Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System (BIRS)

Transcription

1 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System (BIRS) Proposal for a habitat-based biodiversity monitoring system at Holcim sites Prepared by the IUCN-Holcim Biodiversity Advisory Panel: Christoph Imboden, Peter-John Meynell, David Richards, Marc Stalmans

2 Credits The designation of geographical entities in this book, and the presentation of the material, do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IUCN concerning the legal status of any country, territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of IUCN. This publication has been made possible in part by generous funding from the Holcim Group. Published by: Copyright: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland 2014 International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorized without prior written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written permission of the copyright holder. Citation: Cover photo: Edited by: Layout by: Produced by: Available from: Photos, illustrations: Ch. Imboden, Meynell, P-J., Richards, D., and Stalmans, M Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System (BIRS): Proposal for a habitat based biodiversity monitoring system at Holcim Sites. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. 54 Pp. Maria Ana Borges/IUCN Amy Sweeting Christoph Imboden and Maria Ana Borges IUCN Global Business and Biodiversity Programme IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) Global Business and Biodiversity Programme Rue Mauverney Gland Switzerland Tel Fax [email protected] John Grainger, Christoph Imboden, Peter-John Meynell, Dave Richards, and Marc Stalmans

3 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Biodiversity Management System 1.2 Approach 1.3 Purpose of this paper 2. SCOPE AND CONSTRAINTS OF BIRS Boundary conditions 2.2 What questions to answer? 2.3 Limitations of BIRS 2.4 Costs and benefits 3. SUMMARY OUTLINE OF IBMS Purpose and goal of an IBMS 3.2 Required biodiversity information 3.3 Site Biodiversity Importance Category 3.4 Assessing biodiversity impacts and biodiversity risks 3.5 Biodiversity management levels 3.6 Implementation 4. SUMMARY OUTLINE OF BIRS General overview 4.2 BIRS vs. NPI and NNL 5. ASSESSMENT OF HABITATS Habitat classification 5.2 Habitat definitions Operational Areas Rehabilitation Areas Ruderal Habitats Caves and subterranean habitats 5.3 Estimation of habitat extent 5.4 Habitat condition assessment Assessment questions Scoring Minimum size of habitat blocks Sampling Data recording Default values and special habitats Calculation of habitat condition index Habitat enhancements The special case of karst 5.5 Habitat Threat Score 5.6 Habitat Condition Class 5.7 Habitat Context Factor

4 6. SITE BIODIVERSITY CONDITION General 6.2 Derivation of the composite site condition index 6.3 Site Threat Score 6.4 Site Threat Report 6.5 Site Condition Class 7. HIGHER-LEVEL AGGREGATION AND REPORTING OF INDICES National and Global Biodiversity Condition Indices 7.2 Reporting on biodiversity assets 7.3 Reporting on changes 7.4 Biodiversity key performance index (KPI) 7.5 Biodiversity management performance 8. IMPLEMENTATION OF BIRS General 8.2 Management commitment 8.3 Required base information 8.4 Internal capacity 8.5 External expertise 8.6 Implementation plan System preparation Training Rollout and implementation sequence Review and quality control GLOSSARY and ABBREVIATIONS 52 ANNEX 1: ANNEX 2: ANNEX 3: Habitat Decision Tree and Habitat Definitions Recording Sheets for Habitats and Sites Habitat Questionnaires

5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This proposal would not have been possible without stimulating discussions, suggestions, advice and comments from a wide range of people all over the world. To all we are deeply grateful for their generous help. We would like to express our special thanks to: Holcim Technology staff, especially Rashila Kerai, Holcim local staff in the countries we have visited, and IUCN regional staff and at headquarters, above all Maria Ana Borges. Despite these many external inputs, responsibility for the authorship of this report and its content lies entirely with the members of the IUCN-Holcim Biodiversity Advisory Panel. Christoph Imboden, Switzerland Peter-John Meynell, Laos David Richards, UK Marc Stalmans, South Africa March 2014

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY What and Why? This document is a proposal to Holcim Ltd. to establish a Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System (BIRS) for its worldwide operations and to implement it in a consistent and professional manner, by creating the necessary instruments and making appropriate provisions into policy, strategic and operational processes. 1. The proposed Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System (BIRS) builds on, and is complementary to, the Integrated Biodiversity Management System (IBMS) developed by IUCN. Both systems are intended for companies that want to take responsible and positive actions for biodiversity. 2. BIRS has been designed by an independent group of experts, in close cooperation with the mineral extraction industry for the building sector, and drawing on the help and advice of a wide circle of biodiversity conservation specialists. 3. BIRS provides information that allows a company to answer three questions: (1) How are we affecting habitats and ecosystems for which we have management responsibility? (2) How effective are our biodiversity mitigation and habitat rehabilitation measures? (3) How do we measure, and report on, our biodiversity management activities? 4. BIRS is designed as an easy-to-apply system for calculating an annual biodiversity condition index for every active or disused extraction site and reserve landholdings, taking into account (1) the extent of every habitat type found on a site (including operational and rehabilitation areas), (2) the ecological condition of these habitats, especially their suitability for biodiversity and (3) the uniqueness and ecological importance of each habitat in the regional context (Fig. 0). BIRS essentially represents a balance sheet of a company s natural capital and summarises the composite value of its landholdings for supporting biodiversity. 5. The indices of all sites in a selected region or country can be aggregated into a regional/national index that can in turn be combined on a global level indicating whether the overall biodiversity suitability of the global landholdings over which a company has management control is increasing or decreasing. 6. BIRS allows the company to formulate a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) on biodiversity at the local, national and/or global level. 7. Practicality of implementation by a commercial company, including affordability of costs, has been a key requirement in the design of BIRS. Although the advice and assistance of external experts and periodic independent quality control are needed when setting up the systems at extraction sites, the annual index assessments can be done by local company staff. Although there will be some inevitable scientific restrictions of such a system operated by non-experts, the end result is a good (and so far the only available) system for reporting on the overall status of biodiversity in a portfolio of landholdings. 8. While BIRS requires one-to-two working days per year per site, a training programme, the development of some internal biodiversity expertise and an ongoing commitment from top management, it will ultimately bring benefits to the company, for example in the form of reduced risk from biodiversity issues (including shorter permit cycles), development of in-house capacity to manage biodiversity risks, a more secure licence to operate from local partnerships and enhanced brand reputation.

7 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 2 Figure 0: Simplified overview of BIRS (for more detail, see Figure 2) Identify all habitat types Measure extent of each habitat Assess condition of each habitat Assess habitat threats Assess regional context factor of each habitat Aggregate results for all habitats of a site SITE CONDITION CLASS (QUARRY CLASS) Aggregate all site condition classes of a country Aggregate all national indices NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY CONDITION INDEX GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY CONDITION INDEX

8 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 3 1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 1.1 Biodiversity Management System Between 2008 and 2010, an Independent Expert Panel (IEP) of five scientists appointed by IUCN developed an integrated Biodiversity Management System (BMS) for Holcim Ltd. This system is now being gradually introduced and operationalised throughout the Holcim Group. In 2012, the Holcim-specific BMS was adapted to a more general system, the Integrated Biodiversity Management System (IBMS), and then introduced in a publication entitled Integrated management of biodiversity risks and opportunities in the extraction of non-renewable natural resources for building materials, published by IUCN in As part of the IBMS, biodiversity management must be supported by a credible programme of monitoring & evaluation (M&E) if it is to be integrated into planning and operational processes in a convincing manner. Such M&E programmes are routine for all other aspects of business performance, whether output of products, economic performance, health and safety, pollution control or others. Ultimately, the IBMS suggests that biodiversity management could result in a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for individual operations or for an entire company. However, while the IBMS provides the principles and rationales of M&E and some general guidance as to how it should be done, it does not contain practical recommendations for how a company should approach the task of developing a credible M&E programme. A new Biodiversity Advisory Panel (BioPan), consisting of four former IEP members, was appointed by IUCN in 2011 to further develop such a monitoring system. The resulting Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System (BIRS) supports the repeated, consistent assessment of the landholdings of a mineral extraction company, in order to measure their suitability for biodiversity, and the aggregation and reporting of these assessments at every level, from local to global. Conceptually and methodologically, BIRS is original work; it has not been adapted from other tools or methods. While, theoretically, BIRS can be used without implementing a full IBMS, it is strongly recommended that the two systems be operated together, because they have important complementary elements. A proper application of the IBMS will automatically provide essential baseline information that is required for BIRS and that otherwise would have to be collected in the BIRS preparatory steps. The use of IBMS, accompanied by the implementation of BIRS, can enhance the protection and management of biodiversity at extraction sites. For this reason, the key elements of the IBMS are summarised in Chapter 3 of this document. 1.2 Approach The BIRS approach has been developed through a collaborative process over the course of several years. At a first workshop, held on September 2011 and attended by 14 experts (BioPan members, IUCN staff and seven external specialists), the possible relevance of other biodiversity measuring systems already used by other companies and possible parameters for a biodiversity KPI system were reviewed. 1 IUCN Biodiversity management in the cement and aggregates sector: Integrated Biodiversity Management System (IBMS). Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. Available at:

9 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 4 As a result of the workshop, two background studies were commissioned: Literature review of indicators for measuring biodiversity changes, by Jacquelyn Eales and Julia P. G. Jones (School of Environment, Natural Resources & Geography, Bangor University, UK), February Holcim Biodiversity Monitoring Scheme Technology screening, by E.C.O. - Institut für Ökologie, Klagenfurt, Austria, February The first study provided BioPan with guidance on available techniques, including pros and cons, required manpower, and financial and knowledge input. The second study explored new technologies and instrumentation that could potentially be adopted for a new M&E system. In April 2012, BioPan presented the emerging ideas to a small group of Holcim staff as part of an ongoing consultation process designed to ensure practicality of the system for an industrial user. The discussions resulted in the first outline of the Biodiversity Information and Reporting System (BIRS V1). The draft BIRS was presented at an event at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Jeju, South Korea, in September 2012, and feedback was sought from other experts working with the natural resource industry. This led to BIRS V2. A revised version, BIRS V3, was prepared in January 2013, taking into account further development work and discussions in India in November This version, and especially the draft habitat questionnaires, were thoroughly discussed with a group of external experts in April 2013, leading to many improvements of the system and the proposed method of habitat assessment. In June 2013, BIRS was field tested at five (aggregate and hard rock) quarry sites in France, leading to substantial improvements and changes in the concept (BIRS V4). Further field testing was carried out in Costa Rica in August 2013, including an assessment of every active Holcim hard rock and aggregate site in the country, resulting in yet more improvements to the system (BIRS V5). Finally, in December 2013, a peer review of BIRS was undertaken by three external scientists, resulting in constructive comments and suggestions that have been taken into account in this final version of BIRS (V6). 1.3 Purpose of this paper This paper explains how, under ideal circumstances, BIRS should be set up and implemented by any company that is active in natural resource extraction activities that involve the disturbance and ecological alteration of land areas. However, it does not provide detailed guidance on implementation. Such guidance must be developed individually, taking into account company-specific needs and circumstances. It will probably require a period of pilot-testing in order to assess how to deal with the specific complexities of differing natural environments or operational processes pursued by the company. The concluding chapter summarises the important points to be addressed in a company implementation document.

10 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 5 2. SCOPE AND CONSTRAINTS OF BIRS 2.1 Boundary conditions Based on lessons learned during the development of the Holcim BMS and the IBMS about what is, and is not, possible for a company in the business of natural resource extraction, it was clear from the outset that the indicator system should: ensure that all sites are evaluated; be meaningful, but relatively straightforward to measure; be largely assessable by non-experts (i.e. company staff); be measurable by means of a standardised methodology that can be used worldwide in any habitat or ecosystem; allow information to be collated internally as part of an existing environmental reporting system; be sensitive to major changes to habitats and biodiversity when they happen as part of mineral extraction operations; be designed to be expressed by numerical values; and allow aggregation of individual site values to national and global levels. 2.2 What questions to answer? The following question should be the point of departure for an indicator system: What does the company want to measure, and what does it want to be able to report on? In order to ensure that BIRS is directed towards the right kind of questions, and also to assess if the industry is clear about the purpose of such a biodiversity monitoring system, 70 staff members from a cement company, ranging from technical to executive levels, were asked to indicate what questions they would like to be able to answer through a biodiversity indicator system. The following five top questions emerged: 1. What biodiversity do we have on our sites? 2. How are our operations affecting important habitats and species on our sites? 3. How effective are our biodiversity mitigation measures? 4. How successful are our Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs)? 5. What is the biodiversity KPI for each site/for each country/for the company globally? Questions 1 and 4 cannot be answered through BIRS: Question 1: BIRS does not provide a biodiversity inventory, nor does it provide a biodiversity rating of a site. This should have been determined earlier as part of the Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) process advocated in the IBMS (Section 3.3). Question 4: Biodiversity management targets pursued through a BAP or as part of a Rehabilitation Plan should be monitored through M&E provisions required for any biodiversity management target (Section 3.5), which will be more specific and detailed than BIRS. However, questions 2, 3 and 5 do represent a logical flow, which BIRS is designed to track (Box 1).

11 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 6 BOX 1 WHAT QUESTIONS IS BIRS SEEKING TO ADDRESS? A. How are we affecting habitats and ecosystems for which we are responsible? B. How effective are our mitigation and habitat rehabilitation measures? C. How do we measure, and report on, our biodiversity management performance? 2.3 Limitations of BIRS There will inevitably be tensions and challenges with a monitoring system that fulfils all the criteria set for BIRS (Box 2): BOX 2 THE TENSIONS AND CHALLENGES OF BIRS Expensive Scientific rigour Expectations of conservation community Biodiversity requirements Affordable Simplicity, practicality Expectations of local stakeholders Legal and regulatory requirements The ideal system, one that is scientifically rigorous and still practical and affordable (i.e. the benefits are thought to be greater than or proportional to the costs) for a mineral extraction company (implementing it mainly through its own staff), does not exist. Trade-offs will have to be made, and important limitations must be recognised. For example, the system will have to use relatively coarse measures and is not designed to detect small incremental changes in relation to biodiversity; instead, it will have to focus on bigger and longer-term changes. However, where a more refined and rigorous approach to evaluating the success of biodiversity management is required, it should be done with a BAP, which would have scientifically more robust provisions for M&E. In addition, causality, especially in relation to question A in Box 1, cannot necessarily be established. In some cases, it will be obvious without detailed scientific investigations that the resource extraction operation is having an impact on biodiversity, e.g. when a forest is cleared before mining. In other cases, causal links may be suspected but impossible to prove with the proposed BIRS, for example possible changes in biodiversity in adjoining habitats (e.g. through noise or dust pollution or through habitat fragmentation). As a result of the inevitable simplifications required for a global-scale operationalisation, a company using BIRS may not be able to pick up subtle changes in biodiversity triggered by its activities or, vice versa, may record negative changes in biodiversity for which it might not be the cause.

