biodiversity & monitoring+action _indicators ebi2003

8/14/2019 Biodiversity & monitoring+action _indicators EBI2003

1/31

The Energy & Biodiversity Initiative

Biodiversity Indicators for Monitoring Impacts and Conservation Actions

Biodiversity Indicatorsfor Monitoring Impactsand Conservation Actions

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................... ............................ 3

1. BACKGROUND.. .................................................................................................................... 5

2. USING THIS DOCUMENT................................................................................................................ 73. UNDERSTANDING INDICATORS .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

3.1 Indicator Types................................................................................................................................................................. ............................9

3.2 What Makes a Good Indicator? ............................................................................................................................................................... 10

3.3 Acquiring Information to Develop Indicators ....................................................................................................................................... 11

4. DEVELOPING BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS ............................................................................................................................................................... 13

4.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................................13

4.2 The Importance of Stakeholder Engagement ..................................................................................................................................... 13

4.3 Primary and Secondary Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................ 14

4.4 Methodology for Developing Indicators... ....................................................................................14

ACTION 1. Desktop assessment of biodiversity values and potential biodiversity impacts........................................... 14

ACTION 2. Baseline establishment...................................................................................18

ACTION 2A. Baseline establishment in the absence of a formal ESIA ..........................................................................18

ACTION 2B. Baseline establishment with a formal ESIA ..................................................................................................18

ACTION 3. Focusing on signicant impacts ............................................................................................................................... 19

ACTION 4. Generating list of potential site-level indicators..................................................................................................20

ACTION 5. Choosing site-level indicators ................................................................................................................................... 21

ACTION 6. Generating company-level indicators............................................................................... 21

ACTION 7. Monitoring of impacts........................... ......................................................... 22

ACTION 8. Reporting performance............................................................................................................................................. 23

ACTION 9. Reviewing and modifying actions.. ................................................................... 23

5. DIRECTORY OF EXAMPLE INDICATORS.................................................................................................................................................................... 25

APPENDIX 1. Theoretical Case Study ..............................................................................................................................................................................30

photo credit: Conservation International, Haroldo Castro


2/31


3/31


Indicators are a way o presenting and managing complexinormation in a simple and clear manner. Using anapproach based on risk assessment, this documentoutlines a methodology or developing site-levelindicators to monitor signiicant positive and negativebiodiversity impacts and company-level indicators to

inorm and report on the approach taken to biodiversityconservation at a strategic level. It is not the intention othis document to provide a prescriptive list o indicatorsto be used in every circumstance: the diverse nature obiodiversity and o oil and gas operations makes thisan unrealistic expectation. Thereore, the emphasis

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ACTION

ACTION 1. Desktop Assessment ofBiodiversity Values & Potential Impacts

CONSIDER EXITING INDICATOR PROCESS

ACTION 2. Baseline Establishment

ACTION 3. Focusing on Significant Impacts

ACTION 4. Generating List ofPotential Site-Level Indicators

ACTION 5. Choosing Site-Level Indicators

ACTION 6. Generating Company-Level Indicators

ACTION 7. Monitoring of Impacts

ACTION 8. Reporting Performance

ACTION 9. Reviewing & Modifying Activities

ACTION

ACTION 1. Desktop Assessment ofBiodiversity Values & Potential Impacts


ACTION 2. Baseline Establishment

ACTION 3. Focusing on Significant Impacts

ACTION 4. Generating List ofPotential Site-Level Indicators

ACTION 5. Choosing Site-Level Indicators

ACTION 6. Generating Company-Level Indicators

ACTION 7. Monitoring of Impacts

ACTION 8. Reporting Performance

ACTION 9. Reviewing & Modifying Activities

Low High

Zero

More than Zero

MorethanZero

Zero

OUTPUT

Biodiversity value

Potential biodiversity impacts

Significant impacts


Preliminary targets

Revised targets

OUTPUT

Biodiversity value


Significant impacts


Preliminary targets

Revised targets

FIGURE 1. OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY FOR GENERATING INDICATORS


4/31

4The Energy & Biodiversity Initiative

here is on the method o deriving indicators rather thanthe indicators themselves. Although based on a strongtheoretical oundation, the methodology is centered onthe practical needs o sta at oil and gas operations andcorporate HSE proessionals. Ideally, the methodology summarized in Figure 1 below should be used within aormal Environmental Management System (EMS), where

much o the inormation required will already exist.

By monitoring impacts over time, the conservationoutcomes that result rom modiying or changingtechnology, adopting improved operational practices andintegrating biodiversity issues into management strategycan be determined. A ormalized system to measure andmonitor the eects o an operation on biodiversity willallow a company as well as regulators and civil society tomore easily understand, predict, minimize and preventimpacts; manage activities; and develop, monitor andreine management practices and eventually company

policies. Establishing a system o indicators or reportingon impacts will also allow the company to provide assuranceand transparency about its perormance, especially iincorporated into the EMS. Although individual indicatorswill vary rom project to project, good indicators ollowtheSMARTphilosophy (specific, measurable, achievable,relevant and timely). Biodiversity indicators must also be

suiciently sensitive to provide a warning o change beoreirreversible damage occurs eectively they must serve toindicate where no signiicant change is occurring, and alsowhere the threshold between insigniicant and signiicantchange lies.

Determining changes in natural systems can be a lengthy

process, particularly i the relative importance o naturalcycles and anthropogenic changes is to be properlyunderstood. However, in many cases there may be anurgent requirement or an indicator, so that activities canbe modiied to immediately reduce signiicant impacts. Inthese cases, it may be appropriate to consider in the shortterm an indicator that does not directly measure change in abiological system but rather measures change in an activitythat, i let unaltered, will lead to biodiversity impacts.Using a short-term, indirect indicator may enableactivities to be quickly modiied, while data are beingacquired to develop the inal long-term indicator based on

the direct measurement o changes in the biological system.However, the less clear the link between the indicator andthe impact, the greater the possibility o modiicationto activities not achieving the expected outcomes, andthereore indirect indicators must be used with caution andclose monitoring.


5/31


Indicators are a way o presenting and managingcomplex inormation in a simple, clear, manner thatcan orm the basis or uture action and can be readilycommunicated to internal or external stakeholders asappropriate. Numerous indicators have been developedto monitor environmental and sustainable developmentissues. Fewer (but still numerous) indicator-suites are recommended speciically or measuringbiodiversity (e.g. International Institute o SustainableDevelopments Compendium of Sustainable Development

Indicator Initiativeswebsite at:www.iisd.org/measure/compindex.asp). Few have been developed specicallywithin the oil and gas sector. This document synthesizesmany diferent methods, building on existing approachesto environmental management and protection in theoil and gas industry (such as ISO 14001 and OGP HSE-MS guidelines), and adapting and extending these tothe specic theme o biodiversity measurement andconservation.

Indicators can measure many things, rom pressureson biodiversity, to changes in the state o biodiversity,

to how a company has responded to biodiversity issues.Indicators are used to check whether the trends or issueso concern are occurring: they should be objective-led, and the inormation they provide should indicatethe success or ailure o actions, and then actionschanged accordingly. Thus key issues are in the choiceo indicators and their subsequent use. Indicators are aundamental input to management eedback loops thatadapt behavior based on the results o monitoring andevaluation. Many assumptions have to be made aboutindicators, and decisions are made sometimes in theabsence o complete inormation. Difering opinionso stakeholders regarding impact priorities, identiyingwhich impacts are directly attributable to the company,and predicting what the change might be without thecompanys activities can present uncertainties indeveloping appropriate indicators. Consequently, thedevelopment, choice and use o indicators is an iterativeand continual process validation, review and revisionare essential elements o ne-tuning the process, as isthe case with an EMS.

