Ecological Impact Assessments in Developing Countries: challenges faced and lessons learned. Dr Mihai Coroi

Transcription

1 Ecological Impact Assessments in Developing Countries: challenges faced and lessons learned Dr Mihai Coroi

2 EcIA in Developing Countries Challenges Availability and language of information Satisfaction of national and international stakeholders operating in different political context Resolution of complex local constraints affecting the timing, quality, access and safety of surveys Necessity to adapt standard methods Short project timescale Difficulty and uncertainty in implementing the mitigation

3 International EcIA Lender Requirements Environmental and social policies and requirements: IFC, EBRD, ADB, AfDB, Equator Principles III etc. IFC Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources Modified Habitat - Minimise impacts and implement mitigation as appropriate Natural Habitat - Must not convert or degrade unless 1) no alternative exists, 2) stakeholders have been consulted, 3) mitigation hierarchy is applied

4 IFC Performance Standard 6 Critical Habitat 1. Habitat of significant importance to CR & EN species 2. Habitat of significant importance to endemic & restricted-range species 3. Habitat supporting globally sign. conc. of migratory/congregatory spp. 4. Highly threatened and/or unique ecosystems 5. Areas associated with key evolutionary processes 6. Some Internationally Recognised Areas and Legally Protected Areas Critical Habitat Assessment Must not implement any projects in critical habitat unless: - No alternatives exist - There are no measurable impacts on critical habitat triggers - There is no net reduction in the populations of CR and EN species - BAP is completed - Long-term monitoring and evaluation programme is implemented

5 EcIA in Developing Countries Baseline Surveys Significant constraints: health/safety and security logistics complex seasonality lack of skilled local ecologists difficult site access lack of base maps Biodiversity Surveys: habitats & flora, mammals, birds, herpetofauna, fish, aquatic macro-invertebrates, terrestrial invertebrates

6 Sensitivity International EcIA Impact Assessment Method Conservation importance (sensitivity) Very high High Medium Low Negligible Geographical context International National Regional, Metropolitan, County Local ZoI IUCN and national red lists Global databases National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan Publications CIEEM guidance avoids and discourages use of the matrix approach. (CIEEM, 2016) Impact evaluation matrix Magnitude Adverse Beneficial Major Moderate Minor Negligible Minor Moderate Major High Major Major Moderate Negligible Moderate Major Major Medium Major Moderate Minor Negligible Minor Moderate Major Low Moderate Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Moderate Negligible Minor Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Negligible Minor Effects assessed before and after mitigation

7 Mitigation UK Approach Five Point Approach: Information, Avoidance, Mitigation, Compensation, Enhancement (RTPI, 2000) EcIA Principles (Mitigation Hierarchy): Avoidance, Mitigation, Compensation, Enhancement (CIEEM, 2016) Mitigation Hierarchy: Avoidance, Mitigation, Compensation, Enhancement (BS42020:2013) Mitigation Hierarchy: Avoidance, Mitigation, Compensation (DEFRA, 2013)???: Avoidance, Mitigation, Compensation (NPPF, 2012) British Standard BS42020:2013 Biodiversity - Code of practice for planning and development National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF, 2012) Planning for Biodiversity (Royal Town Planning Institute, 2000). Guidelines on EcIA in the UK and Ireland (CIEEM, 2016). Biodiversity Offsetting in England Green Paper (DEFRA, 2013)

8 Mitigation Hierarchy - International Approach CSBI, 2015

9 Conservation Goals on Development Projects At least No Net Loss: BS42020:2013 Net Gain where possible: Green Paper (DEFRA, 2013), NPPF 2012 No Net Loss in natural habitats, where feasible (IFC PS6) Net Gain in critical habitat (IFC PS6) Considering that: Most ecological mitigation in EIAs is not successfully implemented or effectiveness is unknown (Drayson & Thompson 2013, 2015) EIA only require compensation for significant residual effects Are No Net Loss and Net Gain utopic goals?