12 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 7 BIRS relies on assessment of habitat condition using a simplified habitat classification system and questionnaires that apply globally. Any questions that would require significant ecological expertise to answer have been removed; those that are left can be answered with relative consistency by nonexperts, and are generally true across all ecosystems and biomes. Without these simplifying boundary conditions, the implementation of BIRS across the operation of an entire globally operating company would probably be ruled out by considerations of cost and practicality. Therefore, what may be true on average will be less reliable at a local or even regional level. For example, tropical rainforests are likely to score higher for structural questions linked to biodiversity suitability than temperate or boreal forests; tropical rivers carrying high sediment loads will never reach the water clarity levels that generally favour high biodiversity suitability. To avoid such issues, it may seem logical and this was explored during the development of BIRS to use local or national benchmark maxima for each habitat, so that the temperate forests are not expected to be as structurally complex as tropical rainforests, and tropical rivers are not penalised for being turbid. The problems with this solution are, first, that there is no logical point to stop local customising (why not have a reference benchmark for each river catchment or forest type?) and, second, that it would require a large amount of work (and cost) to customise the questionnaires at any level of scale. Another limitation is that an important element of biodiversity and habitats, the ecological functions and services they provide, cannot be measured in such a simplified approach. Nevertheless, although the anomalies generated by BIRS are inevitable, their effect on the credibility and usability of the methodology is limited, for the following reasons: 1. BIRS focuses on changes in biodiversity suitability, rather than absolute levels of biodiversity values. There is no reason to compare the habitat class of one forest type in one biome with that of another forest type in another biome. What matter are the magnitude and direction of changes between two successive assessments. 2. Differences between the assessed score and some benchmark would be more of a concern if they were always over- or underestimates. There is no logical reason why this should be the case it is more likely that the true suitability of a tropical rainforest will be underestimated, whereas other assessments may be overestimates. The global, standardised nature of BIRS is likely to affect the precision of individual assessments, but this will improve with the averaging and aggregation processes. BIRS is unlikely to introduce a systematic error, or bias, in the results and their aggregated expressions. 3. Anomalies generated in BIRS are most likely to occur in the extreme variants of each habitat, but the overwhelming majority of quarry sites for cement and aggregate production are not found in such extremes. Thus, the effect of such inconsistencies on the overall integrity of BIRS will be very small, and does not justify the additional cost and complexity that would be involved in regionalising all the questionnaires. 4. It might appear that the accuracy of BIRS assessments and classification would benefit from subjecting the sampling and arithmetic aspects of the methodology to a thorough statistical review, to validate the techniques chosen. However, this would be missing the point of BIRS. There is no existing proven methodology to do what BIRS seeks to do; it is based on numerical methods, but its design depends more on iteration by expert ecologists who are seeking to tune

13 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 8 the outputs of testing phases until they most accurately reflect their combined experience in this field. It is not that the accuracy of the numerical data collected does not matter, but rather that the overall accuracy of the system depends much more on the experience and expert inputs during the design phase than on the perceived accuracy of the numbers and calculations. 2.4 Costs and benefits BIRS, like every other monitoring system, will cost money. While, generally, the higher the investment, the better and more meaningful the results, BIRS tries to keep cost levels as low as possible, but in a manner that allows for meaningful answers about the company s overall biodiversity performance and its impact on habitats to be gained from the data. However, the costs will also bring clear benefits, for example in the form of reduced risk from biodiversity issues (including shorter permit cycles), development of in-house capacity to manage biodiversity risks, stronger licences to operate from local partnerships, and enhanced brand reputation. A particular benefit of BIRS is that it provides a link between the site and its neighbouring landowners and communities. Local experts advise the operating company on the local context of the habitats present on the site, which creates the basis for a dialogue with other local actors, including communities, landowners, NGOs and government agencies, on achieving wider conservation gains. This, in turn, enhances the company s local licence to operate. Furthermore, the involvement of such external local experts is also a good way to keep the assessments as objective as possible, for example not biasing them towards favourable scores. There are usually no co-users on an active extraction site, except possibly where the company s landholdings include large buffer zones of habitats excluded from exploitation and local farmers are allowed to use the land as part of good land stewardship or a community relations programme. In some cases, where extraction cycles are short (sand, gravel or shallow limestone deposits), the land is quickly restored and handed back to local owners, thus providing for ongoing dynamic interactions with local stakeholders.

14 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 9 3. SUMMARY OUTLINE OF IBMS 3.1 Purpose and goal of an IBMS The general purpose of an IBMS is to make biodiversity conservation considerations an integral part of a company s environmental management strategy, to ensure that the company is following high standards of responsible environmental stewardship. The overall goal of such a system is the integrated, prioritised management of biodiversity at extraction sites and in all activities, aimed at delivering better outcomes for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. To maximize efficiency and effectiveness, an IBMS involves integrating appropriate biodiversity measures and considerations into existing strategic and operational processes, rather than creating all new planning and management steps. The IBMS provides guidance for addressing and managing biodiversity issues in all parts of the business, from strategic policy development and target setting to site-level implementation, and at every stage of the project life cycle, from initial scoping to site closure and postclosure rehabilitation (Fig. 1). Figure 1: Structure of an IBMS and relationship with BIRS General Biodiversity Policy Planning Phase Operational Phase Guidance for Guidance for Guidance for Guidance for Initial scoping and feasibility investigations ESIA Biodiversity Management (EMP, BAP, biodiversity targets in Rehab. Plans) Rehabilitation Plan Guidance for Biodiversity inventories Guidance for Biodiversity monitoring Special monitoring of targeted biodiversity features in BAPs, etc. BIRS Monitoring of biodiversity condition of all habitats

15 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 10 Fig. 1 shows the relationship between IBMS and BIRS: the latter is one part of the monitoring systems proposed by IBMS, without which the pursuit of an integrated management system would not make sense and would lack credibility. At the same time, BIRS is dependent on and builds upon the proper implementation of an IBMS. The following sections summarise those recommendations of the IBMS that are particularly relevant for BIRS and necessary for understanding the monitoring system proposed in this document. (For a detailed description of all aspects of the IBMS, please see the original publication.) 3.2 Required biodiversity information The IBMS includes a recommended sequence of biodiversity information gathering that helps ensure that the effort, and hence costs, involved are proportional to the biodiversity needs of each stage. At the earliest stage, prior to feasibility studies, the emphasis is on identifying fatal flaw issues, such as the presence of threatened species or protected areas on or near the site, which would mean that significant harm would be unavoidable if the development proceeds. By the time a site is in operation, there should be enough biodiversity information of good scientific quality to enable several questions to be answered accurately. These concern the allocation of the site to a category of biodiversity importance (Section 3.3), assessment of the likely impact to biodiversity, and the design of appropriate management plans (Section 3.5). Depending on the answers to these questions and the tools that result, a biodiversity inventory will be compiled for the site, which may be categorised as basic, standard or advanced. Some elements of BIRS will be difficult to implement if there are significant deficiencies in the biodiversity inventory available for a site. The IBMS provides guidance on how to fill such gaps. 3.3 Site Biodiversity Importance Category One of the first steps in the IBMS is the identification of the Biodiversity Importance Category (BIC) of a site. This is done through a quick screening process, mainly focusing on the presence or proximity of protected areas, important habitats and threatened species, and using global, national and local scales for these criteria (Table 1). BIRS does not assess the BIC of a site. Determining the presence or absence of a certain species may be a challenge when the only source of information is an online tool, such as the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT). The species in question may be linked to habitats that are not represented on the extraction site, or the data used to establish the range may be too coarse or out of date. Therefore, it is important for any online search results to be verified by a local expert.

16 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 11 Table 1: IBMS - Biodiversity Importance Categories 1a 1b Occurrence on site (i.e. ecologically dependent on habitats of the site for its lifecycle): - globally threatened species (IUCN Red List) - overlap with or adjacent to internationally recognised protected area - globally outstanding and/or threatened ecosystem/habitat Occurrence of the above within 1km of the site or with relevant ecological connections to the above 2 Occurrence on site or within 1km or with relevant ecological connection: - nationally threatened, rare species - nationally protected (recognised) area, reserve, etc. - nationally important and/or threatened ecosystem/habitat 3 Site: - in landscape with diverse, natural ecosystems - in modified landscape with potential for biodiversity enhancement (biodiversity island) - with significant local value of the natural environment 4 Site in heavily modified, intensely managed landscape (incl. monoculture) 3.4 Assessing biodiversity impacts and biodiversity risks Screening for biodiversity importance is not the same as identifying the level of biodiversity risk. The IBMS includes an approach to assessing expected impacts on biodiversity which combines estimates of the likelihood of impact with the potential for these impacts to be mitigated. The resulting matrix is divided into four impact categories, ranging from very significant to low significance (Table 2). Table 2: IBMS - Expected levels of impact on biodiversity Potential for mitigation Likelihood of impact Irreversible Difficult to mitigate Can be mitigated by intervention Easily reversed naturally Almost certain A A B C Likely A B C D Moderately likely A B C D Unlikely B C D D A Very significant B Significant C Moderately significant D Low significance As the information on which these estimates are based is most readily available during preparation of the ESIA, it is important to have a recent ESIA for extraction sites. The impact category resulting from this table forms one axis of another matrix, the Biodiversity Risk Matrix (Table 3), and errors can easily lead to misclassification of risk and the selection of inappropriate management actions.

17 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 12 The Biodiversity Risk Matrix generates classes of risk to biodiversity that often, but not always, equate to risks to the project or operating extraction site arising from biodiversity impacts. Above all, they indicate what level of biodiversity management will have to be pursued during the operational phase. Table 3: IBMS - Biodiversity Risk Matrix Expected impact levels on biodiversity (from Table 2) Risk to biodiversity value of site (and/or surrounding area) A B C D If unknown, expected impacts must be assessed in ESIA Biodiversity Importance Category 1A If unknown, Critical Significant Medium Low 1B biodiversity Critical Significant Medium Low 2 importance must be Critical Significant Medium Low 3 assessed in feasibility Significant Medium Low Low 4 study Low Low Low Low 3.5 Biodiversity management levels Although there is usually a link between a particular risk class and the required management response in risk management, the IBMS recommendations on levels of action do not have such a one-to-one link. This is because of the expectation in the conservation community that sites classified as of high biodiversity importance and/or high risk should get special biodiversity management attention. Therefore, the IBMS identifies three options for biodiversity management plans: a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP), a Rehabilitation Plan with specific biodiversity targets, and a standard Rehabilitation Plan. It is universal good practice for a mineral extraction site to have a Rehabilitation Plan, usually required by regulation. The relationship of these options to the BIC and expected impact level is shown in Table 4. Table 4: IBMS - Biodiversity management levels Biodiversity Impact Levels (from Table 2) A B C D 1A High: BAP High: BAP High: BAP Med./High Biodiversity Importance Category (from Table 1) 1B High: BAP High: BAP High: BAP Medium 2 High: BAP High: BAP High: BAP Medium 3 Med./High Med./High Min./Med. Min./Med. 4 Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum A BAP is the most intensive form of biodiversity management and will require the most expert input. The IBMS provides general guidance on how to prepare a BAP, including the selection and monitoring of

18 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 13 appropriate measurable targets. These monitoring provisions should not be confused with, and are complementary to, the BIRS monitoring. 3.6 Implementation The implementation of a major policy system such as the IBMS has implications for several areas of a company s management. These are broadly similar to those that relate to the implementation of BIRS, and are described in Chapter 7.

19 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page SUMMARY OUTLINE OF BIRS 4.1 General overview BIRS is an easy-to-apply system for the annual calculation of a biodiversity condition index for each of a company s active or disused extraction sites 2 and reserve landholdings. This index, the Site Biodiversity Condition Class, takes into account the following factors: the extent of every habitat type found on a site (including operational and rehabilitation areas); the ecological condition of these habitats, especially their suitability for biodiversity (i.e. habitat factors that, actually or potentially, favour biodiversity); and the uniqueness and ecological importance of each habitat in the regional context. The class values of all sites of a selected region (sub-national) or country can be aggregated into a regional/national index, which in turn can be combined on a global level to indicate whether the overall biodiversity suitability of the landholdings over which a company has management control is increasing or decreasing. By summarising the composite value of the landholdings for supporting biodiversity, BIRS essentially represents a balance sheet of natural capital at a local, regional, national or global level of operation. While habitat extent describes the quantity of each asset item of the balance sheet, habitat condition represents the quality of each item. An additional factor, uniqueness and ecological importance, places the habitat extent and quality in a wider context, by looking at the surrounding area. While the balance sheet should be compiled and reported on every year, for reasons of operational practicality, the more time-consuming part of the system, the assessment of the condition of every habitat in the field (quality), does not necessarily need to be done every year. Nevertheless, completing habitat condition assessments annually would help to internalise the BIRS process and ensure that it becomes part of the regular annual work programme that applies to all other aspects of quarry extraction and management. The other part of the balance sheet, the quantity figure (i.e. the extent of every habitat) is central to extraction and rehabilitation activities and should thus pose no serious challenges to be recorded every year. This figure can be derived from existing maps and/or calculated from the previous year s figures by looking at what has been added or subtracted as a result of new operational areas being developed, areas taken out of production, new land being added through purchase or lease, or existing land being disposed of through sale or termination of lease agreements. A rise in the calculated index value, and especially an increase in the Site Biodiversity Condition Class, from one assessment to the next would show an overall enhancement of the suitability of a site for biodiversity, while a decrease would signal a lowering of the site s value for biodiversity. Table 5 provides a summary of the factors that contribute positively or negatively to the BIRS balance sheet of biodiversity suitability. 2 Typically, extraction sites consist of areas of natural habitat and modified natural habitat with excavations (quarries, mines, pits) and the associated access and processing infrastructure.

