1 of 72

Biodiversity considerations at the project level

Module 2a

2 of 72

Content of Module 2a

Overview of the ESIA process and introduction to the Mitigation Hierarchy

The ESIA process
Introduction to the mitigation hierarchy

Screening, scoping and biodiversity baselines

Screening and scoping
Baseline assessment
Tools, data and guidance

Mitigating and monitoring biodiversity impacts

Impact mitigation
Monitoring and verification

EIAs in practice in Mozambique

EIA exercise

2

3 of 72

2.1 An overview of the ESIA process and introduction to the mitigation hierarchy

4 of 72

Contents

4

The ESIA process

Introduction to the mitigation hierarchy

5 of 72

The ESIA process

Photo credits: Ton Rulkens

6 of 72

Biodiversity management throughout the upstream project life cycle

6

Screening

Scoping

Baseline assessment

Impact assessment

Impact mitigation

Monitoring and verification

Many of these stages are ongoing and iterative throughout the life cycle

Exploration

Development

Operation

Decommission

7 of 72

How does this relate to the ESIA process in Mozambique?

7

Screening

Scoping

Baselines

Impact assessment

Impact mitigation

Monitoring and verification

Source: UNEP, 2018

Are projects being categorised as A+ ?

Who are these specialists?

Are verification and monitoring commitments being documented?

8 of 72

What are Biodiversity Action Plans?

8

Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) are developed to accompany mitigation programmes as part of project implementation

BAPS are inspired from National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) which are required by the CBD for parties to protect and restore their biodiversity an ecosystems

Principal elements of BAPs typically include:
Preparing inventories of biological information for selected species/habitats
Assessing the conservation status of species within specified ecosystems
Creation of targets for conservation and restoration
Forming budgets, timelines and institutional partnerships for implementation

9 of 72

Introduction to the mitigation hierarchy

Photo credits: Ton Rulkens

10 of 72

The mitigation hierarchy

10

11 of 72

Why do companies adopt the mitigation hierarchy?

11

Why?

Good practice

To achieve positive outcomes

Finance

Cost effective

Regulation

No net loss: project-related impacts on biodiversity are balanced by measures taken to avoid, minimize, restore and finally to offset

Net gains: additional conservation outcomes that can be achieved through the development of a biodiversity offset

Why do companies adopt the MH? – Here are the main reasons
First, O&G companies have (or should have) a structured environmental risk assessment and management process in place to mitigate potentially significant impacts and risk. The MH sequence of avoid, reduce, rehabilitate and – as a last resort – offset should naturally fit within this process. So, applying the MH is first and foremost good practice.
Second, application of the MH may be a regulatory or financing requirement. Therefore, firmly integrating the MH into existing industry risk assessment and mitigation processes will also make it easier to apply it when required. If your country regulations don’t incorporate the MH, companies may still expect to follow the steps because of their own policy (which has been aligned to regulation in other countries) or because of financing requirements.
More cost-effective management of BES risks and impacts: At this stage it is worthwhile to stress that the more diligent the consideration of the avoid and reduce steps of the MH, the less likely it may become that potentially challenging and costly rehabilitation efforts or offsets are needed. In other words, the better a project can plan early on (during concept selection) to avoid and reduce significant impacts, the less money, time and resources may need to be spent at a later stage to make up for missed opportunities. From this angle, the structured application of the MH can lead to significant cost benefits. This cannot be stressed enough.
Last, expectations regarding “no net loss” and “net gain” are continuously increasing among stakeholders. The MH is a tool that can be used to demonstrate management strategies to achieve NNL/NG where required. One place where NNL/NG expectations are encountered are the IFC PS6.

----

NNL and NG are related concepts. NG - often also referred as Net Positive Impact or NPI - goes beyond NNL. This becomes clear from the definitions provided by IFC PS6.
Per IFC PS6 NNL is defined as (…read…)
One of the key words in the NNL definition is “balanced”. There is an expectation to achieve a balance between project-related impacts and the measures taken to manage those impacts by following the mitigation hierarchy. In other words, leave the place in a similar condition to the one you found it in.
NG on the other hand is defined by IFC PS6 as (…read…). A key term here is “additional conservation outcomes”. This indicates that NG should go beyond no net loss to achieve overall positive outcomes – or gains - to biodiversity.
Another key term in the NG definition is “critical habitat”. Per IFC PS6, critical habitats are a subset of natural habitats. In loose terms, they are particularly important natural habitats such as, for example, key habitats to endangered or endemic species, or threatened or unique ecosystems. IFC PS6 requires net gain outcomes for such critical habitats, not for all habitats.

