©2011 Rainforest Alliance

CCB STANDARDS:biodiversity

CCB STANDARDS:biodiversity

Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance

In-depth training

OVERVIEW

1. Introduction to the CCB Standards biodiversity impact requirements

2. Techniques and tools for biodiversity impact assessment

3. Assessment against the Standards: understanding the four stages of biodiversity impact assessment and monitoring in the CCB

2

Auditing

Tools

Biodiv. Reqs.

3

© J.Henman

INTRODUCTION

STRUCTURE OF THE CCB BIODIVERSITY SECTION

4

B1. Net Positive BiodiversityImpacts

B 1.1 Appropriate methodologies to assess changes in biodiversity as a result of the projectB 1.2 No negative effect on High Conservation Value Forests (HVC)

B2. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

B 2.1 Identify negative offsite biodiversity impactsB 2.2 Impact mitigationB 2.3 No net negative impacts on biodiversity

IntroductionBiodiv. Reqs.

and…

General Criteria

G 1.7 Description of biodiversity in project zoneG 1.8 Evaluation of HCVsG 2.5 Without project scenario effect on biodiversity

B3. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring

B 3.1 Selecting biodiversity variablesCM/B 3.2 Assess the effectiveness of measures for HCVB 3.3 Full monitoring plan

The 4 stages of biodiversity impact assessment for project development

5

Stage

Brief Description Relevant CCB Standards Criteria

1 an accurate description of biodiversity conditions at the start of the project;

G1.7; G1.8.1-G1.8.3

2 a projection of how those conditions would change, if the project were never implemented (the “without-project” scenario);

G2.5;

3 a description and justification of the likely [positive and negative] outcomes after the implementation of the project (the “with-project” scenario); description of how negative impacts will be mitigated;

G3.1; 3.2; 3.3 3.5; 3.6; 3.7; B1; B2, GL3

4 design and implementation of a credible system for monitoring impacts – known as the “biodiversity monitoring plan”

B3

Biodiv. Reqs. Requirements

THE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS OF CARBON PROJECTS: CAMPO VERDE PROJECT, PERU

6

Possible positive biodiversity results

• enhance biological corridor• replicate original natural forest• assist the growth of remnant gallery

forest, through protection from annual burning and invasive grasses

• re-establish mahogany which is under risk of extinction

• recover soil fertility

© J.Henman

Possible negative biodiversity results • contaminate water courses from

nursery discharge• spread waterborne diseases through

worker sewage• soil compaction from machinery and

vehicles• species loss from fishing and hunting

by new immigrant worker population

Reforestation with Native Species

Campo Verde, Ucayali, PeruValidated to the CCB Standards

First EditionPDD available at CCBA Web site

Biodiv. Reqs. Introduction

PROJECT TYPES AND BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

Potential impacts on biodiversity differ between projects, but can be generalized by project type. For example….

7

Afforestation/Reforestation (A/R) and Restoration:• Adequacy of negative impact assessment that land cover change will bring is particularly significant

- For example, the effect of tree planting on baseline biodiversity or water quality

REDD and Forest Conservation:• Adequacy of projected negative impact of deforestation and degradation is particularly significant

- For example, the causal scenario development for without- project scenario

• Deforestation threat from leakage (activity displacement) and biodiversity impact is also significant

!

Biodiv. Reqs. Introduction

8

© J.Henman

TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS

WHAT WILL I LEARN IN THE BIODIVERSITY TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES SECTION?

You will gain an understanding of:

1.Identifying high conservation values

2.Key biodiversity area assessment

3.Conducting an ecological survey at the project zone

9Tools Introduction

1. HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES

10

There are six main types of High Conservation Values

Tools High Conservation Values

• Concept developed in the context of forest certification ( FSC Principle 9)

• To give recognition to forests needing special protection due to:- Ecosystems- Environmental services- Social values

• Now used more widely in conservation planning• There are national interpretations of HCVs• HCV forests need to possess at least one of the HCVs

11

What are the 6 High Conservation Values?