20 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 15 Table 5: Net changes of BIRS score through positive and negative factors Positive Negative Largely under company control Reduction of Operational Areas, i.e. turning land into Rehabilitation Areas, either through deliberate or accidental neglect or through active management Improvement of existing habitats through pro-active management, including decrease of threats to habitats Creation of new habitats with higher regional context factor Acquisition of new land containing goodquality habitats Expansion of quarry area, through conversion of natural habitat Deterioration of existing habitats, including increase of threats Divestment of land in good condition Outside company control Habitats on company site becoming regionally more unique (i.e. disappearing in surrounding area through land-use changes leading to an increase in the value of the context factor) Changes in the international or national classification/listing of certain species and habitats, thereby affecting context factors Significant improvement of habitats in surrounding areas (leading to reduction of context factor of company-owned habitats) Changes in the international or national classification/listing of certain species and habitats, thereby affecting context factors Depending on the size of the site, the full BIRS assessment generally should not take more than two days to complete. Most of this work has been designed to be done by non-experts, i.e. company staff, but the oversight and assistance of a trained expert (e.g. consultant or local partner NGO) would help make the work easier and more accurate. Fig. 2 gives a summary of the key steps of BIRS.

21 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 16 Figure 2: General overview of BIRS Identify all habitat types of the site Annually Habitat 1 Habitat 2 Habitat 3 Chapters 5.1/2 Measure the extent of each habitat Annually Habitat hectares Chapter 5.3 Assess the condition of each habitat Ideally annually, but at least every 3-5 years If no new measures, take values from previous year Habitat Threat Score Chapter 5.5 Habitat condition index Chapter 5.4 Habitat Condition Class 5.6 Assess Habitat Context Factor At least every 5 years If no new measures, take values from previous year Habitat Context Factor Chapter 5.7 Aggregate all Habitat Condition Classes and Habitat Threat Scores corrected by context factor weighted by habitat extent Site Threat Score Site condition index SITE CONDITION CLASS (QUARRY CLASS) Chapter 6.3 Chapters 6.1/2 6.5 Aggregate all Site Condition Classes of a country weighted by site size NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY CONDITION INDEX Chapter 7.1 Aggregate all national indices weighted by size of total area assessed in every country GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY CONDITION INDEX Chapter 7.1

22 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page BIRS vs. NPI and NNL There are other methodologies that have been developed in the mineral extraction sector for estimating the net effect of a company s activities on biodiversity. This section explains the relationship of BIRS to these other schemes. One of the most prominent of these methods is that developed by Rio Tinto to support its publicly stated commitment to having a Net Positive Impact (NPI) on biodiversity. A number of other companies are now moving towards similar commitments, while others are focussing on achieving No Net Loss (NNL) of biodiversity (Box 3). BOX 3 NET POSITIVE IMPACT (NPI) This idea was originally developed by Rio Tinto and defined in the following way: The NPI goal means ensuring that Rio Tinto s actions have positive effects on biodiversity that not only balance but are broadly accepted to outweigh the inevitable negative effects of the physical disturbances and impacts associated with mining and mineral processing. Temple, H.J., Anstee, S., Ekstrom, J., Pilgrim, J.D., Rabenantoandro, J., Ramanamanjato, J.B., Randriatafika, F. & Vincelette, M. (2012). Forecasting the path towards a Net Positive Impact on biodiversity for Rio Tinto QMM. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. NO NET LOSS (NNL) The origin of this concept is linked to the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) and has since been defined in varying manners, including: No net loss is defined as the point at which project-related impacts on biodiversity are balanced by measures taken to avoid and minimize the project s impacts, to undertake on-site restoration and finally to offset significant residual impacts, if any, on an appropriate geographic scale (e.g., local, landscape-level, national, regional). Performance Standard 6 Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources IFC, 2012 The term no net loss refers to the goal of restoring a pre-impact biodiversity state, whether in terms of composition, structure, amount or condition. Scoping Study for the Design and Use of Biodiversity Offsets in an English Context, DEFRA, 2009 A net positive change in the suitability of habitats assessed using BIRS does not imply that NPI or NNL has been achieved. The main reason is that NPI and NNL are referenced to a pre-mining baseline for new sites or to a reference date for older sites. BIRS contains no element to measure or estimate the premining conditions, so it cannot be used to make any statements about NPI or NNL as they are currently defined. Another important difference is that NPI and NNL generally require the direct measurement of various elements of biodiversity species, habitats and ecosystem services in order to quantify the losses and gains at the impact site; they also involve the design and implementation of biodiversity offsets in the

23 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 18 majority of cases. BIRS uses vegetation structure as the main surrogate for overall biodiversity value of a site, requires no species monitoring or ecosystem services assessments, and does not require or advocate biodiversity offsets. At best, BIRS allows statements to be made about partial progress towards NPI/NNL, using a limited set of assessed metrics. Furthermore, both NPI and NNL are focussed on biodiversity changes at individual sites. Unlike in BIRS, the results derived from various measured parameters (which usually require the involvement of fieldtrained field ecological experts) are not meant to be aggregated on to higher (national, global) levels. In addition, the use of the word impact in the NPI scheme suggests a proven causal link between the activities of a company and the changes in biodiversity; however, as noted above (Section 2.3), this is not the case with BIRS. A positive change in the habitat-based index calculated through BIRS indicates that the aggregated land areas have an increased suitability for biodiversity. This is a powerful statement for a company to be able to make, particularly at the national and global levels, since BIRS includes all sites, rather than a select few that have received intensive attention, as in the other schemes. A final but significant difference between BIRS and the NPI/NNL accounting systems is the scale of expert input necessary to operate each of the systems. BIRS is intended to be implemented by company technical staff in a maximum of one-to-two days per site per year, supported by limited local expert input. This input is expected to amount to a maximum of two days per site at the start (to set up the assessment) and further input of one day per site every five-to-10 years. By contrast, a recent report 3 on progress towards NPI at Rio Tinto s Madagascar ilmenite mine involved the individual evaluation of 90 high-priority terrestrial species and hundreds of hectares of complex littoral forest. Biodiversity investigations at the site had begun 20 years before the report and were carried out by a large international and national team of expert researchers, backed by an international advisory panel. Predictions that the site will reach NPI are based on field research evidence of species conservation and habitat restoration techniques developed over many years. This level of information is simply not available at most resource extraction sites targeted by BIRS, and creating it would be very expensive. This is, admittedly, an extreme example of the amount of expert time and cost necessary to operate an NPI accounting system, but the differences in cost and time between this and BIRS are orders of magnitude. In order to avoid confusion, a new term is needed to describe net changes in biodiversity suitability using BIRS - one that does not invite the assumption that it is another variant of NNI/NPL. Net Change in Biodiversity Suitability would be the most accurate; in reporting it would be necessary to refer to the scale (e.g. global) and the timeframe to which the stated metric applies (e.g. annual). 3 H. J. Temple, S. Anstee, J. Ekstrom, J. D. Pilgrim, J. Rabenantoandro, J-B. Ramanamanjato, F. Randriatafika and M. Vincelette: Forecasting the path towards a Net Positive Impact on biodiversity for Rio Tinto QMM. IUCN and Rio Tinto Technical Series No.2. Published by: IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Rio Tinto, London, UK

24 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page ASSESSMENT OF HABITATS 5.1 Habitat classification The starting point for the implementation of BIRS involves subdividing an extraction site into its different components of land use and habitat types, using the major subdivisions shown in Fig. 3. Different types of ecosystems and habitats support different levels of biodiversity and different species communities, and thus require different sets of questions for assessing their particular condition and suitability for biodiversity. Figure 3: Land and habitat type classification for natural resource extraction quarries 1. Operational Areas Quarry areas and areas prepared for quarrying Areas where extraction ceased <2 years ago Topsoil and waste storage areas Roads, plants and other infrastructure for extraction 2. Rehabilitation Areas Areas where extraction stopped 2-5 years ago (with active rehabilitation management or passive natural regeneration) Artificial lakes and ponds 3. Natural Habitats Former extraction areas abandoned for >5 years Natural ecosystems (any other land under company management responsibility: buffer zones, mining reserves, offset areas) Terrestrial habitats Freshwater habitats Coastal habitats Forests Wetlands Mangroves Shrublands, Woodlands Rivers, Streams Salt Marshes Grasslands Lakes, Ponds Coastal Zones Bare Rocks Ruderal Habitats Quarry Slopes (disused) Cultivated Lands For decision tree on habitat classification, see Annex 1.

25 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 20 A relatively simplified division of 13 different natural habitat types is used for BIRS; it is designed for universal application in resource extraction for cement and aggregates. Though the initial identification of habitats on a specific site should ideally be completed with the assistance of a trained ecologist, the system is nevertheless tailored towards easy application by non-expert company staff, through the use of a simple decision tree (Annex 1). This habitat classification is mainly driven by vegetation structure, with the exception of active extraction areas, as well as young, less-than-five-year-old areas, where use and age are the primary habitat determinants. This distinction is necessitated by the lack of accurate historical habitat mapping in many quarries, as well as the difficulties of drawing a firm dividing line between pristine areas and those that may have been disturbed in the past but have since regained a generally natural -looking aspect. The BIRS habitat classification is not aimed at reflecting the relative biodiversity and conservation importance of specific areas. As noted in the summary of the IBMS recommendations (Section 3.3), identification of an area s BIC is an essential prerequisite for applying BIRS. The BIRS habitat classification is a tool for identifying and delineating discrete geographical units whose relative biodiversity outcome can be tracked over time through repeated assessments. In general, the results of a BIRS assessment will not be affected if a habitat could be classified in either of two ways, provided that the classification will be retained over the years. However, re-classification will be required if a habitat has clearly evolved into another type, for example grassland that has turned into woodland, or a wetland that has dried up because of a change in hydrological factors. Although the BIRS habitat classification broadly follows the highest hierarchical level of the habitat classification scheme used by the IUCN Red List 4 (Table 6), some simplifications and modifications were necessary due to the following factors: the specific nature of the habitats found on cement and aggregate extraction sites (with deeper marine habitats, for example, being absent); the difficulty in unequivocally distinguishing between different habitats, especially by lay observers (e.g. the need for specialist ecological knowledge on functional properties and temporal variations of ecosystems and on natural vs. anthropogenic ecosystems); the excessive complexity of developing and implementing monitoring procedures tailored to the various finer-level habitats distinguished in the IUCN classification scheme; and the need for a separate BIRS habitat, Ruderal, to take into account the dense and vigorous vegetation developing on roadsides and other disturbed areas in quarries, which often have a significant amount of alien invasive species and cannot be comfortably fitted within any of the IUCN categories or within any of the other BIRS habitats. 4

26 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 21 Table 6: Relationship of habitat classification used by BIRS and IUCN Red List IUCN Red List classification BIRS habitat classification 1. Forest Forests 2. Savannah Shrublands, Woodlands 3. Shrubland Shrublands, Woodlands, (Ruderal Habitats) 4. Grassland Grasslands, (Ruderal Habitats) Wetlands 5. Wetland (inland) Rivers, Streams Lakes, Ponds 6. Rocky areas Bare Rocks, Quarry Slopes, (Ruderal Habitats) 7. Caves and subterranean habitat N.A. (see special comment in Chapter 5.2.4) 8. Desert Included in Grasslands 9. Marine neritic N.A. 10. Marine oceanic N.A. 11. Marine deep ocean floor N.A. Mangroves 12. Marine intertidal Salt Marshes Coastal Zones 13. Marine coastal/supratidal Coastal Zones (IUCN subcat ) 14. Artificial terrestrial Cultivated Land 15. Artificial aquatic Lakes, Ponds Cultivated Land 16. Introduced vegetation Level of invasive vegetation to be assessed as threat factor under each habitat 5.2 Habitat definitions While all BIRS habitat types are defined in Annex 1, some of them require additional explanations Operational Areas Operational areas are defined as areas with the following usages: active quarry areas (if they have not been mined for more than five years, they should be assessed under one or more of the natural habitat-types); areas prepared for resource extraction (vegetation and topsoil removed); topsoil and waste storage areas; roads; production plants and other infrastructure; and areas where extraction ceased less than two years ago. The operational areas basically represent pieces of land where, through the removal of most of the organic structure, the visible parts of nature have all but disappeared. These areas represent the heaviest form of interference with local habitats and provide the natural resource extraction company with a minimum base from which to build up the biodiversity value of a site through rehabilitation and proactive biodiversity management of the non-mined land under its control.

27 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page Rehabilitation Areas Rehabilitation of areas where resource extraction is completed is the most widespread form of biodiversity management undertaken by a natural resource extraction company. Rehabilitation generally takes one of two forms: The first, natural regeneration, involves leaving such areas alone and allowing natural ecological processes to take their course. In many cases, this is a valid approach and can result in positive outcomes for biodiversity. The more common alternative, however, is active management intervention to quicken the process of rehabilitation. In almost all countries, rehabilitation is regulated (and supervised) as part of the mining licences granted by the relevant government authorities. Rehabilitation is the most obvious measure through which a company can improve its site biodiversity condition index over time. The long-term biodiversity value of rehabilitation areas may be influenced by factors that are mandated by regulators. Unfortunately, these official rehabilitation requirements are not always conducive to enhancing local biodiversity, and are sometimes even counter-productive. Common challenges relate to the species to be planted (which in many cases may include exotic species or even alien invasives) and the final modelling of the landscape (often primarily based on safety and stability considerations, rather than ecological principles). In such cases, resources might therefore have to be invested into rehabilitation programmes that have limited benefits for biodiversity, reducing the potential for attaining a high habitat condition index. It is in a company s interests to negotiate for a more flexible approach, so that better biodiversity outcomes can be achieved. Often, there are little or no extra costs involved. In many cases, natural rehabilitation is not only the best ecological method of rehabilitation, but also the cheapest solution. There are many options for proactive measures with positive effects on biodiversity (and thus on the biodiversity condition index) that can be initiated by a company, for example: intensive and longer-term aftercare to encourage rapid soil formation, the development of vegetation cover, native plant diversity and diversity of structure; targeting the creation of habitats that are rare or of high priority for species conservation in the region; and natural rehabilitation: allowing ecological processes to work with no or very little management intervention Ruderal Habitats The somewhat unusual category of Ruderal Habitats, a concept not even particularly familiar to many ecologists, is, in the BioPan s practical experience, highly pertinent to many mining areas. This habitat is characterised by features such as: no clear consistent structure in terms of woody density and canopy height (although this could also apply to natural shrublands and woodlands); often luxuriant, very dense and impenetrable vegetation (secondary growth); often with vines and climbers that may be thorny; often a strong presence of alien invasive plant species; generally of transitional nature (i.e. developing into something else); and frequently found on road verges and other fairly heavily disturbed areas.