12 of 72

Case study: ExxonMobil in PNG

12

13 of 72

Mitigation of physical loss of mangroves

13

Impact Type	Impact Source	Mitigation Measures
Physical loss and disturbance of mangrove habitats	Temporary and permanent disturbance and loss of mangrove and species from construction and operational activities	Avoidance	Load Out Facility (jetty) located away from areas of dense and mature growth
		Minimisation	Minimisation of disturbance during construction in areas outside of the direct construction footprint
		Restoration	Restore areas temporarily affected by physical impacts. Approaches to be established through the development of a biodiversity action plan (BAP) and/or reinstatement plan (RP) to define approach to manage reinstatement.

Firstly, a major consideration during the selection of the LNG plant site had been the fact that the site was a Brownfield location (had been used as a firing range during World War II). So, the “avoidance” step had already been applied by avoiding siting of the plant at an untouched Greenfield location.
The jetty needed to be constructed through mangrove habitat. Long stretches of PNG’s coastline are edged with mangroves, so that avoidance of mangroves AND simultaneous selection of a suitable Brownfield location are hardly possible.
In order to mitigate potentially significant impacts on fish habitat and mangroves, the project applied a novel self-propelling cantilever bridge from which piles could be driven as the pile-driving hammer moved forward on the bridge. This eliminated the need for driving piles from a temporary causeway or barges and tugs, which would have had a larger footprint on the mangrove habitat and seafloor.
As a result, significant impacts on BES could be reduced (or minimized in the CSBI language) to a lower, acceptable level. As a trade-off, ExxonMobil accepted the economic risk of testing a novel method that could – potentially – have led to project delays (but it did not).

This is a good example for how effective risk mitigation can be achieved through the first two steps of the MH.

An important point to remember is that good BES management entails the effective mitigation of multiple different aspects associated with O&G activities. Even though the marine jetty construction was only one small part of a much larger development project, it is the diligent mitigation of many individual aspects like this one that contributes to good BES management for the entire project.

14 of 72

Key messages

14

The ESIA process is the key legal tool for project-level impact assessment and mitigation

The mitigation hierarchy is a best practice tool to limit negative impacts that should be considered at all stages of a project

The mitigation hierarchy follows an order of preference: avoid as far as possible, then minimise remaining impacts, then plan to restore, and as a last resort offset any residual impacts

The mitigation hierarchy is iterative and should be used throughout the design and implementation of a project

15 of 72

2.2 Screening, scoping and biodiversity baselines

16 of 72

Contents

16

Screening and scoping

Baseline assessment

Tools, data and guidance

17 of 72

Screening and scoping

Photo credits: Ton Rulkens

18 of 72

Screening and scoping

18

Screening

For regulators

to determine if an ESIA is required and if so, to what level. In Mozambique the screening decision is made on several criteria. Decree 54/2015 provides categories of projects.

For companies

pre-ESIA assessment of the potential impacts from proposed project and its alternatives

Eliminates high-risk project alternatives

Identifies the key risks and impacts

Scoping

Determines priority impacts for further study

So what exactly is Screening?

For regulators – this process determines if an ESIA is required and to what level of detail. For some countries this is based on a list of activities but increasingly it also refers to the environment in which it occurs – however for oil and gas, highly likely that an ESIA will always be required
For proponents:
First (pre-feasibility) stage assessment
Initial part of determining baseline
High level evaluation of project alternatives considering:

Likely impacts
Sensitivity of potential locations

Used to screen out (reject/select) options and/or determine level of assessment needed - i.e. does it need a full ESIA – or just a brief environmental review

By performing screening companies are able to evaluate which options would have significant negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and hence identify the option, or options, with the least potential negative impacts.

Options to assess could include new concessions, projects or project locations etc.

Screening is the most important step for implementing the avoidance stage of the mitigation hierarchy. Different options will have different impacts and the smaller the impact to start with the less mitigation etc. required.

Level of assessment – could be:

None
Environmental review/appraisal
Full ESIA

Screening allows removing the poorer project Options (RISKS/IMPACTS to BES) and Scoping focusing on the good ones from a BES point of view. Importantly this reduces the length of ESIA reports ensuring that regulators can focus on the important elements

Screening is cost effective and may save the project money because it can result in:

Fewer “surprises” that would require engineering/design changes (i.e. realizing that your project occurs near a sensitive area after engineering design has been completed)
Reducing options that need more detailed evaluation (i.e. screen out Options with large potential impacts so that less analysis is required)
Reducing the cost of mitigation requirements (avoidance is usually cheaper than compensation)

Scoping can be a formal step in the ESIA process in many countries to guide review of the ESIA report. Scoping builds on screening and establishes the boundaries of the esia. The scoping study considers:

Area of influence of the project
Biodiversity features to avoid

Potential/likely impacts to minimise
Possible alternatives for different stages of project
Aspects that need detailed research during the esia

