biodiversity offset case study: compaæía minera antamina™s ... · we focus on the antamina...

Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Compañía Minera Antamina�s Polylepis Initiative

ABOUT BNI Biodiversity Neutral Initiative (BNI) is a non-profit organization that researches and promotes best practices for corporate biodiversity management. The organization�s long-term goal is to develop guidelines for measuring, communicating, and offsetting biodiversity impacts with compensatory conservation projects -- helping leading companies to become �biodiversity neutral.� Regulatory standards exist for environmental offsets in the U.S., Australia, and Europe. BNI will build on those experiences to develop guidelines that can be applied in a broad range of ecosystems found worldwide. This will be particularly important for multi-national corporations operating in regions where biodiversity is highest and impacts are of greatest concern. BNI will develop guidelines using a consultative approach that includes conservation groups, scientists, and industry. BNI is currently consulting with major international conservation groups, legal experts, energy and mining companies, auditing and certification companies, and government regulators. For more information about BNI, visit our web site: www.biodiversityneutral.org. We also welcome feedback on this study. Our email address is [email protected].

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 1 Overview of Antamina Mine and Biodiversity Impacts 2 ANTAMINA�s Polylepis Restoration Program 9 Evaluation Method for Voluntary Biodiversity Offsets 14 Evaluation of ANTAMINA�s Polylepis Restoration Program 21 Monitoring and Reporting 30 Conclusions 31 References 32 Annex A: ANTAMINA Policy Statements Annex B: Evaluation Criteria

Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina

1

INTRODUCTION Environmental offsets are activities undertaken to counterbalance the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts of development, with the objective of achieving a net neutral or beneficial outcome. In this study we focus on biodiversity offsets � primarily conservation projects that compensate for the degradation or destruction of natural habitats and their resident biota. Countries differ in the extent that offsets are regulated. The United States, for example, has developed extensive regulations and guidelines for offsetting impacts to wetland ecosystems. Voluntary offsets for impacts not covered by regulations are still in their infancy, although interest among corporations operating in areas of high importance for conservation is growing, especially for multi-nationals working in species-rich developing countries where regulatory frameworks are absent. In these cases, voluntary offsets may become an integral part of a corporation�s environmental management policies. The use of offsets generally falls within a hierarchy of actions a developer should take to minimize environmental impacts. Companies should first avoid areas of the highest priority for conservation, then mitigate damages to areas impacted by following environmental regulations and best environmental management practices, and only then, when the developer has taken measures to avoid and mitigate to the maximum extent practicable as many impacts as possible, should offsets be considered. In other words, offsets are not a license to trash the environment, but rather a tool to improve environmental management beyond that which is possible through site selection, regulatory compliance, and best management practices. The objective of this case study is to demonstrate an evaluation method for voluntary biodiversity offsets. We focus on the Antamina mine, operated by Compañía Minera Antamina S.A. (ANTAMINA). The Antamina mine is among the world�s largest copper and zinc mines, and is located in the Andean mountains in Ancash, Peru. In 2004 the company began a voluntary biodiversity conservation program to restore endangered Polylepis forests in the area around the mine. While the program was not originally designed as a biodiversity offset, the case study examines its potential to serve as one. We begin with an overview of biodiversity impacts of ANTAMINA�s mine and the company�s voluntary conservation initiative. This is followed by a brief description of our biodiversity offset evaluation methodology, and then its application to ANTAMINA�s Polylepis restoration program. We conclude with recommendations for including the offset in ANTAMINA�s sustainability reporting. This case study is a demonstration of a generalized biodiversity offset evaluation methodology. The authors anticipate that this document will serve as the basis of discussion for further improvements to the methods. This report is not an endorsement or certification of ANTAMINA�s conservation program as a biodiversity offset.


2

OVERVIEW OF ANTAMINA MINE AND BIODIVERSITY IMPACTS ANTAMINA was incorporated in Peru in 1996, and is currently owned by multi-national investors Falconbridge Inc., BHP-Billiton, Teck Cominco, and Mitsubishi Corporation. ANTAMINA�s Antamina project, among the largest copper and zinc mines in the world, commenced production in 2001 and is expected to have an operating life of approximately 20 years. ANTAMINA�s operations are located at two sites, an open pit mine located east of the Cordillera Blanca and 20 km from Huascarán National Park at 4,200 msl (see Map One), and a port facility located near the coastal town of Huarmey. The two sites are connected by an underground pipeline that transports a mixture of water and minerals from the mine to the port, where minerals are loaded onto ocean-going vessels. The mine and the port both have the potential for ecological impacts, but given the vast geographic separation of the facilities and their location in distinctly different ecoregions, this study focuses exclusively on the mine site and the conservation program designed to offset its local impacts. During the life of the project, the mine will produce approximately 500 million tons of ore and 1.36 billion tons of waste rock. The final mine pit will be approximately 465 m in depth, 1.7 km in diameter, and cover an area of 220 ha. A 32 ha lake located within the mine area has been drained. The area of direct impact will cover 2,221 ha. In 1998, ANTAMINA commissioned an Environmental Impact Assessment to be performed for the then proposed mine by Klohn-Crippen-SVS S.A. � a joint venture between Klohn Crippen of Vancouver, Canada and SVS Ingenieros S.A. of Lima, Peru. Ecological baseline and impact information described here are based on that study. The EIA was reviewed and approved by the relevant regulatory bodies in Peru, and presented in a public stakeholder forum. For a more detailed review of the relevant environmental regulations for the mining project, baseline conditions, environmental impacts, mitigation measures, and monitoring, please refer to the EIA1.

1 Since completion of the EIA in 1998, ANTAMINA decided to avoid road transport of mineral concentrates from the mine to its port facility in favor of an underground pipeline. This change eliminates expected impacts identified in the EIA from a planned roadway passing through Huascarán National Park.


3

Map 1: Location of Antamina Mine in Ancash, Peru


4

Biodiversity Baseline at the Antamina Mine The ecological context of the Antamina mine is strongly influenced by its elevation, located in the high Andean Steppe Ranges (2,000 � 3,800 msl) and the Puna ecoregion (above 3,800 msl). The average temperatures at the mine range from 4.1° C to 5.1° C and mean annual rainfall is estimated at 1,550 mm. The life zones encompassed in this area include: Tropical Alpine Rainy Tundra (4,300-5,000 msl); Tropical Subalpine Humid Paramo (4,000-4,300 msl); Tropical Subalpine Very Humid Paramo (3,900-4,500 msl); Tropical Subalpine Rainy Paramo (3,900-4,500 msl); and Tropical Montane Steppe (2,800-3,800 msl). Baseline studies of fauna in the region found five species of fish, 16 bird species, 13 mammal species, two species of reptiles, and three species of amphibians. No migratory species were identified. Of the fauna species found in the baseline, species listed as rare, threatened, or endangered included the Andean condor (rare), river otter (endangered), and wildcat (vulnerable). Baseline studies of flora indicate the terrestrial ecosystems are dominantly grasslands interspersed with shrubs and isolated dense forest patches of tall shrubs. Flora species recorded in the area total 180. No endemic species are known to exist in the area, but there are three endangered species of shrub: Buddleia coriacea, Polylepis weberbaueri, Polylepis incana. The shrubs and the forest habitat they create are considered the most important ecological feature in the landscape from a biodiversity conservation perspective. The current distribution of shrub forests is characterized by patches rarely exceeding tens of hectares and located in steep rocky terrain. As a result the overall spatial density is low, as demonstrated in Map 2 depicting Polylepis forests located within nearby Huascarán National Park. The Antamina EIA concludes that the area of the mine is not notably diverse in terms of the taxonomic groups of flora and fauna (see Annex 1 for table of species). Aquatic habitats appear to be limited by the absence of littoral habitat and low nutrients. Terrestrial habitats exhibit normally low diversity given the elevation and harsh climate. In addition, the terrestrial ecosystems at the mine site were extensively impacted by local communities. Grasslands were used for grazing and shrub forests utilized for fuel wood.


5

Source: Fjeldsa & Kessler, 1996


6

Box A: Conservation Importance of Polylepis While Polylepis habitat is not directly impacted by the Antamina mine, it is the most important type of habitat for biodiversity conservation in the region. Over the course of hundreds of years, 20 species of Polylepis have dispersed across the Andes (Kessler 1995). Peru supports fifteen of these species, making it the most diverse host of the genera in the world. However, detailed studies of Polylepis forests in Bolivia and Perú (Kessler & Driesch 1993; Kessler 1995a, b; Fjeldsa & Kessler 1996), have shown that the genus occupies only a small fraction of its potential distribution (10% and <3% respectively); paleontology and other studies suggest that Peru once maintained 55,000 square kilometers of Polylepis forests, but this number has been reduced by human forest and land use to between 700 and 1,200 square kilometers (Fjeldsa 2002). The conservation implications of such alarming findings are obvious. Polylepis forests are a vanishing ecosystem urgently in need of conservation action and ecological study (Fjeldsa J. 2002). The Cordillera Blanca of Peru�s Ancash Department is dotted with Polylepis forests between 3,400 and 4,600 meters above sea level. This region, including the Conchucos Valley to the east and Huayhuash to the south, is cited as a number one priority for Polylepis conservation (Fjeldsa and Kessler, 1996). It is one of two areas in the Andes with the highest level of complementarity of endemic and specialist species, the other in Cuzco/Apurimac (a third, less marked site is the northern edge of the Cochabamba basin in Bolivia). Based on the complementarity of species distributions, the most effective plan for reducing risks of global extinction should focus in these areas, which altogether contain populations of 48 percent of all threatened highland birds living at 0-30°S (Fjeldsa J. 2002). Biodiversity Impacts of the Antamina Mine The Antamina project is unquestionably of great proportions. The open pit mining complex will extend over 2,221 hectares. The active footprint within this complex (mine, dumps, roads, and ancillary facilities) entirely displaces the resident biota in those areas. Outside the active footprint, large areas of habitat are not directly disturbed, but are identified in the EIA as potentially affected by the mine. Table 1 details the distribution of terrestrial habitats affected by the mine. Within this area, less than one hectare of shrub forest is displaced2.

Table X: Terrestrial habitats affected by antamina mine Mine Component

Total Area (Ha)

Grassland (Ha)

Wetland (Ha)

Brush (Ha)

Rock (Ha)

Cropland (Ha)

Total Habitat in Mine Site

2,221 582 28 478 1,110 23

Habitat as % of Total

100% 26.2% 1.3% 21.5% 50.0% 1.0%

Source: Environmental Impact Assessment, 1998 2 Personal communication with Steven Botts, ANTAMINA Vice President for Environmental Health and Safety.


7

The closure plan for the mine includes restoration of 874 ha of grasslands and 1,034 ha of aquatic habitat. There will be a temporal loss of this habitat during the operation of the mine, and a long-term (post mine closure and restoration) net loss in brush but an increase in grasslands and aquatic habitat. In addition to the direct displacement of habitat, the mine will generate effluent that may impact local biodiversity. According to the EIA,

During operation, effluent from the tailings facility is predicted to contain metals (copper, zinc, iron, molybdenum) below [national] regulatory limits. The effluent effects immediately downstream will be moderated by the diversion of inflows. Results from water quality modeling indicate that the downstream water quality will provide suitable conditions for fish. The effluent may affect sensitive invertebrates and algae as far as the village of Ayash, which is roughly 3 km downstream from the tailings dam. Biological diversity and production is not predicted to be significantly affected downstream of Ayash. After closure, metal levels from the tailings facility will decline and any affected stream areas will re-colonise with taxa from upstream areas and tributaries. Full recovery of aquatic biota is anticipated.

The EIA concludes that overall impacts to flora and fauna are limited. The key concern identified in the EIA was the potential for destruction of the endangered shrub species found at the site (Buddleia coriacea, Polylepis weberbaueri, Polylepis incana.) However, the actual mine site displaced a very small area of these shrub forests (<1 ha). The vast majority of habitats impacted are common and extensive throughout the region, allowing for resident wildlife to utilize habitat adjacent to the impact site. Although several listed species are known to live in the region of the mine, none were identified at the mine site itself. The EIA states:

In the rockland, grassland and brushland habitats, which will be affected, wildlife sensitivity is relatively low for a number of reasons. First, the rockland and grassland habitats are the predominant habitat types in the region, occupying almost the entire land area within the mine site. Second, no unique or endangered animal species or their critical habitats have been found within the mine site. Third, the reproductive rate of the dominant wildlife (mainly vertebrates, small rodents and passerine birds), is typically very high, which makes these populations highly resilient to changes in habitat and food supply. Although there will likely be some degree of temporarily increased competition between displaced wildlife populations and those in adjacent undisturbed habitats, this effect is not considered significant at either the local or regional levels. Wildlife associated with the shore of Laguna Antamina and Laguna Condorcocha will be irreversibly lost as a result of construction and operation of the open pit and North Waste Dump, respectively. [editorial note: Antamina managers state that no wildlife was observed at Laguna Antamina before construction of the mine.] Waterfowl and shorebirds that use this habitat will be displaced to one or


8

more of the many other lakes that exist within the locality. At other lakes in the surrounding area, waterfowl and larger shorebirds, such as ducks, geese and ibis, may be subjected to increased hunting pressure due to influx of mine workers to the area. A related effect is potential for increased overgrazing in adjacent undisturbed grasslands by domestic sheep, horses and cattle displaced from the natural pastures occupied by the various mine components. However, overgrazing is already occurring in the area. If not mitigated through suitable range management practices, overgrazing will continue to occur even in the absence of the Antamina project. The proposed relocation of present residents of the mine area and their livestock will, however, result in a reduction in grazing pressure.

Human Impacts of Habitat Loss Small communities are scattered across the Cordillera Blanca and Conchucos Valley, and the Antamina mine potentially affects them in a variety of complex ways. This study focuses only on direct human impacts from natural habitat loss. According to the EIA there are two potential impacts to local communities from habitat loss. First, the temporal loss of grasslands used for grazing. Second, in one community there is a risk of contamination of surface water. However, the mine is engineered to maintain effluent standards below regulatory limits, and monitors water quality on a regular basis. There are no anticipated human health impacts, and the populations of fish are not expected to be affected. Since the EIA, ANTAMINA has conducted studies related to both of the aquatic risks and has not found any health impacts, or any significant impacts to aquatic ecosystems nor fish populations in the area of the mine3. There are also potential economic and social impacts caused by the mine, beyond the scope of this study. Prior to the establishment of the mine, most local communities had poor transportation infrastructure linking them with larger population centers, and existed in relative isolation and extreme poverty. This has changed markedly for some communities now that paved roads pass close by, presenting economic opportunity, heightened expectations, and social change previously unknown to these people. ANTAMINA has a comprehensive and proactive community engagement program designed to assist in the alleviation of poverty and to promote sustainable development in the region.