A ormalized system to measure and monitor the efectso an operation on biodiversity will allow a company tomore easily understand, predict, minimize and preventnegative impacts; enhance positive impacts; manageactivities; and develop, monitor and rene policies.Establishing a system o indicators or reporting onimpacts will help the company communicate internallyon biodiversity issues and provide greater assuranceand transparency about its perormance to externalstakeholders. While indicators should ocus on those

actors that are having, or may have, the greatest impactson biodiversity, companies may also wish to includemore general indicators that address the wide range oissues, concerns and perceptions among stakeholders.Used correctly, biodiversity indicators can improverelationships with stakeholders by ofering a commonbasis or measurement that can be collectively agreedand veried. Indicators and other tools that promotetransparency can help oil and gas companies to wintheir societal license to operate, maintain access tonew resources and business opportunities, and protectreputation related to perormance, and government,

community and NGO relations. Indicators shouldbe developed not only or negative impacts, but alsoor positive outcomes, such as outreach programs,education, research and proactive conservation actions.

Although biodiversity indicators can play a key role inresponding to concerns raised by the many stakeholdersnow scrutinizing the perormance o the oil and gasindustry (see Section 4.2), they must be business-relevant i they are to be widely used in the industryand not a public relations exercise. This means thatthey must be developed in response to a need, that arisk assessment approach should be central to theirdevelopment, and that predicted signicant impactsrather than potential impacts should be the ocus o theprocess leading to their generation.

Using an approach based on risk assessment, thisdocument outlines the development and use o indicatorsto monitor signicant positive and negative biodiversityimpacts and the biodiversity conservation actions o oiland gas companies at site and company levels. Although

1. BACKGROUND
http://www.iisd.org/measure/compindex.asphttp://www.iisd.org/measure/compindex.asphttp://www.iisd.org/measure/compindex.asphttp://www.iisd.org/measure/compindex.asp


6/31


7/31


8/31


comments and suggestions relating to revisions andadditions that will improve the usability, content andbreadth and depth o application in the oil and gas sector.We are also actively seeking case studies examining thesuccessul use o indicators in monitoring biodiversityimpacts and conservation actions or inclusion in utureupdates.

PLEASE SEND COMMENTS, SUGGESTIONS

AND QUESTIONS TO:

THE ENERGY & BIODIVERSITY INITIATIVE

c/o Dr. Assheton Stewart Carter

The Center for Environmental Leadership in Business

Conservation International

1919 M Street NW, Suite 600Washington, DC 20036

USA

Tel: +1 202 912 1449

Fax: +1 202 912 1047

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.TheEBI.org
mailto:[email protected]://www.theebi.org/http://www.theebi.org/mailto:[email protected]


9/31


3.1 INDICATOR TYPES

Outside o the biodiversity arena, many diferenttypes o indicators exist, including those that relateto nancial, customer, eciency, resource, input,emission/waste, risk and impact aspects o operationsand business. Among these, indicators that relate tothe measurement o emissions and wastes currentlydominate (output indicators). The method describedhere or the development o indicators (Section 4) does

not limit itsel to output indicators, as there is rarely alink between the indicator and the impact. Instead, theprocess seeks to generate indicators that (a) relate to theactual or predicted signicant impacts o operations,(b) measure progress towards a targeted goal (outcomeindicators) and (c) are useul in reporting site-leveland company-level perormance with respect topreventing impacts and promoting conservation (inputindicators).

Indicators must be able to show the efects o change (i.e.they must be dynamic). There must be clear, discernable,

outcomes rom the inputs made to the system. Theways in which changes are reported occurs in a tieredway, rom the overall approach o a company, down tothe actual monitoring at site-level o impacts and theoutcomes o changes in activities. Based on the methoddescribed in Section 4, two indicator types are proposed:

site-level and company-level. The relationship betweenthese is examined in Section 4 (which includes workedexamples). The company must decide, based on a riskassessment process, whether site-level, company-level,or both, types o indicator are relevant:

Company-level: here, change relates to the way inwhich the company has considered the concept obiodiversity, and is seeking to reect this in theway it operates. This would be reected in the useo corporate or management process indicators,ocusing on areas such as the scale and location ooperations, policy inormation about approaches tomanaging biodiversity, case studies and inormationon compliance with those policies and processes (seeBox 1 or urther examples the answers to some o

the questions noted could be used as company-levelindicators). These tell o the way in which a company isapproaching the issues at a high level and the kinds oprocesses or mechanisms it is putting in place to achievethis cultural and operational change. Indicators here donot tell o direct biodiversity efects or outcomes.

Site-level: the use o indicators here is based on directquestions o biodiversity importance or which thereare expected outcomes. Typically, this may require

the monitoring o two or more things: the actor/parameter that is causing the impact, and the chosenresponse to mitigate or prevent the impact. The needhere is to recognize impacts on particular locations andtheir distinct biodiversity components (e.g. denedspecies or habitats). Measures o change may relateto biologically important issues, such as changes insurvival or recruitment, expressed as an indicator interms o changes in a population o a species or a givensite or block. In this case, the indicator would be orpopulation change within given thresholds, beyondwhich action might then be expected. For habitats,

changes in quality or composition would be measured,with the indicator reported as loss or degradation whenthresholds are exceeded.

3. UNDERSTANDING INDICATORS

ThreshoThresho

Significant charisk of im

Significant charisk of im

No significant changeNo significant change

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

ll

l

ll

ll

ll

llll

lllll

llllllllllllll

ll

ll

ll

llll

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

l

FIGURE 3. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF A

THRESHOLD TO BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATIO

AND MANAGEMENT


10/31


3.2 WHAT MAKES A GOOD INDICATOR?

Although individual indicators vary rom project toproject, good indicators ollow theSMARTphilosophy(specic, measurable, achievable, relevant and timely).Biodiversity indicators must also be suciently sensitiveto provide a warning o change beore irreversible

damage occurs efectively they must serve to indicatewhere no signicant change is occurring, and also wherethe threshold between insignicant and signicantchange lies (see Figure 3).

In addition, biodiversity indicators should also be:

Simple and relate to something that people canunderstand and use.

Able to address a need (e.g., be established throughstakeholder dialogue or respond to a predictedsignicant impact).

Sensitive to anthropogenic impacts able to measurechanges caused specically by humans (i.e. able todiferentiate between long-term background changes

and those changes arising rom the presence o oil andgas operations).

Dynamic and responsive to ongoing changes.

Able to address positive and negative changes.

Spatially relevant across the required geographicallevel (i.e. local, regional, global).

BOX 1. BUSINESS IN THE ENVIRONMENT SURVEY FOR 2001: BIODIVERSITY

The Business in The Environment Survey o 2001 asked the questions about biodiversity noted below (presented herein summary orm only). The idea o these questions was to help establish how ar companies were progressing with theirapproach to biodiversity issues.

1. Measurement and reporting

Do you assess and monitor your impact on biodiversity? Answers based on percentage o operations, e.g. turnover anddescription o measure, period, indicator, perormance and data i available.

2. Scope of information

Please indicate how much o your worldwide operations (e.g. percentage by turnover) is covered by the perormancemeasure quoted above percentages suggested.

3. Quality of information

Please indicate the quality o the inormation used to derive the perormance measure above, e.g. rom estimates toveried inormation.

4. Targets

Do you have a specic policy regarding your impact on biodiversity, e.g. rom no and not applicable to whatpercentage o the operation it covers?

5. Performance improvementWhich phrase most closely describes your company s perormance on biodiversity?

We cannot demonstrate any improvement in perormance.

We can provide evidence o an improvement in our perormance on biodiversity:

Within the last year.

Within the last two years. Over the last three to ve years.


11/31


Valid and reliable using technically deensiblemeasurement techniques.

Cost-efective and involve the appropriate level oefort.

Policy relevant (easy to interpret, showing trends overtime against baseline or reerence values).