© J.Henman

EXERCISE 1: HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES (G8)

Tools High Conservation Values

HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES (HCV)

12

HCV1

• Globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia)

HCV2

• Globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape-level areas where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.

HCV3• Areas that are in or contain rare,

threatened or endangered ecosystems

HCV4• Areas that provide basic ecosystem

services in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control).

HCV5• Areas fundamental to meeting basic

needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health)

HCV6• Areas critical to local communities’

traditional cultural identity

Tools High Conservation Values

• Value concerned with maintaining biodiversity

• Areas need to contain unusually high concentrations of biodiversity to qualify

• Assessment is costly and time consuming, so indicators have been defined:

• HCV 1.1 Protected areas

A forest located near a protected area and in the

same state is likely to present the same attributes

• HCV 1.2 Threatened / endangered species

• HCV 1.3 Endemic species

Sometimes the presence of a single endangered or

endemic specie can be enough

• HCV 1.4 Critical temporal use (e.g. migration, life cycle)

13

HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 1

Tools High Conservation Values

!

!

Areas containing globally, regionally or nationally significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g. endemism, endangered species, refugia)

• Value concerned with large scale

forests

• Habitats containing viable populations of naturally occurring species and maintaining ecosystems

• OR including important sub-populations of very wide-ranging species (e.g. tiger, elephants) even though they might not be viable in the long term.

• Undisturbed by recent human activity

• Landscape forests can be composed of different natural forest types

• Defined by forest cover not political boundaries

14

Tools High Conservation Values

HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 2Globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape-level areas where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance

• Value concerned with ecosystems• Not looking at a specific specie of scale of forest• Considers 2 aspects:

- Ecosystems that are naturally rare but may not be under threat

(e.g. cloud forests)

- Ecosystems that are under threat globally, nationally and regionally –

they could have once been widespread

15

Tools High Conservation Values

HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 3Areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems

• Value concerned with the environmental services of forests• Can be used for natural and planted protection forests

(unlike HCV 1-3)• Subdivisions:

- HVC 4.1 Forests critical to the maintenance and regulation of essential water sources for drinking and irrigation

- HVC 4.2 Forests critical to the prevention of landslide, flash floods, soil erosion, storm, wind, sedimentation and protection of coast lines

16

Tools High Conservation Values

HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 4Areas that provide basic ecosystem services in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control)

• Value concerned with basic needs of communities (e.g. hunting for subsistence or recreationally)

• Applicable to communities obtaining essential fuel, food, fodder, medicines, or building materials from the forest, without readily available alternatives

• Does not apply to excessive extraction, even if communities are economically/culturally dependant on it

• The following would NOT be considered HCVs forests:- Forests providing resources that are useful but not fundamental

- Forests that provide resources that could readily be obtained elsewhere or that could be replaced by substitutes

- Forests that provide resources to recently established villages, or communities that move frequently due to land over-usage

17

Tools High Conservation Values

HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 5 Areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities (e.g. subsistence, health)

!

• Value concerned with protecting the traditional culture of local communities

• A forest may be designated a HCVF if it contains or provides values without which:- A local community would suffer an

unacceptable cultural change AND

- For which the community has no alternative

• Applicable to any group visiting the forest

• Dependent on stakeholder consultations (except if some groups refuse contact – precautionary approach)

18

Tools High Conservation Values

HIGH CONSERVATION VALUE 6 Areas critical to local communities’ traditional cultural identity

FURTHER RESOURCES ON HCVs

• High Conservation Value Resource Network http://hcvnetwork.org/

• Global HCVF Toolkits http://hcvnetwork.org/resources/

• WWF Ecoregions (Toolkit for the assessment of HCV Forests http://www.worldwildlife.org/biomes

19

Tools High Conservation Values

2. KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS (KBA) (GL3)

20

Key biodiversity areas assessment is only required to assess ‘exceptionalbiodiversity benefits’ , which is a GOLD level criteria

• Sites of global significance for biodiversity conservation

• Identified applying international standard criteria and thresholds at the national level