28 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 23 Some of these features overlap with other habitats under the BIRS classification. For example, large canopy openings in a forest caused by the fall of a large tree can be colonised by exactly this type of vegetation (minus the alien invasives); the vegetation on old quarry slopes, in particular on the recontoured slopes, often conforms to this type of habitat; and areas that are transitional and successional between, for example, a shrubland and a forest could also fall under this new definition. As such, this classification category should only be used when the habitat in question, with the best of intentions, cannot comfortably be assigned to any other habitat type, especially in view of the fact that the condition of these Ruderal Habitats will not be scored, but rather assigned a fixed default value in the lower half of the assessment scale Caves and subterranean habitats Caves and subterranean habitats are of great importance for biodiversity (and frequently for cultural reasons as well), particularly the limestone caves in karst areas where a great number of very localised endemic species are often found. 5 In view of the frequent conflicts that arise in such areas between use for mineral resource extraction and biodiversity conservation, the feasibility of delineating such special habitat type has been explored. This notion was finally abandoned, however, not only because the recognition of such a specialised habitat would have distorted the very simple habitat classification used by BIRS, but also because very specific expertise would be required to assess the condition of such habitats (going well beyond the level of knowledge for which BIRS has been designed). Nevertheless, there are still several features built into the IBMS and BIRS that allow both systems to reflect the special importance of karst areas and caves in the overall habitat condition assessment (Chapter 5.4.9). 5.3 Estimation of habitat extent A central element of the implementation of BIRS is assessment of the surface area (to the nearest onetenth of a hectare) of the habitat types found at site level. These figures, representing the quantity value of each asset item on the habitat balance sheet, are needed for weighting the sizes of individual habitat types in the calculation of the overall condition index and the determination of the Site Biodiversity Condition Class. All landholdings under the company s management control, irrespective of whether they are owned or leased, actively mined, or permanently or temporarily unused, should be included in the BIRS assessment. Land that is owned by the company but leased out to a third party for commercial use or for conservation management purposes should likewise be included. In addition, a company may also choose to include adjoining or nearby offset areas that might be managed to compensate for habitat losses caused by extraction operations, or former leased areas handed back to the owner which, through targeted rehabilitation efforts by the company, have become valuable for biodiversity. If there is a formal offset area agreed with the relevant authorities as part of permitting, this should be included in the BIRS assessment, whether the land is currently owned by the company or not. Any area constituting an offset that is based on a less formal or voluntary agreement should be included if the company has made a commitment to its management or specific biodiversity outcomes. 5 Birdlife, FFI, IUCN WWF Extraction and Biodiversity in Limestone Areas. Joint briefing paper.

29 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 24 The information on habitat type and extent would already be available where a proper ESIA has been carried out, according to the minimum standards postulated in the IBMS. In many cases, more detailed habitat or ecological maps are, in fact, available, depicting habitats on a finer level than required for BIRS. In this case, the habitat categories of the ESIA will have to be grouped into the less-refined BIRS categories (which should normally pose no particular problems). At sites where operating permits pre-date ESIA regulations and no detailed studies are available, an external expert should be enlisted to assist in the identification and delineation of the different habitat types. A combination of satellite images and/or aerial photos, together with ground checks, should be used. It will be important to balance the need for accuracy with the need for expediency. Areas of a particular habitat that contain habitat inclusions of other habitat types of less than one hectare (Section 5.4.8) should be treated as the single dominant habitat. The paper or digital map should be captured in a Geographic Information System that allows for the calculation of the extent of each habitat in hectares. In some cases it will be necessary to subdivide a habitat type into different habitat blocks and estimate their spatial extent separately, specifically when these habitat blocks have an obviously different regional context factor (Section 5.7). For example, a calcareous grassland on nutrient-poor soil and a meadow on rich soil in a different part of the site may both be classified as Grasslands and assessed with the same questionnaire, but the former, which might be a much rarer habitat in the region, could thus have a higher context factor than the latter. Therefore, the two habitat blocks should be included in the calculation of the site index as separate units, each with a separate figure for its spatial extent. The same could apply to different sets of forests a stand of good mixed native woodland and a plantation largely consisting of alien species are likely to have different regional context factors and should likewise not be pooled into one habitat unit, although the same habitat questionnaire will be used for their respective assessments. If these sub-divisions of a specific habitat type are greatly intermingled, and their precise extent is difficult to delineate and measure on a map, a percentage estimate of each of these habitat sub-types could be made and the overall habitat extent subsequently allocated proportionally to each habitat subdivision. 5.4 Habitat condition assessment To balance the negative effects of clearing land for mineral resource removal, a company can take proper care of existing un-mined habitats on a site, seek to improve the site s condition through active management and create new habitats through rehabilitation. A fundamental part of BIRS is the annual assessment of the condition of a site s habitats and, by implication, their value and suitability for biodiversity. In the assessment process, each habitat except the Operational Areas, the newly established Rehabilitation Areas and the greatly disturbed Ruderal Habitats is individually scored for its condition. For each habitat type, a specific set of questions (Annex 3) aims at assessing factors that, by and large, are related to biodiversity. Each question is scored on a scale of 1-4, with 1 being the least suitable for biodiversity and 4 being the most suitable Assessment questions The questions are mainly directed towards key indicators of habitat quality, including:

30 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 25 morphological diversity of the habitat; vegetation structure; spatial heterogeneity of the vegetation; leaf litter, decaying vegetation, dead wood; presence of outstanding ecological features (such as karst or breeding colonies of birds); and presence of animal indicator groups and of pollinators. The scores are related to the following general ecological assumptions: biodiversity is ultimately a function of habitat diversity; structurally more diverse habitats lead to a higher species diversity; and higher habitat quality is reflected by a higher species diversity. Although it is acknowledged that equating habitat structure with habitat condition and with suitability for biodiversity is a scientific over-simplification, the authors still view this as a valid approximation for an overall assessment of the relative quality of habitats. Also, it is recognised that some habitats may intrinsically have a relatively low level of plant and animal diversity, but still be important for regional, national or global biodiversity, and also that the intrinsic species diversity in different regions of the world varies considerably. Therefore, it is emphasised again that the Habitat Condition Class (and the Site Condition Class) resulting from the BIRS assessment are relative values for looking at changes at the site, national and global levels, and that they cannot be used for comparing the absolute biodiversity values of different sites or different countries Scoring All individual habitat indicators assessed for BIRS are scored on a scale of 1-4, i.e. each answer to a question needs to be allocated to one of four given possibilities. For some questions, visual guidance is also provided on the questionnaires. The general pattern behind the scoring (explained in Table 7), depends on whether the indicator is positive or negative for the condition of a habitat (i.e. its biodiversity suitability). While the scoring might indeed be equated with a valuation from bad to good in relation to some questions, in other cases it will only represent a categorisation on a continuous scale of specific characteristics of a habitat. The scoring is not a measure for the absolute status of biodiversity at a site, but rather provides a measure for relative habitat changes in the wake of resource extraction and other operational activities. Table 7: General pattern of scoring of habitat condition questions Value Negative factor Many Above average Below average Few (Very) high High-medium Medium-low (Very) low (Very) bad Bad-average Average-good (Very) good Positive factor Few Below average Above average Many (Very) low Low-medium Medium-high (Very) high Poor Marginal Suboptimal Optimal

31 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 26 Careful consideration has gone into the number of possible options that should be the basis for scoring the BIRS habitat questions. While too many possibilities would make it difficult for an untrained person to differentiate between the options offered, too few could substantially reduce the meaningfulness of the scoring system (with a disproportionate number of scorings likely to be in the middle category). Field tests showed that the chosen number of four options was generally manageable for non-experts and still provided sufficient differentiation on which to base a score of the habitat condition Minimum size of habitat blocks In many quarries, natural habitats of different types, extraction sites and rehabilitation areas form a complex mosaic of intermixed patches of various sizes (habitat blocks). Therefore, some simplifications in the delineation, area estimation and condition assessment will be necessary to retain the practicality of BIRS. For ease of operationalisation, the following guidelines are used (and should ideally be applied with the help of an expert during the initial set-up process): Every habitat block larger than 1 ha should be evaluated separately. However, disconnected blocks of the same habitat type, which appear similar in their habitat structure and have the same regional context value (Section 5.7) can be pooled and assessed as one unit. Habitat patches of less than 1 ha should be treated as a habitat inclusion with the habitat that encloses them or which lies adjacent to them, provided that, together, they are greater than 1 ha (Section 5.4.8). For planted Rehabilitation Areas, Lakes and Ponds, Rivers and Streams the minimum size for the area to be treated as a separate entity is 0.25 ha, i.e. a block of 50x50m. Habitat blocks of the same habitat types, whether adjoining or separate from each other, that have a different context value (e.g. a plantation forest versus a natural mixed-wood forest) must be assessed separately (Section 5.7). The same questionnaires will be used for both, but the resulting index, like the context value, could be very different. As already noted in Section 5.3, if habitat blocks of the same type but with different context factors are greatly intermingled and their precise extent is difficult to delineate and measure on a map, a percentage estimate of each of these habitat sub-types could be made, and the overall habitat extent subsequently proportionally allocated to each habitat sub-division. However, a separate condition assessment of each habitat sub-type would still be required. The sample map in Fig. 4 illustrates the different potential occurrences of habitats in a quarry, including: Operational Areas; Rehabilitation Areas; Terrestrial habitat types: - in one continuous block (Grassland in Fig. 4); - separate blocks, but with same context factor (Shrubland in Fig. 4); - separate or adjoining blocks with different context factors (Forest in Fig. 4); Lakes and Ponds; and River or Stream running through the site.

32 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 27 Figure 4: Map of quarry with different habitats Sampling Sampling of the habitat condition is done through a combination of assessments at particular points within the habitats and wider area assessments. Measured quadrants or defined transects are not required; they proved too complex and unsuitable for use by non-experts. The intention of the sampling is to get an overall impression of the habitat condition and its suitability for biodiversity through a series of assessments at representative and accessible points within the habitat. Sampling may vary according to the habitat type and access limitations. It is recommended initially to get an overview of the habitat by driving or walking around the site before selecting sampling locations, in order to ensure that the locations chosen are representative of the conditions found in the habitat. The number of locations chosen will depend upon the size of the habitat within the site, the number of distinct blocks of similar habitat, and the range of conditions found within the habitat. A minimum of two sample points should be located in each category of habitat, while a maximum of five sample points would be indicated for most large habitats. In the case of very extensive habitats in a quarry, up to ten sample points may be considered. The wider the range of conditions within a larger area of habitat, the more samples need to be taken. The arithmetic mean of all question scores from all sampling points in the same habitat will provide the habitat condition score.

33 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 28 Assessments at a sampling point are carried out by looking in all directions to get an overall impression of the conditions, followed by completion of the questionnaire. The assessor may walk around in a radius of 10m for a more detailed inspection. Where possible, the GPS coordinates of this point should be recorded and subsequent assessments (as they are required at least every five years) should be undertaken at the same point. Photographs of the habitat at these points may be taken for future reference and comparison. In terrestrial locations, assessors should avoid habitat borders, roads and paths, because these can include edge-effect distortions in the readings. Assessors should move at least 20m into the habitat to avoid such edge effects. Some habitats may be difficult or dangerous to access, e.g. because the slope is too great or the vegetation too thick. In wetlands, the ground may be too wet for easy access, and rivers, streams, lakes and ponds may only be assessed from the banks. In such instances, assessors should walk along the perimeter of the habitat, along haul roads, tracks and banks, to get an overall impression of the habitat and then make an assessment from a good vantage point where as much of the habitat as possible can be seen. Disused quarry slopes should be assessed from a vantage point where as much of the slope as possible can be seen. The choice of season, time of day and weather conditions are important. Sampling should be done when conditions are optimal for observing the full diversity of a habitat. The sampling season should be when there is good plant growth, e.g. early summer in temperate climates and in the early rainy season in tropical climates. Earlier in the day is better than during the middle of the day. Sampling should be carried out under fine weather conditions, without strong wind or rain. Each subsequent assessment should be done as close as possible to the original or ideal sampling time, in terms of seasonality, time of day and actual weather conditions. Finally, it is generally recommended that the initial selection and placement of sampling points be done with the help of an expert, not as a desk exercise with a map, but during a joint field inspection to ensure practicality. At the same time, this person could also provide advice on the best sampling season and conditions Data recording The ideal method of recording data in the field would be by means of an app on a hand-held device, such as a tablet or smart phone, with all the habitat questionnaires and their explanations and pictorial guides stored on the devices. This would allow answers to be recorded through the mere tapping of an option. Furthermore, downloading the recommended photo documentation of each survey point, the recording of its GPS position, the calculation of the various indices, and the habitat and site classes right to the company s central data storage system could also be automated with such an approach. In the absence of such an electronic system, the process of data recording will have to be undertaken along more traditional lines, with the questionnaires in a practical format, recording forms for the habitat condition assessment in the field and a computer database into which this information can be transferred and combined with information on habitat extent and context factors. Examples of such Excel-based recording forms for the individual habitat condition assessments and the summary form for the composite site condition index are provided in Annex 2. The calculation of indices and classes are done automatically in these forms, after the required field data have been entered. The following parameters should be recorded at individual survey points:

34 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 29 For each habitat or habitat sub-block (if relevant): - habitat type; - name or geographic position of habitat sub-block (if relevant); - habitat code (as provided at the bottom of the sheets); - extent of habitat area (or sub-block); - date; - observer(s); - weather; - scores for questions on context factor; - presence of habitat enhancements; and - scores for questions on habitat threats. For each survey point of that habitat (or habitat sub-block): - scores for questions on habitat condition; and - geographical coordinates (latitude and longitude) Default values and special habitats Operational Areas should be treated as one unit, requiring only one total area figure, and allocated a fixed default condition score of 1, reflecting their generally low value for biodiversity. This also includes areas where resource extraction has ceased less than two years ago, even if active rehabilitation management has already been initiated. Rehabilitation Areas (both, actively managed areas and areas where natural regeneration is taking place): - natural or managed Rehabilitation Areas that are two-to-five years old should be assessed by means of a special questionnaire; and - areas more than five years old should be assigned to one of the habitat types and assessed by means of the respective habitat questionnaires. Quarry Slopes that have not been mined for more than five years should be assessed by means of the Quarry Slopes questionnaire; quarry faces abandoned less than five years ago should be classified as Operational Areas. Artificially created lakes and ponds should be assessed with the Lakes, Ponds questionnaire, irrespective of how long ago they were established. If they are part of active operations, they would be assessed using the questionnaire, but have a context factor fixed at 1.0 and a habitat threat score that takes into account operational activity. Ruderal Habitats, which in many cases are difficult to survey because of their almost impenetrable nature, are given a fixed default score of 2. While they do offer a greater potential for biodiversity than the Operational Areas (default score of 1), their disturbed nature, alien invasive plant component and different structure and composition to original natural habitats make for a generally lower level of biodiversity. This relatively low default score should provide an incentive to transform these areas into better-quality habitats through proactive management.