Able to address priorities and the issues o greatestimportance.

The absence o one or more o these preerredcharacteristics may lead to limitations in how theindicators can be developed and used. Some common

limitations are shown in Box 2, using birds as anexample. The key here is that, in deciding to use birds asan indicator, they help answer a direct question and areused appropriately, in the correct context.

3.3 ACQUIRING INFORMATION TO DEVELOP

INDICATORS

It is important, where possible, to use existingresearch and monitoring studies as a precursor to thedevelopment o biodiversity indicators. This will both

decrease the work and cost and increase the validityo the development process. It may also be that suchstudies can provide a detailed context or the projectand its potential biodiversity impacts. A great deal oinormation is already routinely collected that can beused in the early stages o the indicator developmentprocess (as described in Section 4), or example:

Data accumulated during Environmental and SocialImpact Assessments (ESIAs).

Data acquired to ulll license requirements accordingto local or national laws and voluntary agreements.

Inormation gathered during programs aligned with

National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans(NBSAPs).

Further sources of information can be found in Online

Biodiversity Information Sources and Integrating

Biodiversity into Environmental and Social Impact

Assessment Processes.

BOX 2. THE LIMITATIONS OF BIRDS AS BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS

BirdLie International has been researching and using birds as indicators o biodiversity or decades. Data rom the workassociated with birds rom many organizations has been collated to give an understanding o threatened and endangeredbirds, endemic birds areas and Important Bird Areas. There are both positive and negative aspects o using birds asindicators species:

Appropriate Use Scenarios Limited Use Scenarios

Birds are a good taxa or data collection: relativelyeasy data to collect, and people can be trained to spotpresence and absence.

I only measuring birds, may not pick up changesthat birds are not susceptible to (i.e., it is unwise toextrapolate rom one situation to another).

Priorities have been established (Globally ThreatenedBirds, IBAs, IUCN red data list, etc.).

May encourage a managment ocus on one or more birdspecies that does little or nothing to enhance overallbiodiversity conservation.

Their behavior and interaction with the environmentcan be a good indicator o ecosystem health, i.e. theyneed plants, insects, nesting sites, water, etc.

May or may not be sensitive to a particular companyactivity.

Governments use them as indicators, e.g. UK use oskylark, presence and absence. May provide misleading inormation, e.g. migratoryspecies may be impacted by a wide range o detrimentalenvironmental conditions, away rom the site.

Good as a combined indicator with other aspects, e.g.plants.

The number o birds resting or wintering may not be agood indicator o impact.
http://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdf


12/31


Indicators are dynamic tools the reasons or generatingand using them change with time, and it is not possibleto prepare one unchanging set or the lietime oa project. Instead, it may be necessary to updateindicators periodically, just as an efective EMS mustbe continuously checked and revised. Used properly,indicators will allow project managers to increase the

understanding o impacts as the project moves throughits liecycle. Thereore, the nature o data acquired andrequired, and the resulting indicators, will vary accordingto the liecycle stage and the predicted signicantimpacts:

Duringpre-bid, the data gathered will normally bebased on existing inormation and surveys and willnot require development o a new set o indicators.However, it might be necessary to consider the majoractors and possible parameters that will afect changein the short, medium and long term.

See Integrating Biodiversity into Environmental and

Social Impact Assessment Processes, Appendix 1.

Duringexploration and appraisal, the need or a widerrange o more detailed biodiversity inormation willrequire consideration o indicators or the possible

impacts o exploration and beyond. Data may comerom small-scale surveys, consultation with in-countryconservation NGOs, careul extrapolation rom deskstudies or studies in areas that have similar physicaland biological characteristics.

Duringdevelopment, a suite o indicators will be

developed where high biodiversity values have beenidentied in the ESIA process and detailed surveys.These assessments provide the baseline or uturemonitoring, evaluation and urther research.

Duringoperations, additional biodiversity impacts notinitially predicted may be identied, and mitigationand monitoring actions will need to be identied,including appropriate indicators. Indicators atthis stage o the liecycle will reect the needs ocompliance, site-specic issues, regional policyand company policy evaluation, and governmental

reporting and assessment processes. The outcome othis monitoring will contribute to the renement oprocesses and policy as necessary.

Duringdecommissioning, indicators will ocus onways to meet the nal objectives o restoration andreclamation and, where appropriate, the longer-termaspects o atercare.
http://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdf


13/31


4.1 INTRODUCTION

The ollowing sections set out a sequence o nine actionsthat lead to the development o site-level and company-level indicators relevant to both primary and secondaryimpacts. Figure 4summarizes the sequence o actions,along with the input(s)necessary to carry out each action,and the output(s)resulting rom that action. Some othese stages will occur concurrently, some consecutivelybut all are underpinned to some extent by stakeholder

engagement. Within the context o this document,impacts is taken to include primary and secondaryimpacts unless otherwise noted.

For further information on the nature of primary and

secondary impacts, see Negative Secondary Impacts

from Oil and Gas Development.

The method described here is one that may at timesrequire assistance rom external experts in undertaking

some o the steps (e.g. identiying and consulting withstakeholders, and specialist aspects o biodiversity suchas species identication and numeration), particularly inthose cases where capacity must be developed within thecompany.

Although the methodology does not specically addresswhether an area is legally protected or a conservationpriority area (i.e. such designations are not an individualinput into the process o generating indicators), theseaspects are captured as elements o the risk assessmentthat runs throughout the methodology (e.g. the risks osignicant impacts may be higher in a legally protectedarea i that legal protection relates to a high degree obiodiversity sensitivity or the presence o unique habitatsand species).

See Framework for Integrating Biodiversity into the

Site Selection Process for further information on the

relevance of legal protection and conservation priority

areas for oil and gas operations.

A theoretical case study is used during the ollowingsections, showing how the methodology builds romone Action to the next, nally delivering appropriateindicators. The context or the example is shown below.Throughout the methodology, unless otherwise noted,the term impact is taken to include both primary andsecondary types. To assist readers in understanding thecase study, it is also compiled in Appendix 1.

CASE STUDY - CONTEXT

Indigenous people living in a village ve miles roman oil operation are concerned that a natural habitatsupporting a range o endemic animal lie central totheir diet is being impacted by an adjacent oil project,to the extent that their access to ood is diminishing.The company which has not yet completed anESIA wishes to assess the nature and signicanceo the impacts and identiy suitable indicators, iappropriate, to manage site operations to prevent anysuch impacts.

4.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF STAKEHOLDER

ENGAGEMENT

There should be a robust process in discussingappropriate indicators with relevant stakeholders:conservation is neither the exclusive preserve oconservationists, nor o companies. The process shouldbe built upon strong partnerships across a wide range ostakeholders i it is to have a sense o common ownershipand be successul in the long-term. Those involvedshould include private companies (including oil andgas companies, and other relevant companies such astimber concessionaires), government (e.g. departments,agencies and local and regional authorities), theeducation and nance sectors and civil society (e.g. thevoluntary and conservation NGO sector, other publicbodies and individuals). Local, national or internationalconservation NGOs can serve as partners in bringingthe various stakeholders together into a consultativeprocess. Many have substantial experience workingwith other local stakeholders, such as communities, andhave extensive knowledge o both biodiversity and themeasures necessary to conserve it. They can thereore be

4. DEVELOPING BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS
http://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdf


14/31


invaluable resources or companies wanting to determinethe most efective measures or conservation.