10 Biodiversity Offsets Offsets are measurable conservation outcomes resulting from actions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity impacts arising from project development after appropriate prevention and mitigation measures have been taken (BBOP, 2012). Restoration offsets and averted loss offsets Principles and key aspects to consider: Offsets designed to achieve NNL and preferably NPI Not all impacts can be offset Additionality Location Exchange rule: like-for-like or better principle Metrics Multipliers Stakeholder participation

11 Proposed Biodiversity Offsetting System in England (DEFRA 2013 & 2016) Quicker (?), more certain (?), cheaper (?) and simpler (?) Offsetting would make existing compensation more measurable, equitable, long-term and spatially planned

12 International Guidance Relevant to EcIA

13 Biodiversity Action Plans (BAP) for Development Projects Set of actions that lead to the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity in the project area Required for projects in critical habitat; rec. in natural habitat Usually developed where there are gaps in the ESIA The BAP ensures the project: Implements the mitigation hierarchy defined in the ESIA Complies with national and international legislation & policy Complies with lender requirements IPIECA & OGP (2005). A guide to developing biodiversity action plans for the oil and gas sector. IFC Guidance Note 6 (2012)

14 Adjaristsqali Hydropower Project (Georgia) Black Sea Two hydropower schemes in cascade and associated transmission lines Mott MacDonald completed feasibility study, stakeholder consultation, ESIA/ESMP, BAP, detailed engineering design; acted as Owner s Engineer Biodiversity work: Biodiversity chapters in feasibility study and ESIA/ESMP Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) and Critical Habitat Assessment Designed survey & monitoring methods Undertook some surveys Advice on BAP implementation Facilitated 3 stakeholder workshops

15 Adjaristsqali Hydropower Project (Georgia) Caucasian Salamander (Mertensiella caucasica) PSOVI Brown Bear Ursus arctos Colchic Khramulya Capoeta sieboldii Colchic Ivy Hedera colchica

16 Majnoon Oilfield BAP (Iraq) Part of oilfield is designated as a Ramsar Site & IBA BAP before development of oilfield; aimed to guide ESIA and project design Activities: Defined BAP scope and undertook comprehensive desktop review Baseline biodiversity, hydrology & livelihood surveys Ecosystem services assessment Stakeholder identification and consultation Community workshops and market observations Established biodiversity conservation and livelihood development actions Training to local consultants

17 Majnoon Oilfield BAP (Iraq) Jungle Cat Felis chaus Basrah Reed Warbler Acrocephalus griseldis Sacred Ibis Threskiornis aethiopicus Capparis ovata Euphrates Soft-shelled Turtle Rafetus euphraticus All Photos: Nature Iraq

18 Ecosystem Services (ES) Provisioning services: food, freshwater, timber, fibre, energy, medicines Regulating services: climate/air/water quality, disease control, waste decomposition, pollination, flood/erosion prevention, C sequestration Cultural services: recreation, spiritual values, aesthetic enjoyment Supporting services: nutrient cycling, primary production Business risks and opportunities: operational, regulatory & legal, reputational, market & products, financing UK - Many policies that address or mention ES - No requirement to address ES in EIA - CIEEM (2016) EcIA can provide information for ES assessment

19 Ecosystem Services in International ESIA Lender Requirements IFC Performance Standard 6: Maintain the benefits from ES Determine priority ES in consultation with affected communities Identify impacts/dependencies on ES Priority ES of importance to affected communities, where client has management control or significant influence over ES - Avoid or minimise impacts on priority ES - Maintain the value and functionality of priority ES Priority ES on which the project depends - Minimise impacts on ES - Measures to increase resource efficiency

20 Assessing Ecosystem Services in ESIA World Resources Institute Method: 1. Identify relevant ES 2. Prioritise relevant ES 3. Define the scope and information needs 4. Establish the baseline for priority ES 5. Assess impacts and dependencies on priority ES 6. Mitigate impacts & manage dependencies on priority ES Landsberg, F., Treweek, J., Stickler, M.M., Henninger, N., Venn, O. (2013). Weaving ecosystem services into impact assessment. A step-by-step method. Version 1.0. World Resources Institute. Nature Iraq Nature Iraq Other Methods: Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessment (TESSA) Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services & Tradeoffs (InVEST)

21 EcIA in Developing Countries Lessons and Good Practice Learned Provision of detailed instructions and training to local consultants Detailed planning of baseline surveys Production of habitat & sensitivity maps Assessment of ecosystem services by multi-disciplinary team Assessment of impacts before/after mitigation Systematic implementation of the mitigation hierarchy Monitoring of mitigation implementation Preparation of project-specific BAP Stakeholder consultation on biodiversity at all project stages

22 Nature Iraq