3 Personal communication with Steven Botts, ANTAMINA Vice President for Environmental Health and Safety.


9

ANTAMINA�S POLYLEPIS RESTORATION PROGRAM In 2003, ANTAMINA management became interested in a voluntary conservation project in the region of the mine. At that time the options for projects ranged widely. Based on consultation with technical advisors and conservation groups, ANTAMINA decided that a project to restore endangered Polylepis habitat would provide an ideal blend of biodiversity conservation and local community benefits. The project would build on experience with a local NGO in a smaller scale Polylepis nursery program. This project was not envisioned as an �offset� but rather as a voluntary initiative within the framework of the company�s Corporate Social Responsibility strategy. Program Partners ANTAMINA engaged several NGOs in a partnership to implement the Polylepis restoration program: Asociación Ancash, Conservation International (CI), The Mountain Institute (TMI), and Asociación de Conservación de los Ecosistemas Andinos (ECOAN). There is no direct involvement of government regulators in this project.

• Asociación Ancash is an independent foundation established with funding from ANTAMINA to assist sustainable development initiatives in the Peruvian Department of Ancash where the mine operates. Their role is to provide technical assistance and partial funding for the project.

• CI is an international conservation group, also nationally incorporated in Peru, whose role is to provide technical oversight and partial funding to the project through its Global Conservation Fund.

• TMI is also an international conservation group, operating out of the nearby city of Huaraz. The organization has partnered with ANTAMINA on a variety of community-based conservation projects in the area of the mine, and in this project leads field activities.

• ECOAN, a Peruvian NGO based in Cuzco that specializes in Polylepis restoration, provides technical assistance to TMI.

Project Design The Polylepis restoration program will contribute to the development of a connective conservation corridor between two protected areas, Huascarán National Park (a UNESCO World Heritage Area and Biosphere Reserve) and the Huayhuash Reserve Area. The corridor is almost entirely owned by communities, necessitating their collaborative engagement. The participatory process employed is based on a model developed by ECOAN in Cuzco, where today a series of communities manage restored Polylepis forests in that part of the country. The program also builds on pilot initiatives in the region by TMI, which designed a participatory forestry plan with communities in the immediate vicinity of the Antamina mine and initiated a two year program to train local groups in nursery development. They trained over 150 families who then produced


10

seedlings for their own households and sale to ANTAMINA for reforestation programs at the mine site (approximately 50,000 seedlings). Program design is comprised of four major elements.

1. A technical team (including two botanists, an ornithologist, an entomologist, a mammalogist, and a soils and hydrology specialist) completed an ecological map of local Polylepis forests, and generated an ecological baseline for measuring long-term impacts of the initiative, prioritized sites for restoration and conservation based on ecological principles, and identified the appropriate genetic stock to be used for restoration across sites in the area of focus. Baseline data from healthy forests in the region serves as a reference to ascertain the success of restored forests in achieving habitat conditions similar to naturally occurring forests. This study also identified biodiversity in the area not described in the EIA.

2. Another technical team (including a community forester and community development specialists) visited the communities located in the area and entered discussions about forest resource use, changes in those patterns over time, and the potential need for restoration and conservation. Through these discussions it became possible to ascertain which communities have a concrete interest, and at what scale, in pursuing a restoration and conservation program.

3. The program is engaging those communities that appear most receptive to, and capable of, a restoration and conservation project, and own priority forests for restoration and conservation. The engagement takes the form of a series of participatory workshops. In the first workshop, the overall spatial plan is presented to the communities as a means to explain the overall results sought by the project and to seek community endorsement. The final products of this engagement will be a written commitment, in the form of a Community Agreement (Acta), to participate in a restoration and conservation project, and a diagnostic of the needs of each participating community that must be fulfilled to ensure project success. One of those needs may be alternative sources of fuel wood.

4. Once communities are committed to the restoration program, they will set up nurseries to raise Polylepis seedlings. Once established, the nurseries will provide stock for multiple restorations, each conducted as a single day of community activity and resulting in multiple acres of plantings. Threats to the planted areas are few, and experience in Cuzco indicates that community protection of the planted areas from grazing animals is sufficient to ensure that plantings survive to maturity. By five years, habitat conditions should be sufficient to support most bird species that inhabit Polylepis forests.

5. A conservation agreement will legally identify forests for full protection and forests for long-term management and the norms for their conservation. The project will develop and implement a legal model that


11

draws on one of three strategies to permanently protect remnant and restored forests on private lands: private conservation areas; land trusts; and, land foundations. This final step is an innovation of this project, not an element of the ECOAN model. The expectation is that a legal agreement will encourage the long-term protection of the restored forests after ANTAMINA is no longer operating in the region.

The evolution of each restoration and conservation project from initial community commitment to permanent protection is envisioned to be a multi-year process, progressing through several stages of community consensus building for conservation and written commitment. The long term vision of the project is to build sufficient capacity in participating communities to continue restoration and forest management activities such that the corridor will grow ever more extensive and connective, at the same time as generating economic benefits to communities in the form of employment, tree nursery business, and access to fuel wood in a subset of forests designated for sustainable management. Area of Impact The program aims to restore forest patches at appropriate sites in the southern Conchucos Valley. The overall area within which the program selects forest restoration sites covers approximately 50,000 hectares, however, the distribution of appropriate sites for Polylepis forest restoration is characterized by a scattering of small forests. Total area of actual Polylepis forests to be restored in a distributed pattern across the Conchucos Valley is approximately 1,000 hectares in the first five-year phase of the program. Program Costs The total cost of the first five-year phase of the project is approximately one-million dollars, divided in even increments over each year. The majority of the first year�s budget is dedicated ecological assessments and stakeholder engagement. The initial design of the program cost approximately twenty-five thousand dollars. Environmental Impacts not Covered by Offset The Antamina EIA identifies impacts to ecosystems, mostly grasslands, rivers, and lakes, that are not covered by the offset. It is important to re-emphasize that the Polylepis restoration program was not originally designed as an �offset.� For this reason, it did not target all affected ecosystems, but rather that system in greatest need for conservation in the region. In an separate program, however, ANTAMINA has been working with the Comité Pro Conservación de San Marcos and TMI on grassland management systems with local communities. The EIA views impacts to grassland as de minimus because of: a) the degraded state of this ecosystem before development of the mine; and, b) the abundance of this ecosystem in the region. ANTAMINA plans to restore grassland habitat upon closure of the mine.


12

Technically speaking, there is a temporal loss of grassland habitat, but the biodiversity implications are not great. The case for aquatic ecosystems is similar. The EIA sees impacts to these habitats as insignificant for wildlife given the relative abundance of these systems in the area. ANTAMINA is mitigating impacts to aquatic ecosystems according to environmental regulations, and plans for restoration at the time of mine closure. Again, there is a temporal loss of this type of habitat. The EIA identifies a risk of increased hunting of waterfowl as a consequence of an influx of mine workers in the area. ANTAMINA prohibits firearms at the mine (with the exception of the Security Department), and consequently there is no hunting pressure from mine workers. We have no information on whether hunting patterns of local communities have changed as a result of the mine, but it is certain that no hunting activity occurs on Antamina property4. Human Benefits of Polylepis Restoration Program A project to restore Polylepis, following the logic of ANTAMINA and its advisors, would provide the greatest benefits for biodiversity conservation of any conservation target in the region. At the same time, it would also provide an opportunity to address the need for alternative economic activities in the area. The basis of this idea is that communities would directly participate in the restoration program, filling demand for labor and materials. Once up and running, the program�s design calls for a demand of approximately US$ 80,000 per year in goods and services from these communities. The restoration activities will take place, provided local interest, on community lands. Restored forests provide two additional economic benefits to communities. First, to a limited extent the project will allow some long-term extraction of timber to ameliorate a growing shortage of fuel wood and building material in the region. Second, communities have identified watershed management as a key issue now that the majority of the steep Andean topography surrounding their villages is deforested. Reforesting specific areas will provide the benefit of mitigating current runoff and erosion problems. Another component to the Polylepis restoration program is the introduction of more fuel efficient cooking stoves in local households, aiming to halve current demand for fuelwood (including Polylepis). This can be accomplished by replacing current open cooking systems with burning chambers of ceramic or other material. The primary efficiency comes from insulating the burning surface from the humid bare ground, where most energy is currently lost. A collateral benefit is improved indoor air quality � a major factor in women�s health, especially as it relates to development of cataracts and lung diseases. Furthermore, fuel wood collection, often a responsibility of women in rural areas such as Conchucos, will become less onerous. A similar stove introduction program in Cuzco has been very well received by rural communities. 4 Personal communication with Steven Botts, ANTAMINA Vice President for Environmental Health and Safety


13

The Polylepis initiative will focus its initial attention on communities located in the direct area of influence of Antamina, in particular those that have the most important native forest areas and the greatest propensity for constructive engagement with the project team. Based on TMI�s assessment in 2003 of communities in the area, the project will initially focus on the Ayash and Huancayoc watersheds. The communities in the Ayash watershed expected to participate are Ayash Huaripampa and Santa Cruz de Pichiu, as well as the community of Juprog located nearby but in a separate watershed. In the Huancayoc watershed, the communities expected to participate are Vistoso, Huancayoc, and Wishllag. These communities already have established small enterprises that conduct business with Antamina, and therefore have an organizational base upon which to start the project. As the project progresses, it will expand to include at least an additional 14 communities to the north and south of Antamina�s area of direct influence.


14

EVALUATION METHOD FOR VOLUNTARY BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS Biodiversity offsets are conservation projects that compensate for unavoidable damage to habitats and species from business activity. In some countries biodiversity offsets are regulated for specific ecosystems and species. However, there are no comprehensive regulations for offsetting impacts to the majority of the world�s ecosystems and species. In these cases, corporations may consider voluntary offsets. Biodiversity offsets should be used only after a company has avoided damages to priority habitats for conservation, and all regulatory and best management practices have been implemented to minimize environmental harm. At that point, residual damages should be the focus for compensation using an offset. The design and evaluation of a voluntary offset should consider the following components:

• Environmental regulatory compliance; • Corporate best practices for environmental management; • Conservation impact; • Norms for offsets, as defined in countries with offset regulations.

The first two components evaluate the regulatory and corporate environmental management context in which the offset takes place, the third component assesses the conservation impact of the project without consideration of its relevance to offsetting specific impacts, and the fourth component focuses directly on the offset itself, aiming to provide equivalent ecological benefits to damages caused by the company. For each of the components, Annex 2 presents indicators accompanied by a description of how to interpret the information gathered, using logical thresholds to rate performance. The list of indicators is intended to be comprehensive; it may be possible to simplify and focus the design and evaluation considerations with pilot project experience. Environmental Regulatory Compliance This component is not developed in detail, as it relates to local regulations. The objective is to simply ensure that a company is following environmental regulations that relate to biodiversity, regardless of whether local regulations include biodiversity offsets as a compensatory mechanism. Offsets within the Framework of Corporate Environmental Management Biodiversity offsets are a single tool, among many, for managing environmental impacts. They are not a catch-all remedy for mitigating �any and all� environmental problems. To ensure that biodiversity offsets are used for the specific purpose for which they were


15

intended, it is important that corporations implement them within the context of a biodiversity management framework. A series of initiatives on corporate biodiversity management informed a distillation of key elements for a management system and descriptions of their qualities (Wong and Gullison 2005, available at www.biodiversityneutral.org). The reviewed initiatives include those of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, World Business Council for Sustainable Development, International Finance Corporation, Insight Investment, Energy and Biodiversity Initiative, International Council on Mining and Minerals, and the Global Reporting Initiative. Corporate biodiversity management begins with a policy that describes a company�s goal for mitigating biodiversity impacts and at what scale, with site level management in the most limited case and corporate wide management in the broadest. A company-wide policy on biodiversity management generally incorporates biodiversity considerations into company decision making. The expectation is that companies understand not only their impacts to biodiversity but also the risks such impacts pose to a company�s access to future sites and capital, its reputation, liabilities and operating costs � i.e., its biodiversity risk. Corporate biodiversity policies should include a definition of ecologically sensitive areas, and a statement of the conditions under which a company operates in and around such areas, and under what circumstances areas are deemed �no-go� because of their importance for conservation. On an operational level, a corporate environmental management system should include six core elements concerning biodiversity.

• Biodiversity impact assessment - In the pre-bid/site selection and exploration stages of project development, baseline assessments of biodiversity and evaluation of the consequences of a proposed project are essential. In the most rigorous case, the assessment should consider direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on all levels of biodiversity: genetic, species and ecosystems. A company�s policy for operating in sensitive areas may lead to rejecting a site.

• Site and rehabilitation plans � The preferred hierarchy of actions at a site are: 1)

avoid impacts to biodiversity, 2) reduce impacts, 3) mitigate impacts, and then 4) compensate. Rehabilitation plans for mitigating a project�s impacts on biodiversity should also be developed at the permitting stage and contain site-specific objectives and targets. Sites should be progressively rehabilitated as projects mature.

• Monitoring system and methods � A company should regularly monitor its

impacts to biodiversity. Companies may design a monitoring system at a range of spatial scales � e.g., capable of reporting impacts at the levels of the operational unit, across the company and other scales deemed important by scientific experts and other stakeholders. The minimum expectation is for monitoring by staff at


16

the decommissioning stage only, whereas the most demanding expectation is for monitoring by an external organization throughout operations.

• Reporting -- Reporting on corporate biodiversity management should follow the

eleven principles for reporting on sustainability of the Global Reporting Initiative: transparency, inclusiveness, auditability, completeness, relevance, sustainability context, accuracy, neutrality, comparability, clarity, and timeliness. Reporting should present information in a manner by which internal and external stakeholders can judge its integrity and meaningfully compare information with that from different reporting years and business units, regions and/or countries. There is no guidance on how to set a reporting boundary for corporate biodiversity management.

• Adaptive management � Adaptive management of biodiversity requires updating

biodiversity action plans as new monitoring information becomes available. Because the response of biodiversity to management approaches may vary widely with context, it is important to periodically re-examine management plans and modify as needed to meet biodiversity conservation goals.