35 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page Calculation of Habitat Condition Index The index for the condition of each survey point is calculated as the arithmetic mean of the scores for each question. The significance of the different questions is considered equally and no weighting factors are applied. The index value of the entire habitat is calculated as the arithmetic mean of all the survey points of that particular habitat type, whether in the same or different habitat blocks (as long as they have the same context factor). The suitability of each habitat for biodiversity may be enhanced by the presence of inclusions of other, higher-value habitats or outstanding biodiversity features (Section 5.4.8), or decreased by the presence and intensity of a range of threats (Section 5.5). The intention of these opposing modifiers, which are applied to the raw habitat condition score, is to produce a habitat condition index that is a fairer reflection of the true value of the areas for biodiversity. The degree to which the raw score should be increased or decreased is a matter where experience is the best teacher. The description of the use of these modifiers in the following sections reflects the experience acquired so far and the expert opinion of the BioPan. As implementation of BIRS proceeds, the way these modifying scores are incorporated maybe be improved further Habitat enhancements Three supplementary questions, if answered positively, provide an opportunity to increase the calculated habitat condition index by 0.2 each. If all three apply, this would increase the index by 0.6 (i.e. by two habitat class categories; Chapter 5.6): 1. Does the habitat contain any terrestrial habitat inclusions? Some habitat blocks are enriched by small inclusions of other terrestrial habitat types, too small in size to merit separate assessment, but possibly important for local biodiversity because they add to the overall structural and species diversity of a habitat block (e.g. small forest islands within an area of cultivated land, a patch of heathlands in a grassland habitat, a karst outcrop in a forest or a patch of calcareous grassland in an area of shrublands or woodlands). To qualify, these patches must be between 0.25 ha and 1 ha in size; smaller areas are to be discarded, larger areas would qualify to be assessed as a separate habitat block. Patches of Operational Areas, extraction areas abandoned less than five years ago and Ruderal Habitats should be disregarded as habitat inclusions, as should areas that show the characteristics of a habitat edge. 2. Does the habitat contain any aquatic habitat inclusions? Ponds or any other permanent water bodies smaller than 0.25 ha located in terrestrial habitats (e.g. in grasslands or shrublands/woodlands or a wetland patch in a forest) are not assessed separately, but they still could be of considerable importance for local biodiversity and will also result in an increase of the habitat condition value. 3. Are there any outstanding biodiversity features in the habitat? These would include features, such as the presence of karst caves (which often harbour very special and rare animal types), springs or a breeding colony of bats or herons which, over long time periods, have been firmly linked to this particular locality. Only one feature should be scored, even if there are several different such features.

36 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 31 These enhancement questions can also be applied to Operational Areas. They could thus increase such areas default index value of 1.0. For example, an aggregate quarry in France has small temporary (ephemeral) pools of water that serve as the preferred breeding ground for a rare European toad The special case of karst In view of the biodiversity importance of karst areas (especially caves and underground water courses that might be associated with it) and the conservation conflicts that often arise in such limestone sites through resource extraction, a special explanation is given here on how these unique habitat formations are addressed in BIRS: 1. The most important provision comes into play before BIRS is implemented at a site, namely at an early stage of the IBMS process (Section 3.3): The presence of karst, especially when endemic species are known to occur in possible caves, should result in the site scoring a high Biodiversity Importance Category (BIC), which would in turn place it in a high risk category of the Biodiversity Risk Matrix and require the development of a special BAP (Tables 3 and 4). The targets formulated in such a BAP would be monitored and supervised by an external expert (NGO, university, consultant). BIRS, as a very simple habitat-based monitoring system, cannot replace the detailed monitoring required for specially identified biodiversity targets, nor is it the appropriate instrument for determining the biodiversity importance of a site. 2. Several BIRS habitat types could be associated with karst (e.g. Forests, Grassland, Bare Rock). Because of their ecological importance and unique biodiversity features, they would have a high context factor, thus disproportionately affecting the Site Biodiversity Condition Class. 3. The presence of karst in a habitat could also lead to additional habitat enhancement points, as explained in Section 5.4.8, and thus increase the calculated index value of the respective habitat. 4. If, on the other hand, karst features are threatened through mining operations, dumping of waste etc., they would trigger a higher threat score (Section 5.5), reducing the index value of a particular habitat. 5.5 Habitat Threat Score In addition to the habitat condition index, BIRS will also assess a score for the level of threat to the habitat, looking at the following factors: 1. signs of soil erosion; 2. negative effects from grazing or browsing by domestic or wild animals; 3. invasive alien plants; 4. negative effects from quarrying or associated operational activities that spill over into the habitat being assessed; 5. uncontrolled use of non-quarrying natural resources; 6. dumping of non-mineral solid waste; 7. water pollution; and 8. threats to habitat by uncontrolled fires.

37 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 32 As part of the condition assessment, each of these potential threats should be evaluated by means of a Threat Questionnaire that assesses the presence of eight different threats. The answers are likewise given on a scale of 1 (no threat) to 4 (highest level of threat). However, in contrast to the habitat condition index which is the simple arithmetic mean of all answers of a questionnaire, the Habitat Threat Score is calculated differently. First, to ease understanding, the scale of 1-4 is transposed to 0-3, so that no threat is expressed with a zero value. Second, since the various threats are additive, the total score is the sum of all (transposed) values. Although this sum can, theoretically, lie between 0 (none of the threats present) and 24 (all eight threats present at the highest level of intensity), empirically it will hardly ever be above 10. The total represents the Habitat Threat Score, with all values above 10, if they arise at all, given the maximum value of 10. Only one score should be given to each habitat type (or habitat block if it has a different context factor). A threat score is not calculated for the Operational Areas, except for underwater extraction of aggregates from lakes, ponds and rivers. The Habitat Threat Score, together with the aggregated Site Threat Score (Chapter 6.3) provides guidance and incentive for site managers to improve the biodiversity condition of the site through targeted management measures to reduce relevant threats to habitats. While the Habitat Threat Score will be presented as a separate value for each habitat, it will also influence the habitat condition index and the Habitat Condition Class derived from it. A top score of 10 would reduce the Habitat Condition Class by two; thus for every habitat threat score point, the overall habitat condition index will be reduced by Habitat Condition Class The habitat condition index calculated from the results of the individual habitat survey points will lie between the values of 1.0 (if all questions are rated as 1) and 4.0 (if all questions are rated as 4). (Theoretically, if habitat enhancements and threats are taken into account, it could go below or above these boundary values, but this is unlikely to be the case in practice.) Since the habitat condition index, even if presented with only one decimal point (i.e. 30 subdivisions between 1.0 and 4.0), reflects an unwarranted accuracy of a relatively coarse system, for reporting and communication purposes it is transformed into a Habitat Condition Class on a more or less equally divided scale of 1-10 (Table 8), indicating at the extremes a degraded, very poor habitat (Class 1) or a very good habitat that is excellent for biodiversity (Class 10). The conversion of the habitat condition index to a Habitat Condition Class value is done for reasons of presentation, it does not involve any additional measurements or observations.

38 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 33 Table 8: Class boundaries Habitat Condition Class Site Condition Class (Quarry Class) Class Low High Diff. Low High Diff Habitat Context Factor For the aggregation of the individual habitat condition indices into the site biodiversity index (Chapter 6.2), a Habitat Context Factor has to be determined for every habitat type (or habitat block), measuring the habitat s regional uniqueness and importance. This factor is derived from the following four parameters, each to be assessed on a scale of 1-4 (Table 9): 1. the uniqueness of the habitat in the regional context; 2. the importance of the habitat in relation to regional and global biodiversity; 3. the general level of threat to this habitat type on a national level; and 4. the habitat s importance for providing ecosystem services for the surrounding landscape. This Habitat Context Factor should, under normal and ideal circumstances, be assessed by an ecological expert familiar with the region, either from a local partner NGO or a consulting agency. 6 This task requires wider ecological and conservation knowledge than can be expected from most site staff. The factor is likely to remain constant over long periods. Therefore, once assessed, it does not have to be reexamined for every annual BIRS assessment once every five-10 years should be sufficient, unless some large-scale and significant land-use changes have been taking place in the surrounding region. In such a case, the Habitat Context Factor would need to be re-examined earlier. 6 Ideally, a company using BIRS should ensure that in future EIA studies reference is made to the habitat classification required for BIRS, as well as to their context factor, i.e. their importance and uniqueness in the region.

39 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 34 Table 9: Scoring of regional habitat importance and uniqueness Value How widespread is the habitat in the surrounding landscape (usually 5-10km 7 )? Dominant Common Rare Not present 2. What is the intrinsic biodiversity value of this habitat likely to be? For a definition of the status of species, see IUCN Red List 8 and IUCN guidelines for the application of the species criteria for regional and national assessments. 9 Low No species of national concern Medium Includes species of national concern High Includes nationally rare species Very High Includes nationally very rare and/or endemic species 3. What is the degree of threat to this habitat nationally? Not threatened Near Threatened Vulnerable Endangered e.g. reference to IUCN Red List of Ecosystems What is the ecological importance of this habitat in the surrounding landscape? Hydrological connections Habitat connectivity Biodiversity corridors Refuges, breeding, feeding, stopover sites Buffer zone of adjoining PAs Catchment protection Water amelioration Habitat Context Factor Low Medium High Very High Mean of the four values (to the nearest tenth) The rationale behind the context factor is that not all habitats are equal in terms of regional importance. If a regionally rare habitat, a habitat with very special biodiversity features (e.g. karst caves) or a habitat with an important ecosystem function for the surrounding landscape (streams, wetlands) is affected by an extraction operation, this represents a bigger impact on regional biodiversity (i.e. causes a bigger reduction of the index) than if mining affects a habitat type that is regionally common and/or does not harbour species of special regional/national importance. By the same token, if, through rehabilitation, a habitat type is being re-created which is regionally rare or uncommon (such as, for example, the construction of a permanent water body or wetland in an area where these have been destroyed in the past due to agricultural development), this will have a positive effect on regional biodiversity, in turn leading to an increase of the overall site index. 7 This is a guiding figure: It may vary according to the general morphology of the landscape and thus requires some expert judgment. For a quarry in the mountains of Switzerland, 5km are enough, but in the flats of Gujarat, one has to go even beyond 10km IUCN. (2012). Guidelines for Application of IUCN Red List Criteria at Regional and National Levels: Version 4.0. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN. iii + 41pp IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: Convention on Biological Diversity National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans:

40 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 35 For the following areas, no context factor is determined, and a default value of 1.0 is used instead: Operational Areas; Quarry Slopes disused for less than five years; Rehabilitation Areas planted less than five years ago; Artificial lakes and ponds created less than two years ago; Lakes and ponds from which extraction is taking place; and Ruderal Habitats.

41 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page SITE BIODIVERSITY CONDITION 6.1 General A core goal of BIRS is to obtain an overall value for a site (quarry) that expresses its broad condition, i.e. suitability for biodiversity. This measurement should be determined once a year for every active or disused extraction site and for every piece of reserve land owned or managed by the company. This composite index summarising the biodiversity condition of each site is derived from 1) the extent of each habitat type (or habitat block) found on a site (Section 5.3), 2) the context factor of that habitat (Section 5.7) and (3) the condition index of each habitat resulting from the field assessments (Section 5.4). While this measurement will initially be calculated as an index, using the respective index values of each habitat or habitat block, as with the habitats themselves, it will then be converted into a site class, based on a scale of The components of these site-based calculations are summarised in Table 10, which lists the questionnaires to be used for assessing respective habitat conditions and the value of the particular context factors either as the arithmetic mean of the four context questions (Table 9) or by allocating a fixed default value. 6.2 Derivation of the composite site condition index Two simple steps lead to the composite (biodiversity) condition index of a site (quarry): 1. Each habitat condition index is multiplied by its corresponding context factor. If, for a specific habitat type, more than one index has been assessed because of the presence of habitat blocks with different context values (e.g. pine plantation and natural mixed-wood forest), each block should be treated separately. Operational Areas, Rehabilitation Areas and Ruderal Habitats (with fixed default scores and context values) are treated in the same manner. In theory, the resulting corrected habitat index can range from 1 (habitat condition of 1 and context factor of 1) to 16 (habitat condition of 4 and context factor of 4). However, in practice, values above 10 will be very rare, since they would require the combination of a very high habitat condition index assessed in the field together with a very high context factor. 2. The site condition index is subsequently calculated as the mean of all corrected indices weighted by their respective habitat extent. These calculations will be automatically performed by the Excel data sheets or the apps on a handheld electronic device (the use of which is strongly recommended) into which the results of the field assessments are recorded ( Annex 2). An example of such a calculation is shown in Box 4. Through this approach, habitats that are regionally rare (e.g. karst formations) and/or have a high importance for regional biodiversity and/or fulfil important ecological functions for surrounding habitats (e.g. water courses) make a higher contribution to the overall site index than common habitats or Operational Areas. From a biodiversity management perspective, BIRS is designed to reward proactive measures, such as the creation of new habitats (especially lakes, ponds and wetlands) that may regionally be uncommon.