• Based on the occurrence of species requiring safeguards at the site scale

• Provide an effective, justifiable and transparent set of conservation targets

• No maximum or minimum size

• Can be inside or outside a protected area

Tools Key Biodiversity Areas

KEY BIODIVERSITY AREA (KBA) FRAMEWORK: CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS

Criterion Sub-criteria Provisional thresholds for triggering KBA status

VulnerabilityRegular occurrence of a globally threatened species ( according to the IUCN Red list) at the site

N/A Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) species – presence of a single individualVulnerable species (VU) - 30 individuals or 10 pairs

IrreplaceabilitySite holds X% of a species’ global population at any stage of the species’ lifecycle

a) Restricted-range species

Species with a global range less than 50,000 km25% of global population at site

b) Species with large but clumped distributions

5% of global population at site

c) Globally significant congregations

1 % of global population seasonally at the site

d) Globally significant source populations

Site is responsible for maintaining 1% of global population

e) Bioregionally restricted assemblages

To be defined

21

From Langhammer et al, 2007

Tools Key Biodiversity Areas

•Project site is within the Mesoamerica Biodiversity Hotspot Identified by Conservation International

•The project site protects the habitat of at least 5 endangered IUCN Red List species

-> Proving Vulnerability can be simple

22

EXAMPLE: DEMONSTRATING VULNERABILTY (GL3.1)

Tools Key Biodiversity Areas

Boden Creek Ecological Preserve, BelizeValidated to the CCB Standards 2st Ed. July 2010 Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits

PDD available at CCBA Web site

GL3.2.1: Restricted range species, with a global range of less then 50,000km2 and 5% of the global population at the site

•Due to the lack of global and local data on species range and population size endemic species were used as proxy for restricted-range species

• 18 of the endemic species occurring in the KBA are forest dependent, only 4% (2,560km2) of the forest cover is closed canopy-> possibility that the global range of most of these species is under 50,000km2

• 14 of the restricted range species are endemic to the island of Luzon, 6% of the remaining forest on the island is part of the project-> possibility that 5% of the global population is at the site if uniformed distribution is assumed

23

EXAMPLE: DEMONSTRATING IRREPLACEABILITY (GL3.2)

Penablanca Sustainable Reforestation Project, Philippines

Validated to the CCB Standards 2st Ed. December 2009

Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity BenefitsPDD available at CCBA Web site

Tools Key Biodiversity Areas

FURTHER RESOURCES ON KBAs

• Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) https://www.ibatforbusiness.org/

• WWF Ecoregions http://www.worldwildlife.org/biomes

24Tools Key Biodiversity Areas

EXPERIENCE-SHARING

Does anyone have experience to share on assessing HCVs and KBAs?

• Identification of pitfalls?

• Unusual methods used?

• On the ground examples?

25Tools

Step 1 •Choose appropriate indicators based on literature review, expert local opinion, talking with local communities or pilot sampling

Step 2 •Choose sampling approach per species or grouping (e.g. transects, plots, traps, etc.)

Step 3 •Stratify the project area (Could align with Climate Criteria)

Step 4 •Choose sampling frequency and timescale

26Tools Ecological Survey

2. ECOLOGICAL SURVEY AT THE PROJECT ZONE

All international, national and local legal requirements need to be complied within the ecological survey approach !

POSSIBLE BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS

27

© J.Henman

© J.Henman

© J.Henman

© J.Henman

Tools Ecological Survey

CHOOSING INDICATORS

• Doesn’t have to be expensive to monitor

• Must relate specifically to the situation of each project

• Must be sensitive to forces driving the ecosystem and ecosystem change in the project zone ( e.g. reduced water table, reduced fire, invasiveness, conservation)

• Must be easily identifiable

• Must address important insects, e.g. pollinators, disease vectors

• Must address endangered/ threatened species

28Tools Ecological Survey

EXERCISE 2: BIODIVERSITY SAMPLING TOOLS

Can you list different

techniques for biodiversity sampling?

