Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Compaæa Minera Antaminas Polylepis Initiative
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
3
Map 1: Location of Antamina Mine in Ancash, Peru
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
5
Source: Fjeldsa & Kessler, 1996
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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,
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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
.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.
Biodiversity Neutral Initiative Biodiversity Offset Case Study: Antamina
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.