Identifies highest priority issues to focus effort and helps determine:

Likely major issues & impacts
Key stakeholder concerns to address
Social context
Data gaps and baseline information needed
Scope of specific baseline surveys required

Supports early & effective implementation of Mitigation Hierarchy (features to avoid, impacts to be minimised)

In short: Screening allows removing the poorer project Options (RISKS/IMPACTS to BES) and Scoping focusing on the good ones from a BES point of view. Importantly this reduces the length of ESIA reports ensuring that regulators can focus on the important elements

Source Mozambique context: https://www.eia.nl/en/countries/mozambique/esia-profile#chapter4

https://www.iisd.org/learning/eia/eia-7-steps/step-1-screening/

19 of 72

Screening and scoping in Mozambique

19

	Screening	Scoping
Purpose	Determines level of assessment needed Eliminates higher-risk alternatives	Establishes ESIA boundaries, including: Project area What to include in the ESIA How to conduct the ESIA
Outcome	Two possible outcomes: Categorisation of the activity (depending on the assessment needed) Rejection of the activity	Environmental parameters to be assessed in the ESIA Scoping study ESIA Terms of Reference
Actors involved	Project proponent Screening decision authority	Project proponent Technical reviewer
Regulatory requirements	Required for all activities with possible impacts on the environment (Decree 54/2015)	Developments in categories A+ and A require scoping, to a different extent. Categories A+ and A require an Environmental Pre-Viability Study Category B requires Terms of References for the Simplified Environmental Report

Mozambique Context:

The Ministry for Land, Environment and Rural Development (MITADER) is responsible for the screening decision.

The screening decision is based on several criteria:

The number of affected people and communities; the type of ecosystems, plants and animals affected; location and extension of the affected area; probability, nature, duration, intensity, and significance of the impact; direct, indirect, potential, global and cumulative impacts; and reversibility and irreversibility of the impact. Decree 54/2015 provides lists to determine the categories of the projects (Anexo I to V).

The decision is based on several documents, including a description and justification of the activity, the legal framework of the activity, and a short description of the environmental and the socio-economic conditions of the area. At this stage, the authority may not approve the project when fatal flaws ('questoes fatais') are identified.

Category A+ comprises of projects that are of such complexity, magnitude, and likely to produce irreversible impacts, that they require strict monitoring with involvement of specialists. They are positioned in areas characterized by highly valued biodiversity and habitats, animal and plants species on the edge of extinction, or may involve projects producing dangerous toxins and extraction and processing of minerals.

The screening results in the rejection of the activity's implementation, or in the categorization of the activity in one of four categories.

Rejection may be due to fatal flaws, e.g. projects proposed in areas considered to be only for conversation purposes, areas that contain species on the edge of extinction as well as migratory species, or areas to protect ecosystem functions essential on national, provincial, or district level

If the activity can go ahead, it is categorised in one of the 4 categories:

Category A+ requires full fledged ESIA and the supervision and review of (an) independent expert (s).

Category A requires only a full fledged ESIA.

Category B a simplified ESIA

Category C requires no ESIA but compliance with General Procedures of Good Practice in Environmental Management.

Options to assess could include new concessions, projects or project locations etc.

Level of assessment – could be:

None
Environmental review/appraisal
Full ESIA

Source for Mozambique context: https://www.eia.nl/en/countries/mozambique/esia-profile#chapter4

Mozambique context:

All activities that fall under Category A+ or A require scoping, but to a different extent.

For activities of Category A+ and A an Environmental Pre-Viability Study (EPDA) that also includes the designing of ToR has to be done.

Activities in Category B only require Terms of References for the Simplified Environmental Report (SER), but no EPDA.

The proponent is responsible for writing the EPDA.

Source Mozambique context: https://www.eia.nl/en/countries/mozambique/esia-profile#chapter4

20 of 72

How to screen out high risk options?

20

Critical to early selection of facility locations and routing, and a project’s overall biodiversity action planning.

Protected areas

Threatened species

Sensitive habitats

Priority ecosystem services

Source: ibat-alliance.org

For companies it is important to understand location and significance of:

protected areas
endangered species
sensitive habitats; and
Priority ecosystem services.

Note that this is from a company perspective and does not necessarily link to Moz. National legislation.

For regulators, this means that having good biodiversity information, knowing which areas are protected, and where biodiversity values existing outside protected areas are of utmost importance. It is helpful for regulators to have access to the same tools and information used by companies

It will help keep projects on track and limit impacts

Screening should not just look at the site itself – it needs to consider the wider landscape or seascape

Consideration should be given to high-level project threats – like the potential for habitat fragmentation, or pathways for invasive species

21 of 72

What is the role of spatial data in screening?