29Tools Ecological Survey

BIODIVERSITY SAMPLING TOOLS

30

Example Techniqu

es

Interviews

Nets

Traps

Camera

Traps

Transects

Quadrat

counts

Tools Ecological Survey

31

TRAPS• Mechanical devices to capture

animals• Bated (e.g. food, pheromones)• Usually catered for small mammals

or insects• Cheap• Time consuming – need regular

checks

• Transects are of fixed distance• Quadrats can be used in conjunction• Useful to measure plant diversity• Widely used• Time consuming

TRANSECTS & QUADRATS

Tools Ecological Survey

32

CAMERA TRAPS

• Automated camera• Photo taken when motion or infra-red

sensor is activated

Useful:• For nocturnal or rarely seen animals• Not time consuming

Pitfalls:• Some flashes can make animals

relocate• Expensive (US$100-650)• Cameras can be damaged by animals

or poachers

Tools Ecological Survey

EXPERIENCE-SHARING

Does anyone have experience to share on using biodiversity sampling tools and techniques?

• Most effective method?

• Identification of pitfalls?

• On the ground examples?

33Tools

POTENTIAL PITFALLS IN PROJECTS’ MONITORING OF BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

• Data are collected that are of no use, and/or key questions cannot be answered

• Poor study design leads to inconclusive results

• Indicators selected are not sensitive to project activities

• Multiple observers differ in field skills and use inconsistent methods

• Methods are changed during the monitoring program, and thus survey results cannot be compared

• Inappropriate methods are chosen for habitats or species

• Timing or frequency of data collection is insufficient to draw conclusions

34

!

Tools Ecological Survey

35

EXAMPLE: BIODIVERSITY IMPACT MONITORING PLAN

Boden Creek Ecological Preserve, BelizeValidated to the CCB Standards 2st Ed. July 2010 Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits

PDD available at CCBA Web site

Tools Ecological Survey

Case Study: Green Resources or Penablanca Reforestation projects

•Objective: Identify a project’s negative impacts, mitigation measures and completeness of its monitoring strategy

36

EXERCISE 3: IDENTIFYING BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

Green Resources Reforestation Project, Tanzania

Validated to the CCB Standards 1st Ed.October 2009

PDD available at CCBA Web site

Tools Ecological Survey

Penablanca Sustainable Reforestation Project, Philippines

Validated to the CCB Standards 2st Ed. December 2009

Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits

PDD available at CCBA Web site

37

© J.Henman

EVALUATION AGAINST THE STANDARD

OVERVIEW OF THE EVALUATION SECTION

This section covers the following elements, which auditors should be particularly careful of:

1.Establishing the original conditions of a project site (G1.7-8)

2.How to make and evaluate baseline projections (without project scenario) (G2.5)

3.Establishing net biodiversity impact (with project scenario) (B1)

4.Offsite impacts (B2)

5.Monitoring biodiversity impacts (B3)

6.Gold-level impacts (GL3)

38

G1. ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

39

• What does the standard require? Original conditions of the project area (including the surrounding area) before the project commences must be described.

• Why? Provides the core information for establishing a baseline of future socio-economic conditions either with or without the project.

Auditing 1. Original Conditions

G1. ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA

40Auditing

Requirements:

Biodiversity Information

• Description of the biodiversity in the project zone (G1.7)

• Evaluation of whether the project zone includes any of the following HCVs (G1.8)

- Globally, regionally or nationally significant concentration of biodiversity values (G1.8.1)

- Globally, regionally, or nationally significant large landscape areas (G1.8.2)

- Threatened or rare ecosystems (G1.8.3)

- Critical ecosystem services (G1.8.4)

- Meeting the basic needs of local communities (G1.8.5)

- Traditional cultural identity of communities (G1.8.6)

1. Original Conditions

A description of current biodiversity within the project zone (diversity of species and ecosystems) and threats to that biodiversity, using

appropriate methodologies, substantiated where possible with appropriate reference material.

G1.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE BIODIVERSITY IN THE PROJECT ZONE

Auditing 1. Original Conditions

• List of the major fauna, flora and ecosystems in the project area.