Set within the larger context of a corporate environmental management system that explicitly addresses biodiversity issues, a biodiversity offset can be a useful tool for enhancing environmental performance. Legislative frameworks in some countries further guide the specific use of this tool. Conservation Impact While very specific requirements guide the implementation of offsets to ensure that they properly compensate for impacts to natural habitat and species, they do not necessarily provide guidance on how to implement a successful conservation project in its own right. A system developed for National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (Hardner & Gullison Associates, LLC 2005) provides clear guidance for the design and evaluation of conservation projects. The system examines projects at three stages of a project cycle: design, implementation5, and outcome. Successful conservation projects have a series of characteristics at each stage. Design Characteristics

• Priority of species or habitat targeted � Projects should be clear and specific about their conservation target. Those targets should be conservation priorities, as defined by the scientific community.

5 Guidance for project implementation is based on the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (2004), developed by African Wildlife Foundation, Conservation International, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife Conservation Society, World Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund, Foundations for Success, Cambridge Conservation Forum, Enterprise Works Worldwide, and World Commission on Protected Areas.


17

• Geographic scale of project � Projects should be based on an established science-

based model of conservation biology for the given target, including knowledge of the minimum dynamic area6 for the target species to maintain a viable population, minimum viable population size7, and the area required to allow for sustained normal structure and function of an ecosystem8. In its design, the geographic scale of the project, or regional strategy of which it is a part, should exceed the minimum necessary to ensure species viability and/or support ecosystem structure and function.

• Linkage between project activities and outcomes -- Project activities should be

based on an established scientific model, proven to generate a predictable conservation outcome.

Implementation Characteristics

• Planning � Projects should have clear goals, objectives, and activities, organized into a logical framework, with a corresponding work plan and budget. Project stakeholders should be clearly identified, described, and an engagement strategy should be developed and, if possible, integrated into any regional conservation strategies.

• Administration � Projects should be implemented on schedule and within budget.

• Adaptive management � Projects should have scientifically sound baseline data

for the conservation target. Projects should have a monitoring and evaluation plan that tracks changes in conservation targets and marks progress toward goals. Project managers should analyze the data on a continuous basis, and adapt management to reflect results, revisiting conceptual models and key assumptions, project plan, and addressing management shortfalls.

• Communication � Project managers should clearly communicate, on a periodic

basis, the results of project outcomes to all relevant stakeholders. 6 Minimum Viable Population (MVP): Population has 99% chance of remaining extant for 1000 years despite foreseeable effects of demographic, environmental, and genetic stochasticity, and natural catastrophes. See Shaffer. 1981. Minimum population sizes for species conservation. BioScience 31: 131-134; Primac, R. 2000. A Primer of Conservation Biology: Sunderland MA, Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers. 7 Minimum Dynamic Area (MDA): Amount of suitable habitat necessary to maintain minimum viable population (MVP). See A Primer of Conservation Biology: Sunderland MA, Sinauer Associates, Inc. Publishers. 8 Structure and Function of Ecosystem (SFE): Characteristic assemblages of species, demographic distributions, and energy and nutrient dynamics.


18

Outcome Characteristics

• Scale of impact � As an outcome of the project, the conserved target species population should exceed the minimum viable population size. Conserved habitat should exceed minimum dynamic area or be sufficient to maintain ecosystem structure and function.

• Response of conservation target � Projects should increase and fully restore

populations of target species relative to the baseline conditions prior to the project. Projects should increase the target habitat area with fully restored structure and function. In the case of protection projects, the rate of destruction of the target should be halted.

• Critical threats managed � Many conservation projects address a single threat,

although conservation targets may have multiple threats. Successful projects should manage for all factors affecting the target population or habitat, for the long term. Permanent funding, such as an endowment, should be established. An institution should be identified to manage the project over the long term and it should have sufficient capacity to fulfill this role.

Norms for Biodiversity Offsets Based on Existing Regulations Countries that currently have regulations governing biodiversity offsets include Australia, Brazil, Canada, European Union, Switzerland, and United States. A recent review of legal, regulatory, and policy guidance governing offsets (McKenney 2005, available at www.biodiversityneutral.org) details how these legislative frameworks address a range of methodological issues for offsets, and highlight key similarities, differences, and challenges. While legislative frameworks are still evolving, and some critical gaps may exist, we summarize here the goals, principles, criteria, and assessment methods found in these policies, laws, and regulations. This can serve as a starting point for assessing voluntary offsets in countries where no relevant regulations presently exist. Offset Policy Goals and Principles Policy goals for biodiversity offsets in different countries vary from �no net loss� and �net gain� of specific species and habitats, to more general statements about the need to address adverse ecological impacts from development. For example, the United States maintains a policy of �no net loss� of wetlands, indicating that all wetlands damaged by development must be replaced by new wetland habitat with similar structure and function. In considering mitigation options for a proposed project�s impacts, offset policies generally adhere to a sequence of: (1) avoidance, (2) minimization, and (3) compensatory mitigation. In the first step of the sequence (avoidance), it is important to note that


19

impacts to unique and rare habitats, special aquatic sites, and other critical environmental assets are generally prohibited; they must be avoided unless it is an exceptional case. In evaluating the proposed impact site against potential alternatives, the main criterion is which site represents the least environmentally damaging option. Other assessment criteria, such as economic considerations, cannot be seen as overruling ecological criteria. Offset Criteria Biodiversity offset regulations typically address several core criteria, although not every country with biodiversity offset regulations addresses them all. Following is a review of core criteria found in current regulations.

• Equivalence of project impacts with offset gains (in-kind vs. out-of-kind) -- As no two areas are ecologically identical, care is required to ensure that offsets provide benefits that are �equivalent� to losses caused by project impacts. The most direct means of establishing equivalence is to offset with the same ecosystem that is impacted, known as in-kind offsets. Alternatively, out-of-kind offsets are possible in some contexts. Offset policies typically prefer in-kind offsets, but there is a trend toward more acceptance of out-of-kind mitigation as long as it can provide greater environmental benefits than in-kind options.

• Location of the offset relative to the impact site (on-site vs. off-site) -- Offset

policies generally prefer on-site mitigation to off-site mitigation because compensation benefits accrue to the project affected area. However, off-site offsets may be supported in cases where they are located in the same ecoregion or watershed as the project site and can provide greater environmental benefits than on-site mitigation options.

• Contribution to conservation (additionality) -- Legislative frameworks call for

offsets to represent new or additional contributions to conservation, but in many cases there is wide latitude provided regarding what types of offsetting activities are allowable, including restoring degraded ecosystems, preserving areas in healthy condition but under threat, and improving management practices. Implicit in additionality is that the project does not actually cause environmental harm elsewhere by displacing environmental threats to another site (often known as leakage).

• Measuring project impacts and offset gains (currency) -- Offset policies call for

�currency� to incorporate values associated with ecological functions, quality, and integrity. Currency may be expressed in the form of area (habitat hectares) or ecological structure and function.

• Timing of project impacts vs. offset benefits � There is a general preference that

offsets are in place and effective prior to project impacts. In cases where the offset is implemented after project impacts are incurred, or a period of years is


20

required for an offset to become ecologically mature, a �temporal premium� may be required in the form of a higher mitigation ratio (see above) for the offset.

• Offset duration -- In most cases, offset policies call for conservation of offset sites

to be established in perpetuity. Offset frameworks note the need for legal and financial assurances to secure site tenure, restrict harmful activities, support long-term management and monitoring, and cover contingency and remedial actions in the event of offset failure. Where the success of an offset is less certain, or early credit release has been allowed, higher financial assurances may be required.

• Comparing project impacts and offset gains (mitigation ratio) -- Using an

established currency, it is possible to compare the magnitude of development impacts to gains from an offset. In the simplest case, a mitigation ratio might be 1:1, but consideration of other factors such as quality of habitat impacted, relative benefits of creating new habitat versus restoring existing but degraded habitat, risk of offset failure, and temporal issues may result in a requirement that the mitigation ratio be higher.

Offset Assessment Methods and their Implementation Offset assessments involve mapping and delineation of sites, analyzing conditions, functions, services, and values, assessing potential alternative options, determining required mitigation, and determining compensation needs and appropriate compensation ratios. In conducting these activities, offset assessment methods vary considerably in their approach. At one extreme are methods that require complex modeling and at the other are more rapid approaches that may involve little more than measuring the size of the impact area and applying professional judgment about impacts. The tension between these extremes reflects two valid concerns � the need for sophisticated approaches that produce scientifically defensible results, and the need for practical approaches that can be implemented within existing time and budget constraints. A number of �middle-ground� approaches have emerged aimed at reconciling these competing needs. These approaches generally involve weighting key variables (based on professional judgment) and applying a scoring system. While such methods rely heavily on the subjective judgment of the user, they also provide a systematic and repeatable approach where judgments and assumptions require justification and can be verified. In addition to emerging �middle-ground� methods, there has been renewed effort to improve the assessment process, with particular emphasis on better screening at the front-end to narrow the scope of values and functions requiring more intensive analysis. Such process improvements aim to reduce time and costs while still supporting intensive assessment for identified values and functions of concern.


21

EVALUATION OF ANTAMINA�s POLYLEPIS RESTORATION PROGRAM ANTAMINA�s Polylepis restoration program is a voluntary conservation initiative. Although ANTAMINA did not originally design the program as a biodiversity offset, we evaluate its potential as one. The evaluation examines the four components described in our overview of methods and presented in detail in Annex 2. Results are detailed in the following tables In general, ANTAMINA�s voluntary Polylepis project performs very well as a biodiversity offset. Following are general conclusions, by component. Regulatory Compliance According to ANTAMINA, the mine meets or exceeds Peruvian regulatory requirements for environmental protection. The company follows the management requirements for environmental management set forth in its EIA. ANTAMINA also follows World Bank Guidelines for Environmental Management for the Mining and Milling Sector and adheres to World Bank Operational Policy 4.04 (Natural Habitats), which includes requirements for biodiversity conservation. This study did not include consultation with Peruvian regulators on ANTAMINA�s compliance record. Corporate Best Practices for Biodiversity Management We find that the voluntary Polylepis conservation program fits within a comprehensive environmental management system. This includes the appropriate use of an offset in a larger biodiversity management hierarchy of avoid, minimize, mitigate, and then compensate with an offset. Conservation Impact The program rates well as a stand-alone conservation project. Some criteria in which the program does not receive the top mark relate to practical constraints that simply can not be overcome, such as the inability to extend the project over the natural range of the project, or the relatively nascent experience base for Polylepis restoration. Norms for Biodiversity Offsets As compensation for the loss of Polylepis forest, the program meets or exceeds the norms for biodiversity offsets. A significant result is the offset ratio of 1,000 hectares of restoration to compensate for 1 hectare of impacted Polylepis forest. On only two criteria does the program fail to achieve the highest rating, units of currency and timing, although both would satisfy the norms for biodiversity offsets according to some current regulations. We should note that the project does not specifically offset impacts to other impacted ecosystems, such as grasslands (regardless of their degraded status) and lakes,


22

or ecosystems under risk of impacts, such as nearby rivers. These ecosystems are addressed by other ANTAMINA programs, however.

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

23

C

OM

PON

EN

T 1

: EN

VIR

ON

ME

NT

AL

Reg

ulat

ory

Com

plia

nce

T

hem

e E

xcel

lent

Pe

rfor

man

ce

Acc

epta

ble

Perf

orm

ance

Po

or P

erfo

rman

ce

C

omm

ents

Com

plia

nce

with

E

nvir

onm

enta

l Reg

ulat

ions

(S

houl

d in

clud

e re

gula

tions

re

leva

nt to

any

impa

cts t

o na

tura

l eco

syst

ems)

X

A

ccor

ding

to A

NTA

MIN

A, t

he m

ine

mee

ts o

r exc

eeds

Pe

ruvi

an re

gula

tory

requ

irem

ents

for e

nviro

nmen

tal p

rote

ctio

n.

AN

TAM

INA

follo

ws W

orld

Ban

k G

uide

lines

for

Envi

ronm

enta

l Man

agem

ent f

or th

e M

inin

g an

d M

illin

g Se

ctor

an

d O

pera

tion

Dire

ctiv

e 4.

04 re

gard

ing

Nat

ural

Hab

itats

. Th

is st

udy

did

not i

nclu

de c

onsu

ltatio

n w

ith P

eruv

ian

regu

lato

rs.

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

24

C

OM

PON

EN

T 2

: CO

RPO

RA

TE

BE

ST P

RA

CT

ICE

S Fo

r B

IOD

IVE

RSI

TY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T

T

hem

e E

xcel

lent

Pe

rfor

man

ce

Acc

epta

ble

Perf

orm

ance

Po

or

Perf

orm

ance

Com

men

ts

Biod

iver

sity

Pol

icy

X

AN

TAM

INA

�s E

nviro

nmen

tal,

Hea

lth, a

nd S

afet

y po

licie

s inc

lude

al

l env

ironm

enta

l im

pact

s of t

he c

ompa

ny�s

ope

ratio

ns.

Whi

le th

e te

rm �

biod

iver

sity

� is

not

exp

licit

in th

e te

xt, i

t is i

mpl

ied

in th

e co

mpr

ehen

sive

stat

emen

t on

envi

ronm

enta

l res

pons

ibili

ty9 .

Con

side

ring

Biod

iver

sity

in

Busi

ness

Dec

isio

ns

X

AN

TAM

INA

�s im

pact

s on

envi

ronm

ent,

incl

udin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty, a

re

cons

ider

ed in

dec

isio

n m

akin

g.

AN

TAM

INA

follo

ws t

he W

orld

Ba

nk S

tand

ards

of M

inin

g an

d M

illin

g.

Resp

onsi

bilit

y fo

r Man

agin

g Bi

odiv

ersi

ty M

gmt

X

Biod

iver

sity

man

agem

ent i

s exp

licit

resp

onsi

bilit

y of

En

viro

nmen

tal,

Hea

lth, a

nd S

afet

y, u

p to

leve

l of V

ice

Pres

iden

t of

AN

TAM

INA

. (S

enio

r man

agem

ent a

nd b

oard

of d

irect

ors i

nvol

ved

in d

ecis

ion

to im

plem

ent v

olun

tary

Pol

ylpe

is c

onse

rvat

ion

prog

ram

.) In

clud

ing

Stak

ehol

ders

X

St

akeh

olde

rs e

ngag

ed d

urin

g m

ine

plan

ning

(inc

ludi

ng E

IA),

deve

lopm

ent,

and

oper

atio

n. (

Loca

l sta

keho

lder

con

sulta

tion

is

inte

gral

in P

olyl

epis

rest

orat

ion

prog

ram

for s

ite se

lect

ion

and

rest

orat

ion

impl

emen

tatio

n).