Spatial data are available on the key features used in screening:

21

Protected areas

Threatened species

Sensitive habitats

Priority ecosystem services

World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA), and national sources

Species range data from IUCN Red List

Global or national datasets (e.g. mangrove, coral reef)

Harder to obtain but could include fishing areas and coastal protection

Data can be further examined through the scoping stage, in consultation with experts

22 of 72

Baseline assessment

Photo credits: Ton Rulkens

23 of 72

What is a baseline assessment?

Baseline:

‘A description of existing conditions to provide a reference (e.g. pre-project condition of biodiversity) against which comparisons can be made (e.g. post-impact condition of biodiversity), allowing the change to be quantified.’

23

Establishes status of biodiversity before operations

Informs impact assessment and mitigation

Informs primary data collection for long term monitoring and measuring performance (metrics)

More detailed assessment than screening and scoping

24 of 72

How should a baseline be developed?

24

Engage stakeholders and experts

Identify the biodiversity baseline study area (area of influence)

Identify the scope of the baseline study

Review existing information on the biodiversity values

Conduct field-based assessment of biodiversity values (if necessary)

Integrate the data into a baseline report

Biodiversity features identified during scoping

Additional biodiversity features within the Area of Influence

The screening and scoping should influence and determine what information is needed when undertaking a baseline assessment for an impact assessment. But often when you start to look into a projects area of influence in more detail you start to find other BES features which were not identified during scoping.

The baseline should include identification and mapping of:

Species and Habitats
Designations
Endangered status/level of threat/endemic nature for species

It should also consider ecosystem functions including the extent and use of ES.

It involves a much more detailed assessment than screening & scoping and is likely to include detailed mapping and surveys.

This diagram, developed from the CSBI Baseline Guidance, outlines the key good practice steps for collecting biodiversity baseline data.

Talk through the diagram.

25 of 72

Defining the area of influence

25

Direct impacts

Indirect impacts

Associated facility

Non-related existing facilities

Cumulative impacts

Area of influence of the project

A initial idea of the project’s Area of Influence should be developed in the Scoping stage.

Through baseline assessments, this is further refined.

One of the most difficult parts of a baseline assessment is determining the area of influence. Too small an area and the major impacts could be missed. Too large and it can become expensive or can give the impression that the impacts from the project are much larger than they actually are. Generally speaking, the AoI is larger than the physical footprint and includes areas that may be potentially directly, indirectly and cumulatively impacted by the project.

The size of the area of influence may include:

The areas directly owned and managed by the project.
The areas affected by associated facilities that, although not part of the project that is being assessed by ESIA, would not have been constructed in the absence of the project.
The physical footprint of non-project activities in the surrounding area that are caused or stimulated by the project plus the areas affected by their emissions and effluents.
Area which may be affected from other developments in the area (cumulative impacts).

Some regulatory regimes may require a project to consider the impacts of its supply chains on biodiversity.

26 of 72

The complexity of baselines

26

Source: FFI 2017

Many species demonstrate complex life cycles, with different areas and timeframes for foraging, breeding and migrating.

Deep-sea baselines are particularly expensive, with the deployment of suitable vessels and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs).

Many marine species will use a range of habitats at different points in their life histories and for some species this will include terrestrial and/or freshwater habitats as well as marine (e.g. marine turtles, pinnipeds, sea birds and some fish).

This means that individual species and populations both depend on and can play a key role in the functioning of numerous ecosystems throughout their lifetime (Figure 6).

Connectivity plays a critical role in ecological relationships in the marine realm and in sustaining species at different phases of their life cycle.

This consideration of different areas and timeframes within a species life cycle makes marine baselines very complex as collecting data at one point in time can miss important life cycle stages of a species.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-distribution-of-mangroves-along-the-southern-and-central-coast-of-Mozambique-2-The_fig6_285770793

27 of 72

What is the role of spatial data in baseline assessments?

Additional data and new surveys are needed to verify and provide further information on potential biodiversity features. For example:

mangrove extent and condition
threatened species occurrence indicated by range maps
seasonal distributions of target species

27

Scoping using large-scale datasets identifies areas of habitat e.g. mangroves

Baseline assessment using surveys provides more detailed data e.g. mangrove condition

Source: Shapiro et al. 2015

Source: Shapiro et al. 2018

28 of 72

Baseline studies in a marine environment

Nearshore: shallow-water coral reefs less expensive, but subject to sea conditions
Deep-sea: very expensive unless there is a drillship on site

28

29 of 72

Case-study: Mozambique LNG

29

OFFSHORE

Plankton
Benthos
Reef structures
Fish
Wales and dolphins

NEAR SHORE

Supratidal sand beach and intertidal sand/mudflats
Mangroves
Seagrass
Coral reefs
Fish
Turtles
Whales and dolphins
Seabirds