42 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 37 Table 10: Components of site condition index Operational Areas Quarry Slope Rehabilitation Areas (managed or natural rehabilitation) Artificial lakes and ponds (including extraction lakes) Terrestrial Freshwater Coastal Habitats Quarry areas, areas prepared for quarrying, topsoil and waste storage areas, roads, plants and other infrastructure Disused for <5 years Disused for >5 years Started <2 years ago Started 2-5 years ago Started >5 years ago Created <2 years ago or still operational Created >2 years ago and no longer operational NATURAL HABITATS Forests Shrublands, Woodlands Grasslands Assessment questionnaire Score Context Factor None Default: 1 11 Default: 1 To be treated as Operational Area Questionnaire for Quarry Slopes To be treated as Operational Area Questionnaire for Rehabilitated Land To be treated under respective habitat Questionnaire for Lakes, Ponds Questionnaire for Lakes, Ponds Respective habitat questionnaires Default: 1 Default: Default: 1 Default: Default: Default: Ruderal Habitats None Default: 2 Default: 1 Bare Rocks Wetlands Rivers, Streams Lakes, Ponds Mangroves Salt Marshes Coastal Zones Cultivated Land Respective habitat questionnaires In some cases, this value could be higher if habitat inclusions or outstanding biodiversity features are present in the Operational Area (see Chapter on habitat enhancements).

43 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 38 BOX 4 CALCULATION OF COMPOSITE SITE CONDITION INDEX - Example Extent Habitat condition score Context Factor Calculations ha CS CF CS * CF (CS * CF) * ha 1 Operational Area Habitat A Habitat B Habitat C Habitat D Total SUM Composite score for site SUM((CS*CF)*ha) / SUM (ha) Site Threat Score The Site Threat Score, to be reported alongside the Site Condition Class, is derived from the threat scores for each habitat type. First, the mean of habitat threat scores weighted by the respective habitat extent values is calculated. Second, this number is converted to a form that allows comparisons between the levels of threats of sites of different sizes, by multiplying the mean of the habitat threat scores with the proportion of natural habitats of a site affected by at least one threat (Box 5). (Operational Areas and Ruderal Habitats, which are not assessed but have a default condition score, are excluded from this calculation.) Since the habitat threat scores have a downgrading effect on the respective habitat condition indices (Chapter 5.5), the Site Threat Score, by implication, will automatically also be reflected in the final value of the Site Condition Class.

44 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 39 BOX 5 CALCULATION OF SITE THREAT SCORE - Example Extent Habitat Threat Score ha HTS HTS * ha 1 Operational Area Habitat A Habitat B Habitat C Habitat D 1.8 Total Area SUM 47.8 Total natural areas (Habitats A-D) SUM(NA) 27.8 Natural areas affected by threats (Habitats A+B) SUM(NAT) 19.5 Proportion of natural areas affected by threat SUM(NAT) / SUM(NA) P 0.70 Calculated mean value MV (SUM(HTS*ha) / SUM(NA)) * P 1.78 Site Threat Score Values > 0 < 2 = Score 1 Values > 2 < 10 = Score 2-9 (integer of MV) Values > 10 = Score Site Threat Report Since the principal purpose of the habitat threat scores and the Site Threat Score aggregated from them is to help guide actions at site level to reduce the main threats to the natural habitats, and thus increase their suitability for biodiversity, it will be useful to develop a Site Threat Report to complement the Site Threat Score. This report, an example of which is given in Box 6, summarises the different habitat threat scores according to the eight threat types, giving the total area of a site that is affected by a particular threat and the area-weighted mean score for each threat type. It is important to note that neither the Site Threat Score nor the Site Threat Report necessitates any additional assessments or records; they are produced by processing information that has already been gathered as part of the site assessments of habitat extent, condition and threat.

45 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 40 BOX 6 SITE THREAT REPORT - Example A Site Threat Report can highlight the threats that are decreasing habitat condition scores, so that management understands where action could increase the overall site index. This report lists all the threats recorded for habitats present on the site, together with the area affected by each threat and the average threat score weighted by area of each habitat affected. 1 Signs of soil erosion Threat 2 Negative effects of grazing or browsing Area affected (ha) Average threat score (weighted by area) 3 Invasive alien plants Negative effects by quarrying or associated operational activities Uncontrolled use of non-quarrying natural resources 6 Dumping of non-mineral solid waste 7 Water pollution Threats to habitat by uncontrolled fires 6.5 Site Condition Class Just as the habitat condition indices are converted into a Habitat Condition Class (Section 5.6), the calculated site biodiversity condition index will be converted into a Site Condition Class (also called Quarry Condition Class). Like the Habitat Condition Class, the values for the Site Condition Class will range from 1-10, which removes the somewhat false and misleading accuracy of the continuous index value and gives the company an easy-to-report measure of the overall biodiversity status of every extraction site. However, in contrast to the Habitat Condition Class, the allocation of the Site (or Quarry) Condition Class cannot be done through an equal division of the theoretical scale of In practice, values above 6.0 will be very rare, while most of the resulting indices will probably lie between 2.0 and 5.0. Thus a different division of the scale is being used (Table 8). The allocation of a Site Condition Class is not intended to be scientific; the detail of variation in biodiversity suitability as calculated through the composite site index is not a straight line. The proposed division of the classes in Table 8 is based on expertise acquired through visits to more than 50 quarries in 12 countries and on three continents, as well as full testing of BIRS in more than 10 quarries. As BIRS is implemented by a company, additional experience will probably suggest how the boundaries might be altered for more accurate differentiation between sites. This should be carried out through a formal review process at a designated point in the implementation timeline. Any changes recommended by such a review can be retrofitted to pre-existing assessments, in order to preserve a valid time series.

46 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page HIGHER-LEVEL AGGREGATION AND REPORTING OF INDICES 7.1 National and Global Biodiversity Condition Indices The assessment of the composite biodiversity condition of a site and of the derived Site Biodiversity Condition Class as described in the previous chapter is the core of BIRS. Just as this value is an aggregation of individual habitat condition indices, a company s various site condition values can in turn be aggregated on to higher geographical units. Most obviously, the site indices lend themselves to being combined into a National Biodiversity Condition Index, summarising the overall biodiversity suitability of all of a company s landholdings in a particular country. These national indices can then be aggregated into a company-wide Global Biodiversity Condition Index. Table 11 shows these two most logical levels of aggregation, but other geographical groupings can easily be considered, for example where more than one autonomous company operates within a single country, where a single company operates across more than one country or where a cement plant has several associated quarries and wishes to generate a combined index values for all of these quarries. All scales of aggregation that are larger than the site level should respect the fundamental characteristic of BIRS as an area accounting system where biodiversity suitability and other biodiversity factors are attributed to discrete areas. Accordingly, national and global biodiversity indices contain a single weighting factor: the national indices consist of site results weighted by the size of the respective sites, and the global index consists of national indices weighted by area of land assessed in each country. Table 11: Aggregation of indices Geographic level Value/Index Derived from Individual habitats (or habitat blocks if they have varying condition factors) Site (individual quarries and extraction sites) National Global Habitat condition index HABITAT CONDITION CLASS Composite site index SITE CONDITION CLASS NATIONAL BIODIVERSITY CONDITION INDEX (COMPANY) GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY CONDITION INDEX Assessment of habitats ( Section 5.4) Aggregation of habitat indices, corrected for habitat context and weighted for extent ( Section 5.7) Aggregation of all site indices, weighted by site areas Aggregation of all national indices, weighted by the total area of the land assessed (company landholdings in a country) 7.2 Reporting on biodiversity assets The purpose of these various indices is to provide a company with a system to report on biodiversity on its landholdings. It is not a measure of biodiversity per se, but rather an indirect measure of the

47 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 42 suitability of the habitats contained in its landholdings for biodiversity, mainly using factors relating to habitat structure as a proxy for biodiversity quality. There are many different ways in which the indices can be utilised for corporate reporting. On the one hand, the data can be used to provide a regular report on the size of a company s habitats assets (extent in ha) and the biodiversity value of these assets (habitat condition). On the other hand, the company can analyse the data from year to year, or across any other time interval it may choose, and document changes in the quantity and quality of these assets. Furthermore, and most importantly, the company can set targets in relation to individual sites, plants or countries, or at the global corporate level, for the index levels that it wants to attain over a defined period of time. The most obvious reporting parameters are the Site Condition Class and the National and Global Biodiversity Condition Indices, but many permutations of data analysis and presentation are possible (Table 12), including: various (two- or three-dimensional) matrices analysing the distribution of parameters such as habitat condition classes, site condition classes and habitat types in relation to individual countries or operating companies; one-dimensional distribution graphs (bar charts or curves) of parameters such as site sizes, habitat sizes, habitat condition classes, site condition classes; and two-dimensional distribution graphs analysing two parameters (such as habitat size vs. habitat condition class). Table 12: Corporate reporting of indices Geographic level Primary reporting parameters Examples of possible additional reporting parameters SITE (individual extraction sites) NATIONAL GLOBAL Site Condition Class Composite site condition index National Biodiversity Condition Index List of site condition classes of the country Global Biodiversity Condition Index List of National Biodiversity Condition Indices List of habitat classes (and biodiversity condition indices) Matrices of habitat condition classes of all national quarries, grouped by: - quarries - habitat types, and/or - class numbers Matrix of all habitat types in a country by habitat condition classes Distribution of habitat sizes by habitat condition classes Matrix of site condition classes of all company land holdings by country Matrix of all habitat types across all land holdings by habitat condition classes

48 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page Reporting on changes If the composite site index and the Site Biodiversity Condition Class are assessed annually, as strongly recommended by BIRS, this will result in an interesting time series of data showing how the company s biodiversity assets are changing in value over time. The goal, of course, would be an overall increase in value over time, achieved through a generally proactive approach to the management of biodiversity assets. The most obvious method of tracking changes is the index value itself. However, changes from year to year have to be interpreted with caution, as they could be partly (or entirely) due to natural fluctuations of certain parameters and/or changes outside the company s control. Furthermore, not all indices are affected by such fluctuations in exactly the same manner. Basically, three types of changes have to be taken into account when interpreting alterations in the indices: 1. Positive changes due to proactive measures by the company to improve the habitat or site condition classes (with an implicit effect on the national and global indices), such as: targeted habitat management to improve an existing habitat s condition; creation of a new habitat with a high regional context value in areas where resource extraction has been completed; good management of planted rehabilitation areas; acquisition and good management of adjoining offset areas; retaining disused extraction areas and letting them regenerate into interesting natural habitats, either naturally or with management assistance; and acquisition of new reserve land or buffer zones around existing sites. 2. Negative or positive changes of the Site Condition Class and the national and global indices due to land-use changes resulting from the company s resource extraction policies and targets, such as: development of previously held natural habitats (reserve land) for resource extraction; return of leasehold land to owner after completing resource extraction; acquisition of new leasehold land for future mining; closure or sale of entire sites; and purchase of new sites. 3. Negative or positive changes of all indices resulting from external factors that are outside the company s control, such as: natural event (e.g. storm, flooding) affecting a natural habitat; significant and fast changes in the land use around a site, resulting in a higher (or lower) context factor for certain natural habitats of the site; new industrial or other kinds of developments around the site, with negative impacts on the site s natural habitats; and incidents of air, water or soil pollution spilling over into the site. The aim of a company using BIRS should be that, over a number of years, the type 1 changes outweigh the net result of the type 2 and 3 changes.

49 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 44 Since changes of the habitat condition or composite or site indices might not necessarily be meaningful over short time periods, the BIRS indices become more valuable the longer they have been collected, and longer-term trends in their changes can be statistically examined. Instead of analysing the index values directly, the frequency distribution of habitat condition classes (at site and national levels) and site condition classes (at national and global levels) might provide a better way of presenting an increase in suitability of the company s biodiversity assets. 7.4 Biodiversity key performance index (KPI) The development of the BIRS system originated in the expressed desire by a specific company (Holcim) to experiment with a biodiversity-related key performance index (KPI) that could be used alongside the company s other performance indices, mainly relating to economic, production and health and safety targets. Once the system is globally established and data are being compiled on a regular basis, BIRS offers several possibilities for identifying medium- and long-term KPIs for biodiversity-related targets, including: level of Global Biodiversity Condition Index; minimum level for all national indices; percentage of sites in or above a certain Site Condition Class; hectares of habitat in or above a certain Habitat Condition Class; number of sites changing into a higher Site Condition Class; and reduction of threat score below a defined threshold. Many more possibilities offer themselves, on various geographic levels (from site to global) and in relation to selected or all habitat types. The choice of one or more specific biodiversity KPIs ultimately depends on the company s overall strategy and how these can best be linked to production and economic targets. 7.5 Biodiversity management performance To complement the biodiversity indices, it is recommended that a company using BIRS develop a system of indices to evaluate how well the company is doing in relation to biodiversity management capacity and performance, looking at internal arrangements and processes designed to integrate biodiversity considerations into all management procedures (as advocated in the IBMS; Chapter 3), as well as its efforts on the ground to pursue biodiversity-related targets in BAPs or other planning documents. Such a system could be designed individually by a company based on the internal performance tracking systems they might already use, and at the plant or national levels, depending on where biodiversity management responsibilities are largely residing. As it is intended to assess aspects of the organisation rather than the landholdings, the smallest scale at which an index might be produced is the operational unit (cement plant or aggregate quarry). The next meaningful scale would be the level at which executive management of various operating units takes

50 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 45 place (part of a country, a country, or several countries in a region). Finally, there could also be a global index. Alternatively, a common standard could be developed by a trade group, such as the Cement Sustainability Initiative of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). The advantage of this approach would be the ability to compare results between companies. An index at the plant or quarry level could be designed in a similar manner as the biodiversity-related indices, consisting of a number of individual indicators (each to be rated on a scale of 1-4), for example: Basic management indicators to measure progress in implementing the IBMS and BIRS: - Has the biodiversity importance category of a site been determined? - Is a basic biodiversity inventory available? - Has the monitoring system been set up? - Are sufficient resources available to ensure annual assessment? - Have staff been trained in the monitoring methodology? - Has a partnership with a biodiversity expert organisation been developed (NGOs, local wildlife groups, university)? - Have staff generally been made aware of biodiversity issues and the associated management systems? - Have local/national biodiversity activities been supported by the company? Progress in relation to rehabilitation targets: - Has a Rehabilitation Plan been developed? - Are annual targets of the Rehabilitation Plan being achieved? Progress in relation to targets for Species/Habitats of Special Interest (to be recorded at sites of high biodiversity value where special biodiversity targets have been defined): - Has a Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) been developed? - Does it contain measurable targets against which annual progress can be assessed? - Are these annual targets being achieved? - Is there independent verification of these efforts? Measurement of environmental performance is a difficult challenge, for which results on their own only tell part of the story. It is necessary to consider the context geographic, institutional or other within which results are achieved. BIRS seeks to do this through the use of context factors, and for a management performance indicator, something similar might be necessary. Finally, and crucially, in any self-reporting system, when progress is tracked against a series of qualitative criteria, the results could be meaningless unless there are internal and external verification processes. Thus, the development of such a biodiversity management performance index should include a robust audit element, including external oversight.