Stak

ehol

der c

onfli

cts h

ave

aris

en.

Som

e lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es a

re n

ot

fully

satis

fied

with

the

min

e�s e

nviro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t. Po

licy

on S

ensi

tive

Are

as

X

AN

TAM

INA

follo

ws W

orld

Ban

k G

uide

lines

for E

nviro

nmen

tal

Man

agem

ent f

or M

inin

g an

d M

illin

g, w

hich

incl

udes

exp

licit

lang

uage

abo

ut a

void

ing

destr

uctio

n of

crit

ical

nat

ural

hab

itats

. Th

e or

igin

al p

lan

for t

he m

ine

incl

uded

bui

ldin

g a

road

thro

ugh

Hua

scar

an N

atio

nal P

ark

to tr

ansp

ort m

iner

als t

o po

rt. T

his p

lan

was

aba

ndon

ed, h

owev

er, i

n fa

vor o

f a fa

r low

er im

pact

alte

rnat

ive,

an

und

ergr

ound

via

duct

. Bi

odiv

ersi

ty Im

pact

X[S

DB

1]

Bi

odiv

ersi

ty im

pact

s of p

roje

ct d

escr

ibed

in E

IA a

t the

hab

itat a

nd

9 �A

mbi

ente

, Sal

ud y

Seg

urid

ad In

dustr

ial e

n A

ntam

ina,

� av

aila

ble

at w

ww

.ant

amin

a.co

m.

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

25

Ass

essm

ent

spec

ies l

evel

. Im

pact

s not

des

crib

ed a

t gen

etic

leve

l. Su

bseq

uent

bas

elin

e st

udie

s of l

ocal

Pol

ylep

is fo

rest

s for

the

cons

erva

tion

prog

ram

foun

d a

rang

e of

spec

ies n

ot id

entif

ied

in th

e BI

A, i

nclu

ded

spec

ies o

f flo

ra a

nd fa

una

new

to sc

ienc

e. B

IA c

ould

ha

ve b

een

mor

e th

orou

gh, s

ugge

stin

g a

poss

ible

ratin

g of

�po

or.�

Si

te a

nd R

esto

ratio

n Pl

ans

X

Biod

iver

sity

offs

et fo

r Pol

ylep

is sh

rub

fore

st u

nder

way

. Pr

ojec

t fo

llow

s hie

rarc

hy o

f: av

oid;

miti

gate

; offs

et.

Pro

ject

aim

s for

net

ga

in in

bio

dive

rsity

. O

ffset

impl

emen

ted

afte

r dev

elop

men

t of

min

e pr

ojec

t. Si

te p

lan

incl

udes

bio

dive

rsity

impa

ct m

itiga

tion,

mon

itorin

g, a

nd

repo

rting

stra

tegy

. Pr

ojec

t will

reha

bilit

ate

min

e si

te th

ough

eco

syst

em re

stor

atio

n of

gr

assl

ands

, shr

ub fo

rest

s, an

d re

plac

emen

t of a

quat

ic h

abita

t.

Prog

ress

ive

rest

orat

ion

will

occ

ur a

s are

as c

ease

pro

duct

ion.

M

onito

ring

Syst

em a

nd

Met

hods

X

A

NTA

MIN

A m

onito

rs b

iodi

vers

ity in

the

area

s whe

re im

pact

s are

of

con

cern

, nam

ely

aqua

tic o

rgan

ism

s pot

entia

lly im

pact

ed b

y ef

fluen

t and

bird

pop

ulat

ions

relia

nt o

n la

ke h

abita

t nea

r the

min

e.

With

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

Poly

lepi

s res

tora

tion

prog

ram

, m

onito

ring

of th

is ha

bita

t and

resi

dent

spec

ies w

ill c

omm

ence

. Bi

odiv

ersi

ty m

etric

s tar

get s

peci

es a

nd h

abita

ts o

f con

cern

, inc

lude

ba

selin

e in

form

atio

n, p

erfo

rman

ce ta

rget

s, an

d ar

e m

easu

red

cons

iste

ntly

ove

r tim

e.

AN

TAM

INA

doe

s not

ach

ieve

hig

hest

ratin

g be

caus

e no

t all

biod

iver

sity

mon

itorin

g is

cond

ucte

d by

an

inde

pend

ent t

hird

par

ty.

Repo

rting

X

A

nnua

l rep

ortin

g on

bio

dive

rsity

impa

cts a

vaila

ble

in

AN

TAM

INA

�s S

usta

inab

ility

Rep

ort.

Rep

ort i

s sha

red

wid

ely

with

st

akeh

olde

rs a

nd is

ava

ilabl

e to

gen

eral

pub

lic.

Ada

ptiv

e M

anag

emen

t X

Bi

odiv

ersi

ty m

onito

ring

feed

s bac

k in

to e

nviro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t de

cisi

on m

akin

g th

roug

h an

EM

S. A

NTA

MIN

A is

in th

e pr

oces

s of

ear

ning

ISO

140

01 c

ertif

icat

ion

(exp

ecte

d la

te 2

006)

, req

uirin

g co

ntin

uous

impr

ovem

ent o

f env

ironm

enta

l per

form

ance

.

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

26

C

OM

PON

EN

T 3

: Con

serv

atio

n Im

pact

Rat

ing

Fact

or o

f Suc

cess

E

xcel

lent

G

ood

Fair

Po

or

Com

men

ts

Des

ign

P

riorit

y X

Pr

ogra

m is

cle

ar a

nd sp

ecifi

c ab

out i

ts c

onse

rvat

ion

targ

et, P

olyl

epis

� a

shru

b sp

ecie

s tha

t is d

eem

ed o

f the

hig

hest

of p

riorit

ies f

or c

onse

rvat

ion

by sc

ient

ists.

Po

lyle

pis h

as b

een

redu

ced

to o

nly

a fe

w p

erce

nt o

f its

orig

inal

nat

ural

rang

e an

d pr

ovid

es h

abita

t to

a la

rge

perc

enta

ge o

f the

end

emic

bird

s of t

he A

ndes

.

Sca

le

X

Prog

ram

is b

ased

on

know

n co

nditi

ons r

equi

red

for s

ucce

ssfu

l res

tora

tion

of

Poly

lepi

s, as

wel

l as s

ize

of re

stor

ed h

abita

t req

uire

d to

supp

ort e

ndem

ic b

ird

spec

ies.

Prog

ram

will

rest

ore

mul

tiple

fore

st p

atch

es o

f suf

ficie

nt si

ze to

mai

ntai

n ec

osys

tem

stru

ctur

e an

d fu

nctio

n, a

nd su

ppor

t end

emic

bird

spec

ies.

Pro

gram

is

a p

ilot t

hat c

ould

be

repl

icat

ed o

ver a

n ar

ea fa

r lar

ger t

han

curr

ently

pla

nned

in

the

curr

ent 5

-yea

r pro

gram

des

ign.

Pra

ctic

ally

spea

king

, how

ever

, it w

ill n

ot

exte

nd o

ver t

he n

atur

al ra

nge

of th

e sp

ecie

s.

Lin

kage

X

Proj

ect i

s bas

ed o

n an

exi

sting

and

succ

essf

ul m

odel

for P

olyl

epis

rest

orat

ion

in C

uzco

, Per

u th

at h

as b

een

unde

rway

for s

ever

al y

ears

. A

dditi

onal

tim

e an

d st

udy

will

be

requ

ired

to a

chie

ve th

e hi

ghes

t lin

kage

scor

e gi

ven

the

still

expe

rimen

tal n

atur

e of

the

prog

ram

. Im

plem

enta

tion

P

lann

ing

X

Proj

ect p

lann

ing

is la

id o

ut in

det

ail i

n a

logi

cal f

ram

ewor

k, su

ppor

ted

by

annu

al w

ork

plan

s and

bud

gets

. A

det

aile

d sta

keho

lder

map

and

eng

agem

ent s

trate

gy fo

r the

pro

gram

was

de

velo

ped

and

is be

ing

exec

uted

by

The

Mou

ntai

n In

stitu

te.

To d

ate,

how

ever

, th

ere

is n

o re

gion

al c

onse

rvat

ion

strat

egy

into

whi

ch th

is pr

ogra

m fi

ts.

This

is

a re

flect

ion

of th

e la

ck o

f ins

titut

iona

l cap

acity

in th

is re

gion

for c

onse

rvat

ion,

ra

ther

than

a fl

aw in

the

com

pany

�s p

rogr

am.

Adm

inis

tratio

n X

To

dat

e, p

rogr

am is

impl

emen

ted

on ti

me

and

with

in b

udge

t.

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

27

Ada

ptiv

e M

anag

emen

t

X

Scie

ntifi

cally

sou

nd b

asel

ine

data

has

bee

n co

llect

ed.

Prog

ram

has

mon

itorin

g pl

an th

at tr

acks

pro

gres

s tow

ards

goa

ls.

Mon

itorin

g re

sults

are

revi

ewed

on

an in

term

itten

t bas

is.

Proj

ect h

as n

ot y

et b

een

unde

rway

long

eno

ugh

to d

eter

min

e abi

lity

to re

spon

d to

mon

itorin

g da

ta.

Com

mun

icat

ion

Info

rmat

ion

not y

et a

vaila

ble

for e

valu

atio

n.

O

utco

me

Sc

ale

of Im

pact

In

form

atio

n no

t yet

ava

ilabl

e fo

r eva

luat

ion.

Resp

onse

of T

arge

t

In

form

atio

n no

t yet

ava

ilabl

e fo

r eva

luat

ion.

Targ

et S

ecur

ed

Info

rmat

ion

not y

et a

vaila

ble

for e

valu

atio

n.

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

28

C

OM

PON

EN

T 4

: BIO

DIV

ER

SIT

Y O

FFSE

T N

OR

MS

BA

SED

ON

CU

RR

EN

T R

EGU

LA

TIO

NS

T

hem

e E

xcee

ds o

r C

onfo

rms t

o M

ost

Reg

ulat

ions

Con

form

s to

Som

e R

egul

atio

ns

Doe

s Not

C

onfo

rm to

Any

R

egul

atio

ns

Com

men

ts

Avo

idan

ce a

nd M

itiga

tion

Hie

rarc

hy

X

Proj

ect s

atis

fies c

riter

ia fo

r avo

idin

g es

peci

ally

sens

itive

are

as fo

r bi

odiv

ersi

ty, a

nd th

en m

itiga

ting

all e

colo

gica

l im

pact

s acc

ordi

ng to

re

gula

tory

requ

irem

ents

. O

nly

afte

r sat

isfy

ing

thes

e cr

iteria

doe

s A

NTA

MIN

A d

evel

op a

vol

unta

ry c

onse

rvat

ion

proj

ect t

o m

itiga

te

unav

oida

ble

impa

cts o

f its

ope

ratio

ns.

Eq

uiva

lenc

e (�

in-k

ind

vs.

�out

-of-k

ind�

) X

M

ine

site

impa

cts t

hree

nat

ive

ecos

yste

ms:

1) P

una

gras

slan

d; 2

) riv

ers

and

lake

s; a

nd, 3

) shr

ub fo

rest

. A

ccor

ding

to th

e EI

A, i

mpa

cts t

o gr

assl

and,

rive

rs a

nd la

kes i

s not

dee

med

sign

ifica

nt fo

r loc

al b

iodi

vers

ity.

Impa

cts t

o sh

rub

fore

st e

xten

d ov

er o

nly

1 he

ctar

e, h

owev

er th

is

ecos

yste

m in

clud

es th

e en

dang

ered

Pol

ylep

is ge

nus.

Giv

en th

e im

porta

nce

of P

olyl

epis

and

the h

abita

t it c

reat

es fo

r end

emic

spec

ies,

it w

as c

hose

n fo

r a v

olun

tary

con

serv

atio

n pr

ojec

t.

The

scal

e of

the

offs

et

coul

d al

low

it to

cou

nt a

s an

�out

-of-k

ind�

offs

et fo

r gra

ssla

nd a

nd

aqua

tic h

abita

t im

pact

s. B

ased

on

this

info

rmat

ion,

the

offs

et is

�in

-ki

nd�

for t

he e

cosy

stem

of s

igni

fican

ce fo

r bio

dive

rsity

con

serv

atio

n.

This

conf

orm

s to

mos

t reg

ulat

ory

stan

dard

s.

Loca

tion

of o

ffset

s (�o

n-si

te�

vs. �

off-s

ite�)

X

Th

e co

nser

vatio

n pr

ojec

t is d

istri

bute

d ac

ross

a 5

0,00

0 he

ctar

e co

rrid

or in

th

e C

onch

ucos

Val

ley

that

runs

adj

acen

t to

the

min

e si

te.

The

offs

et

conf

orm

s to

the

�on-

site�

pre

fere

nce

of m

ost r

egul

atio

ns.

A

dditi

onal

con

serv

atio

n be

nefit

s X

Po

lyle

pis r

esto

ratio

n is

not d

uplic

ativ

e of

any

exi

stin

g co

nser

vatio

n pr

ogra

m, a

nd fo

cuse

s on

priv

ate

land

s tha

t for

m a

cor

ridor

bet

wee

n tw

o pr

otec

ted

area

s. T

he p

roje

ct q

ualif

ies a

s add

ition

al.

U

nits

of c

urre

ncy

X

The

unit

of c

urre

ncy

is h

ecta

res.

The

offs

et m

etho

dolo

gy d

oes n

ot

atte

mpt

to q

uant

ify e

cosy

stem

func

tions

. Th

is co

nfor

ms t

o so

me

regu

lato

ry st

anda

rds,

with

the

exce

ptio

n of

U.S

. wet

land

s off

sets

that

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

29

requ

ire q

uant

ifica

tion

of e

cosy

stem

stru

ctur

e an

d fu

nctio

n.

M

itiga

tion

Offs

et R

atio

X

Th

e re

stor

atio

n pr

ojec

t offs

ets i

mpa

cts t

o Po

lyle

pis f

ores

ts a

t a ra

tio o

f 1,

000:

1. T

his e

xcee

ds a

ll re

gula

tory

stan

dard

s.

