operations in the area?c) Are the potential impact and scale of proposed operations adequately described?d) Did exploitation of any kind (especially clearance) take place prior to the assessment, and if so, how are such areas treated?e) Is the purpose of the HCV assessment clear?

3. Wider landscape context and significance of the assessed areaa) Is the wider landscape described?b) Are the key social and biological features of the wider landscape clearlydescribed? Such features include:

• Protected areas (existing or in process of gazettement)• Regional or sub-regional biogeography (is the assessment area part of a distinct and/or narrowly restricted biogeographic region?)• Location and status of areas of natural vegetation (including a description of ecosystem types, size, quality)• Occurrence of known populations of species of global concern• Major landforms, watersheds and rivers, geology and soils Human settlements and infrastructure, agricultural areas• Social context (ethnicity, major social trends and land use activities)• History of land use and development trends, including future plans (e.g. spatial planning maps, development initiatives and existing/proposed commercial exploitation and production licenses)For each of the sub-topics, was the process or effort proportionate and adequate relative to the likely impact and scale of operations?4.1. Composition and qualifications of the assessment teama) Did the team include or have adequate access to relevant expertise to assess biological and social values?4.2. Data sources and data collection methodologies

56

HCV Common Guidance

a) Are data sources and data collection methodologies clearly described or referenced and summarised (and presented in annexes if appropriate), and are they adequate to identify HCVs? This section should cover:• Background and desk research• Field data collection, if any (including dates and itineraries). NB: are aims of any fieldwork clearly stated relative to specific HCVs?b) Were reasonable efforts made to fill gaps in the data, proportionate to the impact and scale of the operations?Evidence that relevant stakeholders were appropriately consulted• Is this documented in a verifiable manner?• Were their views or the information they provided incorporated into the relevant process?Were conclusions fed back to consultees as appropriate?d) Were appropriate existing initiatives engaged wherever possible (including existing local or international social, ecological or biologicalconservation initiatives)?

For all HCVs, the following points should be addressed with effort proportionate and adequate relative to the likely impact and scale of operations5.1. Addressing all six HCVsa) All six HCVs are addressed in the reportb) If one or more HCVs are not addressed, there is adequate justification forthis (e.g. the HCV is absent beyond reasonable doubt)?5.2. Data qualitya) Are data detailed, recent and complete enough to make informed decisions on presence/status/location of the HCV? (NB: particular care to be taken with quality, analysis and use of remote sensing data)b) Is the precautionary principle appropriately invoked in the use of data?c) Were maps, reports and other data up to date and adequate?5.3. Reference to HCV toolkitsa) Has a National Interpretation of HCVs been used, or (in the absence of aNational Interpretation), have the generic HCV Common Guidance guidelines been appropriately interpreted?b) Are decisions to apply National Interpretation definitions/thresholds, or to deviate from its recommendations, adequately explained and justified?5.4. Decision on HCV statusa) Is the HCV present, potentially present or absent in the assessed area?b) Has the presence of the HCV in the wider landscape and nationally, regionally or globally been addressed?c) Is the HCV (and its components) clearly defined and described?5.5. Mapping decisionsa) Are maps of HCV occurrence clear, accurate and useful?b) Are maps of HCV occurrence presented at an adequate level of resolution and sufficient completeness for management decisions?• Are decisions on the resolution and completeness of mapping justified?

57

HCV Common Guidance

• If HCV occurrence is NOT mapped at the required resolution and completeness, is this justified, and is an adequate process defined for mapping the HCV, prior to commencing any operation?

2. HCV Resources

General guidance

The HCV Resource Network Web site http://www.hcvnetwork.org/ is a rich source of information and resources including guidance document, national interpretations,

National interpretations

HCV 1-3 Biodiversity and Ecology

Areas of biodiversity importance Usefulness for HCV identification

Macro scale

Biodiversity Hotspots

www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/

Conservation International’s Biodiversity Hotspots are usually large and threatened areas, designated for extremely high regional vascular plant endemicity (> 1,500 endemic species) under great threat (≥ 70% loss of original native habitat). Hotspot data is most useful for preparing potential/general HCV 1 species lists and HCV 3 priorities, and for ecoregions. They are usually too large to provide landscape-scale context.

WWF Terrestrial Ecoregions

www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions

Terrestrial ecoregions – and equivalent freshwater and marine ecoregions – aren’t areas of biodiversity importance so shouldn’t be in this table. They are merely biogeographic units that cover the earth’s surface (for terrestrial/freshwater) or the marine environment (for marine ecoregions).

These are relatively large units of land or water containing a distinct assemblage of natural communities sharing a large majority of species, dynamics, and environmental conditions. Ecoregions represent the original distribution of distinct assemblages of species and

58

http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions

http://www.hcvnetwork.org/

HCV Common Guidance

communities. Ecoregions may be helpful for providing a large-scale biogeographic boundary for biological HCV assessment (HCV 1-3). They are usually too large to provide landscape-scale context.