Objectives and targets or conservation perormanceshould reect the needs or inormation as identiedthrough internal and external discussions identiyingsuitable stakeholders through stakeholder analysis (see

Box 3) ensures that they are able to provide early inputinto developing the measurement objectives alongsidethe internal risk assessment process. Communicationwith stakeholders helps share uncertainties (e.g.resulting rom the comparison o data collected usingdiferent methods) with the aim o gaining consensuson what the best approach might be and ensures thatthe indicators ultimately developed meet a biodiversitydemand and satisy conservation concerns. It is alsoimportant to communicate gaps and uncertainties aspart o the engagement process, so that the indicatorsbeing proposed at a later stage are not misused or

misinterpreted, or that unrealistic expectations arenot raised. It is also important to recognize that theremay not necessarily be a strong relationship betweenimpacts and concerns raised through engagement (i.e.stakeholder perceptions o the risk or signicance ocertain impacts may not tally with the scenarios predictedusing available data) and this must be considered in theindicator generation process (see Action 3). Engagementis not presented here as a separate Action, but rather asthe oundation that underlies every stage o the indicatordevelopment process.

Further analysis of stakeholder engagement and its

importance for biodiversity conservation can be found

in Integrating Biodiversity Conservation into Oil and

Gas Development, Box 11.

4.3 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY IMPACTS

Impacts to biodiversity can be broadly divided intotwo types: primary and secondary. In general, primaryimpacts are changes to biodiversity that result specicallyrom project activities. These impacts, which will be mostamiliar to project managers, are normally associatedwith the area relatively near to project activities. Primaryimpacts result rom operational decisions and theactivities o project personnel. They usually becomeapparent within the lietime o a project, and otentheir efect is immediate. Secondary impacts, ratherthan resulting directly rom project activities, areusually triggered by the operations and may result romgovernment decisions and the actions and practices o

nearby communities or immigrants, in response to thepresence o the project. Secondary impacts may reachoutside project or even concession boundaries andmay endure beyond (and even begin beore) a projectsliecycle. Consequently, the responsibility or predicting,preventing and mitigating secondary impacts may not beat all clear-cut.

To place primary and secondary impacts in context,an example o primary and secondary impacts mightbe the clearing o dense-canopy orest to build projectinrastructure that results in immediate deorestationand loss o habitat (the primary biodiversity impact).Longer-term soil erosion then impacts water quality andcontributes to pressure on a rare sh species many milesdownstream (the secondary impact). The deteriorationin water quality resulting rom the soil erosion maybe a signicant pressure, but the species may only bethreatened as a result o cumulative pressures (e.g.

discharge o untreated sewage rom human settlements,agri-chemicals rom armland runof, etc.). Thereore,in absolute terms, it may not be possible or a company toidentiy where its responsibilities begin and end manyother activities may also have cumulative (and unseen)impacts on biodiversity at a local and regional scale(e.g. agriculture, inrastructural development, urbandevelopment, logging and mining). Thus, while pursuingthe measurement o impacts and perormance are centralto their biodiversity conservation eforts, oil and gascompanies must also be aware o wider ranging issues.

The nature of primary and secondary impacts and

management responses to them are examined in

Negative Secondary Impacts from Oil and Gas

Developmentand Good Practice in the Prevention

and Mitigation of Primary and Secondary

Biodiversity Impacts.

4.4 METHODOLOGY FOR DEVELOPING

INDICATORS

4 ACTION 1.

Desktop Assessment of Biodiversity Values

and Potential Biodiversity Impacts

This is the starting point or the process o indicatordevelopment. It begins with an assessment obiodiversity value o the site and associated area.This establishes in general terms the nature o anybiodiversity values that may be present and potentiallyimpacted. Stakeholder analysis and subsequent
http://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/impacts.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/ebi_report.pdf


15/31


engagement (e.g. with local communities, regional/national government departments and local/nationalconservation NGOs) should be used to assist inunderstanding the context within which potentialimpacts may occur. This also helps to develop thereasoning behind why indicators should be developedand used.

This is ollowed by a desktop risk assessment obiodiversity impacts based on (i) a preliminaryunderstanding o the site/operation in question, (ii)the environment in which it is, or will be, operating,and (iii) the stakeholders that have some valid interestin the operation or area. The purpose o Action 1 is toidentiy as many relevant potential negative site-levelimpacts as possible in the context o the biodiversityvalues initially determined this is a preparatory stage

BOX 3. STAKEHOLDER NEEDS ANALYSIS A CONCISE SUMMARY

Inormation is needed by all involved in understanding the impacts o the workings and potential workings o the energysector rom governments through to energy companies and civil society. Each o these groups addresses its need ordata rom a diferent perspective and asks a range o diferent, but complementary, questions. The needs o the diferentgroups can be summarized as ollows:

Government needs information to:

Evaluate the efectiveness o its biodiversity policies and legislation, and to rame new policies. Assess the workings o spatial planning and sectoral policies at national, regional and local levels, and to develop policy. Provide inormation to report on its national and international obligations under laws, conventions and treaties.

Assess level o compliance with legal requirements.

Work in partnership with industry and civil society.

Industry needs information to:

Minimize its overall biodiversity impacts and to mitigate any possible efects on biodiversity.

Recognize areas o biodiversity importance and potential regulatory conict. Understand its potential environmental and reputational risks when considering potential areas or exploration and

extraction. Understand the scale o, and potential or, biodiversity impacts both primary and secondary at each stage o the

project liecycle.

Be appropriate or use at the individual site level, but also suitable when aggregated to assess overall companyperormance.

Understand potential impacts on key biodiversity components and to identiy appropriate biodiversity indicators ordiferent stages in the project liecycle.

Help provide inormation or its own delivery and assessment systems, and to provide the basis or continualimprovement.

Report to regulatory authorities on operational perormance and to its stakeholders.

Rene operational procedures as part o its external reporting roles and requirements. Help assess its role in contributing to the drivers afecting longer-term biodiversity change.

Work in partnership with government and civil society.

Civil society needs infomation to:

Assess the impacts o policy and sectoral projects on biodiversity. Understand spatial and temporal change in biodiversity, and the impacts made by diferent industrial sectors. Help provide the basis or inormed dialogue on biodiversity issues and options or the uture. Work in partnership with industry and government.


16/31


INPUTS

Stakeholder analysis

Consultation

Literature review biodiversityimpacts of oil & gas operations


Historical data

Consultation

Formal ESIA


Risk assessment or ESIA

Biodiversity baseline

Significant impacts

Indicator context

Consultation

Consideration of wider context

Consultation

Site-level indicators

Corporate strategy

Site & company indicators


Preliminary (then revised) targets

INPUTS

Stakeholder analysis

Consultation

Literature review biodiversityimpacts of oil & gas operations


Historical data

Consultation

Formal ESIA


Risk assessment or ESIA


Significant impacts

Indicator context

Consultation

Consideration of wider context

Consultation

Site-level indicators

Corporate strategy

Site & company indicators


Preliminary (then revised) targets

ACTION

1. Desktop Assessment of Biodiversity Values & Potential Impacts

CONSIDER STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS & EXIT INDICATOR PROCESS

2A. Baseline Establishment

2B. Baseline Establishment

3. Focusing on Significant Impacts

4. Generating List of Potential Site-Level Indicators

5. Choosing Site-Level Indicators

6. Generating Company-Level Indicators

7. Monitoring of Impacts

8. Reporting Performance

9. Reviewing & Modifying Actions

ACTION

1. Desktop Assessment of Biodiversity Values & Potential Impacts

CONSIDER STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS & EXIT INDICATOR PROCESS

2A. Baseline Establishment

2B. Baseline Establishment

3. Focusing on Significant Impacts

4. Generating List of Potential Site-Level Indicators

5. Choosing Site-Level Indicators

6. Generating Company-Level Indicators

7. Monitoring of Impacts

8. Reporting Performance

9. Reviewing & Modifying Actions

OUTPUT

Biodiversity value



EIA (retrospective)


Further detailed studies (potential)

Indicator context

Significant impacts

CONSIDER EXITING INDICATOR PROCESS?