Tim

ing

of o

ffset

rela

tive

to

impa

ct

X

The

offs

et is

impl

emen

ted

afte

r dev

elop

men

t of t

he m

ine.

Whi

le th

is co

nfor

ms t

o so

me

regu

latio

ns, a

mor

e rig

orou

s app

roac

h w

ould

invo

lve

impl

emen

tatio

n of

the

offs

et p

rior t

o de

velo

pmen

t or a

t lea

st w

ithin

one

ye

ar o

f im

pact

. So

me

regu

latio

ns a

llow

tem

pora

l del

ay to

be

com

pens

ated

for w

ith a

m

itiga

tion

ratio

gre

ater

than

1:1

(see

Miti

gatio

n O

ffset

Rat

io a

bove

).

Dur

atio

n of

offs

et

X

The

cons

erva

tion

proj

ect i

s int

ende

d to

be

perm

anen

t, ba

sed

on le

gal

oblig

atio

ns b

y lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es to

pro

tect

rest

ored

fore

sts.

Offs

ets

typi

cally

are

requ

ired

to la

st as

long

as i

mpa

cts.

Bec

ause

the

min

e sit

e w

ill b

e re

stor

ed u

pon

min

e cl

osur

e, d

urat

ion

of im

pact

is th

e op

erat

iona

l lif

e of

the

min

e (a

ppro

xim

atel

y 20

yea

rs).

Ther

efor

e, a

per

man

ent o

ffset

ex

ceed

s mos

t reg

ulat

ions

.


30

MONITORING AND REPORTING As ANTAMINA implements the voluntary Polylepis restoration program, the company will monitor the status of restored forests and the resident populations of species of concern. This should include bird species known to be endemic or specialists for Polylepis forest habitat. Antamina�s annual sustainability report should include the following information going forward:

• Quantification of shrub forest originally displaced by Antamina mine; • Explicit target, in hectares, for Polylepis restoration, expressed in absolute terms

and as a ratio of Polylepis displaced by mine; • Status of restoration project in terms of implementation process; • Status of restoration program in terms of area restored; • Status of restored forests in terms of survival of Polylepis and fauna and flora

anticipated to inhabit Polylepis forest habitat � a periodic survey of endemic birds in restored forests would be ideal;

• Community benefits generated by offset program, such as employment in restoration activities and sustainable community utilization of restored forests.

In addition, Antamina should report ecological findings that occur as a result of working on the conservation program, but that otherwise were not identified in the EIA. The issue here is that a much closer examination of local ecosystems performed to assess baseline conditions of local Polylepis forests found a number of important species for conservation, including the possible identification of species of flora and fauna new to science. In the best case, these findings would not have been overlooked in the EIA. An appropriate response at this time is to report these findings to government regulators (INRENA) as an update to the EIA and to stakeholders through the company�s sustainability report or other communications mechanisms.


31

CONCLUSIONS ANTAMINA�s voluntary conservation program to restore Polylepis forests in the Conchucos Valley of Ancash, Peru could serve as a formal biodiversity offset for ecological impacts incurred due to the Antamina mine. The biodiversity offset is a component of a larger corporate biodiversity management strategy that largely follows the recommendations laid out in voluntary industry best practice standards. The impacts of the Antamina project include several habitat types, but with the exception of minimal impacts to the shrub forests, the conservation importance of those habitats was low. ANTAMINA�s Polylepis restoration will more than offset the impacts to shrub forests at the mine site, and will create additional shrub forest habitat along a conservation corridor between two existing protected areas. A potential point of weakness in the offset is timing, because it is implemented more than a year after impacts were experienced from the mine project. This is, of course, to be expected since the idea of a biodiversity offset arose after the development of the mine and the design of the voluntary conservation program. In strict terms, the company had essentially no impact on Polylepis, so the timing of the offset may not be relevant, but if it were it is compensated for by the large mitigation ratio of the offset. The currency used to compare the impacts of the mine to the benefits of the offset is simply area of habitat. We understand that Polylepis habitat can be restored to a sufficient extent to be inhabited by endemic bird species in five years. We do not attempt in this evaluation to compare baseline data from other mature Polylepis forests in the region with restored forests. This comparison of ecosystem structure and function would provide more clarity in our analysis, and might be pursued in a future study permitting that resources are available. This case study is an early application of a generalized biodiversity offset evaluation methodology. Some issues have arisen that require further study and development. First and foremost, the evaluation relies heavily on Antamina�s EIA. Once baseline ecological studies were completed for the Polylepis project, it was determined that a number of species of conservation importance occupy the area surrounding the mine. This calls into question the ability to rely solely on the EIA for a biodiversity assessment of the project area, or at least an EIA conducted without reliable third party review. Second, more analytic tools should be developed to assess the community component of biodiversity offsets. The ANTAMINA program is fully integrated into a corporate strategy for community engagement. An assessment of how this should be analyzed within the context of an offset would be helpful. The authors anticipate that this document will serve as the basis of discussion for further improvements to the methods. The report is not an endorsement or certification of ANTAMINA�s conservation program as a biodiversity offset.


32

REFERENCES Becker, B., 1988: Degradation and rehabilitation of Andean Ecosystems: An example from Cajamarca. Angew. Bot. 62: 147-160. Botts, S., J. Recharte B, Caballero, F. (2001). Antamina and Huascarán National Park: A Case Study in Mining, Conservation and Sustainable Development. XXV Convención de Ingenieros de Minas del Perú 10-14 Septiembre, 2001, Arequipa, Peru. Byers,A.C., 2000: Contemporary landscape change in the Huascarán National Park and buffer zone, Cordillera Blanca, Perú. Mountain Research and Development 20: 52-63. Collar,N.J., Gonzaga.L.P., Krabbe, N., Matroño N., A, Naranjo, L.G., Parker, III, T.A. & Wege, D.C, 1992: Threatened birds of the Americas. The ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book. 3rd ed., part �, ICBP, Cambridge, U.K. Ellenberg, H., 1958: Wald oder Steppe? Die natúrliche Pfalanzendecke der Anden Perus. - Umschau 1958: 645-681. Frimer, O. & Nielsen, S.M., 1989: The status of Polylepis Forest and their avifauna in Cordillera Blanca, Perú Zoological Museum, Copenhagen, 58 pp. Fjeldsa, J., 2002: �Polylepis Forest � vestiges of vanishing ecosystem in the Andes�, Ecotropica 8: 93-95, 2002, pp: 111-125. Fjeldsa, J., 2002: �Key areas for conserving the avifauna of Polylepis Forests�, Ecotropica 8: 93-95, 2002, pp: 125-133. Fjeldsa, J. & Kessler, M., 1996: �Conserving the biological diversity of Polylepis woodlands of the highland of Perú and Bolivia�, NORDECO, Copenhagen , Denmark, 250pp. Fjeldsa, J., 1992: Biogeographic patterns anfd evolution of the avifauna of relict high-altitude woodlands of the Andes. Steenstrupia 18: 9-62. Fjeldsa, J. & Krabbe, N., 1990: �Birds of the High Andes�, Zoological Museum, Copenhagen, and Apollo Books, Svendborg, 881pp. Hardner & Gullison Associates, LLC, 2005. �An Evaluation of the Conservation Impact of the Partnership of National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Bureau of Land Management, 1995-2003.� Hensen, I., 2002: Anthropogenic influence on the vegetation of Polylepis forests in the Cordillera Oriental in Bolivia


33

Hjarsen,T., 1999: Biological biodiversity in high altitude woodlands and plantation, in the Bolivian Andes: implications for development of sustainable land-use. Pp. 145-9 in Sarmiento, F.O. & J. Hidalgo A. (eds). III Simposio Internacional de Desarrollo Sustentable de Montañas: entendiendo las interfaces ecológicas para la gestión de los paisajes culturales en los Andes. Quito. Kessler, M., 1995a: Polylepis-Waldër Boliviens: Taxa, Ökologie, Verbreitung und Geschichte. Dissertationes Botanicae 246, J. Cramer, Berlin, Stuttgart. Kessler, M. & P. Driesch., 1993. Causas e historia de la destrucción de bosques altoandinos en Bolivia. Ecología en Bolivia 21: 1-18. Koepcke, H.W., 1961: Synökologische Studien an der Westseite der peruanischen Anden. Bonner Geogr. Abh. 29, 320 pp. Laegaard, S., 1992. Influence of fire in the grass paramo vegetation of Ecuador. Pp 151-170 in Balslev, H. & J.L., Luteyn (eds). Pàramo. An Andean ecosystem under human influence. London. Mariscal, C. & S. Rist, 1999: Tipos de relaciones bosque-comunidad y normas tradicionales de uso y acceso a la vegetación boscosa. Cochabamba, Bolivia. McKenney, B. 2005. �Environmental Offset Policies, Principles, and Methods: A Review of Selected Legislative Frameworks.� Biodiversity Neutral Initiative, www.biodiversityneutral.org. Simpson, B.B., 1986: Speciation and specialization of Polylepis in the Andes. � Pp. 304-315 in Vuilleumier, F. & Monasterio, M. (eds) High Altitude Tropical Biogeography , New York � Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Walter, H. & Medina, E., 1969: La temperatura del suelo como factor determinante para la caracterización de los pisos subalpino y alpino en los Andes de Venezuela.- Bol. Soc. Ven. Cien. Nat 28(115/116):201-210. Weberbauer, A., 1930: Die Pflamzenwelt der peruanischen Anden. Vegetation der Erde 12 Leipzig. Wong, C. and R.E. Gullison, 2005. �Corporate Biodiversity Management Guidelines and Biodiversity Offsets.� Biodiversity Neutral Initiative, www.biodiversityneutral.org.


Annex A - 1

Annex A: ANTAMINA Policy Statements

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SAFETY POLICY Objective: To ensure that all employees, contractors, shareholders and communities in Peru are aware of CMA�s commitment to world class Environment, Health, Safety and Community programs and practices. Principles: We are Antamina, efficient operators of a polymetallic ore deposit. Our work team is committed to producing and delivering high-quality concentrates in a safe and responsible manner, from the Peruvian Andes to the world. We intend to create value and generate benefits in a responsible manner for the benefit of our workers, shareholders, communities, and Peru. Our mission is to be a company with extraordinary though predictable results as to quality, adaptability, profitability, safety, environment and community relations, by having our people participate and assume a leadership role. Scope: All Employees All Contractors All Shareholders All Communities in the surrounding regions of Antamina Administrative Responsibility: EHSC Department Application: Aware of our mission, we commit ourselves to: Honor the culture, traditions, and values of our employees and the communities surrounding our operations. Keep an open communication channel with the government, shareholders, employees, communities, and other stakeholders, regarding environmental, health and safety issues. Act responsibly as administrators of the resources we are in charge of, guaranteeing the protection of the environment and the well-being of our employees and neighboring communities. Prevent environmental, health, safety and community risks in all our activities, ensuring the fulfillment of governmental, World Bank, and company rules and standards. Train and create awareness among all employees in order to improve their performance, guaranteeing a safe and environmentally healthy workplace. Keep a monitoring program in place to constantly ensure the fulfillment of said policy and governmental laws and rules. Regularly review the environmental, health, safety and community relations� systems, programs and practices to continuously improve performance in our activities, and align CMA�s strategic partners in the fulfillment thereof.


Annex A - 2

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT / SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY POLICY

Purpose: At Antamina we accept our corporate responsibility to practice environmental protection and promote social and economic progress without compromising community well being or security. Our goal is to contribute to a better future for our neighboring communities and the country of Peru. We are committed to building partnerships with our neighboring communities and other stakeholders. Our partnerships are based on mutual trust and are consistent with our core values and community interests, only together can we achieve sustainability. Scope: All Antamina Employees Administrative Responsibility: EHS&C Principles:

A. Sustainability is good business practice that reduces risk and supports our relationship with stakeholders.

B. Implementing sustainability requires leadership and a balance between environmental, social and economic needs.

C. We strive to improve the quality of life of our employees and their families. D. We require the support of our neighboring communities, government and other stakeholders,

gained through meaningful dialogue. E. Society�s need for the metals we produce must be balanced with environmental protection. F. Our activities must be conducted in a way that respects cultures, customs and social values of

our neighboring communities. G. We are committed to act with caution commensurate with the risk, and in an appropriate and

lawful manner. H. We must pursue new technologies to reduce the impact of mining activities.

Our Policy and Principles: It is our policy to:

1. Implement and maintain ethical business practices and effective systems of corporate governance.

2. Integrate sustainable development considerations and practice into the corporate decision-making process.

3. Uphold fundamental human rights and respect cultures, customs and values in our dealings with host communities and other stakeholders.

4. Implement risk management strategies based on valid data and sound science. 5. Seek continual improvement of our health, safety and environmental performance. 6. Contribute to the conservation of biodiversity and the use of integrated and consultative

approaches to land management. 7. Facilitate and encourage responsible product design and usage, and the recycling and disposal

of our waste products. 8. Contribute to the equitable distribution of economic benefits and the social and institutional

development of neighboring communities. 9. Implement effective and transparent engagement, communication and independently verified

reporting arrangements with our stakeholders.