ONSHORE

Surface waters
Vegetation (Afungi project)
Herpetofauna
Avifauna
mammals

Environmental baseline parameters identified in the ESIA:

30 of 72

30

Case-study: Mozambique LNG

Mapping mangrove habitats:

31 of 72

Case-study: Mozambique LNG

31

Fish surveys:

No historical data available
Rovuma River is the closest river to the survey area but it does not flow into any of the aquatic systems sampled.
Majority of species in the region are considered of Least Concern (LC) or Data Deficient (DD) according to the IUCN Red List
Barbus choloensis considered vulnerable (VU), and Oreochromis mossambicus, categorised as Near Threatened (NT)

32 of 72

Tools, data and guidance

Photo credits: Ton Rulkens

33 of 72

Guidance documents

CSBI (2015) Good Practices for the Collection of Baseline Data
EBI (2006) Integrating biodiversity in ESIA processes
FFI (2017) Good Practice Guidance for Oil and Gas Operations in Marine Environments
IPIECA (2011) BES Checklist
IPIECA (2016) BES Fundamentals
IPIECA (2020) Environmental management in the upstream oil and gas industry
IFC PS6 & Guidance Note 6 (2019) – Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources
WRI (2013) Weaving ecosystem services into impact assessment
WRI (2012) Corporate Ecosystem Services Review

See references folder for more guidance documents

33

34 of 72

Tools and data platforms

34

Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool

www.ibat-alliance.org

Confirm boundaries and biodiversity values
Validate species absence/ presence
Critical habitat screening

35 of 72

Tools and data platforms

Name	Description	URL
BirdLife Data Zone	Data on bird species and IBAs with country profiles and case studies	http://datazone.birdlife.org/home
GBIF (Global Biodiversity Information Facility)	Compiled species-level data with global coverage	https://www.gbif.org/
IBAT (Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool)	Database compiling information about global biodiversity in an online decision support tool	https://ibat-alliance.org/
InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs)	Open-source software models to map and value ecosystem services and assess trade-offs	https://naturalcapitalproject.stanford.edu/invest/
IUCN Red List	Online information on global conservation status of species	https://www.iucnredlist.org/
Ocean⁺	Platform providing access to marine and coastal biodiversity datasets	https://www.oceanplus.org/
Protected Planet	Web-tool providing access to the World Database on Protected Areas	https://protectedplanet.net/
UN Biodiversity Lab and the Environmental Situation Room	Online platform giving access to global data layers	https://www.unbiodiversitylab.org/ https://environmentlive.unep.org/media/html/situation/situation_room.html
Biodiversity Network of Mozambique	Research-grade primary biodiversity data from leading national universities, research centres, and conservation areas.	https://maps.openscidata.org/index.php/view/map/?repository=bionomo&project=Bionomo

36 of 72

Key messages

36

Screening should take place prior to the selection of the preferred project option to eliminate alternatives with the greatest potential impacts

Scoping determines the priority issues to be considered in the ESIA, and good scoping saves time, money and effort

Baseline assessments characterise the existing conditions to establish the biodiversity and ecosystem service status before operations begin

Baseline assessments inform impact assessment and management planning, monitoring and adaptive management over the life of the project

37 of 72

2.3 Mitigating and monitoring biodiversity impacts�

38 of 72

Contents

38

Impact mitigation

Monitoring and verification

39 of 72

Impact mitigation

Photo credits: Ton Rulkens

40 of 72

The mitigation hierarchy

40

41 of 72

Avoid

41

Site selection

Relocate a project site to avoid an area of high biodiversity
Re-routing pipelines

Project design

Directional drilling
Siting of drilling pads

Scheduling

Avoid breeding seasons
Schedule seismic outside of migration seasons
Prohibit night transportation

Avoid

Minimise

Restore

Offset

42 of 72

Minimise

42

Physical controls

Installing culverts
Using bird flight diverters on transmission lines

Operational controls

Managing staff behaviour
Managing access to areas

Abatement controls

Implement waste management
Invasive species management

Avoid

Minimise

Restore

Offset

43 of 72

Restore

43

Might:

not be possible for certain features
have lower certainty of success
be scientifically uncertain
financially uncertain
require expert consultation
require long-term intervention
require significant monitoring effort

Considerations

Avoid

Minimise

Restore

Offset

Revegetation

Retaining topsoil and its original seedbank
Invasive species control measures

Habitat enhancement

Building artificial nests
Spreading grass cuttings from undisturbed habitat

44 of 72

Offset

44

Restoration offsets

Reintroduction of priority species in degraded habitat
Building artificial reefs as nursing grounds

Protection offsets

Developing alternative livelihoods for communities to prevent ongoing degradation of threatened forests

Avoid

Minimise

Restore

Offset

Considerations

Possibility/ feasibility needs to be assessed
Is the offset equivalent to the previous habitat?
Outcomes need to be specified (and ideally quantified)
Appropriate stakeholder consultation
Will it last at least as long as the project impact?

