Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

©2011 Rainforest Alliance CCB STANDARDS: biodiversity Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance In-depth training.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "©2011 Rainforest Alliance CCB STANDARDS: biodiversity Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance In-depth training."— Presentation transcript:

1 ©2011 Rainforest Alliance CCB STANDARDS: biodiversity Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance In-depth training

2 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 3 © J.Henman INTRODUCTION

4 STRUCTURE OF THE CCB BIODIVERSITY SECTION 4 B1. Net Positive Biodiversity Impacts B 1.1 Appropriate methodologies to assess changes in biodiversity as a result of the project B 1.2 No negative effect on High Conservation Value Forests (HVC) B2. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts B 2.1 Identify negative offsite biodiversity impacts B 2.2 Impact mitigation B 2.3 No net negative impacts on biodiversity Introduction Biodiv. Reqs. and… General Criteria G 1.7 Description of biodiversity in project zone G 1.8 Evaluation of HCVs G 2.5 Without project scenario effect on biodiversity B3. Biodiversity Impact Monitoring B 3.1 Selecting biodiversity variables CM/B 3.2 Assess the effectiveness of measures for HCV B 3.3 Full monitoring plan

5 The 4 stages of biodiversity impact assessment for project development 5 StageBrief DescriptionRelevant CCB Standards Criteria 1an accurate description of biodiversity conditions at the start of the project; G1.7; G G a projection of how those conditions would change, if the project were never implemented (the “without-project” scenario); G2.5; 3a 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; ; 3.6; 3.7; B1; B2, GL3 4design and implementation of a credible system for monitoring impacts – known as the “biodiversity monitoring plan” B3 Biodiv. Reqs. Requirements

6 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 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 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, Peru Validated to the CCB Standards First Edition PDD available at CCBA Web siteWeb site Biodiv. Reqs. Introduction

7 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 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 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 8 © J.Henman TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS

9 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 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 9 Tools Introduction

10 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 11 What are the 6 High Conservation Values? © J.Henman EXERCISE 1: HIGH CONSERVATION VALUES (G8) Tools High Conservation Values

12 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

13 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)

14 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 2 Globally, regionally or nationally significant large landscape-level areas where viable populations of most if not all naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns of distribution and abundance

15 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 3 Areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems

16 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 4 Areas that provide basic ecosystem services in critical situations (e.g. watershed protection, erosion control)

17 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) !

18 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

19 FURTHER RESOURCES ON HCVs High Conservation Value Resource Network Global HCVF Toolkits WWF Ecoregions (Toolkit for the assessment of HCV Forests High Conservation Value Resource Network Global HCVF Toolkits WWF Ecoregions (Toolkit for the assessment of HCV Forests 19 Tools High Conservation Values

20 2. KEY BIODIVERSITY AREAS (KBA) (GL3) 20 Key biodiversity areas assessment is only required to assess ‘exceptional biodiversity benefits’, which is a GOLD level criteria Key biodiversity areas assessment is only required to assess ‘exceptional biodiversity benefits’, which is a GOLD level criteria Sites of global significance for biodiversity conservation Identified 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

21 KEY BIODIVERSITY AREA (KBA) FRAMEWORK: CRITERIA AND THRESHOLDS CriterionSub-criteriaProvisional thresholds for triggering KBA status Vulnerability Regular occurrence of a globally threatened species ( according to the IUCN Red list) at the site N/ACritically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) species – presence of a single individual Vulnerable species (VU) - 30 individuals or 10 pairs Irreplaceability Site holds X% of a species’ global population at any stage of the species’ lifecycle a) Restricted-range speciesSpecies with a global range less than 50,000 km2 5% of global population at site b) Species with large but clumped distributions 5% of global population at site c) Globally significant congregations 1 % of global population seasonally at the site d) Globally significant source populations Site is responsible for maintaining 1% of global population e) Bioregionally restricted assemblages To be defined 21 From Langhammer et al, 2007 Tools Key Biodiversity Areas

22 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 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, Belize Validated to the CCB Standards 2 st Ed. July 2010 Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits PDD available at CCBA Web siteWeb site

23 GL3.2.1: Restricted range species, with a global range of less then 50,000km 2 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% (2,560km 2 ) of the forest cover is closed canopy -> possibility that the global range of most of these species is under 50,000km 2 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 GL3.2.1: Restricted range species, with a global range of less then 50,000km 2 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% (2,560km 2 ) of the forest cover is closed canopy -> possibility that the global range of most of these species is under 50,000km 2 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 2 st Ed. December 2009 Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits PDD available at CCBA Web siteWeb site Tools Key Biodiversity Areas

24 FURTHER RESOURCES ON KBAs Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) https://www.ibatforbusiness.org/ https://www.ibatforbusiness.org/ WWF Ecoregions Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) https://www.ibatforbusiness.org/ https://www.ibatforbusiness.org/ WWF Ecoregions 24 Tools Key Biodiversity Areas

25 EXPERIENCE-SHARING Does anyone have experience to share on assessing HCVs and KBAs? Identification of pitfalls? Unusual methods used? On the ground examples? Does anyone have experience to share on assessing HCVs and KBAs? Identification of pitfalls? Unusual methods used? On the ground examples? 25 Tools

26 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 26 Tools 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 !