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

Ann

ex B

- 1

Ann

ex B

: Eva

luat

ion

Cri

teri

a

CO

MPO

NE

NT

1: E

NV

IRO

NM

EN

TA

L R

egul

ator

y C

ompl

ianc

e

The

me

Indi

cato

rs

Exc

elle

nt P

erfo

rman

ce

Acc

epta

ble

Perf

orm

ance

Po

or P

erfo

rman

ce

C

ompl

ianc

e w

ith

Env

iron

men

tal R

egul

atio

ns

(Sho

uld

incl

ude

regu

latio

ns

rele

vant

to a

ny im

pact

s to

natu

ral e

cosy

stem

s)

As i

ndic

ated

in lo

cal

regu

latio

ns

Exce

eds r

egul

ator

y re

quire

men

ts fo

r en

viro

nmen

tal p

rote

ctio

n

Mee

ts re

gula

tory

re

quire

men

ts fo

r en

viro

nmen

tal p

rote

ctio

n

Doe

s not

mee

t reg

ulat

ory

requ

irem

ents

for

envi

ronm

enta

l pro

tect

ion

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

Ann

ex B

- 2

C

OM

PON

EN

T 2

: CO

RPO

RA

TE

BE

ST P

RA

CT

ICE

S Fo

r B

IOD

IVE

RSI

TY

MA

NA

GEM

EN

T

T

hem

e In

dica

tors

E

xcel

lent

Per

form

ance

A

ccep

tabl

e Pe

rfor

man

ce

Poor

Per

form

ance

Biod

iver

sity

Pol

icy

Writ

ten

polic

y Po

licy

desc

ribes

goa

l for

m

anag

ing

biod

iver

sity

im

pact

s at s

cale

of a

ll co

rpor

ate

activ

ities

Polic

y de

scrib

es g

oal f

or

man

agin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty

impa

cts a

t sca

le o

f pro

ject

si

te(s

)

No

polic

y fo

r man

agin

g bi

odiv

ersi

ty im

pact

s

Con

side

ring

Biod

iver

sity

in

Busi

ness

Dec

isio

ns

Evid

ence

of b

usin

ess o

ptio

ns

eval

uate

d ba

sed

on

biod

iver

sity

impa

cts

Com

pany

ass

esse

s bi

odiv

ersi

ty im

pact

s of

mul

tiple

opt

ions

, and

sele

cts

optio

ns th

at m

inim

ize

biod

iver

sity

impa

cts �

may

ov

errid

e fin

anci

al

cons

ider

atio

ns

Com

pany

ass

esse

s bi

odiv

ersi

ty im

pact

s of

mul

tiple

opt

ions

, and

sele

cts

optio

ns th

at m

inim

ize

biod

iver

sity

impa

cts

Com

pany

doe

s not

ass

esse

s bi

odiv

ersi

ty im

pact

s of

mul

tiple

opt

ions

as a

mea

ns

to m

inim

ize

biod

iver

sity

im

pact

s

Resp

onsi

bilit

y fo

r Man

agin

g Bi

odiv

ersi

ty M

gmt

Job

desc

riptio

ns o

f man

ager

s Sp

ecifi

c bi

odiv

ersi

ty

man

agem

ent r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s at

all

man

agem

ent l

evel

s of

com

pany

Sele

ct m

anag

ers h

ave

defin

ed

biod

iver

sity

man

agem

ent

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

No

defin

ed b

iodi

vers

ity

man

agem

ent r

espo

nsib

ilitie

s

Incl

udin

g St

akeh

olde

rs

Stak

ehol

der m

ap

Stak

ehol

der e

ngag

emen

t st

rate

gy

Stak

ehol

der m

eetin

gs h

eld

Stak

ehol

der c

once

rns

addr

esse

d

Stak

ehol

ders

are

iden

tifie

d an

d en

gage

d in

a fo

rmal

pr

oces

s whe

re b

iodi

vers

ity

issu

es a

re d

iscu

ssed

St

akeh

olde

rs fu

lly sa

tisfie

d th

at th

eir c

once

rns a

bout

bi

odiv

ersi

ty im

pact

s are

re

flect

ed in

pro

ject

pla

nnin

g an

d im

plem

enta

tion

Stak

ehol

ders

are

iden

tifie

d an

d en

gage

d in

a fo

rmal

pr

oces

s whe

re b

iodi

vers

ity

issu

es a

re d

iscu

ssed

St

akeh

olde

rs c

once

rns a

bout

bi

odiv

ersi

ty im

pact

s are

re

flect

ed in

pro

ject

pla

nnin

g an

d im

plem

enta

tion

Stak

ehol

ders

not

fully

id

entif

ied

or e

ngag

ed in

a

form

al p

roce

ss w

here

bi

odiv

ersi

ty is

sues

are

di

scus

sed.

Polic

y on

Sen

sitiv

e A

reas

C

orpo

rate

�N

o G

o� P

olic

y Ev

iden

ce o

f ite

rativ

e pl

anni

ng

to m

inim

ize

biod

iver

sity

im

pact

s

�No

Go�

pol

icy

in p

lace

and

co

nsid

ers m

ultip

le m

ajor

in

depe

nden

t con

serv

atio

n pr

iorit

izat

ion

sche

mes

C

ompa

ny e

valu

ates

mul

tiple

�No

Go�

pol

icy

in p

lace

and

fo

llow

s at l

east

one

maj

or

inde

pend

ent c

onse

rvat

ion

prio

ritiz

atio

n sc

hem

e C

ompa

ny e

valu

ates

mul

tiple

�No

Go�

pol

icy

not i

n pl

ace,

or

doe

s not

follo

w a

ny m

ajor

in

depe

nden

t con

serv

atio

n pr

iorit

izat

ion

sche

mes

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

Ann

ex B

- 3

optio

ns fo

r its

act

iviti

es, a

nd

elim

inat

es o

ptio

ns th

at

conf

lict w

ith �

No

Go�

pol

icy

optio

ns fo

r its

act

iviti

es, a

nd

elim

inat

es o

ptio

ns th

at

conf

lict w

ith �

No

Go�

pol

icy

Biod

iver

sity

Impa

ct

Ass

essm

ent

Rang

e of

taxo

nom

ic g

roup

s in

clud

ed

Trea

tmen

t of d

irect

and

in

dire

ct im

pact

s In

volv

emen

t of i

ndep

ende

nt

expe

rts

Inde

pend

ent p

eer r

evie

w o

f re

sults

C

onco

rdan

ce w

ith o

ther

BIA

s in

sim

ilar c

onte

xts

In th

e pr

e-bi

d/sit

e se

lect

ion

and

expl

orat

ion

stag

es o

f pr

ojec

t dev

elop

men

t, ba

selin

e as

sess

men

ts o

f bio

dive

rsity

an

d ev

alua

tion

of th

e co

nseq

uenc

es o

f a p

ropo

sed

proj

ect a

re p

erfo

rmed

as p

art

of E

nviro

nmen

tal I

mpa

ct

Ass

essm

ent (

EIA

) A

sses

smen

t con

side

rs d

irect

, in

dire

ct a

nd c

umul

ativ

e im

pact

s on

all l

evel

s of

biod

iver

sity

: gen

etic

, spe

cies

an

d ec

osys

tem

s

In th

e pr

e-bi

d/sit

e se

lect

ion

and

expl

orat

ion

stag

es o

f pr

ojec

t dev

elop

men

t, ba

selin

e as

sess

men

ts o

f bio

dive

rsity

an

d ev

alua

tion

of th

e co

nseq

uenc

es o

f a p

ropo

sed

proj

ect a

re p

erfo

rmed

as p

art

of E

IA

Proj

ect E

IA d

oes n

ot

adeq

uate

ly a

ddre

ss p

oten

tial

and

actu

al b

iodi

vers

ity

impa

cts o

f pro

ject

.

Site

and

Res

tora

tion

Plan

s W

ritte

n im

pact

miti

gatio

n st

rate

gy

Evid

ence

of b

iodi

vers

ity

impa

ct m

anag

emen

t hi

erar

chy

Exte

nt o

f res

tora

tion

Site

pla

n fo

llow

s hie

rarc

hy

of: 1

) avo

id im

pact

s to

biod

iver

sity

, 2) r

educ

e im

pact

s, 3)

miti

gate

impa

cts,

and

then

4) c

ompe

nsat

e Re

stor

atio

n pl

ans f

or

miti

gatin

g a

proj

ect�s

impa

cts

on b

iodi

vers

ity a

re d

evel

oped

at

per

mitt

ing

stag

e an

d co

ntai

n sit

e-sp

ecifi

c ob

ject

ives

and

targ

ets

Site

s are

pro

gres

sive

ly

reha

bilit

ated

as p

roje

cts

mat

ure

Site

pla

n fo

llow

s hie

rarc

hy

of: 1

) avo

id im

pact

s to

biod

iver

sity

, 2) r

educ

e im

pact

s, 3)

miti

gate

impa

cts,

and

then

4) c

ompe

nsat

e Re

stor

atio

n pl

ans f

or

miti

gatin

g a

proj

ect�s

impa

cts

on b

iodi

vers

ity a

re d

evel

oped

at

per

mitt

ing

stag

e an

d co

ntai

n sit

e-sp

ecifi

c ob

ject

ives

and

targ

ets

Site

pla

n do

es n

ot in

clud

e bi

odiv

ersi

ty im

pact

m

itiga

tion

strat

egy

Mon

itorin

g Sy

stem

and

M

etho

ds

Biod

iver

sity

met

rics f

or

spec

ies a

nd h

abita

ts of

In

depe

nden

t ent

ity m

onito

rs

biod

iver

sity

impa

cts o

f C

ompa

ny m

onito

rs

biod

iver

sity

impa

cts o

f N

o m

onito

ring

syst

em, o

r m

onito

ring

syst

em la

cks o

ne

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

Ann

ex B

- 4

conc

ern

Base

line

data

Pe

riodi

c m

onito

ring

data

Pe

rfor

man

ce ta

rget

s

oper

atio

ns o

ver t

ime

Biod

iver

sity

met

rics t

arge

t sp

ecie

s and

hab

itats

of

conc

ern

Base

line

data

ava

ilabl

e fo

r im

pact

ed sp

ecie

s and

hab

itats

D

ata

colle

cted

con

sist

ently

ov

er ti

me

Expl

icit

perf

orm

ance

targ

ets

oper

atio

ns o

ver t

ime

Biod

iver

sity

met

rics t

arge

t sp

ecie

s and

hab

itats

of

conc

ern

Base

line

data

ava

ilabl

e fo

r im

pact

ed sp

ecie

s and

hab

itats

D

ata

colle

cted

con

sist

ently

ov

er ti

me

Expl

icit

perf

orm

ance

targ

ets

or a

ll of

the

follo

win

g:

-bio

dive

rsity

met

rics f

or

spec

ies a

nd h

abita

ts of

co

ncer

n;

-bio

dive

rsity

bas

elin

e da

ta;

-con

sist

ent d

ata

colle

ctio

n ov

er ti

me;

-e

xplic

it pe

rfor

man

ce ta

rget

s

Repo

rting

W

ritte

n re

ports

on

biod

iver

sity

impa

cts

Com

pany

Sus

tain

abili

ty

Repo

rt

Ann

ual r

epor

ting

on

biod

iver

sity

impa

cts a

vaila

ble

in c

ompa

ny�s

Sus

tain

abili

ty

Repo

rt. R

epor

t is s

hare

d w

idel

y w

ith st

akeh

olde

rs a

nd

is a

vaila

ble

to g

ener

al p

ublic

Ann

ual r

epor

ting

on

biod

iver

sity

impa

cts a

vaila

ble

to k

ey st

akeh

olde

rs

No

repo

rting

ava

ilabl

e on

bi

odiv

ersi

ty im

pact

s

Ada

ptiv

e M

anag

emen

t D

emon

strat

ed u

se o

f m

onito

ring

data

to a

dapt

bi

odiv

ersi

ty im

pact

m

anag

emen

t

Biod

iver

sity

mon

itorin

g di

rect

ly fe

eds b

ack

into

en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t de

cisi

on m

akin

g C

ompa

ny is

ISO

140

01

certi

fied,

requ

iring

co

ntin

uous

impr

ovem

ent o

f en

viro

nmen

tal p

erfo

rman

ce

Biod

iver

sity

mon

itorin

g di

rect

ly fe

eds b

ack

into

en

viro

nmen

tal m

anag

emen

t de

cisi

on m

akin

g

Biod

iver

sity

mon

itorin

g do

es

not a

ffect

bio

dive

rsity

m

anag

emen

t.