Recognition of limits

-is it actually possible?

Equivalence

- Is it a fair exchange?

Outcomes

- Are outcomes specified and ideally quantified?

Stakeholder engagement

- Have appropriate stakeholders been consulted?

Additionality

-Will it result in real change which wouldn’t happen anyway?

Longevity

Will it last at least as long as the project impacts?

For all aspects of the MT it holds true that:

there is rarely one single obvious solution.

For example, pipeline routing or siting choices may avoid biodiversity impacts in one region, but could have different impacts somewhere else. The challenge is to find a balance between what is realistically feasible, but also manageable and acceptable from a BES point of view.

Other trade-offs can be considered, and we have not talked much about those today. For example, choosing a different pipeline route might help avoid sensitive habitats, but could require longer construction activities that cause greater net carbon emissions. One way to evaluate such trade-offs is by applying a multi-criteria approach. This will not be the focus of this workshop, we just want you to know that such an approach exists.

BES valuation is also increasingly being used – especially by NGOs - to compare potential impacts. The use of a common metric, such as currency, may have some benefits for comparison, but it also has pitfalls. Generally speaking, it can be difficult to assign a currency value to BES, especially in regard to biodiversity. If BES valuation is to be used to set impact mitigation priorities, then it is important that the assigned BES values are indeed reflective of the actual priorities. Methods and frameworks are still evolving.

45 of 72

Monitoring and verification

Photo credits: Ton Rulkens

46 of 72

What do we mean by monitoring and verification?

46

Standardized measurement and observation of the environment

Monitoring

Data which provides evidence of a company’s performance in addressing sustainability issues

Indicators

The process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of something

Verification

Disclosing relevant information and data to internal and external stakeholders

Reporting

Why is a robust monitoring system important?

To assess successfulness of mitigation measures

To facilitate continuous learning and inform adaptive management

To support accountability and transparency

So what do we mean by these terms – indicators, monitoring, reporting and verification?

These are all general definitions.

The context we are interested in in this Module is their application in relation to BES issues.

[Read Definitions as applied to BES]:

Monitoring: ‘The continuous or frequent standardized measurement and observation of BES, often used for warning and control”

Mozambique context: Compliance monitoring - Ministry of Land, Environment and Rural Development has to conduct regular inspections on the sites of projects to monitor the implementation of the management plans. They can also request an environmental audit when they regard this necessary .

Indicator: ‘Information or data which provides evidence of a company’s performance in addressing BES issues which are material for reporting.’

Verification: ‘The process of establishing the truth, accuracy, or validity of BES information & data’.

Reporting: ‘Disclosing relevant BES information and data to internal and external stakeholders ….such as management, Employees, governments, regulators, shareholders, the general public, local communities or specific interest groups.’

Mozambique context: Reports that are required as part of the ESIA process are: Starting documents (Screening), Environmental Pre-feasibility Study document for full ESIAs (Scoping), ToR for full and simplified ESIAs (Scoping), Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for full ESIAs, Simplified Environmental Reports (SER) for simplified ESIAs, recommendations from review, Environmental Licence, EMP.

Please NOTE THAT:

Monitoring & Measurement are closely related terms, whereby Measurement is the actual collection of data.

For ‘monitoring’, one needs one or more indicators, whereas the ‘measurement’ provides input for indicators.

47 of 72

What is the role of spatial data in monitoring?

Spatial monitoring data can verify the effectiveness of impact mitigation across landscapes and at specific sites:

Landscape level: Remote sensing data can monitor broad-scale changes over large areas

Site-level: High resolution data can establish whether specific objectives of impact mitigation strategies are being met

47

48 of 72

Criteria for site-level biodiversity indicators

48

Specific

e.g. percentage of coral reef area bleached/bleaching

S

Measurable

e.g. number of sites in biodiversity sensitive area with a Biodiversity Action Plan

M

Achievable

e.g. number of annual monitoring survey campaigns carried out

A

Relevant

e.g. number of globally threatened species in project footprint

R

Timely

e.g. amount of sensitive areas cleared during project phases

T

So, here are some fundamental criteria for good BES indicators :

Follow a “SMART” philosophy : being specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timely.

Offer sufficient SENSITIVTIY: BES indicators must also be sufficiently sensitive to provide a warning of change before any irreversible damage occurs – effectively they must serve to indicate where no significant change is occurring, and also where the threshold between insignificant and significant change lies. EX . CORAL REEF HEALTH MONITORING & TEMPERATURE EFFECTS

In addition, biodiversity indicators should also be:

Simple and relate to something that people can understand and use

EX. # GLOBALLY THREATENED SPECIES IN PROJECT FOOTPRINT

4. Able to address a need (e.g., be established through stakeholder dialogue or respond to a predicted significant impact).

