Ambatovy Project – Madagascar - Forest Trends
Ambatovy Project – Madagascar - Forest Trends
Ambatovy Project – Madagascar - Forest Trends
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP)<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong><br />
Case Study<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
<strong>Forest</strong> <strong>Trends</strong>, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society provided the<br />
Secretariat for BBOP during the first phase of the programme's work (2004 <strong>–</strong> 2008).<br />
Publication Data<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study, 2009: The<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is a Joint Venture project between Sherritt Incorporated, Sumitomo Incorporated, Kores and<br />
SNC Lavalin. The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is comprised of the following two Madagascan operating companies,<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> Minerals SA (AMSA) and Dynatec <strong>Madagascar</strong> S.A. (DMSA). The <strong>Project</strong> Administrative offices are<br />
located at Trano Fitaratra, 7ème étage, Ankorondrano, Antananarivo, <strong>Madagascar</strong> (PO Box 12085, Poste<br />
Zoom, Ankorondrano), T: +261 20 22 230 88 / 22 397 35 <strong>–</strong> 37 F: +261 20 22 540 30, http://www.sherritt.mg/<br />
Available from www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/ambatovy-case-study.pdf.<br />
© The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> (<strong>Ambatovy</strong> Minerals SA/Dynatec <strong>Madagascar</strong> SA) 2009.<br />
Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior<br />
written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged.<br />
Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written<br />
permission of the copyright holder.<br />
The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily<br />
reflect the views of The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>. Any errors are purely the responsibility of the authors.<br />
Cover and graphic design by Rima Design.
THE AMBATOVY PROJECT<br />
BBOP PILOT PROJECT<br />
BUSINESS AND BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS<br />
PROGRAMME<br />
CASE STUDY<br />
PREPARED BY PIERRE O. BERNER, STEVEN DICKINSON AND ARISTIDE ANDRIANARIMISA<br />
JANUARY 2009
About this document<br />
To help developers, conservation groups, communities, governments and financial institutions that wish to<br />
consider and develop best practice related to biodiversity offsets, the Business and Biodiversity Offsets<br />
Programme (BBOP) has prepared a set of Principles, interim guidance and resource documents 1 , including<br />
pilot project case studies, of which this Document 2 is one. All those involved in BBOP are grateful to the<br />
companies who volunteered pilot projects in this first phase of its work.<br />
The ability to test methods and learn from practical experience in a set of pilot projects has played an<br />
important role in the development of the BBOP Principles on Biodiversity Offsets and supporting materials<br />
during the first phase of the programme’s work (2004 <strong>–</strong> 2008). The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>’s four shareholders<br />
volunteered to undertake pilot projects during BBOP’s first phase, with some joining at the outset, and some<br />
at later stages. While BBOP has offered some support and technical advice to the individual pilot projects<br />
through its Secretariat and Advisory Committee, each pilot project has been directed and managed by a team<br />
employed or contracted by the companies and city council leading the respective projects. Each of the case<br />
studies prepared by the pilot projects explains the approach taken and how close the <strong>Project</strong> has come to<br />
completing the design of the biodiversity offset concerned, and sets out the developer’s current thinking on the<br />
most appropriate offset. This may change as the <strong>Project</strong> teams finalise their offset programme design and<br />
further implementation. The nature of the guidance used by the pilot projects has varied according to which<br />
drafts of the evolving BBOP Handbooks were available to them at the time. This and the individual<br />
circumstances and context of each pilot project have affected the extent to which they have used or adapted<br />
the BBOP guidance. Consequently, the case studies do not necessarily reflect the range of interim guidance<br />
currently presented in BBOP’s Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook, Cost-Benefit Handbook and<br />
Implementation Handbook.<br />
This Document has been provided by the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> subject to the limitations set out herein.<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is still working on the design of the proposed biodiversity offset discussed in this case<br />
study. Consequently, none of the suggested or projected activities based on fieldwork to date represent a<br />
commitment on the part of The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>, it shareholders or potential partners to proceed with the<br />
offset as described in draft form in this Document. Such commitment is the subject of continuing internal<br />
discussions. The information and data relating to possible offset sites, areas and activities are presented here<br />
to communicate the initial work that has been done on a potential offset design and to illustrate one possible<br />
approach to the design of a biodiversity offset intended to comply with the BBOP principles.<br />
Where data supplied by external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has<br />
been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by the<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others.<br />
1 The BBOP Principles, interim guidance and resource documents, including a glossary, can be found at<br />
www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/. To assist readers, a selection of terms with an entry in the BBOP<br />
Glossary has been highlighted thus: biodiversity offsets. Users of the Web or CD-ROM version of this document can move their<br />
cursors over a glossary term to see the definition.<br />
2 This case study was prepared by Pierre O. Berner, Steven Dickinson and Aristide Andrianarimisa.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
1
About this document 2<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> may have retained sub-consultants affiliated with the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> to provide<br />
Services for the benefit of the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>. To the maximum extent allowed by law, users of this<br />
Document acknowledge and agree they will not have any direct legal recourse to, and waive any claim,<br />
demand, or cause of action against, the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>’s contractors, sub-contractors, partners,<br />
shareholders and other related or affiliated companies, and their respective employees, officers and directors.<br />
This Document is provided for the use by developers, conservation groups, communities, governments and<br />
financial institutions that wish to consider and develop best practice related to biodiversity offsets. No<br />
responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted by any person. Any use made of<br />
this Document or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such users. The<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of<br />
decisions made or actions based on this Document.<br />
For greater certainty, this Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined herein and no<br />
responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other<br />
purpose.<br />
BBOP is embarking on the next phase of its work, during which BBOP hopes to collaborate with more<br />
individuals and organisations around the world, to test and develop these and other approaches to biodiversity<br />
offsets more widely geographically and in more industry sectors. BBOP is a collaborative programme, and we<br />
welcome your involvement. To learn more about the programme and how to get involved please:<br />
See: www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/<br />
Contact: bbop@forest-trends.org<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Contents<br />
Table of contents<br />
About this document 1<br />
1. Executive Summary 6<br />
2. <strong>Project</strong> Context 11<br />
2.1 Policy context 11<br />
2.2 Regional context 12<br />
2.3 Shareholders involved in offset design 14<br />
3. <strong>Project</strong> Summary 15<br />
3.1 General project description 15<br />
3.2 <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset programme 17<br />
4. How the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is Applying the BBOP Principles 19<br />
5. Current Status of the <strong>Project</strong> and Offset 24<br />
5.1 <strong>Project</strong> chronology and status (as of December 2008) 24<br />
5.2 Offset chronology and status (as of December 2008) 24<br />
6. Business Case for a Biodiversity Offset 26<br />
7. The Offset Design Process 28<br />
7.1 Guidance and methodologies used 28<br />
7.2 Roles and responsibility 28<br />
7.3 The offset design process 29<br />
7.3.1 Step 1: Review project scope and activities 29<br />
7.3.2 Step 2: Review the legal framework and / or policy context for a biodiversity offset 29<br />
7.3.3 Step 3: Initiate a stakeholder participation process 29<br />
7.3.4 Step 4: Determine the need for an offset based on residual adverse effects 29<br />
7.3.5 Step 5: Choose methods to calculate loss / gain and quantify residual losses 35<br />
7.3.6 Step 6: Review potential offset locations and activities and assess the<br />
biodiversity gains which could be achieved at each 46<br />
7.3.7 Step 7: Calculate offset gains and select appropriate offset locations and activities 51<br />
7.3.8 Step 8: Record the offset design and enter the offset implementation process 51<br />
8. Implementation Plan and Long-term Management 53<br />
9. Summary of Offset Process Costs 54<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
3
Contents 4<br />
10. <strong>Project</strong> Outcomes 56<br />
11. Lessons Learned 58<br />
11.1 Limitations 58<br />
11.1.1 Available data 58<br />
11.1.2 Averaging 59<br />
11.2 Recommendations 59<br />
12. Next Steps 60<br />
13. References 62<br />
Tables<br />
Table 1: Summary of the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> pilot <strong>Project</strong> 9<br />
Table 2: <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> offset programme 18<br />
Table 3: Summary of attribute weighting (December 2008) 41<br />
Table 4: Azonal habitat (December 2008) 43<br />
Table 5: Transitional habitat (December 2008) 43<br />
Table 6: Zonal habitat (December 2008) 43<br />
Table 7: Pipeline zonal habitat (December 2008) 43<br />
Table 8: Biodiversity loss calculations scenarios at impact site and effect of post-impact remediation 45<br />
Table 9: Summary of estimated costs 54<br />
Table A5.1: Fauna and flora species vulnerability matrix (April 2008) 92<br />
Table A5.2: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) vulnerability scores (April 2008) 92<br />
Graphs<br />
Graph 1: Post-impact mitigation influence on biodiversity loss for forest habitats at impact site 45<br />
Photographs<br />
Photograph 1: Ankerana aerial view 48<br />
Photograph 2: Ankerana azonal habitat 48<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Contents 5<br />
Figures<br />
Figure 1: <strong>Project</strong> location map 13<br />
Figure 2: <strong>Project</strong> components map 16<br />
Figure 3: Mine area, showing conservation zones (green) that constitute on-site offset area<br />
(including azonal, transitional and zonal forests) 32<br />
Figure 4: Mine area habitat map 37<br />
Figure 5: Mine footprint and environmental buffer map 37<br />
Figure 6: BBOP benchmark site map 40<br />
Figure 7: <strong>Forest</strong> habitat percentage hectares loss for the mine component (the pipeline affects only<br />
a small portion of the zonal habitat) 44<br />
Figure 8: Ankerana offsite offset area location and other candidate sites surveyed by the project, in<br />
relation to the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> mine area 47<br />
Figure 9: Correlation between EVC (azonal, transitional and zonal), substrate and topography 48<br />
Figure 10: Ankerana map 50<br />
Figure 11: Mine area and Analamay-Mantadia forest corridor, allowing link between on-site offset and<br />
forest corridor 50<br />
Figure 12: Actions and timings (2004 <strong>–</strong> onwards) 53<br />
Appendices<br />
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score,<br />
December 2008 Iteration 64<br />
Appendix 2: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score,<br />
February 2008 Iteration 78<br />
Appendix 3: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score,<br />
April 2008 Iteration 80<br />
Appendix 4: Mine Footprint Status Sheet, 2nd Iteration 87<br />
Appendix 5: Vulnerability Index 91<br />
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops (in French) 94<br />
Appendix 7: Comparison of <strong>Ambatovy</strong> / Analamay and Ankerana Azonal Habitats 115<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
1. Executive Summary<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is a large-tonnage nickel project in <strong>Madagascar</strong> with an annual design capacity of<br />
60,000 tonnes of nickel and 5,600 tonnes of cobalt. The <strong>Project</strong> is comprised of two companies <strong>Ambatovy</strong><br />
Minerals SA and Dynatec <strong>Madagascar</strong> SA each owned in the same proportion by Sherritt Incorporated,<br />
Sumitomo Incorporated, Kores and SNC Lavalin. The <strong>Project</strong> was permitted in December 2006. Construction<br />
began in early 2007 and production is due to begin by the end of 2010, reaching full capacity by 2013. The<br />
<strong>Project</strong>’s expected LIFECYCLE is 27 years, although operation beyond this is likely.<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> has six components: the mine, the slurry pipeline, the processing plant (including<br />
refinery), the tailings management facility, the harbour extension and the resettlement site. The <strong>Project</strong> covers<br />
a large territory extending over two of <strong>Madagascar</strong>’s twenty-two regions. The mine is located at an elevation<br />
of approximately 1,000 m above sea level, on <strong>Madagascar</strong>’s eastern escarpment, near the town of<br />
Moramanga. The industrial complex (plant, tailings management facility and harbour) is located 130 km to the<br />
northeast of the mine site, in the seaport city of Toamasina. A 218 km slurry pipeline carrying a water laterite<br />
slurry, which contains the ore, links the mine and plant. The proposed off-site offset of Ankerana, which<br />
constitutes the key component of the multifaceted offset programme, is situated in a very remote area<br />
between the mine site and Toamasina.<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>’s vision states that it will operate a sustainable nickel / cobalt mining and processing<br />
enterprise that delivers outstanding environmental and social records. The <strong>Project</strong> developed an<br />
environmental strategy aiming at honouring the <strong>Project</strong>’s vision, by producing positive CONSERVATION<br />
OUTCOMES on biodiversity through an offset programme. The offset programme aims at achieving NO NET LOSS<br />
on biodiversity, and preferably NET GAIN. The business benefit is essentially linked to risk management and<br />
aims to sustain ‘a good citizen project’ status in a host country recognised to constitute a BIODIVERSITY<br />
HOTSPOT but suffering from chronic poverty.<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offsets programme is multifaceted with many components. The programme has been adopted<br />
voluntarily to go above and beyond the <strong>Project</strong>’s impacts management strategy. The Programme includes:<br />
1. The Ankerana offset: the off-site offset area covers 11,600 hectares (ha) of endangered forest, with<br />
similar ABIOTIC and BIOTIC conditions to those found at the mine site; the <strong>Project</strong> aims to ensure its long<br />
term protection through legal arrangements, financing and community consensus.<br />
2. Two azonal forest sites: two on-site (mine) azonal forest conservation areas occur partially over the<br />
ore body footprint; the <strong>Project</strong> aims to ensure their long term protection through legal and managerial<br />
commitments.<br />
3. The mine area conservation forest: the conservation forest area around the mine footprint is 4,900<br />
ha; the <strong>Project</strong> aims to ensure its long term conservation as part of the priority species management<br />
programme and maintenance of the ecological services for the local communities.<br />
4. The Analamay-Mantadia forest corridor: the <strong>Project</strong> is spearheading the establishment of a forest<br />
corridor between the mine area forests and the nearby Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor; the forest<br />
corridor aims at long term landscape level CONNECTIVITY for the protection of mine area biodiversity<br />
through partnerships with government, NGOs and local communities.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
6
Executive Summary 7<br />
5. The Torotorofotsy Ramsar wetland ecosystem: the <strong>Project</strong> is supporting the site management plan<br />
design and implementation in conjunction with government and local NGOs; these efforts aim to ensure<br />
the permanency of legal and managerial commitments in partnership with government and a local NGO.<br />
6. The pipeline right of way reforestation programme: the programme aims at enhancing FOREST<br />
CONNECTIVITY in targeted areas of the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor through expanded reforestation<br />
activities along the slurry pipeline right of way by conducting targeted reforestation in partnership with<br />
government and local NGOs.<br />
7. The mine footprint replacement forest: the <strong>Project</strong> aims to create a replacement, multifunctional<br />
forest on the footprint during progressive reclamation with an established, integrated managerial<br />
structure by mine closure.<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset programme design approach was tailored according to the guidelines provided by the<br />
BBOP Secretariat and Advisory Committee. It includes the following steps:<br />
Step 1. Reviewing the offset project scope and activities: the offset project was outlined in the<br />
ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ESIA), to go above and beyond the expected<br />
regulatory requirements, and was presented during stakeholder consultation; the <strong>Project</strong> became a<br />
pilot project in 2006 before obtaining its operating permit.<br />
Step 2. Reviewing the legal policy context for its biodiversity offset programme: key elements<br />
comprise the MECIE decree (Mise en Compatibilité des Investissements avec l'Environnement,<br />
Decree N° 2004-167 modified), the <strong>Madagascar</strong> Action Plan (MAP) 2007 <strong>–</strong> 2012, the regional and<br />
communal development plans and the EQUATOR PRINCIPLES.<br />
Step 3. Initiating stakeholder participation: PARTICIPATION has been pursued since the ESIA stage,<br />
engaging the <strong>Project</strong>’s shareholders, government, financiers, NGOs and local communities in the<br />
design of the offset programme and integrating their feedback.<br />
Step 4. Determining the need for an offset based on residual adverse effects: the <strong>Project</strong>’s principal<br />
impacts on natural systems and biodiversity were assessed by the project ESIA. DIRECT IMPACTS<br />
were predicted to occur at the mine area through the phased clearing of the 1,336 ha mine footprint<br />
within an ecologically sensitive semi-pristine forest mosaic. The KEY BIODIVERSITY COMPONENTS in<br />
the mine area and upper slurry pipeline portion include significant numbers of fauna (16 lemurs, 62<br />
birds, 123 herpetofauna), fish and 376 flora species, three structurally distinct HABITAT TYPES and a<br />
landscape-level habitat assemblage with functional interactions between its forest habitats. A very<br />
substantial MITIGATION programme was implemented through the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>’s Biodiversity<br />
Management Plan (BMP). The <strong>Project</strong>’s most significant RESIDUAL IMPACTS occur at the mine site,<br />
including both direct impacts through the clearing of the 1,336 ha footprint (and associated<br />
biodiversity) and indirect residual impacts from edge effects on the environmental buffer (790 ha).<br />
Other key <strong>Project</strong> components are located in areas that are already heavily and historically<br />
degraded and thus have negligible negative impacts on biodiversity.<br />
Step 5. Methods to calculate LOSSES / GAINS and quantify residual losses: the <strong>Project</strong> used the BENCHMARK<br />
and HABITAT HECTARES methodology to determine the scale of the offset needed to achieve the<br />
CONSERVATION GAINS that will achieve no net loss of biodiversity. The <strong>Project</strong> will generate a total loss<br />
of 1,168 habitat hectares that any offset will be required to compensate; this result will be refined with<br />
complementary fauna quantitative data acquired in early 2009. Socioeconomic losses and<br />
compensations from the offset programme will be determined during 2009.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Executive Summary 8<br />
Step 6. Reviewing potential offset locations and activities to assess biodiversity gains which could<br />
be achieved: preliminary surveys of offset candidate sites were undertaken in 2005 with the<br />
objective of identifying potential IN-KIND type offsets. The Ankerana forest site has many similarities<br />
with the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> mine site forests, supporting the hypothesis that Ankerana can be considered ‘inkind’<br />
relative to the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> azonal habitats.<br />
Step 7. Calculating offset gains and select appropriate offset locations and activities: additional work<br />
to verify Ankerana’s similarities is required and planned for 2009, including detailed quantification of<br />
potential offset gains. Gains from other offset programme components will also be calculated and<br />
integrated.<br />
Step 8. Recording the offset design and entering the offset implementation process: the Ankerana<br />
offset design and other components of the offset programme have not yet been finalised, thus the<br />
implementation process has not formally begun. The <strong>Project</strong> will finalise the offset programme<br />
design, using BBOP guidance, during the course of 2009.<br />
The team plans to complete the design of the offset programme implementation plan by the end of 2009, with<br />
the Ankerana and other offset sites’ gain calculated in 2010, and thus the final offset design completed at that<br />
point. The <strong>Project</strong> will have the responsibility of ensuring the management of the Ankerana site, while actual<br />
site protection and local management will likely be entrusted to an NGO. For Ankerana, the annual<br />
operational costs are in the process of being established and are estimated to be in the range US$ 250,000 <strong>–</strong><br />
300,000 per annum. Since the offset programme is still in the design phase, the actual conservation outcomes<br />
to date are limited. They represent what the <strong>Project</strong> has achieved thus far and the benefits the <strong>Project</strong> has<br />
already enjoyed and include securing the temporary protection of Ankerana until the Ministerial decree for its<br />
protection is finalised; integrating Ankerana into the national protected areas network; coordination between<br />
government organisations, NGOs, local communities and the private sector; local community awareness and<br />
reforestation activities. At the mine site, forest and TAXA-specific conservation management plans were<br />
developed for flora and fauna, (e.g., lemurs, Mantella frog species and fish). Although these programmes<br />
were developed as part of the Biodiversity Management Plan, their importance is reinforced by their aim of<br />
ensuring the conservation of azonal habitat and associated species, thus ensuring that all key biodiversity<br />
components present on the IMPACT SITE are present at the offset.<br />
A summary of the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> pilot project BBOP programme is presented in Table 1.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Executive Summary 9<br />
Table 1: Summary of the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> pilot <strong>Project</strong><br />
Company name <strong>Ambatovy</strong> Minerals SA & Dynatec <strong>Madagascar</strong> SA (AMSA / DMSA)<br />
<strong>Project</strong> name <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> <strong>–</strong> <strong>Madagascar</strong><br />
Sector &<br />
project<br />
description<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> is a large-tonnage nickel <strong>Project</strong> with an annual design capacity of 60,000 tonnes of<br />
nickel, 5,600 tonnes of cobalt and 190,000 tonnes of ammonium sulphate. Production is scheduled<br />
to begin in 2010, with full capacity expected to be achieved by 2013. The <strong>Project</strong>’s assessed reserve<br />
life is 27 years, with potential for extension beyond this. The main impacts to biodiversity are located<br />
at the mine footprint with the clearing of near-primary forest. The <strong>Project</strong> has designed and<br />
implemented a Biodiversity Management Programme to mitigate and monitor the residual impacts<br />
associated to development, whilst pursuing its impact AVOIDANCE and reduction approach. The<br />
mitigation measures cover flora, fauna and aquatics.<br />
Country Republic of <strong>Madagascar</strong> (Alaotra Mangoro and Atsinanana regions, eastern <strong>Madagascar</strong>).<br />
Shareholders Sherritt International Corporation, Sumitomo Corporation, Kores, and SNC Lavalin Incorporated.<br />
Principal<br />
biodiversity<br />
components<br />
affected by<br />
<strong>Project</strong><br />
The key biodiversity components, mostly confined to the mine area and upper slurry pipeline portion,<br />
can be summarised as follows:<br />
Priority species:<br />
<strong>–</strong> 16 lemurs species, including Prolemur simus (IUCN CR), Propithecus d. diadema (IUCN<br />
EN), Indri indri (IUCN EN), Eulemur rubriventer (IUCN VU), Daubentonia madagascarensis<br />
(IUCN NT), Hapalemur griseus (VU), Allocebus trichotis (IUCN DD);<br />
<strong>–</strong> 62 birds species, including Tyto soumagnei, Anas melleri and Ardea humbloti, Sarothura<br />
watersi (IUCN EN);<br />
<strong>–</strong> 123 herpetofauna species, including Mantella aurantiaca (IUCN CR), M. crocea (IUCN EN)<br />
and Sanzinia madagascariensis (IUCN VU);<br />
<strong>–</strong> 5 fish species of which Rheoles alaotrensis (IUCN VU) and at least two new Ratsirakia<br />
species;<br />
<strong>–</strong> 24 insect species, which are considered rare at a national level;<br />
<strong>–</strong> 376 plants including Asteropeia mcphersonii (IUCN VU), Leptolaena multiflora (IUCN EN),<br />
Dalbergia baroni (IUCN VU) and 330 species of concern, which are considered rare in<br />
<strong>Madagascar</strong>;<br />
Three structurally distinct habitat types: zonal, transitional and azonal forests (the latter including<br />
seasonal ponds and upper watershed stream systems) and their fauna and flora communities;<br />
and<br />
The landscape-level habitat assemblage with the functional interaction between the zonal,<br />
transitional and azonal forests.<br />
Scale of impact The main anticipated residual impacts on biodiversity caused by the <strong>Project</strong> will occur at the mine<br />
site and in the upper portion of the slurry pipeline through the progressive clearing of the mine<br />
footprint (approximately 1,336 ha), located within an ecologically sensitive natural forest mosaic of<br />
the eastern mid-altitudinal forest corridor. Stringent impact avoidance and minimisation strategies<br />
were applied in the design phase of the <strong>Project</strong>. Residual impacts on biodiversity at the other <strong>Project</strong><br />
components are insignificant due to human-induced degradation in these areas but will nonetheless<br />
be offset. These include pipelines, the processing plant, the tailings area and a pier extension<br />
project.<br />
The 218 km of buried slurry pipelines will involve the clearing of a mix of native and non-native<br />
secondary vegetation resulting from historical slash and burn with comparatively little biodiversity<br />
value. However, two sections of the pipeline cross sensitive habitats: the first 2 km of zonal, nearprimary<br />
forest accounted for in the mine footprint and the crossing of the Ankeniheny-Zahamena<br />
Corridor at Vohimana, where the pipeline has been routed to avoid residual primary forest fragments.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Executive Summary 10<br />
Description of<br />
offset<br />
Links to further<br />
information<br />
The processing plant occupies 2.6 km 2 of the Toamasina industrial zone. The associated tailings<br />
system of 14 km 2 will be located in a highly degraded agricultural matrix. An existing pier at the<br />
harbour will be extended by over 300 m to accommodate the <strong>Project</strong>’s logistical needs. The<br />
processing plant, tailings and pier extension have been assessed in the Environmental and Social<br />
Impact Assessment (ESIA) to have negligible residual impacts on biodiversity.<br />
As the <strong>Project</strong> is developing the ESIA is being revisited to ensure that no residual impact to<br />
biodiversity is being neglected. Any further residual impacts identified will be accounted for in the<br />
biodiversity offset calculation.<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offsets programme is multifaceted with many components. The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is<br />
committed to achieve positive conservation outcomes through designing and implementing its<br />
multifaceted programme, that includes:<br />
1. Ankerana offset: establishing an 11,600 ha endangered forest off-site offset, with similar abiotic<br />
and biotic conditions to those found at the mine site and ensuring long term protection through<br />
legal arrangements and community consensus.<br />
2. Azonal forest sites: establishing two on-site (mine) azonal forest habitats conservation areas<br />
that occur partially over the mine footprint and ensuring long term protection through legal and<br />
managerial commitments.<br />
3. Mine area conservation forest: establishing a 4,900 ha conservation forest area around the<br />
footprint and ensuring long term conservation as part of the priority species management<br />
programme and maintenance of the ecological services for the local communities.<br />
4. Analamay-Mantadia forest corridor: spearheading the establishment of a forest corridor<br />
between the mine area forests and the nearby Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor and securing<br />
long term landscape level connectivity for the protection of mine area biodiversity through<br />
partnerships with government, NGOs and local communities.<br />
5. Torotorofotsy Ramsar: supporting the site management plan design and implementation in<br />
conjunction with government and local NGOs and ensuring permanency of legal and managerial<br />
commitments with its partnerships.<br />
6. Pipeline right of way reforestation: enhancing forest connectivity in targeted areas of the<br />
Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor through expanded reforestation activities along the slurry<br />
pipeline right of way and conducting targeted reforestation in partnership with government and<br />
local NGOs.<br />
7. Mine footprint replacement forest: creating a replacement, multifunctional forest on the<br />
footprint during progressive reclamation with an established, integrated managerial structure by<br />
mine closure.<br />
While the design and implementation of the several components of the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset programme<br />
has progressed, the predicted conservation outcomes from these various offset components have<br />
not yet been fully calculated. Meanwhile, <strong>Ambatovy</strong> has focused on its proposed Ankerana offset as<br />
the most significant component of its offset. However, the high degree of social sensitivity around<br />
Ankerana has led the project to undertake community involvement before the planned biodiversity<br />
assessment at the site. The impact of the first pipeline section will be included in the offset<br />
calculation for the mine site. The second section of pipeline will be offset by reforestation not only of<br />
the pipeline footprint but also of broader areas with the aim of reconnecting the forest corridor.<br />
http://www.sherritt.com and http://www.sherritt.mg<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
2. <strong>Project</strong> Context<br />
2.1 Policy context<br />
Investment projects in <strong>Madagascar</strong> must be compatible with Malagasy environmental regulations. This<br />
principle is embedded in the MECIE (Mise en Compatibilité des Investissements avec l'Environnement)<br />
decree (Decree N° 2004-167 modified). The application of this decree is enforced by the environmental<br />
regulator, ONE (Office National de l’Environnement), which has developed stringent guidelines and protocols<br />
on how to elaborate, review, permit and monitor Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA).<br />
Although the terms of reference for an ESIA in <strong>Madagascar</strong> typically require stringent mitigation of impacts,<br />
biodiversity offsets are not included in the text.<br />
The Government of <strong>Madagascar</strong> became aware of biodiversity offset mechanisms through interactions with<br />
environmental NGOs in 2005 (WWF, Conservation International <strong>–</strong> CI, Wildlife Conservation Society <strong>–</strong> WCS).<br />
Subsequently, the BBOP Secretariat attended a presidential audience to discuss biodiversity offsets in June<br />
2006 during which the concept of offsets as a complementary mechanism to reduce impacts on <strong>Madagascar</strong>’s<br />
heritage was well received by the President of <strong>Madagascar</strong>. Biodiversity offsets were subsequently referred to<br />
in the <strong>Madagascar</strong> Action Plan (MAP) 2007 <strong>–</strong> 2012:<br />
Commitment # 7 “Cherishing the Environment”<br />
Challenge # 3 “Develop the Environmental Reflex at All Levels"<br />
Priority <strong>Project</strong>s and Activities # 3 “Develop a policy for mining companies and logging companies for<br />
biodiversity offsets and other mechanisms and incentives for environmental protection”<br />
The ESIA for the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> (MINEVEF/ONE Permit # 47/06 dated December 1st, 2006) established<br />
that the <strong>Project</strong>, and specifically the mine component, would be located in a sensitive biodiversity area and<br />
that the mitigation of residual impacts would require both on-site and off-site compensation measures. While<br />
on-site measures at the mine are commitments made in the ESIA, the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset programme goes<br />
above and beyond compliance with legal obligations. The offset programme is believed to deliver positive<br />
conservation outcomes under a vision of no net loss of biodiversity, and possibly net gain. This would enable<br />
the <strong>Project</strong> to honour its stringent biodiversity policy developed and endorsed by its shareholders:<br />