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

Ann

ex B

- 5

C

OM

PON

EN

T 3

: CO

NSE

RV

AT

ION

IMPA

CT

The

me

Indi

cato

rs

Exc

elle

nt

Perf

orm

ance

G

ood

Perf

orm

ance

Fa

ir

Perf

orm

ance

Po

or

Perf

orm

ance

D

esig

n

Prio

rity

Iden

tific

atio

n of

co

nser

vatio

n ta

rget

Pe

er re

fere

nces

and

ot

her p

roof

of p

riorit

y C

onse

rvat

ion

targ

et

rank

ing

in n

atio

nal

and

inte

rnat

iona

l pr

iorit

y se

tting

Proj

ect i

s cle

ar a

nd

spec

ific

abou

t co

nser

vatio

n ta

rget

Pr

ojec

t add

ress

es

cons

erva

tion

prio

ritie

s, as

def

ined

by

scie

ntifi

c co

mm

unity

Pr

ojec

t is a

top

prio

rity

in n

atio

nal a

nd

inte

rnat

iona

l co

nser

vatio

n str

ateg

ies

Proj

ect i

s cle

ar a

nd

spec

ific

abou

t co

nser

vatio

n ta

rget

Pr

ojec

t add

ress

es

cons

erva

tion

prio

ritie

s, as

def

ined

by

scie

ntifi

c co

mm

unity

Pr

ojec

t is a

prio

rity

in

natio

nal a

nd

inte

rnat

iona

l co

nser

vatio

n str

ateg

ies

Proj

ect i

s cle

ar a

nd

spec

ific

abou

t co

nser

vatio

n ta

rget

Pr

ojec

t cou

ld b

ette

r ad

dres

ses

cons

erva

tion

prio

ritie

s, as

def

ined

by

sci

entif

ic

com

mun

ity

Proj

ect i

s a lo

w

prio

rity

in n

atio

nal

and

inte

rnat

iona

l co

nser

vatio

n st

rate

gies

Proj

ect i

s unc

lear

and

no

t spe

cific

abo

ut

cons

erva

tion

targ

et

Proj

ect d

oes n

ot

addr

esse

s con

serv

atio

n pr

iorit

ies,

as d

efin

ed b

y sc

ient

ific

com

mun

ity

Proj

ect i

s nei

ther

a

natio

nal o

r int

erna

tiona

l co

nser

vatio

n pr

iorit

y

Sca

le

Peer

refe

renc

es a

nd

othe

r pro

of o

f sc

ient

ific

basi

s Ex

pect

ed ∆

in

cons

erva

tion

targ

et

rela

tive

to M

VP1 ,

MD

A2 o

r SFE

3

Proj

ect i

nclu

des

esta

blis

hed

scie

nce-

base

d m

odel

of

cons

erva

tion

biol

ogy

of

targ

et, i

nclu

ding

MD

A,

MV

P, a

nd S

FE

Geo

grap

hic

scal

e of

pr

ojec

t, or

regi

onal

st

rate

gy o

f whi

ch it

is a

pa

rt, e

xcee

ds m

inim

um

nece

ssar

y to

ens

ure

spec

ies

viab

ility

and

/or

supp

ort e

cosy

stem

Proj

ect i

nclu

des

plau

sibl

e sc

ienc

e-ba

sed

mod

el o

f con

serv

atio

n bi

olog

y of

targ

et,

incl

udin

g M

DA

, MV

P,

and

SFE

Geo

grap

hic

scal

e of

pr

ojec

t, or

regi

onal

st

rate

gy o

f whi

ch it

is a

pa

rt, e

xcee

ds m

inim

um

nece

ssar

y to

ens

ure

spec

ies

viab

ility

and

/or

ecos

yste

m st

ruct

ure

and

Proj

ect i

nclu

des

cons

erva

tion

biol

ogy

mod

el o

f tar

get,

but

requ

ires s

ubst

antia

l ad

ditio

nal s

cien

tific

re

sear

ch

Geo

grap

hic

scal

e of

pr

ojec

t, or

regi

onal

st

rate

gy o

f whi

ch it

is

a pa

rt, m

eets

m

inim

um n

eces

sary

to

ens

ure

spec

ies

viab

ility

and

/or

Proj

ect d

oes n

ot in

clud

e co

nser

vatio

n bi

olog

y m

odel

of t

arge

t G

eogr

aphi

c sc

ale

of

proj

ect,

or re

gion

al

stra

tegy

of w

hich

it is

a

part,

doe

s not

mee

t m

inim

um n

eces

sary

to

ensu

re sp

ecie

s via

bilit

y an

d/or

eco

syst

em

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

Ann

ex B

- 6

stru

ctur

e an

d fu

nctio

n,

and

exte

nds o

ver

natu

ral r

ange

of

cons

erva

tion

targ

et

func

tion

ec

osys

tem

stru

ctur

e an

d fu

nctio

n

stru

ctur

e an

d fu

nctio

n

Lin

kage

Q

ualit

y of

refe

renc

es

and

base

of

expe

rienc

e su

ppor

ting

cons

erva

tion

activ

ities

Proj

ect a

ctiv

ities

bas

ed

on e

stab

lishe

d sc

ient

ific

mod

el, p

rove

n to

ge

nera

te p

redi

ctab

le

cons

erva

tion

outc

ome

Proj

ect a

ctiv

ities

bas

ed

on p

laus

ible

scie

ntifi

c ba

sis

Scie

ntifi

c ba

sis o

f pr

ojec

t act

iviti

es

coul

d be

impr

oved

Proj

ect a

ctiv

ities

hav

e no

cl

ear b

asis

in sc

ienc

e,

and

cons

erva

tion

outc

ome

is n

ot

pred

icta

ble

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Pla

nnin

g Lo

gica

l fra

mew

ork

or

sim

ilar s

tate

men

t of

goal

s, ob

ject

ives

, and

ac

tiviti

es

Wor

k pl

an a

nd

budg

et,

corr

espo

ndin

g to

lo

gica

l fra

mew

ork

Stak

ehol

der m

ap

Proj

ect h

as c

lear

goa

ls,

obje

ctiv

es, a

nd

activ

ities

, org

aniz

ed

into

a lo

gica

l fr

amew

ork,

with

co

rres

pond

ing

wor

k pl

an a

nd b

udge

t W

ork

plan

and

bud

get

is w

ell o

rgan

ized

and

de

taile

d, m

ore

than

ad

equa

te to

trac

k pr

ojec

t adm

inis

tratio

n St

akeh

olde

rs a

re c

lear

ly

iden

tifie

d, d

escr

ibed

, an

d en

gage

men

t st

rate

gy d

evel

oped

and

in

tegr

ated

into

regi

onal

co

nser

vatio

n str

ateg

y

Proj

ect h

as c

lear

goa

ls,

obje

ctiv

es, a

nd

activ

ities

, org

aniz

ed

into

a w

ritte

n st

atem

ent,

with

co

rres

pond

ing

wor

k pl

an a

nd b

udge

t W

ork

plan

and

bud

get

is w

ell o

rgan

ized

and

de

taile

d, a

nd a

dequ

ate

to tr

ack

proj

ect

adm

inist

ratio

n St

akeh

olde

rs a

re c

lear

ly

iden

tifie

d, d

escr

ibed

, an

d en

gage

men

t st

rate

gy d

evel

oped

Proj

ect g

oals

, ob

ject

ives

, and

ac

tiviti

es c

ould

be

bette

r def

ined

and

lin

ked

in lo

gica

l m

anne

r W

ork

plan

and

bu

dget

cou

ld b

e im

prov

ed, b

ut

adeq

uate

to tr

ack

proj

ect a

dmin

istra

tion

Stak

ehol

ders

are

cl

early

iden

tifie

d,

desc

ribed

, but

en

gage

men

t str

ateg

y no

t dev

elop

ed

Proj

ect h

as n

o cl

ear

goal

s, ob

ject

ives

, and

ac

tiviti

es, o

r the

y ar

e no

t lin

ked

in lo

gica

l man

ner

Wor

k pl

an a

nd b

udge

t ei

ther

abs

ent o

r not

ad

equa

te to

trac

k pr

ojec

t ad

min

istra

tion

Stak

ehol

ders

are

not

cl

earl

y id

entif

ied

Adm

inis

tratio

n Pr

ogre

ss re

ports

and

pr

ojec

t com

plet

ion

docu

men

ts,

acco

untin

g

Proj

ect i

s im

plem

ente

d on

sche

dule

and

with

in

budg

et

Proj

ect i

s im

plem

ente

d on

sche

dule

and

with

in

budg

et, w

ith m

inor

ad

just

men

ts

Proj

ect i

s not

im

plem

ente

d on

sc

hedu

le a

nd w

ithin

bu

dget

, but

is

even

tual

ly c

ompl

eted

Proj

ect i

s not

com

plet

ed

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

Ann

ex B

- 7

Ada

ptiv

e M

anag

emen

t Ba

selin

e D

ata

M&

E Pl

an

Doc

umen

tatio

n of

da

ta &

ana

lysi

s fro

m

M&

E Ev

iden

ce o

f pro

ject

re

spon

se to

M&

E -

conc

eptu

al m

odel

-

key

assu

mpt

ions

-

proj

ect p

lan

-m

anag

emen

t

Scie

ntifi

cally

sou

nd

base

line

data

for

cons

erva

tion

targ

et

acqu

ired

and

acce

ssib

le

for a

naly

sis i

n M

&E

Pr

ojec

t has

M&

E pl

an

that

trac

ks p

rogr

ess

tow

ards

goa

ls

Proj

ect a

naly

zes M

&E

resu

lts o

n co

ntin

uous

ba

sis

Proj

ect a

dapt

s ful

ly to

M

&E

resu

lts, r

evis

iting

co

ncep

tual

mod

el a

nd

key

assu

mpt

ions

, pr

ojec

t pla

n, a

nd

addr

essin

g m

anag

emen

t sh

ortfa

lls, a

nd a

ttain

s pr

ojec

t�s o

bjec

tives

Scie

ntifi

cally

def

ensi

ble

prox

ies f

or

cons

erva

tion

targ

et

acqu

ired

and

acce

ssib

le

for a

naly

sis i

n M

&E

Pr

ojec

t has

M&

E pl

an

that

trac

ks p

rogr

ess

tow

ards

goa

ls

Proj

ect a

naly

zes M

&E

resu

lts o

n in

term

itten

t ba

sis

Proj

ect a

dapt

s to

larg

e de

gree

to M

&E

resu

lts,

alth

ough

som

e id

entif

iabl

e ch

ange

s are

no

t mad

e

Scie

ntifi

cally

de

fens

ible

pro

xies

for

cons

erva

tion

targ

et

acqu

ired

but n

ot

dire

ctly

use

able

for

anal

ysis

in M

&E

Pr

ojec

t per

form

s so

me

mea

sure

s of

effe

ctiv

enes

s, or

tra

cks p

rogr

ess a

t in

freq

uent

/irre

gula

r in

terv

als

Proj

ect a

naly

zes

limite

d m

etric

s of

effe

ctiv

enes

s, on

in

term

itten

t bas

is

Proj

ect a

dapt

s in

smal

l par

t to

M&

E

No

base

line

data

or

prox

ies c

olle

cted

Pr

ojec

t per

form

s no

mea

sure

s of

effe

ctiv

enes

s Pr

ojec

t nei

ther

col

lect

s no

r ana

lyze

s mea

sure

s of

effe

ctiv

enes

s Pr

ojec

t doe

s not

ada

pt to

M

&E

Com

mun

icat

ion

Evid

ence

of s

harin

g M

&E

with

oth

er

expe

rts fo

r opi

nion

an

d an

alys

is

Evid

ence

of

stak

ehol

der

com

mun

icat

ion,

ba

sed

on st

akeh

olde

r m

ap (s

ee P

lann

ing)

Proj

ect c

lear

ly

com

mun

icat

es, o

n pe

riodi

c an

d re

ason

able

ba

sis,

resu

lts to

all

rele

vant

exp

erts

and

stak

ehol

ders

Proj

ect c

lear

ly

com

mun

icat

es, o

n pe

riodi

c an

d re

ason

able

ba

sis,

to so

me

rele

vant

ex

perts

and

st

akeh

olde

rs

Proj

ect i

nfre

quen

tly

com

mun

icat

es re

sults

to

som

e re

leva

nt

expe

rts a

nd

stak

ehol

ders

Proj

ect d

oes n

ot

com

mun

icat

e w

ith

rele

vant

exp

erts

or

stak

ehol

ders

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

Ann

ex B

- 8

Out

com

e

Sca

le o

f Im

pact

C

onse

rved

spec

ies

popu

latio

n re

lativ

e to

M

VP1 a

nd n

atur

al

rang

e C

onse

rved

hab

itat

rela

tive

to M

DA

2 , SF

E3 , and

nat

ural

ra

nge

Pote

ntia

l to

scal

e/re

plic

ate

pilo

ts

Con

serv

ed sp

ecie

s po

pula

tion

exce

eds

MV

P, e

xten

ding

ove

r si

gnifi

cant

por

tion

of

natu

ral r

ange

of s

peci

es

Con

serv

ed h

abita

t ex

ceed

s MD

A o

r SFE

, an

d ex

tend

s ove

r si

gnifi

cant

por

tion

of

natu

ral r

ange

of h

abita

t Pi

lot p

roje

ct

dem

onstr

ates

cap

abili

ty

to sc

ale

up to

exc

eed

MV

P, M

DA

, or S

FE,

and

exte

nd o

ver n

atur

al

rang

e of

spec

ies

or

habi

tat

Con

serv

ed sp

ecie

s po

pula

tion

exce

eds

MV

P C

onse

rved

hab

itat

exce

eds M

DA

or S

FE

Pilo

t pro

ject

de

mon

strat

es c

apab

ility

to

scal

e up

to e

xcee

d M

VP,

MD

A, o

r SFE

Con

serv

ed sp

ecie

s po

pula

tion

mee

ts

MV

P C

onse

rved

hab

itat

mee

ts M

DA

or S

FE

Pilo

t pro

ject

de

mon

strat

es

capa

bilit

y to

scal

e up

to

mee

t MV

P, M

DA

, or

SFE

Con

serv

ed sp

ecie

s po

pula

tion

does

not

mee

t M

VP

Con

serv

ed h

abita

t doe

s no

t mee

t MD

A o

r SFE

Pi

lot p

roje

ct d

oes n

ot

dem

onstr

ate

capa

bilit

y to

sc

ale

up to

mee

t MV

P,

MD

A, o

r SFE

Res

pons

e of

Tar

get

∆ ta

rget

spec

ies

popu

latio

n re

lativ

e to

ba

selin

e (in

clud

ing

rate

of d

isap

pear

ance

in

the

case

of

prot

ectio

n pr

ojec

ts)

∆ ta

rget

hab

itat a

rea,

st

ruct

ure

and

func

tion

rela

tive

to b

asel

ine

(incl

udin

g ra

te o

f de

stru

ctio

n in

the

case

of p

rote

ctio

n pr

ojec

ts)

Proj

ect i

ncre

ased

and

fu

lly re

stor

ed

popu

latio

n of

targ

et

spec

ies

Proj

ect i

ncre

ased

ha

bita

t are

a w

ith fu

lly

rest

ored

stru

ctur

e an

d fu

nctio

n

-or-

In

the

case

of p

rote

ctio

n pr

ojec

ts: p

roje

ct fu

lly

halts

rate

of d

estru

ctio

n of

con

serv

atio

n ta

rget

an

d fu

lly re

stor

es ta

rget

Proj

ect i

ncre

ased

po

pula

tion

of ta

rget

sp

ecie

s Pr

ojec

t inc

reas

ed

habi

tat a

rea

with

pa

rtia

lly re

stor

ed

stru

ctur

e an

d fu

nctio

n -o

r-

In th

e ca

se o

f pro

tect

ion

proj

ects

: pro

ject

fully

ha

lts ra

te o

f des

truct

ion

of c

onse

rvat

ion

targ

et

Proj

ect m

aint

aine

d po

pula

tion

of ta

rget

sp

ecie

s Pr

ojec

t mai

ntai

ned

habi

tat a

rea

at

base

line

cond

ition

-o

r-

In th

e ca

se o

f pr

otec

tion

proj

ects

: pr

ojec

t slo

ws r

ate

of

dest

ruct

ion

of

cons

erva

tion

targ

et

Proj

ect d

id n

ot m

aint

ain

popu

latio

n of

targ

et

spec

ies

Proj

ect d

id n

ot m

aint

ain

area

of t

arge

t hab

itat a

t ba

selin

e co

nditi

on

-or-

In

the

case

of p

rote

ctio

n pr

ojec

ts: P

roje

ct re

sults

in

no

diffe

renc

e in

rate

of

dest

ruct

ion

of

cons

erva

tion

targ

et

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

Ann

ex B

- 9

Tar

get S

ecur

ed

∆ in

fact

ors a

ffect

ing

popu

latio

n or

hab

itat

reco

very

/mai

nten

ance

Fu

ndin

g In

stitu

tiona

l cap

acity

an

d co

mm

itmen

t for

lo

ng-te

rm

cons

erva

tion

man

agem

ent

Long

-term

man

agem

ent

of a

ll fa

ctor

s affe

ctin

g po

pula

tion

or

ecos

yste

m s

ecur

ed

Endo

wm

ent o

r oth

er

perm

anen

t fun

ding

m

echa

nism

in p

lace

In

stitu

tiona

l cap

acity

an

d re

spon

sibili

ty fo

r co

nser

vatio

n m

anag

emen

t ass

igne

d

Long

-term

man

agem

ent

of so

me

fact

ors

affe

ctin

g po

pula

tion

or

ecos

yste

m se

cure

d Lo

ng-te

rm (2

0+ y

ears

) fu

ndin

g se

cure

d In

stitu

tiona

l cap

acity

an

d re

spon

sibili

ty fo

r co

nser

vatio

n m

anag

emen

t ass

igne

d

Tem

pora

ry

man

agem

ent o

f fa

ctor

s affe

ctin

g po

pula

tion

or

ecos

yste

m se

cure

d M

ediu

m-te

rm (1

0-20

ye

ars)

fund

ing

secu

red

Insti

tutio

nal c

apac

ity

and

resp

onsib

ility

for

cons

erva

tion

man

agem

ent a

ssig

ned

Proj

ect d

oes n

ot m

anag

e fa

ctor

s affe

ctin

g po

pula

tion

or e

cosy

stem

N

o or

shor

t ter

m (<

10

year

s) f

undi

ng se

cure

d N

o in

stitu

tiona

l cap

acity

or

resp

onsi

bilit

y fo

r co

nser

vatio

n m

anag

emen

t ass

igne

d

Not

es 1)

Min

imum

Via

ble

Popu

latio

n (M

VP):

Popu

latio

n ha

s 99%

cha

nce

of re

mai

ning

ext

ant f

or 1

000

year

s des

pite

fore

seea

ble

effe

cts o

f dem

ogra

phic

, en

viro

nmen

tal,

and

gene

tic st

ocha

stic

ity, a

nd n

atur

al c

atas

troph

es.