51 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page IMPLEMENTATION OF BIRS 8.1 General A company that wishes to successfully implement BIRS needs to make commitments and allocate resources over a sufficient period to customise the methodology, institutionalise knowledge of its purpose and processes and iron out problems that will inevitably occur during the introduction of the system. BIRS has been designed, modified and tested over a period of more than three years so that the costs and resources needed to apply it have been reduced to a practical minimum. Despite this, the decision to implement BIRS implies an ongoing pledge of time and money that should not be underestimated. Some of the key managerial and administrative points to be considered when implementing BIRS are summarised below. 8.2 Management commitment Any new policy or system that does not have support at the highest level of the company cannot be implemented successfully. The Board of Directors should consider its own answer to the question raised in Section 2.2: What does the company want to measure, and what does it want to be able to report on? If the answers it gives are significantly different from those given in this document, then maybe BIRS is not the appropriate system for the company to adopt. The decision to implement BIRS should be made at the highest level of the company and supported by directors in their subsidiary boards, where decisions on the allocation of resources are frequently made. 8.3 Required base information It would greatly help the implementation of BIRS if the company has already adopted and implemented a biodiversity management system, such as the IBMS (Chapter 3). If properly implemented, this would ensure that some aspects of the biodiversity present at the company s sites are already known, and some internal and external capacity is likely to be already in place. Particular aspects of the IBMS that would facilitate the implementation of BIRS are: Habitat maps of the site. Although BIRS requires these to be adapted to the habitat classification used in this system (to be in line with the range of questionnaires), the existence of some sort of current habitat map covering the entire site is essential. Correct allocation of Biodiversity Importance Category (BIC). This requires the presence of globally, nationally and locally important species to have been addressed, including verification by an expert that species that are potentially present are actually on the site and dependent on its habitat. An analysis of the proximity of protected areas is also required, and this implies a consideration of conservation priorities outside the site boundaries. For any sites where the BIC and likely impact level indicate that a high level of biodiversity management is appropriate, a BAP should have been developed, according to IBMS guidance. If an IBMS is not in place when BIRS is adopted, the two systems could be implemented alongside each other, though this would place a greater demand on company resources.

52 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page Internal capacity To oversee and support the implementation of systems such as IBMS and BIRS, it is strongly recommended that a company build specific biodiversity expertise among its own staff (Table 13). Initially, this might consist of one or more persons with graduate or postgraduate biological or ecological qualifications employed in a central technical services group. On a more advanced level, a resource base with an ecologist in each geographical area corresponding to the division of executive responsibilities could be envisaged. If there are clusters of operating sites in a relatively small area, it may be desirable for a qualified person to be employed to cover biodiversity issues only at these sites. The development of in-house capacity has many benefits for a company including: the ability to commission and manage expert inputs cost-effectively; rapid improvements in biodiversity data collection and internal and external reporting; timely reductions in biodiversity risks; creation of a virtual community of practice, which can be strengthened in an ongoing manner through peer-to-peer support, the transfer of good practice experience and by the use of various on-line tools and collaborative forums. The basic concept of BIRS is that technical staff without prior ecological training will be able to become successful field assessors with little additional training. The ideal characteristics of a person to be trained as a BIRS site assessor are summarised in Box 7. BOX 7 CHARACTERISTICS NEEDED FOR BIRS SITE ASSESSORS General interest in and knowledge of environmental issues affecting the industry they are working in (pollution, water use, climate change, etc.) Interest in and some knowledge of the natural world wild animals, plants, etc. without necessarily any qualifications in biological sciences Good knowledge of the extraction site, including: - full geographic extent of landholdings; - extraction plans; - history of extraction; - presence of important biodiversity features; and - background studies such as ESIA. Knowledge of local communities, their prevailing land uses and environmental impacts Good observation skills Mapping and/or GIS skills Enthusiasm BIRS field tests demonstrated that people with these characteristics are often found in mineral extraction companies. Sometimes, the ideal person is one who has environmental responsibilities at a sub-national or national level; site technical staff may be well suited to the task.

53 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page External expertise The need for a local expert to provide some input has been noted at several points in this document. Although BIRS has been designed to be run mainly by the company s own, mostly non-expert staff, expert knowledge is needed at key points in the set-up and review of the system at each site (Table 13). This can be most effectively done by a locally based individual, an ecological consulting group or a conservation group with which the company may already be cooperating. The particular knowledge required by such an external expert/expert group is given in Box 8. Many companies operating in the extractive industries have formed strategic partnerships with global NGOs, such as BirdLife International, IUCN, WWF, etc., to get advice on biodiversity policy and strategy or assistance in the implementation of biodiversity management initiatives. While it might appear that these organisations would be suitable to provide this kind of expert input over a wide geographic range, experience has shown that the very specific local knowledge needed for BIRS is often best obtained through more local experts and organisations. Table 13: Lead functions and need for expertise Major steps Development of BIRS Company operational staff Company biodiversity expertise 12 External expertise Company-specific Implementation Guide Advice Lead Advice, review Setting-up at sites Training Lead Assistance, review Identification of habitats Lead Assistance Habitat Context Factors Assistance Lead Sampling points Lead Advice Advice Annual data collection Training Lead Advice, review Habitat extent Lead Advice Habitat condition Lead Assistance Calculation of Habitat and Site Classes Lead Assistance Quality control of incoming data Lead Advice Verification, auditing Assistance Lead Lead 12 If no internal biodiversity expertise is available, the tasks in this column would have to be covered by external expertise.

54 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 49 BOX 8 CHARACTERISTICS NEEDED FOR LOCAL BIODIVERSITY EXPERTS Good knowledge of ecosystems, habitats and priority species present in the area where the extraction site is located (nominally 5 10 km radius) Good knowledge of conservation plans, status and priorities in the same area A generalist rather than specialist background and approach A strong practical rather than theoretical approach to field ecology and conservation An open-minded approach to biodiversity assessments being carried out by non-experts ( citizen science ) Willingness to work with private sector extractive industry companies to achieve better conservation outcomes It may seem a daunting task for a company to embark on managing a detailed non-core subject initiative such as biodiversity and BIRS. There are many areas where general expert advice will be needed as the implementation process goes forward, including identifying local experts, resolving issues of adapting BIRS to a company s established policy, systems and reporting culture, etc. One way of obtaining this advice is to retain an External Biodiversity Advisory Panel to provide inputs as required. Members of such a panel should have wide experience in the issues covered in BIRS; such experience is more often provided cumulatively from several panel members rather than found in a single individual. Their experience should be geographical, technical (ecology, geology, forestry, agronomy, for example), and related to systems (ESIA, BAPs, risk assessment, policy, etc.). 8.6 Implementation plan A company seeking to adopt BIRS as a management tool throughout its global operations needs to develop an implementation plan, transforming the general BIRS recommendations into its own language and tailoring them to its existing operational processes. This is the best method of internalising new concerns and requirements, especially when they relate to a topic that is not part of the core concern of the company. As a general rule, it is recommended that instructions for the people on the ground who have to operationalise BIRS locally should, wherever possible, be built into existing planning and guideline documents, instead of lots of new separate guidelines. Some key points to be considered in the implementation process are given below System preparation In preparation for the implementation of BIRS, a company will need to adapt the system s elements to its own business practices. Elements to consider include policy, risk management, environmental data collection, target setting and reporting. Since recommendations on how BIRS should relate to other business systems have been kept to a minimum, it should be possible for a company to add its own style without having to unpick the logic of the system.

55 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page Training Although the field assessments at the heart of BIRS are designed to be carried out by non-specialists, the effective implementation of the system must be facilitated by targeted training actions. The need for training in what BIRS is, what it is not, what it seeks to achieve and how it is carried out could be given to a range of technical staff at the company level, so that there is a good awareness of what is being implemented. This training will include the BIRS programme managers, and will have to include advice on how to select and nominate site assessors. The key constituency that needs to be trained is the BIRS site assessors. They will require more detailed explanations and instructions on how to interact with local biodiversity experts in the setting-up process, how to judge and answer the questions in the field on habitat condition, how to deal with uncertainties, and how to record their observations. Priority training should be given to the nominated site assessors from the first batch of extraction sites chosen for implementation (see below). The same training can then be given to each cohort of assessors. Initially, much of the training will, of necessity, be provided by external experts, such as members of the proposed Advisory Board. As implementation proceeds, the best trainers will be those who have been through the implementation process and can speak to their peers on the basis of their personal experience Rollout and implementation sequence If a company has a large number of extraction sites, simultaneously implementing BIRS across the entire company would require a large and expensive input of external expertise. A phased rollout is therefore strongly recommended, allowing internal capacity to build so that sites involved in later phases can be guided and supported by staff from sites that were involved in earlier phases. The baseline conditions also tend to vary across a large company some sites, often for historical reasons, have built a better knowledge of biodiversity and the issues associated with its management than others. A phased approach allows the less able sites to catch up before their local knowledge is tested by BIRS implementation. Choosing extraction sites for an early phase should seek to build on this variation. The leading site in each region or country could be chosen as part of an early cohort, so that its experience can be shared in the same geographical area where the issues, such as lack of recent regional data or regulatory barriers to natural rehabilitation, are likely to be similar. An alternative is to choose a country or region where good data exist and the regulatory environment is largely supportive to biodiversity initiatives by the private sector. This approach would have benefits, including being able to test the process of aggregating results to a larger scale, but it would also have the disadvantage of lessons learned that might not be easily transferable to other countries. Depending on the number of sites, there may be two or more rollout phases if the company has a wide international presence. Rather than rushing through a short programme, where over-extension becomes a real risk, a slower approach might be more advisable. A road map committing the company to a number of phases leading to full implementation across all sites should be prepared, with time lines, resource needs, training plans and costs. This will help to keep management aware of what is involved in the decisions made by the executives Review and quality control

56 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 51 One of the hardest aspects of implementing a new system is to achieve consistency of results. Although the primary focus of BIRS is to look at biodiversity condition trends at sites over time (rather than comparing different sites with each other), the generation of credible and consistent results across the company s entire global landholdings is ultimately important proof of the successful implementation of BIRS. This means that ongoing review processes are required from regular (internal) critical checking of incoming data, to the assessment of the credibility of results and recurring external quality control (Table 13). In the early stages of implementation, close collaboration with external experts experienced with the system would provide valuable feedback on the utility and ease of use of the BIRS methodology and the appropriateness of the adaptations to specific company requirements. If the feedback from users indicates that aspects of BIRS implementation should be reconsidered and revised, this should be episodic and well-documented, rather than progressive and unrecorded, so that the comparability of time series data sets is not compromised. Eventually, it would be best to integrate the review of the BIRS report from a site into an existing internal assurance process (environmental audit programme or similar). External verification of key results should also be part of such a process; independent validation of data quality is a powerful supporting element for external public reporting.

57 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 52 GLOSSARY Artificial lake or pond: Water body created as a result of mining operations (sand or gravel pit in areas with high groundwater levels; water-filled bottom of a hard-rock site). Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP): Document summarising proposed site-based actions to maintain or improve the biodiversity values during the operational and post-closure phases of an extraction site. Biodiversity Importance Category (BIC): Biodiversity importance of an extraction site as determined in the early stages of the IBMS process [Section 3.3]. Biodiversity Key Performance Indicator (KPI): Company-defined indicator to measure long-term performance (or outcome) of biodiversity management efforts [Section 7.4]. Biodiversity Management Performance: Recommended system of company-defined indices to measure biodiversity management capacity and performance, to complement the Biodiversity Condition Class [Section 7.5]. Biodiversity Management System: Integrated system of policies, procedures and guidance for the management of biodiversity at all stages of the planning and operation of extraction sites, developed for Holcim by the IUCN Biodiversity Advisory Panel. Biodiversity suitability: Habitat factors that, actually or potentially, favour biodiversity. Context Factor: Habitat Context Factor Ecosystem services: Diverse benefits that human societies derive from ecosystems, including supporting services, provisioning services, regulating services and cultural services. Extraction Site: Area of land containing one or more mineral production facilities, such as mines, quarries and gravel pits, including their associated access and processing infrastructure. In addition, most extraction sites also contain areas of natural habitat and modified natural habitat. Global Biodiversity Condition Index: Aggregation of all national biodiversity condition indices into an overall global figure expressing the biodiversity suitability of company s entire global landholdings [Section 7.1]. Habitat block: Distinct area of habitat of a uniform habitat type. Habitat Condition Class: Conversion of the habitat condition index into ten different classes [Section 5.6]. Habitat condition assessment: Assessment of the quality of habitats using key indicators such as morphological diversity, vegetation structure, vegetation heterogeneity, leaf litter, soil etc., each to be evaluated on a scale of 1-4 [Section 5.4]. Habitat condition index: Index value between 1.0 and 4.0 (resulting from the habitat condition assessment), expressing the condition of a habitat and its suitability for biodiversity [Section 5.4]. Habitat Context Factor: Factor (between the values of 1.0 and 4.0) expressing the regional importance and uniqueness of a habitat, to be taken into account in the calculation of the site condition index [Section 5.7]. Habitat enhancements: Small inclusions of habitat patches of different habitat types or presence of important biodiversity features in a habitat [Section 5.4.8].