“… to cause no net harm to biological diversity where we operate, to mitigate unavoidable impacts, and to<br />
practice responsible closure procedures;<br />
… to assure the conservation of habitats, flora and fauna, using all reasonable actions and technologies;<br />
… to ensure responsible attention to the maintenance and, where possible, enhancement of biodiversity in<br />
the best interest of our business, the communities in which we operate, and the world at large.”<br />
The <strong>Project</strong>’s principal financial lenders have subscribed to the Equator Principles (http://www.equatorprinciples.com/index.shtml).<br />
In this context, full regulatory compliance and the implementation of a thorough<br />
impact management strategy is expected. In addition, the lenders also require the <strong>Project</strong>’s general<br />
compliance with the IFC Performance Standards and specifically Performance Standard 6 (Biodiversity<br />
Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management). In the context of biodiversity offsets,<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
11
<strong>Project</strong> Context 12<br />
paragraph 8 of Standard 6 is particularly relevant and requires the design of mitigation measures to achieve<br />
no net loss of biodiversity where feasible. These measures may include a combination of actions, such as:<br />
Post-operation restoration of habitats<br />
Offset of losses through the creation of ecologically comparable area(s) that is managed for biodiversity<br />
Compensation to direct users of biodiversity<br />
The <strong>Project</strong> is thus designed to comply with the IFC Performance Standards for major projects.<br />
2.2 Regional context<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> has six components, including the mine, the slurry pipeline, the processing plant<br />
(including refinery), the tailings management facility, the harbour extension and resettlement sites (see Figure<br />
1). The <strong>Project</strong> covers a large territory extending over two of <strong>Madagascar</strong>’s twenty-two regions (Alaotra-<br />
Mangoro and Toamasina). The mine is located at an elevation of approximately 1,000 m above sea level<br />
(m.a.s.l.), near the town of Moramanga. The industrial complex (plant, tailings management facility and<br />
harbour) is located 130 km to the northeast of the mine site, in the seaport city of Toamasina. A slurry pipeline<br />
carrying a water laterite slurry, which contains the ore, links the mine and plant. The proposed Ankerana<br />
offset, constituting the key component of the multifaceted offset programme, is situated in a very remote area<br />
between the mine site and Toamasina.<br />
As presented in the <strong>Project</strong> ESIA, the principal biodiversity sensitivities of the <strong>Project</strong> are concentrated in the<br />
forested mine area and within the upper portion of the slurry pipeline, while social issues are relevant for all<br />
components. Biodiversity resources within the mine region have strong intrinsic and USE VALUES and<br />
communities there largely depend on these biodiversity resources for their LIVELIHOODS. However, in light of<br />
current agricultural practices and population growth, natural resource and biodiversity utilisation by local<br />
communities is far from sustainable in the mine region; the depletion is such that this natural capital will not be<br />
available to future generations unless fundamental changes take place. The socioeconomic impacts on the<br />
local communities from the <strong>Project</strong>’s offset programme will need to be considered. The mitigation of these<br />
impacts needs to be designed in the context of national, regional and communal plans that address long-term<br />
issues of sustainable resource use in the regions in which the <strong>Project</strong> operates.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
<strong>Project</strong> Context 13<br />
Figure 1: <strong>Project</strong> location map<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
<strong>Project</strong> Context 14<br />
2.3 Shareholders involved in offset design<br />
Shareholders: the <strong>Project</strong> is jointly owned by Sherritt Incorporated, Sumitomo Incorporated, Kores and<br />
SNC Lavalin. Each partner has played an important role in the <strong>Project</strong>’s environmental programme,<br />
including regulatory compliance, impact mitigation, risk management and design of a comprehensive<br />
biodiversity offset programme. The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> vision, besides the goal of generating attractive economic<br />
results, is to contribute significantly to the host country and to deliver outstanding safety, social and<br />
environmental performance.<br />
Government: the general offset principle is captured in the MAP (see Policy Context section above) and<br />
specific governmental entities have been involved in the offset design, including the Ministry of<br />
Environment, Water, <strong>Forest</strong>s and Tourism (MEWFT) and the Malagasy <strong>Forest</strong> Service, which have actively<br />
participated in securing the proposed offset site at Ankerana via a community-led zoning process.<br />
Lenders: the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is one of the largest capital investment projects in the world and it is<br />
financially supported by a number of lender banks, most of which have adopted the EQUATOR PRINCIPLES.<br />
Lenders includes the African Development Bank (AFDB), Export Development Canada (EDC), Export-<br />
Import Bank of Korea (K-EXIM), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Japan Bank for International<br />
Cooperation (JBIC) and various commercial banks such as Société Générale and BNP Paribas. The<br />
consideration of Performance Standard 6 in the <strong>Project</strong>’s Biodiversity Management Plan, including the<br />
taxa-specific plans, reflects this.<br />
NGOs: environmental NGOs in <strong>Madagascar</strong> are aware of the offset concept and are encouraging the<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> to continue moving its offset programme forward in an effort to ensure NO NET LOSS on<br />
biodiversity and, preferably, net gain. However, it is worth noting that some STAKEHOLDERS voice concerns<br />
about the <strong>Project</strong>’s ability to deliver no net loss of biodiversity and are closely scrutinising the <strong>Project</strong>’s<br />
offset initiative. Given this, the <strong>Project</strong> has been actively working to enhance its offset programme in<br />
collaboration with NGOs such as CI, WCS and ERI (Eco Regional Initiative). A number of other NGOs<br />
working with the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> on impact mitigation have also provided valuable input to the offset<br />
design process (e.g., Groupe d’Etudes et de Recherche des Lémuriens, Henry Doorly Zoo and its<br />
<strong>Madagascar</strong> Biodiversity Program, Madagasikara Voakajy, Missouri Botanical Garden, Mitsinjo, University<br />
of Antananarivo Biology department, the South African Institute of Aquatic Biology, WWF and others).<br />
Local communities: the <strong>Project</strong> continues to engage stakeholders, including local communities, to ensure<br />
that any offset is compatible and integrated with regional and local land and resource management visions.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
3. <strong>Project</strong> Summary<br />
3.1 General project description<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is a large-tonnage nickel project with an annual design capacity of 60,000 tonnes of<br />
nickel and 5,600 tonnes of cobalt. Additionally, the <strong>Project</strong> will produce 190,000 tonnes of fertiliser<br />
(ammonium sulphate) as a by-product from the refinery, a product much needed in this part of the world.<br />
The <strong>Project</strong> was permitted in December 2006 and construction began in early 2007. Production is due to<br />
begin at the end of 2010, reaching full capacity by 2013. Based on proven nickel and cobalt ore reserves, the<br />
<strong>Project</strong>’s expected lifecycle is 27 years, although operation beyond this is likely, as stored low-grade ore could<br />
become an economic commodity in the future.<br />
The locations of the main <strong>Project</strong> components are shown in Figure 2, and the key features are summarised below:<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> mine lies within the mid-altitude forests, at the westerly limit of the residual eastern rain<br />
forest known as the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor. The near-primary forests of the mine area have<br />
undergone considerable human-induced pressures including hunting and gathering, selective logging,<br />
slash and burn agriculture, uncontrolled fires and species collection for trade;<br />
The slurry pipeline, buried over the majority of its route, will pass through 2 km of near-primary forest<br />
surrounding the mine, crosses a Ramsar site (avoiding the wetlands by following an old railroad spur) and<br />
traverses the Ankeniheny-Zahamena forest corridor by avoiding residual forest fragments whenever<br />
possible. It then continues to the coast through hilly terrain of the former eastern rain forest destroyed by<br />
extensive slash and burn agriculture;<br />
The industrial complex, including the processing plant and the refinery, the tailings and the harbour, is<br />
located within an anthropogenic coastal landscape in a suburban setting. The plant and harbour lay within<br />
the industrial zones of Toamasina; and<br />
The proposed Ankerana offset site, which is equidistant between the mine and Toamasina, is a large,<br />
mountainous dome covered with primary forest, encroached only by slash and burn agriculture in<br />
surrounding valleys where frontier dwellings exist. The pristine character of the site is a result of its<br />
remoteness and the low density of surrounding human populations.<br />
The <strong>Project</strong>’s principal impacts on natural systems and biodiversity will occur at the mine area, through the<br />
phased clearing of the mine footprint within an ecologically sensitive natural forest mosaic. The sensitivity of<br />
this mosaic arises from the considerable local heterogeneity in terms of geology, geomorphology, substrate,<br />
topography and meso-climate.<br />
It is widely documented that the average annual deforestation rate calculated over the period between 2000<br />
and 2005 was 0.35%. In total, between 1990 and 2005, <strong>Madagascar</strong> lost 6.2% of its forest cover,<br />
approximately 854,000 ha. The current annual loss of the residual eastern rain forest is equivalent to 14,000<br />
ha per year. The total mine footprint to be cleared (1,336 ha) represents only 0.03% of the residual eastern<br />
rain forest, estimated in 2008 at 4,012,100 ha. In consideration of the large forest loss in eastern <strong>Madagascar</strong>,<br />
the INTRINSIC VALUE of the offset area at Ankerana (11,600 ha) will increase over time as such forest estates<br />
and their associated biodiversity become rarer.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
15
<strong>Project</strong> Summary 16<br />
Figure 2: <strong>Project</strong> components map<br />
While the bulk of the residual biodiversity impact will arise in the mine area and in the upper portion of the<br />
pipeline, the <strong>Project</strong>’s offset calculation considers residual impacts from each project component including the<br />
entire slurry pipeline, the processing plant, the tailings and the harbour extension. The intention is that all<br />
residual impacts will be offset.<br />
Approximately 90% of the pipeline’s 218 km right of way will require the clearance of secondary, non-sensitive<br />
and mostly non-ligneous vegetation, which has resulted from historical slash and burn and has comparatively<br />
little biodiversity value. Disturbed land will ultimately be rehabilitated using species appropriate to current land<br />
use in the different pipeline sectors (including provision of fuel wood species to reduce pressure on native<br />
forests). However, two sections of the pipeline cross sensitive habitats:<br />
The first 2 km of zonal, near-primary forest at the mine area; these losses are integrated to the mine<br />
footprint loss calculations; and<br />
The Ankeniheny-Zahamena forest corridor area, which led to 16.5 ha of zonal forest being cleared, despite<br />
planning and routing efforts to avoid the residual primary forest fragments present there.<br />
The processing plant, currently under construction, covers 2.6 km 2 of Toamasina’s industrial zone. The<br />
tailings management facility has a footprint of 14 km 2 and is located in a highly degraded, fire-driven<br />
agricultural matrix, where irreversible, human-induced depletion of the original biodiversity occurred during<br />
historical forest clearance. The harbour expansion requires the construction of an extended pier (over 300 m)<br />
to accommodate the unloading of equipment during the construction and the importation of raw material (coal,<br />
sulphur, limestone and diesel) and the loading of nickel and cobalt briquette bags and ammonium sulphate<br />
during operation. At the <strong>Project</strong>’s industrial complex (plant, tailings management facility and harbour), most of<br />
the biodiversity values were lost many years ago through extensive habitat conversion. The <strong>Project</strong>’s ESIA<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
<strong>Project</strong> Summary 17<br />
notes that the industrial complex will have negligible residual impacts on biodiversity, which will nonetheless<br />
be traded up through the <strong>Project</strong>’s offset programme.<br />
Specific aspects of the biological environment assessed in the ESIA are being revisited through expanded<br />
BASELINE STUDIES to ensure that residual impacts are fully documented and included in the biodiversity offset<br />
calculation.<br />
The KEY BIODIVERSITY COMPONENTS in the mine area and upper slurry pipeline portion can be summarised as:<br />
Priority species, with home ranges overlapping (and or potentially overlapping) the mine footprint:<br />
<strong>–</strong> 16 lemurs species, including Prolemur simus (IUCN CR), Propithecus d. diadema (IUCN EN), Indri indri<br />
(IUCN EN), Eulemur rubriventer (IUCN VU), Daubentonia madagascarensis (IUCN NT), Hapalemur<br />
griseus (VU), Allocebus trichotis (IUCN DD);<br />
<strong>–</strong> 62 birds species, including Tyto soumagnei, Anas melleri and Ardea humbloti, Sarothura watersi (all<br />
IUCN EN);<br />
<strong>–</strong> 123 herpetofauna species, including Mantella aurantiaca (IUCN CR), M. crocea (IUCN EN), Sanzinia<br />
madagascariensis (IUCN VU);<br />
<strong>–</strong> 5 fish species of which Rheoles alaotrensis (IUCN VU) and at least two new Ratsirakia species;<br />
<strong>–</strong> 24 insects species, which are considered rare at a national level;<br />
<strong>–</strong> 376 plants including Asteropeia mcphersonii (IUCN VU), Leptolaena multiflora (IUCN EN), Dalbergia<br />
baroni (UCN VU) and the 330 species of concern which are considered rare in <strong>Madagascar</strong>;<br />
Three structurally distinct HABITAT TYPES: zonal, transitional and azonal forests (the latter including<br />
seasonal ponds and upper watershed stream systems) and their fauna and flora communities; and<br />
The landscape-level habitat assemblage with the functional interaction between the zonal, transitional and<br />
azonal forests.<br />
Section 7.3 presents more detail in the form of a Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and the steps<br />
followed in its completion. The full KBCM (December 2008 iteration) is provided in Appendix 1. Earlier<br />
iterations (February and April 2008) are presented in Appendices 2 and 3 respectively.<br />
3.2 <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset programme<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> offset programme is a multifaceted endeavour to achieve measurable CONSERVATION<br />
OUTCOMES resulting in no net loss and preferably a NET GAIN of biodiversity. It has been adopted voluntarily to<br />
go above and beyond the <strong>Project</strong>’s impacts management strategy. The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> intends to<br />
implement its diversified offset portfolio, as presented in Table 2.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
<strong>Project</strong> Summary 18<br />
Table 2: <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> offset programme<br />
#<br />
Offset<br />
component<br />
Design Implementation<br />
1 Ankerana Establishing a large off-site offset site at<br />
Ankerana, encompassing similar ABIOTIC<br />
and BIOTIC conditions to those found at<br />
the mine site. The site is located 71 km to<br />
the northeast of the mine site and would<br />
involve conservation of 11,600 ha of<br />
endangered forest, including a multiple<br />
use area of 7,000 ha and a core<br />
conservation area of 4,600 ha, within<br />
which there is a large tract of azonal<br />
forest.<br />
2 Azonal forest<br />
sites<br />
3 Mine area<br />
conservation<br />
forest<br />
4 Analamay-<br />
Mantadia<br />
forest corridor<br />
5 Torotorofotsy<br />
Ramsar<br />
6 Pipeline right<br />
of way<br />
reforestation<br />
7 Mine footprint<br />
replacement<br />
forest<br />
Protecting, for the long term, two on-site<br />
conservation sites of the azonal forest<br />
habitats that occur partially over the mine<br />
footprint that would otherwise be lost to<br />
deforestation.<br />
Ensuring long term conservation of the<br />
forest surrounding the mine footprint as<br />
part of the priority species management<br />
programme and maintenance of the<br />
ecological services for the local<br />
communities. The area consists of the<br />
establishment of 4,900 ha of buffer forest<br />
around the footprint.<br />
Promoting the landscape level<br />
connectivity of the mine area forests with<br />
the nearby Ankeniheny-Zahamena<br />
Corridor to secure long term protection of<br />
mine area biodiversity as part of the<br />
Durban Vision implementation.<br />
Supporting the Torotorofotsy Ramsar site<br />
management plan design and<br />
implementation in conjunction with<br />
government and local NGO.<br />
Enhancing FOREST CONNECTIVITY in<br />
targeted areas of the Ankeniheny-<br />
Zahamena Corridor through expanded<br />
reforestation activities along the slurry<br />
pipeline right of way.<br />
Creating a replacement, multifunctional<br />
forest on the entire footprint during<br />
progressive reclamation with an<br />
established, integrated managerial<br />
structure by mine closure.<br />
Ensure long term protection of the Ankerana offset<br />
site through the stringent legal arrangements and<br />
strong community consensus. Community<br />
motivation and consent is the highest priority of the<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> offset implementation in its early<br />
phase and needs to be obtained before the<br />
BIODIVERSITY INVENTORIES are conducted (perceived<br />
as external intrusions by the local communities if ill<br />
prepared). Adhere to BBOP principles and<br />
guidelines for offset processes. Monitoring of<br />
efficacy of BBOP tools used and offset programme<br />
evaluation in 2011 and option analysis.<br />
Ensure permanency of on-site conservation azonal<br />
sites through legal and managerial commitments.<br />
Ensure permanency of surrounding mine area<br />
forests (see offset component #3) with same<br />
measures as mentioned above. Ensure connectivity<br />
of mine area forests with surrounding protected<br />
areas (see offset component #4).<br />
Conduct multifunctional zoning based on existing<br />
models in <strong>Madagascar</strong> and ensure management of<br />
leased lands and in areas of targeted community<br />
transfer. It is believed that site that would otherwise<br />
be lost given regional deforestation rates.<br />
Enter into formal partnerships with government,<br />
NGOs and local communities to design and develop<br />
implementation plans for the Analamay-Mantadia<br />
Corridor, that take present and future community<br />
needs into account.<br />
In partnership with government and local NGO,<br />
ensure permanency of legal and managerial<br />
commitments. In a first phase, complete zoning and<br />
management plan for Ramsar site. Development of<br />
pragmatic viable resources uses to maintain<br />
ecological functions of wetland area while<br />
community needs are met.<br />
In partnership with government and local NGOs<br />
conduct targeted reforestation of the Ankeniheny-<br />
Zahamena Corridor (CAZ) with the aim of reestablishing<br />
forest connectivity.<br />
Design and implement management plans for<br />
engineering, water management, erosion control,<br />
early vegetation establishment, targeted species<br />
reforestation, induced and facilitated secondary<br />
successions and sylviculture treatments.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
4. How the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is<br />
Applying the BBOP Principles<br />
During the ESIA in 2004 and 2005, the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> initiated its offset programme based on an improved<br />
understanding of RESIDUAL IMPACTS and the need for developing compensatory conservation activities. In<br />
2006, <strong>Ambatovy</strong> became a BBOP PILOT PROJECT and refined its initial offset vision and the design approach<br />
was tailored according to the guidelines provided by the BBOP Secretariat and Advisory Committee.<br />
The BBOP PRINCIPLES ON BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS were finalised in December 2008 3 , following several years of<br />
groundwork including the development of draft guidance and tools. The <strong>Project</strong>’s offset initiative was<br />
developed alongside, and is generally well-aligned with, the BBOP Principles. The <strong>Project</strong>’s alignment with the<br />
BBOP Principles is illustrated in more detail in Section 7. The <strong>Project</strong> applies the BBOP Principles as follows:<br />
1. No net loss:<br />
The <strong>Project</strong>’s aim is to achieve measurable conservation outcomes that deliver NO NET LOSS of biodiversity<br />
and a possible net gain through a mix of complementary offset and mitigation activities, including:<br />
An offset site at Ankerana that contains a core conservation area designed to compensate for the <strong>Project</strong>’s<br />
residual impacts on azonal forest biodiversity.<br />
Protection of viable tracts of azonal forest habitats through the set-aside of two specific on-site azonal<br />
forest habitat conservation zones within the forests surrounding the mine footprint (see next point).<br />
Implementation of a ‘no species EXTINCTION’ commitment and protection of forests surrounding the mine<br />
footprint to ensure the long-term viability of priority species populations impacted by the <strong>Project</strong>. This<br />
approach would include the on-site azonal forest habitat conservation zones and mechanisms to control<br />
current human pressure on these areas.<br />
Design and implementation of protection measures for an existing residual forest corridor linking forests<br />
surrounding the mine area and the Mantadia National Park to ensure landscape-level forest connectivity.<br />
Targeted reforestation of the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor, in partnership with government and local<br />
NGOs, to re-establish forest connectivity between Mantadia National Park and the Man and the Biosphere<br />
Private Reserve.<br />
Development of the Ramsar Torotorofotsy Management Plan in partnership with government and local<br />
NGOs, and contribution to its subsequent implementation.<br />
Progressive rehabilitation at the mine site to produce a multifunctional replacement forest with reinstated<br />
biodiversity values to be included in the offset calculation.<br />
To date, the <strong>Project</strong>’s offset planners have used BBOP guidance and methodologies to assess the impact on<br />
biodiversity and to identify potential sites for biodiversity offsets. BBOP methodologies will also be followed to<br />
3 The full text of the BBOP Principles is available in the BBOP document “Business, Biodiversity Offsets and BBOP: An Overview” <strong>–</strong><br />
see www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/overview.pdf.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
19
How the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is Applying the BBOP Principles 20<br />
determine the scale of the offset required to deliver no net loss, to verify that no net loss has been achieved<br />
and to define implementation measures that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the offset.<br />
2. Additional conservation outcomes:<br />
The <strong>Project</strong> is designing and implementing conservation activities that are predicted to deliver ADDITIONALITY,<br />
as summarised below for each of the <strong>Project</strong>’s components:<br />
The proposed Ankerana offset site is currently being integrated within the recently established SAPM<br />
(National Protected Areas System) under the Durban Vision. However, there is a significant shortfall in the<br />
financial and human resources to offer protection to all these areas and the Durban Vision can only be<br />
implemented if an array of different partners commits to developing the required financial and human<br />
resources. Through the proposed offset, the <strong>Project</strong> will play a role in that development process.<br />
Historically the azonal forest habitats of <strong>Ambatovy</strong> and Analamay have suffered significant anthropogenic<br />
impacts (e.g., from hunting and gathering, destructive honey collection, fire, charcoal, slash and burn, and<br />
the pet trade). The long-term survival of this habitat in the absence of the <strong>Project</strong> is far from proven. This is<br />
clearly seen in the baseline data for the mine area: of the total area of 1,347 ha of azonal forest habitat in<br />
the mine area, only 60% is of prime quality, the rest being significantly degraded before the project was<br />
established. While the mine development is predicted to impact 590 ha of prime quality azonal forest<br />
habitat, 212 ha (26.4% of the total prime quality habitat) will be preserved through the <strong>Project</strong>’s on-site<br />
azonal habitat conservation initiative. The likelihood of successful conservation of a viable portion of the<br />
unique azonal forest habitat at <strong>Ambatovy</strong> is therefore significantly increased by the presence of the <strong>Project</strong>.<br />
Similarly, the zonal forests surrounding the mine footprint have experienced historic anthropogenic impacts<br />
such as forest structure modification (logging), species composition modification though canopy openings<br />
(invaders, heliophytes), FOREST FRAGMENTATION through clear cutting, and plain, irreversible loss of forest<br />
areas. The <strong>Project</strong> has committed to preserving the residual forests of the mine area by, for example,<br />
implementing forest community transfer 4 to avoid further anthropogenic losses. Such additionality, if clearly<br />
established, will be included in the offset calculations once data and a model for the rate of regional<br />
deforestation are available.<br />
In the long-term, the forests of the mine area and Mantadia National Park are likely to become isolated<br />
unless the existing forest corridor that links these areas is managed and protected. The loss of this corridor<br />
would cause landscape-level forest fragmentation and jeopardise the long-term viability of populations of<br />
critical species that the project has committed to protect at the mine area. As of December 2008, the forest<br />
corridor has not been included in the first zoning approximation of the Durban Vision. The <strong>Project</strong> and its<br />
partners plan to create a westerly extension of the Durban Vision zoning to incorporate this area in the<br />
protection zone of the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor. <strong>Forest</strong> loss avoidance via the successful<br />
management and protection of the corridor will be taken into account in offset calculations based on a fair<br />
assessment of the resulting additionality.<br />
The Ramsar Torotorofotsy site is experiencing considerable pressure from inward migration, the drainage<br />
of wetlands and subsequent conversion to rice paddies, wildfires, slash and burn activities in the forested<br />
watersheds, hunting and the pet trade. The National Committee on Ramsar (CONARAMS) has given a<br />
local NGO (Mitsinjo) the mandate to design and implement a management plan. <strong>Ambatovy</strong> has joined this<br />
effort as a partner and will work with Mitsinjo and others to enhance the management plan. The first step<br />
4 The targeted forest areas are jointly managed with local communities, using a defined management programme that meets<br />
conservation and sustainable use requirements.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
How the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is Applying the BBOP Principles 21<br />
will be to establish a functional zoning that results in the avoidance of BIODIVERSITY LOSS, which will be<br />
taken into account in offset calculations, again based on a fair assessment of the resulting additionality.<br />
Reforestation activities to reconnect residual patches of primary forests at the perimeter of the slurry<br />
pipeline right of way within the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor will contribute to an overall corridor<br />
defragmentation. The areas to be reforested sit outside of the SAPM and will be accounted for in the offset<br />
GAIN calculation as clearly additional outcomes.<br />
3. Adherence to the mitigation hierarchy:<br />
Given the <strong>Project</strong>’s setting (high regional biodiversity and endemicity), rigorous biodiversity management is<br />
necessary to meet its policy of ‘no net harm to biodiversity’. Before considering biodiversity offsets, the<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> implemented appropriate avoidance and minimisation measures according to the<br />
MITIGATION HIERARCHY, for example:<br />
AVOIDANCE: analysis of pipeline route alternatives, including the study of 21 major re-routes to avoid<br />
ecologically, socially and culturally sensitive areas; avoidance of other sensitive areas during the<br />
development of other <strong>Project</strong> components whenever possible. Also, set-aside of an area of the ore body<br />
that would otherwise be mined as the foundation of the on-site azonal habitat conservation initiative.<br />
Minimisation: reduction of the surface area subject to impacts through appropriate design and<br />
implementation.<br />
<strong>–</strong> Early (2004 / 05) impact mitigation through the rehabilitation of 50 km of exploration roads and<br />
platforms in the mine area.<br />
<strong>–</strong> Mitigation of impacts following forest clearance through biodiversity rescue and management programs<br />
(lemurs, small mammals, herpetofauna and fish).<br />
<strong>–</strong> Management of surges in total suspended solids to protect water quality and aquatic biodiversity in<br />
seven affected watersheds downstream of the mine site using large retention dams (at a cost of US$ 40<br />
million).<br />
Restoration / rehabilitation: planned progressive rehabilitation of the mine site footprint to create a<br />
replacement forest with reinstated biodiversity values and reduce the net residual impact.<br />
4. Limits to what can be offset:<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> currently believes that all its direct residual impacts on biodiversity are OFFSETABLE. No<br />
habitat or species (flora and fauna) ENDEMIC to the mine footprint alone have been identified during the<br />
thorough investigations to date. Nevertheless, given the high levels of biodiversity and endemicity around the<br />
<strong>Project</strong>, field studies will continue as the mine is developed and forest clearance progresses.<br />
In contrast, the <strong>Project</strong> believes that there are limits to offsetting certain social impacts. For local communities,<br />
there were few legal and cultural constraints on the exploitation of natural resources and biodiversity prior to<br />
the arrival of the mine. In light of forest clearance during development of the mine and the <strong>Project</strong>’s<br />
commitment to conserve the surrounding forests by introducing a zoned approach to forest use, the local<br />
communities’ existing way of life, including unsustainable use of biodiversity, will undoubtedly be disrupted.<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> believes that this disruption cannot be entirely offset and also that, in light of dwindling<br />
forest resources and population growth, it is desirable from a BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION perspective to seek<br />
to break the cycle of unsustainable use by local communities and replace it with a more sustainable model.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
How the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is Applying the BBOP Principles 22<br />
The present unfettered community exploitation of resources may reflect a lack of community empowerment<br />
and choice. Hence, the changes envisioned by the <strong>Project</strong> (sustainable, participatory forest use) may<br />
ultimately be viewed by local communities as a positive transformation relative to the current situation.<br />
The same concept applies to the Ankerana offset site where the <strong>Project</strong> believes that the pre-project<br />
socioeconomic conditions should not be, and ultimately cannot be, maintained. While this change can also not<br />
be offset, the <strong>Project</strong> believes the change to sustainable use of natural resources will ultimately be to the<br />
benefit of both local communities and biodiversity.<br />
5. Landscape context:<br />
The spatial spread of the <strong>Project</strong> has driven the integration of planned conservation activities with regional<br />
and landscape-level environmental and social initiatives. At the mine, the landscape approach currently<br />
consists of maintaining forest connectivity between the on-site azonal habitat conservation zones (and<br />
rehabilitated areas as these progress) and the surrounding forests. Moreover, forest connectivity between the<br />
mine area and the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor will be maintained through landscape-level designs and<br />
interventions in line with the Durban Vision to increase the surface areas of protected areas in <strong>Madagascar</strong>;<br />
the development of this programme is at an early stage and aims to be conducted in collaboration with<br />
Conservation International. At Ankerana, the offset design is based on a phased and spatially concentric,<br />
landscape-level approach. Long-term community needs have been identified and participative zoning has<br />
been completed.<br />
6. Stakeholder participation:<br />
The <strong>Project</strong> is committed to stakeholder PARTICIPATION and has made significant progress with local<br />
communities and NGOs. Examples include interaction during the integration of the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> offset<br />
programme with national, regional and local plans and community involvement at the heart of the zoning<br />
project at the proposed Ankera offset site. In the latter example, a functional, participatory forest zoning<br />
process is being implemented by the community with assistance from the <strong>Forest</strong> Services and the help of<br />
local NGOs. This will result in areas identified for multiple-use at the periphery of the offset site being<br />
transferred to the community as stipulated by Malagasy law and promoted in the regional plan.<br />
7. Equity:<br />
