Case Study: Applying the IFC Performance Standard 6 Andrew Cauldwell

Transcription

1 Case Study: Applying the IFC Performance Standard 6 Andrew Cauldwell Presentation for: Implementing the Mitigation Hierarchy National Biodiversity and Business Network Wed 10 August 2016 The business of sustainability

2 IFC Performance Standards What are the IFC Performance Standards? Performance Standard 6: Modified Habitats - Remediation Natural Habitat Apply No Net Loss (NNL) Critical Habitat Apply Net Gain (NG) for CH triggers Slide 2

3 IFC Critical Habitat Criteria Critical habitats are areas with high biodiversity value: i. Habitat of significant importance to Critically Endangered and/or Endangered species; ii. iii. iv. Habitat of significant importance to endemic and/or restricted-range species; Habitat supporting globally significant concentrations of migratory species and/or congregatory species; Highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems; v. Areas associated with key evolutionary processes.

4 Insert a map Location: West Africa

5 Sensitive Species involved Hooded Vulture Critically Endangered IUCN Red List (2015) Green Turtle Endangered IUCN Red List (2004) Slide 5

6 Discrete Management Unit For Critical Habitat criteria 1, 2 and 3: Define a sensible boundary that encompasses the area of habitat to be considered for the Critical Habitat Assessment. The DMU will depend on the species of concern. Slide 6

7 Wide-ranging Species Vultures and some other raptors Sea turtles Marine mammals Some large predators Habitat of significant importance to CR or EN species that are wide-ranging and where the loss of such a habitat could potentially impact the long-term survivability of the species. DMU is a difficult concept to apply for such species Slide 7

8 Outcomes of Critical Habitat Assessment Lenders required that we apply Natural Habitat requirements to Turtles and Vultures. i.e. No Net Loss Lenders reserve the right to recognise Critical Habitat. NNL is where project-related impacts on biodiversity are balanced by measures taken to avoid, minimize, undertake restoration and offset significant residual impacts - on an appropriate geographic scale. Slide 8

9 Offsets are not the Desirable Result Mitigation Hierarchy Avoidance Minimisation Rehab. / Restore Offsets

10 How to demonstrate NNL Follow the mitigation hierarchy Quantified accounting of losses against gains Timeframes need to be applied Simplified example: Impacts Losses Mitigation Gains Habitat loss (footprint) -5 Rehabilitation Effort 2 Air quality impact -2 Use low sulphur diesel 1 Expected human influx -4 Influx Mgmt Plan 3 Biodiversity Offset 5 Balance: Slide 10

11 How to demonstrate NNL Avoidance Gains Some of the losses cannot be mitigated Need to mitigate Direct project impacts Project induced impacts (eg Influx) Non-project related threats NNL needs to be conclusively demonstrated

12 How to demonstrate NNL Avoidance is key! Experienced a blurring of concepts between minimisation measures and offsetting activities Developing management plans Community conservation Promoting Ramsar site designation Slide 12

13 Challenges to Achieving NNL Easier concept to apply to habitats Applying to species can be more challenging Some mitigation measures are not easily quantified e.g. Community Conservation Programme Qualitative measures require a recognised external opinion External opinion of offsetting is recommended Slide 13

14 Slide 14 Static or Dynamic Baseline

15 Implications for Assessments Detailed understanding of key baseline components Quantifiable baseline data is needed Conventional approach of assessing significance of an impact doesn t demonstrate NNL Avoidance is King! Requires a thorough understanding of mitigation options and effectiveness Collaboration with high level specialists Slide 15

16 Thank you The business of sustainability