EX. # SPECIES USED BY LOCAL POPULATIONS

5. Sensitive to anthropogenic impacts – able to measure changes caused specifically by humans (i.e. able to differentiate between long-term background changes and those changes arising from the presence of oil and gas operations).

EX. CORAL REEF BLEACHING DUE TO CYCLICAL TEMPERATURE CHANGES / O&G impacts.

6. Spatially and historically relevant across the required geographical (i.e. local, regional, global) and time (year/years/decade) scales.

EX. AMOUNT OF SENSITIVE AREAS CLEARED DURING PROJECT PHASES

7. Dynamic and responsive to ongoing changes.

EX. % SURVIVAL STREAM INVERTEBRATES DURING CONSTRUCTION

8. Able to address positive and negative changes.

EX. % SURVIVAL RATE OF FISH TO TSS CONCENTRATION PRIOR/AFTER MITIGATION MEASURE

9. RELEVANCE: Able to answer monitoring question as part of a BAP, reporting or financial benchmarking

EX. % SITES IN BIODIVERSITY SENSITIVE AREA WITH BAPs

49 of 72

49

Case study: Mozambique LNG monitoring

Project’s ESHIA included commitment to undertake additional biodiversity studies to inform the Biodiversity Action Plan (BAP) :

Avian surveys
Large carnivore and terrestrial megafauna monitoring
Alien invasive species surveys
Aquatic ecology surveys, including water quality, fish, macroinvertebrates
Bush meat surveys
Surveys of coral communities within the bay

50 of 72

50

Case study: Mozambique LNG monitoring

Environment	Impact	Monitoring
Air Quality and GHG Emissions	Impacts from GHG	Monitoring for leaks and fugitive emissions
Surface Water	Impacts of water pollution	Monitoring of physical, biological and chemical parameters for wetlands, to begin prior to construction
Marine ecology	Impacts of physical disturbance	ROV surveys to be performed before and after drilling activities to monitor impacts on the seabed, on a well by well basis
	Impact of turbidity	Monitoring turbidity levels in the Zone of Moderate Impact
Vegetation	Impact of invasive plant species	Monitoring for potential spread of invasive species (in situ control and eradication measures will be implemented if spread identified)
Herpetofauna	Impacts of water pollution	Monitoring of physical, biological and chemical parameters for wetlands, to begin prior to construction
Mammals	Impacts of habitat fragmentation	Monitoring open trenches for stranded animals.

51 of 72

Why is verification important?

51

Provides credibility and transparency to the whole biodiversity management, monitoring and reporting process.

Usually done independently by a third party:

Regulators
Reputable expert(s)
Stakeholder panels
Science-based conservation NGOs
Universities
Scientific institutions

52 of 72

How do regulators monitor?

Decree 54/2015: regular inspections on project sites to monitor implementation of environmental management plans

Responsibility of AQUA, autonomous entity within MITADER
Annual inspections for projects under categories A+ and A

Environmental audits: additional monitoring and verification exercise, carried out by independent specialists/consultants, usually after construction/during operation of the project.

Environmental License: renewal required every 5 years, with an update of the environmental management plan (including for biodiversity impact mitigation in the case of projects under category A+)

52

53 of 72

Key messages

53

The Mitigation Hierarchy is an effective tool to guide environmental impact avoidance and minimisation, restoration and offsetting

Monitoring should support active management by the company, so that results are fed back into mitigation actions

A risk based approach that considers severity and likelihood of impact can inform future mitigation actions

Monitoring supports accountability and transparency, helps to ensure success of mitigation measures, and informs adaptive management

Monitoring is also carried out by regulators, in addition to the renewal of the environmental license and potential environmental audits

54 of 72

2.5 EIA Exercise

55 of 72

ESIA Mapping Exercise

Context:

An oil and gas company is planning activities in a new exploration block within an inhabited coastal area.

However, the area has considerable terrestrial and marine biodiversity and thriving socio-economic sectors, with high population densities along the coastline.

Aims:

Exercise A: Concession block selection, screening, scoping and baseline assessment

Exercise B: Impact assessment, mitigation and monitoring

56 of 72

Background

Any oil and gas concession will require:

A production platform;
A pipeline;
A processing plant;
Access roads;
A product pipeline to reach their market.

There are two concession block options.

However, the area has considerable terrestrial and marine biodiversity and thriving socio-economic sectors (e.g. tourism, fisheries), with high population densities along the coastline.