While the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is committed to BBOP Principles 6 and 7, insufficient data are currently available<br />
to apply the latter strictly. As data become available, the <strong>Project</strong> will develop its cost-benefit model and<br />
analysis using key elements of the BBOP BIODIVERSITY OFFSET COST-BENEFIT HANDBOOK 5 and in consultation<br />
with stakeholders. The <strong>Project</strong> is currently in the process of establishing a strategy to implement the socioenvironmental<br />
action programme, including assessing natural resources usages by the local communities at<br />
the Ankerana and mine sites, further to which dollar value of the losses will be determined and compensation<br />
options identified and provided.<br />
8. Long-term outcomes:<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset programme for the mine region, comprising on-site azonal habitat conservation,<br />
community-based forest management, forest connectivity of mine area, Ramsar wetland management, forest<br />
5 Available at www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/cbh.pdf.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
How the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is Applying the BBOP Principles 23<br />
corridor rehabilitation and the proposed Ankerana offset, is being designed for long-term success following its<br />
implementation. Four activities will support the long-term outcomes:<br />
Strong community involvement throughout the planning, designing and implementation phases with the<br />
development of complementary sustainable activities in the surrounding agricultural matrix and in the<br />
multiple use area of the forests surrounding the critical habitats (core areas). Appropriate joint activities are<br />
being identified as the result of ongoing stakeholder interaction and data gathering.<br />
Development of financial strategies, mechanisms, and commitments as the operational phase of the<br />
<strong>Project</strong> begins (2011), based on the analysis of stakeholder needs and the <strong>Project</strong>’s predicted economic<br />
operating environment. In light of the ongoing financial crisis and the resulting economic uncertainties,<br />
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT strategies will play a key role in securing long-term financing for the <strong>Ambatovy</strong><br />
offset programme.<br />
Identification of long-term governmental legal and political commitment to protect the conservation sites in<br />
the mine region and the proposed offset site at Ankerana. A high level of commitment is expected as<br />
elements of the mine area and the proposed offset site have been designed to fall under the future<br />
Malagasy protected area system (SAPM), which itself is a part of the Presidential Durban commitment and<br />
which is expected to attract significant outside funding as a result of a global concern for biodiversity.<br />
Determining the institutional arrangements for managing the offset sites into the long-term. It has not yet<br />
been decided how the Ankerana site will be managed, with all options remaining open, i.e., managed by<br />
governmental institutions, by an NGO, by the community, by the company or a combination of any of the<br />
foregoing. The on-site conservation zones forests will be managed by the <strong>Project</strong>, the FOREST<br />
CONNECTIVITY programme will likely be community-based, while the Ramsar site has a defined<br />
management structure.<br />
9. Transparency:<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>’s intention to offset its residual impacts on biodiversity is a commitment developed in<br />
the ESIA, which has undergone thorough public consultation, hearings and a public information process.<br />
Consequently, the <strong>Project</strong>’s strategic environmental and social commitments are in the public domain and its<br />
offset activities have been, and are being, scrutinised by the Malagasy environmental authorities, regional and<br />
international NGOs, the local communities and the lender banks. Since becoming a BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong>,<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> has committed to ensuring that design (and ultimately implementation) activities are completed in a<br />
transparent fashion. Transparency allows the <strong>Project</strong> to ensure stakeholders are well informed and able to<br />
offer insightful feedback that contributes to the optimisation of conservation outcomes.<br />
10. Science and traditional knowledge:<br />
In order to evaluate residual impacts on biodiversity and quantify the required offset, the <strong>Project</strong> has applied<br />
established and developing scientific methodologies. In parallel, traditional knowledge is being utilised (for<br />
example, species identification in time and space, identification of species’ utilisation by humans (medicinal)<br />
and animals (fruit trees), and land use patterns (plant-substrate relationships)).<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
5. Current Status of the <strong>Project</strong><br />
and Offset<br />
5.1 <strong>Project</strong> chronology and status (as of December 2008)<br />
1960: Genim, a French company, conducts exploration drilling and identifies the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> and Analamay<br />
nickel cobalt ore bodies; environmental considerations of the early feasibility study were very limited and<br />
did not consider vegetation anomalies nor the importance of nearby wetland (e.g. using Torotorofotsy for<br />
tailings disposal);<br />
1970: Under the President of <strong>Madagascar</strong>, Didier Ratsiraka, a partnership with North Korea leads to the<br />
analysis of a bulk sample that confirmed the existence of nickel and cobalt but which led to no further<br />
development; environmental considerations were absent during exploration (e.g. no rehabilitation of test<br />
pit, which remains unvegetated today);<br />
1994 <strong>–</strong> 1997: Phelps-Dodge conducts exploration drilling and develops a feasibility study and an ESIA (not<br />
submitted to ONE); vegetation anomaly recognised and quantified (vegetation map), biological inventories<br />
created; management principles for surrounding forests conceptualised; importance of azonal habitats<br />
recognised;<br />
1998 <strong>–</strong> 2003: Restoration of exploration roads and platforms undertaken in light of <strong>Project</strong> development<br />
uncertainties;<br />
2003 <strong>–</strong> 2006: Dynatec conducts exploration drilling and develops a feasibility study and an ESIA; Final<br />
Investment Decision taken by the investors (Dynatec and partners); on-site and offset conservation ideas<br />
captured in the ESIA; <strong>Ambatovy</strong> becomes BBOP pilot <strong>Project</strong>; ESIA was permitted by ONE on December<br />
1 st , 2006; and<br />
2007 <strong>–</strong> 2008: Elaboration of the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> thematic Environmental and Social Plans (18 plans: air,<br />
noise, water etc and biodiversity); implementation of Biodiversity Action Plan (and others), development of<br />
priority TAXA-specific draft management plans (lemur, Mantella species, fish and flora). Confirmation of<br />
shareholders and loans and start of construction.<br />
5.2 Offset chronology and status (as of December 2008)<br />
2004 <strong>–</strong> 2005: Concept of biodiversity offset integrated with other <strong>Project</strong> activities, with a preliminary<br />
survey of proposed offset site undertaken and documented in the ESIA; proposed offset site selection<br />
based on geological, substrate, altitude and forest structure similarity (relative to principal IMPACT SITE);<br />
2006: <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> selected as a BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> at Pretoria meeting;<br />
2007: Participation in BBOP meetings (London and Bainbridge) and contribution to development of BBOP<br />
handbooks and guidelines; concepts for Ankerana site management programme developed and zoning<br />
initiated;<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
24
Current Status of the <strong>Project</strong> and Offset 25<br />
2008:<br />
<strong>–</strong> Preparation of interim report outlining technical aspects of the offset process (e.g. benchmark<br />
selection, confirmation of impacts, preliminary loss calculations and completed Key Biodiversity<br />
Components Matrix (KBCM);<br />
<strong>–</strong> Preparation of supplementary report with revised benchmark selection and loss calculations, including<br />
updated KBCM with quantitative species data;<br />
<strong>–</strong> Preparation of complementary field work (terrestrial fauna) in response to gap analysis; inclusion of other<br />
<strong>Project</strong> components (pipeline, tailings, plant and harbour) in overall assessment of residual impacts;<br />
<strong>–</strong> Implementation of Ankerana site management programme:<br />
Stakeholder consultations (local communities, NGOs and government including Office National<br />
l’Environnement (ONE,) <strong>Forest</strong>ry Department, Gendarmerie, District of Brickaville, local mayors and<br />
police forces);<br />
Reforestation work on periphery area of proposed offset; this focused mainly on planting wood for<br />
construction uses to avoid primary forest logging in the offset area;<br />
Population awareness campaigns around the proposed offset, conducted by field teams and<br />
partners. The objectives of the campaigns were to define the offset site boundary and explain<br />
existing laws that prohibit forest clearance;<br />
Support provided to the mixed brigade (includes local communities, NGOs, local administrative staff<br />
and the police force) which manages forestry resource exploitation through out the local communes;<br />
Financial and logistic support to update the five year Communal Development Plans for impacted<br />
communes; and<br />
Technical committee meeting with SAPM focusing on integration of the proposed offset site with the<br />
national protected areas network.<br />
Conceptualised and pending (for 2009):<br />
<strong>–</strong> The offset design work, following guidance in the BBOP BIODIVERSITY OFFSET DESIGN HANDBOOK has to<br />
date quantified biodiversity losses as presented below. The next phase of work will be to calculate<br />
offset gains and continue with the design of the offset and offset activity plan;<br />
<strong>–</strong> The proposed Ankerana offset site has undergone only preliminary characterisation. Detailed baseline<br />
ecological characterisation is planned for 2009 focusing on ecosystems, habitats, fauna, flora and<br />
socioeconomic attributes. This information will underpin the calculation of offset gains;<br />
<strong>–</strong> Socio-environmental losses will be defined and subsequently an appropriate compensation calculation<br />
strategy and programme will be designed; and<br />
<strong>–</strong> Continued interaction with stakeholders to refine and enhance the offset activity plan.<br />
In summary, the <strong>Project</strong> is committed to designing and financing a long-term offset programme that aims at<br />
achieving NO NET LOSS on biodiversity and preferably NET GAIN. Substantial progress has been made by<br />
calculating the residual impacts on biodiversity and identifying potential offset mechanisms. <strong>Ambatovy</strong> will<br />
continue to work closely with stakeholders on the offset design and plan the financial mechanisms to secure<br />
the offsets in the long-term, using adaptive management in response to the insecurities of the global financial<br />
crisis. The following pages of this case study detail the actions conducted and those that are planned for the<br />
future.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
6. Business Case for a<br />
Biodiversity Offset<br />
The vision of the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> is stated as follows: The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> partnership will develop and operate a<br />
sustainable nickel / cobalt mining and processing enterprise that significantly contributes to our host country,<br />
delivers outstanding safety, environmental and social records and generates attractive economic returns.<br />
The environmental strategy designed to honour the <strong>Project</strong>’s vision to deliver outstanding environmental<br />
records consists of:<br />
Ensuring full regulatory compliance and conformity with international loan agreements;<br />
Minimising residual impacts through the stringent application of the mitigation hierarchy;<br />
Reducing environmental risks through dynamic management guided by Malagasy know-how and<br />
stakeholder consultation; and<br />
Producing positive CONSERVATION OUTCOMES on biodiversity through the offset programme that aims at<br />
achieving no net loss on biodiversity, and possibly net gain, in order to sustain ‘a good citizen project’<br />
status in a host country recognised as constituting a biodiversity hotspot.<br />
The business benefit of its offset programme is essentially linked to risk management. As a world class mining<br />
project, <strong>Ambatovy</strong> and its shareholders believe in demonstrating good environmental management practices<br />
to secure its license to operate. To <strong>Ambatovy</strong>, a license to operate consists of the permanent support of civil<br />
society, local communities, national and international NGOs and governmental authorities in the manner<br />
social and environmental affaires are managed. Because <strong>Madagascar</strong>’s biodiversity is universally considered<br />
of utmost importance by national and international STAKEHOLDERS producing positive conservation outcomes<br />
that offset the residual impacts on biodiversity is a critical component of this license to operate.<br />
It is recognised by the <strong>Project</strong>’s shareholders that the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset programme has provided additional<br />
confidence to the lender banks in securing access to capital. This has created reputational benefits to the<br />
shareholders that can result in easier access to land, human and financial resources for future projects in<br />
<strong>Madagascar</strong> and elsewhere in the world. It is expected that this approach will result in competitive advantage<br />
for the shareholders in relation to other governments.<br />
Conversely, bad environmental practice is bound to produce higher operating costs, expensive permit delays,<br />
liabilities, and lost revenues. Consequently, engaging in good environmental practice will maximise the overall<br />
long-term economic return to shareholders, stakeholders and government.<br />
It is worth mentioning that the Malagasy governmental policy, through the <strong>Madagascar</strong> Action Plan, refers to<br />
biodiversity offsets. The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset programme under the BBOP guidance is thus aligned with<br />
<strong>Madagascar</strong>’s endeavour to protect its unique biodiversity heritage.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
26
Business Case for a Biodiversity Offset 27<br />
In summary, <strong>Ambatovy</strong> believes that its offset programme will bring about the following advantages:<br />
Continuing access to land and capital;<br />
Increasing investor confidence and loyalty;<br />
Reducing risks and liabilities;<br />
Strengthening relationships with local communities, government regulators, environmental groups and<br />
other stakeholders;<br />
Building trust on a credible reputation for environmental and biodiversity related management performance<br />
and winning a ‘social license to operate’;<br />
Increasing ‘regulatory goodwill’ which leads to faster permitting;<br />
Influencing emerging environmental regulation and policy;<br />
Developing more cost effective means of complying with increasingly stringent environmental regulations;<br />
Taking advantage of ‘first mover’ benefits in the marketplace <strong>Madagascar</strong>;<br />
Maximising strategic opportunities in the new markets and businesses emerging as biodiversity offsets<br />
become more widespread; and<br />
Improving staff loyalty.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
7. The Offset Design Process<br />
7.1 Guidance and methodologies used<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> biodiversity offset programme has been developed as an iterative process calling upon BBOP<br />
principles and guidance. Additional inputs towards the development of the <strong>Project</strong>’s offset programme came<br />
from a number of recent good practice guides, including Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity<br />
(International Council on Mining and Metals 2006), Planning for Integrated Mine Closure: Toolkit (International<br />
Council on Mining and Metals 2008), Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable<br />
Natural Resource Management (International Finance Corporation 2006) and Biodiversity Offsets: Views,<br />
Experience, and the Business Case (ten Kate et al. 2004).<br />
The BBOP guidance supports the development of either single or COMPOSITE OFFSET sites to compensate for<br />
residual impacts on biodiversity. The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offsets programme is multifaceted because it is a large project<br />
with many components (see Section 3.2). While the design and implementation of the several components of<br />
the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset programme has progressed, the predicted conservation outcomes from these various<br />
offset components have not yet been fully calculated. Meanwhile, <strong>Ambatovy</strong> has focused on its proposed<br />
Ankerana offset as the most significant component of its offset. The proposed Ankerana offset design is<br />
based on the guidance in the draft BBOP Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook revised in December 2008<br />
(available at www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/odh.pdf). However, the high<br />
degree of social sensitivity around Ankerana has led the project to undertake community involvement before<br />
the planned biodiversity assessment at the site.<br />
7.2 Roles and responsibility<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset programme is designed, implemented and financially supported by the <strong>Ambatovy</strong><br />
<strong>Project</strong>. The offset commitment was reiterated by Sherritt Incorporated, the <strong>Project</strong>’s operator, in November<br />
2008 during a clarification meeting with the BBOP Secretariat and representatives of <strong>Forest</strong> <strong>Trends</strong>, CI and<br />
WCS. The offset programme is managed and monitored by the <strong>Project</strong>’s environmental department. Since<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> became a BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong>, the BBOP Secretariat and members of the BBOP Advisory<br />
Committee have also monitored progress. Senior <strong>Project</strong> representatives attend all BBOP meetings and<br />
provide updates and feedback to the BBOP Secretariat. The <strong>Project</strong>’s BBOP team includes:<br />
A focal point (Pierre O. Berner, Environmental Director, <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>);<br />
A full time consultant responsible for supporting the offset programme management implementation<br />
(Steven Dickinson of Golder Associates / <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>);<br />
An ecological assessment consultant responsible for the benchmark, loss and gain calculations (Aristide<br />
Andrianarimisa of WCS); and<br />
Environmental superintendent (monsieur Alphonse) leading a technical environmental and social field team<br />
responsible for social and environmental management at the proposed Ankerana offset site. This team led<br />
consultations with local stakeholders, including local communities, local forestry and police authorities and<br />
local NGOs. A legal team is supporting the superintendent to ensure the legal protection status of the<br />
Ankerana site.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
28
The Offset Design Process 29<br />
7.3 The offset design process<br />
7.3.1 Step 1: Review project scope and activities<br />
The nature, scope and geographical location of the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset programme was outlined in the ESIA as a<br />
COMPENSATION measure that would go above and beyond the expected regulatory commitments. The basic<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset concept was presented and discussed in the many stakeholder public information meetings<br />
associated with the ESIA review. As <strong>Ambatovy</strong> was accepted as a BBOP Pilot project in 2006, a more<br />
structured approach was developed, which led to the multifaceted programme outlined in Section 3.2.<br />
7.3.2 Step 2: Review the legal framework and / or policy context for a biodiversity offset<br />
The key elements of the legal framework and policy context for the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>’s biodiversity offset<br />
programme comprise the MECIE decree, the <strong>Madagascar</strong> Action Plan (MAP) 2007 <strong>–</strong> 2012, the regional and<br />
communal development plans and the EQUATOR PRINCIPLES. Further information on these and other regulatory<br />
requirements is provided in Section 2.1.<br />
7.3.3 Step 3: Initiate a stakeholder participation process<br />
As noted previously, the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> obtained its permit from the Malagasy regulatory authorities in<br />
December 2006, based on a large ESIA that involved public information, consultation and enquiry throughout<br />
the development and review process. Subsequently stakeholder consultations have been central to<br />
discussions on integrating the offset programme with national, regional and local plans. At the Ankerana offset<br />
site, the community buy-in process is progressing well and precedes the hard-core biological assessment that<br />
can only be conducted after full community participation is demonstrated.<br />
The offset stakeholder participation process can be summarised as:<br />
Confirming key stakeholders (the JV partners, government, financiers, NGOs and local communities, see<br />
Section 2.3);<br />
Engaging stakeholders in the offset design process by presenting and discussing the offset’s objectives<br />
and the proposed implementation process;<br />
Engaging communities in the offset design process by assessing the impact the offset will bring about and<br />
agreeing on an acceptable MITIGATION strategy; and<br />
Integrating stakeholder feedback into the design process, especially with respect to land use in the multiple<br />
use areas (site zoning); this part of the process is in its initial stage and will continue throughout the offset<br />
zoning processes.<br />
7.3.4 Step 4: Determine the need for an offset based on residual adverse effects<br />
This section describes how the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset planning team:<br />
1. Assessed the likely impacts on biodiversity caused by the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>;<br />
2. Prepared a Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM);<br />
3. Applied the mitigation hierarchy;<br />
4. Determined residual impacts; and<br />
5. Checked whether these residual impacts could be offset.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 30<br />
7.3.4.1 Assessing biodiversity impacts<br />
Biodiversity impacts are presented in the <strong>Project</strong>’s 2006 ESIA. The ESIA BASELINE and impact analysis<br />
(including CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) followed World Bank (IFC, International Finance Corporation) standards.<br />
A formal summary is available at:<br />
http://www.sherritt.com/doc08/files/coal/abatovy/EA<strong>Ambatovy</strong>_EnglishSummary.pdf.<br />
Details of the biodiversity impacts are available in Volume J of the full ESIA report (full document available in<br />
French or English, on CD, through the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> or the Malagasy Ministry for Environment).<br />
The <strong>Project</strong>’s main impacts will occur at the mine site, through the progressive clearing of the mine footprint<br />
(total footprint of 2,126 hectares, of which 1,336 ha will result from clearance and the balance resulting from<br />
indirect (edge effect) impacts around the cleared area) located within an ecologically sensitive natural forest<br />
mosaic of the eastern mid-altitudinal forest corridor. Stringent impact avoidance and minimisation strategies<br />
were applied in the design phase of the <strong>Project</strong>, so RESIDUAL IMPACTS on biodiversity from the other key<br />
<strong>Project</strong> components, most of which lie in heavily degraded areas, are of less significance (but will nonetheless<br />
be offset). These include pipelines, the processing plant and refinery, tailings management facility and pier<br />
extension (see Section 3 for a summary of associated impacts).<br />
As the <strong>Project</strong> has evolved, specific aspects covered in the ESIA are currently being revisited to ensure that<br />
no residual impacts to biodiversity have been neglected. Any further residual impacts identified will be<br />
included in the biodiversity offset calculation.<br />
7.3.4.2 Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM)<br />
Key biodiversity components<br />
KEY BIODIVERSITY COMPONENTS were identified for the impact area, including mainly species and habitats, but<br />
also landscapes / ecosystems. The completed key biodiversity components matrix (KBCM) conveys the<br />
essence of the character of the site by identifying a range of its highest biodiversity values. The KBCM can<br />
help ensure that the offset generates additional conservation outcomes for these key biodiversity values, and<br />
the matrix can also contribute to the design of the BENCHMARK that will help with the calculations of residual<br />
BIODIVERSITY LOSS caused by the <strong>Project</strong> (see Appendix 1) and the gain that will be achieved through the<br />
offset. Both intrinsic and NON-USE VALUES of key species and habitats / ecosystems were assessed according<br />
to their significance level and IRREPLACEABILITY. The KBCM based on the current data is in Appendix 1. The<br />
<strong>Project</strong> will conduct additional surveys and improve analysis of existing data during 2009.<br />
The key biodiversity components listed here will subsequently be considered during the offset site selection 6<br />
and characterisation stage.<br />
7.3.4.3 Applying the mitigation hierarchy<br />
Prior to consideration of biodiversity offsets, the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> implemented appropriate avoidance,<br />
minimisation and restoration measures through its Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) to avoid species<br />
EXTINCTION and EXTIRPATION (all IUCN EN and CR species), avoid sensitive areas where possible and<br />
minimise impacts on flora, fauna and aquatic resources.<br />
6 A rapid assessment of the Ankerana site provided preliminary species-level data. The potential offset site is located within the same<br />
biogeographical setting as the impact area, so it is anticipated that more detailed assessments will also reveal the presence of the key<br />
biodiversity components at Ankerana.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 31<br />
Specific avoidance strategies include the use of conservation barriers to physically isolate the on-site azonal<br />
conservation areas from construction activities in surrounding areas and ensure that modification of the mine<br />
footprint follows a strict environmental protocol (see Appendix 4: Protocol for Mine Area Modification).<br />
A very substantial minimisation programme was implemented through the BMP. Significant activities include:<br />
Directional and paced forest clearance to optimise the natural migration of terrestrial fauna. Clearance<br />
procedures are provided to the forest clearing team manager as part of <strong>Forest</strong> Clearing Biodiversity Action<br />
List procedure; the proper implementation of the actions is monitored on a daily basis by the mine<br />
environmental team and any deviation reported for immediate corrective action.<br />
Repetition of full biological surveys in the clearing perimeter and surrounding areas prior to any forest<br />
clearance in order to inventory fauna taxa present, particularly priority species (IUCN Endangered [EN] and<br />
Critically Endangered [CR] categories) but also including lemurs, other mammals, birds, reptiles and<br />
amphibians. The surveys facilitate the development of taxa-specific mitigation measures. For example, a<br />
representative sample of individuals from all lemur species are captured and fitted with radio collars and<br />
subcutaneous microchips in order to monitor their ability to migrate from an area as it is cleared and the<br />
receiving populations’ behaviour on arrival of displaced groups in their territory. For plants, a list of species<br />
of concern (SOC) was drawn up during ESIA baseline studies in collaboration with the <strong>Project</strong>’s botanical<br />
expert partner. Pre-clearance work involves identifying whether SOC are present in the clearing perimeters<br />
and searching for these SOC outside the mine footprint (in protected areas) to avoid potential species<br />
extinction. For fish in streams, a spatial and genetic survey (endemicity assessment) was conducted to<br />
determine whether the species present were ENDEMIC to the mine footprint. Until genetic results became<br />
available, fish from impacted streams were recovered and temporarily maintained in aquaculture systems;<br />
subsequent management actions are currently being undertaken.<br />
Monitoring of fauna during and after clearance. For example, lemur spatial dispersion is monitored during<br />
forest clearance to assess their capacity to (i) migrate (avoid immediate impacts); (ii) settle in their new<br />
home range (a medium-term impact) and (iii) reproduce and maintain population viability (a long-term<br />
impact). Biomedical health is assessed in parallel to behavioural assessments with the aim of improving<br />
analysis of trends in the <strong>Project</strong>’s long-term lemur population viability assessment programme.<br />
Salvaging activities focused on fauna likely to require human aid to migrate towards refuge areas (the<br />
conservation zones shown in green on Figure 3). A crew of 80 technical agents was trained by experts to<br />
identify and salvage all small mammals, stranded lemurs, nocturnal birds and herpetofauna. Systematic<br />
salvage of these taxa was undertaken for all mine, pipeline and plant site clearings, under the supervision<br />
of external experts (e.g. biologists from the University of Antananarivo) and the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> biodiversity<br />
team. Taxa were logged and relocated / monitored in refuge areas. Limited salvaging of flora was also<br />
conducted. Some SOCs required ex situ conservation, with individuals translocated to a dedicated on-site<br />
area while searches for the SOC in areas outside the footprint were completed; cells from these SOC were<br />
collected for micro-propagation and cryoconservation as a back-up. To date all SOC surveys have lead to<br />
the identification of off-site VIABLE POPULATIONS, and the <strong>Project</strong> and its botanical partners remain confident<br />
that this will be the case for all remaining SOCs. In the event that SOC are not found, then the<br />
aforementioned mitigation will be applied.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 32<br />
Figure 3: Mine area, showing conservation zones (green) that constitute on-site offset area (including<br />
azonal, transitional and zonal forests)<br />
The mine restoration programme includes progressive footprint rehabilitation through erosion control,<br />
reforestation with targeted species and facilitated secondary successions. The aim is to produce a<br />
multifunctional replacement forest with biodiversity values that can be included in the offset calculation (by<br />
reducing the residual impact on biodiversity that will require offsetting). The pipeline restoration programme<br />
will focus on targeted reforestation of the right of way.<br />
7.3.4.4 Determining residual impacts<br />
The <strong>Project</strong>’s most significant residual impacts will occur at the mine site. Residual impacts caused by the<br />
other key <strong>Project</strong> components are limited as these components are located in areas that are already heavily<br />
and historically degraded. Nonetheless, these less significant residual impacts will also be included in the<br />
offset calculations.<br />
The <strong>Project</strong>’s residual impacts are summarised below.<br />
Direct negative impacts<br />
The total loss of habitats as progressive clearance of the mine footprint (1,336 hectares, excluding the<br />
environmental buffer) proceeds in an ecologically sensitive natural forest mosaic. Following clearance<br />
some areas will be built on and / or eventually mined. In the areas lost to DIRECT IMPACT the HABITAT TYPES<br />
were identified (azonal, transitional and zonal forests, ephemeral ponds and streams) and the quality of<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 33<br />
each determined (good or degraded). Flora, fauna and aquatic taxa assemblages were associated where<br />
feasible with these habitat types and quality. Finally, habitat surface areas were calculated using ESIA<br />
habitat maps and GIS. Taxa assemblages and forest structural characteristics were determined for each<br />
habitat where possible. Available fauna data were generally qualitative, although pre-clearance survey<br />
data from both the mine footprint and surrounding conservation areas were used, providing updated lemur<br />
densities and abundance.<br />
Clearance of 16.5 ha of fragmented and degraded primary forest during installation of the 218 km buried<br />
slurry pipeline (a total clearance permit for approximately 70.5 hectares was granted as 98% of the pipeline<br />
route passes through secondary, non-sensitive vegetation (e.g. non-native eucalyptus) resulting from<br />
historic slash and burn). Two sections of the pipeline do, however, cross sensitive habitats: the first 2 km<br />
passes through zonal, near-primary forest and the pipeline also crosses the Ankeniheny-Zahamena<br />
Corridor (CAZ). Losses associated with the pipeline’s first 2 km have been included in the mine losses<br />
using the same approach for determining residual impacts as applied to the mine footprint.<br />
Indirect negative impacts<br />
INDIRECT IMPACTS through edge effects (dust, noise, plant desiccation, invasion of natural heliophytes), will<br />
potentially affect 790 ha of forest surrounding the mine footprint. This area was defined on the basis of a 100<br />
m zone surrounding polygon features (e.g. mine pits and ancillary facilities) and a 50 m zone around linear<br />
features such as roads (except the main access road) and pipelines (see Appendix 4: Mine Footprint<br />
Definition, 2nd Approximation, December 12, 2007). The degree to which these areas will be affected<br />
remains unclear; as a precautionary approach the full 790 ha has been included in the total loss calculations.<br />
This may be modified as information on the degree of impact becomes available through monitoring.<br />
Low or negligible negative impacts for biodiversity<br />
The processing plant is being constructed on a 150 ha (1.5 km 2 ) area of the Toamasina industrial zone. The<br />
1,400 ha (14 km 2 ) tailings management facility will be located in a highly degraded fire-driven agricultural<br />
matrix. An existing pier at the harbour will be extended by over 300 m. The residual biodiversity impacts<br />
associated with the processing plant, tailings facility and pier extension are expected to be negligible. The<br />