• An ‘appropriate’ methodology will have been peer reviewed and has been used in similar conditions/project type/area

• An Assessment of existing threats need to be carried out through interviews with stakeholders (e.g. government, local experts…)

• These descriptions should be based on ecological surveys and grey literature (e.g. government documents, scientific studies…)

42

Common Pitfalls

Conformance

Auditing 1. Original Conditions

G1.7 DESCRIPTION OF THE BIODIVERSITY IN THE PROJECT ZONE

• There is no scientific basis to the methodology used

• There is no evidence stakeholder were consulted in the assessment of existing threats

• All external documents used are not correctly referenced or made available to the auditors

An evaluation of whether the project zone includes any of the following High Conservation Values (HCVs) and a description of the qualifying attributes:Key points8.1. Significant concentrations of biodiversity values8.2. Significant large landscape-level areas where viablepopulations of native species occur 8.3. Threatened or rare ecosystems8.4. Areas that provide critical ecosystem services 8.5. Areas that are fundamental for meeting the basic needs of local communities 8.6. Areas that are critical for the traditional cultural identity of communities

G1.8 EVALUATION OF HCVs

Auditing 1. Original Conditions

• ‘Evaluation’ of HCVs means that the project site needs to be assessed against the HCV toolkit

• The project needs to be assessed against all 6 of the HCVs

• The presence of HCV forests needs to be supported by national and international documents, stakeholder interviews or biological surveys carried out in the region

44

Common Pitfalls• No evidence that the local communities have been

consulted to establish HCV areas

• The evaluation is not in concordance with national HCV guidelines

• Secondary literature used is not directly relevant to the project zone

Conformance

Auditing 1. Original Conditions

G1.8 EVALUATION OF HCVs

G2. BASELINE PROJECTIONS

45Auditing 2. Baseline Projection

• What does the standard require? Baseline conditions of the project area (including the surrounding area) in the absence of project activities.

• Why? Project impacts will be measured against this ‘without-project’ reference scenario.

G2. BASELINE PROJECTIONS

46Auditing

Requirements:

Biodiversity Information

• Description of ‘without project’ scenario effect on biodiversity in the project zone (G2.5)

2. Baseline Projection

Describe how the ‘without project’ reference scenario would affect biodiversity in the project zone (e.g., habitat availability, landscape connectivity and threatened species).

G2.5 WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO EFFECT ON BIODIVERSITY

Auditing 2. Baseline Projection

• Describe the baseline indicators chosen for the ‘without project’ scenario projection of the biodiversity conditions

• The projection should be done using a causal model and local biodiversity expert interviews

• The baseline biodiversity indicators should reflect potential changes in ecosystem services, link to the causal model of the project and be appropriate for the project zone

48

Common Pitfalls• Unsupported methodological framework for baseline

biodiversity indicators• Baseline indicators are not suitable for detecting change

with-project.• There is not a clear differentiation between output,

outcome, impact indicators

• No evidence that local communities were consulted concerning the without-project impacts on HCVs

Conformance

Auditing 2. Baseline Projection

G2.5 WITHOUT PROJECT SCENARIO EFFECT ON BIODIVERSITY

B1. NET POSITIVE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

49Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

• What does the standard require? The standard requires that the project generate net positive impacts on biodiversity within the project zone.

• Why? Projects must maintain or enhance HCVs present in the project zone, without causing an increase in invasive species, or using GMOs

50Auditing

Requirements:

• Use of appropriate methodologies for the impact assessment (B1.1)

• Demonstrate that no HCVs are negatively affected (B1.2, CM1.2)

• Identification of species used by the project (B1.3)

• Effects of non-native species used by the project (B1.4)

• Guarantee that no GMOs will be used (B1.5)

B1. NET POSITIVE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

3. Net Positive Impacts

Use appropriate methodologies to estimate changes in biodiversity as a result of the project in the project zone and in the project lifetime. This estimate must be based on clearly defined and defendable assumptions. The ‘with project’ scenario should then be compared with the baseline ‘without project’ biodiversity scenario completed in G2. The difference (i.e., the net biodiversity benefit) must be positive.

Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

B1.1 USE OF THE APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT

© J.Henman

• An ‘appropriate methodology’ should have sampling techniques approved for the species/project type/area and the staff carrying out the surveys must be competent

• ‘Estimating’ changes in biodiversity means that they need to be quantified and that they can be part of a range

• For with and without project scenarios to be ‘compared’ similar biodiversity indicators need to be chosen for the projections

52

Common Pitfalls• No evidence of the biodiversity sampling staff

qualifications or training

• Sampling is not effective e.g. misses key migratory season…

• The sampling results are not statistically significant or sensitive to project impact – consider project type-specific impacts carefully.

Conformance

Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

B1.1 USE OF THE APPROPRIATE METHODOLOGIES FOR IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Demonstrate that no High Conservation Values identified in G1.8.1-3 will be negatively affected by the project.

Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

B1.2 NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HCVs

© J.Henman

• The PDD must map the threats to the HCVs identified using a reputable threat analysis methodology

• The PDD must explain how the biodiversity indicators chosen for the projections are applicable to the HCVs identified

54

Common Pitfalls• Indicators are not sensitive to the forces driving the

ecosystem and ecosystem change in the project zone (e.g. reduced water table, reduced fire, management of invasive species).

Conformance

Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

B1.2 NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HCVs

Identify all species to be used by the project and show that no known invasive species will be introduced into any area affected by the project and that the population of any invasive species will not increase as a result of the project.

Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

B1.3 IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES USED

• List all species introduced as part of the project and appropriately justify that they are not considered invasive in the region through reference to national documents and expert opinions

• Demonstrate that sampling has occurred for all the invasive species identified at the national level to be in the project area

• Demonstrate that any invasive species in the project site has been chosen as an indicator in the project scenario and is being monitored adequately

56

Common Pitfalls• The project scale can post challenges to sampling of invasive

species.

• No evidence of sampling or referring to invasive species with a range identified to be within close proximity of the project area (especially if the reference documents are out-dated)

• Patterns and responsiveness of invasive species not known, no adaptive management in place

Conformance

Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

B1.3 IDENTIFICATION OF SPECIES USED

Describe possible adverse effects of non-native species used by the project on the region’s environment, including impacts on native species and disease introduction or facilitation. Project proponents must justify any use of non-native species over native species.

Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

B1.4 EFFECTS OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES USED

• The effects of non-native species used should be enumerated and justified using appropriate references such as case studies and expert opinions

• Examples should be cited of the use of the non-native species in the project country and if there is no usage, it should be detailed why

• A cost-benefit analysis should be carried out on the use of non-native over native species

58

Common Pitfalls• The effects of the non-native species are not analyzed

according to the precautionary principle.

• No adaptive management plan used for invasive species where little information is available.

• No case studies are used to demonstrate that the use of the non-native species is common practice

Conformance

Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

B1.4 EFFECTS OF NON-NATIVE SPECIES USED

Guarantee that no GMOs (genetically modified organisms) will be used to generate GHG emissions reductions or removals.

Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

B1.5 NO GMO USE

• ‘Guarantee’ that no GMO’s will be used means that a statement of compliance must be issued by the project developer

• The PDD must refer to the carbon reduction model and prove that no GMO’s are accounted for

• The PDD must provide an accounting mechanism for all the species not provided by the project developer, to insure they could not be GMOs

60

Common Pitfalls• Seed containers or traceability documents for all the

trees planted are not available

Conformance

Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts

B1.5 NO GMO USE

B2. OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

61Auditing 4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

• What does the standard require? The standard requires that the project must evaluate and mitigate likely negative impacts on biodiversity outside the project zone and resulting from project activities.

• Why? Projects should at least maintain biodiversity outside the project zone

62Auditing

Requirements:

• Identify negative offsite biodiversity impacts (B2.1)

• Describe the project plan to mitigate these impacts (B2.2)

• Demonstrate the project will not result in net negative impacts (B2.3)

B2. OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

Identify potential negative offsite biodiversity impacts that the project is likely to cause.