58 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 53 Habitat extent: Surface area (to the nearest one-tenth of a hectare) of the different habitat types found on an extraction site [Section 5.3]. Habitat importance: Component of the Habitat Context Factor. Habitat inclusion: Small patches of habitats bigger than 0.25 ha, but smaller than 1 ha, completely surrounded by another habitat (excluding operational areas, resource extraction areas abandoned less than five years ago, ruderal habitats and habitat edges) [Section 5.4.8]. Habitat Threat Score: Single threat, or combination of several threats, to a habitat, ranging between the values of 0 and 10 [Section 5.5]. Habitat type: Thirteen different types of natural habitats distinguished by the BIRS system [Section 5.1]. Habitat uniqueness: Component of the Habitat Context Factor. National Biodiversity Condition Index: Aggregation of all site condition indices into an overall national figure expressing the biodiversity suitability of the company s entire national landholdings [Section 7.1]. Natural capital: Vegetation-based biodiversity value of the landholdings under the management of a company. Natural habitats: Thirteen different major types of habitats used for a global categorisation of those areas of an extraction site not used for operational purposes [Section 5.1]. Net Positive Impact (NPI): Biodiversity management concept ensuring that, on balance, impacts of a project, coupled with various mitigating measures, have a positive net effect on biodiversity [Section 4.2, Box 3]. No Net Loss (NNL): Originating from the Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme, this term means that project-related impacts on biodiversity are balanced by a series of mitigation measures [Section 4.2, Box 3]. Old Quarry Slope: Steep-to-vertical faces where extraction of rock, sand or gravel has taken place more than five years ago. Operational Areas: Areas of an extraction site that are directly, or indirectly, used for operational purposes [Section 5.2.1]. Outstanding biodiversity features: Occurrences of physical features (e.g. karst, caves) that are of high significance for priority species, or of concentrations of individuals of priority species (e.g. breeding colonies of rare or endangered birds). Planted Rehabilitation Areas: Rehabilitation Areas where vegetation has been actively re-established through seeding or planting. Quarry Condition Class: Site Condition Class. Quarry Slope: Steep-to-vertical faces where extraction of rock, sand or gravel is, or has been, taking place less than five years ago. Regional habitat importance: Component of the Habitat Context Factor. Rehabilitation Area: Former mining areas where extraction has ceased two-to-five years ago and where, through targeted restoration measures (application of topsoil, seeding, planting) or through deliberate or accidental neglect, a natural vegetation cover is being re-established [Section 4.2.2].

59 Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System - BIRS Page 54 Ruderal Habitat: [Section 4.2.3] Habitat found on previously disturbed land with mostly dense and vigorous vegetation (often with alien invasive plants) and no defined structure of trees or shrubs [Section 5.2.3]. Site (biodiversity) condition index: Composite index (weighted mean) of all habitat condition indices of a site [Section 6.2]. Site Condition Class: Conversion of the site condition index into ten classes [Section 6.5]. Site Threat Score: Index aggregated from the various habitat threat scores of a site (weighted mean, multiplied by the proportion of natural habitat affected by at least one threat) [Section 6.3]. Site Threat Report: Report (in table format) complementing the Site Threat Score [Section 6.4; Box 5]. ABBREVIATIONS BAP BBOP BIC BIRS BMS IBAT IBMS IUCN KPI M&E NGO NNL NPI WBCSD Biodiversity Action Plan Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme Biodiversity Importance Category Biodiversity Indicator and Reporting System Biodiversity Management System (specific for Holcim) Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool Integrated Biodiversity Management System (for managing biodiversity risks and opportunities in the cement and aggregates sector) International Union for Conservation of Nature Key Performance Indicator Monitoring and Evaluation Nongovernmental Organisation No Net Loss Net Positive Impact World Business Council for Sustainable Development

60 HABITAT DECISION TREE ANNEX 1 - Page 1 1a Is the area being mined? YES NO 1b Has the vegetation and topsoil been removed in preparation for mining? YES NO 1c Is the area used for storage of topsoil or waste? YES OPERATIONAL AREA NO 1d Is the area used for other operational purposes (plant, roads)? YES NO 2a Has the area been mined less than two years ago? YES NO 2b Has the area been mined less than five years ago? NO YES Has any form of active rehabilitation (seeding, planting) taken place during that time? NO YES Go to NATURAL HABITATS 3a REHABILITATION Planted area

61 HABITAT DECISION TREE ANNEX 1 - Page 2 NATURAL HABITATS 3 Is the area being farmed, either for subsistence or commercial purposes? YES CULTIVATED LAND NO 4a Is this an aquatic habitat, either permanently covered with water or flooded at least three months of the year? NO Go to Terrestrial habitats 5a YES 4b Is the water predominantly saline or brackish? NO YES Go to Coastal habitats Go to Freshwater habitats 7a 6a

62 HABITAT DECISION TREE ANNEX 1 - Page 3 Terrestrial habitats 5a Is the habitat characterised by a closed canopy of trees (>75%)? YES FORESTS NO 5b Is the habitat dominated by shrubs or trees (but with a canopy cover of <75%)? YES SHRUBLANDS, WOODLANDS NO 5c Is the habitat dominated by a grass-type vegetation with shrubs and trees virtually absent? YES GRASSLANDS NO 5d 5e Is the area extensively disturbed, consisting of secondary vegetation that has little defined structure and is often extremely dense and impenetrable? NO Does the habitat mostly consist of bare rock surfaces (>75%)? YES NO Go back to Terrestrial Habitats 5a RUDERAL HABITAT YES 5f Is the rock the result of a mining operation sometime in the past? NO BARE ROCKS YES OLD QUARRY SLOPES

63 HABITAT DECISION TREE ANNEX 1 - Page 4 Freshwater habitats 6a Is there an open water body? NO WETLANDS YES 6b Is the water flowing? NO LAKES, PONDS YES RIVERS, STREAMS Coastal habitats 7a Is the marine habitat characterised by trees? YES MANGROVES NO 7b Does this marine habitat consist of mostly bare sand, rock or muddy surfaces exposed at low tide? NO SALT MARSHES YES COASTAL ZONES

64 HABITAT DECISION TREE ANNEX 1 - Page 5 Habitat Definitions OPERATIONAL AREAS Operational Areas include: active quarry areas; areas prepared for resource extraction (vegetation and topsoil removed); topsoil and waste storage areas roads; plants and other infrastructure; areas where resource extraction has been discontinued for less than two years; and land where mining has been discontinued for less than five years and no rehabilitation has been taking place. Areas where resource extraction stopped more than five years ago should be classified as a natural habitat type. (PLANTED) REHABILITATION AREAS FORESTS This includes all land where operations have ceased for at least two years but that are not older than five years. The habitat can be the result of deliberate or accidental neglect, or it can represent the outcome of targeted restoration actions. Rehabilitation areas older than five years should be allocated to one of the natural habitat types. Habitat that is characterised by the presence of trees with a total cover of 75 percent or more and reaching a canopy height of 3m or more (if canopy is less than 3m, classify as Shrublands & Woodlands habitat). Orchards and agroforestry are specifically excluded from Forest habitat and fall in the habitat category of Cultivated Land. SHRUBLANDS, WOODLANDS This habitat encompasses the range of vegetation from sparse to closed shrubland and from sparse to closed woodland, with a canopy closure of less than 75 percent (at which point the habitat is classified as Forest). The essential characteristic is the presence of shrubs and/or trees. The grass layer is often welldeveloped (savannahs), but may be less prominent, too (heathlands). This habitat is often grazed and browsed by wild and/or domestic herbivores. GRASSLANDS Habitats that are characterised by the absence of trees and shrubs and the dominance of grasses in the ground layer. Planted or sown pastures that are established for the purpose of intensive livestock production are excluded from this habitat and fall in the Cultivated Land category. This habitat is often grazed by wild and/or domestic herbivores. RUDERAL HABITATS This habitat is generally found on previously disturbed land, including road verges. Its vegetation is mostly dense and very vigorous, with no clearly defined structure of the shrubs and trees, although the vegetation may be low and open in early successional stages. Alien invasive plant species are often a prominent feature. This habitat is not commonly encountered under natural undisturbed conditions.

65 HABITAT DECISION TREE ANNEX 1 - Page 6 Habitat Definitions BARE ROCKS Natural rock habitat that has never been mined, characterised by extensive patches (>75%) of bare rocks without significant grass, shrub or tree cover, even under favourable rainfall conditions. Limestone pavements would be the most typical example. Old quarry faces left to natural rehabilitation should be assessed with the special questionnaires for Quarry Slopes. Extensive areas of open karst rocks (<25% vegetation cover) should be treated as Bare Rocks, while small outcrops of karst in other habitat types (e.g. Forests, Grasslands, Shrublands, Woodlands) should be treated as habitat inclusions under the respective habitat questionnaires. OLD QUARRY SLOPES WETLANDS Extraction sites (quarries and pits) create new environments that are often complex in terms of slope, orientation and substrate. These complexities can offer many opportunities for biodiversity to colonise the slopes. The slopes of abandoned quarries or pits, or any slopes of active quarries or pits that have been abandoned or rehabilitated for at least five years, should be assessed using this questionnaire. The Quarry Slope can be subdivided into five specific features: (1) highwalls, (2) benches and haul roads, (3) angle of repose talus slopes, (4) re-contoured slopes and (5) toe berms and debris zones. Not all five units may necessarily be present on every quarry slope. The assessment is based on subdividing each assessed slope into proportions represented by each of the five slope features. Some questions require separate answers for each feature; other questions must be answered for the entire slope being assessed. The proportions of each slope feature should be estimated as they are projected onto the inclined plane representing the average slope angle from toe to crest. Wetlands are areas where the ground is saturated with water and include bogs, marshes, swamps and seasonally flooded grasslands. Some wetlands may have pools of standing water, while some may not show any signs of surface water but may have water just below the ground surface. The plants that grow in these places are adapted to waterlogged conditions. Often, wetlands are made up of a mosaic of different wetland features, depending upon the amount of water, or the frequency of flooding. Some wetland areas just have low vegetation, others will have reeds, shrubs and trees. RIVERS, STREAMS These are predominantly natural waterways, including springs, streams and rivers. Underground rivers represent a very unique karst flowing water habitat. Any flowing water wider than 1m should be considered as a separate habitat. Man-made waterways may include canals and ditches that flow very slowly. Some degree of channelling and hardened embankments may result from quarrying operations. Seasonal streams occur where there is a marked difference between wet and dry seasons; as water levels drop, the water flow may stop and only remnant pools will be found until the river or stream starts flowing again. Such remnant pools may be important dry season refuges for aquatic life. LAKES, PONDS Open water bodies include natural pools, ponds and lakes, as well as standing water bodies resulting from quarrying operations, either as an intentional or an accidental outcome. Open water bodies larger than 0.25 ha (e.g. 50 m x 50 m) should be assessed as separate habitats. Man-made lakes may be an important part of the quarrying operations, e.g. for process water storage and supply, for settlement of sediment from washings before discharge to a water course, and as an active part of the extraction of aggregates.

66 HABITAT DECISION TREE ANNEX 1 - Page 7 Habitat Definitions MANGROVES Mangroves are coastal forests that can grow in the intertidal zones, with salinities up to that of sea water. They grow along the banks of estuaries, in inlets and bays, and as a thin fringing strip along the coast. They consist of highly specialised tree and shrub species that have adaptations to deal with the high salinity in the water. Growing in the intertidal zone, they are able to cope with regular inundation and exposure of the roots by the tide because of their specialised root formations. Mangroves are important for coastal protection and as a breeding ground and habitat for many fish, shellfish and crustacean species, and the birds that feed on them. SALT MARSHES A salt marsh, also known as a coastal salt marsh or tidal marsh, is a coastal ecosystem in the upper coastal intertidal zone between land and open salt water or brackish water that is flooded by the high tides. It is flat, low-lying land, dominated by dense stands of salt-tolerant plants such as herbs, grasses, or low shrubs. The diversity of the salt marsh depends upon the frequency with which the land is covered by the tide and the remaining salinity of the soils. The land may be divided up by a number of small creeks, with mud exposed as the tides go down. COASTAL ZONES The coastal zone (rocks, beaches, mud flats) is the area of transition between the land and the sea. It extends from the backshore, which may consist of sand dunes or cliffs, to the beach and intertidal zone the zone between high and low tides. The coastal zone may contain a variety of different features, dependent upon the shore materials and the tidal and current patterns, which contribute to the diversity of the zone. The shore materials may vary from rocky cliffs and pebbles to sandy beaches and mud flats. If the shoreline slopes gently, the intertidal zone may extend hundreds of metres, but if the shoreline slopes steeply, then the intertidal zone will be relatively short. The tidal range is an important determinant of the coastal zone habitats, with the difference between high and low tide varying between less than one metre to more than four metres. CULTIVATED LAND This includes all areas where the soil has been tilled and where agricultural crops have been seeded or planted for subsistence and/or commercial purposes. It includes annual and perennial crops. The latter may consist of tree orchards, oil palm plantations and permanent pastures that are planted, fertilised or strengthened. Fallow lands that are temporarily not being actively farmed are also included.

67 RECORDING SHEETS FOR HABITATS AND SITES ANNEX 2 - Page 1 New forms to be inserted here

68 RECORDING SHEETS FOR HABITATS AND SITES ANNEX 2 - Page 2

69 ANNEX 3 HABITAT QUESTIONNAIRES Bare Rocks Coastal Zones Cultivated Land Forests Grasslands Lakes, Ponds Mangroves Quarry Slopes Rehabilitated Land Rivers, Streams Salt Marshes Shrublands, Woodlands Wetlands Threats