habitat classes for the plant site and tailings facility location would be defined as highly impacted and<br />
degraded and have been omitted from the loss calculations for the time being. However, the <strong>Project</strong> will<br />
consider how to trade-up these areas by conserving higher priority biodiversity elsewhere; one suggestion is<br />
to simply add the surface areas lost (i.e., 15.5 km 2 ) and apply a MULTIPLIER to determine the area of higher<br />
BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION priority land as part of the offset. The <strong>Project</strong> will seek assistance from the BBOP<br />
Advisory Committee before making a decision.<br />
Socioeconomic impacts<br />
The <strong>Project</strong> will conduct loss calculations for the socio-environmental aspects in 2009. The aim of the offset<br />
programme is to compensate for all AMENITY and LIVELIHOOD related losses experienced by local communities<br />
as a result of the biodiversity offset. Potential compensation measures include the introduction of improved<br />
agricultural techniques to increase crop yield and the provision of jobs related to environmental protection.<br />
At present, a number of positive socioeconomic impacts are also apparent:<br />
Over 80 members of the local community at the mine are permanently employed in biodiversity<br />
management-related jobs (in total, over 8,000 jobs for Malagasies will be generated by the <strong>Project</strong>); the<br />
biodiversity jobs include ongoing training.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 34<br />
14 community members have been hired as park rangers at the mine site to protect the mine forests.<br />
A public awareness programme is underway to raise community understanding of their natural heritage<br />
and their role in its protection.<br />
Reinforcement of the local forestry service’s capacity to protect forests (and their fauna and flora) around<br />
the mine footprint; the work at the Torotorofotsy wetland will also improve the forest service’s capacity<br />
there.<br />
Over 50 local expert biologists have been hired (on a project-by-project basis) to bring their knowledge to<br />
the <strong>Project</strong>’s activities and to promote the development and use of Malagasy skills).<br />
7.3.4.5 Offsetable nature of residual impacts<br />
The <strong>Project</strong> is ensuring that its residual impacts are OFFSETABLE by focusing on the avoidance of species,<br />
habitat and ecosystem loss and checking that the particular biodiversity components affected can be found in<br />
the surrounding area and beyond, so that their populations will not be unduly affected by the <strong>Project</strong> and will<br />
benefit viably from the offset activities. The <strong>Project</strong> has ensured that species of concern (SOC) were present<br />
outside of the mine footprint and is using taxa-specific management programs to define the relevant<br />
conservation management activities:<br />
The Flora Management Programme aims to ensure that SOC <strong>–</strong> flora species that were only identified on<br />
the mine footprint during the ESIA baseline <strong>–</strong> are not lost. These species remain listed as SOC until viable<br />
populations are located outside the mine’s footprint in protected areas. Surveys and viability assessments<br />
are being conducted by experts in flora taxonomy and ecology from Missouri Botanical Garden <strong>–</strong><br />
<strong>Madagascar</strong>.<br />
The Lemur Management Programme aims to confirm that the mine’s construction and operation activities<br />
are not leading to a long-term reduction in the viability of priority species’ populations present in the mine<br />
area. The programme focuses on IUCN EN and CR species, but includes all 16 species as a BEST<br />
PRACTICE measure due to the unique nature of lemurs. The programme includes two principal phases, a<br />
short-term three year assessment (covering the 2007 <strong>–</strong> 2010 construction phase) to begin identifying any<br />
trends in lemur groups and populations in the footprint and receiving areas located in the conservation<br />
forests. The second phase (from 2010 to end of the mine’s life), aims to identify any long-term viability<br />
trends and to develop appropriate mitigation measures, such as off-site relocation programs, recruitment<br />
boosting (e.g. captive breeding and release), reduction of slash and burn activities and strict control of<br />
hunting (bushmeat).<br />
The Mantella Management Programme aims to ensure that there are no measurable adverse impacts on<br />
the ability of the mine area forests to support the established Mantella aurantiaca (IUCN CR) and Mantella<br />
crocea populations (IUCN EN). Any reduction in their population sizes is also to be avoided. The<br />
programme was implemented in November 2007, although the species are located in areas that will not be<br />
mined for 10 years or more. The <strong>Project</strong> is defining populations present on the footprint and in the<br />
conservation zones and comparing them to regional population sizes. Various mitigation measures are<br />
possible including footprint reduction or shifting (i.e., modifying the footprint to avoid breeding areas),<br />
relocation (based on successful trials) and increasing population recruitment.<br />
The Fish Management Programme aims to avoid the extinction of fish species and to maintain population<br />
viability at pre-<strong>Project</strong> levels. Endemicity assessments have been conducted as the species present were<br />
only previously described to the genus level. Mitigation measures will be applied accordingly and may<br />
include, for example, the creation of conservation streams and relocation.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 35<br />
7.3.5 Step 5: Choose methods to calculate loss / gain and quantify residual losses<br />
The <strong>Project</strong> is using methodologies described in the BBOP Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook to assess the<br />
<strong>Project</strong>’s impact on biodiversity, to identify appropriate activities and sites for the biodiversity offset, and to<br />
determine the scale of the offset needed to achieve the CONSERVATION GAINS that will achieve NO NET LOSS.<br />
The methodologies combine consideration of biodiversity of equivalent or higher value and site selection to<br />
ensure that all key biodiversity components are represented at the offset and have two key features:<br />
‘benchmarks’ and ‘HABITAT HECTARES’:<br />
BBOP defines a ‘benchmark’ as reference point against which the losses of biodiversity due to the <strong>Project</strong><br />
and gains through the proposed offset can be quantified and compared consistently and transparently. A<br />
benchmark usually comprises a number of representative and characteristic ‘ATTRIBUTES’ used to represent<br />
the type, amount and quality of biodiversity which will be lost / gained. Comparison of the observed level<br />
(or ‘score’) of each BENCHMARK ATTRIBUTE at the impact site (before and as predicted after the impact)<br />
against the level at the benchmark can help to quantify the loss of biodiversity to be caused by the <strong>Project</strong>.<br />
Similarly, comparing the observed level (or ‘score’) of each benchmark attribute at the offset site (before<br />
the offset and as predicted after the offset intervention) against the level at the benchmark can help to<br />
quantify the gain in biodiversity caused by the offset. A benchmark can be based on an area of land that<br />
provides a representative example, in a good condition, of the type of biodiversity that will be affected by<br />
the proposed development project.<br />
‘Habitat hectares’ are units of measurement that take into account the area affected and the quality or<br />
CONDITION of the biodiversity impacted (determined by the quantities of a number of chosen attributes<br />
related to the structure, composition and function of that habitat). The habitat hectares METRIC was<br />
originally developed in Victoria, Australia to focus on HABITAT STRUCTURE, particularly native vegetation,<br />
and thus to provide proxies for composition and function. It has since been adapted by BBOP to cover both<br />
flora and fauna, and to include some aspects of composition and function as benchmark attributes. The<br />
habitat hectares approach is described in more detail in Section 7.3.5.1 below.<br />
The <strong>Project</strong>’s proposed benchmark meets specific predetermined criteria with respect to surface area, habitat<br />
quality and connectivity (see below). It is ideally located as it is in the mine area conservation zones, thus<br />
ensuring its long term protection. The long-term presence of the benchmark is important as it will enable<br />
background environmental degradation arising from external factors (such as climate change) to be quantified<br />
and subsequently addressed at the offset site.<br />
Lists of key biodiversity components were identified in the impact area; these include species and habitat<br />
types (structural). Complementary faunal data will be collected by the <strong>Project</strong> in 2009 to integrate more<br />
species attributes into the habitat hectares loss calculation, as current calculations are limited to quantitative<br />
information for only three priority lemur species.<br />
The <strong>Project</strong> has calculated its habitat hectares loss values for forest habitats. Scores for streams and<br />
ephemeral pools were calculated in April 2008, but have been temporarily excluded subject to re-assessment<br />
during the next iteration of the loss calculations.<br />
Two habitat hectares calculation scenarios were assessed in April 2008: without and with post-impact<br />
MITIGATION. It is important to note that both potentially relate to real situations since restoration performance<br />
is not well documented for <strong>Madagascar</strong> or the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> region. ‘Post-impact mitigation’ significantly<br />
decreases the habitat hectares loss value and will ultimately be included in the final (definitive) offset<br />
calculations. However, care is necessary to avoid overestimating the potential for rehabilitation success as<br />
this can result in the underestimation of the number of habitat hectares that the offset must deliver. Only the<br />
‘without post-impact mitigation’ scenario is reported here as further analysis (modelling) is required to<br />
accurately calculate losses based on the ‘with post-impact mitigation’ scenario.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 36<br />
7.3.5.1 The habitat hectares approach<br />
This section:<br />
Introduces the ‘HABITAT HECTARES’ approach;<br />
Describes how the ‘benchmark’ was defined for forest habitats; and<br />
Explains how the <strong>Project</strong>’s residual impacts on biodiversity have been calculated using the benchmark.<br />
The habitat hectares approach<br />
Biodiversity loss was calculated using the habitat hectares approach, summarised as:<br />
1. Completion of the Key Biodiversity Component Matrix (KBCM), which corresponds to conducting a<br />
biodiversity assessment of species, habitats and ecosystems components and determining intrinsic<br />
(significance and irreplaceability) and use (socioeconomic and cultural) values;<br />
2. Completion of a table to review the application of the MITIGATION HIERARCHY to the key biodiversity<br />
components;<br />
3. Selecting attributes for the key biodiversity components using available or complementary data and<br />
assigning ‘weights’ to each. For example:<br />
<strong>Forest</strong> structural attributes can be selected and compared (weighed) against each other, e.g. tree<br />
species richness is considered to be the most important attribute at <strong>Ambatovy</strong> and therefore has a<br />
higher WEIGHTING than attributes related to forest physical structure.<br />
Taxa attributes such as quantitative fauna data (e.g. density) from priority species can also be<br />
integrated and therefore allow key fauna data into the weighing of attributes; this reflects more<br />
accurately the importance of species biodiversity in the habitat hectares scores.<br />
4. Defining and selecting a BENCHMARK for selected habitats;<br />
5. Calculating biodiversity loss at the IMPACT SITES by comparison to the benchmark, for each habitat<br />
CONDITION classes in light of impact levels;<br />
6. Completion of a table to record and compare whether POTENTIAL OFFSET SITES could deliver conservation<br />
gains for key biodiversity components; and<br />
7. Calculating the habitat hectares gained at the offset site.<br />
Using the previously cited information, habitat hectare scores were determined for all habitats (e.g., forests,<br />
streams and ephemeral ponds). Calculation of the forest habitat hectare loss at <strong>Ambatovy</strong> requires the<br />
following condition information:<br />
Habitat types, namely azonal, transitional and zonal forests and respective surface areas (see Figure 4<br />
showing the mine area habitat map);<br />
Habitat condition class and respective surface areas (see Figure 4), namely:<br />
<strong>–</strong> Quasi pristine primary forest (see definition in benchmark section hereafter, <strong>Forest</strong> habitats, 3rd and 4th<br />
bullets);<br />
<strong>–</strong> Disturbed / degraded primary forest; and<br />
<strong>–</strong> Heavily fragmented and degraded primary forest.<br />
Impact types, namely high (cleared footprint) and medium (environmental buffer) and respective surface<br />
areas (see Figure 5).<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 37<br />
Figure 4: Mine area habitat map<br />
Figure 5: Mine footprint and environmental buffer map<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 38<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> forest habitat loss scores were determined by merging data from the three existing habitat<br />
types, since the selected forest attributes did not exhibit a statistical difference and faunal movement from<br />
intensive fauna surveys in the pre-clearing perimeters showed the same occupancy pattern for the three<br />
habitat types. Knowledge of the condition class is particularly important, since it reflects the biodiversity loss at<br />
stake, thus highlighting the application of multipliers in degraded habitats that are subsequently subject to<br />
negative impacts. The importance of multipliers was highlighted, for example, when considering degraded<br />
azonal forests which constitute 44.6% of the azonal habitat loss, but equivalent to only 29.3 habitat hectares<br />
of the total 620 habitat hectares score for the azonal habitat. High impact areas corresponded to 100% forest<br />
clearance with earthworks, medium impacts corresponded to the potential edge effects on the forest<br />
environmental buffer (50 m for linear features and 100 m for polygons), while low impacts did not apply to the<br />
impact areas. The habitat hectares score provided above is for the ‘without post-impact’ mitigation scenario.<br />
The habitat hectare gain for the proposed offset site has not yet been calculated, as detailed forest structure and<br />
quantitative species attribute data are still being acquired, with field surveys for flora / forest structure and aquatics<br />
planned in July 2009 and terrestrial fauna in November 2009. As the proposed Ankerana site is considered to be<br />
an ‘IN-KIND’ offset (relative to the impact site), the same benchmark will be used to calculate gains.<br />
Benchmark<br />
Based on the BBOP definition of a benchmark, the following criteria were used to define and identify a<br />
candidate site:<br />
<strong>Forest</strong> habitats:<br />
<strong>–</strong> Minimal critical size: in the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> forests, a benchmark is required that captures the progressive<br />
structural changes between the existing three vegetation types, and the faunal movement between<br />
them throughout the seasons. A contiguous area of quasi pristine ‘azonal’, ‘transitional’ and ‘zonal’<br />
forests, each of which must be a minimum of 40 ha is proposed. This area of 120 ha includes the core<br />
area of original habitat with a 100 m wide buffer around it and appears to be the minimum required as a<br />
home range for lemurs and to represent an adequate assemblage of vegetation.<br />
<strong>–</strong> CONNECTIVITY: the contiguous forest area (minimum size <strong>–</strong> 120 ha) must be connected to other forest<br />
habitats.<br />
<strong>–</strong> Human disturbance: there must be no sign that the site has ever been cleared by humans (in both core<br />
and buffer areas). However other evidence including tree stumps, historical records, soil charcoal,<br />
archaeological remains and signs of selective logging (defined as less than 12.5% of crown cover loss)<br />
over the last 20 years do not exclude a site from consideration as a benchmark (such evidence is<br />
widespread and unavoidable in the region). Any small degraded areas within the larger benchmark area<br />
are mapped and excluded from the benchmark calculations (and surface area).<br />
<strong>–</strong> Natural disturbances: a site that has experienced a natural fire in the last 20 years, at a level of 10% of<br />
its surface area (in both its core and buffer area) is excluded. Also, no evidence of cyclonic events is<br />
acceptable (above 10% loss of canopy crown cover in the last 20 years).<br />
Streams and ephemeral pools:<br />
<strong>–</strong> The benchmark must be the mostly pristine habitat.<br />
<strong>–</strong> The stream locations where benchmark data were acquired must be surrounded by quasi-pristine<br />
and natural habitat, unaffected by any major human-induced disturbance and under pristine forest<br />
cover.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 39<br />
<strong>–</strong> Since many natural ephemeral pools occur in hollow rocky ground, benchmark data must be taken<br />
where the rock outcrops are of natural origin and not the result of forest clearance or other human<br />
disturbance.<br />
Assumptions:<br />
<strong>–</strong> Within the azonal and transitional habitats, the highest ENDEMISM is associated with the lowest human<br />
impact.<br />
<strong>–</strong> No sylviculture or tree enrichment has been carried out in <strong>Ambatovy</strong>.<br />
The benchmark site is presented in Figure 6.<br />
Quantifying biodiversity residual impacts calculations using the benchmark<br />
Benchmark<br />
A scoping exercise was undertaken to determine from the KBCM and other studies which biodiversity<br />
components would be most appropriate as attributes of the benchmark. The data quality associated with<br />
each of these components available in the ESIA was checked. The selected attribute types are:<br />
Species:<br />
<strong>–</strong> 3 lemurs: Propithecus d. diadema, Indri indri, Allocebus trichotis (the attributes of species such as<br />
Prolemur simus and Daubentonia madagascariensis will be re-examined in the next iteration of the<br />
offset calculations); and<br />
<strong>–</strong> 2 fish: Ratsirakia sp and Rheocles sp (suspended for the moment and to be re-examined in the next<br />
iteration).<br />
Communities / habitats:<br />
<strong>–</strong> <strong>Forest</strong> (three habitats, azonal, transitional and zonal);<br />
<strong>–</strong> Streams (suspended for the moment and to be re-examined in the next iteration); and<br />
<strong>–</strong> Ephemeral pools (suspended for the moment and to be re-examined in the next iteration).<br />
Impact assessment and mitigation hierarchy application:<br />
An impact assessment of the biodiversity components was subsequently conducted based on the anticipated<br />
impacts, of which the principal impact is forest clearance and subsequent habitat loss. The corresponding<br />
mitigation strategies for each biodiversity component are presented below:<br />
Species: lemurs are displaced from their habitats by forest clearance. The <strong>Project</strong>’s mitigation measure is<br />
to monitor (through radio collars and telemetry) their ability to migrate from the clearance area towards the<br />
refuge areas (see Figure 3, conservation zones). The mitigation measures include assisting stranded<br />
individuals from all 16 known species identified on-site and limited off-site relocation to protected areas<br />
(e.g. Propithecus diadema) following IUCN translocation guidelines.<br />
Habitats: the main mitigation strategy for the three forest habitats is offsetting due to their fixed location.<br />
AVOIDANCE will also be applied to the azonal habitat since 26.4% of this habitat will be protected in the<br />
form of the mine area conservation zones (see Figure 4).<br />
The December 2008 iteration of the impact assessment and mitigation strategies is presented in Appendix 1.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 40<br />
Benchmark and attributes<br />
A benchmark site was selected (see Figure 6) in line with the BBOP definition and <strong>Project</strong>-specific criteria<br />
noted above. The benchmark includes a forest tract of 1,149.15 ha, composed of quasi pristine azonal,<br />
transitional and zonal forests, at least two streams and several ephemeral ponds.<br />
Figure 6: BBOP benchmark site map<br />
A limited number of ATTRIBUTES were selected as SURROGATES for both forest habitat structure and function<br />
based on the following characteristics:<br />
Sensitive INDICATORS to habitat quality;<br />
Simple and practical to measure and quantify;<br />
Reliable and repeatable in assessments; and<br />
Reflect outstanding biodiversity values (e.g. species of conservation concern, or CULTURAL VALUE).<br />
Due to data limitations (e.g., difficulties faced in obtaining quantitative data for fauna at the impact site), the<br />
present loss calculations are limited to forest structural attributes (streams, number of tree species, canopy<br />
height, basal area and Diameter to Breast Height, Dbh) and the attributes of selected fauna species (lemur<br />
density). Future iterations will include additional attributes as appropriate data become available.<br />
The December 2008 iteration results are presented in Table 3, with WEIGHTING assigned to forest habitat and<br />
species attributes according to their relative importance for biological diversity.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 41<br />
Table 3: Summary of attribute weighting (December 2008)<br />
Attributes Unit Weighting (%) Justification<br />
Stems (a)<br />
Number of tree<br />
species (per ha)<br />
number / ha 15<br />
number / ha 20<br />
Canopy height m 5<br />
Basal area (b)<br />
m 2 / ha 5<br />
Dbh m 5<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema density (c)<br />
Allocebus density<br />
Indri indri density<br />
individual<br />
number / ha<br />
Individual<br />
number / ha<br />
Individual<br />
number / ha<br />
20<br />
10<br />
20<br />
Total 100<br />
(a) Number of trees with diameter ≥10 cm, with measurements taken at 1.3 m above the ground.<br />
(b) Basal area is calculated as π x (diameter at breast height / 2) 2 .<br />
Reflects forest density, an important ecological attribute<br />
for fauna, especially lemurs.<br />
Provides overall floral diversity and habitat<br />
heterogeneity. Higher numbers are better.<br />
Indicator of forest maturity and canopy continuity. For<br />
azonal habitat lower canopy height is better.<br />
Indicator of habitat CONDITION. Higher value is better as<br />
it is an indication of mature forest.<br />
Indicator of habitat condition. Higher value is better as it<br />
is an indication of mature forest.<br />
IUCN CR (d) status, species very sensitive to human<br />
activities in their habitat.<br />
Nocturnal species sparsely distributed and appears to<br />
be sensitive to forest structure.<br />
<strong>Madagascar</strong>’s largest lemur species sparsely confined<br />
to eastern rain forest, IUCN EN status, and also has a<br />
cultural value (the most taboo lemur species).<br />
(c) Lemur species density is estimated based on line transect samples within a surface area, S = 2 x (Width x Length) in which density D<br />
= individual number / S.<br />
(d)<br />
Was recently lowered to EN.<br />
The selection and weighting of the attributes is examined below.<br />
Selected attributes are divided in two groups:<br />
<strong>–</strong> <strong>Forest</strong> structure, as a general surrogate for forest dependent biodiversity; and<br />
<strong>–</strong> Lemur species, as an ‘umbrella species’ fauna group considered to be the most sensitive to human<br />
disturbance in <strong>Ambatovy</strong> (bush meat, slash and burn, logging); the species selected include both<br />
diurnal and nocturnal species.<br />
Weighting: 60% and 40% importance were chosen for forest structure and faunal assemblage species,<br />
respectively. Attributes that express biological diversity (e.g., tree SPECIES DIVERSITY and stem number) are<br />
weighted with higher importance, as are species with CR rather than EN status. Since the mine is located<br />
in a BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT area, IUCN species of concern have been chosen as the main attributes to<br />
reflect the principles of ‘IRREPLACEABILITY’ and no loss of NON-OFFSETABLE components.<br />
TAXA selection: lemurs were selected over other fauna groups, due to their wide presence in forest<br />
habitats. Fish, amphibians and reptiles are restricted to specific habitats at <strong>Ambatovy</strong>, for example<br />
microhabitats for herpetofauna. Therefore any impact occurring away from these specific microhabitats<br />
(which are yet to be defined) might not reflect the <strong>Project</strong>’s impact on these taxa. The possibility of<br />
considering some of the herpetofauna and pond invertebrate species will be explored after new data has<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 42<br />
been collected in 2009. The inclusion of fish components for stream habitats will also require further<br />
analysis and consideration.<br />
VULNERABILITY: although this attribute was integrated in the April 2008 calculations (see Appendix 5), it is<br />
excluded from the present iteration of the loss calculations. The taxa groups should be considered<br />
together, not only at the species level, so that the same weight can be given to all taxa (lemurs, birds,<br />
herpetofauna, etc). This would allow the <strong>Project</strong> to consider not only specific species, but also the<br />
taxonomic groups that are important for monitoring purposes. In fact species EXTIRPATION can sometimes<br />
be linked to group effects or intra-species interactions; therefore, it is best to consider taxa group<br />
vulnerability rather than that of specific species. It is thus assumed that vulnerability considered as an<br />
attribute makes more ecological sense than that considering specific species alone. However, the use of<br />
vulnerability attributes requires further detailed analysis, to be conducted in 2009.<br />
Calculating biodiversity loss at the impact site<br />
The attributes presented above are for the mine and pipeline components.<br />
As described in the previous sections, the pipeline’s impact on forest habitat is very limited since routing<br />
avoided relic forest fragments present in the first 32 km (after which the area crossed is entirely exotic<br />
secondary vegetation resulting from slash and burn activities). Only the first 2 km of the pipeline cross quasi<br />
primary forest, and these losses were included in the mine loss calculations. The pipeline’s losses thus<br />
correspond to the forest fragments (16.5 ha) that could not be avoided: the habitat hectares could be<br />
calculated for this as the area impacted could be compared to the zonal forest BENCHMARK ATTRIBUTES. The<br />
pipeline’s forest fragments are classed as Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) 3: ‘heavily fragmented and<br />
degraded primary forest’. Instead of using the ‘basal area’ attribute, ‘volume’ was considered since these<br />
forests are heavily exploited by the local communities for fire wood. Volume can also be used in the future<br />
socioeconomic compensation analyses. The pipeline’s aquatic components include the crossing of more than<br />
400 streams with variable levels of ecological integrity and sensitivity. However, pipeline-related impacts to<br />
the aquatic environment are considered temporary, which cannot be captured by the habitat hectare<br />
methodology. The <strong>Project</strong> will therefore use methodological options for integrating temporary impacts in the<br />
next iteration of the loss calculations.<br />
The locations of the processing plant and tailing management facility have an EVC of 4 (essentially heavily<br />
degraded, with no remaining integrity, based on ESIA data). The habitat hectares calculation for this fourth<br />
category has not yet been undertaken for these areas. However the <strong>Project</strong> is committed to ‘TRADING UP’<br />
these areas and will work with BBOP to define an appropriate methodology for doing so. The harbour has<br />
been used as an industrial port for some time and little biodiversity of any significant conservation value is<br />
found there now.<br />
The mine area includes two Ecosystem Vegetation Classes (EVC): ‘quasi pristine primary forest’ and<br />
‘disturbed primary forest’. The pipeline has only one EVC: ‘heavily fragmented and degraded primary forest’.<br />
For each EVC the <strong>Project</strong> will have either a:<br />
‘High impact’ corresponding to total forest clearance with or without grubbing (removal of stumps, roots,<br />
and vegetable matter). A total area of 1,336 ha will fall in this impact category.<br />
‘Medium impact’ corresponding to the environmental buffer around the mine footprint (100 m) and linear<br />
features (pipeline / roads, with a 50 m buffer), which will be indirectly affected by forest clearance (impacts<br />
are mainly through edge effects such as light, dust and unauthorised disturbances.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 43<br />
Results of the HABITAT HECTARES scores for each HABITAT TYPE at the mine and along the pipeline are<br />
presented in Tables 4 to 7.<br />
Table 4: Azonal habitat (December 2008)<br />
AZONAL FOREST<br />
… of Condition<br />
Class 1:<br />
Quasi pristine<br />
primary forest<br />
…of Condition<br />
Class 2:<br />
Disturbed primary<br />
forest<br />
Total areas 590.74 475.55<br />
High impact 528.86 427.22<br />
Medium impact 61.88 48.33<br />
Table 5: Transitional habitat (December 2008)<br />
TRANSITIONAL<br />
FOREST<br />
… of Condition<br />
Class 1:<br />
Quasi pristine<br />
primary forest<br />
…of Condition<br />
Class 2:<br />
Disturbed primary<br />
forest<br />
Total areas 126.37 328.22<br />
High impact 53.38 222.68<br />
Medium impact 72.99 105.54<br />
Table 6: Zonal habitat (December 2008)<br />
ZONAL FOREST<br />
… of Condition<br />
Class 1:<br />
Quasi pristine<br />
primary forest<br />
…of Condition<br />
Class 2:<br />
Disturbed primary<br />
forest<br />
Total areas 412.74 124.97<br />
High impact 256.9 14.94<br />
Medium impact 155.84 110.03<br />
Table 7: Pipeline zonal habitat (December 2008)<br />
PIPELINE<br />
…of Condition Class 3:<br />
Heavily fragmented and degraded<br />
primary forest<br />
Total area 71.04<br />
High impact 16.5<br />
Medium impact 4.95<br />
TOTAL HABITAT<br />
HECTARE LOSS<br />
620<br />
TOTAL HABITAT<br />
HECTARE LOSS<br />
239<br />
TOTAL HABITAT<br />
HECTARE LOSS<br />
305<br />
TOTAL HABITAT<br />
HECTARE LOSS<br />
The forest habitat percentage hectares loss for the mine (and pipeline) components is shown in Figure 7.<br />
4<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 44<br />
Figure 7: <strong>Forest</strong> habitat percentage hectares loss for the mine component<br />
(the pipeline affects only a small portion of the zonal habitat)<br />
Zonal<br />
26.13%<br />
Transitional<br />
20.46%<br />
Pipeline<br />
(Zonal ) 0.33%<br />
Based on the current iteration, calculations show that:<br />
The project will generate a total loss of 1,168 habitat hectares that any offset will be required to<br />
compensate.<br />
In the mine area, the azonal forest habitat hectares score is the highest, with a total loss of 620 habitat<br />
hectares, representing over half of the entire forest habitat lost.<br />
The pipeline terrestrial biodiversity losses are minimal at 3.83 habitat hectares (0.33% of the total loss).<br />
The <strong>Project</strong>’s offset programme must focus its offset efforts on the azonal forest and associated<br />
biodiversity components, whilst ensuring that the other two habitats (transitional and zonal) habitat<br />
hectares losses are also compensated. Early analysis of trends in lemur species distribution (based on<br />
ESIA and construction mitigation management data) indicates that none of the three habitats has distinctly<br />
higher species richness. Instead it appears that the combination of the three habitats underpins high lemur<br />
species richness at <strong>Ambatovy</strong>. The azonal and other forest habitats that will be cleared during mine<br />
construction are not required for the survival of critically endangered or endangered species, since each<br />
lemur species found at <strong>Ambatovy</strong> is also present outside the mine area. However, the azonal forest<br />
habitats, including the forest assemblage composed of the azonal, transitional and zonal habitats, appear<br />
to favour the presence of lemur species biodiversity, with 16 species identified in the mine area compared<br />
with 6 to 10 species (depending on location) in the forest corridor (Schmid and Alonso 2005)<br />
Post-impact mitigation<br />
Azonal<br />
53.08%<br />
By excluding post-impact MITIGATION, the results remain conservative. When rehabilitation (as a mitigation<br />
measure) is considered, the habitat hectares losses are decreased by 50% within a 30 year period and there<br />
is a trend in the decrease of the habitat hectares loss using this mitigation strategy. It is important to note that<br />
the absence of a temporal parameter that integrates post-impact mitigation in the habitat hectares calculation<br />
may mask a project’s success over time in reducing habitat hectares loss.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 45<br />
Table 8: Biodiversity loss calculations scenarios at impact site and effect of post-impact remediation<br />
Habitat Habitat hectares loss<br />
Percentage of attributes<br />
rehabilitated<br />
1800<br />
1600<br />
1400<br />
1200<br />
1000<br />
800<br />
600<br />
400<br />
200<br />
0<br />
Year<br />
0 5 20 40 75 90<br />
Post-project mitigation level (%)<br />
Habitat type <strong>–</strong> forest<br />
HABITAT HECTARES loss<br />
0% 0 (without mitigation) 1,168<br />
5% 0 <strong>–</strong> 7 1,110<br />
20% 7 <strong>–</strong> 15 934<br />
40% 15 <strong>–</strong> 30 701<br />
75% 30 <strong>–</strong> 60 292<br />
90% 60 <strong>–</strong> 120 117<br />
For the forest habitat, the results show a significant difference for the varying levels of post-impact mitigation.<br />
However, in order to obtain a more realistic assessment of the post-impact condition, the <strong>Project</strong> considered<br />
the influence of forest rehabilitation on the habitat hectares loss numbers over time. Although the temporal<br />
factor is not considered in the habitat hectares loss calculations, a basic simulation was designed that<br />
integrated basic forest regeneration activities and specific ecosystem dynamics in the context of the <strong>Ambatovy</strong><br />
forests. There are four essential steps in forest regeneration:<br />
1. Erosion control (involves engineering, addition of organic matter and water control).<br />
2. Planting of heliophytes species (including native and potentially some non-natives).<br />
3. Planting of native tolerant species to increase ground cover.<br />
4. Assisted natural succession of native species.<br />
The inclusion of post-impact rehabilitation based on these activities shows a distinct decrease in the habitat<br />