Auditing

B2.1 IDENTIFY NEGATIVE OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

• Use of case studies to identify general risk categories of project impacts on biodiversity

• Detail negative offsite biodiversity impacts resulting from change in activity, livelihood change and/or market demand and equilibrium due to the implementation of the project

• Detail negative offsite biodiversity impacts resulting from the introduction of species and their effect on species assemblages outside of the project area

64

Common Pitfalls• The offsite biodiversity impacts are not described

• The offsite biodiversity impacts are not quantified to a reasonable degree

Conformance

Auditing 4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

B2.1 IDENTIFY NEGATIVE OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS

Document how the project plans to mitigate these negative offsite biodiversity impacts.

Auditing

B2.2 IMPACT MITIGATION PROJECT PLAN

4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

• The PDD must contains a list of relevant leakage mitigation measures and justification for how they have been chosen and their appropriateness.

• There should be evidence that a participatory approach has been used to determine appropriate activities

66

Common Pitfalls• No evidence that the participatory approaches used to

determine activity shifts differentiated between stakeholder groups

• No evidence that all the stakeholders have agreed to a change in livelihood

Conformance

Auditing 4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

B2.2 IMPACT MITIGATION PROJECT PLAN

Evaluate likely unmitigated negative offsite biodiversity impacts against the biodiversity benefits of the project within the project boundaries. Justify and demonstrate that the net effect of the project on biodiversity is positive.

Auditing

B2.3 NO NET NEGATIVE IMPACTS DEMONSTRATION

4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

•Similarly to B2.1 use case studies to identify general risk categories of unmitigated off-site negative biodiversity impacts due to the project activity•To ‘demonstrate’ there is no net negative impacts, the quantified unmitigated offsite biodiversity impacts and the biodiversity benefits within the project boundary need to be quantified and compared•Describe all long-term alternative solutions to compensate for negative impacts

68

Common Pitfalls• The indicators and sampling methods used to assess

offsite impacts and project benefits are not comparable

Conformance

Auditing 4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

B2.3 NO NET NEGATIVE IMPACTS DEMONSTRATION

B3. BIODIVERSITY IMPACT MONITORING

69Auditing 5. Impact Monitoring

• What does the standard require? That the project must have a monitoring plan indicating what biodiversity indicators will be monitored, and identifying the types of measurements, the sampling method, and the frequency of measurement.

It is accepted that some of the plan details might not be defined at the Validation stage as long as there is an explicit commitment to do so later

• Why? Projects should quantify and document changes in biodiversity resulting from the project activities

70Auditing

Requirements:

• Develop an initial plan for selecting the biodiversity indicators to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring (B3.1)

• Develop an initial plan to assess the effectiveness of measures used to maintain or enhance HCVs (B3.2, CM3.2)

• Commit to developing and disseminating a full monitoring plan (B3.3)

5. Impact Monitoring

B3. BIODIVERSITY IMPACT MONITORING

Develop an initial plan for selecting biodiversity variables to be monitored and the frequency of monitoring and reporting to ensure that monitoring variables are directly linked to the project’s biodiversity objectives and to anticipated impacts (positive and negative).

Auditing

B3.1 MONITORING VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY

5. Impact Monitoring

• Insure that the indicators chosen, sampling methods and frequency are comparable with the one in GI.

• Insure that the indicators chosen are adequate for the monitoring of impacts on flora, fauna and ecosystems

• Justify how the indicators chosen are adequate for the causal model

• Ensure that the sampling method and frequency are appropriate for the project site and species encountered

72

Common Pitfalls• There is no clear differences between the output, outcome

and impact indicators

• There are no peer-reviewed references to justify the appropriateness of sampling methods used and frequency

Conformance

Auditing 5. Impact Monitoring

B3.1 MONITORING VARIABLES AND FREQUENCY

B3.2. Develop an initial plan for assessing the effectiveness of measures used to maintain or enhance High Conservation Values related to globally, regionally or nationally significant biodiversity (G1.8.1-3) present in the project zone.

CM3.2 Develop an initial plan for how they will assess the effectiveness of measures used to maintain or enhance High Conservation Values related to community well-being (G1.8.4-6) present in the project zone.