27 POSSIBLE BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS 27 © J.Henman Tools Ecological Survey

28 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 28 Tools Ecological Survey

29 EXERCISE 2: BIODIVERSITY SAMPLING TOOLS Can you list different techniques for biodiversity sampling? 29 Tools Ecological Survey

30 BIODIVERSITY SAMPLING TOOLS 30 Example Techniques Interviews Nets Traps Camera Traps Transects Quadrat counts Tools Ecological Survey

31 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 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$ ) Cameras can be damaged by animals or poachers Tools Ecological Survey

33 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? Does anyone have experience to share on using biodiversity sampling tools and techniques? Most effective method? Identification of pitfalls? On the ground examples? 33 Tools

34 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 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 35 EXAMPLE: BIODIVERSITY IMPACT MONITORING PLAN Boden Creek Ecological Preserve, Belize Validated to the CCB Standards 2 st Ed. July 2010 Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits PDD available at CCBA Web siteWeb site Tools Ecological Survey

36 Case Study: Green Resources or Penablanca Reforestation projects Objective: Identify a project’s negative impacts, mitigation measures and completeness of its monitoring strategy 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 1 st Ed. October 2009 PDD available at CCBA Web siteWeb site Tools Ecological Survey Penablanca Sustainable Reforestation Project, Philippines Validated to the CCB Standards 2 st Ed. December 2009 Gold Level for Exceptional Biodiversity Benefits PDD available at CCBA Web siteWeb site

37 37 © J.Henman EVALUATION AGAINST THE STANDARD

38 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

39 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. 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

40 G1. ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IN THE PROJECT AREA 40 Auditing 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

41 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

42 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

43 An evaluation of whether the project zone includes any of the following High Conservation Values (HCVs) and a description of the qualifying attributes: Key points 8.1. Significant concentrations of biodiversity values 8.2. Significant large landscape-level areas where viable populations of native species occur 8.3. Threatened or rare ecosystems 8.4. 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

44 ‘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

45 G2. BASELINE PROJECTIONS 45 Auditing 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. 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.

46 G2. BASELINE PROJECTIONS 46 Auditing Requirements: Biodiversity Information Description of ‘without project’ scenario effect on biodiversity in the project zone (G2.5) 2. Baseline Projection

47 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

48 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

49 B1. NET POSITIVE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS 49 Auditing 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 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

50 50 Auditing 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

51 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

52 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

53 Demonstrate that no High Conservation Values identified in G will be negatively affected by the project. Auditing 3. Net Positive Impacts B1.2 NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON HCVs © J.Henman

54 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

55 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

56 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

57 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

58 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

59 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

60 ‘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

61 B2. OFFSITE BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS 61 Auditing 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 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

62 62 Auditing 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

63 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

64 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

65 Document how the project plans to mitigate these negative offsite biodiversity impacts. Auditing B2.2 IMPACT MITIGATION PROJECT PLAN 4. Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

66 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

67 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

68 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

69 B3. BIODIVERSITY IMPACT MONITORING 69 Auditing 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 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

70 70 Auditing 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

71 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

72 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

73 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 (G ) 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 (G ) present in the project zone. Auditing CM/B3.2 EFFECTIVENESS OF HCVs MEASURES 5. Impact Monitoring

74 Measures for G need to be based on globally, regionally or nationally approved assessment methodologies Measures for G 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

75 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

76 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

77 GL3. EXCEPTIONAL BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS GOLD STATUS (OPTIONAL) 77 Auditing 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. 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.

78 GL3. EXCEPTIONAL BIODIVERSITY BENEFITS GOLD STATUS (OPTIONAL) 78 Auditing Requirements: Vulnerability (GL3.1) Irreplaceability (GL3.2) 6. Gold Status

79 Regular occurrence of a globally threatened species (according to the IUCN Red List) at the site: 1.1. Critically Endangered (CR) and Endangered (EN) species - presence of at least a single individual; or 1.2. Vulnerable species (VU) - presence of at least 30 individuals or 10 pairs. GL3.1 VULNERABILITY Auditing 6. Gold Status

80 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

81 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

82 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

83 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 Any re-use must acknowledge on the photo Jenny Henman and/or Leo Peskett as per the current copyright

84


Download ppt "©2011 Rainforest Alliance CCB STANDARDS: biodiversity Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance In-depth training."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google