hectares loss score over time, due to forest regrowth patterns and increases in the values of attributes<br />
(Pearson correlation R2 = -0.98 p< 0.001, n = 6; see Graph 1).<br />
Graph 1: Post-impact mitigation influence on biodiversity loss for forest habitats at IMPACT SITE<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 46<br />
It is important to note reforestation of the azonal forest area will create zonal type forest, with some azonal<br />
influences arising from the use of backfill originating in the azonal areas (which has specific geochemistry and<br />
broken ferricrete crust and pisolitic iron). Complete restoration to azonal habitat is deemed impossible due to<br />
its strong links with the removed ground structure and geochemistry.<br />
To improve the basic simulation discussed above, the <strong>Project</strong> will collect available rehabilitation data for<br />
Madagascan lateritic soils and the eastern domain. This will enable the refinement of reforestation predictions.<br />
Based on Madagascan forestry experience, it is estimated that at 30 years forests will begin to offer a habitat<br />
that can be exploited by lemurs and other important taxa, for both food and shelter. The closure biodiversity<br />
programme will include monitoring of priority taxa in these rehabilitated areas to define the rate of<br />
recolonisation. Irrespective of improvements in the model, continuing care in integration of rehabilitation data<br />
in the loss calculations will be necessary due to:<br />
1. Limitations in the availability of specific information on Malagasy forests rehabilitation success rates;<br />
2. The specificity of the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> mine site forests and overall associated uncertainties; and<br />
3. The risk that lower success rates may occur despite improved confidence in predictions.<br />
Consequently, the <strong>Project</strong> may decide to take a more precautionary approach and retain conservative habitat<br />
hectares scores to ensure that NO NET LOSS is not undermined by an undersized offset design.<br />
7.3.6 Step 6: Review potential offset locations and activities and assess the<br />
biodiversity gains which could be achieved at each<br />
Identifying offset options<br />
Preliminary surveys of offset candidate sites were undertaken in 2005 (see Appendix 6, Survey for Off-site<br />
Azonal Outcrops (in French)) with the objective of identifying potential in-kind type offsets. The surveys were<br />
based on geological, substrate, altitude and forest structure similarities (see Figure 9, showing correlation<br />
between the EVC (azonal, transitional and zonal), substrate and topography) and comprised:<br />
A desk study using geological maps to identify ultramafic outcrops and satellite imagery for remaining<br />
forest cover.<br />
Aerial (plan) reconnaissance survey to confirm the presence of forest cover and rapid visual integrity<br />
assessment; the survey had to be conducted by air, due to the absence of road infrastructure and general<br />
remoteness of the areas. Two potential candidate sites (of 14 initially identified <strong>–</strong> see Figure 8) were<br />
chosen based on forest integrity and surface area.<br />
Aerial (helicopter) reconnaissance survey and walk over ground survey of potential candidate sites<br />
(Vohimenakely and Ankerana). Vohimenakely, located northwest of Zahamena National Park appeared to<br />
have azonal characteristics but was very small (500 ha) and with no signs<br />
of disturbance (see Photograph 1).<br />
A ground-level vegetation survey at selected candidate site (Ankerana) to determine if it has similar habitat<br />
and floristic (see Photograph 2) characteristics as at <strong>Ambatovy</strong> and Analamay. The preliminary comparison<br />
of the Ankerana area with <strong>Ambatovy</strong> / Analamay is presented in Appendix 7. Ankerana had previously and<br />
independently been identified by the Missouri Botanical Garden <strong>–</strong> <strong>Madagascar</strong> (a <strong>Project</strong> partner) as a<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 47<br />
potential conservation area based on its floral assemblages. Overall, many similarities were noted in the<br />
physical, climatic and biological characteristics compared to <strong>Ambatovy</strong> / Analamay, supporting the<br />
hypothesis that Ankerana can be considered ‘IN-KIND’ relative to the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> azonal habitats. Additional<br />
work to verify these similarities is required and planned for 2009.<br />
Figure 8: Ankerana offsite offset area location and other candidate sites surveyed by the <strong>Project</strong>, in<br />
relation to the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> mine area<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 48<br />
Figure 9: Correlation between EVC (azonal, transitional and zonal), substrate and topography<br />
Photograph 1: Ankerana aerial view<br />
Photograph 2: Ankerana azonal habitat<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 49<br />
Quantifying gains of offset options<br />
The detailed quantification of potential offset GAINS has not yet been conducted. Rough estimates of gains<br />
have been prepared based on mapping data and the surface areas that would be protected:<br />
1. Ankerana offset site (see Figure 10): the Ankerana offset has a total surface area of approximately 11,600<br />
ha, consisting of a 4,600 ha core conservation area and a 7,000 ha multiple use buffer area surrounding<br />
the core. The site lies within the area planned for inclusion in the Malagasy protected area system (SAPM).<br />
Consequently, the <strong>Project</strong> funding is being designed to ensure that any biodiversity offset offers<br />
conservation ADDITIONALITY. The field surveys to characterise species, habitats and ecosystems at the<br />
proposed offset site will be conducted in 2009, allowing calculation of the habitat hectares gains. Based on<br />
the preliminary survey conducted during the ESIA, the <strong>Project</strong> is confident that the KEY BIODIVERSITY<br />
COMPONENTS identified at <strong>Ambatovy</strong> (species, habitats and ecosystem) can be found at Ankerana,<br />
although <strong>Ambatovy</strong> species assemblages may not all be present at Ankerana. It is important to note that<br />
this issue justifies the conservation of the two on-site azonal forest tracts (the mine area conservation<br />
zones). The forest will form part of the on-site offset component. The on-site offset includes all forest<br />
habitats present on the mine footprint, including two azonal forest areas (one being the <strong>Project</strong>’s<br />
BENCHMARK site). Therefore it is acceptable to assume that all key biodiversity components are present in<br />
the on-site offset.<br />
2. On-site azonal habitat conservation sites (see Figure 4): the azonal forest surface area equals 212.33 ha<br />
(26.4% of the total prime quality habitat; the azonal habitat remaining outside the mine footprint is all<br />
pristine).<br />
3. Management of mine area forests (see Figure 3): the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset programme includes the 4,900 ha<br />
conservation zones forest around the mine footprint; the azonal conservation zones noted above are<br />
located within this area. The <strong>Project</strong> aims to reinforce the legally protected status of these forests to ensure<br />
their continued protection following mine closure. Their current protection is ensured by the mine <strong>Forest</strong><br />
Management Plan, since most of the forest areas are within the mine lease where the <strong>Project</strong> has<br />
exclusive management rights. The <strong>Project</strong> is also currently discussing with Conservation International the<br />
regional integration of its on-site offset.<br />
4. Mine area / Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor link (see Figure 11): the forest corridor between the mine area<br />
conservation zones forest and the rest of the eastern rain forest corridor is a key component in ensuring<br />
CONNECTIVITY between these two areas. The corridor concept has been integral to the <strong>Project</strong>’s species<br />
management strategies (particularly for lemurs). The exact boundaries have not yet been defined, but are<br />
likely to enclose about 2,500 ha. The <strong>Project</strong> is also currently discussing with CI the regional integration<br />
and protection of this forest corridor to ensure its connection with the relic Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor<br />
and the SAPM protected areas (e.g. Mantadia National Park).<br />
5. Torotorofotsy Ramsar site management (see Figure 11): the total surface area of this site’s watershed is<br />
8,500 ha of which 1,100 ha is wetland. However, results of recent surveys led by <strong>Ambatovy</strong> indicate that<br />
the ecological integrity of the overall area has been several degraded, resulting in reduced gains for<br />
biodiversity. The true gains will be quantified based on analysis of the survey results.<br />
6. FOREST CONNECTIVITY CAZ (see Figure 11): the total area of zonal forest lost to the pipeline right of way will<br />
be reforested (so a gain of 16.5 ha, the first 2 km reforested route being integrated with the mine). The<br />
exact surface area to reforest for the CAZ connection has yet to be determined, but may be around 200 ha.<br />
7. Footprint rehabilitation: the total surface area of the mine footprint will be rehabilitated, of which a majority<br />
will be reforested (approximately 1,336 ha).<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 50<br />
Figure 10: Ankerana map<br />
Figure 11: Mine area and Analamay-Mantadia forest corridor, allowing link between on-site offset and<br />
forest corridor<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 51<br />
Comparative analysis of offset options<br />
A comparative analysis of offset options was conducted during the site selection process (as noted above).<br />
Results are presented in Appendix 6 (in French).<br />
7.3.7 Step 7: Calculate offset gains and select appropriate offset locations and<br />
activities<br />
Finalising offset sites and activities<br />
The habitat hectares gain score for the offset sites has yet to be calculated, as detailed forest structure and<br />
species attribute quantitative data need to be obtained for the Ankerana and other offset sites. This will take<br />
place as soon as the stakeholder consultation process is completed. As the Ankerana site is considered ‘inkind’<br />
with the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> azonal habitats, the same benchmark will be used to calculate gains. A detailed<br />
BASELINE STUDY of the Ankerana offset will be conducted in 2009 to check the offset site for the presence and<br />
suitability for all the key biodiversity components identified at the impact site and to support the gain score<br />
calculations.<br />
The plan for the Ankerana offset will include a core conservation area, surrounded by a multiple use area to<br />
ensure social integration of the offset and thus its sustainability in the context of local community support.<br />
The principle of pursuing an offset was established in 2004. However, the offset was not fully established<br />
before the <strong>Project</strong>’s impacts began occurring in May 2007 (the date that mine forest clearance began). The<br />
<strong>Project</strong> must thus still determine whether the temporal loss is critical or not (i.e. that any biodiversity<br />
component cannot be offset because of impacts in the period before the offset is created). However, the<br />
<strong>Project</strong> is confident that this is not the case for any of the taxa present; especially for very sensitive species<br />
such as Mantella aurantiaca and Mantella crocea (whose habitats will not be disturbed for at least 10 years,<br />
when Analamay will be cleared for mining). With respect to lemurs, a short-term and long-term trend<br />
assessment programme (Lemur Viability Assessment Programme) is underway for all priority species (IUCN<br />
CR and EN species). However, even though the temporal loss will not compromise the success of the offset,<br />
the offset design does plan to take it into account. Conventionally, this could be done through application of a<br />
MULTIPLIER and TIME DISCOUNTING (the concept that 1 habitat hectare delivered accruing in 10 years time has<br />
only a fraction of that value at the present time). The <strong>Project</strong> will explore and define a methodology and apply<br />
it to the next iteration of loss and gain calculations in 2009, taking into consideration that the main impacts will<br />
be spread over a period of approximately 20 years, while the offset could be in place much earlier.<br />
7.3.8 Step 8: Record the offset design and enter the offset implementation process<br />
The Ankerana offset design and other components of the offset have not yet been finalised, thus the<br />
implementation process has not formally begun. The <strong>Project</strong> will finalise the offset design, using BBOP<br />
guidance, during the course of 2009. A summary of the management plan will be presented in subsequent<br />
case study revisions. However, a brief description of the progress made to date is presented below:<br />
Stakeholder consultations: the <strong>Project</strong> has pursued stakeholder consultations, ensuring through a<br />
participatory process that the offset can be integrated into national, regional and local plans and that<br />
feedback is taken into account in the offset design and the development of multiple use zones.<br />
Legal protection: the Ankerana forest was under temporary protection status until the end of 2008. The<br />
<strong>Project</strong> requested that this protection status be prorogated (continued) until the final Ministerial Protection<br />
Decree is finalised and made law (planned for July 2009).<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
The Offset Design Process 52<br />
Boundary definition: delimitation of the Ankerana offset boundaries (see Figure 10). The mapping has been<br />
presented to the local communities, regional authorities and partner NGOs. Several awareness campaigns<br />
have enabled presentation of this information to remote habitations around the proposed offset site. The<br />
campaigns will be repeated twice per year at key periods i.e. before and during the traditional clearing<br />
period (with police enforcement against passing the boundary). Results if the campaigns to date indicate<br />
that Ankerana has been extremely isolated for a long time and people had no idea of forest laws restricting<br />
forest clearance.<br />
Zoning: the current land uses have been described and will be integrated with the offset design in 2009.<br />
Reforestation activities: continuation of reforestation on the periphery of the proposed offset; this has<br />
focused mainly on planting construction wood to avoid primary forest logging in the core offset area.<br />
Support (financial and logistic) for updating of the Marserana commune’s five year Communal<br />
Development Plan. This commune covers the offset area. Discussions with a second commune,<br />
Andahamana have begun; this commune includes a small fraction of the offset area and will also be<br />
assisted with updating of its five year plan.<br />
Integration of Ankerana with the SAPM: a technical committee meeting with SAPM was used to discuss<br />
the integration of the offset site into the national protected areas network.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
8. Implementation Plan and<br />
Long-term Management<br />
The team plans to complete the design of the offset implementation plan by the end of 2009, with the<br />
Ankerana and other offset sites’ gain calculated in early 2010 and thus the final offset design completed at<br />
that point. The Ministerial Protection Decree should be ready by June 2009, thus allowing the <strong>Project</strong> to<br />
legally implement the management of the core and multiple use buffer area of the Ankerana part of the offset.<br />
While the ESIA stated the <strong>Project</strong>’s commitment to establish a biodiversity offset at Ankerana, no timing<br />
commitment was made. The offset establishment is therefore assumed to be in line with the <strong>Project</strong>’s<br />
temporal goals. The <strong>Project</strong> is establishing the offset to last the <strong>Project</strong>’s lifetime of 30 years and beyond. The<br />
establishment of a Ministerial Protection Decree is underway and the financing mechanisms are being<br />
discussed. Actions and timings are summarised in Figure 12.<br />
Figure 12: Actions and timings (2004-onwards)<br />
The <strong>Project</strong> will have the responsibility of ensuring the management of the Ankerana site. Actual site<br />
protection and local management will likely be entrusted to an NGO. The exact mode of financing has not yet<br />
been defined precisely. An in depth financial assessment will be conducted to determine the most viable<br />
means of ensuring long term financial revenue to support site protection.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
53
9. Summary of Offset Process Costs<br />
The <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> BBOP programme component is part of the <strong>Project</strong>’s Biodiversity Programme (itself<br />
part of the Environmental Programme). Specific activities are designed, budgeted and implemented. Offset<br />
design and early implementation cost estimates are presented in Table 9.<br />
Table 9: Summary of estimated costs<br />
Human resources Staff Tasks<br />
<strong>Project</strong> focal point :<br />
Pierre Berner (<strong>Ambatovy</strong><br />
<strong>Project</strong> Environmental<br />
Director)<br />
Superintendent<br />
responsible for Ankerana<br />
site: monsieur Alphonse<br />
(<strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>)<br />
Superintendent<br />
responsible for Special<br />
Programs: Irene Daso<br />
(<strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>)<br />
Environmental<br />
Coordinator for Ankerana<br />
(Sylvain Be Totozafy)<br />
Technical support team<br />
Ankerana management:<br />
Environmental <strong>Forest</strong><br />
Technician (to be filled)<br />
Environmental<br />
Community Agent (to be<br />
filled)<br />
Guest house manager<br />
(to be filled)<br />
BBOP programme<br />
management: Steven<br />
Dickinson (Golder<br />
Associates)<br />
BBOP design ecological<br />
assessment: Aristide<br />
Andrianarimisa (WCS)<br />
1 Ensure communication / meetings (international)<br />
with BBOP committee and management of<br />
overall <strong>Ambatovy</strong> BBOP programme.<br />
1 Ankerana off-site offset management.<br />
Spearheading legal protection status programme<br />
with governmental and local STAKEHOLDERS.<br />
Supervising financial arrangements for<br />
programme’s long term viability.<br />
1 Support <strong>Project</strong> focal point. Liaising with local<br />
and international stakeholders (e.g. CI).<br />
1 Ensuring local stakeholder involvement.<br />
Supervising Ankerana zoning (core / buffer /<br />
inhabited areas). Awareness campaigns.<br />
Costs (man<br />
days per<br />
annum*)<br />
Cost for 2008,<br />
2009 (USD)<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
24<br />
36<br />
12<br />
132<br />
3 Ankerana <strong>Forest</strong> and community management. 264<br />
(currently<br />
one staff<br />
member)<br />
1 Managing overall BBOP design, including<br />
benchmark / loss / gain calculations.<br />
1 Conducting benchmark / loss / gains calculations<br />
and overall ecological assessments.<br />
36<br />
140<br />
54
Summary of Offset Process Costs 55<br />
Human resources Staff Tasks<br />
BBOP external auditing<br />
progress reports: Jon<br />
Ekstrom (TBC)<br />
(1) Carry out a technical peer review of the<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset (e.g. benchmark, losses and<br />
gain calculation).<br />
Costs (man<br />
days per<br />
annum*)<br />
Cost for 2008,<br />
2009 (USD)<br />
TOTALS 9 646 560,000<br />
* based on 2008 man days<br />
The average annual operational costs are in the process of being established and are estimated to be in the<br />
range US$ 250,000 <strong>–</strong> 300,000 per annum.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
2
10. <strong>Project</strong> Outcomes<br />
Actual outcomes<br />
Since the offset is still in the design phase, the actual CONSERVATION OUTCOMES to date are limited. They<br />
represent what the <strong>Project</strong> has achieved thus far and the benefits its shareholders already enjoyed, including:<br />
Legal protection status: the extension of the temporary protection of Ankerana has been secured until the<br />
Ministerial Decree for protection is finalisation;<br />
Integration of Ankerana into the national protected areas network;<br />
Coordination between government organisations, NGOs, local communities and the private sector;<br />
Public awareness;<br />
Reforestation activities; and<br />
<strong>Forest</strong> and TAXA-specific conservation management plans: specific taxa conservation management<br />
programs were developed for flora, lemurs, Mantella species and fish. Although these programs were<br />
developed as part of the Biodiversity Action Plan, their importance is reinforced by their aim of ensuring the<br />
conservation of azonal habitat and associated species, thus ensuring that all KEY BIODIVERSITY<br />
COMPONENTs present on the impact site are present at the offset.<br />
Anticipated outcomes<br />
The benefits anticipated as the final outcome of the offset include:<br />
Averted loss of forest habitat:<br />
<strong>–</strong> The offset is designed to result in no net loss of biodiversity and will strive to attain a NET GAIN.<br />
<strong>–</strong> The initial objective was to secure the Ankerana site, but with additional insight the <strong>Project</strong> is presently<br />
aiming to extend the expanse of protected areas it will be managing indirectly (Ankerana) or directly<br />
(e.g. the on-site mine area conservation zones).<br />
<strong>–</strong> The <strong>Project</strong> aims to also spearhead the creation of the Analamay-Mantadia forest corridor enabling<br />
connectivity between the mine area conservation areas and the SAPM.<br />
Community benefits: The creation of the offset will be conducted though integration of a socioeconomic<br />
and cultural component, which is the key to its long-term viability. A socio-environmental compensation<br />
programme will be designed during 2009 and subsequently to support social integration and ensure this.<br />
The programme will assess the compensation options available. Its partnerships with NGOs and agencies<br />
such USAID, PACT and ERIE will provide valuable insights. Specific activities that will be explored include<br />
fuel wood reforestation using native species, planting in suitable locations that avoid biodiversity impacts of<br />
biofuel crops (e.g., Jatropha plant), aquaculture and improved crop yield techniques. The programs will be<br />
integrated with social programs, especially complementary educational and family planning programs that<br />
contribute to reductions in human pressure on natural resources and forests. Other programs that will be<br />
critical to the overall success of the offset include fire management, hunting / bushmeat management and<br />
forest resource management.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
56
<strong>Project</strong> Outcomes 57<br />
Improved communication: information available to international NGOs did not reflect the full scale of works<br />
conducted in the field by the <strong>Project</strong>. The reason was linked to rather limited communication efforts by the<br />
<strong>Project</strong>, which was subsequently ramped up. The high velocity of <strong>Project</strong> implementation has been<br />
generally overwhelming for most NGOs, who felt they needed a deeper involvement with the <strong>Project</strong>. Such<br />
aspects were discussed in detail with CI, <strong>Forest</strong> <strong>Trends</strong> and WCS in November 2008. The <strong>Project</strong> will<br />
present and implement its communication strategy on biodiversity management and BBOP activities in<br />
2009. The offset programme is not yet mentioned as a standalone project on the Sherritt web site, however<br />
it is mentioned on the Environmental Assessment documents (page 12), available at:<br />
http://www.sherritt.com/doc08/subsection.php?submenuid=operations&category=operations/metal<br />
s_ambatovy.<br />
A specific web page will ultimately describe in detail the biodiversity offset process and activities, including<br />
this case study and subsequent, updated versions of it.<br />
Stakeholder confidence: the <strong>Project</strong> hopes to increase and consolidate the confidence of the public<br />
(government, NGOs, authorities and the public at large) and private partners, (banks) and demonstrate its<br />
commitment to sustainability. This is strongly linked to both the communication effort and compliance<br />
activities. The governmental authorities and local communities are aware of, and have taken part in, the<br />
offset activities. <strong>Project</strong> partners and lender banks have monitored the progress of the offset programme<br />
through quarterly audits and bi-annual biodiversity audits.<br />
Significant scientific knowledge will be obtained through biological surveys (which underpin the loss and<br />
gain calculations), especially at Ankerana, where studies have been limited despite the description of these<br />
ultramafic outcrops as biodiversity hotspots. The <strong>Project</strong> intends to prepare external publications of its<br />
biodiversity management programs, especially for MITIGATION in high biodiversity areas, possibly setting a<br />
precedent for other mining projects in <strong>Madagascar</strong>. A publication, likely a monograph of both the impact<br />
and offset sites, will be produced in collaboration with scientific partners. An article on the <strong>Project</strong> was<br />
provided to the CBD newsletter Business 2010 in April 2008 (www.cbd.int/doc/newsletters/news-biz-<br />
2008-04/).<br />
<strong>Forest</strong> restoration: the reforestation activities include targeted reforestation with native species to improve<br />
connectivity around the Ankerana offset site and between it and the remaining forest corridor; similar<br />
programs exist around the mine and the pipeline component.<br />
Taxa-specific conservation: species taxa conservation management programs will be developed for key<br />
taxa such as lemurs, Mantella spp., flora and fish, on the same basis as those developed at the mine site.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
11. Lessons Learned<br />
The main lesson learned to date (during the offset conceptualisation and design stages) is that a commitment<br />
to implement a biodiversity offset can generate substantial interest and respect from third parties for the<br />
<strong>Project</strong> developer in tandem with delivering real and measurable benefits for biodiversity. The ‘NO NET LOSS’<br />
offset represents a strong and positive vision that allows the <strong>Project</strong> to present its mitigation programme<br />
elegantly and coherently to third parties.<br />
The main difficulties encountered to date have been:<br />
While beneficial, the BBOP guideline development process has been lengthy, dense and not always<br />
readily applicable to the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>. However, the <strong>Project</strong> feels privileged to continue with its<br />
contribution to the improvement of the offset design tools though its feedback.<br />
The integration of biodiversity offsets at the ESIA stage is also crucial if baseline data collection is to:<br />
<strong>–</strong> Prioritise target species with high biodiversity value for the Key Biodiversity Components Matrix;<br />
<strong>–</strong> Target sampling stations to ensure that a benchmark is identified;<br />
<strong>–</strong> Ensure loss and gain sites are adequately covered; and<br />
<strong>–</strong> Ensure that quantitative data is gathered for the HABITAT HECTARES calculations.<br />
Ideally, the offset calculations for LOSSES and GAINS should have been completed before <strong>Project</strong> construction<br />
began, in order to alleviate the risk of being confronted with a low gains score. Greater targeting of baseline<br />
data collection during the ESIA would have helped reduce the cost and time associated with subsequent filling<br />
of data gaps.<br />
11.1 Limitations<br />
Limitations and issues identified during the habitat hectare calculations are presented below.<br />
11.1.1 Available data<br />
The main limitation for the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> offset design is that only azonal forests were sufficiently<br />
sampled for habitat structure ATTRIBUTES. Fewer data exist for zonal and transitional habitats. In addition,<br />
more accurate improved diversity and abundance data were required for species (especially lemurs and<br />
other taxa) in both the benchmark and impact areas. Obtaining these data in 2009 should improve<br />
precision of the habitat hectares loss calculation.<br />
No available data exist at present for the selected attributes at the proposed Ankerana offset site. This<br />
means that offset gains cannot yet be calculated.<br />
Some of the existing data were not sufficiently habitat specific to meet the requirements of the habitat<br />
hectares calculations. The fauna data did not allow the species identified to be clearly linked to either the<br />
three ecological vegetation classes (azonal, transitional and zonal) or the habitat CONDITION classes. The<br />
January 2009 fauna surveys will aim to resolve this.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
58
Lessons Learned 59<br />
11.1.2 Averaging<br />
Averaging of attribute values was necessary in the habitat hectares calculation in order to avoid overly<br />
conservative results and to reflect the reality of conditions on the ground. However, it is commonly recognised<br />
that by calculating averages of vegetation parameters within a large area, habitat heterogeneity and its<br />
variations, which are the key elements for microclimate and ecological processes, are masked (Whittaker et<br />
al. 1974; Parkes et al. 2003). This approach thus limits the impact of variability on the calculation. While the<br />
variation is small-scale, considering its effects is important.<br />
11.2 Recommendations<br />
1. Integrate a temporal parameter to the post-<strong>Project</strong> impact in the habitat hectares calculation in order to<br />
show the <strong>Project</strong>’s success through time in reducing habitat hectares loss. This aspect is important for time<br />
discounting (i.e. delay of offset creation and delivery of ultimate habitat hectares gain, see Step 7).<br />
2. Averaging of contiguous HABITAT TYPES as far as habitat classes is optimal as it best reflects the reality of<br />
conditions in the impact area.<br />
3. Tools are based merely on numerical data that might not always have a biological and / or ecosystem<br />
health significance. It is important to assess how to integrate biodiversity qualitative data (like ENDEMISM,<br />
only presence / absence etc.) with the habitat hectares calculation.<br />
4. There is a need for a ‘Weighting Guideline’ to guide the operator in weighting attributes, since this will<br />
ultimately affect the scoring.<br />
5. SPECIES DIVERSITY and other fauna attributes should be used (e.g., lemur and herpetofauna) as often as<br />
possible to better reflect true biodiversity values (as opposed to forest structural SURROGATES).<br />
6. The <strong>Project</strong> should design its data acquisition programs at the ESIA stage (baseline collection) to ensure it<br />
meets the habitat hectares calculation requirements in an optimal fashion (e.g. fauna, flora, aquatics<br />
sample sites linked with all main vegetation types likely to be impacted, as well as their condition classes <strong>–</strong><br />
for example, good / disturbed).<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
12. Next Steps<br />
The next steps for the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> offset team are presented below:<br />
1. Habitat hectares loss scores:<br />
a. Integrate the IMPACT SITE and benchmark terrestrial fauna data being gathered in January 2009,<br />
integrate Mantella aurantiaca and M. crocea data that is being acquired for these two key species as<br />
part of the Mantella Management Programme during 2009, re-evaluate the fish and aquatic (stream<br />
and ponds) data to adequately integrate with the KBCM; this will imply reassessing the weighting of<br />
the attributes generally, giving more importance to the species attributes to better reflect BIODIVERSITY<br />
LOSS values.<br />
b. Re-calculate habitat hectares loss scores for the impact site, for each forest habitat type (azonal,<br />
transitional and zonal), aquatic ecosystems (streams and ponds) and condition class.<br />
2. Habitat hectares gain scores:<br />
a. Prepare and implement the habitat, flora, fauna and aquatics BASELINE data collection at the proposed<br />
Ankerana offset site.<br />
b. Calculate habitat hectares gains scores for the variety of POTENTIAL OFFSET SITES (e.g. contiguous with<br />
the mine footprint, the Analamay-Mantadia Corridor and the Ankerana offset site), for each forest<br />
habitat type (azonal, transitional and zonal), aquatic ecosystems (streams and ponds) and condition<br />
class.<br />
3. Socio-environmental losses and compensation calculations:<br />
a. Apply cost-benefit model and analysis using key elements of the BBOP BIODIVERSITY OFFSET COST-<br />
BENEFIT HANDBOOK to determine the ecosystems services to the local communities in and around<br />
Ankerana as well as the mine site (COMPOSITE OFFSET).<br />
b. Determine socio-environmental compensations required, including compensations options; the <strong>Project</strong><br />
will distinguish between legal and illegal activities specifically (the latter being obviously recognised by<br />
local legislation as unsustainable).<br />
c. Design and implement a compensation programme.<br />
4. Offset management programme:<br />
a. In light of both the biodiversity and socio-environmental inputs, the <strong>Project</strong> will finalise the design of<br />
the Ankerana (and mine site) management programs.<br />
b. The <strong>Project</strong> will implement and monitor the implementation of the programs.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
60
Next Steps 61<br />
5. Legal protection status:<br />
a. The <strong>Project</strong> will pursue the finalisation of the Ministerial Protection Decree for Ankerana and creation<br />
of a protection status for the mine area conservation zones forests; the status of other offset<br />
programme components (Analamay-Mantadia Corridor, Ramsar site) will also be pursued in<br />
collaboration with the <strong>Project</strong>’s partners (CI).<br />
b. The Ankerana offset jurisdictional protection status is being finalised with Malagasy authorities with its<br />
integration in the National Park network, in order to ensure the long-term protection status of the site<br />
from a legal perspective.<br />
6. Other activities:<br />
a. The <strong>Project</strong> will be pursuing the implementation of its MITIGATION HIERARCHY strategy, namely through<br />
the Biodiversity Action Plan and the taxa-specific management programmes for lemurs, Mantella, fish<br />
and flora.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
13. References<br />
Benstead, J.P., De Rham, P.H., Gattolliat, J.-L., Gibon, F.-M., Loiselle, P.L.V., Sartori, M., Sparks, J.S. and<br />
Stiassny, M.L.J. 2003. Conserving <strong>Madagascar</strong>’s Freshwater Biodiversity. Bioscience 53 (11): 1101-1111 [see<br />
Appendix 3].<br />
Dufils, J.-M. 2003. Pact <strong>Madagascar</strong> (see http://www.pactworld.org/cs/africa/madagascar).<br />