Preliminary targets

List of potential indicators

Indicators

Indicators

Revised targets

OUTPUT

Biodiversity value



EIA (retrospective)


Further detailed studies (potential)

Indicator context

Significant impacts

CONSIDER EXITING INDICATOR PROCESS?

Preliminary targets

List of potential indicators

Indicators

Indicators

Revised targets

High

Zero

More than zero

Low

Zero

Stage 2A, above, is applicable to projects where no formal ESIA has been undertaken,

but potential biodiversity impacts are significant; stage 2B, below, is applicable where a

formal ESIA has produced a baseline.

FIGURE 4. SUMMARY OF THE INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS


17/31


or the subsequent identication o a smaller subset osignicant issues or which biodiversity indicators willbe generated via a risk assessment process (see Figure5). Where an ESIA has been undertaken, this Action isequivalent to thescreeningandscopingstages.

Further information relating to stages in the ESIAprocess is presented in Integrating Biodiversity

into Environmental and Social Impact Assessment

Processes.

Specic inputsto Action 1 include a review o publishedand grey literature detailing the potential biodiversityimpacts o oil and gas operations in the specic contexto the operation, the relevant liecycle stage and theenvironment under consideration.

The desktop review should also consider Good

Practice in the Prevention and Mitigation of

Primary and Secondary Biodiversity Impacts.

Further extensive information is also referenced in

Online Biodiversity Information Sources.

The output rom Action 1 is a comprehensive assessmentand list o relevant potential impacts on biodiversity.I this list contains no potential impacts, the companymay choose to exit the biodiversity indicator generation

process. Where there are potential impacts, the companyshould proceed to Action 2A (in cases where no ESIAhas been undertaken) or 2B (in cases where a ormalESIA has been completed) in order to establish thebiodiversity baseline. It is important to note that even ithere are potential impacts highlighted during Action 1,there may still be no signicant impacts (i.e. a potentialimpact may not translate to a signicant impact). A wordo caution is, however, necessary here. In some cases,the lack o impacts ound in Action 1 does not mean thatthere is no need or a baseline it may instead indicatethat there is a deciency in the inormation that shouldbe addressed by undertaking Action 2A or 2B. Thereore,the company should consider careully the implicationso premature termination o the indicator process,although in practical terms it is likely that large-scaleinormation deciencies would be highlighted during theESIA process, resulting in the restarting o the indicatormethodology as appropriate.

An additional output at this stage needs to beestablishment o the reasons or developing indicators;

otherwise progressing through this process may notachieve the desired result. Objectives or perormancemeasurement should reect the needs or inormation asidentied through internal and external discussions.

See also Framework for Integrating Biodiversityinto the Site Selection Process and Integrating

Biodiversity into Environmental and Social Impact

Assessment Processes.

CASE STUDY ACTION 1

Building on the case study introduction in Section4.1, the principal stakeholders in this case have beenclearly identied, and the engagement ocus willremain with them throughout the process. Otherstakeholders have also been consulted, includinglocal and national government departments withresponsibilities or indigenous peoples and nationalconservation NGOs. Biodiversity values have beenestablished through discussions with the localindigenous people, a review o published literaturerelating to the area and discussions with local andregional academic institutions. The historic presenceo the endemic animal species within the speciedhabitat has been conrmed rom these exercises. Thecompany has completed a desktop risk assessment and

Significant biodiversity

impacts

Significant biodiversity

impacts

Potential biodiv

impacts

Potential biodiv

impacts

RiskAssessmentProcess

RiskAssessmentProcess

FIGURE 5.

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN POTENTIAL IMPACTS

AND SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
http://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/selection.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/practice.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdf


18/31


drawn up a list o potential impacts based on availableliterature. Major pathways linking the operation tothe habitat area have been identied as air, suracewater, noise and vibration, and possible disposal andsubsequent dispersal o solid wastes. Other potentialpathways such as groundwater have been discountedon the basis o existing geological and hydrogeological

data.

4 ACTION 2.

Baseline Establishment

Baselines are useul snapshots in time against whichchange in status can be compared. There are manyapproaches to establishing a baseline bearing inmind that the area may have already been impactedby human activity and that biodiversity varies throughtime. Equally, a particular survey period may or may notbe representative. In general, the more inormation

established and the longer the survey period, thebetter, but this is not always possible in the timescale ocompany activities, so assumptions have to be made. It isimportant when setting up a baseline that the limitationsand assumptions are understood and communicated tostakeholders. Two types o baseline are considered below,those without a ormal ESIA, and those with.

4 ACTION 2A.

Baseline Establishment in the absence of

a formal ESIA

Where an ESIA has not been completed or is notplanned, and Action 1 indicates potential impacts, thebaseline should be established as part o the process oindicator development (in these cases it is also likelythat an ESIA would need to be planned retrospectively ithe operation is to meet best practice criteria, whichwould sensibly include an ESIA or all new projects ormajor modications). The output rom Action 1 willhelp ocus the process o establishing the biodiversitybaseline, which will contain inormation on potentialwater, land and air impacts, activities likely to cause

physical disruption and degradation, chemical pollutantsthat may be released and so on. The baseline shouldallow identication o signicant changes, should theyoccur. There are diferent ways o surveying the statuso ecological resources, such as the Rapid AssessmentProgram created by Conservation International andthe Rapid Ecological Assessment program created byThe Nature Conservancy. The involvement o expertsto identiy the ecology o the area via on-the-groundsurveys can be a key means o establishing the baselinestate o the ecosystem. In other areas, where the risk

to biodiversity is low, there may be little or no needto collect baseline inormation or develop indicators.Thereore, Action 2A is only necessary where the outputrom Action 1B indicates there are potential biodiversityimpacts or where impacts were not ully assessed due todeciencies in inormation.

The use o existing literature (such as IUCN lists,National/Local Action Plans, Hotspots, WWF Ecoregions,Endemic Bird Areas, Important Bird Areas, Centreso Plant Diversity and nationally designated protectedareas) can assist in identiying key habitats/species thatmay be at risk and their current condition. These shouldbe considered as context or the more detailed localizedrisk assessment undertaken in Action 3.

The principal output rom Action 2A is the biodiversitybaseline. A retrospective ESIA may also be recommendedbased on the results o establishing the baseline,

particularly where a lack o inormation was identied.

Further information on identifying key habitats and

species can be found in International Conventions

and Online Biodiversity Information Sources.

4 ACTION 2B.

Baseline Establishment with a formal ESIA

The ESIA process is used to predict, analyze, understand,

prevent, minimize and mitigate the environmentalconsequences o current or proposed activities. ESIA isnow widely accepted throughout the oil and gas industry and other sectors as a valid and important tool, andin many countries it is required by law beore projectactivity begins. However, ew standard orms o impactassessment include the ull range o biodiversity impactsthat can result rom development. Furthermore, thetraditional ESIA process generally ocuses on primary,immediate impacts, although many o the most intenseand pervasive types o impacts on biodiversity will be

secondary and cover a wider scope, both in terms o timeand geographic area.

See also Integrating Biodiversity into Environmental

and Social Impact Assessment Processes.

The output rom Action 2B is the baseline with whichimpacts are compared and becomes an input to Action 3.Those elements or which some baseline measurement
http://www.theebi.org/pdfs/conventions.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/conventions.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/conventions.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/sources.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/conventions.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/conventions.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/conventions.pdf


19/31


exists are the ideal candidates or preliminary indicators,as the efect o actions based on the indicator inpreventing or minimizing impacts is more readilymeasured. The output rom Action 2B is also an inputto Action 8 (Reporting Perormance). Further detailedstudies may also be required i the initial survey does notdene the baseline in sucient detail.