57 of 72

Environmental and socio-economic features

Coral reefs situated near the coast

Habitats

Mangroves present along the coastal area

Shrubland used for grazing livestock by local communities

Socio-economic features

Marine and coastal protected areas

A Key Biodiversity Area

Important areas for tourism, a source of income for locals

Cities and existing port location

58 of 72

Exercise A: Concession block selection, screening, scoping and baseline assessment

Aims:

Understand the context of operations to eliminate potential locations to avoid impacts

Determine the priority biodiversity and ecosystem service features for further study

Identify the Area of Influence and specific surveys that will assist in establishing the existing biodiversity and ecosystem service status

59 of 72

Part 1: Screening

1.1 Screening by the oil and gas company

The results of the screening operations from the oil and gas company have come in. They have identified two potential locations for drilling platforms within the proposed concession blocks and three potential locations for onshore processing plants.

The following additional environmental and socio-economic features have been identified within the landscape/seascape.

Potential drilling platforms

Potential processing plants

Beaches

Artisanal fishing

60 of 72

61 of 72

Part 1: Screening

Which drilling platform and processing plant locations might be screened out by the oil and gas company? Why?

Considering the sensitivities of different sites and the potential implications of operating in them, explain your reasons below. Use the table to cross out unsuitable options and tick the suitable option(s).

62 of 72

Part 1: Screening

	Biodiversity and ecosystem services considerations		Is this a potential option? ✔/🗴■
	Sensitivities	Implications
	e.g. the site may impact nearby human settlements	e.g. delays in operations due to stakeholder discontent over local disruption
Platform
A1



Processing plant

63 of 72

Part 1: Screening

1.2 Screening by the regulators

The oil and gas company must submit several documents so the project can be categorized as part of the official screening process. This includes a description and justification of the activity, its legal framework, and a short description of the environmental and socio-economic conditions of the area.

Based on the potential options selected in 1.1., what sensitivities would you expect to be included in the information provided to the regulators?

64 of 72

Part 2: Scoping and baseline assessment

2.1 Scoping by the oil and gas company

Screening was used to eliminate certain sites for drilling platforms and processing plants. Scoping will now identify the priority biodiversity components and ecosystem services to study for potential sites identified during screening.

For the site(s) that you have chosen in Part 1:

List the biodiversity components and ecosystem services identified in the screening exercise.
Note reasons for their importance
Identify what data are required to assess the selected biodiversity components or ecosystem services, including in terms of their geographic scope and seasonality.

65 of 72

Part 2: Scoping and baseline assessment

Biodiversity component or ecosystem service	Reasons for importance	Type of data needed
e.g. local subsistence fishery (provisioning services)	e.g. fish is the only source of protein in this area	e.g. quantitative baseline fish population data covering the whole bay with at least two repeats per year to capture seasonality

66 of 72

Part 2: Scoping and baseline assessment

2.2. Scoping by the regulators

An essential aspect of the regulatory scoping process is for the oil and gas company to identify the likelihood of fatal flaws in its Environmental Pre-Viability Study (EPDA).

Based on the biodiversity components and ecosystem services identified in 2.1. and the likely impact of oil and gas operations, what are the potential fatal flaws associated with this project?

67 of 72

Exercise B: Impact assessment, mitigation and monitoring

Aims:

Understand the potential impacts as a consequence of going ahead with the project

Develop approaches to mitigate biodiversity and ecosystem services impacts

Develop indicators to monitor the status of biodiversity and ecosystem services at the project site

68 of 72

Mitigation of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services

The baseline assessment has provided further information:

Hawksbill turtles use parts of the undeveloped beaches as nesting sites. These sea turtles are listed as Critically Endangered on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.
There is a whale migratory route offshore.
Some of the mangroves remain undisturbed, but other parts are experiencing pollutant/sediment load on the coast from nearby human activities, which are severely degrading the mangroves.

Turtle nesting sites

Degraded mangroves

Whale migratory route

69 of 72

70 of 72

Mitigation of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services

Based on your chosen platform and processing plant locations and the biodiversity components prioritized during Exercise A:

Identify potential project impacts. In addition to the drilling platform and processing plant themselves, also consider the pipeline from the platform to the plant and access roads.

For each of the identified impacts, outline what example mitigation measures could be applied.

Think about which indicators might be useful to monitor the success of the mitigation measures.

71 of 72

Mitigation of impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services

Biodiversity component or ecosystem service	Description of key impacts	Potential mitigation options	Indicators for monitoring
e.g. local subsistence fishery (provisioning services)	e.g. Impacts – Restricted access to fisheries and/or wild foods for local people,	(consider solutions that avoid, minimise, restore and offset impacts and dependencies)	(Consider: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Timely (SMART) criteria)

72 of 72

Thank you