Ganzhorn, J.U., Andrianasolo, T., Andrianjazalahatra, T., Donati, G., Fietz, J. et al. 2007. Lemur in evergreen<br />
littoral forest fragments. In Biodiversity, Ecology and Conservation of Littoral Ecosystem in Southeastern<br />
<strong>Madagascar</strong>, Tolagnaro (Fort Dauphin). Serie editor Alfonso Alonso. SI/MAB Serie # 11. Smithsonian<br />
Institution, Washington DC. USA [see Appendix 3].<br />
Grooves, C. 2000. The genus Cheirogaleus: unrecognized diversity in dwarf lemurs. International Journal of<br />
Primatology, 21 (6): 943-962 [see Appendix 3].<br />
International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). 2006. Good Practice Guidance for Mining and<br />
Biodiversity. ICMM, 19 Stratford Place, London W1C 1BQ, United Kingdom.<br />
International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). 2008. Planning for Integrated Mine Closure: Toolkit,<br />
ICMM, 19 Stratford Place, London W1C 1BQ, United Kingdom.<br />
International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2006. Performance Standard 6, Biodiversity Conservation and<br />
Sustainable Natural Resource Management, World Bank Group.<br />
ten Kate, K., Bishop, J., and Bayon, R. 2004. Biodiversity offsets: Views, experience, and the business case.<br />
IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and Insight Investment, London, UK. ISBN: 2-8317-0854-0.<br />
Kattan, G.H. 1992. Rarity and vulnerability: The Birds of the Cordillera Central of Colombia. Conservation<br />
Biology 6 (1): 64-70.<br />
Kleynhans, C.J. 1996. A qualitative procedure for the assessment of the habitat integrity status of the Luvuvhu<br />
River (Limpopo System, South Africa). J. Aquat. Ecosystem Health 5: 41-54 [see Appendix 3].<br />
Kleynhans, C.J. 1999. Comprehensive Habitat Integrity Assessment. In: Water Resources Protection. Policy<br />
Implementation. Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources. River Ecosystems. Version<br />
1 Department of Water Affairs and <strong>Forest</strong>ry [see Appendix 3].<br />
Meyers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Fonseca, G.A.B da and Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots<br />
for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853<strong>–</strong>858 [see Appendix 3].<br />
Parkes, D., Newell, G. and Cheal, D. 2003. Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the ‘habitat hectares’<br />
approach. Ecological Management and Restoration 4, S29-S38.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
62
References 63<br />
Rabinowitz, D.S., Cairns, S. and Dillon, T. 1986. Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of the<br />
British Isles. In Soulé, M. E. (eds.). Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer<br />
Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts.<br />
Rakotoarison, N., Zimmermann, H., & Zimmermann, E. 1997. First discovery of the hairy-eared dwarf lemur<br />
(Allocebus trichotis) in a higland rain forest of eastern <strong>Madagascar</strong>. Folia Primatologica 68 : 86-94 [see<br />
Appendix 3].<br />
Schmid, J. and Alonso, L.E. (eds). 2005. A rapid biological assessment of the Mantadia-Zahamena Corridor,<br />
<strong>Madagascar</strong>. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment No. 32. Conservation International. Washington, D.C.).<br />
Watson, J. E. 2007. Conservation of Bird Diversity in <strong>Madagascar</strong> Southeastern Littoral forest [see Appendix<br />
3].<br />
Whittaker, R.H., Bormann, F.H., Likens, G.E. and Siccama, T.G. 1974. The Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study:<br />
forest biomass and production. Ecol. Monogr. 44(2):233-254.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components<br />
Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score,<br />
December 2008 Iteration<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
64
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 65<br />
Key Biodiversity Components Matrix<br />
Biodiversity Component<br />
Significance<br />
Intrinsic, 'non use' Values<br />
Biodiversity Assessment<br />
Irreplaceability<br />
(mark only one)<br />
Global National Local Site Endemic Localized Widespread<br />
Species<br />
MAMMALS<br />
Prosimans (primates)<br />
Allocebus trichotis DD X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I Tabou<br />
Avahi laniger LC X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I<br />
Cheirogaleus crossleyi DD X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I<br />
Cheirogaleus major LC X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I<br />
Daubentonia madagascariensis NT X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I<br />
Eulemur fulvus fulvus NT X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I, pet trade<br />
Eulemur rubriventer VU X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I<br />
Hapalemur griseus griseus VU X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I<br />
Indri indri EN X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I Tabou Existence of illegal bush meat for all these lemur species<br />
Lepilemur microdon DD X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I<br />
Lepilemur mustelinus DD X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I<br />
Microcebus lehilahytsara DD X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I<br />
Microcebus rufus LC X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I<br />
Prolemur simus CR X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I Ecological services: main seeds disperseurs<br />
Propithecus d. diadema EN X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I Ecological services: main seeds disperseurs<br />
Varecia v. variegata<br />
Carnivores<br />
CR X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I<br />
Cryptoprocta ferox VU X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat<br />
Fossa fossana NT X illegal bush meat<br />
Galidia elegans<br />
Small mammals<br />
LC X illegal bush meat<br />
Brachytarsomis albicauda NE X illegal bush meat symbiotic to Allocebus trichotis<br />
Eliurus minor LC X illegal bush meat<br />
Eliurus tanala LC X illegal bush meat<br />
Eliurus webbi LC X illegal bush meat<br />
Microgale cowani LC X illegal bush meat<br />
Microgale drouhardi LC X illegal bush meat<br />
Microgale majori LC X illegal bush meat<br />
Microgale thomasi LC X illegal bush meat<br />
Myotis goudoti LC X illegal bush meat<br />
BIRDS<br />
Accipiter henstii NT X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Accipiter madagascariensis NT X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Acridotheres tristis NE X<br />
Agapornis cana cana LC X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Alectroenas madagascariensis LC X<br />
Anas melleri EN X<br />
Ardea humbloti EN X<br />
Asio madagascariensis LC X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Atelornis pittoides LC X<br />
Aviceda madagascariensis LC X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Berneria zosterops LC X<br />
Bernieria cinereiceps NT X<br />
Brachypteracias squamigera VU X<br />
Buteo brachypterus LC X<br />
Calicalicus madagascariensis LC X<br />
Canirallus kioloides LC X<br />
Caprimulgus enarratus LC X<br />
Caprimulgus madagascariensis LC X<br />
Circus m. macrosceles VU X<br />
Copsychus albospecularis LC X<br />
Coracopsis nigra nigra LC X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Coracopsis vasa vasa LC X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Coua caerulea LC X<br />
Coua reynaudii LC X<br />
Coua serriana LC X<br />
Crossleyia xanthophrys NT X<br />
Cyanolanius madagascarinus LC X<br />
Dromaeocercus brunneus LC X<br />
Eurystomus glaucurus LC X<br />
Falco eleonorae LC X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Falco newtoni newtoni LC X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Foudia madagascariensis LC X<br />
Foudia omissa LC X<br />
Gallinago macrodactyla NT X<br />
Hypsipetes madagascariensis LC X<br />
Leptopterus chabert LC X<br />
Lonchura nana LC X<br />
Lophotibis cristata NT X<br />
Margaroperdix madagascariensis LC X<br />
Milvus migrans LC X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Mystacornis crossleyi LC X<br />
Nectarinia notata LC X<br />
Neodrepanis coruscans LC X<br />
Neomixis flavoviridis NT X<br />
Neomixis tenella LC X<br />
Neomixis viridis LC X<br />
Nesillas typica LC X<br />
Newtonia brunneicauda LC X<br />
Ninox superciliaris LC X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Otus rutilus rutilus LC X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Oxylabes madagascariensis LC X<br />
Philepitta castanea LC X<br />
Ploceus nelicourvi LC X<br />
Polyboroides radiatus LC X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Rallus madagascariensis VU X<br />
Sarothrura insularis NE X<br />
Sarothrura watersi EN X<br />
Tylas eduardi LC X<br />
Tyto soumagnei EN X CITES I<br />
Vanga curvirostris LC X<br />
Xenopirostris polleni NT X<br />
Zosterops maderaspatana LC X<br />
Use Values<br />
Socioeconomic Values Cultural Values<br />
Justification<br />
(Insert comments here explaining<br />
data entered in columns A to I)<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 66<br />
Key Biodiversity Components Matrix<br />
Biodiversity Component<br />
Significance<br />
Intrinsic, 'non use' Values<br />
Biodiversity Assessment<br />
Irreplaceability<br />
(mark only one)<br />
Global National Local Site Endemic Localized Widespread<br />
Species<br />
REPTILES<br />
Amphiglossus melenopleura NE X<br />
Amphiglossus minutus NE X<br />
Amphiglossus mouroundavae NE X<br />
Amphiglossus punctatus NE X<br />
Brookesia superciliaris NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Brookesia therezieni NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Brookesia thieli NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Calumma brevicornis NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Calumma cf nasuta NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Calumma crypticum NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Calumma gastrotaenia NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Calumma malthe NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Calumma nasuta NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Calumma parsoni NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Ebenavia inunguis NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Exallodontophis albignaci NE X<br />
Furcifer lateralis NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Furcifer willsii NE rare X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Geodipsas laphystia NE X<br />
Itycyphus perineti NE X<br />
Leioheterodon madagascariensis NE X<br />
Liophidium nov. sp. 1 NE X<br />
Liophidium nov. sp. 2 NE X<br />
Liophidium rhodogaster NE X<br />
Liophidium torquatus NE X<br />
Liopholidophis dolicocercus NE X<br />
Liopholidophis epistibes NE X<br />
Liopholidophis infrasignatus NE X<br />
Liopholidophis pinguis NE X<br />
Liopholidophis thieli NE X<br />
Lygodactylus guibei NE X<br />
Lygodactylus miops NE X<br />
Mabuya gravenhorstii NE X<br />
<strong>Madagascar</strong>ophis colubrinus NE X<br />
Micropisthodon ochraceus NE rare X<br />
Paroedura gracilis NE X<br />
Phelsuma lineata bifasciata NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Phelsuma lineata lineata? NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Phelsuma madagascariensis NE X<br />
Phelsuma pronki NE high extinction risk X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Phelsuma pusilla hallmanni NE X<br />
Phelsuma quadriocellata bimaculata NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Phelsuma quadriocellata quadriocellata NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Pseudoxyrhopus microps NE X<br />
Pseudoxyrhopus tritaeniatus NE X<br />
Sanzinia madagascariensis VU X bushmeat, CITES I<br />
Stenophis arctifasciatus NE X<br />
Typhlops sp. NE X<br />
Uroplatus phantasticus NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Uroplatus pieschmanni NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Uroplatus sikorae NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Zonosaurus aeneus NE X<br />
Zonosaurus madagascariensis LC X<br />
AMPHIBIANS<br />
Aglyptodactylus madagascariensis LC X<br />
Anodonthyla boulengeri LC X<br />
Blommersia blommersae LC X<br />
Blommersia grandisonae LC X<br />
Boophis albilabris LC X<br />
Boophis boehmei NE X<br />
Boophis brachychir NE X<br />
Boophis burgeri NE X<br />
Boophis cf.burgeri NE X<br />
Boophis cf.miniatus NE X<br />
Boophis cf.sibilans NE X<br />
Boophis erythrodactylus LC X<br />
Boophis goudoti LC X<br />
Boophis guibei LC X<br />
Boophis idae LC X<br />
Boophis luteus LC X<br />
Boophis madagascariensis LC X<br />
Boophis marojezensis LC X<br />
Boophis nov. sp. NE X<br />
Boophis pyrrhus NE X<br />
Boophis reticulatus LC X<br />
Boophis sibilans DD X<br />
Boophis viridis LC X<br />
Gephyromantis cf. leucocephala NE X<br />
Gephyromantis asper NE X<br />
Gephyromantis boulengeri LC X<br />
Gephyromantis cf.boulengeri NE X<br />
Gephyromantis plicifer NT X<br />
Guibemantis albolineatus DD X<br />
Guibemantis cf. bicalcaratus NE X<br />
Guibemantis cf.albolineatus NE X<br />
Guibemantis depressiceps LC X<br />
Guibemantis flavobrunneus NE X<br />
Guibemantis liber LC X<br />
Guibemantis tornieri LC X<br />
Heterixalus betsileo LC X<br />
Mantella aurantiaca CR X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Mantella baroni NE X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Mantella crocea EN X pet trade, CITES II<br />
Mantidactylus argenteus LC X<br />
Mantidactylus betsileanus LC X<br />
Use Values<br />
Socioeconomic Values Cultural Values<br />
Justification<br />
(Insert comments here explaining<br />
data entered in columns A to I)<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 67<br />
Key Biodiversity Components Matrix<br />
Biodiversity Component<br />
Significance<br />
Intrinsic, 'non use' Values<br />
Global National Local Site Endemic Localized Widespread<br />
Species<br />
Mantidactylus cf. betsileanus NE X<br />
Mantidactylus femoralis LC X<br />
Mantidactylus guttulatus LC X<br />
Mantidactylus melanopleura LC X<br />
Mantidactylus opiparis LC X<br />
Mantidactylus sp. C NE X<br />
Mantidactylus sp. H NE X<br />
Mantidactylus zipperi LC X<br />
Paradoxophyla palmata NE X<br />
Platypelis barbouri LC X<br />
Platypelis cf.barbouri NE X<br />
Platypelis grandis LC X<br />
Platypelis pollicaris DD X<br />
Platypelis sp. (aff. mavomavo) NE X<br />
Platypelis sp.nov NE new undescribed species X<br />
Platypelis tuberifera LC X<br />
Plethodontohyla inguinalis LC X<br />
Plethodontohyla mihanika LC X<br />
Plethodontohyla notosticta LC X<br />
Plethodontohyla nov. sp. NE X<br />
Plethodontohyla sp. NE X<br />
Rhombophryne alluaudi LC X<br />
Rhombophryne coronata VU X<br />
Rhombophryne coronata VU X<br />
Scaphiophryne marmorata VU X<br />
Scaphiophryne spinosa NE X<br />
Spinomantis aglavei LC X<br />
Spinomantis phantasticus NE X<br />
Stumpffia sp. "kibomena" NE X<br />
FISH<br />
Ratsirakia sp nov 1 (Mangoro catchment) NE new undescribed species X<br />
Ratsirakia sp nov 2 (Berano catchment) NE new undescribed species X<br />
Rheocles alaotrensis VU X<br />
Rheocles spp ? (Berano catchment) NE potential new species X<br />
Rheocles spp ? (Mangoro catchment) NE potential new species X<br />
Biodiversity Assessment<br />
Irreplaceability<br />
(mark only one)<br />
INSECTS<br />
Amblyopone sp. mad-01 NE rare X<br />
Amblyopone sp.2 NE rare X<br />
Artitropa hollandi NE rare X<br />
Cerapachys lividus NE rare X<br />
Cerapachys sp. mad-38 NE rare X<br />
Cerapachys sp.6 NE rare X<br />
Cerapachys sp.7 NE rare X<br />
Coeliades fidia NE rare X<br />
Colotis lucasi NE rare X<br />
Fulda imorina NE rare X<br />
Heteropsis andasibe NE rare X<br />
Heteropsis paradoxa NE rare X<br />
Hovala sp. 2 NE rare X<br />
Malaza carmides NE rare X<br />
Mystrium mysticum NE rare X<br />
Mystrium rogeri NE rare X<br />
Proceratium sp.1 NE rare X<br />
Smerina manoro NE rare X<br />
Strabena consobrina NE rare X<br />
Strabena dyscola NE rare X<br />
Strabena modestissima NE rare X<br />
Strabena niveata NE rare X<br />
Strabena perroti NE rare X<br />
Vitsika sp.1 NE rare X<br />
Use Values<br />
Socioeconomic Values Cultural Values<br />
Justification<br />
(Insert comments here explaining<br />
data entered in columns A to I)<br />
FLORA<br />
Adenia acuta rare X<br />
Aerangis citrata rare X ornemental<br />
Aerangis fastuosa rare X ornemental<br />
Aerangis macrocentra rare X ornemental<br />
Aerangis sp. rare X ornemental<br />
Aerangis stylosa rare X ornemental<br />
Aeranthes adenopoda rare X ornemental<br />
Aeranthes angustidens rare X ornemental<br />
Aeranthes antennophora rare X ornemental<br />
Aeranthes ecalcarata rare X ornemental<br />
Aeranthes fasciola rare X ornemental<br />
Aeranthes longipes rare X ornemental<br />
Aeranthes nidus rare X ornemental<br />
Aeranthes peyrotii rare X ornemental<br />
Aeranthes sp. rare X ornemental<br />
Aloe leandrii rare X medicinal value<br />
Amyrea sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Angraecum calceolus rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum caricifolium rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum chaetopodum rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum chloranthum rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum compactum rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum danguyanum rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum filicornu rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum finetianum rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum germinyanum rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum graminifolium rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum humblotianum rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum lecomtei rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum linearifolium rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum mauritianum rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum panicifolium rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum pinifolium rare X ornemental<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 68<br />
Key Biodiversity Components Matrix<br />
Biodiversity Component<br />
Significance<br />
Intrinsic, 'non use' Values<br />
Biodiversity Assessment<br />
Irreplaceability<br />
(mark only one)<br />
Global National Local Site Endemic Localized Widespread<br />
Use Values<br />
Socioeconomic Values Cultural Values<br />
Justification<br />
(Insert comments here explaining<br />
data entered in columns A to I)<br />
Species<br />
Angraecum rhynchoglossum rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum rostratum rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum sedifolium rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum setipes rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum sp. rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum teretifolium rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum urschianum rare X ornemental<br />
Angraecum viguieri rare X ornemental<br />
Antirhea borbonica rare X<br />
Asparagus similens X Magical against demonic possessions<br />
Aspidostemon conoideum rare X<br />
Asplenium nidus patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Asplenium sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Asteropeia mcphersonii VU rare X timber for construction, bark = medicinal<br />
Astrotrichilia parvifolia rare X<br />
Baroniella acuminata rare X<br />
Baroniella linearis rare X<br />
Bathioramnus sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Benthamia sp. rare X ornemental<br />
Biophytum sp. nov. rare X ornemental<br />
Brexia montana rare X<br />
Bulbomolossus sp1 patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Bulbomolossus sp2 patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Bulbophyllum alexandrae rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum analamazoatrae rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum ankaizinense rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum aubrevillei rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum auriflorum rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum baronii rare,patrimonial value X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum complanatum rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum coriophorum rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum francoisii rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum leandrianum rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum longiflorum rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum lyperocephalum rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum molossus rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum multiflorum rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum occlusum rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum occultum rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum oxycalyx rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum pachypus rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum peyrotii rarepatrimonial value X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum platypodum rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum rhizomatosum rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum sandrangatense rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum sp. indet. rare X ornemental<br />
Bulbophyllum sulfureum rare X ornemental<br />
Burasaia sp. nov A rare X<br />
Byttneria heteromorpha rare X<br />
Caesalpinia delphinensis rare X<br />
Calantica sp nov. rare X<br />
Calophyllum mulvis X Magical against thunder<br />
Canarium sp. 2 (egregium) rare X<br />
Carallia brachiata X Magical astrology<br />
Carex sphaerogyna rare X<br />
Cassinopsis sp. nov. rare X<br />
Ceropegia cf. racemosa rare X<br />
Chassalia bojeri rare X<br />
Chassalia leptothyrsa rare X<br />
Chassalia stenantha rare X<br />
Cheirostylis gymnochiloides rare X ornemental<br />
Cirrhopetalum longiflorum rare X ornemental<br />
Claoxylon lancifolium rare X<br />
Claoxylopsis purpurascens rare X<br />
Cleistanthus sp. 1 rare X<br />
Coffea liaudii rare X<br />
Coffea mangoroensis rare, patrimonial value X<br />
Colea fusca rare X<br />
Colea sp nov. A rare X<br />
Combretum sp. nov. rare X<br />
Coptosperma sp. nov. '17' rare X<br />
Coptosperma sp. nov. '36' rare X<br />
Craterispermum laurinum rare X<br />
Croton alceicornu rare X<br />
Croton droguetioides rare X<br />
Croton lepidotoides rare X<br />
Croton sp. cf. jennyanum rare X<br />
Croton sp. nov. cf nitidulus 'cinereum' rare X<br />
Cryptocarya myristicoides rare X<br />
Cryptocarya pervillei rare X<br />
Cryptocarya spathulata rare X<br />
Cryptopus brachiatus rare X ornemental<br />
Cryptopus paniculatus rare X ornemental<br />
Cyathea cf tsaratananensis CITES II<br />
Cyathea dregei X CITES II<br />
Cyathea hildebrandtii rare X<br />
Cynanchum moramangense rare X<br />
Cynorkis angustipetala rare X ornemental<br />
Cynorkis aurantiaca rare X ornemental<br />
Cynorkis fastigiata rare X ornemental<br />
Cynorkis flexuosa rare X ornemental<br />
Cynorkis gibbosa rare X ornemental<br />
Cynorkis graminea rare X ornemental<br />
Cynorkis jumelleana rare X ornemental<br />
Cynorkis lilacina rare X ornemental<br />
Cynorkis lowiana rare X ornemental<br />
Cynorkis purpurascens rare X ornemental<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 69<br />
Key Biodiversity Components Matrix<br />
Biodiversity Component<br />
Significance<br />
Intrinsic, 'non use' Values<br />
Biodiversity Assessment<br />
Irreplaceability<br />
(mark only one)<br />
Global National Local Site Endemic Localized Widespread<br />
Use Values<br />
Socioeconomic Values Cultural Values<br />
Justification<br />
(Insert comments here explaining<br />
data entered in columns A to I)<br />
Species<br />
Cynorkis ridleyi rare X ornemental<br />
Cynorkis sp. rare X ornemental<br />
Cynorkis uncinata rare X ornemental<br />
Cyperus longifolius rare X<br />
Dalbergia baronii VU X timber for furniture (rose wood)<br />
Danais andribensis rare X<br />
Danais humblotii rare X<br />
Danais ligustrifolia rare X<br />
Danais pauciflora rare X<br />
Danais pubescens rare X<br />
Dicoryphe laurina rare X<br />
Dilobea thouarsii patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Diospyros sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Diporidium louvelii rare X<br />
Disperis oppositifolia rare X ornemental<br />
Distephanus aff. garnieriana rare X<br />
Dombeya biumbellata rare X<br />
Dombeya megaphylla rare X<br />
Dombeya sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Dombeya spectabilis rare X<br />
Dracaena sp. 3 rare X<br />
Dracaena sp2 patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Dypsis sp. nov. 2 (aff. hildebrandtii) rare X<br />
Elaphoglossum sp. 'B' rare X<br />
Embelia nummulariifolia rare X<br />
Erica sp. 'senescens' rare X<br />
Erythroxylum "sp. 2 rare X<br />
Erythroxylum ferrugineum rare X<br />
Erythroxylum sp. 1 rare X<br />
Erythroxylum sp. 3 rare X<br />
Erythroxylum sp. 4 rare X<br />
Erythroxylum sp. 5 rare X<br />
Erythroxylum sp. 6 rare X<br />
Erythroxylum sp. 7 rare X<br />
Erythroxylum sp. 8 rare X<br />
Eugenia alaotrensis rare X<br />
Eugenia arthroopoda rare X<br />
Eugenia goviala rare X<br />
Eugenia sp. Nov 3 rare X<br />
Eugenia sp. Nov 4 rare X<br />
Eugenia sp. Nov. 1 rare X<br />
Eugenia sp. Nov. 2 rare X<br />
Euphorbia rangovalensis rare X<br />
Exacum bulbilliferum rare X<br />
Filicium sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Gaertnera aff. Pauciflora rare X<br />
Gaertnera madagascariensis rare X<br />
Gaertnera obovata rare X<br />
Gaertnera obovata rare X<br />
Gaertnera phanerophlebia rare X<br />
Gaertnera phyllostachya rare X<br />
Gallienia sclerophylla rare X<br />
Gastropis sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Gastrorchis francoisii rare X ornemental<br />
Gastrorchis humblotii rare X ornemental<br />
Gastrorchis pulchra rare X ornemental<br />
Gouania mauritiana X Magical against evil spirits<br />
Grammangis ellisii rare X ornemental<br />
Grammangis sp. indet. rare X ornemental<br />
Gravesia setifera rare X<br />
Gravesia setifera vel. sp.aff. rare X<br />
Gravesia sp. nov. cf. baronii rare X<br />
Gravesia tanalensis rare X<br />
Gussonea gilpinae rare X ornemental<br />
Habenaria sp. indet. rare X ornemental<br />
Helichrysum sp. nov. aff. ambondrombeense rare X<br />
Homalium axillare rare X<br />
Homalium maringitra rare X<br />
Homolliella sericea rare X<br />
Homolliella sp. nov. 'pauciflora' ined. rare X<br />
Hyperacanthus sp. indet. rare X<br />
Hyperacanthus sp. nov. ined. 'mangoroensis' rare X<br />
Hyperacanthus thouvenotii rare X<br />
Inula speciosa rare X<br />
Ixora trichocalyx rare X<br />
Jasminum sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Jumellea arborescens rare X ornemental<br />
Jumellea brachycentra rare X ornemental<br />
Jumellea francoisii rare X ornemental<br />
Jumellea gracilipes rare X ornemental<br />
Jumellea lignosa rare X ornemental<br />
Jumellea punctata rare X ornemental<br />
Jumellea sagittata rare X ornemental<br />
Jumellea sp. rare X ornemental<br />
Jumellea teretifolia rare X ornemental<br />
Keraudrenia macrantha rare X<br />
Khaya madagascariensis rare X<br />
Korthalsella commersonii rare X<br />
Lemurella virescens rare X ornemental<br />
Lemyrea sp. rare X<br />
Leptolaena multiflora EN X timber for construction, bark = medicinal<br />
Leptolaena sp2 patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Liparis bulbophylloides rare X ornemental<br />
Liparis hildebrandtiana rare X ornemental<br />
Liparis jumelleana rare X ornemental<br />
Liparis longicaulis rare X ornemental<br />
Liparis sp rare X ornemental<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 70<br />
Key Biodiversity Components Matrix<br />
Biodiversity Component<br />
Significance<br />
Intrinsic, 'non use' Values<br />
Biodiversity Assessment<br />
Irreplaceability<br />
(mark only one)<br />
Global National Local Site Endemic Localized Widespread<br />
Use Values<br />
Socioeconomic Values Cultural Values<br />
Justification<br />
(Insert comments here explaining<br />
data entered in columns A to I)<br />
Species<br />
Ludia madagascariensis rare X<br />
Ludia sp. nov. 1.aff. scolopioides rare X<br />
Ludia sp. nov. 2 rare X<br />
Ludia sp. nov. 3 rare X<br />
Ludwia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Macaranga racemosa rare X<br />
Mailardia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Margaritaria sp. nov. A rare X<br />
Medinilla cf. oblongifolia rare X<br />
Medinilla chermezonii rare X<br />
Medinilla lophoclada rare X<br />
Medinilla mandrakensis rare X<br />
Medinilla micrantha rare X<br />
Medinilla sp nov 2. rare X<br />
Medinilla sp. nov. 1 rare X<br />
Meineckia orientalis rare X<br />
Melicope discolor rare X<br />
Melicope sp. nov. rare X<br />
Memecylon faucherei rare X<br />
Memecylon sp. nov. aff. vaccinioides rare X<br />
Mendoncia sp. nov. 1 rare X<br />
Microcoelia gilpinae rare X ornemental<br />
Microcoelia macrantha rare X ornemental<br />
Molinaea sp. nov rare X<br />
Morinda retusa rare X<br />
Morinda sp. nov. rare X<br />
Mussaenda arcuata rare X<br />
Neobathia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Nervilia bicarinata rare X ornemental<br />
Noronhia emarginata rare X<br />
Noronhia gracilipes rare X<br />
Noronhia louvelii rare X<br />
Noronhia sp nov. A rare X<br />
Noronhia sp. nov E rare X<br />
Noronhia sp. nov. C rare X<br />
Oberonia disticha rare X ornemental<br />
Ochrocarpos orthocladus rare X<br />
Oeonia oncidiiflora rare X ornemental<br />
Oeonia rosea rare X ornemental<br />
Oeonia volucris rare X ornemental<br />
Oeoniella polystachys rare X ornemental<br />
Olax emirnensis X Magical against bad luck<br />
Oldenlandia lancifolia rare X<br />
Oldenlandia trinervia rare X<br />
Oncostemum cauliflorum rare X<br />
Oncostemum evonymoides rare X<br />
Oncostemum filicinum rare X<br />
Oncostemum humbertianum rare X<br />
Oncostemum laevigatum rare X<br />
Oncostemum linearisepalum rare X<br />
Oncostemum neriifolium rare X<br />
Oncostemum nitidulum rare X<br />
Oncostemum oliganthum rare X<br />
Oncostemum paniculatum rare X<br />
Oncostemum sp nov aff. triflorum rare X<br />
Oncostemum sp. cf. leprosum rare X<br />
Oncostemum sp. nov. D rare X<br />
Oncostemum triflorum rare X<br />
Paederia mandrarensis rare X<br />
Pauridiantha paucinervis rare X<br />
Pellaea sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Peltiera nitida rare X<br />
Pentopetia cotoneaster rare X<br />
Pentopetia longipetala rare X<br />
Pentopetia pinnata rare X<br />
Phaius pulchellus rare X ornemental<br />
Phaius pulcher rare X ornemental<br />
Phylica emirnensis rare X<br />
Phyllanthus moramangicus rare X<br />
Phyllarthron sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Phylloxylum sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Platylepis polyadenia rare X ornemental<br />
Plectrantus sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Podocarpus sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Polyscias sp. nov. 'abrahamiana' rare X<br />
Polyscias sp. nov. 'ambatovyensis' rare X<br />
Polyscias sp. nov. 'anjozorobensis' rare X<br />
Polystachya aurantiaca rare X ornemental<br />
Polystachya concreta rare X ornemental<br />
Polystachya cornigera rare X ornemental<br />
Polystachya cultriformis rare X ornemental<br />
Polystachya fusiformis rare X ornemental<br />
Polystachya humberti rare X ornemental<br />
Polystachya mauritiana rare X ornemental<br />
Polystachya rosea rare X ornemental<br />
Polystachya rosellata rare X ornemental<br />
Polystachya sp. rare X ornemental<br />
Polystachya tsinjoarivensis rare X ornemental<br />
Pseudopteris sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Psorospermum nervosum rare X<br />
Psorospermum sp. nov. A. aff. rienanense rare X<br />
Psorospermum sp. nov. B. rare X<br />
Psychotria sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Psychotria taxifolia rare X<br />
Pycreus ferrugineus rare X<br />
Pyrenacantha humblotii rare X<br />
Pyrenacantha laetevirens rare X<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 71<br />
Key Biodiversity Components Matrix<br />
Biodiversity Component<br />
Significance<br />
Intrinsic, 'non use' Values<br />
Global National Local Site Endemic Localized Widespread<br />
Species<br />
Pyrostria analamazaotrensis rare X<br />
Rhodolaena bakeriana patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Rhynchospora sp. nov. 1 rare X<br />
Saldinia coursiana rare X<br />
Saldinia mandracensis rare X<br />
Saldinia myrtilloides rare X<br />
Saldinia proboscidea rare X<br />
Saldinia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Sarcolaena sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Schismatoclada concinna rare X<br />
Schismatoclada psychotrioides rare X<br />
Scleria madagascariensis rare X<br />
Scolopia taimbarina rare X<br />
Scolopia thouvenoti rare X<br />
Secamone glaberrima rare X<br />
Secamone sp. aff. Perrieri rare X<br />
Secamone sp. nov. 1 rare X<br />
Selaginella lyalii patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Senecio vel. sp. aff. multidenticulatus rare X<br />
Stenandrium amoenum rare X<br />
Syzigium sp. 1 rare X<br />
Syzigium sp. 2 rare X<br />
Syzigium sp. 3 rare X<br />
Syzygium bernieri rare X<br />
Syzygium condensatum rare X<br />
Syzygium emirnense rare X<br />
Syzygium lugubre rare X<br />
Syzygium onivense rare X<br />
Syzygium parkeri rare X<br />
Tacca sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Tambourissa capuronii rare X<br />
Tambourissa sp nov. aff. mandrarensis rare X<br />
Tambourissa sp. nov. A rare X<br />
Tambourissa trichophylla rare X<br />
Tarenna alleizettei rare X<br />
Tarenna sp. nov. aff spiranthera rare X<br />
Terminalia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Terminalia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Tragia perrieri rare X<br />
Tricalysia sp. ined. 'analamazaotrensis' rare X<br />
Tristellateia grandiflora rare X<br />
Vepris sp1 patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Vepris sp2 patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Vigueranthus sp_ patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Viguieranthus sp. X Magical sorcellery<br />
Viscum multicostatum rare X<br />
Viscum radula rare X<br />
Viscum sp. Nov. 1 rare X<br />
Viscum sp. Nov. 2 rare X<br />
Vitex coursii rare X<br />
Vitex oscitans rare X<br />
Xylopia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG<br />
Communities/Habitats<br />
Azonal thicket X X medecinal, bushmeat<br />
Disturbed azonal thicket X X medecinal, bushmeat<br />
Azonal forest X X medecinal, bushmeat<br />
Disturbed azonal forest X X medecinal, bushmeat<br />
Brunt azonal forest X<br />
Disturbed azonal habitat (sucessions I and II) X X<br />
Disturbed azonal habitat (sparse vegetation) X<br />
Transitional forest of azonal influence on gabbro sustratum X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources<br />
Distrubed transitional forest of azonal influence on gabbro sustratum X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources<br />
Transitional forest X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources<br />
Exploited transitional forest X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources<br />
Moderately exploited zonal forest X X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources<br />
Moderately exploited zonal gallery forest X X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources<br />
Heavily exploited zonal forest (with other disturbances), mine and pipeline timber, medecinal, bushmeat<br />
Ephemeral ponds X X<br />
Biodiversity Assessment<br />
Irreplaceability<br />
(mark only one)<br />
Streams X X water resources<br />
Use Values<br />
Socioeconomic Values Cultural Values<br />
Whole Landscapes/Ecosystems<br />
Edaphic mid-altitudinal eastern humid forest on laterite profil above ultramafic X outcrop<br />
X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources<br />
Justification<br />
(Insert comments here explaining<br />
data entered in columns A to I)<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 72<br />
Key to Global Significance Criteria<br />
Further detailed information is available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/categories_criteria2001.<br />
EXTINCT (EX)<br />