CASE STUDY ACTION 2

The company has brought in external experts inorder to compare habitat quality and identiy andnumerate relevant species in two areas. The rst areais that considered by the local indigenous people tobe afected by the oil operation, and the second isa similar area remote rom the operation and otherhuman inuence. The latter is used as a control todetermine the baseline. The company has also soughtinormation rom the local people regarding changein hunting patterns and intensity and has determined

that no signicant local human population increaseor increased hunting activity have taken place duringthe period o apparent decline o ood resources. Theexternal experts studies have shown that there is nosignicant diference with respect to habitat qualityin the two areas, but there is a signicant depressionin animal numbers in the area adjacent to the oiloperation relative to the control, and that some othermammalian species are present in lower numbers thannoted in the control.

4 ACTION 3.

Focusing on Signicant Impacts

Up to this point, the methodology has only consideredpotential impacts. As a precursor to developingindicators, it is essential to narrow the ocus rom thesepotential impacts to those impacts that are signicantin the context o the operation and the surroundingenvironment (see Figure 5). The inputs to Action 3 arethereore the preliminary analysis o biodiversity valuesand the ull list o potential impacts derived in Action 1,the biodiversity baseline (i undertaken) that establishesthe context or understanding which o the potentialimpacts are signicant and an appropriate site-level riskassessment process as a means o dening the signicantimpacts. Where an ESIA has been undertaken, Action 3 isequivalent to the evaluation stage.

The nature of signicance in the context of

biodiversity impacts is explored in more detail in

Integrating Biodiversity into Environmental and

Social Impact Assessment Processes.

The outputs rom Action 3 are a quantitative or qualitativedescription o what the indicators will relate to (e.g. theindicator context in terms o area or region, or corporateunit) and a smaller group o signicant impacts derivedrom the longer list o potential impacts. Failure tocorrectly and clearly describe the boundaries can resultin the misapplication o the indicators outside those

boundaries or alse expectations or their use on the parto end-users and other relevant stakeholders.

I the risk assessment process indicates that there are nosignicant impacts, then the company may choose to exitthe indicator generation process. Once again, a note ocaution is required: although the scientic process mayindicate an absence o signicant impacts, stakeholdersmay not concur or a number o reasons, and there maystill be the need to addressperceived impacts throughthe generation o indicators. Each company must judgethe risk o ailing to account or diferent stakeholder

perceptions and consider whether additional impactsshould be included in the indicator generation processthat would otherwise not be considered signicant.

I there are signicant impacts, then indicators will berequired to ensure these impacts are managed efectively.For each signicant impact, a preliminary target couldbe set this will then orm the baseline or initiallyreporting perormance (Action 8). Subsequently, targetscan be revised as the process cycles through review,monitoring and reporting perormance.

CASE STUDY ACTION 3The company has determined rom the baselinestudies that only land-based animals appear to beafected, and that it is thereore unlikely that a water-based pathway is involved in any potential impact.Thereore, it has ocused on the other principalpathways (air, noise and vibration, and dispersiono wastes). Air quality monitoring data indicate thatthere are no signicant discharges o either gases orparticulates and sampling and analysis shows there areno discernable contaminants in the soil or ora in thearea where species numbers are depressed. Noise andvibration monitoring at the local communitys villageve miles rom the oil operation indicates that thelevels are well within acceptable limits and have notbeen considered an issue by the villages occupants.However, urther monitoring in the intermediatearea between the village and the operation shows thatthere is signicant noise and vibration within onemile o the operations boundary, although this dropsrapidly with increasing distance beyond this point.Noise levels and vibration requencies are accurately
http://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdfhttp://www.theebi.org/pdfs/esia.pdf


20/31


determined, and the data assessed by relevant experts,who conclude rom existing scientic studies that thenoise is unlikely to have a physiological or other impacton the afected animals, but certain o the vibrationrequencies present are likely to deter the presence thespecies or which a decline in numbers has been noted.The wider implications o deterrence include reduced

mating and ofspring. Based on this inormation,the company sets a preliminary target o returningpopulations o afected species to 90 percent o thebaseline noted in the control area within six months.

4 ACTION 4.

Generating List of Potential Site-Level

Indicators

Having completed the risk assessment (Action 3) anddened a list o signicant impacts (and the contextin which those impacts will occur), the generation o

indicators can be undertaken. This may begin with site-level indicators, as these may be precursors to some othe company-level indicators (see Section 3.1 IndicatorTypes). Each signicant impact on biodiversityidentied in Action 3 can generate one or more potentialindicators. For example, one impact may be reductiono the number o trees o vulnerable species X onsite due to historical clearance or site inrastructure.Appropriate targets would be established throughstakeholder engagement and scientic assessment, andthen potential indicators to monitor changes developed,or example:

Change in percentage o land used or inrastructure bycompany.

Numbers o trees replanted on site rom managed treenursery.

Determining changes in natural systems can be a lengthyprocess, particularly i the relative importance o naturalcycles and anthropogenic changes is to be properlyunderstood. However, in many cases there may be anurgent requirement or an indicator so that activities canbe modied to immediately reduce signicant impacts.In these cases, it may be appropriate to consider in theshort term an indicator that does not directly measurechange in a biological system but rather measureschange in an activity that, i let unaltered, will lead tobiodiversity impacts.

The rst task in generating indicators is to produceor each signicant impact a comprehensive list opotentially appropriate indicators. A good starting point

is a consideration o the wider context; an appreciationo the priorities and the measures being used by widerprocesses and plans is useul in establishing what maywork at site-level. For example, using biodiversityindicators in common with government or local plansmay benet the company (and the government) interms o sharing inormation and aligning indicators

with these wider processes (e.g. National Action Plansand local Biodiversity Action Plans encouraged by theConvention on Biological Diversity seewww.biodiv.org/world/reports.asp?t=all). Indicators used to monitorsustainable development at local, regional and nationallevels may also have parallels with biodiversity issues andconservation needs, and these should also be consideredin the increasing number o countries that are developingsustainability indicators.

At this stage, only a limited degree o screening to removeinappropriate indicators should be undertaken and it is

better to list too many than too ew. Any screening thatis undertaken should be done according to the criteriadiscussed in Section 3.2. The output rom Action 4 is alist o potential indicators or each signicant impact onbiodiversity.

CASE STUDY ACTION 4

The company determines that potential biodiversityindicators include:

Ratio o species numbers per hectare in afected areaand baseline area or each impacted species (a ratio

o 1 indicating that there is no diference between thetwo areas).

Ratio o mating pairs in afected area and baselinearea or each impacted species.

However, the company also recognizes that it mighttake longer than its target period o six months toacquire data relevant to these indicators and thereorealso chooses an additional indirect indicator to use inthe short-term:

Percentage decline in vibration magnitude at problemrequencies at the site boundary and one mile intothe afected area (the target set or this is 70 percentat three months, rising to 85 percent at six months,based on advice rom animal experts regarding thechanges likely to reduce deterrence)
http://www.biodiv.org/world/reports.asp?t=allhttp://www.biodiv.org/world/reports.asp?t=allhttp://www.biodiv.org/world/reports.asp?t=allhttp://www.biodiv.org/world/reports.asp?t=all


21/31


4 ACTION 5.

Choosing Site-Level Indicators

The list o potential indicators generated in Action 4must now be reduced to a smaller number o the mostappropriate indicators. There is no denitive numberthat is required in some cases it may be possible to

identiy one or more potentially appropriate indicatorsor each signicant impact. In other cases, it might onlybe possible to identiy a single indicator that reects agroup o associated impacts, rather than each individualsignicant impact. In all cases, the key to the choice oindicators is that they areSMART, based on suitabilityto address the measurement objectives and ability tomonitor the results o modiying activities. In caseswhere the context changes (e.g. operational activitiesundergo major modications) it may also be necessaryto consider changing the indicator. It is at this stagethat engagement with stakeholders having a signicant

interest in the operation is particularly crucial.