WWF Global 200 Ecoregions:

www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/g200.cfm

These are the most threatened ecoregions (see above) and are focus areas for several conservation groups. Global 200 data is most useful for preparing HCV 1 species lists and HCV 3 priorities, and large scale perspective. Many local conservation programmes may provide additional context.

The G200 are aggregations (for the most part) of terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecoregions – though global freshwater and marine ecoregion maps didn’t exist at the time of the G200 so there’s not a 1:1 correspondence. Level of threat did not play a role in identifying G200 ecoregions. They are based on globally outstanding level s of richness, endemism, and ecological and evolutionary processes. There are no species lists associated with G200 ecoregions, though there are lists of vertebrates for component terrestrial ecoregions and fish for freshwater ecoregions. The scale of G200 ecoregions makes them of limited value to an HCV identification process (same for Hotspots).

Country or Regional Schemes

59

http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/g200.cfm

HCV Common Guidance

National Biodiversity Strategies

http://www.cbd.int/nbsap

All CBD consignatories should have National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans

EU Natura 2000

http://www.natura.org/

Natura 2000 is. It is an EU-wide network of nature protection areas. The aim of the network is to assure the long-term survival of Europe's most valuable and threatened species and habitats.

Key Biodiversity Areas: sites listed in the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool

www.IBATforbusiness.org

KBAs are “sites of global significance for biodiversity conservation. They are identified using globally standard criteria and thresholds, based on the needs of biodiversity requiring safeguards at the site scale”.21 KBA and HCV criteria overlap substantially for biological/ecological values (HCV 1, 2 and 3).

Currently these are only terrestrial. KBAs in IBAT (and freshwater KBAs haven’t really been developed yet, though there is a methodology)

Important Bird Areas IBAs,

www.birdlife.org

There are over 12,000 IBA sites worldwide which may (1) hold significant numbers of one or more globally threatened species, (2) be one of a set of sites that together hold a suite of restricted-range species or biome-restricted species, and (3) have exceptionally large numbers of migratory or congregatory species. These criteria overlap strongly with HCV 1.

There are also Endemic Bird Areas, EBAs, covering over 7 million km2, covering the habitat of most of the world’s endemic birds, and useful in assessing HCV 1.

Important Plant Areas (IPAs)

www.plantlife.org.uk

IPAs are “the most important sites for plants in any country in a regional context

21 Langhammer et al (2007). Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN

60

http://www.plantlife.org.uk/

http://www.birdlife.org/

http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAG-015.pdf

http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAG-015.pdf

http://www.IBATforbusiness.org/

http://www.cbd.int/nbsap

HCV Common Guidance

– identification and protection of these sites is the ultimate goal”. IPA projects are ongoing in 66 countries (as of 2010). An IPA site is characterised by significant populations of species of global or regional conservation concern, an exceptionally rich flora in a regional context, or an outstanding example of a habitat or vegetation type of global or regional importance. IPAs therefore correspond well to HCV1 (Criterion 1) or HCV 3 (Criteria B and C).

Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE)

www.zeroextinction.org/

AZE sites comprise nearly 600 sites identified as critical and irreplaceable for the survival of one or more Endangered or Critically Endangered species. AZE sites are amongst the highest global conservation priorities and would unquestionably qualify as HCV 1 or 3.

Only terrestrial and marine-building corals

World Heritage Sites

whc.unesco.org

World Heritage Sites are designated on the basis of global natural or cultural priorities, including biodiversity, landscape and human features, and often have national Protected Area designation. Any of the 6 HCVs may be present.

Centres of Plant Diversity, IUCN, WCMC

http://botany.si.edu/projects/cpd

The CPD project described sites of global plant diversity (high total species counts and >10% plant endemicity). Sites are variable in size from a few hundred to > 1M km2; each has data on plant diversity and ecosystem descriptions which are useful for preparing HCV 1 species lists and HCV 3 ecosystems.

Ramsar sites,

www.ramsar.org

These sites are designated under the ‘Ramsar’ Convention on Wetlands of International Importance and include >2000 globally significant wetland sites, containing a) representative, rare or unique wetland types (HCV 3) or b) areas of international importance for conserving biological diversity. The latter

61

http://www.ramsar.org/

http://botany.si.edu/projects/cpd

http://www.zeroextinction.org/

HCV Common Guidance

overlap significantly with HCV 1. Several other HCVs are likely to be present.

Intact Forest Landscapes

www.intactforests.org

IFLs are large (> 500 km2) forests showing little evidence of human intervention. Although HCV 2 forest is not necessarily ‘intact’, IFL have a strong presumption of containing HCV 1, HCV 2 and may also contain several other HCVs.

62

http://www.intactforests.org/

br.fsc.org · Web viewPrepared for The World Temperate Grasslands Conservation Initiative Workshop...

Documents

Transcript of br.fsc.org · Web viewPrepared for The World Temperate Grasslands Conservation Initiative Workshop...