See

Shaf

fer.

1981

. Min

imum

pop

ulat

ion

size

s for

spec

ies c

onse

rvat

ion.

Bio

Scie

nce

31: 1

31-1

34; P

rimac

, R. 2

000.

A P

rim

er o

f Con

serv

atio

n Bi

olog

y: S

unde

rland

MA

, Sin

auer

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

Pub

lishe

rs.

2)

Min

imum

Dyn

amic

Are

a (M

DA)

: Am

ount

of s

uita

ble

habi

tat n

eces

sary

to m

aint

ain

min

imum

via

ble

popu

latio

n (M

VP)

. Se

e A

Prim

er o

f Con

serv

atio

n Bi

olog

y: S

unde

rland

MA

, Sin

auer

Ass

ocia

tes,

Inc.

Pub

lishe

rs.

3)

Stru

ctur

e an

d Fu

nctio

n of

Eco

syst

em (S

FE):

Cha

ract

eris

tic a

ssem

blag

es o

f spe

cies

, dem

ogra

phic

dist

ribut

ions

, and

ene

rgy

and

nutri

ent d

ynam

ics.

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

Ann

ex B

- 10

C

OM

PON

EN

T 4

: NO

RM

S FO

R V

OL

UN

TA

RY

BIO

DIV

ER

SIT

Y O

FFSE

TS

BA

SED

ON

EX

IST

ING

RE

GU

LA

TIO

NS

T

hem

e In

dica

tors

E

xcee

ds o

r C

onfo

rms t

o M

ost R

igor

ous R

egul

atio

ns

Con

form

s to

Som

e R

egul

atio

ns

Doe

s not

Con

form

to a

ny

Reg

ulat

ions

E

quiv

alen

ce

(�in

-kin

d vs

. �ou

t-of

-kin

d�)

Ecos

yste

m ty

pe a

t im

pact

ar

ea v

s. of

fset

are

a Ra

nkin

g of

eco

syst

em ty

pes

base

d on

inde

pend

ent

biod

iver

sity

prio

ritiz

atio

n sc

hem

es

In-k

ind

offs

et is

en

viro

nmen

tally

pre

fera

ble

to

othe

r opt

ions

and

pro

vide

s en

viro

nmen

tal b

enef

its th

at

exce

ed th

e fu

ll an

d eq

uiva

lent

re

plac

emen

t of e

nviro

nmen

tal

loss

es c

ause

d by

the

proj

ect.

Out

-of-k

ind

offs

et m

ay b

e en

viro

nmen

tally

pre

fera

ble

to

in-k

ind

optio

ns, w

hen

it pr

actic

ably

pro

vide

s en

viro

nmen

tal b

enef

its th

at

exce

ed fu

ll an

d eq

uiva

lent

re

plac

emen

t of e

nviro

nmen

tal

loss

es c

ause

d by

the

proj

ect.

In-k

ind

offs

et is

en

viro

nmen

tally

pre

fera

ble

to

othe

r opt

ions

and

pro

vide

s en

viro

nmen

tal b

enef

its

equi

vale

nt to

env

ironm

enta

l lo

sses

cau

sed

by th

e pr

ojec

t. O

ut-o

f-kin

d of

fset

may

be

envi

ronm

enta

lly p

refe

rabl

e an

d to

in-k

ind

optio

ns, w

hen

it pr

actic

ably

pro

vide

s en

viro

nmen

tal b

enef

its th

at

are

equi

vale

nt to

en

viro

nmen

tal l

osse

s cau

sed

by th

e pr

ojec

t.

In-k

ind

or o

ut-o

f-kin

d of

fset

pr

ovid

es e

nviro

nmen

tal

bene

fits t

hat a

re le

ss th

an

equi

vale

nt to

env

ironm

enta

l lo

sses

cau

sed

by th

e pr

ojec

t. O

ut-o

f-kin

d of

fset

doe

s not

di

rect

ly in

volv

e m

itiga

tion

(inst

ead,

it p

rovi

des f

undi

ng

for t

rain

ing,

rese

arch

and

ed

ucat

ion)

.

Loc

atio

n of

off

sets

(�

on-s

ite�

vs. �

off-

site

�)

Loca

tion

of o

ffset

O

n-sit

e of

fset

is a

djac

ent t

o im

pact

site

. O

ffset

is

envi

ronm

enta

lly p

refe

rabl

e to

ot

her o

ptio

ns a

nd b

enef

its

clea

rly a

ccru

e to

the

proj

ect-

affe

cted

are

a.

-or-

O

ff-si

te o

ffset

is a

s clo

se to

th

e pr

ojec

t are

a as

pos

sibl

e an

d is

env

ironm

enta

lly

pref

erab

le a

nd p

ract

icab

le to

On-

site

offs

et is

with

in th

e pr

ojec

t site

are

a an

d is

en

viro

nmen

tally

pre

fera

ble

to

othe

r opt

ions

. -o

r-

Off-

site

offs

et is

with

in th

e sa

me

ecor

egio

n or

wat

ersh

ed

area

as p

roje

ct im

pact

s and

is

envi

ronm

enta

lly p

refe

rabl

e an

d pr

actic

able

to o

n-sit

e op

tions

.

Off-

site

offs

et is

out

side

the

ecor

egio

n or

wat

ersh

ed o

f pr

ojec

t im

pact

s and

doe

s not

pr

ovid

e si

gnifi

cant

co

nser

vatio

n be

nefit

s.

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

Ann

ex B

- 11

on-s

ite o

ptio

ns.

The

offs

et

prov

ides

env

ironm

enta

l be

nefit

s with

in th

e sa

me

ecor

egio

n or

wat

ersh

ed a

rea

as p

roje

ct im

pact

s and

may

be

a co

nser

vatio

n pr

iorit

y fo

r the

ar

ea.

-or-

O

ff-si

te o

ffset

is o

utsi

de th

e pr

ojec

t�s e

core

gion

or

wat

ersh

ed a

rea,

but

is

envi

ronm

enta

lly p

refe

rabl

e to

ot

her o

ptio

ns a

nd p

rovi

des

sign

ifica

nt c

onse

rvat

ion

bene

fits.

Add

ition

al c

onse

rvat

ion

bene

fits;

Acc

epta

ble

type

s of

off

sets

(S

ee a

lso:

Con

serv

atio

n Im

pact

s ind

icat

ors m

atrix

)

Type

of c

onse

rvat

ion

proj

ect

Con

serv

atio

n ac

tivity

at s

ite

prio

r to

offs

et

Offs

et a

ctiv

ities

cle

arly

resu

lt in

new

con

serv

atio

n be

nefit

s (i.

e., g

ains

in c

onse

rvat

ion

area

/val

ues)

, add

ition

al to

any

ex

istin

g va

lues

(inc

ludi

ng

valu

es th

at m

ay b

e ge

nera

ted

by p

lann

ed o

r fun

ded

prog

ram

s).

Thes

e of

fset

s als

o ha

ve a

low

risk

of f

ailu

re.

Pr

efer

red

type

of o

ffset

ting

activ

ity is

hab

itat r

esto

ratio

n.

Offs

et a

ctiv

ities

resu

lt in

new

co

nser

vatio

n be

nefit

s, bu

t th

ese

bene

fits a

re le

ss

sign

ifica

nt (d

ue to

less

ef

fect

ive

offs

ettin

g m

easu

res)

an

d/or

less

secu

re (d

ue to

hi

gher

risk

s of o

ffset

failu

re).

Such

offs

ettin

g ac

tiviti

es

incl

ude

habi

tat c

reat

ion,

en

hanc

emen

t, an

d im

prov

ed

man

agem

ent o

f exi

stin

g in

tact

ha

bita

t.

Offs

ettin

g ac

tiviti

es d

o no

t re

sult

in n

ew c

onse

rvat

ion

bene

fits.

Uni

ts o

f �cu

rren

cy�

Are

a of

impa

ct/o

ffset

Ec

osys

tem

stru

ctur

e &

fu

nctio

n (s

peci

fics d

epen

dent

up

on e

cosy

stem

)

Offs

et c

urre

ncy

inco

rpor

ates

ec

olog

ical

val

ues,

rath

er th

an

sim

ply

usin

g ac

reag

e/he

ctar

e un

its.

This

cur

renc

y is

es

tabl

ishe

d ba

sed

on

asse

ssm

ent m

etho

ds

invo

lvin

g a

syst

emat

ic a

nd

repe

atab

le a

ppro

ach

whe

re

judg

men

ts a

nd a

ssum

ptio

ns

requ

ire ju

stifi

catio

n an

d ca

n be

ver

ified

.

The

curr

ency

is a

n ar

ea u

nit

(acr

e/he

ctar

e).

Ecol

ogic

al

valu

es o

f the

pro

ject

/offs

et

area

s are

eva

luat

ed b

ased

on

prof

essi

onal

judg

men

t (ra

ther

th

an fo

rmal

ass

essm

ent

met

hods

). T

his e

valu

atio

n pr

ovid

es a

bas

is fo

r adj

ustin

g th

e m

itiga

tion

repl

acem

ent

ratio

for t

he a

rea

units

(e.g

., hi

gher

val

ue im

pact

s at t

he

proj

ect s

ite re

quire

a g

reat

er

num

ber o

f off

set a

rea

units

as

repl

acem

ent).

Offs

et c

urre

ncy

take

s no

acco

unt o

f eco

logi

cal v

alue

s;

offs

et re

flect

s a si

mpl

e ar

ea-

for-

area

swap

.

Biod

iver

sity

Neu

tral

Initi

ativ

e

Biod

iver

sity

Offs

et C

ase

Stud

y: A

ntam

ina

Ann

ex B

- 12

Miti

gatio

n re

plac

emen

t ra

tios

Ratio

of i

mpa

ct u

nits

(s

ee C

urre

ncy

abov

e)

Ratio

of o

ffse

t to

proj

ect

impa

ct u

nits

is gr

eate

r tha

n 1

to 1

.

Ratio

of o

ffse

t to

proj

ect

impa

ct u

nits

is eq

ual t

o 1

to 1

. Ra

tio o

f off

set t

o pr

ojec

t im

pact

uni

ts is

less

than

1 to

1.

Tim

ing

of o

ffse

t rel

ativ

e to

im

pact

D

ate

of o

ffset

impl

emen

tatio

n vs

. dat

e of

pro

ject

impa

ct

Offs

ettin

g ac

tiviti

es a

re

oper

atio

nal a

nd p

rove

n pr

ior

to p

roje

ct im

pact

s.

Offs

ettin

g ac

tiviti

es a

re

oper

atio

nal a

nd p

rove

n co

ncur

rent

with

pro

ject

im

pact

s (or

with

in o

ne y

ear

follo

win

g pr

ojec

t im

pact

s).

Offs

ettin

g ac

tiviti

es a

re

oper

atio

nal a

nd p

rove

n m

ore

than

one

yea

r afte

r pro

ject

im

pact

s.

Off

set d

urat

ion,

m

anag

emen

t, m

onito

ring

, an

d co

mpl

ianc

e

Lega

l pro

tect

ion

of o

ffset

En

dow

men

t or o

ther

fina

ncia

l m

echa

nism

to fu

nd lo

ng-te

rm

man

agem

ent

Offs

et is

pro

tect

ed in

pe

rpet

uity

. Le

gal a

nd fi

nanc

ial

assu

ranc

es a

re fu

lly

esta

blis

hed

to se

cure

site

te

nure

, res

trict

har

mfu

l ac

tiviti

es, s

uppo

rt lo

ng-te

rm

man

agem

ent a

nd m

onito

ring,

an

d co

ver c

ontin

genc

y an

d re

med

ial a

ctio

ns in

the

even

t of

offs

et fa

ilure

.

Offs

et is

pro

tect

ed in

pe

rpet

uity

, or p

rote

cted

for

the

dura

tion

of p

roje

ct

impa

cts.

Lega

l and

fina

ncia

l as

sura

nces

are

in p

lace

as

need

ed to

secu

re si

te te

nure

, re

stric

t har

mfu

l act

iviti

es,

supp

ort l

ong-

term

m

anag

emen

t and

mon

itorin

g,

and

cove

r con

tinge

ncy

and

rem

edia

l act

ions

in th

e ev

ent

of o

ffset

failu

re.

Offs

et is

not

pro

tect

ed in

pe

rpet

uity

or f

or th

e du

ratio

n of

pro

ject

impa

cts.

Nec

essa

ry le

gal a

nd fi

nanc

ial

assu

ranc

es a

re n

ot

esta

blis

hed.

biodiversity offset case study: compaæía minera antamina™s ... · we focus on the antamina...

Documents