A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died. A taxon is presumed<br />
Extinct when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal,<br />
annual), throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame<br />
appropriate to the taxon's life cycle and life form.<br />
EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW)<br />
A taxon is Extinct in the Wild when it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalized<br />
population (or populations) well outside the past range. A taxon is presumed Extinct in the Wild when<br />
exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual),<br />
throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame<br />
appropriate to the taxon's life cycle and life form.<br />
CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR)<br />
A taxon is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A<br />
to E for Critically Endangered (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing an extremely high<br />
risk of extinction in the wild.<br />
ENDANGERED (EN)<br />
A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for<br />
Endangered (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the<br />
wild.<br />
VULNERABLE (VU)<br />
A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for<br />
Vulnerable (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild.<br />
NEAR THREATENED (NT)<br />
A taxon is Near Threatened when it has been evaluated against the criteria but does not qualify for Critically<br />
Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable now, but is close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened<br />
category in the near future.<br />
LEAST CONCERN (LC)<br />
A taxon is Least Concern when it has been evaluated against the criteria and does not qualify for Critically<br />
Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened. Widespread and abundant taxa are included in<br />
this category.<br />
DATA DEFICIENT (DD)<br />
A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its<br />
risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status. A taxon in this category may be well<br />
studied, and its biology well known, but appropriate data on abundance and/or distribution are lacking. Data<br />
Deficient is therefore not a category of threat. Listing of taxa in this category indicates that more information is<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 73<br />
required and acknowledges the possibility that future research will show that threatened classification is<br />
appropriate. It is important to make positive use of whatever data are available. In many cases great care<br />
should be exercised in choosing between DD and a threatened status. If the range of a taxon is suspected to<br />
be relatively circumscribed, and a considerable period of time has elapsed since the last record of the taxon,<br />
threatened status may well be justified.<br />
NOT EVALUATED (NE)<br />
A taxon is Not Evaluated when it is has not yet been evaluated against the criteria.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 74<br />
CALCULATING BIODIVERSITY LOSS AT IMPACT SITE<br />
(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through <strong>Project</strong> Impact, via Habitat Hectares)<br />
Attribute<br />
Steams<br />
Number of tree<br />
species<br />
Canopy height<br />
1. To the left, label each pre-project site condition class found.<br />
(Three or less. e.g. "pristine", "good", "degraded", or "good", "poor", etc.)<br />
2. Fill in the area of …<br />
(enter "0" for non-relevent<br />
condition classes and<br />
impact levels)<br />
BENCHMARK<br />
Reference Level<br />
Units/<br />
#<br />
Bands<br />
Basal area 19.6 m2/ha<br />
Dbh<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema density<br />
Allocebus density 0.025 number/h<br />
a<br />
Indri indri density 0.013 number/h<br />
a<br />
Weight<br />
Each Site Class…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites…<br />
Habitat Type 1:<br />
Azonal thicket<br />
… of Condition …of Condition Class …of Condition<br />
Class 1:<br />
Quasi pristine<br />
2:<br />
Disturbed primary<br />
Class 3:<br />
primary forest<br />
forest<br />
590.74 475.55<br />
0<br />
528.86 427.22<br />
0<br />
61.88<br />
48.33 0<br />
0 0 0<br />
Total Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost:<br />
3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in<br />
question…<br />
Condition Class 1: Condition Class 2: Condition Class 3:<br />
Quasi pristine Disturbed primary<br />
0<br />
Rationale<br />
Trad'ble/<br />
Pre/Post-<strong>Project</strong> Conditions primary forest<br />
forest<br />
Habitat<br />
(enter comments explaining data in columns<br />
Non?<br />
Condition/ Net Condition/ Net Condition/ Net Hectares Lost<br />
B to Q)<br />
(T/NT)<br />
Level Loss Level Loss Level Loss<br />
1015<br />
stems<br />
number/h<br />
a<br />
0.15 NT<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong><br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites<br />
911<br />
0<br />
911<br />
911<br />
0<br />
0<br />
285<br />
0<br />
285<br />
285<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
89.19445714<br />
41<br />
Tree<br />
species/h<br />
a<br />
0.2 NT<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong><br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites<br />
43<br />
0<br />
43<br />
43<br />
0<br />
0<br />
18<br />
0<br />
18<br />
18<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
148.4436098<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 8.98 5.45<br />
11.5 Meter 0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
8.98<br />
8.98<br />
0<br />
0<br />
5.45<br />
5.45<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
30.77179043<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 19.42 3.55<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
19.42<br />
19.42<br />
0<br />
0<br />
3.55<br />
3.55<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
30.06911276<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 13.29 9.95<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
13.29<br />
13.29<br />
0<br />
0<br />
9.95<br />
9.95<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
57.90240452<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.033 0<br />
0.033 0.2 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
0.033<br />
0.033<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
105.772<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.0248 0<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
0.0248<br />
0.0248<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
52.886<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.013 0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
0.013<br />
0.013<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
number/h<br />
9.74 cm<br />
a<br />
0.2 NT<br />
104.9645802<br />
620.00<br />
No mitigation Year _0<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 75<br />
LOSS AT IMPACT SITE<br />
(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through <strong>Project</strong> Impact, via Habitat Hectares)<br />
Attribute<br />
Stems<br />
Number of Tree species<br />
Canopy height<br />
BENCHMARK<br />
Reference Level<br />
Units/<br />
#<br />
Bands<br />
Basal area 24.87 m2/ha<br />
Dbh<br />
Propithecus diadema<br />
density<br />
1. To the left, label each pre-project site condition class found.<br />
8.55<br />
7.65 cm<br />
0.033 number/h<br />
a<br />
Allocebus density 0.0248 number/h<br />
a<br />
Indri indri density 0.0131 number/h<br />
a<br />
(Three or less. e.g. "pristine", "good", "degraded", or "good", "poor", etc.)<br />
1273<br />
138<br />
2. Fill in the area of …<br />
(enter "0" for non-relevent<br />
condition classes and<br />
impact levels)<br />
stems/ha<br />
Tree<br />
species/h<br />
a<br />
m<br />
Weight<br />
Trad'ble/<br />
Non?<br />
(T/NT)<br />
Each Site Class…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites…<br />
… of Condition Class 1:<br />
Quasi pristine primary<br />
forest<br />
forest<br />
Condition/<br />
Level<br />
Net<br />
Loss<br />
…of Condition Class 2:<br />
Disturbed primary<br />
forest<br />
126.37 328.22<br />
Condition Class 1:<br />
Quasi pristine primary<br />
forest<br />
Condition/<br />
Level<br />
Net<br />
Loss<br />
Condition/<br />
Level<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 1045 880<br />
0.15 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 1045<br />
1045<br />
0 880<br />
880<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
29.6630597<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 138 55<br />
0.2 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 138<br />
138<br />
0 55<br />
55<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
28.42585507<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 8.48 10.1<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 8.48<br />
8.48<br />
0 10.1<br />
10.1<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
15.79959298<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 23.88 17.2<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 23.88<br />
23.88<br />
0 17.2<br />
17.2<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
10.26298834<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 12.26 9.18<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 12.26<br />
12.26<br />
0 9.18<br />
9.18<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
17.63817778<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.033 0.033<br />
0.2 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 0.033<br />
0.033<br />
0 0.033<br />
0.033<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
55.212<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.0248 0.0248<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 0.0248<br />
0.0248<br />
0 0.0248<br />
0.0248<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
27.606<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.013 0.013<br />
0.2 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 0.013<br />
0.013<br />
0 0.013<br />
0.013<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
54.79053435<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
105.54<br />
Condition Class 2:<br />
Disturbed primary<br />
[Fill in name here]<br />
3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in question…<br />
Pre/Post-<strong>Project</strong> Conditions<br />
72.99<br />
Habitat Type 2:<br />
53.38 222.68<br />
Transitional <strong>Forest</strong>s<br />
…of Condition Class 3:<br />
Condition Class 3:<br />
[Fill in name here]<br />
Net<br />
Loss<br />
Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost<br />
Total Habitat Hectares Lost: 239<br />
Rationale<br />
(enter comments explaining data in columns B to Q)<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 76<br />
LOSS AT IMPACT SITE<br />
(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through <strong>Project</strong> Impact, via Habitat Hectares)<br />
Attribute<br />
Stems<br />
Number of tree species<br />
Canopy height<br />
1. To the left, label each pre-project site condition class found.<br />
(Three or less. e.g. "pristine", "good", "degraded", or "good", "poor", etc.)<br />
2. Fill in the area of …<br />
(enter "0" for non-relevent<br />
condition classes and<br />
impact levels)<br />
BENCHMARK<br />
Reference Level<br />
Units/<br />
#<br />
Bands<br />
Basal area 22 m2/ha<br />
Dbh<br />
Propithecus diadema<br />
density<br />
Allocebus density 0.0248 number/h<br />
a<br />
Indri indri density 0.0131 number/h<br />
a<br />
Weight<br />
Each Site Class…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites…<br />
Habitat Type 3:<br />
Zonal <strong>Forest</strong>s<br />
… of Condition Class 1: …of Condition Class 2:<br />
Quasi pristine primary Disturbed primary<br />
forest<br />
forest<br />
…of Condition Class 3:<br />
[Fill in name here]<br />
412.74 124.97<br />
256.9 14.94<br />
155.84<br />
110.03<br />
Total Habitat Hectares Lost: 305.13<br />
3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in question…<br />
Trad'ble/<br />
Non?<br />
(T/NT)<br />
Pre/Post-<strong>Project</strong> Conditions<br />
Condition Class 1:<br />
Quasi pristine primary<br />
forest<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Condition Class 2:<br />
Disturbed primary<br />
forest<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Condition Class 3:<br />
[Fill in name here]<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost<br />
Rationale<br />
(enter comments explaining data in columns B to Q)<br />
1065<br />
Stem<br />
number/h<br />
a<br />
0.15 NT<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong><br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites<br />
1207<br />
1207<br />
1207<br />
0<br />
1207<br />
970<br />
970<br />
970<br />
0<br />
970<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
45.71409859<br />
72<br />
Tree<br />
species/h<br />
a<br />
0.2 NT<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong><br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites<br />
107<br />
107<br />
107<br />
0<br />
107<br />
30<br />
30<br />
30<br />
0<br />
30<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
77.60138889<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 10.5 12.65<br />
9.9 meter 0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 10.5<br />
10.5<br />
0 12.65<br />
12.65<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
14.57798485<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 10.5 12.65 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 33.3 21.65<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 33.3<br />
33.3<br />
0 21.65<br />
21.65<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
20.177775<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 33.3 21.65 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 13.77 15.44<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 13.37<br />
13.77<br />
0.4 15.44<br />
15.44<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
12.84548156<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 13.77 15.44 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.033 0.033<br />
0.033 0.2 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 0.033<br />
0.033<br />
0 0.033<br />
0.033<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
54.368<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.033 0.033 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.025 0<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 0.025<br />
0.025<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
25.89717742<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.025 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.013 0.013<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites 0.013<br />
0.013<br />
0 0.013<br />
0.013<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.013 0.013 0<br />
number/h<br />
14.91 cm<br />
a<br />
0.2 NT<br />
53.9529771<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 77<br />
LOSS AT IMPACT SITE<br />
(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through <strong>Project</strong> Impact, via Habitat Hectares)<br />
Attribute<br />
Stems<br />
Number of tree species<br />
Canopy height<br />
Volume 34.17 m3/ha<br />
Dbh<br />
Propithecus diadema<br />
density<br />
1. To the left, label each pre-project site condition class found.<br />
(Three or less. e.g. "pristine", "good", "degraded", or "good", "poor", etc.)<br />
9.9<br />
14.91 cm<br />
0.033 number/h<br />
a<br />
Allocebus density 0.0248 number/h<br />
a<br />
Indri indri density 0.0131 number/h<br />
a<br />
Weight<br />
Each Site Class…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites…<br />
BENCHMARK<br />
Condition Class 1:<br />
Reference Level<br />
Units/<br />
#<br />
Bands<br />
Trad'ble/<br />
Non?<br />
(T/NT)<br />
Pre/Post-<strong>Project</strong> Conditions<br />
0<br />
Condition/<br />
Level<br />
Net<br />
Loss<br />
1065<br />
72<br />
2. Fill in the area of …<br />
(enter "0" for non-relevent<br />
condition classes and<br />
impact levels)<br />
Stems/ha<br />
Tree<br />
species/5<br />
00m2<br />
m<br />
Habitat Type 4:<br />
… of Condition Class 1: …of Condition Class 2: …of Condition Class 3:<br />
Heavily fragmented and<br />
degraded primary forest<br />
71.04<br />
3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in question…<br />
Condition Class 2:<br />
0<br />
Condition/<br />
Level<br />
Pipeline degraded zonal forests<br />
Net<br />
Loss<br />
Condition/<br />
Level<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 104<br />
0.15 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0 104<br />
104<br />
0<br />
0.241690141<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 104<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 45<br />
0.2 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0 45<br />
45<br />
0<br />
2.0625<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 45<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 4.139<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0 4.139<br />
4.139<br />
0<br />
0.344916667<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 4.139<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 14.502<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0 14.502<br />
14.502<br />
0<br />
0.350136084<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 14.502<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 14.978<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0 14.978<br />
14.978<br />
0<br />
0.828762575<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 14.978<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0<br />
0.2 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0<br />
0.2 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0<br />
16.5<br />
4.95<br />
Condition Class 3:<br />
Heavily fragmented and<br />
degraded primary forest<br />
Net<br />
Loss<br />
Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost<br />
Total Habitat Hectares Lost: 3.83<br />
Rationale<br />
(enter comments explaining data in columns B to Q)<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 2: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and<br />
Habitat Hectares Score, February 2008 Iteration<br />
Key Biodiversity Components Matrix<br />
Biodiversity Component<br />
Biodiversity Assessment<br />
Intrinsic, 'non use' Values<br />
Irreplaceability<br />
Significance<br />
(mark only one)<br />
Global National Local Site Endemic Localized Widespread<br />
Socioeconomic<br />
Values<br />
Use Values<br />
Cultural Values<br />
Justification<br />
(Insert comments here explaining data entered in columns<br />
A to I)<br />
Species<br />
Prolemur simus CR X Ecotourism, bush meat Ecological services: main seeds disperseurs<br />
Propithecus d. diadema CR X Ecotourism, bush meat Tabou Existence of illegal bush meat for all these lemur species<br />
Indri indri EN X Ecotourism, bush meat Tabou<br />
Allocebus trichotis EN X Ecotourism, bush meat<br />
Daubentonia madagascarensis EN X Ecotourism, bush meat Tabou<br />
Tyto soumagnei EN X Ecotourism<br />
Platypelis sp. nov X X Rational exportation<br />
There's annual quota for those species under CITES<br />
exporation. However, there are lacks of study on<br />
population density<br />
Scaphiophryne marmorata VU X Rational exportation<br />
Rhombophryne coronata VU X Rational exportation<br />
Mantella aurantiaca CR X Rational exportation<br />
Mantella crocea EN X Rational exportation<br />
Mantidactylus plicifer NT X Rational exportation<br />
Pararhadinaea sp.nov X X Rational exportation<br />
Sanzinia madagascariensis VU X Rational exportation, bush meat<br />
Aloe leandri X X<br />
Ratsirakia sp X X Bush meat<br />
Rheocles sp X X Bush meat<br />
Asteropeia micraster EN<br />
Leptolaena multiflora EN<br />
Dalbergia baroni VU<br />
Cyathea dregei NE Cites II<br />
Cyathea cf tsaratananensis NE Cites II<br />
Eulemur rubriventer<br />
Communities/Habitats<br />
VU X Bush meat<br />
Azonal forest X X medecinal, bushmeet,<br />
Transitional forest X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeet, water ressources<br />
Zonal forest X timbers, X medecinal, bushmeet, water ressources<br />
Azonal fauna X X<br />
Azonal flora<br />
Whole Landscapes/Ecosystems<br />
X X<br />
Edaphic mid-altitudinal eastern humid forest on Xlaterite profil above ultramafic outcrop X forest & water ressources<br />
For ‘Key to Global Significance Criteria’ see Appendix 1 above.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
78
Appendix 2: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, February 2008 Iteration 79<br />
CALCULATING BIODIVERSITY LOSS AT IMPACT SITE<br />
(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through <strong>Project</strong> Impact, via Habitat<br />
Hectares)<br />
1. To the left, label each pre-project site condition class found.<br />
Attribute<br />
Steams<br />
Number of tree<br />
species<br />
Canopy height<br />
variation<br />
(Three or less. e.g. "pristine", "good", "degraded", or "good", "poor", etc.)<br />
Basal area 5.45 m2/ha<br />
Dbh<br />
Height to crown 6.13 m3<br />
2. Fill in the area of …<br />
(enter "0" for non-relevent<br />
condition classes and<br />
impact levels)<br />
Each Site Class…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites…<br />
Habitat Type 1:<br />
Azonal forest<br />
…of Condition<br />
Class 3:<br />
Ponds<br />
793.02 549.17<br />
0<br />
615 447.04<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 739 263<br />
586 steam/ha 0.2 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
739<br />
739<br />
0 263<br />
263<br />
0<br />
0<br />
195.2411331<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 739 263 0<br />
41<br />
Tree<br />
species/5<br />
00m2<br />
0.25 NT<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong><br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites<br />
58<br />
0 58<br />
58<br />
58<br />
15<br />
15<br />
15<br />
15<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
258.3878049<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 4.43 2.02<br />
9.54 Meter 0.15 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0 4.43<br />
4.43<br />
2.02<br />
2.02<br />
0<br />
0<br />
57.0357044<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 4.43 2.02 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 7.07 1.18<br />
0.15 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0 7.07<br />
7.07<br />
1.18<br />
1.18<br />
0<br />
0<br />
134.1896477<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 7.07 1.18 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 9.64 7.26<br />
9.74 m 0.15 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0 9.64<br />
9.64<br />
7.26<br />
7.26<br />
0<br />
0<br />
141.2850678<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 9.64 7.26 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 4.98 3.13<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0 4.98<br />
4.98<br />
3.13<br />
3.13<br />
0<br />
0<br />
72.78850245<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 4.98 3.13 0<br />
Total Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost:<br />
3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in<br />
question…<br />
BENCHMARK<br />
Condition Class 1: Condition Class 2: Condition Class 3:<br />
Reference Level<br />
Units/<br />
#<br />
Bands<br />
Trad'ble/<br />
Non?<br />
(T/NT)<br />
Pre/Post-<strong>Project</strong> Conditions<br />
Good forest<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Disturbed<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Ponds<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost<br />
Rationale<br />
(enter comments explaining data in<br />
columns B to Q)<br />
Weight<br />
… of Condition<br />
Class 1:<br />
…of Condition Class<br />
2:<br />
Good forest Disturbed<br />
0 0 0<br />
859<br />
Good: P.5; Disturbed: P. 20<br />
after 30 years estimated<br />
approximately about 40% to 60% of<br />
the structure attribute value will be<br />
restored on the impact site<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 3: Key Biodiversity Components<br />
Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score,<br />
April 2008 Iteration<br />
BIODIVERSITY LOSS calculations scenarios at IMPACT SITE, and post-<strong>Project</strong> remediation effects on biodiversity<br />
loss calculations scenarios at impact site, <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
Percentage of<br />
attributes<br />
rehabilitation<br />
0%<br />
Year<br />
0 (without<br />
mitigation)<br />
Habitat types<br />
<strong>Forest</strong> Streams/Rivers Ephemeral pools<br />
1620 1.16 0.64<br />
5% 0-7 1539 1.1 0.61<br />
20% 7-15 1296 0.93 0.51<br />
40% 15-30 972 0.69 0.38<br />
75% 30-60 405 0.29 0.16<br />
90% 60-120 162 0.12 0.06<br />
Detailed calculations can be found below.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
80
Appendix 3: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, April 2008 Iteration 81<br />
Habitat hectares lost <strong>–</strong> no mitigation<br />
CALCULATING BIODIVERSITY LOSS AT IMPACT SITE<br />
(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through <strong>Project</strong> Impact, via Habitat<br />
Hectares)<br />
1. To the left, label each pre-project site condition class found.<br />
(Three or less. e.g. "pristine", "good", "degraded", or "good", "poor", etc.)<br />
Attribute<br />
2. Fill in the area of …<br />
(enter "0" for non-relevent<br />
condition classes and<br />
impact levels)<br />
Each Site Class…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites…<br />
Habitat Type 1:<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 1004.75 735.57<br />
Stems 1118 stems/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
1004.8<br />
1004.8<br />
0 735.57<br />
735.57<br />
0<br />
0<br />
175.4906165<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 1004.8 735.57 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 23.22 14.57<br />
Basal area 22.16<br />
Square<br />
meters/ha<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0 23.22<br />
23.22<br />
14.57<br />
14.57<br />
0<br />
0<br />
99.55773885<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 23.22 14.57 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 9.07 9.5<br />
Mean tree height<br />
canopy<br />
9.98 Meter 0.025 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0 9.07<br />
9.07<br />
9.5<br />
9.5<br />
0<br />
0<br />
47.92328259<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 9.07 9.5 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 13.57 15.17<br />
Top height tree 14.54 Meter 0.025 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0 13.57<br />
13.57<br />
15.17<br />
15.17<br />
0<br />
0<br />
50.03226773<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 13.57 15.17 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 85.08 36.86<br />
Tree species density 83.63 number/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0 85.08<br />
85.08<br />
36.86<br />
36.86<br />
0<br />
0<br />
183.4857277<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 85.08 36.86 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.033 0<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema Density<br />
0.033<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.033<br />
0.033<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
158.71055<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.033 0 0<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema<br />
vulnerability index<br />
123.3 0 0.05 NT<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong><br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
104.3221485<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.025 0<br />
Allocebus trichotis<br />
density<br />
0.025 number/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.025<br />
0.025<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
160.3136869<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.025 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 142.4 142.4<br />
Allocebus trichotis<br />
vulnerability index<br />
142.4 0 0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
142.4<br />
142.4<br />
142.4<br />
142.4<br />
0<br />
0<br />
104.2548391<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 142.4 142.4 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.007 0<br />
Prolemur simus<br />
density<br />
0.007 number/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.007<br />
0.007<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
169.8818697<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.007 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 4.13 4.13<br />
Prolemur simus<br />
vulnerability index<br />
4.13 0 0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
4.13<br />
4.13<br />
4.13<br />
4.13<br />
0<br />
0<br />
104.2894121<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 4.13 4.13 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.013 0<br />
Indri indri density 0.013 number/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.013<br />
0.013<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
157.7474504<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.013 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 31.12 31.12<br />
Indri indri<br />
vulnerability index<br />
31.12 0 0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
31.12<br />
31.12<br />
31.12<br />
31.12<br />
0<br />
0<br />
104.275906<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 31.12 31.12 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.8 14.05<br />
Deforestation rate 0<br />
Percentag<br />
e<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.8<br />
0.8<br />
14.05<br />
14.05<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.8 14.05 0<br />
<strong>Forest</strong><br />
…of Condition<br />
Class 3:<br />
Ponds<br />
1587.963 497.7<br />
0<br />
1587.963 497.7<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0 0<br />
Total Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost:<br />
3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in<br />
question…<br />
BENCHMARK<br />
Condition Class 1: Condition Class 2: Condition Class 3:<br />
Reference Level<br />
Units/<br />
#<br />
Bands<br />
Trad'ble/<br />
Non?<br />
(T/NT)<br />
Pre/Post-<strong>Project</strong> Conditions<br />
Good forest<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Disturbed<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Ponds<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost<br />
Rationale<br />
(enter comments explaining data in<br />
columns B to Q)<br />
Weight<br />
… of Condition<br />
Class 1:<br />
…of Condition Class<br />
2:<br />
Good forest Disturbed<br />
0 0 0<br />
1620<br />
Good forest is the average of : P.5,<br />
6, 9, 12, 14, & 18; Disturbed forest<br />
average of : P. 10 &20<br />
No mitigation Year _0<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 3: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, April 2008 Iteration 82<br />
Habitat hectares lost <strong>–</strong> 5% mitigation<br />
CALCULATING BIODIVERSITY LOSS AT IMPACT SITE<br />
(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through <strong>Project</strong> Impact, via Habitat<br />
Hectares)<br />
1. To the left, label each pre-project site condition class found.<br />
(Three or less. e.g. "pristine", "good", "degraded", or "good", "poor", etc.)<br />
Attribute<br />
Stems<br />
Basal area<br />
Mean tree height<br />
canopy<br />
Top height tree 14.54 Meter<br />
Tree species density 83.63 number/ha<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema Density<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema<br />
vulnerability index<br />
Allocebus trichotis<br />
density<br />
Allocebus trichotis<br />
vulnerability index<br />
Prolemur simus<br />
density<br />
Prolemur simus<br />
vulnerability index<br />
Deforestation rate 0<br />
31.12 0 0.05<br />
Percentag<br />
e<br />
Each Site Class…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites…<br />
Condition/<br />
Level<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 1004.75 735.57<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
50.2375 954.51<br />
1004.8<br />
36.7785 698.79<br />
735.57<br />
0<br />
0<br />
166.7160857<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 1004.8 735.57 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 23.22 14.57<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
1.161 22.059<br />
23.22<br />
0.7285 13.842<br />
14.57<br />
0<br />
0<br />
94.57985191<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 23.22 14.57 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 9.07 9.5<br />
0.025 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.4535 8.6165<br />
9.07<br />
0.475 9.025<br />
9.5<br />
0<br />
0<br />
45.52711846<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 9.07 9.5 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 13.57 15.17<br />
0.025 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.6785 12.892<br />
13.57<br />
0.7585 14.412<br />
15.17<br />
0<br />
0<br />
47.53065434<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 13.57 15.17 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 85.08 36.86<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
4.254 80.826<br />
85.08<br />
1.843 35.017<br />
36.86<br />
0<br />
0<br />
174.3114413<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 85.08 36.86 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.033 0<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.00165 0.0314<br />
0.033<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
150.7750225<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.033 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 123.3 123.3<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
6.165 117.14<br />
123.3<br />
6.165 117.14<br />
123.3<br />
0<br />
0<br />
99.10604103<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 123.3 123.3 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.025 0<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.00125 0.0238<br />
0.025<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
152.2980025<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.025 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 142.4 142.4<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
7.12 135.28<br />
142.4<br />
7.12 135.28<br />
142.4<br />
0<br />
0<br />
99.04209716<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 142.4 142.4 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.007 0<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.00035 0.0067<br />
0.007<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
161.3877762<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.007 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 4.13 4.13<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.2065 3.9235<br />
4.13<br />
0.2065 3.9235<br />
4.13<br />
0<br />
0<br />
99.07494151<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 4.13 4.13 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.013 0<br />
NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.00065 0.0124<br />
0.013<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.013 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 31.12 31.12<br />
NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
1.556 29.564<br />
31.12<br />
1.556 29.564<br />
31.12<br />
0<br />
0<br />
99.06211074<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 31.12 31.12 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.8 14.05<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.04 0.76<br />
0.8<br />
0.7025 13.348<br />
14.05<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.8 14.05 0<br />
Indri indri density 0.013 number/ha 0.1 149.8600779<br />
Indri indri<br />
vulnerability index<br />
1118<br />
22.16<br />
9.98<br />
0.033<br />
2. Fill in the area of …<br />
(enter "0" for non-relevent<br />
condition classes and<br />
impact levels)<br />
stems/ha<br />
Square<br />
meters/ha<br />
Meter<br />
123.3 0 0.05 NT<br />
0.025 number/ha<br />
142.4 0<br />
0.007 number/ha<br />
4.13 0<br />
Weight<br />
… of Condition<br />
Class 1:<br />
Good forest<br />
…of Condition Class<br />
2:<br />
Disturbed<br />
1587.963 497.7<br />
1587.963 497.7<br />
…of Condition<br />
Class 3:<br />
Ponds<br />
0 0 0<br />
BENCHMARK<br />
Condition Class 1: Condition Class 2:<br />
Reference Level<br />