Auditing

CM/B3.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF HCVs MEASURES

5. Impact Monitoring

• Measures for G1.8.1-3 need to be based on globally, regionally or nationally approved assessment methodologies

• Measures for G1.8.4-6 need to be based on participatory approaches

• Justify that the indicators used reflect the ecological and social conditions needed to maintain the value and that they accurately monitor disturbances to the HCVs

74

Common Pitfalls

Conformance

Auditing 5. Impact Monitoring

CM/B3.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF HCVs MEASURES

• The type of data collected cannot be used to reliably determine effectiveness

Commit to developing a full monitoring plan within six months of the project start date or within twelve months of validation against the Standards and to disseminate this plan and the results of monitoring, ensuring that they are made publicly available on the internet and are communicated to the communities and other stakeholders.

Auditing

B3.3 COMMITING TO A FULL MONITORING PLAN

5. Impact Monitoring

• The PDD should contain a statement of intention for the development of the full monitoring plan and timelines for this

• Evidence that the plan and monitoring results will be disseminated to all stakeholders, ideally the list of variables and frequency of monitoring should have already been disseminated

76

Common Pitfalls• Some stakeholders are not aware of the monitoring

process or don’t understand what it entails

• No demonstration that the steps required to deliver a full monitoring plan are achievable within the timeline

Conformance

Auditing 5. Impact Monitoring

B3.3 COMMITING TO A FULL MONITORING PLAN

GL3. EXCEPTIONAL BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS GOLD STATUS (OPTIONAL)

77Auditing 6. Gold Status

• What does the standard require? The project must demonstrate the vulnerability OR irreplaceability of certain species. The project area must show proof of the frequent presence of threatened species recognized as such at the global level, or that the site is critical to a specific species population

• Why? Some sites have critically threatened species and it is important to incentivize the development of carbon projects in these areas.

GL3. EXCEPTIONAL BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS GOLD STATUS (OPTIONAL)

78Auditing

Requirements:

• Vulnerability (GL3.1)

• Irreplaceability (GL3.2)

6. Gold Status

Regular occurrence of a globally threatened species (according to the IUCN Red List) at the site:1.1. Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) species - presence of at least a single individual; or1.2. Vulnerable species (VU) - presence of at least 30 individuals or 10 pairs.

GL3.1 VULNERABILITY

Auditing 6. Gold Status

• The PDD must demonstrate the presence of IUCN Redlist species through sampling surveys, reference to peer-reviewed literature or expert opinions (for elusive species)

80

Common Pitfalls• Only fauna or flora species are taken into account

• The peer reviewed literature used is out-dated

Conformance

Auditing 6. Gold Status

GL3.1 VULNERABILITY

A minimum proportion of a species’ global population present at the site at any stage of the species’ lifecycle according to the following thresholds:

2.1. Restricted-range species - species with a global range less than 50,000 km2 and 5% of global population at the site; or

2.2. Species with large but clumped distributions - 5% of the global population at the site; or

2.3. Globally significant congregations - 1% of the global population seasonally at the site; or

2.4. Globally significant source populations - 1% of the global population at the site;

GL3.2 IRREPLACEABILITY

Auditing 6. Gold Status

• One or more of the 4 minimum proportion of species thresholds needs to be met

• Species data must come from reference to peer-reviewed studies, NGO/government report and expert opinions

• When no global or regional population data is available, a conservative extrapolation of available data can be accepted if it is adequately justified

82

Common Pitfalls• The references used are out of date and have not been

confirmed by recent biodiversity sampling

Conformance

Auditing 6. Gold Status

GL3.2 IRREPLACEABILITY

PHOTO COPYRIGHT AND RE-USE

83

© J.Henman

• All photos are copyright to Jenny Henman and/or Leo Peskett• Written permission is required for re-use of photos outside of these training

materials from Jenny Henman (jennyhenman@climateadapt.co.uk)• Any re-use must acknowledge on the photo Jenny Henman and/or Leo

Peskett as per the current copyright