There are a number o ways to carry out the process,depending on the nature and number o stakeholdersand their interest in the development o indicators. Itis important to remember that diferent stakeholdersmay have varying degrees o technical and scienticknowledge and this may heavily inuence theirwillingness or interest in being involved in the processand bias toward certain types o indicators:

Consult with a representative group o stakeholders

regarding the choice o indicator or each signicantimpact.

Use questionnaires, meetings with groups andindividuals, structured interviews with stakeholderrepresentatives or other methods as appropriate to thesituation.

Despite the involvement o stakeholders to inormthe process, the company should retain the power toamend the choices o external stakeholders i it can

make a robust and transparent case or doing so (withthe exception o indicators that are derived romregulatory requirements). Although ultimately it is theresponsibility o the company to ensure that the indicatoris the most appropriate, any rejection should relate tothe ailure o the indicator to meet the criteria noted inSection 3.2.

There is, however, little value in implementing anindicator that does not have at least a degree o supportamong stakeholders. The company should revert to

the stakeholders previously consulted to explain theproposed indicators and discuss the rationale or each othem. In many cases the reasons or measuring particularindicators and their limitations are not communicated,leading to conusion and misuse o the resultinginormation. Ultimately, the rationale or deciding onparticular indicators should always be documented to

acilitate uture review.

The outputrom this Action is a suite o indicators thatadequately address the signicant impacts identiedin Action 3. These become the inputsto the monitoringstage (Action 7).

CASE STUDY ACTION 5

Following consultations with the local indigenouscommunity, the company determines that the mostappropriate biodiversity indicator is the ratio ospecies numbers per hectare in afected area and

baseline area or each impacted species (a ratio o 1indicating that there is no diference between the twoareas). The second candidate indicator is rejected onthe basis o the delay in acquiring data beyond directenumeration o species numbers and also concernsregarding the non-linear relationship between matingpairs and total population.

Recognizing that it will take some time to acquiresuitable data to use these indicators, the companyagrees with the local community to use the indirectindicator (noted in the previous Case Study box) in

the short-term to allow it to immediately begin tomodiy its activities to reduce impacts on the afectedspecies. The company agrees with local people that thisindicator should not be used or more than 12 monthswithout additional consultation.

4 ACTION 6.

Generating Company-Level Indicators

As noted in Section 3.1, company-level indicators aremore likely to be about process than impact. Dependingon their aspirations, companies may choose to aligntheir company-level indicators with the SustainabilityReporting Guidelines published by the Global ReportingInitiative (GRI), a voluntary initiative promoting globallyapplicable sustainability reporting guidelines (seewww.globalreporting.orgor urther details).

Company-level indicators can be derived by theaggregation o site-level indicators where this is possible.I site-level indicators are to be aggregated, then theymusthave the same unit o measurement, relate to the
http://www.globalreporting.org/http://www.globalreporting.org/


22/31


same biodiversity impact and add value at the companylevel. Just as in the collection o any health, saety andenvironment inormation, there should be a commonprotocol or use by all o the companys reporting sites.

Not all company-level indicators are created byconsideration o site-level indicators; they can also

be generated to measure some o the responses thata company has taken. Although this may or may notdirectly change the status o biodiversity, the assumptionis that these types o measures give an indication o theresponsibility o the company and the types o actionstaken. This is the approach that several organizationshave been promoting, or example Earthwatch and the

Business in the Environment Index. The questions askedor the 2001 Business in the Environment survey ocompanies are listed in Box 1. Company-level indicatorsmay also include capacity-building indicators, toencourage shared knowledge/resources, extent o

education and research programs, and case studies ooutreach programs, to give an idea o the wider positiveimpact in the community the company may be having.See Section 5 or additional indicator examples that couldbe considered or development.

The outputrom this Action (company level indicators,and setting o appropriate targets) becomes an inputtothe monitoring stage (Action 7).

CASE STUDY ACTION 6

The company integrates the outcome o the process o

indicator generation and activity modication into anoverall assessment o the perormance o this specicsite. This overall assessment may include measuressuch as percentage o signicant issues addressedwithin six or 12 months o identication

4 ACTION 7.

Monitoring of Impacts and Conservation

Actions

Once the site-level and company-level indicatorshave been chosen, it is then necessary to put theminto operation. Initially, the preliminary targetsdeveloped in Action 3 should be adopted, but as timeprogresses more rened and appropriate targets canbe implemented. It may take an extended period usingthe indicators or monitoring beore new targets canbe set. The preliminary targets should be challengingbut also realistic, and should be clearly documented inthe reporting process (Action 8). The oundation orsubsequent monitoring is the baseline survey (see Action2). In general terms, monitoring is used to check that

objectives and targets have been achieved, to identiynew issues and potential impacts and as a eedbackmechanism to modiy and improve practices (e.g.through changes in operational activities). Monitoringcan be used to ensure quality assurance throughout theindicator development and implementation processand veriy that the correct indicators have been chosen

to measure actions and assess objectives, right throughto whether that measurement is being carried out in anaccurate and representative ashion

An efective way to manage progress is by incorporatingimpact measurement into the standard EMS processo planning, checking and corrective action (seeFigure 6). The objective o addressing the impactsidentied through risk assessment should already havebeen incorporated into the EMS, thus including themeasurement o perormance indicators against thoseobjectives should also be a natural t. It is at this point

where training o staf in the use o indicators can also beintroduced as a part o the EMS process. Incorporatingbiodiversity impact and action measurement intothe EMS also ensures that those responsible or themeasurement are identied and made accountable. Theirrole as it relates to the use o indicators should be clearlydescribed to ensure their responsibility is understood.

Assurance should be perormed by personnel/organizations who can ofer an unbiased opinion; theycan be personnel rom a separate part o the organizationor rom an external audit organization. Whichever is

chosen, assurance is an important step in maintainingreputation and improving internal processes.

Re

po

r

t

R

e

v

i

e

w

Im

pr

ove

A s s e s s

De

ve

lo

p

M

e

a

s

u

r

e

s

Ap

pl

y

&Implement

FIGURE 6. THE EMS PROCESS


23/31


CASE STUDY ACTION 7

The company monitors vibration requency andmagnitude at the site boundary and one mile intothe afected area and compares data with the targetsestablished under Action 4 or the rst eight months,ater which it has acquired sucient monitoringcapacity and data to switch to the direct indicator.

4 ACTION 8.

Reporting Performance

Communicating and reporting perormance, as aninternal process, as a legal requirement or voluntarilyto external stakeholders is an integral part o measuringboth impacts and the actions taken to address thoseimpacts. This is possible at various spatial levels: locally,nationally, regionally or globally, depending on therequirements identied. Types o inormation andmethods o reporting will difer according to the needs

o the company and the expectations o stakeholders andthe purpose behind particular measures, i.e. to establishbaseline, driving behavior change, etc. When externallyreporting on biodiversity indicators, it is important toinclude why these particular measures have been adoptedand what process was used to develop them in order topromote transparency.

Internal reporting is a priority communicatingthroughout the site not only supports the purpose orwhich the indicators were developed, but also allowspersonnel not directly involved to better understand the

project. In addition, employees in other parts o a larger

organization can benet rom what has been learned andpracticed by those at that site.

As noted in Action 3, stakeholder perceptions regardingthe signicance o impacts may need to be consideredin any external reporting, irrespective o the degree oscientic basis or those perceptions.

CASE STUDY ACTION 8

The company uses indirect (months 1-8) and direct (8+months) indicators to report against targets internallyto determine progress and modications required orremedial and preventative measures to achieve thosetargets. At 12 months, the indicators are also used toormally report to the local community, to supplementongoing communications during the preceding 12-month period.

4 ACTION 9.

Reviewing and Modifying Actions

It is important to assess the success o actions andindicators put in place. A clear eedback loop shouldbe established between the inormation collected viaindicators, and the success o actions put in place toimprove perormance where targets are not being met. Ireporting (Action 8) indicates that perormance is not inline with targets, then site- and company-level activitiesshould be modied as appropriate. The companymay also need to periodically assess i a more suitableindicator exists that will enhance the process o

FIGURE 7. INTEGRATION OF THE INDICATORS GENERATION AND EMS PROCESSES


24/31


monitoring and improving perormance (see Actions 4and 5). The combined process o modiying activities andindicator choice is shown in Figure 7.

CASE STUDY ACTION 9

Within the rst three months, the company beginsto modiy its activities, identiying major xed and

mobile sources o vibration on-site and implementinga program o remedial measures to damp specicrequencies rom these sources. Based on continuingmonitoring at the site boundary and one mile intothe afected area, the three-month target o reducingvibration at the determined requencies by 70 percentis not met (a 65-percent reduction is achieved) and the

company implements an accelerated program o sourceidentication and damping. Within the ollowingthree months, work is extended to identiy and dampadditional minor sources, meeting the overall targeto 85-percent reduction at six months. In parallelwith these activities, the company also begins todevelop and implement the capacity to monitor species

numbers, and switches rom the indirect to directindicator ater eight months. Subsequent monitoringshows that the population in the afected area hasrecovered to 95 percent o that in the control area by 12months, demonstrating that both the chosen indicatorsand remedial actions have been efective.


25/31


26/31


27/31


INDICATOR

HOWT

HEINDICATOR

WILLBE

MEASURED

RELEVANT

ATSITE

LEVEL?

RELEVANT

A

TCOMPANY

LEVEL?

RATIONALEFORUSE

LIMITATIONS

&SUITABILITY

Operationalsite

overlapwith

ConservationPriority

Areascontaining

globallythreatened

orrestrictedrange

species

The%o

foperationalsiteswithin

acountrythatarewithinthe

bordersofaConservationPriority

Area,orarewithinanappropriate

distanceofaC

onservation

PriorityArea

Y

Y

Thiskindofinformationshouldformakey

partofasitesEnvironmen

talManagement

System.

Itisimportantatasiteandcompanylevelto

understandhowtheare

aofoperationoverlaps

ConservationPriorityA

reas,particularlyasthis

isasignificantpointofcontentionbetween

someoilandgascompa

niesandconservation

NGOs.KnowledgeofthenumberofBusiness

Unitsoperatinginorne

artheseareasisvaluable

informationtoaheadofficetryingtolessenthe

reputationalrisktothecompanyandbeginto

assessoperationalimpa

ctsonbiodiversity.Where

informationisnotavailable,

itwillbenecessaryto

generatedataincooperationwithmunicipalities,

regionalconservationo

rganizations,etc.

Amountofland

withintheoperational

sitethathasa

managementplan

withabiodiversity

conservationfocus

Haorsq.

km,or%o

ftotalsite

area

Y

Y

Activemanagementofapo

rtionofthe

operationalsitecancontributeagreatdealto

itsbiodiversityvalue.

Ofthetotallandareaof

theoperationalsite,a

certainproportioncanbespecificallymanaged

forconservation.

Ifaco

mpanysobjectivewas

toincreasetheamountoflandsetasidefor

conservation,thentrackingthismeasureovertime

wouldindicatethedegreeofsuccessinmeetingthe

target.

Contributionto

habitatconservation

Haorsq.

kms

etasideordollars

contributedto

protectedarea

management

Y

Y

Landsetaside(boughtorleased)forconservation,

outsideofthesiteopera

tion,undertheauspicesof

asitemanagementplan

.Thiswouldalsobeuseful

informationatcompanylevelasitimpliesacertain

quantityoflandunderp

rotection(oramonetary

contributiontoconserv

ation).Ifacompanys

objectiveweretoincrea

setheamountoflandset

asideforconservation,thentrackingthismeasure

overtimewouldindicat

ethedegreeofsuccessin

meetingthetarget.

TABLE2.HABITATINDICATORS[theseindicatorsshouldnotbe

usedoff-the-shelftheyareoffereda

sexamplesonly]


28/31


29/31


INDICATOR

HOWT

HEINDICATOR

WILLBE

MEASURED

RELEVANT

ATSITE

LEVEL?

RELEVANT

A

TCOMPANY

LEVEL?

RATIONALEFORUSE

LIMITATIONS

&SUITABILITY

Emission/discharge

outputs

Thesecanber

eportedasabsolute

values(e.g.totaltonnesofsulphur

dioxideemitte

d,totalvolumeof

waterdischarg

ed)ornormalized

perunitofpro

duction.

Y

Y

Theseshouldbebasicbuildingblocksforsites

reportingtheiremissionsanddischarges,

bothlocallyandupwardsthroughthecompany

forcollationatacompany-

widelevel.

Thiswouldbeamorere

levantindicatorifit

weretiedintowhattheprimaryimpactsofthese

emissionswereonthelocalenvironment.There

hasbeenamovetoward

morelocalreporting,

asmanynowacknowled

gethatcollationof

emissionstatisticsatac

ompanylevelprovidesno

informationaboutimpa

ct.

Therefore,

increased

localreportingofemiss

ions,sensitivitiesand

impactsisamorerespo

nsibledirectiontotakethan

justemission/discharge

outputindicators.

Waterconsumption

Thiscanbereportedasan

absolutevalue

(e.g.totalvolume

ofwaterconsu

med)ornormalized

perunitofpro

duction.

Y

Y

Dependingonthelocation

ofthesiteand

thescarcityofwaterinthe

vicinity,water

consumptionmaybeacrit

icalaspectof

operations.

Allsitesshouldmonitortheirwaterconsumption,

asoilandgascompaniestendtouselargeamounts

ofcleanwater.Butthosesitesinwater-scarce

areashavearesponsibilitytominimizetheir

consumption,notjustfortheimpactthatthatuse

mayhaveonbiodiversity,

butalsoforitsimpacton

localcommunitiesandotherusers.

Atacompany

level,aggregationofwaterusestatisticswouldbe

ausefulindicationofabaselinewateruse,

from

whichitcouldtargetareductionacrossvariouskey

sites.However,asanin

dicatorforbiodiversity

impact,aggregationoft

hisinformationata

company-levelwouldnotaddparticularvalue.

TABLE4.INDUSTRIALPR

OCESSINDICATORS[theseindicatorsshouldnotbeusedoff-the-shelf

theyareofferedasexamplesonly]


30/31


CONTEXT

Indigenous people living in a village ve miles roman oil operation are concerned that a natural habitatsupporting a range o endemic animal lie central totheir diet is being impacted by an adjacent oil project, tothe extent that their access to ood is diminishing. Thecompany which has not yet completed an ESIA wishesto assess the nature and signicance o the impacts andidentiy suitable indicators, i appropriate, to managesite operations to prevent any such impacts.

ACTION 1

Building on the case study introduction above, theprincipal stakeholders in this case have been clearlyidentied, and the engagement ocus will remain withthem throughout the process. Other stakeholdershave also been consulted, including local and nationalgovernment departments with responsibilities orindigenous peoples and national conservation NGOs.Biodiversity values have been established throughdiscussions with the local indigenous people, a review opublished literature relating to the area and discussions

with local and regional academic institutions. Thehistoric presence o the endemic animal species withinthe specied habitat has been conrmed rom theseexercises. The company has completed a desktop riskassessment and drawn up a list o potential impactsrom the project based on available literature. Majorpathways linking the operation to the habitat area havebeen identied as air, surace water, noise and vibration,and possible disposal and subsequent dispersal o solidwastes. Other potential pathways such as groundwaterhave been discounted on the basis o existing geologicaland hydrogeological data.

ACT

biodiversity & monitoring+action _indicators ebi2003

Documents