Units/<br />
#<br />
Bands<br />
Trad'ble/<br />
Non?<br />
(T/NT)<br />
Pre/Post-<strong>Project</strong> Conditions<br />
Good forest<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Disturbed<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
0<br />
Habitat Type 1:<br />
<strong>Forest</strong><br />
0<br />
0 0<br />
Condition Class 3:<br />
Ponds<br />
Net<br />
Loss<br />
Total Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost:<br />
3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in<br />
question…<br />
0<br />
Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost<br />
1539<br />
Rationale<br />
(enter comments explaining data in<br />
columns B to Q)<br />
Good forest is the average of : P.5,<br />
6, 9, 12, 14, & 18; Disturbed forest<br />
average of : P. 10 &20<br />
No mitigation Year _0<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 3: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, April 2008 Iteration 83<br />
Habitat hectares lost <strong>–</strong> 20% mitigation<br />
CALCULATING BIODIVERSITY LOSS AT IMPACT SITE<br />
(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through <strong>Project</strong> Impact, via Habitat<br />
Hectares)<br />
1. To the left, label each pre-project site condition class found.<br />
(Three or less. e.g. "pristine", "good", "degraded", or "good", "poor", etc.)<br />
Attribute<br />
Stems<br />
Basal area<br />
Mean tree height<br />
canopy<br />
Top height tree 14.54 Meter<br />
Tree species density 83.63 number/ha<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema Density<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema<br />
vulnerability index<br />
Allocebus trichotis<br />
density<br />
Allocebus trichotis<br />
vulnerability index<br />
Prolemur simus<br />
density<br />
Prolemur simus<br />
vulnerability index<br />
Deforestation rate 0<br />
31.12 0 0.05<br />
Percentag<br />
e<br />
Each Site Class…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites…<br />
Condition/<br />
Level<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 1004.75 735.57<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
200.95 803.8<br />
1004.8<br />
147.114 588.46<br />
735.57<br />
0<br />
0<br />
140.3924932<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 1004.8 735.57 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 23.22 14.57<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
4.644 18.576<br />
23.22<br />
2.914 11.656<br />
14.57<br />
0<br />
0<br />
79.64619108<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 23.22 14.57 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 9.07 9.5<br />
0.025 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
1.814 7.256<br />
9.07<br />
1.9 7.6<br />
9.5<br />
0<br />
0<br />
38.33862607<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 9.07 9.5 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 13.57 15.17<br />
0.025 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
2.714 10.856<br />
13.57<br />
3.034 12.136<br />
15.17<br />
0<br />
0<br />
40.02581418<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 13.57 15.17 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 85.08 36.86<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
17.016 68.064<br />
85.08<br />
7.372 29.488<br />
36.86<br />
0<br />
0<br />
146.7885821<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 85.08 36.86 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.033 0<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.0066 0.0264<br />
0.033<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
126.96844<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.033 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 123.3 123.3<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
24.66 98.64<br />
123.3<br />
24.66 98.64<br />
123.3<br />
0<br />
0<br />
83.45771876<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 123.3 123.3 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.025 0<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.005 0.02<br />
0.025<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
128.2509495<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.025 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 142.4 142.4<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
28.48 113.92<br />
142.4<br />
28.48 113.92<br />
142.4<br />
0<br />
0<br />
83.40387129<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 142.4 142.4 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.007 0<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.0014 0.0056<br />
0.007<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
135.9054958<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.007 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 4.13 4.13<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.826 3.304<br />
4.13<br />
0.826 3.304<br />
4.13<br />
0<br />
0<br />
83.43152969<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 4.13 4.13 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.013 0<br />
NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.0026 0.0104<br />
0.013<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.013 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 31.12 31.12<br />
NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
6.224 24.896<br />
31.12<br />
6.224 24.896<br />
31.12<br />
0<br />
0<br />
83.42072484<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 31.12 31.12 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.8 14.05<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.16 0.64<br />
0.8<br />
2.81 11.24<br />
14.05<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.8 14.05 0<br />
Indri indri density 0.013 number/ha 0.1 126.1979604<br />
Indri indri<br />
vulnerability index<br />
1118<br />
22.16<br />
9.98<br />
0.033<br />
2. Fill in the area of …<br />
(enter "0" for non-relevent<br />
condition classes and<br />
impact levels)<br />
stems/ha<br />
Square<br />
meters/ha<br />
Meter<br />
123.3 0 0.05 NT<br />
0.025 number/ha<br />
142.4 0<br />
0.007 number/ha<br />
4.13 0<br />
Weight<br />
… of Condition<br />
Class 1:<br />
Good forest<br />
…of Condition Class<br />
2:<br />
Disturbed<br />
1587.963 497.7<br />
1587.963 497.7<br />
…of Condition<br />
Class 3:<br />
Ponds<br />
0 0 0<br />
BENCHMARK<br />
Condition Class 1: Condition Class 2:<br />
Reference Level<br />
Units/<br />
#<br />
Bands<br />
Trad'ble/<br />
Non?<br />
(T/NT)<br />
Pre/Post-<strong>Project</strong> Conditions<br />
Good forest<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Disturbed<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
0<br />
Habitat Type 1:<br />
<strong>Forest</strong><br />
0<br />
0 0<br />
Condition Class 3:<br />
Ponds<br />
Net<br />
Loss<br />
Total Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost:<br />
3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in<br />
question…<br />
0<br />
Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost<br />
1296<br />
Rationale<br />
(enter comments explaining data in<br />
columns B to Q)<br />
Good forest is the average of : P.5,<br />
6, 9, 12, 14, & 18; Disturbed forest<br />
average of : P. 10 &20<br />
No mitigation Year _0<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 3: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, April 2008 Iteration 84<br />
Habitat hectares lost <strong>–</strong> 40% mitigation<br />
CALCULATING BIODIVERSITY LOSS AT IMPACT SITE<br />
(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through <strong>Project</strong> Impact, via Habitat<br />
Hectares)<br />
1. To the left, label each pre-project site condition class found.<br />
(Three or less. e.g. "pristine", "good", "degraded", or "good", "poor", etc.)<br />
Attribute<br />
2. Fill in the area of …<br />
(enter "0" for non-relevent<br />
condition classes and<br />
impact levels)<br />
Each Site Class…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites…<br />
Habitat Type 1:<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 1004.75 735.57<br />
Stems 1118 stems/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
401.9 602.85<br />
1004.8<br />
294.228 441.34<br />
735.57<br />
0<br />
0<br />
105.2943699<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 1004.8 735.57 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 23.22 14.57<br />
Basal area 22.16<br />
Square<br />
meters/ha<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
9.288 13.932<br />
23.22<br />
5.828 8.742<br />
14.57<br />
0<br />
0<br />
59.73464331<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 23.22 14.57 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 9.07 9.5<br />
Mean tree height<br />
canopy<br />
9.98 Meter 0.025 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
3.628 5.442<br />
9.07<br />
3.8 5.7<br />
9.5<br />
0<br />
0<br />
28.75396955<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 9.07 9.5 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 13.57 15.17<br />
Top height tree 14.54 Meter 0.025 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
5.428 8.142<br />
13.57<br />
6.068 9.102<br />
15.17<br />
0<br />
0<br />
30.01936064<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 13.57 15.17 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 85.08 36.86<br />
Tree species density 83.63 number/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
34.032 51.048<br />
85.08<br />
14.744 22.116<br />
36.86<br />
0<br />
0<br />
110.0914366<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 85.08 36.86 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.033 0<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema Density<br />
0.033<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.0132 0.0198<br />
0.033<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
95.22633<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.033 0 0<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema<br />
vulnerability index<br />
123.3 0 0.05 NT<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong><br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites<br />
123.3<br />
49.32 73.98<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
49.32 73.98<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
62.59328907<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.025 0<br />
Allocebus trichotis<br />
density<br />
0.025 number/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.01 0.015<br />
0.025<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
96.18821212<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.025 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 142.4 142.4<br />
Allocebus trichotis<br />
vulnerability index<br />
142.4 0 0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
56.96 85.44<br />
142.4<br />
56.96 85.44<br />
142.4<br />
0<br />
0<br />
62.55290347<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 142.4 142.4 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.007 0<br />
Prolemur simus<br />
density<br />
0.007 number/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.0028 0.0042<br />
0.007<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
101.9291218<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.007 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 4.13 4.13<br />
Prolemur simus<br />
vulnerability index<br />
4.13 0 0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
1.652 2.478<br />
4.13<br />
1.652 2.478<br />
4.13<br />
0<br />
0<br />
62.57364727<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 4.13 4.13 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.013 0<br />
Indri indri density 0.013 number/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.0052 0.0078<br />
0.013<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
94.64847026<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.013 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 31.12 31.12<br />
Indri indri<br />
vulnerability index<br />
31.12 0 0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
12.448 18.672<br />
31.12<br />
12.448 18.672<br />
31.12<br />
0<br />
0<br />
62.56554363<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 31.12 31.12 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.8 14.05<br />
Deforestation rate 0<br />
Percentag<br />
e<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.32 0.48<br />
0.8<br />
5.62 8.43<br />
14.05<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.8 14.05 0<br />
<strong>Forest</strong><br />
…of Condition<br />
Class 3:<br />
Ponds<br />
1587.963 497.7<br />
0<br />
1587.963 497.7<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0 0<br />
Total Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost:<br />
3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in<br />
question…<br />
BENCHMARK<br />
Condition Class 1: Condition Class 2: Condition Class 3:<br />
Reference Level<br />
Units/<br />
#<br />
Bands<br />
Trad'ble/<br />
Non?<br />
(T/NT)<br />
Pre/Post-<strong>Project</strong> Conditions<br />
Good forest<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Disturbed<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Ponds<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost<br />
Rationale<br />
(enter comments explaining data in<br />
columns B to Q)<br />
Weight<br />
… of Condition<br />
Class 1:<br />
…of Condition Class<br />
2:<br />
Good forest Disturbed<br />
0 0 0<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
972<br />
Good forest is the average of : P.5,<br />
6, 9, 12, 14, & 18; Disturbed forest<br />
average of : P. 10 &20<br />
No mitigation Year _0
Appendix 3: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, April 2008 Iteration 85<br />
Habitat hectares lost <strong>–</strong> 75% mitigation<br />
CALCULATING BIODIVERSITY LOSS AT IMPACT SITE<br />
(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through <strong>Project</strong> Impact, via Habitat<br />
Hectares)<br />
1. To the left, label each pre-project site condition class found.<br />
(Three or less. e.g. "pristine", "good", "degraded", or "good", "poor", etc.)<br />
Attribute<br />
2. Fill in the area of …<br />
(enter "0" for non-relevent<br />
condition classes and<br />
impact levels)<br />
Each Site Class…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites…<br />
Habitat Type 1:<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 1004.75 735.57<br />
Stems 1118 stems/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
753.5625 251.19<br />
1004.8<br />
551.6775 183.89<br />
735.57<br />
0<br />
0<br />
43.87265413<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 1004.8 735.57 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 23.22 14.57<br />
Basal area 22.16<br />
Square<br />
meters/ha<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
17.415 5.805<br />
23.22<br />
10.9275 3.6425<br />
14.57<br />
0<br />
0<br />
24.88943471<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 23.22 14.57 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 9.07 9.5<br />
Mean tree height<br />
canopy<br />
9.98 Meter 0.025 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
6.8025 2.2675<br />
9.07<br />
7.125 2.375<br />
9.5<br />
0<br />
0<br />
11.98082065<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 9.07 9.5 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 13.57 15.17<br />
Top height tree 14.54 Meter 0.025 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
10.1775 3.3925<br />
13.57<br />
11.3775 3.7925<br />
15.17<br />
0<br />
0<br />
12.50806693<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 13.57 15.17 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 85.08 36.86<br />
Tree species density 83.63 number/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
63.81 21.27<br />
85.08<br />
27.645 9.215<br />
36.86<br />
0<br />
0<br />
45.87143191<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 85.08 36.86 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.033 0<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema Density<br />
0.033<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.02475 0.0083<br />
0.033<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
39.6776375<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.033 0 0<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema<br />
vulnerability index<br />
123.3 0 0.05 NT<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong><br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites<br />
123.3<br />
92.475 30.825<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
92.475 30.825<br />
123.3<br />
123.3<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
26.08053711<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.025 0<br />
Allocebus trichotis<br />
density<br />
0.025 number/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.01875 0.0063<br />
0.025<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
40.07842172<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.025 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 142.4 142.4<br />
Allocebus trichotis<br />
vulnerability index<br />
142.4 0 0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
106.8 35.6<br />
142.4<br />
106.8 35.6<br />
142.4<br />
0<br />
0<br />
26.06370978<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 142.4 142.4 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.007 0<br />
Prolemur simus<br />
density<br />
0.007 number/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.00525 0.0018<br />
0.007<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
42.47046743<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.007 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 4.13 4.13<br />
Prolemur simus<br />
vulnerability index<br />
4.13 0 0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
3.0975 1.0325<br />
4.13<br />
3.0975 1.0325<br />
4.13<br />
0<br />
0<br />
26.07235303<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 4.13 4.13 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.013 0<br />
Indri indri density 0.013 number/ha 0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.00975 0.0033<br />
0.013<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
39.43686261<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.013 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 31.12 31.12<br />
Indri indri<br />
vulnerability index<br />
31.12 0 0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
23.34 7.78<br />
31.12<br />
23.34 7.78<br />
31.12<br />
0<br />
0<br />
26.06897651<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 31.12 31.12 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.8 14.05<br />
Deforestation rate 0<br />
Percentag<br />
e<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.6 0.2<br />
0.8<br />
10.5375 3.5125<br />
14.05<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.8 14.05 0<br />
<strong>Forest</strong><br />
…of Condition<br />
Class 3:<br />
Ponds<br />
1587.963 497.7<br />
0<br />
1587.963 497.7<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0 0<br />
Total Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost:<br />
3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in<br />
question…<br />
BENCHMARK<br />
Condition Class 1: Condition Class 2: Condition Class 3:<br />
Reference Level<br />
Units/<br />
#<br />
Bands<br />
Trad'ble/<br />
Non?<br />
(T/NT)<br />
Pre/Post-<strong>Project</strong> Conditions<br />
Good forest<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Disturbed<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Ponds<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost<br />
Rationale<br />
(enter comments explaining data in<br />
columns B to Q)<br />
Weight<br />
… of Condition<br />
Class 1:<br />
…of Condition Class<br />
2:<br />
Good forest Disturbed<br />
0 0 0<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
405<br />
Good forest is the average of : P.5,<br />
6, 9, 12, 14, & 18; Disturbed forest<br />
average of : P. 10 &20<br />
No mitigation Year _0
Appendix 3: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, April 2008 Iteration 86<br />
Habitat hectares lost <strong>–</strong> 90% mitigation<br />
CALCULATING BIODIVERSITY LOSS AT IMPACT SITE<br />
(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through <strong>Project</strong> Impact, via Habitat<br />
Hectares)<br />
1. To the left, label each pre-project site condition class found.<br />
Attribute<br />
Stems<br />
Basal area<br />
Mean tree height<br />
canopy<br />
Top height tree 14.54 Meter<br />
Tree species density 83.63 number/ha<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema Density<br />
Propithecus<br />
diadema<br />
vulnerability index<br />
Allocebus trichotis<br />
density<br />
Allocebus trichotis<br />
vulnerability index<br />
Prolemur simus<br />
density<br />
Prolemur simus<br />
vulnerability index<br />
Deforestation rate 0<br />
31.12 0 0.05<br />
Percentag<br />
e<br />
Each Site Class…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites…<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites…<br />
Condition/<br />
Level<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 1004.75 735.57<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
904.275 100.48<br />
1004.8<br />
662.013 73.557<br />
735.57<br />
0<br />
0<br />
17.54906165<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 1004.8 735.57 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 23.22 14.57<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
20.898 2.322<br />
23.22<br />
13.113 1.457<br />
14.57<br />
0<br />
0<br />
9.955773885<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 23.22 14.57 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 9.07 9.5<br />
0.025 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
8.163 0.907<br />
9.07<br />
8.55 0.95<br />
9.5<br />
0<br />
0<br />
4.792328259<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 9.07 9.5 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 13.57 15.17<br />
0.025 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
12.213 1.357<br />
13.57<br />
13.653 1.517<br />
15.17<br />
0<br />
0<br />
5.003226773<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 13.57 15.17 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 85.08 36.86<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
76.572 8.508<br />
85.08<br />
33.174 3.686<br />
36.86<br />
0<br />
0<br />
18.34857277<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 85.08 36.86 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.033 0<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.0297 0.0033<br />
0.033<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
15.871055<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.033 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 123.3 123.3<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
110.97 12.33<br />
123.3<br />
110.97 12.33<br />
123.3<br />
0<br />
0<br />
10.43221485<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 123.3 123.3 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.025 0<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.0225 0.0025<br />
0.025<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
16.03136869<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.025 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 142.4 142.4<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
128.16 14.24<br />
142.4<br />
128.16 14.24<br />
142.4<br />
0<br />
0<br />
10.42548391<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 142.4 142.4 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.007 0<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.0063 0.0007<br />
0.007<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
16.98818697<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.007 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 4.13 4.13<br />
0.05 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
3.717 0.413<br />
4.13<br />
3.717 0.413<br />
4.13<br />
0<br />
0<br />
10.42894121<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 4.13 4.13 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.013 0<br />
NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.0117 0.0013<br />
0.013<br />
0 0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.013 0 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 31.12 31.12<br />
NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
28.008 3.112<br />
31.12<br />
28.008 3.112<br />
31.12<br />
0<br />
0<br />
10.4275906<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 31.12 31.12 0<br />
Pre-<strong>Project</strong> 0.8 14.05<br />
0.1 NT<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, High Impact Sites<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Medium Impact Sites<br />
0.72 0.08<br />
0.8<br />
12.645 1.405<br />
14.05<br />
0<br />
0<br />
0<br />
Post-<strong>Project</strong>, Low Impact Sites 0.8 14.05 0<br />
Indri indri density 0.013 number/ha 0.1 15.77474504<br />
Indri indri<br />
vulnerability index<br />
(Three or less. e.g. "pristine", "good", "degraded", or "good", "poor", etc.)<br />
1118<br />
22.16<br />
9.98<br />
0.033<br />
2. Fill in the area of …<br />
(enter "0" for non-relevent<br />
condition classes and<br />
impact levels)<br />
stems/ha<br />
Square<br />
meters/ha<br />
Meter<br />
123.3 0 0.05 NT<br />
0.025 number/ha<br />
142.4 0<br />
0.007 number/ha<br />
4.13 0<br />
Weight<br />
… of Condition<br />
Class 1:<br />
Good forest<br />
…of Condition Class<br />
2:<br />
Disturbed<br />
1587.963 497.7<br />
1587.963 497.7<br />
…of Condition<br />
Class 3:<br />
Ponds<br />
0 0 0<br />
BENCHMARK<br />
Condition Class 1: Condition Class 2:<br />
Reference Level<br />
Units/<br />
#<br />
Bands<br />
Trad'ble/<br />
Non?<br />
(T/NT)<br />
Pre/Post-<strong>Project</strong> Conditions<br />
Good forest<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
Disturbed<br />
Condition/ Net<br />
Level Loss<br />
0<br />
Habitat Type 1:<br />
<strong>Forest</strong><br />
0<br />
0 0<br />
Condition Class 3:<br />
Ponds<br />
Net<br />
Loss<br />
Total Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost:<br />
3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in<br />
question…<br />
0<br />
Habitat<br />
Hectares Lost<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
162<br />
Rationale<br />
(enter comments explaining data in<br />
columns B to Q)<br />
Good forest is the average of : P.5,<br />
6, 9, 12, 14, & 18; Disturbed forest<br />
average of : P. 10 &20<br />
No mitigation Year _0
Appendix 4: Mine Footprint Status Sheet,<br />
2nd Iteration<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
87
Appendix 4: Mine Footprint Status Sheet, 2 nd Iteration 88<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 4: Mine Footprint Status Sheet, 2 nd Iteration 89<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 4: Mine Footprint Status Sheet, 2 nd Iteration 90<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 5: Vulnerability Index<br />
VULNERABILITY can be expressed based on:<br />
Geographical range (largely, more restricted),<br />
Level of habitat types dependence (more ubiquiste to stenocene species etc.), and<br />
Abundance indices (rare to common) (Kattan 1992; Rabinowitz et al. 1986).<br />
The approach used allows the offset planner to attribute an index score in each cell of the matrix in order to<br />
represent the vulnerability level of each species based on above parameters. For a community, the<br />
percentage of species constituting its total number could be included in a cell in order to indicate how<br />
vulnerable a community is. The original concept of the vulnerability matrix following (Rabinowitz et al. 1986) is<br />
presented below, where Vi is the vulnerability index.<br />
Abundance<br />
Range (geographical distribution)<br />
Large Restricted<br />
Habitat type<br />
dependence level Ubiquiste Stenocene Ubiquiste Stenocene<br />
Common Vi=8 Vi=6 Vi=4 Vi=2<br />
Rare Vi=7 Vi=5 Vi=3 Vi=1<br />
In order to ensure that the matrix is properly used as part of the calculation of loss and gain of biodiversity, the<br />
following points must be taken into consideration:<br />
Since the BENCHMARK approach is based on the principle that higher values are better in the habitat<br />
hectares calculations, higher index values should be given with increased vulnerability (e.g. Vi= 1 becomes<br />
Vi = 8 etc…).<br />
The BBOP ‘Key Biodiversity Component Matrix (KBCM) ‘Irreplaceability’ level (Widespread, Localised, SITE<br />
ENDEMIC) will be used instead of ‘Range’ (geographical distribution); and<br />
The KBCM ‘Significance level’ Global column will consider (CR, EN, VU, NT) instead of using ‘habitat type<br />
dependence level’.<br />
Thus the Vulnerability matrix concept proposed for BBOP is:<br />
IUCN Status<br />
Irreplaceability : Widespread Localised Site endemic<br />
Abundance level: Common Rare Common Rare Common Rare<br />
LC 1 4 11 16 21 26<br />
NT 2 5 12 17 22 27<br />
VU 3 6 13 18 23 28<br />
EN 7 8 14 19 24 29<br />
CR 9 10 15 20 25 30<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
91
Appendix 5: Vulnerability Index 92<br />
There are several ways to obtain ATTRIBUTES from the species Vulnerability matrix:<br />
1. Fit all KBCM fauna and flora species into the matrix and assign a Vi number (1 to 30) and then simply<br />
compare to the total number of species in the community considered with how many have specific Vi<br />
numbers.<br />
2. Determine the % of species with specific Vi numbers. For example, for all tree species assume that 30% of<br />
those recorded in the benchmark have a Vi of 19 (EN, rare, localised), equating to 30% x 19 = 57. This can<br />
be repeated for other Vi indices and finally a sum for the entire matrix table can be generated (for example<br />
560). This value of 560 can then be compared with values for tree species from the impact site etc.<br />
3. Taking a smaller community group, e.g. all lemur species, and proceed as above, assigning each species<br />
a Vi score and then multiplying it with species biological data (e.g. density / ha) in order to obtain a sum for<br />
each site. The higher the total Vi score is, the higher is the vulnerability of this group (note that the density<br />
in the excel table is set at 1 until further data is collected during subsequent at <strong>Ambatovy</strong>).<br />
The Vulnerability matrix developed by <strong>Ambatovy</strong> is presented below. This matrix was developed in April 2008,<br />
as part of the second iteration of the benchmark and loss assessment 7 .<br />
Table A5.1: Fauna and flora species Vulnerability matrix (April 2008)<br />
IUCN Status<br />
Irreplacebility :<br />
Abundance level:<br />
Nocturnal/diurnal<br />
Ability to move away<br />
Widespread<br />
Localised<br />
Common<br />
Rare<br />
Common<br />
Rare<br />
Diunral Nocturnal Diunral Nocturnal Diurnal Nocturnal Diurnal Nocturnal<br />
Site endemic<br />
Common Rare<br />
Diurnal Nocturnal Diurnal Nocturnal<br />
from impact Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N<br />
LC 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116<br />
NT 2 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 42 47 52 57 62 67 72 77 82 87 92 97 102 107 112 117<br />
VU 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 43 48 53 58 63 68 73 78 83 88 93 98 103 108 113 118<br />
EN 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99 104 109 114 119<br />
CR 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120<br />
A worked example of the application of the matrix to the <strong>Ambatovy</strong> KBCM is presented below (extract of<br />
<strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> BBOP Bonn report (April 2008)).<br />
Table A5.2: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) Vulnerability scores (April 2008)<br />
Site<br />
Diurnal/Noct: Moves: Vulnerabilty<br />
Amabtovy KBCM Species IUCN Widespread Localised endemic Rare D/N Y/N indices'<br />
Prolemur simus CR<br />
X X 65<br />
Propithecus d. diadema CR<br />
X<br />
Indri indri EN X<br />
Lemurs Allocebus trichotis EN<br />
X X 74<br />
Daubentonia madagascarensis EN<br />
X<br />
Eulemur rubriventer VU X<br />
Birds Tyto soumagnei EN X<br />
Platypelis sp. nov NE X<br />
Scaphiophryne marmorata VU X<br />
Rhombophryne coronata VU X<br />
Mantella aurantiaca<br />
Herptiles<br />
Mantella crocea<br />
CR<br />
EN<br />
X<br />
X<br />
Mantidactylus plicifer NT X<br />
Pararhadinaea sp.nov NE X<br />
Sanzinia madagascariensis VU X<br />
Ratsirakia sp NE ?<br />
Fish Rheocles sp NE ?<br />
Aloe leandri NE X<br />
Asteropeia micraster EN X<br />
Plants<br />
Leptolaena multiflora<br />
Dalbergia baroni<br />
EN<br />
VU<br />
X<br />
X<br />
Cyathea dregei NE X<br />
Cyathea cf tsaratananensis NE ?<br />
7 <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong> BBOP Bonn report (April 2008), with revised Benchmark selection and losses calculations, including KBCM matrix<br />
update with species quantitative data).<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 5: Vulnerability Index 93<br />
Note that the results of the Biodiversity Assessment in relation to intrinsic NON-USE VALUES and USE VALUES are<br />
presented in the KBCM sheet of the April 2008 report.<br />
December 2008 iteration: the <strong>Project</strong> believes that the use of the Vulnerability attributes still requires more in<br />
depth analysis, which will be conduced in 2009: the justifications for excluding the vulnerability index in the<br />
December 2008 calculations are that:<br />
This attribute should be calculated by taxonomic group not by single species as was done in the April 2008<br />
report: this index is a product of the combination of the IUCN status and that of relative abundance;<br />
Abundance is already considered in the other attributes for each species. Calculating the vulnerability<br />
index by taxonomic group (not single species) will give a greater ‘overall scope’ of the vulnerability and<br />
irreplaceability:<br />
<strong>–</strong> The index will provide a more scientific approach to determining the group requiring most effort for onsite<br />
conservation relative to other selected species.<br />
<strong>–</strong> It gives first same value (weight) for the various taxonomic groups. In fact not only species must avoid<br />
EXTIRPATION, but also the overall ecosystem characteristics should be offset. Among the latter is the<br />
community composition that can be tackled through a biodiversity vulnerability index. Furthermore, a<br />
gain on the vulnerability index by a taxonomic group will be more significant for biodiversity and<br />
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES than a gain for a single species.<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops<br />
Volume J<br />
Section 1.1<br />
Attachment 2<br />
Survey for off-site azonal outcrops<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
94
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 95<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 96<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 97<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 98<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 99<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 100<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 101<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 102<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 103<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 104<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 105<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 106<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 107<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 108<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 109<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 110<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 111<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 112<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 113<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 114<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong>
Appendix 7: Comparison of <strong>Ambatovy</strong> / Analamay and<br />
Ankerana Azonal Habitats<br />
BBOP Pilot <strong>Project</strong> Case Study <strong>–</strong> <strong>Ambatovy</strong> <strong>Project</strong><br />
115
To learn more about the BBOP principles, guidelines and optional methodologies, go to:<br />
www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines