SBIA Part 3

Social and Biodiversity
Impact Assessment (SBIA)

Manual for REDD+ Projects
Part 3 – Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox
September 2011
In collaboration with:
This manual was created with financial support from:
*This publication is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United
States Agency for International Development (USAID), under the terms of the TransLinks Cooperative
Agreement No.EPP-A-00-06-00014-00 to The Wildlife Conservation Society. TransLinks is a partnership of
WCS, The Earth Institute, Enterprise Works/VITA, Forest Trends and The Land Tenure Center. The contents
are the responsibility of the partnership and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the US
government.
SOCIAL AND BIODIVERSITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
(SBIA) MANUAL FOR REDD+ PROJECTS:
PART 3 – BIODIVERSITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT TOOLBOX
Nigel Pitman
September 2011
©Copyright 2011 Conservation International and Forest Trends Association
All rights reserved.
Conservation International is the convener of the Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance (CCBA).
Users may reproduce content only for noncommercial purposes, with a notice that Conservation International
and Forest Trends Association own the copyright in this document. No other uses, including sale or resale of the
document, are permitted without the express written permission of Conservation International and Forest
Trends Association.
Preferred Citation:
Pitman, N. 2011. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment Manual for REDD+ Projects: Part 3 – Biodiversity
Impact Assessment Toolbox. Forest Trends, Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance, Rainforest Alliance and
Fauna & Flora International. Washington, DC.
Please send feedback or suggestions about this manual to Michael Richards (mrichards@forest-trends.org) or
Steve Panfil (spanfil@conservation.org).
The Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance is a partnership of international Non-
Governmental Organizations seeking to foster the development of forest protection and
restoration activities around the world that deliver significant climate, community and
biodiversity benefits. The CCBA members – Conservation International, CARE, Rainforest
Alliance, The Nature Conservancy and the Wildlife Conservation Society – are all leading the
development and implementation of forest carbon activities to demonstrate how effective
partnerships and integrated design can deliver significant multiple benefits.
http://www.climate-standards.org/
Forest Trends’ mission is to maintain, restore, and enhance forests and connected natural
ecosystems, life-sustaining processes, by promoting incentives stemming from a broad range
of ecosystem services and products. Specifically, Forest Trends seeks to catalyze the
development of integrated carbon, water, and biodiversity incentives that deliver real
conservation outcomes and benefits to local communities and other stewards of our natural
resources.
The Katoomba Ecosystem Services Incubator, a program of Forest Trends, aims to link
communities with the emerging markets for ecosystem services by providing targeted
technical, financial, business management and legal support to promising small-scale
community-based projects with potential for long-term financial viability, and with the aim of
benefiting low-income rural people and imperilled biodiversity.
http://www.forest-trends.org; http://www.katoombagroup.org/incubator
Fauna & Flora International was founded in 1903 and is the world's longest-established
international conservation organisation. Operating in more than 40 countries worldwide, FFI’s
mission is to protect threatened species and ecosystems, choosing solutions that are
sustainable, based on sound science and take account of human needs. As part of its
programme on environmental markets, FFI is developing several REDD initiatives in
partnership with governments, local communities and the private sector.
http://www.fauna-flora.org/
The Rainforest Alliance works to conserve biodiversity and ensure sustainable livelihoods by
transforming land-use practices, business practices and consumer behavior. With offices
worldwide, the Rainforest Alliance works with people whose livelihoods depend on the land,
helping them transform the way they grow food, harvest wood and host travelers. From large
multinational corporations to small, community-based cooperatives, the organization involves
businesses and consumers worldwide in our efforts to bring responsibly produced goods and
services to a global marketplace where the demand for sustainability is growing steadily.
http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/
Contents
1. Introduction to Toolbox ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Overview .........................................................................................................................................................1
1.2 How This Toolbox Is Organized .....................................................................................................................1
2. Typical Biodiversity Impacts of Land-Based Carbon Projects .................................................... 3
2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Biodiversity Impacts of Afforestation and Reforestation (A/R) Projects....................................................5
2.3 Biodiversity Impacts of Reduced-Impact Forestry and Reduced-Impact Agricultural Projects ...............8
2.4 Biodiversity Impacts of REDD Projects..........................................................................................................9
2.5 Main Sources and Further Guidance ..........................................................................................................10
3. Describing Initial Biodiversity and Threat Conditions and Establishing a “Without-
Project” Scenario ........................................................................................................................................... 12
3.2 Establishing a “Without-Project” Projection for Biodiversity Impacts .....................................................18
4. Designing Project Activities and Estimating Their Biodiversity Impacts ........................... 22
4.1 Summarizing the Project’s Biodiversity Objectives....................................................................................22
4.2 Estimating “With-Project” Changes in Biodiversity in the Project Zone ..................................................23
4.3 Estimating and Justifying Offsite Biodiversity Impacts ..............................................................................24
4.4 Identifying Risks to the Project’s Expected Biodiversity Benefits .............................................................26
4.5 Describing Measures to Conserve HCVs.....................................................................................................26
4.6 Describing Measures to Maintain Biodiversity Benefits Beyond the Project Lifetime ...........................27
5. Monitoring Biodiversity Impacts ........................................................................................................... 29
5.1 Documenting Key Technical Skills for Biodiversity Assessment and Monitoring ....................................29
5.2 Selecting Biodiversity Indicators..................................................................................................................29
5.3 Four Common Indicator Types for Carbon Projects ..................................................................................32
5.4 Designing a Biodiversity Monitoring Program ...........................................................................................36
References................................................................................................................................................................ 40
Appendix 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 50
Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | iii

List of Tables
Table 1. An Overview of Potential Biodiversity Impacts Anticipated for Various Kinds of Terrestrial Carbon
Projects ...............................................................................................................................................................3
Table 2. Biodiversity-Related HCVs and Components to be Included in Project Design Documents (PDD) ...........17
Table 3. Common Biodiversity Goals and Objectives Relevant to Carbon Projects ..................................................23
Table 4. Potential Risks to Expected Biodiversity Benefits ..........................................................................................26
Table 5. Selected measures of carbon projects for maintaining and enhancing Biodiversity Benefits beyond the
Project Lifetime ................................................................................................................................................28
Table 6. Types of Common Biodiversity Indicators and Conservation Targets of Carbon Projects .........................33
Table 7. Some Typical Indicators of the Quantity and Quality of Natural Vegetation ..............................................34
Table 8. Advantages and Disadvantages of Monitoring Programs with Different Levels of Outside Expert
Involvement and Technical Complexity .........................................................................................................37
List of Boxes
Box 1. Impacts of Afforestation on Biodiversity in Northern Europe ...........................................................................6
Box 2. The Death and Rebirth of a Megadiverse Amazonian Forest............................................................................7
Box 3. In Search of the Biodiversity Impacts of Sustainable Agriculture in Europe.....................................................8
Box 4. …But What about Specific Biodiversity Impacts? ...............................................................................................9
Box 5. When Biodiversity Indicators Fail ......................................................................................................................30
Box 6. Example of Biodiversity Indicators that Are Clearly Linked to Project Management Interventions ............31
Box 7. Opportunistic Biodiversity Monitoring on an Amazonian River......................................................................39
List of Figures
Figure 1. Factors that Commonly Influence the Direction and Scale of Biodiversity Impacts in A/R Projects ..........5
Figure 2. Three “Without-Project” Reference Scenarios and the Types of Terrestrial Carbon Projects
Commonly Associated with Them ..............................................................................................................20
Figure 3. An Illustration of the Commonly used Pressure-State-Response Framework for
Biodiversity Indicators .................................................................................................................................32
Figure 4. The Los Amigos River in Amazonian Peru .....................................................................................................39
iv | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3

List of Acronyms
A/R Afforestation/Reforestation
CCB Climate, Community and Biodiversity (Standards)
CCBA Climate, Community and Biodiversity Alliance
CMP Conservation Measures Partnership
GMO Genetically Modified Organism
HCV High Conservation Value
IAIA International Association for Impact Assessment
IUCN World Conservation Union
KBA Key Biodiversity Area
PDD Project Design Document
REDD Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation
REDD+ Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation and the
conservation, sustainable management of forests, and enhancement of forest
carbon stocks
RIL Reduced-Impact Logging
SBIA Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment
UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
WWF World Wildlife Fund
Note: Only acronyms that are used more than once are listed here.
Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | v

vi | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3
Acknowledgements
This Manual was written by Nigel Pitman (Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University) with key inputs
from Steven Panfil (Climate, Community & Biodiversity Alliance), Margaret Stern (EcoDecision), and Michael
Richards (Forest Trends). Toby Gardner and Johannes Ebeling provided valuable literature and Joanna Durbin
provided helpful comments. Any errors that remain are those of the first author.
We thank Anne Thiel of Forest Trends for her extraordinary efforts with production of this Manual and Lu Wang
and Stephanie Wolf (Conservation International) for their generous help with formatting and presentation.
Contributions from the donor organizations whose logos appear on the inside cover of this Manual were vital,
but we especially acknowledge a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to the CCBA. Without the Rockefeller
Foundation support, this Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox could not have been developed.
Cover photo credits:

Left to Right, Top to Bottom:
© Conservation International/Photo by John Martin © Conservation International/Photo by Steven Panfil © Robin
Moore/iLCP © Forest Trends/Photo by Rebecca Asare © Conservation International/Photo by John Martin © Conservation
International/Photo by Steven Panfil.
Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | vii

viii | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3
1. Introduction to Toolbox
1.1 Overview
In order to be validated under the CCB Standards, a terrestrial carbon project plan must provide compelling
arguments that the project will benefit biodiversity1 and must describe measures capable of justifying those
benefits. Once the project has been validated, subsequent verification under the CCB Standards requires that
biodiversity benefits be demonstrated with scientific evidence collected via a monitoring program. If the
project’s monitoring data succeed in showing that biodiversity in the project area and project zone has been
maintained or enhanced, then the CCBA’s biodiversity requirements are satisfied and the project is verified.
Although simple in summary, the biodiversity-related portion of the certification process requires at least 22
different steps (Appendix 1), each of which may mean different things to different project designers. At one
extreme, some designers may assume that their project is so clearly biodiversity-friendly and the benefits for
biodiversity are so obvious that they fail to invest enough time in designing effective monitoring plans and
guarding against possible negative impacts. At the other extreme, some carbon project designers may get
bogged down in the complexities of biodiversity monitoring and the many knotty questions associated with it.
The aim of this toolbox is to help project designers navigate between these two extremes by providing guidance
on each of the biodiversity-related criteria required for certification under the CCB Standards. As is the case with
Parts 1 and 2 of this Manual (Richards and Panfil 2011a, b), it is worth emphasizing that the goal here is not to
establish additional standards or requirements that must be fulfilled for certification under the CCB Standards.
None of the advice provided in this toolbox is mandatory, and none of the resources recommended here are
obligatory. Instead, they are intended as broad guidance to help managers design a project that satisfies the
biodiversity requirements of the CCB Standards.
The guidance provided in this Part 3: Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox complements Part 1: Core
Guidance for Project Proponents and Part 2: Social Impact Assessment Toolbox. Biodiversity impact assessment
requires expert inputs in the design and other aspects of monitoring as described in Section 5, and local
participation in identifying the biodiversity objectives of a project and understanding likely biodiversity effects of
interventions is usually essential. Biodiversity impacts often result in livelihood impacts as well, and for these
reasons the guidance in Part 2 is also relevant to Part 3. Social and Biodiversity Impact Assessment are best
done in an integrated way.
1.2 How This Toolbox Is Organized

This toolbox is divided into four sections:
• A survey of typical biodiversity impacts of land-based carbon projects, both positive and negative;
• Guidance for describing initial biodiversity conditions, identifying risks to that biodiversity, and
projecting a ‘without-project’ scenario for biodiversity;
• Guidance for designing project activities and estimating their biodiversity impacts; and
• Guidance for monitoring biodiversity impacts.
1 In this document and in the CCB Standards in general, the term biodiversity refers to species diversity and ecosystem diversity (i.e.,
habitat types, biotic communities, ecoregions). Likewise, biodiversity impacts are considered at three nested spatial scales: 1)
within the specific project area (land within the carbon project boundary and under the control of the project proponent); 2) within
the broader project zone (the project area plus the land within the boundaries of the adjacent communities potentially affected by
the project); and 3) offsite (beyond the project zone).
Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | 1

The guidance provided in the latter three sections is organized in the same sequential fashion as the 22
biodiversity-related criteria required by the CCB Standards. Users seeking guidance on a specific criterion may
refer to Appendix 1 of this document, which indicates in which section of this toolbox the criterion is discussed.
For example, the Appendix will direct a project designer who has a specific question about how to satisfy
Criterion G3.7 (e.g., ‘What measures can my project take to maintain biodiversity benefits beyond the project
lifetime?’) to Section 4.5: Describing Measures to Maintain Biodiversity Benefits beyond the Project Lifetime.
Wherever possible, the guidance in this toolbox includes:

• Expanded discussion, clarification, and background of the relevant CCB Standards criterion or criteria;
• A case study showing how an actual project has satisfied the requirement, or an example of how a
project might do so; and
• A list of websites and publications that provide information relevant to satisfying the requirement and
a short description of potentially useful publications.
The toolbox includes another feature intended to allow users to skip directly to sections that specifically address
the three most common types of carbon projects.2 These sections, marked by colored boxes throughout the
toolbox for easy identification and quick reference, are:
Afforestation and reforestation (A/R) projects, in which biodiversity benefits are typically
A/R associated with the establishment or restoration of forests (or other vegetation) and the
subsequent recolonization of the project area by forest-based plant and animal species;
Reduced-impact agriculture, forestry, and other land uses, in which biodiversity benefits
Reduced typically accrue from ending management practices that directly harm certain plant and
Impact animal species, or degrade soils and waterways; and
Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD), in which biodiversity

benefits come from the long-term preservation of forest-based plant and animal species
REDD that would otherwise be removed from the project area by deforestation, hunting, and
other similar threats.
2 While these three broad categories include the majority of project types currently using the CCB Standards, there are several
important but less common projects that do not fall into these categories (e.g., biochar, avoided conversion of natural non-forest
vegetation). As the carbon sequestration field continues to evolve, future versions of this toolbox will address the potential
biodiversity impacts of a larger range of projects.
2 | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3

2. Typical Biodiversity Impacts of Land-Based Carbon Projects
2.1 Introduction
All land-based carbon projects have the potential to generate both positive and negative impacts on
biodiversity in the project zone and project area.3 Although many such impacts have been documented in the
scientific literature, there are few generalities that apply to all projects and all biomes, or even to the same
project at different stages of implementation. In other words, the biodiversity impacts of a given intervention or
land use are not always consistent among taxonomic groups (i.e., birds may react differently than fungi), across
different biomes (i.e., wet-forest bird communities may react differently than dry-forest bird communities), or
over time (i.e., bird communities may be impacted negatively early in the intervention but positively later on). It
is thus important to recognize that documenting and understanding the biodiversity impacts of terrestrial
carbon projects constitutes a young and active field of research. Indeed, two recent reviews of conservation
science have named it one of the field’s highest research priorities (Chazdon et al. 2008; Sutherland et al. 2009).
Requiring carbon project managers to demonstrate positive, statistically significant trends in such a fluid and
poorly understood system is without question a stiff challenge. In this first section of the toolbox we argue that
in spite of these difficulties the most common expected biodiversity impacts of carbon projects are relatively
straightforward and thus amenable to tracking via well-designed monitoring programs. And while we do not
recommend ignoring the more complicated, harder-to-monitor impacts on a site’s biodiversity, our bias is
towards keeping things simple.
An overview of some common biodiversity impacts of carbon projects is provided in Table 1. The next sections
offer an expanded discussion of those impacts for various kinds of carbon projects: afforestation, reforestation,
revegetation, reduced-impact forestry, reduced-impact agriculture (more commonly known as sustainable
agriculture, agroforestry, or agri-environment schemes), and reduced emissions from deforestation and
degradation (REDD).
Table 1. Overview of Potential Biodiversity Impacts Anticipated for Various Kinds of Terrestrial Carbon
Projects
‘+’= positive impacts; ‘-’ = negative impacts; ‘+/-’ = positive or negative impacts, depending on context.
Potential Biodiversity Impacts in Project Potential Biodiversity Impacts in Project
Type of Project
Area Zone
+ Local forest benefits1 + Regional forest benefits1
+ Reduction of non-native herbaceous +/- Downstream aquatic communities
plant species benefit from reduced erosion, or
+ Plant and animal communities typically harmed due to chemical inputs
Afforestation with
more diverse than those of original - Biodiversity leakage2 (e.g., grazing animals
native species
open habitat move elsewhere)
- Loss of plant and animal species
specialized on certain open habitats
(e.g., wetlands)
+/- Plant and animal communities in +/- Downstream aquatic communities
plantations more or less diverse than benefit from reduced erosion, or
Afforestation with non-
those of original open habitat harmed due to chemical inputs
native species
- Large-scale introduction of non-native - Biodiversity leakage2 (e.g., grazing animals
species move elsewhere)
3The CCB Standards define the project area as the land within the carbon project boundary and under the control of the project
proponent. The project zone includes the project area and the land within the boundaries of the adjacent communities potentially
affected by the project.

- High levels of anthropogenic disturbance, - Large-scale introduction of non-native
if plantation forestry species
- Loss of species specialized on certain open - Potential introduction of GMOs
habitats (e.g., wetlands)
+ Loss of invasive or non-native species + Benefit downstream aquatic
- Loss of disturbance-loving species communities via reduced erosion
Reforestation with
+ Increased habitat connectivity between
native species
regional forest patches
- Biodiversity leakage2 (e.g., grazing animals
and loggers move elsewhere)
- Loss of disturbance-loving species - Spread non-native species to surrounding
landscape
Reforestation with non-
- Potential introduction of GMOs
native species
- Biodiversity leakage2 (e.g., grazing animals
+ Local vegetation benefits + Increased habitat connectivity between
Revegetation with regional forest patches
native species - Biodiversity leakage2 (e.g., grazing animals
+ Fewer trees removed from forest + Regional forest benefits1
+ Reduced risk of forest fires + Aquatic communities benefit from less
+ Local forest benefits1 erosion and sedimentation in
Reduced-impact
- Loss of disturbance-loving species programs that disallow harvesting on
forestry
steep slopes and along streams
+ Increased habitat connectivity between
regional forest patches
+ Soil fauna benefits from fewer external + Aquatic communities benefit from less
chemical inputs (e.g., nitrogen fertilizer, erosion and sedimentation, fewer
pesticides) and no-till farming external chemical inputs (e.g., nitrogen
+ Plant and animal communities benefit fertilizer, pesticides), and less water-
from trees planted for windbreaks, intensive farming practices
restored riparian areas, or agroforestry + Trees planted for windbreaks, riparian
activities, and from longer-term crop strips, agroforestry activities, and other
rotations in synch with seasonal cycles, natural vegetation provide corridors
Reduced-impact and higher crop diversity for animal species
agriculture + Plant and animal communities benefit + Plant and animal communities benefit
from less water-intensive farming from agricultural practices that
practices maintain natural biological and
- Loss of disturbance-loving species ecological processes (e.g., nutrient
cycling, nitrogen fixation, soil
development)
- Inputs of organic fertilizer (e.g., animal
manure) pollute aquatic communities
- Potential introduction of GMOs
- Narrow focus on avoiding deforestation + Maintain habitat connectivity
REDD
may overlook damage to animal - Biodiversity leakage2 (e.g., agents of
communities (e.g., via hunting) deforestation move elsewhere)
1
‘Local forest benefits’ is shorthand for the large number of biodiversity benefits that typically accrue from the wide range
of habitats that mixed-species forests provide for locally occurring plants and animals. ‘Regional forest benefits’ is shorthand
for the large number of biodiversity benefits derived from forest cover at the watershed scale.
2
‘Biodiversity leakage’ refers to an increase in anthropogenic pressure on plant and animal communities outside the project
area (e.g., hunting, gathering, logging) that is a direct result of increased protection of the project area.

2.2 Biodiversity Impacts of Afforestation 4 and Reforestation (A/R)
Projects
A/R
Afforestation and Reforestation (A/R) projects encompass a diverse array of activities ranging from restoration
of native forests to agroforestry to large-scale industrial monoculture plantations. In turn, these activities
encompass a diverse array of management styles, ranging from substantial interventions involving large-scale
and continuous inputs of chemicals and water to laissez-faire natural regrowth. Given this variety, it is inevitable
that some A/R projects have positive impacts on biodiversity while others can seriously degrade it. Figure 1
summarizes some of the most common factors that determine the likeliness of positive and negative impacts in
such projects.
Figure 1. Factors that Commonly Influence the Direction and Scale of Biodiversity Impacts in A/R Projects
Continuous inputs of water, fertilizers, or Minimal inputs of water, fertilizers, and pesticides
pesticides Plantations incorporating many species
Monoculture plantations Plantations incorporating native species
Plantations of non-native species Planting site extremely degraded
Planting site already in good condition Planting site close to intact native forest
Planting site far from intact native forest Seed-dispersing animals well-represented
Seed-dispersing animals rare to absent
More negative impacts More positive impacts

Fewer positive impacts Fewer negative impacts
Forests typically contain more biodiversity than non-forested sites because their greater structural complexity
makes a broader array of niches and resources available for plants and animals (Tews et al. 2004). On the other
hand, recent reviews have found little evidence that planted forests harbor higher levels of biodiversity than the
non-forested sites they replace (see Box 1; Carnus et al. 2006, Brockerhoff et al. 2008, Felton 2010), largely
because so many planted forests are monocultures. In the case of carbon projects based on A/R, the direction
and intensity of biodiversity impacts will largely depend on:
• The intensity of management activities over the long term;
• The number of different tree species planted;
• The degree to which native tree species are planted;
• The conditions of the site to be forested; and
• The amount and location of forested land in the surrounding region.
4
Official UNFCCC definitions: Afforestation is the direct human-induced conversion of land that has not been forested for a period of
at least 50 years to forested land through planting, seeding and/or the human-induced promotion of natural seed sources.
Reforestation is the direct human-induced conversion of non-forested land to forested land through planting, seeding and/or the
human-induced promotion of natural seed sources, on land that was forested but that has been converted to non-forested land. For
the first commitment period, reforestation activities will be limited to reforestation occurring on those lands that did not contain
forest on 31 December 1989. Revegetation is a direct human-induced activity to increase carbon stocks on sites through the
establishment of vegetation that covers a minimum area of 0.05 hectares and does not meet the above definitions of afforestation
and reforestation (UNFCCC 2002).

Where the primary objective of A/R is high-volume timber production, management activities are often
intensive, long-term, and strongly detrimental to biodiversity (e.g., deep ripping of soils, application of chemical
fertilizers and pesticides, intensive irrigation, the use of non-native species, the use of heavy machinery to
harvest timber, very short harvest cycles). By contrast, where the primary objective is the establishment of
forest cover, similarly aggressive management techniques may be used early in the project to accelerate forest
establishment (with strongly negative impacts on biodiversity) but can then be tapered off or abandoned
altogether once forest is capable of growing on its own (with consequently reduced negative impacts on
biodiversity). Where planted stands are managed under internationally recognized environmental certification
standards for sustainable forestry (Frumhoff & Losos 1998, Marjokorpi & Salo 2007, MCPFE 2009), biodiversity
impacts will depend on the managers’ ability to minimize the intensity and periodicity of required interventions
(e.g., mechanized timber harvests).
Box 1. Impacts of Afforestation on Biodiversity in Northern Europe

The most comprehensive studies to date on how afforestation affects plant and animal communities come from
Ireland and Scandinavia. In both regions, researchers have surveyed biodiversity in heathlands, grasslands, and
bogs and compared the results with those from places that used to be heathlands, grasslands, or bogs until they
were planted with native or exotic tree species.
Both studies found that afforestation decreased plant diversity, even at afforested sites that were decades old.
Comparisons of animal diversity showed few consistent trends, showing higher diversity of some groups in
afforested areas, and lower diversity of others. For example, while the Irish study recorded higher bird diversity in
planted forests than in non-forest sites, the Scandinavian study found no difference; both studies, however, noted
a complete shift in bird species composition between forest and non-forest sites. The Scandinavian study found
higher diversities of fungi and soil invertebrates in afforested sites.
Likewise, the assumption of more positive biodiversity benefits at sites afforested with native tree plantations
than at sites planted with exotics has proved difficult to support. The Scandinavian study concluded, for example,
that fungal communities responded similarly to both types of afforestation, while earthworms were more diverse
in native stands than in exotic stands. Collembola species responded one way in Iceland and another way in
Norway.
Given that these complex and varying results were obtained in relatively species-poor temperate zone systems, it
is to be expected that impacts will be even more complex in diverse tropical systems.
Sources: Gittings et al. 2004 and Smith et al. 2006 for Ireland; Halldorsson et al. 2007, 2008 and Elmarsdottir et al. 2008
for Scandinavia.
Likewise, where A/R projects are carried out with a mix of native species that reflects the diversity of natural
forests in the surrounding region, biodiversity impacts are expected to be more positive than where they are
carried out with a small number of economically important non-native species (Box 2). Fast-growing non-native
tree species can, however, help jump-start the process of native forest restoration in non-forest sites by rapidly
providing shade and microclimatic conditions that facilitate the subsequent planting of native forest species
(Parrotta et al. 1997). Likewise, plantations may reduce pressure on natural forests for timber and other forest
products that might otherwise be removed from natural forests.

Box 2. The Death and Rebirth of a Megadiverse Amazonian Forest
Bauxite, which is used to make aluminum, is common in the soils underlying some forests in eastern Amazonia.
Mining this bauxite has catastrophic impacts on biodiversity at the local scale because it requires removing 100%
of the forest and topsoil over large areas and, in the process, converting some of the most diverse ecosystems on
Earth to lunar landscapes.
In the early 1980s, the Brazilian mining company Mineração Rio do Norte initiated a large-scale effort to
reestablish native forest in sites devastated by mining activities. In some cases, aggressive management—
including the wholesale removal, storage, and subsequent reapplication of a site’s original topsoil, still rich in
viable seeds, fungi, and microorganisms—has succeeded in restoring relatively diverse, native, closed-canopy
forest to places that were fields of sun-baked clay just a few years earlier. After 9-13 years, some reforested sites
contained half of the woody plant diversity and 33% of the basal area of old-growth forest nearby.
Although the company’s reforestation program was not designed to sequester carbon, it does represent one of
the longest-running attempts to monitor the biodiversity impacts of reforestation projects on severely degraded
tropical lands. As such, it provides a good example of some of the recommendations highlighted in this toolbox
for successful monitoring: 1) involve scientists; 2) track both plant- and animal-related indicators; and 3) monitor
both control and treatment sites.
Source: Parrotta & Knowles 1999, 200).
Biodiversity impacts will also depend on the conditions of the site to be forested. Proponents of A/R often seek
to enhance their projects’ attractiveness by describing the lands where forest will be reestablished as degraded
grasslands or degraded agricultural lands. Even where this is perfectly accurate, it does not automatically follow
that planted forests will be more diverse (see Box 1). Open grasslands can be quite diverse and harbor
specialized flora and fauna, especially if they include wetlands, and many of these species will not survive a
transition from grasslands to forest (Smith et al. 2006; Barlow et al. 2007). Some of the species that will not
survive the reestablishment of forest will be non-native weeds, and their removal will thus be a biodiversity
benefit, but several others may be native and their loss a negative biodiversity impact. It is thus essential that
all A/R projects include an expert pre-project assessment of existing biodiversity at the site where trees will
be planted.
When reforestation projects were first proposed for inclusion in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) as
tools for carbon sequestration, there were concerns that they could have a significant negative impact on
biodiversity, since some early projects included proposals to cut down native forests and replace them with
plantation monocultures for carbon sequestration (Niesten et al. 2002). It is precisely this sort of concern that
prompted the CCB Standards to incorporate measures to protect and monitor biodiversity in terrestrial carbon
projects. This is yet another reason why all A/R carbon projects should provide detailed information on pre-
project biodiversity in the areas to be planted; under the CCB Standards plantations, should never replace
existing native vegetation.
Finally, the expected biodiversity impacts of A/R projects depend to a large extent on the presence of native
forests in the surrounding region and the long-term suitability of a site for maintaining forest cover. More
significant positive impacts are expected where large blocks of native forest grow nearby, because they will
assist direct management activities by contributing colonizing plants and animals to the newly reforested site.
Conversely, where native forests are small, far away, or absent (or present but with severely degraded animal
communities), little natural assistance is expected. It is also important to note that in biomes where trees grow
very slowly or in regions where native forests are too small or too far away to contribute large numbers of

colonizing seeds, some biodiversity benefits of reforestation and revegetation programs may take decades to
be detected (Dwyer et al. 2009).
Reduced
2.3 Biodiversity Impacts of Reduced-Impact Forestry and Impact
Reduced-Impact Agricultural Projects
Reduced-Impact Agriculture and Forestry projects generate biodiversity impacts by mitigating or eliminating
environmentally damaging practices that emit carbon in agricultural and forestry operations. In the case of
reduced-impact agriculture, for example, the application of organic fertilizers, shallower plowing, the
establishment of windbreaks, and other emissions-reducing measures offer direct benefits to soils and aquatic
ecosystems. While sustainable agriculture presumably also provides significant benefits for plant and animal
communities, these can be challenging to document (see Box 3).
Box 3. In Search of the Biodiversity Impacts of Sustainable Agriculture in Europe

Since 1985 the European Union has encouraged member nations to compensate farmers who implement
sustainable agricultural practices. While several dozen published studies have examined the biodiversity impacts
of such practices—often by comparing the abundance and diversity of wild plants and animals on sustainably
managed and traditionally managed farms—few consistent trends have been detectable.
One study in Ireland, for example, found that average plant diversity was higher on traditionally managed farms,
while no difference was found in the diversity of ground beetles. A similar study of plant, bird, hover fly, and bee
diversity on Dutch farms failed to document significant positive biodiversity impacts of sustainably managed
farmland in that country. By contrast, many studies have found increased species diversity or abundance of
invertebrates on sustainably managed farms—unsurprisingly, perhaps, given the presumably lower use of
insecticides there.
Reviewing 62 such studies, Kleijn and Sutherland (2003) concluded:
“We are unable to say how effective agri-environment schemes are in protecting and promoting biodiversity
on farmland. A limited number of well-designed and thoroughly analysed studies demonstrate convincing
positive effects measured in terms of increased species diversity or abundance, while other studies show no
effects, negative effects, or positive effects on some species and negative effects on others.”
Such critiques have helped spur efforts to improve the quality of monitoring programs. The authors’
recommendations include rigorous experimental design and data analysis, careful descriptions of initial
conditions, and monitoring of long-term trends.
Sources: Kleijn et al. 2001;, Kleijn and Sutherland 2003;, Feehan et al. 2005.
In Reduced-Impact Logging (RIL) projects, positive biodiversity impacts typically derive from lower levels of
habitat destruction and degradation (i.e., fewer trees destroyed as collateral damage during timber extraction)
compared to conventional logging. Using RIL techniques, environmental damage can be further minimized via
harvest plans that protect soils, facilitate natural regeneration of trees (i.e., by protecting seedlings and
saplings), maintain critical ecosystem processes (e.g., hydrological flow, nutrient cycling; Nepstad et al. 1999),
and use low-impact skid trails and landing sites (for storage of harvested trees). As an example, a study of the
effects of low-harvest RIL on bat communities in Amazonian Brazil suggested that RIL had only minor effects on
biodiversity over the short term (Castro-Arellano et al. 2007). Specifically, population-level responses were
minor, with 10 of 15 bat species showing no change in mean abundance. Some aspects of bat community

composition differed between uncut (control) forests and those cut under RIL, with the latter showing
increased bat diversity due to decreased dominance of certain bat species.
As with REDD projects, the same mechanisms that reduce carbon emissions in RIL also reduce negative
biodiversity impacts, which means that measurements of reduced carbon emissions in logging operations can
serve as proxies for reduced biodiversity impacts. In contrast to REDD projects, however, offsite impacts are less
likely to be caused by RIL projects, since implementing conservation-friendly timber extraction practices in a
logging operation typically provides little incentive for loggers to intensify harvests elsewhere (Putz et al. 2008).
While the preceding paragraphs emphasize the positive biodiversity impacts of RIL projects, it is worth noting
that these necessarily refer to improvements in existing operations (e.g., reducing impacts in an already logged
forest) and not the initiation or expansion of operations (e.g., extending reduced-impact logging to previously
unlogged forest), which can generate significant negative impacts for biodiversity.
2.4 Biodiversity Impacts of REDD Projects REDD
Given their goal of actively stopping deforestation by protecting existing forest, REDD projects are the most
obviously conservation-friendly of terrestrial carbon projects; the same interventions and land uses that protect
standing carbon stocks also protect habitat for plants and animals. But while the positive biodiversity benefits of
REDD projects are obvious, two negative impacts are also expected to be common in REDD projects and should
be kept in mind during the project design stage.
First, the displacement of deforestation from the project site to other areas (leakage) is a risk for all REDD
projects, and this carries a corresponding risk for biodiversity. There is also a risk of displacement of the
economic activity that would have caused deforestation, such as agriculture or mining, to a site with fewer
trees, such as grasslands or wetland areas with high biodiversity value. Second, even if management activities
are successful in preventing deforestation, a too-narrow focus on preventing trees from being cut down in the
project area may overlook other negative biodiversity impacts there, most commonly the degradation of large
vertebrate communities due to hunting.
Box 4. …But What about Specific Biodiversity Impacts?

Having looked over this first section of the toolbox, some readers may have grown impatient with the repeated
and rather vague references to positive and negative biodiversity impacts. Some readers may be wondering:
Can’t we be a little more specific? Can’t we get down to details? Will bird diversity increase or decrease
once my site is reforested? Do plant species benefit from reduced-impact logging or not? Aren’t
monoculture timber plantations always bad for amphibians? Won’t stream communities automatically
benefit from reduced-impact agriculture? Won’t large mammal communities automatically benefit from
REDD?
As noted earlier in this section, answers to these questions are rarely consistent enough to be broadly applicable
to all types of carbon projects in all stages of implementation and across all biomes—which is why we have kept
the discussion broad up to this point. Readers looking for a selection of more specific impacts associated with
different kinds of carbon projects should refer to Table 1 of this toolbox.
Project designers do eventually have to select specific attributes of their project sites that will serve as indicators
of the biodiversity impacts of their projects (e.g., the extent of forest cover, the abundance or diversity of certain
plants and animals). That process is discussed in detail in Section 5 of this toolbox.

2.5 Main Sources and Further Guidance
General Biodiversity Impacts
• The biodiversity impacts of a given project will depend on the biodiversity present in the project zone
and its surroundings. Numerous resources to describe that biodiversity are listed in Sections 3.1.1–3 of
this toolbox.
• The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) provides several resources relevant to
biodiversity impact assessments, available online at http://www.iaia.org. Of particular interest is the
website’s ‘Resources and Networking’ page, which hosts a large number of documents that offer
guidance on biodiversity impact assessments in different countries, regions, and biomes.
• The Environmental Evidence Library (EEL), managed by the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence,
hosts a small but growing collection of case studies documenting the biodiversity impacts of specific
conservation interventions, several of which are relevant to carbon projects. The EEL is available online
at http://www.environmentalevidence.org/Library.htm. A similar resource is available at
http://www.conservationevidence.com.
• Businesses developing multiple carbon projects may find it worthwhile to use the Integrated
Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) for Business. IBAT is an online tool that provides businesses with a
single source for globally recognized biodiversity information and a user-friendly mapping application,
to inform decision-making processes and address any potential biodiversity impacts. IBAT for Business
is available to companies on a subscription basis. For more information on how to obtain access please
visit the website at http://www.ibatforbusiness.org. The data in IBAT is also offered through another
platform “IBAT for Research and Conservation Planning” to NGOs, universities, and researchers at no
cost at the following site: https://www.ibat-alliance.org/ibat-conservation/.

Biodiversity Impacts of Afforestation and Reforestation A/R
• A large number of studies have documented the impacts on biodiversity of specific afforestation or
reforestation projects, and many are easily found on the Internet. Broad reviews that summarize the
results of these studies (e.g., Felton 2010) are harder to find, perhaps because site-to-site differences
are so important. Until a broad overview is available, readers are encouraged to seek out studies
relevant to conditions in their project zone.
Reduced
Biodiversity Impacts of Reduced-Impact Agriculture and Forestry Impact
• The Sustainable Agriculture Network, a coalition of several conservation groups, maintains a set of
social and environmental standards for certifying conservation-friendly farming and ranching projects,
and these provide a broad framework for addressing the impacts on biodiversity of reduced-impact
agriculture. More information is available online at http://sanstandards.org/sitio/.
• The Forest Stewardship Council is a multi-stakeholder organization that develops and maintains
internationally recognized standards for responsible forest management that include social,
environmental, and economic components. Information about FSC policies and standards is available
online at http://www.fsc.org/policy_standards.html.
• Valuable sources of information on reduced-impact agriculture include Gascon et al. (2004) and Dudley
et al. (2005).
• Valuable sources of information on reduced-impact logging include Kuusipalo & Kangas (1994) and
Putz et al. (2007).
Biodiversity Impacts of REDD REDD

• Most of the vast literature on REDD now available online focuses on policy contingencies and practical
challenges rather than REDD’s fairly straightforward impacts on biodiversity. Readers seeking an
introduction to the policy implications of REDD for biodiversity may consult Dickson et al. (2009),
Ebeling and Fehse (2009), Karousakis (2009), Harvey et al. (2010), and Pistorius et al. (2010).
• The UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) maintains a series of online
interactive tools concerning REDD+ and biodiversity. While these are currently limited to a few regions
of the world, coverage is expected to improve. More information is available online at
http://www.carbon-biodiversity.net/.

3. Describing Initial Biodiversity and Threat Conditions and
Establishing a “Without-Project” Scenario
3.1 Describing Initial Conditions
To describe the initial conditions of the project area prior to the start of the project, the General Description
(G1) section of the CCB Standards includes three criteria specifically related to biodiversity:
• Describe the types and condition of vegetation within the project area (G1.2)
• Describe current biodiversity and threats to biodiversity in the project zone (G1.7)
• Describe High Conservation Values if present (G1.8)
While some project managers may initially assume that this section is simply a snapshot to establish the
geographic and biological context of the project, doing so represents a missed opportunity and in some cases a
serious mistake. The reason is that tracking changes in the project area’s vegetation, biodiversity, and threats
will figure prominently in most projects’ programs to monitor impacts on biodiversity. For this reason, the
initial conditions in the project area represent an important reference point against which impacts on
biodiversity will be measured during a project’s lifetime and are thus a key foundation of most monitoring
programs.
3.1.1 Describing the Initial Condition of Vegetation

Criterion G1.2 of the CCB Standards asks for two things:
• A description of the project area’s vegetation before the start of the project; and
• An assessment of how intact or affected by human impacts that vegetation is before the start of the
project.
Ideally, project developers should aim not only for a detailed description of the project area vegetation but also
for a quantitative assessment of the specific attributes of that vegetation that will be tracked by the project’s
monitoring program. For example, if the proportion of the project area covered by closed-canopy forest is
considered an indicator of the project’s impacts on biodiversity (see Section 5 of this toolbox), then the
description of the initial vegetation conditions should include a careful measurement of that proportion, carried
out in such a way that it can be repeated in future years as part of the project’s monitoring program. Likewise,
project designers who select the abundance of an invasive plant species as an indicator of their project’s
impacts on biodiversity would be wise to include in the description of the initial vegetation conditions a rigorous
measurement of that plant’s abundance, carried out in such a way that it can be repeated in future years as
part of the project’s monitoring program. In a very real sense, the initial description of vegetation is the first
step of the project’s biodiversity monitoring program.
Satisfying this criterion typically requires:

• A description of the major ecoregion(s) where the project area is located (e.g., Panamanian dry
forests, Orinoco wetlands). This is one attribute of vegetation that is not expected to change over the
lifetime of a project. The description should be based on a recent map of ecoregions or vegetation
types at the global or continental scale, such as Olson et al. 2001 (see resources section below).
National-level vegetation maps produced by government agencies may also be useful. Continental-

scale satellite mosaics (see resources section below) are useful visual aids for placing the project site
and its vegetation in a regional context.
• A description of the smaller-scale vegetation type(s) present in the project area (e.g., swamp forest,
open grassland). Unlike the description of vegetation at large scales discussed in the previous section,
this description of vegetation at the project area scale is likely to change over the project lifetime and
will probably require some field work by a professional familiar with local vegetation. A map of
vegetation types within the project area is ideal, even if limits are approximate rather than exact. If a
map is not available, project designers should summarize or estimate the coverage of each vegetation
type in the project area (e.g., 50% forest, 50% savanna). Satellite images, aerial photographs,
photographs taken on-site, and mention of especially common or dominant plant species are also
extremely helpful for describing vegetation types at this scale. As discussed above and in Section 5 of
this toolbox, measurements of vegetation attributes considered key to the area’s biodiversity should
be made in such a way that they can be repeated periodically throughout the project’s duration as part
of its biodiversity monitoring program.
• A description of the current condition of the vegetation in the project area. This may include a variety
of different techniques, including:
o Qualitative observations of the vegetation (e.g., photographs, visual descriptions);
o Quantitative field surveys of vegetation structure (see Table 7);
o Qualitative or quantitative descriptions of the abundance of plant species of local interest (e.g.,
invasive species, threatened species, economically important species, common species);
o Qualitative or quantitative analyses of vegetation change in satellite imagery (see resources
section below); and
o Interviews with local residents and experts regarding the history of the local vegetation.
Note that there is some potential overlap between Criterion G1.2 (describe vegetation types) and Criterion
G1.7 (describe current biodiversity, including ecosystems). One solution for project designers is to provide a
brief overview of vegetation types in section G1.2 and a more detailed description in section G1.7. Another
possibility is to describe vegetation types in detail in section G1.2 and to describe other habitat types (e.g.,
aquatic systems) in section G1.7.
Main Sources and Further Guidance
Resources for Describing Ecoregions and Vegetation Types

• A map of Earth’s terrestrial ecoregions (Olson et al. 2001) is available online at
http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/item1267.html.
• Several systems for classifying vegetation across continent-sized regions of the planet are available
(e.g., NatureServe 2009 for the northern and central Andes and Josse et al. 2007 for the western
Amazon).
• The United States Geological Service maintains interactive online maps to help users identify and
download satellite images available for given areas of the world, available at http://glovis.usgs.gov/ and
http://edcsns17.cr.usgs.gov/NewEarthExplorer/. The University of Maryland’s Global Land Cover
Facility maintains a similar site at http://glcfapp.glcf.umd.edu:8080/esdi/index.jsp.
• Continental-scale panoramic aerial images are available online at http://130.166.124.2/world_atlas/.

• Carbon projects in areas with significant wetlands should explore the Ramsar Convention Handbooks,
available online at http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-pubs-handbooks-handbooks4-
e/main/ramsar/1-30-33^21323_4000_0__.
Resources for Assessing Vegetation Condition or Quality

• Table 7 of this document lists several variables that are commonly used to monitor vegetation
condition or quality.
• Several countries and regions have developed specific protocols for assessing vegetation quality in
different types of landscapes. One example is the United Nations’ Temperate and boreal forest
resource assessment (UNECE& FAO 2000), available online at
http://live.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/timber/fra/pdf/fullrep.pdf.
• The Global Invasive Species Database and associated resources for assessing the extent to which
invasive species have affected the project area are available online at
http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/.
3.1.2 Describing the Initial Condition of Biodiversity and Threats to Biodiversity

Criterion G1.7 of the CCB Standards asks for two things:
• A description of current (pre-project) diversity of species and ecosystems within the project zone; and
• A description of threats to that biodiversity.
The most common question from project designers regarding these requirements is “How much detail is
required?” While there is no precise answer to that question, a few considerations should be kept in mind. It is
preferable, for example, to err on the side of too much biodiversity information as opposed to not enough
biodiversity information. Likewise, it is just as important to indicate which aspects of the region’s biodiversity
and which biodiversity threats are not known (or are poorly known) as it is to indicate which aspects are well
known.
It is also important to recognize that one part of Criterion G1.7 (Describe current biodiversity) overlaps to a
significant extent with Criterion G1.8 (Evaluate whether the project zone includes biodiversity-relevant High
Conservation Values), since at many sites a general description of biodiversity will include a discussion of HCVs
(see next section). Another part of Criterion G1.7 (Describe threats to biodiversity) overlaps to some extent with
Criterion G2 (Describe the most likely land-use scenario in the absence of the project). In this case, it is helpful
to keep in mind that the first criterion requires description of threats to biodiversity while the second addresses
how those threats would be likely to affect biodiversity in the “without-project” projection.
In general, project designers working on this section should answer some of the following questions about the
project area and zone.
Biodiversity Questions:
• How well known is the site’s biodiversity?
• Have biologists studied the site in the past, or have they studied similar sites in the same region?
• Which taxonomic groups (e.g., plants, birds, fish, butterflies) are considered well-documented in the
region?
• Do species lists or reference volumes exist for any taxonomic group, and how complete are they?

• What types of terrestrial ecosystems are present? As noted in the previous section, the answer to this
question may overlap somewhat with Criterion G1.2.
• What sorts of plant and animal communities are particularly associated with each terrestrial
ecosystem?
• What types of aquatic habitats (e.g., streams, lakes, coastal inlets) are present?
• What plant communities are associated with these aquatic habitats (e.g., gallery forest along streams,
swamp forests, salt marshes)?
• What animal communities are associated with these aquatic habitats?
• Does the project zone contain landscape features that are especially important for the region’s
biodiversity (e.g., waterholes, clay licks, caves)?
• Which of the prominent biodiversity features of the ecoregion where the project is located, as
described by ecoregional atlases (like Olson et al. 2001), are present in the project zone?
• Which HCVs are present at the site (see next section)?
Threats to Biodiversity Questions:

• Have any published articles, books, or reports described threats to biodiversity at the site or in the
region?
• Which threats are considered well documented or well understood and which threats are considered
poorly known?
• What are the most serious and immediate threats to biodiversity?
• What are the lesser or potential threats?
• Which taxonomic groups are most impacted by or at risk from these threats?
• Which HCVs are most impacted by or at risk from these threats?
• How are biodiversity threats in the project zone changing, or expected to change, over time?
• Are these trends in line with global (e.g., Butchart et al. 2010) or national (e.g., Bradshaw et al. 2010)
trends?
• Have any threats to biodiversity been quantified in the project zone? This may be spatial (20% of the
forest has been logged), temporal (500 kg of firewood are removed from the forest per year), or other
(residents report an average of one large forest fire on the site per year).
• How do threats compare in intensity to those at a regional scale (e.g., is firewood collection especially
intensive in the project zone)?
• What are the links between threats and local communities?
• How are threats to biodiversity perceived by local residents?
Resources for Describing Biodiversity

• The World Wildlife Fund maintains a useful online tool to identify species that are potentially present at
any given site on Earth, available at http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildfinder.

• Information on Earth’s freshwater ecoregions (Abell et al. 2008) is available online at
http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/freshwater.html
• Information on internationally important wetland sites is available online at
http://ramsar.wetlands.org. Carbon projects in areas with significant wetlands should explore the
Ramsar Convention Handbooks for the wise use of wetlands, available online at
http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-pubs-handbooks-handbooks4-e/main/ramsar/1-30-
33^21323_4000_0__.
• Information on global biodiversity hotspots is available online at
http://www.biodiversityhotspots.org/Pages/default.aspx.
• Information on globally important areas for bird conservation is available online at
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/index.html.
• Guidance on describing biodiversity and current impacts is provided with the Conservation Action
Planning tools, available online at http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/index_html.
• Shapefiles and other resources for the global protected areas system are accessible on the online
searchable site http://protectedplanet.net.
• Appendix II of Langhammer et al. (2007) provides a long list of useful resources for describing
biodiversity.
Resources for Describing Threats to Biodiversity

• Table 1 of this toolbox provides a list of potential negative biodiversity impacts associated with
different types of carbon projects.
• Salafsky et al. (2008) provide a comprehensive classification of threats to biodiversity, which should
include most threats in carbon sequestration project areas; their article is available online at
http://www.conservationmeasures.org/resources. An updated version of the same scheme is available
online at http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes/threats-
classification-scheme-ver3.
• The CMP Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (CMP 2007), available online at
http://www.conservationmeasures.org/resources.
• Rayden (2008) provides specific guidance for identifying threats to HCVs in a report available online at
http://www.proforest.net and http://www.hcvnetwork.org.
• Carbon projects in areas with significant wetlands should explore the Ramsar Convention Secretariat’s
useful series of handbooks for assessing threats to wetlands (Handbooks 13, 15, and 16), available
online at http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-pubs-handbooks-handbooks4-e/main/ramsar/1-30-
33^21323_4000_0.
• Global-level trends of environmental impacts are described by Butchart et al. (2010).
• National-level trends of environmental impacts are described by Bradshaw et al. (2010).
3.1.3 Describing High Conservation Values (HCVs)

The use of the High Conservation Value (HCV) framework is required by the CCB Standards. HCVs are defined as
“six distinct attributes that give an ‘area-critical’ conservation significance” (Rayden 2008). Criterion G1.8 of the
CCB Standards requires a description of all the HCVs that are present in the project zone, or an indication that
no HCVs are present. This section of the toolbox includes specific guidance on the three HCVs that are related to

biodiversity (Table 2). Identifying and describing the other three HCVs, which are related to environmental
services, will typically involve careful consultation with local stakeholders; for guidance see Part 1 of this Manual
(Richards and Panfil 2011a) or the resources section below.
Table 2. Biodiversity-Related HCVs and Components to be Included in Project Design Documents (PDD)
If the project zone is found to include this High …then the project design document should include
Conservation Value… (where relevant):
A map, satellite image, or aerial photograph showing the
project zone’s geographic location with respect to nearby
protected areas
A list of globally threatened plant and animal species
known or expected to occur in the project zone and the
HCV 1. Areas containing globally, regionally or nationally places they occur there
significant concentrations of biodiversity values (e.g.
endemism, endangered species, refugia) A list of nationally threatened plant and animal species
known or expected to occur in the project zone and the
places they occur there
A list of endemic plant and animal species known or
expected to occur in the project zone and the places they
occur there
A map, satellite image, or aerial photograph showing the
project zone’s geographic location within a larger matrix of
relatively intact native vegetation
An estimate or direct measurement of the extent of the
HCV 2. Globally, regionally or nationally significant large larger matrix of native vegetation
landscape-level areas where viable populations of most ,if A discussion of the age and current use level of the larger
not all, naturally occurring species exist in natural patterns matrix of native vegetation, including evidence that it has
of distribution and abundance not been extensively logged or hunted
Evidence from field observations or consultations with
local residents that a large proportion of natural forest
species still exist in the larger matrix of native forest at
relatively natural abundances
Evidence that habitats or ecosystems present in the
HCV 3. Areas that are in or contain rare, threatened or
project zone are a recognized priority for conservation at
endangered ecosystems
the national, regional, or international level

• The High Conservation Value Resource Network maintains a clearinghouse of useful HCV-related tools
online at http://www.hcvnetwork.org. Especially helpful for determining whether or not a project zone
contains HCVs are Proforest’s guides Good practice guidelines for High Conservation Value
assessments: A practical guide for practitioners and auditors (Stewart et al. 2008) and Assessment,
management and monitoring of High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF): A practical guide for forest
managers (Rayden 2008).
• Information on threatened species relevant to HCV 1 is available from the IUCN Red List of Threatened
Species, online at http://www.iucnredlist.org. Users of the Red List are encouraged to consult the

Guidelines for appropriate use of Red List data, available online at
http://iucn.org/about/work/programmes/species/red_list/resources/technical_documents/.
• Additional information on threatened species relevant to HCV 1 is available from the World Wildlife
Fund’s useful online tool to identify species that are potentially present at any given site on Earth,
available at http://www.worldwildlife.org/wildfinder.
• Information on large, landscape-level forests relevant to HCV2 is available in the Global Forest Watch
(http://www.globalforestwatch.org, World Intact Forest Landscapes (http://www.intactforests.org/)
and the Last of the Wild (http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/wildareas/downloads.jsp) datasets.
3.1.4 Describing a High Biodiversity Conservation Priority (Exceptional Biodiversity

Benefits, CCB Gold Level)
Criterion GL3 of the CCB Standards asks project designers to demonstrate that the project zone includes a site
of high biodiversity conservation priority. Addressing this criterion is only required for projects seeking gold level
validation.
Satisfying this requirement requires showing either that the project zone lies within a previously determined
Key Biodiversity Area (KBA) or that it meets the vulnerability or irreplaceability criteria for KBAs as defined by
Langhammer et al. (2007). Previously determined KBAs include Alliance for Zero Extinction sites, Important Bird
Areas, and Important Plant Areas (see below for resources to locate such areas). For sites that are not currently
recognized as KBAs but may merit that status, Langhammer et al. (2007) provide detailed instructions for
assessing vulnerability and irreplaceability.

• A large number of valuable KBA resources are provided by Langhammer et al. (2007), available online
at
http://www.iucn.org/about/union/secretariat/offices/iucnmed/iucn_med_programme/species/key_bi
odiversity_areas/.
• The Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) is available for businesses at
http://www.ibatforbusiness.org, and for non-profit use at https://www.ibat-alliance.org/ibat-
conservation/. A list of Alliance for Zero Extinction sites is available online at
http://www.zeroextinction.org/.
• A list of Important Bird Areas is available online at http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/index.html.
• A list of Important Plant Areas is available online at http://www.plantlife.org.uk/html/
important_plant_areas/important_plant_areas_index.htm.
3.2 Establishing a “Without-Project” Projection for Biodiversity Impacts

The “without-project” scenario—also referred to in the literature as a reference scenario, a baseline scenario,5
or a business-as-usual scenario—is a narrative that describes what is expected to happen to the project zone’s
biodiversity if the project is not undertaken. Building this narrative satisfies Criterion G2.5 of the CCB Standards
(Describe how biodiversity would be affected without the project) and at the same time establishes the
baseline against which the biodiversity impacts caused by the project will be measured. It bears repeating that
5 In other contexts, the term “baseline” sometimes refers to original (pre-project) conditions. In the context of the CCB Standards,
however, the baseline against which project impacts are measured is the “without-project” scenario.

in the context of the CCB Standards, a project’s impacts on biodiversity are not measured by comparing the
post-project conditions with the pre-project conditions, but rather with the conditions predicted to have
occurred if the project had never taken place (but see Section 3.2.2 for a more detailed discussion).
3.2.1 Quantitative vs. Qualitative Scenarios

In projects where the link between carbon emission impacts and biodiversity impacts is obvious, the “without-
project” scenario for biodiversity may be partly based on quantitative predictive models of habitat degradation.
For example, since reduced-impact logging (RIL) practices decrease the number of non-timber trees that are
destroyed during timber harvests, that number can be used to predict the scale of habitat destruction that
would occur if such practices were not implemented. Likewise, predictive tools like the GLOBIO model (see
resources section below) can generate quantitative predictions about how much forest is likely to be lost in a
given region.
Even where such quantitative models are available, building the “without-project” scenario will also require
qualitative techniques; for example, hard numbers on the extent of habitat destruction do not easily translate
into hard numbers on how animal communities will react to that destruction. Many projects will lack
quantitative models altogether and thus rely entirely on a qualitative narrative. The repeated use of the word
“narrative” in this section is not merely ornamental; in these cases, the “without-project” scenario is simply a
story that project designers tell about how their site’s current biodiversity (described in Criteria G1.6–G1.8) is
likely to change over time, based on their best understanding of current impacts (G1.7) and future risks to
biodiversity (G3.5).
And while it is perfectly acceptable to tell a story that is 100% qualitative, project designers should avoid
constructing scenarios that are also 100% vague or unsubstantiated (e.g., predictions of an across-the-board
worsening of biodiversity conditions). The reason, of course, is that the “without-project” scenario represents
the baseline against which future conditions must be compared, and those comparisons must be both specific
and rigorous. Constructing an adequate “without-project” scenario will thus require knowing which biodiversity
indicators are to be tracked over the lifetime of the project (see Section 5.2). For example, if project managers
plan to monitor erosion rates or the diversity of aquatic invertebrates in streams, then the “without –project”
scenario should include predictions about the likely trends in erosion and stream invertebrate diversity in the
project’s absence.

• The Global Biodiversity model (GLOBIO; Alkemade et al. 2009), which generates some broad-scale
predictions for global vegetation, is available online at http://www.globio.info/.
• A similar example at the regional scale is Soares Filho et al. (2008) modeling of various deforestation
scenarios for the Amazon basin through the year 2050. The data set is available online at
http://lba.cptec.inpe.br/.

3.2.2 Will Biodiversity Conditions Get Better, Get Worse, or Stay the Same?
Most of the carbon project design documents submitted to the CCBA (and available on the CCBA website) are
based on the assumption that the “without-project” reference scenario is negative, i.e., that without any
intervention biodiversity conditions will worsen over time. While this may often be the case, the two other
scenarios—that biodiversity conditions improve or remain the same—should also be considered (Figure 2).
Figure 2. Three “Without-Project” Reference Scenarios and the Types of Terrestrial Carbon Projects Commonly
Associated with Them
Conditions improve with no

project (e.g., regrowth of forest or A/R
other native vegetation)
Conditions remain the same with A/R

Original biodiversity no project (e.g., highly degraded
conditions lands with low potential for Reduced
natural recovery) Impact
Conditions worsen with no A/R

project (e.g., ongoing
deforestation, degradation, and Reduced REDD
other impacts) Impact
Where biodiversity conditions are expected to improve without any intervention, the monitoring
A/R program must show that the status of biodiversity after project implementation is better than it
would have been with natural improvements. This will typically require monitoring biodiversity conditions both
in areas that are directly affected by project activities and in similar areas that are not affected. For example, a
project that aims to restore the forest on a deforested hillside embedded in a native forest matrix will likely
need to monitor biodiversity both on the hillside being managed and on similarly deforested hillsides that are
not being reforested. In such cases, a rigorous comparison of “with;project” and “without-project” conditions
will require pairing ecologically similar control and treatment sites and careful experimental design.
Reduced Where biodiversity conditions are expected to remain the same without any
A/R Impact intervention, the “without-project” scenario is identical to the initial conditions, and
the monitoring program must show that conditions after project implementation are better than the original
starting conditions.
Reduced Where biodiversity conditions are expected to worsen without any

A/R Impact REDD
intervention, the monitoring program must show that conditions after
project implementation qualify as one of the following:
1. Better than those projected in the “without-project” scenario;
2. Equal to the initial conditions (which, in this context, are by definition better than the “without-project”
scenario); or
3. Better than the initial conditions (which, in this context, are by definition better than the “without –
project” scenario).

Where the “without-project” scenario is based on quantitative predictive models, it may be simplest to choose
option #1 (to demonstrate, for example, that observed “with-project” deforestation is less extensive than
projected “without-project” deforestation). Where such models are not available, options 2 and 3 are a more
appropriate choice, because they allow one to compare quantitative “with-project” conditions to quantitative
initial conditions rather than to qualitative projected conditions.

4. Designing Project Activities and Estimating Their Biodiversity
Impacts
4.1 Summarizing the Project’s Biodiversity Objectives

Criterion G3.1 of the CCB Standards asks for a summary of the project’s biodiversity objectives. While it is
understood that the fundamental biodiversity objective of projects seeking CCB approval is to sequester carbon
in a way that improves local biodiversity conditions, this section provides an opportunity to list the project’s
specific goals for conservation in the project zone. And while these biodiversity objectives will to some extent
represent project designers’ conservation vision for the project area, it is more useful to think of them as a list of
the specific propositions that will face rigorous testing under the program’s monitoring program.
This means that:

• Biodiversity objectives should be few in number, because monitoring the progress towards each
objective will require significant costs in time and money.
• Biodiversity objectives should be easy to assess and quantify using practical indicators. In some cases,
the link between an objective and the biodiversity indicator that will measure progress towards that
objective is straightforward. For example, evaluating progress towards the goal of increased forest
cover in the project area simply requires tracking the extent of forest cover in the project area over
time. By contrast, evaluating progress towards the goal of increased abundance of a rarely sighted
mammal species will probably require several proxy indicators of uncertain efficiency (e.g., scat
frequency, track frequency, den occupancy, camera trap sighting rates). The simpler the link, the better
the biodiversity objective.
Given the two rules of thumb above, it is worth noting that the biodiversity objectives of carbon projects are
unlikely to include all of the broader biodiversity objectives of the region where they occur. For example,
although protecting the lowland tapir is a top conservation goal throughout the Amazon basin, it need not be a
formal biodiversity objective of every carbon project established in Amazonia. Because tapirs are a globally
threatened species and thus indicative of HCV 1, designers of projects where tapirs occur are required by the
CCB Standards to show that project activities will not affect their habitat negatively (Criterion B1.2), to
demonstrate that the project includes measures to conserve their habitat (G3.6), and to develop a plan to
assess the conservation of the project’s HCVs in general (B3.2).
As the preceding discussion shows, establishing biodiversity objectives is closely linked to selecting biodiversity
indicators (which will measure progress towards objectives) and to designing a monitoring program (which will
track the indicators). Both are discussed in Section 5 of this toolbox.

Table 3. Common Biodiversity Goals and Objectives Relevant to Carbon Projects
Examples based on Tucker et al.’s (2005) study of Nepal’s Annapurna Conservation Area.
Then a likely biodiversity objective And the specific biodiversity
If the biodiversity goal is a…
will be to maintain or increase… objectives might include…
Key natural habitat for plants and Its quantity and quality in the project “Increase Rhododendron forest cover
animals (e.g., a specific forest type or area in the project area”
aquatic habitat) “Reduce densities of invasive plants in
Rhododendron forests in the project
area”
Key plant or animal species (e.g., a Its abundance and frequency, or the “Reduce hunting of snow leopards in
species that is nationally or globally quantity and quality of its habitat in the project area”
threatened, culturally important, the project area “Maintain current abundance of blue
economically important, ecologically sheep and other natural prey species
important, or valued in the region for of snow leopards”
other reasons)
Group of species of special interest Its diversity, abundance, and “Maintain diversity of native tree
(e.g., forest bird communities, frequency, or the quantity and community”
threatened species, endemic species, quality of its habitat in the project “Increase density of fuelwood species
commercially valuable species, or area in the intensive forest use zone”
aquatic species)

• Several helpful resources to assist in the process of identifying biodiversity objectives are listed in
Sections 3.1.1–3.1.3 of this toolbox.
• Tucker et al.’s (2005) guide to biodiversity monitoring in protected areas includes valuable advice on
and examples of establishing biodiversity objectives, available online at www.unep-
wcmc.org/collaborations/BCBMAN/PDF/PA_Guidelines_BMA.pdf.
• The CMP Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (CMP 2007) include advice on identifying
major biodiversity objectives (the term used in that document is “conservation targets”). The CMP
standards are available online at http://www.conservationmeasures.org/resources.
• Guidance on establishing biodiversity objectives is provided with the Conservation Action Planning
tools, which are available online at
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/index_html.
4.2 Estimating “With-Project” Changes in Biodiversity in the Project Zone

Criterion B1.1 of the CCB Standards asks for a summary of how project activities are expected to affect
biodiversity in the project zone. This represents an opportunity for project designers to combine information
from other criteria into a narrative (or theory of change; see Part 1 of this Manual) that explains how the carbon
project is expected to generate biodiversity benefits not provided by the “without-project” scenario. The criteria
likely to be incorporated into this narrative include pre-project biodiversity (G1.7), pre-project impacts to
biodiversity (G1.7), pre-project HCVs (G1.8), biodiversity conditions under the “without-project” scenario
(G2.5), major biodiversity objectives (G3.1), planned project activities and their expected biodiversity impacts
(G3.2), risks to biodiversity benefits and measures to mitigate them (G3.5), measures to conserve HCVs (G3.6),
and measures to secure biodiversity benefits beyond the project lifetime (G3.7).

The same narrative developed for Criterion B1.1 will likely also satisfy Criterion B1.2, which requires showing
that the planned project activities (G3.2) will not be detrimental to any HCVs (G1.8).
For many projects, Criteria B1.3–5 will be satisfied by a simple statement that no known invasive species, non-
native species, or GMOs will be introduced during the project. Project designers who are unsure of whether the
species to be used by a project are considered invasive in the project region or are GMOs should consult the
Global Invasive Species Database, the Biosafety Clearing-House, or similar resources (see below).
Projects that do use non-native species should explain why native species are not suitable and why the
proposed non-native species will not generate negative biodiversity impacts. Among other things, this
discussion will likely address the following questions:
• What geographic regions and ecoregions are the non-native species to be used native to?
• Are they already present in the project zone?
• Have they been used in the region previously?
• Are any of the species known to have adverse impacts on biodiversity in the region?
• Are there any known risks associated with the use of these species in the project region?

• Part 1 of this Manual provides detailed guidance on constructing a theory of change.
• Table 1 of this toolbox provides a list of impacts associated with different types of carbon projects.
• Salafsky et al. (2008) provide a comprehensive list of and classification system for conservation actions;
the article is available online at http://www.conservationmeasures.org/resources.
• An updated version of Salafsky et al.’s (2008) list is available online at
http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/classification-schemes/conservation-actions-
classification-scheme-ver2.
• The Global Invasive Species Database and associated resources are available online at
http://www.issg.org/database/welcome/. See Morse et al. (2004) for a protocol to evaluate the
biodiversity impacts of non-native plants.
• The Biosafety Clearing-House distributes information regarding GMOs online at http://bch.cbd.int/.
• Section 3.1.3 of this toolbox discusses HCVs in detail. Rayden (2008) and other documents available
online at http://www.hcvnetwork.org provide additional guidance for identifying and mitigating
threats to HCVs.
4.3 Estimating and Justifying Offsite Biodiversity Impacts

Criteria B2.1–3 of the CCB Standards address the possibility that project activities within the project zone may
impact biodiversity outside the project zone and ask project designers to:
• Identify negative offsite biodiversity impacts (B2.1);
• Document plans to mitigate those impacts (B2.2); and
• Show that biodiversity benefits in the project area outweigh negative offsite biodiversity impacts
(B2.3).

For projects in places with low population density, few anthropogenic pressures on biodiversity, or effective
enforcement of environmental laws offsite, these criteria may potentially be satisfied by simply noting that the
project does not anticipate any negative offsite biodiversity impacts. Indeed, most carbon project design
documents available on the CCBA website at the time this toolbox was prepared foresaw no negative offsite
biodiversity impacts.
For many projects, however, biodiversity leakage represents a common (and commonly overlooked) negative
offsite biodiversity impact. Under this scenario, anthropogenic pressures that would have degraded biodiversity
in the project area are forced to move elsewhere by the project, generating an offsite impact greater than that
expected in the ‘without project’ scenario.
It is important to note that biodiversity leakage may or may not be related to carbon leakage; they should
always be considered separately. If carbon leakage is expected (Criterion CL2), biodiversity leakage should be
expected as well (e.g., logging pressure that is moved offsite will generate leakage of both carbon and
biodiversity). If carbon leakage is not expected, the possibility of biodiversity leakage should still be taken into
consideration (e.g., hunting pressure that is moved offsite will generate no carbon leakage but may generate
significant biodiversity leakage).
By preventing the impending destruction of forests in the project area and thus diverting pressure to forests
offsite, REDD projects are especially expected to cause biodiversity leakage. Because REDD-related biodiversity
leakage and carbon leakage are both driven by the same offsite deforestation pressure, the same measures
taken to mitigate carbon leakage (a requirement of Criterion CL2) will typically also mitigate biodiversity leakage
(and thus satisfy Criterion B2.2).
Other potential negative offsite biodiversity impacts include:

• Displacement of agriculture, mining, or other drivers of deforestation to sites with lower carbon values
such as grasslands or wetlands;
• Increased grazing pressure by cattle displaced from reforested or afforested grasslands;
• Increased fuelwood collection pressure by local residents displaced from project areas;
• Increased anthropogenic pressures caused by a migration of families towards the project zone in
search of project-related opportunities (e.g., employment, education);
• Removal of seeds, seedlings, topsoil, or other natural resources from offsite forests to restore forests in
the project area;
• Use of water from streams, rivers, lakes, or aquifers to restore forests in the project area; and
• Air, soil, or water pollution from chemical inputs (fertilizers, pesticides) used in reforestation,
afforestation, or sustainable agriculture projects.
Satisfying Criterion B2.3 (Show that biodiversity benefits in the project area outweigh negative offsite
biodiversity impacts) typically requires a brief qualitative argument of how the “with-project” biodiversity
benefits described for Criterion B1.1 are more numerous or more valuable than the negative offsite biodiversity
impacts described for Criterion B2.1, especially in light of plans to mitigate those impacts (B2.2). While no
simple currency exists for weighing negative vs. positive impacts, it makes sense to base this argument on a
comparison of the amount of forest or vegetation cover that is expected to be preserved or gained due to
positive impacts and the amount that is expected to be lost or degraded due to negative impacts. Another
approach could be to assess the types of impacts with respect to nationally or locally defined conservation
priorities.

• The CL2 section of Appendix A of the CCB Standards offers guidance for modeling and mitigating
climate leakage, including helpful technical reviews by Auckland et al. (2003) and Schwarze et al.
(2002).
4.4 Identifying Risks to the Project’s Expected Biodiversity Benefits

Criterion G3.5 of the CCB Standards asks for a description of the risks that could potentially derail the “with –
project” scenario biodiversity benefits described for Criterion B1.1. Some of these risks will have direct links to
the threats discussed for Criteria G1.7 (Describe risks to biodiversity) and G2.5 (Describe how biodiversity would
be affected without the project). Others describe potential rather than existing threats to the region’s
biodiversity (see a list of some common potential risks in Table 4). Project designers should highlight risks
considered most likely by experienced local residents and biologists, rather than aiming for an exhaustive list of
contingencies.
Table 4. Potential Risks to Expected Biodiversity Benefits

Note: These risks are mentioned in various carbon project design documents.
Anthropogenic Risks Natural Risks
Changes in legislation regulating land use or biodiversity Extreme climate events (e.g., droughts, floods, heat
conservation waves)
Regional climate change over the project lifetime (e.g.,

Changes in local or national governments
increased frequency of severe droughts)
Political or economic instability, or weakening Extreme natural disturbance events (e.g., landslides,
governance (e.g., deteriorating law enforcement) wildfires)
Lower income than expected from carbon credits,
Declining plant or animal populations due to natural
leading to a project budget that allows fewer activities
population cycles
than originally planned
Higher than expected pressure on project zone
biodiversity from local communities
biodiversity from logging, mining, or other extractive
industries
biodiversity due to new infrastructure (roads, mines,
dams, etc.)
Anthropogenic fire
4.5 Describing Measures to Conserve HCVs

Criterion G3.6 of the CCB Standards requests that project designers “demonstrate that the project design
includes specific measures to ensure the maintenance or enhancement of the high conservation value
attributes identified in G1 consistent with the precautionary principle.”

Rayden (2008) provides specific guidance on designing management measures to maintain or enhance HCVs.
He notes that “if the threats to the HCVs can be effectively mitigated, it will be possible to proceed with what
can be described as precautionary management…: a course of action that makes the best use of the available
information about the impacts of your operations and takes steps to implement best practice, while recognizing
that ongoing monitoring is necessary fully to understand how to maintain the value.”
Readers seeking more detail on the precautionary principle are referred to Cooney (2004), Cooney & Dickson
(2005), and PPP (2005).

• Section 3.1.3 of this toolbox treats HCVs in detail. Especially helpful in the context of Criterion G3.6 is
the report Assessment, management and monitoring of High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF): A
practical guide for forest managers (Rayden 2008), available online at
http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/folder.2006-09-29.6584228415/hcvf%20-
%20practical%20guide%20for%20forest%20managers.pdf.
4.6 Describing Measures to Maintain Biodiversity Benefits Beyond the

Project Lifetime
Satisfying Criterion G3.7 of the CCB Standards requires project designers to think about how biodiversity in the
project zone will be impacted after their project’s activities have ended and to describe project activities
specifically intended to increase the chances that post-project impacts are positive and to ensure the
permanence of biodiversity benefits generated by the project. Such activities are frequently assumed to have a
strong link with the social benefits anticipated in Criteria CM1 (Net-Positive Community Impacts) and CM2
(Offsite Stakeholder Impacts).
Common management activities in this context include capacity-building programs for local communities,
changes to land titling and other land-use regulations, and conservation activities that will outlast the lifetime of
the project (see others in Table 5). Given that the long-term biodiversity impacts of these activities depend on a
large number of contingencies and assumptions, project designers are encouraged to give this section more
than superficial attention.
For example, one argument commonly presented in this section of carbon project design documents is that a
successful carbon sequestration project will act as a catalyst for other such projects in the region. While this
may be the case, the opposite proposition is just as valid: that an unsuccessful project will discourage other
carbon projects in the region. Likewise, while a successful carbon project may indeed inspire other carbon
projects in the region, those projects may not necessarily adhere to strict measures to protect biodiversity.
The point here is not to say that satisfying Criterion G3.7 requires especially lengthy arguments or modeling
exercises—it does not—but rather to encourage project designers to avoid overoptimistic scenarios or
assumptions. To this end, Table 5 provides some guidance on what sorts of supporting information can help
strengthen arguments concerning some commonly mentioned measures.

Table 5. Selected measures of carbon projects for maintaining and enhancing Biodiversity Benefits beyond
the Project Lifetime
If these measures are

…then these questions should be considered:
mentioned…
Are any other carbon projects being prepared in the region? If so, where and by
The proposed project will act as a whom? Do they include measures to ensure biodiversity benefits?
catalyst for other such projects in Does the project include specific measures intended to catalyze similar projects in
the region the region (e.g., workshops, public-access project documents)? To what extent do
those measures emphasize social and biodiversity aspects of carbon projects?
What other activities are being undertaken as part of the long-term conservation
initiative? Where and when are they expected to be undertaken? Which activities
The proposed project represents are expected to continue after the carbon project’s conclusion?
one part of a long-term
conservation initiative Who is responsible for the other conservation activities? Are there explicit links
(e.g., shared personnel, partnering institutions) between the proposed carbon
project and the other conservation activities?
What are the risks involved in implementing these legal changes? Are such
The proposed project includes land- changes likely to be stable over long time scales?
titling or other changes to the long-
term legal status of the project area What mechanisms do local communities possess to address possible conflicts
related to these changes (e.g., town meetings, natural resource committees)?
What mechanisms do local communities possess to maintain and capitalize on
The proposed project includes built capacity over the long term (e.g., schools, training institutes, employment
capacity-building in local opportunities)?
communities
Which institutions are expected to bear the long-term costs of capacity-building?
The proposed project establishes What are the risks involved in providing these incentives?
economic and other long-term Which institutions are expected to oversee the sustainable management of
incentives for sustainable natural resources in the long term? Are there explicit links between those
management of natural resources institutions and the proposed carbon project?

5. Monitoring Biodiversity Impacts
5.1 Documenting Key Technical Skills for Biodiversity Assessment and

Monitoring
Criterion G4.2 of the CCB Standards asks project designers to describe the technical skills required to implement
the biodiversity assessment and monitoring program successfully. This typically requires little more than a
description of the people and institutions involved; but it is also a good opportunity for designers to resolve
potential gaps and biases in the team.
While biodiversity assessment or inventory is a relatively quick and straightforward task, biodiversity monitoring
is a long-term venture that requires careful planning, creative fine-tuning, and years of patient data collection.
The key to a successful monitoring program is thus a team of talented, well-trained, and communicative people.
As Gardner (2010) has noted:
The monitoring process involves a series of choices, starting from decisions about overarching
conservation goals and moving through specific objectives, indicator selection, sampling design and
data collection methodologies, description of biodiversity, data analysis and interpretation of findings.
All of these choices are at least partly subjective and are influenced by the personal experiences,
expertise and underlying agendas of those involved in developing the program.
In most cases, designing a biodiversity monitoring program and evaluating the data it produces will require the
assistance of a professional biologist. While non-specialists may be a good choice to actually collect monitoring
data (see why in Section 5.4), a professional with formal training in experimental design should help ensure that
the monitoring program will produce viable information. Likewise, it is wise to have at least one trained scientist
oversee the monitoring (e.g., to clean and organize data as they are collected, to ensure that data are being
collected correctly and on schedule, to meet regularly with data collectors to solve problems and take
advantage of opportunities).
As Gardner cautions, however, professional biologists often bring their own biases to monitoring projects.
Butterfly experts will want to monitor butterflies; ornithologists will favor birds. Likewise, in many regions of the
world, biodiversity experts are scarce, which means that a monitoring program with a narrow focus (e.g., only
butterfly communities) may be too dependent on the expertise of a small number of people. It is important for
project designers and experts to be open about the costs and benefits of these biases, and to seek a balance
between experts’ interests and the project’s needs.
In most cases, nearby universities are the best sources of professionals capable of designing biodiversity
monitoring protocols. An increasing number of environmental consulting firms will also design and carry out
monitoring programs for a fee.
5.2 Selecting Biodiversity Indicators

Biodiversity variables or biodiversity indicators6 are ecosystem or community attributes that can serve as
proxies for the health of natural systems. Their increasing use in natural resource management has spawned a
large body of research that is intended to help users understand what makes a good biodiversity variable, how
6 While the CCB Project Design Standards use the term ‘biodiversity variables,’ it is worth noting that the term ‘biodiversity
indicators’ is much more commonly used in the technical and scientific literature. The two terms are treated here as synonyms.

to select appropriate variables, and how to place variables within the context of a larger conceptual framework
of threats and objectives.
While these articles provide useful guidance to thinking about indicators, the array of different approaches
taken by different authors (and the even broader array of potential indicators) can be overwhelming. Since a
consensus regarding the use of biodiversity indicators has yet to emerge, our goal here is to provide broad
guidelines for using biodiversity indicators in the context of carbon projects.
5.2.1 Attributes of Good and Bad Indicators

The traits that make some types of indicators helpful and others less so are reviewed in SBIA Stage 5 of Part 1 of
this Manual (Richards and Panfil 2011a). In the specific context of biodiversity indicators for carbon projects,
some additional recommendations for selecting indicators include:
• Choose indicators that have clear links to the biodiversity objectives described for Criterion G3.1. This
is the most important attribute of a biodiversity indicator in a carbon project: that its links to the
conservation targets are clear, direct, easy to understand, and well established. Ideally, the relationship
between indicators and conservation targets is documented in the scientific literature. For a discussion
of some indicators that are often linked to the biodiversity objectives of carbon projects, see the
section below. See Box 5 for an example of a biodiversity indicator that failed because of unclear links
to the conservation target.
Box 5. When Biodiversity Indicators Fail

Reindeer and moose are among the largest and most charismatic components of northern Scandinavian
forests. They are also culturally and economically important to indigenous peoples and a source of food
for local populations. In the twentieth century they were used as indicators to track the health of the
region’s managed forests. But while reindeer and moose populations remained constant over time, the
old-growth forests whose health they were intended to reflect were significantly reduced in size, with
the result that several hundred other species that depended on old-growth forests became threatened.
Why did reindeer and moose fail as biodiversity indicators? For the simple reason that they are
ecologically flexible species that prosper in degraded forests as well as undisturbed ones. More thought
in the planning stages of monitoring—specifically a clearer focus on managers’ primary conservation
target (old-growth forests and their associated biodiversity) and better data on the relationship of
reindeer and moose to those targets—could have avoided this costly error.
For other examples of poorly chosen biodiversity indicators, see Failing and Gregory’s 2003 article “Ten
common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest policy.”
Sources: Fridman and Walheim 2000;, Failing & Gregory 2003.
• Choose indicators that have clear links to management interventions described for Criterion G3.2.
Indicators should ideally have a clear relationship with management activities, such that an increase or
decrease in a given indicator can be attributed to specific interventions. See Box 6 for an example of
biodiversity indicators of an A/R and REDD project in Mexico that are linked to specific management
interventions.

Box 6. Example of Biodiversity Indicators that Are Clearly Linked to Project
Management Interventions
A reforestation and carbon sequestration project underway in the Sierra Gorda Biosphere Reserve of
Mexico—a protected area with high biological diversity—consists of hundreds of small-scale plantings
dispersed over land that had been previously deforested and degraded. The reforested land belongs to
farmers who planted native pine and other tree species, and who since 2006 have sold carbon offsets to
buyers on the voluntary market. Additionally, these small-scale forest restoration areas are being
complemented with avoided deforestation and degradation (REDD) activities, and the project was
successfully validated (June 2011) under both the VCS and CCB Standards.
Biodiversity is usually positively correlated with the size of the forest area and the degree to which
smaller forest areas are connected to one another. Generally, forests of larger area and with greater
structural complexity harbor more species than smaller forested areas with a longer perimeter (“edge
effect”) versus interior forested area. Connectivity facilitates key ecological processes such as pollination
and seed dispersal that increase biodiversity. To monitor biodiversity in compliance with CCB Standards,
the Sierra Gorda carbon project proponents selected indicators of (a) forest area, (b) forest perimeter and
(c) shared forest and reforestation perimeter as proxies for the biodiversity value of the reforested areas.
These are standard landscape conservation measures that have clear links to the specific management
interventions of the project. Additionally, species monitoring is carried out by creating a list of species
observed by the project proponent and the land owner that will be analyzed over time to see if they
change towards forest interior species and away from edge and disturbed area species.
Sources: Rainforest Alliance 2011; Bosque Sustentable 2011.
• Choose multiple indicators. Natural systems are extremely complex, and even variables that are
carefully chosen to reflect the health of a system will sometimes fluctuate for reasons unrelated to the
project. For example, the local abundance of a bird species that only nests in forests might be one
appropriate indicator of forest recovery in a reforestation project. It should be kept in mind, however,
that even if forest cover increases during the project, the bird species’ population may fluctuate
unpredictably due to disease, predator-prey cycles, extreme climatic events, and other natural factors.
Thus, monitoring the abundance of the entire guild of forest-specialist bird species might be a better
choice than monitoring the abundance of one species. While there is no single ideal number of
indicators, it is necessary to strike a balance between choosing too few indicators (and thereby running
the risk of failing to document actual biodiversity improvements) and choosing too many indicators
(and thereby necessitating an expensive and complicated monitoring program).
• Choose Pressure, State, and Response (PSR) indicators. The most commonly used conceptual
framework for biodiversity indicators classifies them into pressure, state, and response indicators (see
Figure 3). The simple message of the PSR framework is that monitoring programs should never monitor
conservation targets in isolation, but rather together with the positive and negative influences on those
targets. Thus, while a reforestation project might be wise to track over time the abundance of forest-
specialist bird species (a state indicator), it would also do well to simultaneously monitor the frequency
of forest fires (a pressure indicator), and the number of trees planted over time (a response indicator).

• Use indicators that can be monitored with relative ease. Many monitoring programs produce
substandard data or are abandoned early because the indicators selected require monitoring activities
that are expensive, difficult, dependent on outside experts or equipment, or impractical for other
reasons (Danielsen et al. 2005). For more details, see the section below on Criterion B3.3.
• Use indicators that reflect local conditions. Indicators will be more effective when they are sensitive to
local processes within the project area. For example, migratory animals make poor biodiversity
indicators for carbon projects because their population trends depend to a large extent on conditions
outside the project zone. Except for carbon projects that cover extremely large areas or are set in a
large matrix of relatively undisturbed forest, the same caveat applies to non-migratory animals that
range over very large areas.
Figure 3. An Illustration of the Commonly used Pressure-State-Response Framework for Biodiversity Indicators
Artwork by B. Potter.
5.3 Four Common Indicator Types for Carbon Projects

While there are no fixed requirements for how biodiversity benefits of carbon projects must be demonstrated
to satisfy the CCB Standards, it is likely that the validators who evaluate the biodiversity impacts of carbon
projects will be especially interested in the following types of indicators:
• The quantity and quality of forest, native forest, and/or natural vegetation in the project area (a State
variable);
• The status of any species identified in HCV 1 (see Criterion G1.8), and the status of other plant and
animal species that are of special economic, ecological, or cultural interest in the project area (a State
variable);
• The frequency or intensity of anthropogenic impacts that are directly harmful to biodiversity in the
project zone (e.g., hunting, fishing, fires; a Pressure Variable); and

• The frequency or intensity of project interventions relevant to biodiversity (e.g., the number of trees
planted per hectare each year, the number of park guard patrols carried out each month; a Response
variable).
It is worth noting that these indicator types span all three categories of the PSR framework (see Figure 3). The
first two indicators are State variables that track the status of the biodiversity being managed. The third is a
Pressure variable that tracks the status of threats to that biodiversity. The last is a Response variable that tracks
the status of interventions undertaken to address those threats.
In theory, this means that a project whose monitoring program can demonstrate that natural vegetation in the
project area is more extensive, more structurally complex, or less disturbed; that no HCVs have been degraded;
that some of the anthropogenic impacts to biodiversity identified at the start of the project have become less
frequent; and that project activities in favor of biodiversity have been carried out concurrently with these
improvements is likely to be considered a success. Of course, the importance of these four indicators will vary
from site to site and from project to project, such that monitoring programs that show positive results in fewer
indicator types might under certain conditions be considered successful.
All of these indicator types have direct links to common conservation targets of carbon projects (Table 6).
Likewise, all four types are applicable to the three main types of carbon projects mentioned at the start of this
document (A/R, reduced-impact forestry and agriculture, and REDD). They are discussed in more detail below.
Table 6. Types of Common Biodiversity Indicators and Conservation Targets of Carbon Projects
Type of Biodiversity Indicator Related Conservation Targets
Natural vegetation types and the plant and animal species

associated with them
The quantity and quality of natural vegetation in the
project area HCV 2 (large, landscape-level forests)
HCV 3 (rare, threatened, or endangered ecosystems)
HCV 1 (species values); this includes suites of threatened or
endemic species, or habitat used by such species
Species not threatened or endemic at the national or global
The status of High Conservation Value species identified in
level but harvested at unsustainable levels in the project
Criterion G1.8 and the status of other species of interest
zone (e.g., hunted species, timber taxa)
Species especially representative of the region or notable
for other reasons
In this case, the specific conservation target will depend on
The frequency or intensity of anthropogenic impacts that
what is being harmed by the impact (e.g., if the impact is
are directly harmful to biodiversity in the project zone
hunting, then the conservation target may be healthy
(e.g., hunting, fishing, invasive species)
populations of game species).
In this case, the specific conservation target will depend on
The frequency and intensity of biodiversity-relevant the type and intent of the intervention (e.g., if the project
project activities activity is anti-poaching patrols, then the conservation
target may be healthy populations of game species).
5.3.1 The Quantity and Quality of Natural Vegetation

Given that the primary threat to biodiversity worldwide is the destruction of plant and animal habitat, the
maintenance or restoration of habitat will be a leading biodiversity objective of carbon projects. In turn,
indicators that track the quantity and quality of natural vegetation in the project zone will rank among the most
common variables for monitoring biodiversity impacts. Table 7 lists a sampling of such indicators.
In the case of REDD and A/R projects in which the protection or restoration of natural habitat is the primary
carbon sequestration activity, indicators of carbon sequestration (e.g., time series of satellite images confirming
no deforestation or increased forest cover in the project area) can also serve as the leading indicators of
biodiversity preservation. Other indicators may also be needed to show evidence of biodiversity benefits, since
animal communities beneath an intact forest canopy may be seriously degraded by hunting or other human
impacts. Where such impacts are present, it is advisable to also demonstrate benefits for animal communities
within the project area (see Section 5.3.3 and Box 6 above).
Table 7. Some Typical Indicators of the Quantity and Quality of Natural Vegetation
Quantity of Natural Vegetation Quality of Natural Vegetation
Field measurements of vegetation structure variables (e.g.,

Extent of natural vegetation as measured in aerial stem density, basal area, height, stand diameter
photographs or satellite images distribution, size and frequency of canopy gaps, leaf litter
depth) in permanent plots or transects
Field measurements of vegetation growth form variables
Extent of natural vegetation as measured in ground-level
(e.g., the abundance and frequency of trees, shrubs,
photographs taken at fixed sites
woody vines, grasses) in permanent plots or transects
Field measurements of vegetation composition variables
Extent of specific vegetation types as measured and/or
(e.g., the abundance and frequency of species, genera, and
mapped in the field
families) in permanent plots or transects
Field measurements of indirect attributes of natural Field measurements of vegetation guild variables (e.g., the
vegetation coverage (e.g., light levels, soil moisture, leaf frequency and abundance of non-native vegetation, or
litter depth) at fixed sites late-successional species) in permanent plots or transects
Field measurements of vegetation dynamics variables (e.g.,
natural recruitment of native tree saplings)
Condition of natural vegetation as measured in ground-
level photographs taken at fixed sites
5.3.2 Status of Species of Interest

The conservation targets of carbon projects often include individual species, and these can potentially serve as
biodiversity indicators. They may be species mentioned in HCV 1 (species that are globally threatened,
nationally threatened, or endemic) or species that are of interest for other reasons (e.g., they are typical of a
certain forest type, harvested at unsustainable rates in the project zone, economically important, or considered
to be ecologically important keystone species). Monitoring programs that succeed in showing increasing trends
in the frequency or abundance of species mentioned in HCV 1 have an especially strong claim to having
demonstrated biodiversity improvements (see Box 6). Such species-level monitoring, however, is also the most
difficult of the four types discussed here.
As noted above, monitoring multiple species can reduce the noise of natural population fluctuations. Animal
species should ideally be small-ranged taxa that reproduce within the project area, since population trends of

these will tend to be better indicators of local conditions than population trends of wide-ranging or migratory
animals that reproduce elsewhere. Plant species should ideally be herbaceous (e.g., understory herbs) or fast-
growing species, since population trends of slow-growing trees are unlikely to be detectable in the five-year
verification cycle of most carbon projects. In some cases, it may make more sense to monitor indicators of
population health rather than indicators of population size. For example, the seed set or seedling density of a
threatened shrub might be compared from year to year. Species should also be common or frequent enough
for monitoring to be feasible (e.g., it is unlikely that anything rigorous can be said about population changes
over a five-year period of an animal species that is spotted twice a year).
5.3.3 Frequency of Biodiversity Threats

Quantitative evidence showing that the intensity of important threats to biodiversity has declined over time
during a carbon project adds additional weight to arguments that biodiversity has improved over the same
period. Managers are thus advised to include in the monitoring program as many of the threats to biodiversity
identified in Criterion G1.7 as can be tracked over time in a cost-effective manner.
Although project staff may assume that threats are much more easily tracked than biological indicators, threat
monitoring is not simple and should be designed just as rigorously as other types of monitoring. Perhaps the
most important consideration in this respect is that the effort made to detect threats should be standardized if
threat intensities are to be compared over time. For example, the observation that more hunters were
encountered in the project zone during the first year than during the second year is hard to assess if the number
of park guards patrolling, the number of patrols carried out, the location of those patrols, or other measures of
effort differed between those two years.
It is also useful for managers to remember that high-quality data on threat intensity can in some cases be
collected in cooperation with the stakeholders who are linked to or even directly responsible for the threats. For
example, communities, government agencies, and conservation programs routinely rely on fishermen and
hunters to track the intensity of fish and game harvests. In cases where the goal is not to end natural resource
harvests but rather to reduce their intensity to sustainable levels, this may be an appropriate option.
Finally, as with biological monitoring, it is extremely important to design threat monitoring protocols in a way
that ensures that non-events (e.g., park guard patrols that do not encounter any poachers) are documented just
as faithfully as events (e.g., park guard patrols that do).
5.3.4 Frequency of Biodiversity-Relevant Project Activities

Careful records of which interventions were carried out where, when, and with what frequency can themselves
represent a valuable biodiversity indicator. The goal of collecting such data is not typically to demonstrate a
statistical relationship between management activities, threat intensities, and biodiversity conditions over time;
doing so is extremely difficult and beyond the scope of most monitoring programs. Likewise, response
indicators cannot by themselves demonstrate biodiversity improvements over time.
Instead, data on the scope and frequency of interventions provide valuable context for evaluating the success
or failure of other biodiversity indicators. For example, data showing reduced levels of illegal livestock grazing in
the project area are more satisfying when considered in the light of information describing when and where
fences were built, or how many times project staff visited neighboring ranches to discuss solutions to the illegal
grazing problem.

Records of project interventions also are necessary to apply adaptive management to the project. When there
is no logical connection between interventions and improved biodiversity conditions, then the project
proponent should reconsider the value of those interventions.

• The CMP Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation (CMP 2007), available online at
http://www.conservationmeasures.org/resources, include advice on selecting appropriate biodiversity
indicators.
• The Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) has published several toolboxes regarding
indicators for reduced-impact forestry projects at http://www.cifor.org/acm/pub/toolbox.html. The
Ecology section of Toolbox 2 includes a list of biodiversity indicators that are potentially useful in other
types of forest-related carbon projects. Other valuable resources for reduced-impact forestry include
Noss (1999), Lindenmayer et al. (2000), Duinker (2001), Franc et al. (2001), Whitman and Hagan (2003),
NCASI (2003), Dudley et al. (2005), and Hagan and Whitman (2006).
• Many of the oldest and best-developed sets of biodiversity indicators focus on streams and rivers, and
several stream monitoring protocols have been developed for non-scientists. See one example at
http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/.
• Reed et al. (2008) discuss the importance of involving local communities in the process of selecting
biodiversity indicators.
• It is worth noting that the indicators established by the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership
(http://www.bipindicators.net) are not typically applicable to individual carbon projects. Rather, those
indicators measure individual countries’ progress towards biodiversity targets established by
international agreements.
5.4 Designing a Biodiversity Monitoring Program

The monitoring plan mentioned in Criterion B3.3 of the CCB Standards is a series of protocols designed to track
biodiversity variables over time. Successful biodiversity monitoring is contingent on the careful selection of
biodiversity indicators, which is discussed at length in Section 5.3.
As is the case with biodiversity variables, a large body of research exists regarding the many different
techniques available to monitor biological communities. Some articles recommend specific protocols for
monitoring specific taxonomic groups, while others provide a broader array of techniques for monitoring the
plants and animals of a given biome (see resources section below). In the specific case of carbon projects, the
most valuable monitoring articles may be those that emphasize how difficult monitoring is, how frequently
monitoring programs fail to meet their objectives, and how important careful planning is to increase the
probability of success (e.g., Gardner 2010).
Such critiques note that traditional monitoring protocols often require significant inputs of time, money, and
scientific expertise, which are hard to sustain over long periods, while providing few benefits to local
communities. These obstacles have led several researchers to experiment with monitoring programs that are
explicitly designed to be simple, inexpensive, and run by teams that include both outside scientists and local
residents (Danielsen et al. 2000, 2005, 2007, 2009; Ekstrom 2008; Holck 2008; Gardner 2010).
So-called “community-based monitoring” would appear to be a good fit for many carbon projects. In addition to
its focus on practical issues of sustainability, such monitoring also has the potential to interact in a positive way
with the social component of carbon projects. For example, the involvement of local residents in monitoring

programs can improve methods and results by incorporating their knowledge of the region’s biodiversity into
protocols and can improve data quality by allowing programs to collect data year-round rather than during
occasional expert visits. Likewise, local involvement in monitoring can empower communities by helping instill a
greater sense of ownership of and responsibility for the biodiversity objectives of a project.
Local-based monitoring also carries risks, however (Table 8). For some projects, the proper mix of local and
expert participation in monitoring programs will be easily determined by local conditions. In most cases,
however, careful consideration will be required to balance the sometimes conflicting goals of high-quality data,
low costs, regular measurements, and community participation.
Table 8. Advantages and Disadvantages of Monitoring Programs with Different Levels of Outside Expert
Involvement and Technical Complexity
Complexity of monitoring techniques and equipment
Low High
(e.g., animal sightings, simple threat (e.g., camera traps, aerial surveys)
monitoring)
Advantages: Advantages:
High-quality data collection and analysis; High-quality technical data and analysis
equipment inexpensive and locally
available
Disadvantages: Disadvantages:
High Higher total cost; data collected Highest cost; equipment may not be locally
periodically over shorter time spans; available; results dependent on properly
results dependent on availability of functioning equipment and availability of
experts; new or intensified threats experts; data collected over shorter time spans;
identified less quickly; less community less community ownership of monitoring data
Amount of ownership of monitoring data
monitoring Advantages: Advantages:
carried out by Lowest cost; equipment inexpensive and Data collected over longer and/or more
outside locally available; data collected continuous time spans by local people; more
experts continuously over longer time spans; new community ownership of data
or intensified threats identified more
quickly; more community ownership of
data
Low
Disadvantages: Disadvantages:
More problems with data quality and Higher cost; more problems with data quality
consistency; significant training required; and consistency; equipment may not be locally
cost of monitoring borne available; significant training required; results
disproportionately by local communities dependent on properly functioning equipment;
cost of monitoring borne disproportionately by
local communities
In the context of carbon projects, recommendations for establishing biodiversity monitoring protocols can be
divided into scientific recommendations (measures to improve the quality of the data) and practical
recommendations (measures to improve the sustainability of the monitoring plan):
Scientific Recommendations

• Ensure that professional scientists are involved in the initial stages of monitoring. While the degree to
which outside experts participate in monitoring programs over the long term may vary, it is extremely
important that they be involved in the initial design (i.e., through participation in project design
workshops, and/or review of the monitoring plan) and set up of protocols, and in the training of
monitoring staff. In the ideal scenario, the same scientists involved in the assessment of the initial
biodiversity conditions will also take part in later stages of biodiversity monitoring.
• Ensure that professional scientists or statisticians are involved in the analysis of monitoring data.
Monitoring data tend to be complex, and answering even simple questions about trends over time can
require significant experience with statistics.
• Monitor indicators at fixed geographic sites within the project zone. Fixed transects, plots, points are
preferable to floating surveys, as they minimize variation caused by geographic variation within the
project zone.
• Do not restrict monitoring to a small number of species. This is especially important where biological
communities in the project zone are diverse and intact (e.g., REDD projects), and where five years’
worth of species-level monitoring may reflect natural fluctuations in plant and animal populations
more than the consequences of conservation interventions.
• Ensure that zeroes are recorded. As noted above, it is extremely important that non-events are
documented just as faithfully as events.
Practical Recommendations
• Involve local residents or project staff in monitoring as much as feasible. As noted above, important
benefits accrue from involving local residents in monitoring programs. Local-based monitoring can also
help strengthen projects’ social components. Projects must recognize that the participation of locals
may carry a cost for them and should fairly compensate for this cost in monetary or non-monetary
ways.
• Incorporate monitoring within other project activities wherever feasible. Monitoring activities are
often spatially and temporally separate from the other activities of carbon projects, but managers
should think creatively about opportunities to combine the two. For example, staff may frequently pass
along specific stretches of road, trail, or river on their way to and from work; this represents an
interesting opportunity to collect data on wildlife and other indicators in those places. Olupot and Sheil
(2011), for example, analyzed wildlife sightings compiled by researchers who routinely traveled along a
12.4-km section of road in an African national park. Similar work has been done along rivers in the
Amazon (see Box 7). In such cases, data collection costs very little in time and money, since it takes
advantage of existing activities and otherwise unproductive staff time.
• Include a budget in the design of the biodiversity monitoring program. This is important because
monitoring data can be expensive to collect and analyze, and because there are important trade-offs
between data quality, program viability, and cost (Table 8).

Box 7. Opportunistic Biodiversity Monitoring on an Amazonian River
The Los Amigos Conservation Concession is a large, privately managed protected area in the diverse lowland
rainforest of southeastern Peru. Forest degradation is ongoing in the region and carbon stocks have been
measured at a regional scale (Asner et al. 2009), making Los Amigos one of several protected areas in the region
that are candidates for REDD. As with most REDD projects, the primary biodiversity indicators at Los Amigos are
the rate and location of deforestation.
However, because there are other threats to the
concession’s biodiversity (especially hunting), the
monitoring program at Los Amigos also tracks sighting
rates of 31 species of reptiles, birds, and mammals along
fixed transects inside the concession. Sixteen of these
species are threatened at the global or national level and
thus represent HCV 1 species. To minimize the cost of this
monitoring in time and money, transects are located
along river banks and surveyed by park guards during
their regular boat patrols of the Los Amigos River, using
time that was previously spent in unproductive travel. The
first four years of data collected by the park guards
appear to show significant biodiversity benefits, as most
species were spotted more frequently over time.
Figure 4. The Los Amigos River in Amazonian Peru

Note: Park guards monitor hunting pressure by tracking how many birds, mammals, turtles, and caimans are spotted
during boat travel.
Source: Pitman et al. (2011).

• One of the most helpful step-by-step texts for establishing a biodiversity monitoring program in general
is Tucker et al.’s (2005) guide to monitoring in protected areas, available at www.unep-
wcmc.org/collaborations/BCBMAN/PDF/PA_Guidelines_BMA.pdf.
• The Monitoring Matters Network maintains a helpful website with a variety of monitoring tools and
case studies at http://www.monitoringmatters.org/.
• Chapter 14 of Gardner (2010) provides a detailed discussion of the steps required to ensure efficient
sampling design and data collection in biodiversity monitoring programs; Chapter 15 explores
strategies to optimize the analysis and interpretation of data from such programs.
• General texts on biodiversity monitoring include Sutherland (1996), Feinsinger (2001), Hill et al. (2005),
Spellerberg (2005), Newton (2007) and Lindenmayer and Likens (2010).
• Helpful texts on monitoring specific taxonomic groups are available for a broad range of taxa, including
amphibians (Heyer et al. 1994), ants (Agosti et al. 2000), birds (Sutherland et al. 2004), fungi (Mueller et
al. 2004), invertebrates (New 1998), mammals (Wilson et al. 1996), and soil fauna (Moreira et al. 2008).
• Carbon projects in areas with significant wetlands should explore the Ramsar Convention Handbooks,
several of which discuss wetland monitoring in detail (e.g., Handbook 13). They are available online at
http://www.ramsar.org/cda/en/ramsar-pubs-handbooks-handbooks4-e/main/ramsar/1-30-
33^21323_4000_0__.

References
Note: This list includes both resources that are cited in the text and resources that were consulted during the
preparation of the manual but are not cited in the text.
Abell, R., M.L. Thieme, C. Revenga, M. Bryer, M. Kottelat, N. Bogutskaya, N. Mandrak, S.C. Balderas, W. Bussing,
M.J. Staissny, P. Skelton, G.R. Allen, P. Unmack, A. Naseka, R. Ng, N. Sindorf, J. Robertson, E. Armijo, J.V.
Higgins, T.J. Heibel, E. Wikramanayake, D. Olson, H.L. Lopez, R.E. Reis, J.G. Lundberg, M.H.S. Perez, and
P. Petry. 2008. Freshwater ecoregions of the world: A new map of biogeographic units for freshwater
biodiversity conservation. Bioscience 58(5): 403–414. Available online at
http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/WWFBinaryitem8903.pdf.
Agosti, D., J. Majer, E. Alonso, and T.R. Schultz (eds.). 2000. Ants: Standard methods for measuring and
monitoring biodiversity. Biological Diversity Handbook Series. Smithsonian Institution Press,
Washington D.C. Available online at http://antbase.org/ants/publications/20330/20330.pdf.
Alkemade, R., M. van Oorschot, L. Miles, C. Nellemann, M. Bakkenes, and B. ten Brink. 2009. GLOBIO3: A
framework to investigate options for reducing global terrestrial biodiversity loss. Ecosystems 12: 374–
390. Available online at
http://www.globio.info/downloads/14/fulltext%2520(artikel%2520GLOBIO).pdf.
Anderson, B.J., P.R. Armsworth, F. Eigenbrod, C.D. Thomas, S. Gillings, A. Heinemeyer, D.B. Roy, and K.J. Gaston.
2009. Spatial covariance between biodiversity and other ecosystem service priorities. Journal of Applied
Ecology 46: 888–896.
Angelsen, A., M. Brockhaus, M. Kanninen, E. Sills, W.D. Sunderlin, and S. Wertz-Kanounnikoff (eds.). 2009.
Realising REDD+: National strategy and policy options. CIFOR, Bogor. Available online at
http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/Books/BAngelsen0902.pdf.
Asner, G.P., D.E. Knapp, A. Balaji, and G. Páez-Acosta. 2009. Automated mapping of tropical deforestation and
forest degradation: CLASlite. Journal of Applied Remote Sensing 3: 033543. Available online at
http://claslite.ciw.edu/.static/themes/claslite/documents/es/asner_etal_JARS_CLASlite_2009.pdf.
Auckland, L., P. Moura Costa, and S. Brown. 2003. A conceptual framework for addressing leakage on avoided
deforestation projects. Climate Policy 3: 123–136.Available online at
http://www.winrock.org/ecosystems/files/leakage.pdf.
Barlow, J., T.A. Gardner, I.S. Araujo, A.B. Bonaldo, J.E. Costa, M.C. Esposito, L.V. Ferreira, J. Hawes, M.I.M.
Hernandez, R.N. Leite, N.F. Lo-Man-Hung, J.R. Malcolm, M.B. Martins, L.A.M. Mestre, A.L. Nunes-
Gutjahr, W.L. Overal, L. Parry, S.L. Peters, M.A. Ribeiro-Junior, C. da Silva Motta, M.N.F. da Silva, and
C.A. Peres. 2007. Quantifying the biodiversity value of tropical primary, secondary and plantation
forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 104: 18555–
18560.doi:10.1073/pnas.0703333104. Available online at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2141815/.
BI (BirdLife International). 2006. Monitoring Important Bird Areas: A global framework. Version 1.2. BirdLife
International, Cambridge. Available online at
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/userfiles/file/IBAs/MonitoringPDFs/IBA_Monitoring_Framework.pd
f.

Bosque Sustentable, A.C. unpubl. project doc. Biodiversity Monitoring Plan, June 2011, Sierra Gorda Biosphere
Reserve, Queretaro, Mexico.
Bradshaw, CJA, X. Giam, N.S. Sodhi. 2010. Evaluating the relative environmental impact of countries. PLoS One
5(5): e10440.
Brockerhoff, E.G., H. Jactel, J.A. Parrotta, C.P. Quine, and J. Sayer. 2008. Plantation forests and biodiversity:
Oxymoron or opportunity? Biodiversity and Conservation 17: 925–951. Available online at
http://fireintuition.efi.int/rep/officedocument/textdoc/pdf/brockerhoff_etal_200816856563115/broc
kerhoff_etal_2008.pdf.
Butchart, S.H.M., and 44 others. 2010. Global biodiversity: Indicators of recent declines. Science 328: 1164–
1168. Available online at
http://sci.odu.edu/biology/directory/Butchart%20et%20al%20Global%20biodiversity%20declines%20S
cience.pdf.
Carnus, J.-M., J. Parrotta, E. Brockerhoff, M. Arbez, H. Jactel, A. Kremer, D. Lamb, K. O’Hara, and B. Walters.
2006. Planted forests and biodiversity. Journal of Forestry (March 2006): 65–77.
Castro-Arellano, I., S.J. Presley, L.N. Saldaña, M. Willig, and J.M. Wunderle Jr. 2007.Effects of reduced impact
logging on bat biodiversity in terra firme forest of lowland Amazonia.Biological Conservation 138:269-
285.
CCBA. 2008. Climate, Community & Biodiversity project design standards. Second Edition. CCBA, Arlington.
Available online at http://www.climate-
standards.org/standards/pdf/ccb_standards_second_edition_december_2008.pdf.
Chazdon, R.L., C.A. Harvey, O. Komar, D.M. Griffith, B.G. Ferguson, M. Martínez-Ramos, H. Morales, R. Nigh, L.
Soto-Pinto, M. van Breugel, and S.M. Philpott. 2008. Beyond reserves: A research agenda for
conserving biodiversity in human-modified tropical landscapes. Biotropica 41: 142–153. Available
online at
https://learning.conservation.org/SouthAmericaEcosystemServices/Documents/ES%20Articles%20and
%20Documents/2009%20Chazdon%20et%20al%20-
%20A%20Research%20Agenda%20for%20Conserving%20Biodiversity%20in%20Human-modified.pdf.
CIFOR C&I Team. 1999. The CIFOR criteria and indicators generic template. Criteria & Indicators Toolbox Series
No. 2. CIFOR, Bogor, Indonesia.55 pages. Available online at
http://www.cifor.org/acm/methods/toolbox2.html.
CMP (Conservation Measures Partnership). 2007. Open standards for the practice of conservation, Version 2.0.
African Wildlife Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, the Wildlife Conservation Society, and the World
Wide Fund for Nature/World Wildlife Fund. Available online at
http://www.conservationmeasures.org/wp-
content/uploads/2010/04/CMP_Open_Standards_Version_2.0.pdf.
Cooney, R. 2004.The precautionary principle in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management: An
issues paper for policy-makers, researchers and practitioners. The World Conservation Union (IUCN),
Gland and Cambridge. 51 pages. Available online at.
Cooney, R., and B. Dickson (eds.). 2005. Biodiversity and the precautionary principle: Risk, uncertainty and
practice in conservation and sustainable use. Earthscan, London. 336 pages.

Danielsen F., Balete D.S., Poulsen M.K., Enghoff M., Nozawa C.M. and Jensen A.E. 2000. A simple system for
monitoring biodiversity in protected areas of a developing country. Biodiversity and Conservation 9:
1671-1705. Available online at
http://www.monitoringmatters.org/publications/Danielsen%20et%20al%202000%20A%20simple%20
system.pdf.
Danielsen, F., N.D. Burgess, and A. Balmford. 2005. Monitoring matters: Examining the potential of locally-based
approaches. Biodiversity and Conservation 14: 2507–2542. Available online at
http://www.monitoringmatters.org/articles/full1.pdf.
Danielsen, F., M.M. Mendoza, A. Tagtag, P.A. Alviola, D.S. Balete, A.E. Jensen, M. Enghoff, and M.K. Poulsen.
2007. Increasing conservation management action by involving local people in natural resource
monitoring. Ambio 36: 566–570. Available online at
http://www.nordeco.dk/assets/321/amFinnDanielsen.pdf.
Danielsen, F., N.D. Burgess, A. Balmford, P.F. Donald, M. Funder, J.P.G. Jones, P. Alviola, D.S. Balette, T. Blomley,
J. Brashares, B. Child, M. Enghoff, J. Fjeldså, S. Holt, H. Hübertz, A.E. Jensen, P.M. Jensen, J. Massao,
M.M. Mendoza, Y. Ngaga, M.K. Poulsen, R. Rueda, M. Sam, T. Skielboe, G. Stuart-Hill, E. Topp-
Jørgensen, and D. Yonten. 2009. Local participation in natural resource monitoring: A characterization
of approaches. Conservation Biology 23: 31–42. Available online at
http://www.monitoringmatters.org/publications/Danielsen%20et%20al%20%202008%20Local%20par
ticipation%20%20%20%20ConsBiol.pdf.
Dickson, B., E. Dunning, S. Killen, L. Miles, and N. Pettorelli. 2009. Carbon markets and forest conservation: A
review of the environmental benefits of REDD mechanisms. UNEP World Conservation Monitoring
Centre, Cambridge (UK). 54 pages. Available online at http://www.unep-wcmc.org/carbon-markets-
and-forest-conservation_487.html
Dudley, N., D. Baldock, R. Nasi, and S. Stolton. 2005. Measuring biodiversity and sustainable management in
forests and agricultural landscapes. Philosophical Transactions: Biological Sciences 360(1454): 457–470.
Available online at http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1454/457.full.
Duinker, P.N. 2001. Criteria and indicators of sustainable forest management in Canada: Progress and problems
in integrating science and politics at the local level. Pages 7–27 in Franc, A., O. Laroussinie, and T.
Karjalainen (eds.), Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest management at the forest management
unit level. European Forest Institute Proceedings No. 38, Saarijarvi, Finland. Available online at
http://www.efi.int/files/attachments/publications/proc38_net.pdf#page=7.
Dwyer, John M., Rod J. Fensham, and Yvonne M. Buckley. 2010. Agricultural legacy, climate, and soil influence
the restoration and carbon potential of woody regrowth in Australia. Ecological Applications 20:1838–
1850.
Ebeling, J., and J. Fehse. 2009. Challenges for a business case for high-biodiversity REDD projects and schemes.
EcoSecurities, Oxford (UK). 59 pages. Available online at
http://www.unredd.net/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=463&Itemid=53.
Ebeling, J., and M. Yasué. 2008. Generating carbon finance through avoided deforestation and its potential to
create climatic, conservation and human development benefits. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London (Series B) 363: 1917–1924. Available online at
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2610211/.

Ekstrom, J. 2008. Low-cost biodiversity impact assessment for multi-benefit PES Projects. Guidance and
Challenges. Report prepared for United Nations Forum for Forests. Forest Trends. Available online at
http://www.forestcarbonportal.com/sites/default/files/doc_192.pdf.
Elmarsdottir, A., A. Fjellberg, G. Halldorsson, M. Ingimarsdottir, O.K. Nielsen, P. Nygaard, E.S. Oddsdottir, and
B.D. Sigurdsson. 2008. Effects of afforestation on biodiversity. Pages 37–47 in Halldórsson, G., E.S.
Oddsdóttir, and B.D. Sigurdsson (eds.), AFFORNORD: Effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape
and rural development. TemaNord 2008:562, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. Available
online at http://www.skogoglandskap.no/filearchive/topic_effects_afforestation_biodiversity.pdf.
Failing, L., and R. Gregory. 2003. Ten common mistakes in designing biodiversity indicators for forest policy.
Journal of Environmental Management 68: 121–132. Available online at
http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~rrempel/ecology/Biodiversity_Papers/PDF0218-Failing.pdf.
Feehan, J., D.A. Gillmor, and N. Culleton. 2005. Effects of an agri-environment scheme on farmland biodiversity
in Ireland. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 107(2–3): 275–286.
Feinsinger, P. 2001. Designing field studies for biodiversity conservation. The Nature Conservancy and Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Felton, A. 2010. A meta-analysis of fauna and flora species richness and abundance in plantations and pasture
lands. Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, Systematic Review No. 73. 53 pages. Available online
at http://environmentalevidence.org/Documents/Final_protocols/Protocol73.pdf.
Ferraro, P.J., and S.K. Pattanayak. 2006. Money for nothing? A call for empirical evaluation of biodiversity
conservation investments. Public Library of Science Biology DOI:10.1371/journal.pbio.0040105.
Available online at
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action;jsessionid=6646716CB9D7EE21B75
924A3ACAFED64.ambra01?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.0040105&representation=PD
F.
Ferraz, G., C.E. Marinelli, and T.E. Lovejoy. 2007. Biological monitoring in the Amazon: Recent progress and
future needs. Biotropica 40: 7–10. Available online at http://si-
pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/11891/1/stri_Ferraz_Marinelli_and_Lovejoy_2008.pdf
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). 2011. The latest Policy and Standards documents are available online at
http://www.fsc.org/1082.html.
Franc, A., O. Laroussinie, and T. Karjalainen (eds.). 2001. Criteria and indicators for sustainable forest
management at the forest management unit level. European Forest Institute Proceedings No. 38,
Saarijarvi, Finland. 277 pages. Available online at
http://www.efi.int/files/attachments/publications/proc38_net.pdf.
Fridman, J., and M. Walheim. 2000. Amount, structure and dynamics of dead wood on managed forest land in
Sweden. Forest Ecology and Management 131: 23–36.
Frumhoff, P.C., and E.C. Losos. 1998. Setting priorities for conserving biological diversity in tropical timber
production forests. Union of Concerned Scientists and Smithsonian Center for Tropical Forest Science,
Cambridge, MA, and Washington, DC, USA.
Gardner, T. 2010. Monitoring forest biodiversity: Improving conservation through ecologically-responsible

management. Earthscan Ltd., London. 360 pages.

Gardner, T.A., J. Barlow, I.S. Araujo, T.C. Ávila-Pires, A.B. Bonaldo, J.E. Costa, M.C. Esposito, L.V. Ferreira, J.
Hawes, M.I.M. Hernandez, M.S. Hoogmoed, R.N. Leite, N.F. Lo-Man-Hung, J.R. Malcolm, M.B. Martins,
L.A.M. Mestre, R. Miranda-Santos, W.L. Overal, L. Parry, S.L. Peters, M.A. Ribeiro-Junior, M.N.F. da Silva,
C. da Silva Motta, and C.A. Peres. 2007. The cost-effectiveness of biodiversity surveys in tropical forests.
Ecology Letters 11(2): 139–150.
Gascon, C., C.A. Harvey, A.N. Izac, G. Schroth, H.L. Vasconcelos, and G.A.B. da Fonseca. 2004. Agroforestry and
biodiversity conservation in tropical landscapes. Island Press, Covelo, California.
Gittings, T., A.-M. McKee, S. O'Donoghue, J. Pithon, M. Wilson, P. Giller, D. Kelly, J. O'Halloran, F. Mitchell, and S.
Iremonger. 2004. Biodiversity assessment in preparation for afforestation: A review of existing practice
in Ireland and best practice overseas. Report prepared for the Council for Forestry Research and
Development (COFORD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Dublin. Available online at
http://www.ucc.ie/research/crc/pages/projects/Bioforest/Publications/Project%20311%20Assessmen
t%20report.doc.
Guynn, D.C., S.T. Guynn, P.A. Layton, and T.B. Wigley. 2004. Biodiversity metrics in sustainable forestry
certification programs. Journal of Forestry 102: 46 –52.
Hagan, J.M., and A.A. Whitman. 2006. Biodiversity indicators for sustainable forestry: Simplifying complexity.
Journal of Forestry (June 2006): 203–210. Available online at
http://www.manometmaine.org/documents/HaganandWhitmanJForestry2006.pdf.
Halldórsson, G., E.S. Oddsdóttir, and B.D. Sigurdsson. 2008. AFFORNORD: Effects of afforestation on ecosystems,
landscape and rural development. TemaNord 2008:562, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. 120
pages.
Halldórsson, G., E.S. Oddsdóttir, and O. Eggertsson. 2007. Effects of afforestation on ecosystems, landscape and
rural development. Proceedings of the AFFORNORD conference, Reykholt, Iceland, June 18–22, 2005.
TemaNord 2007:508, Nordic Council of Ministers, Copenhagen. 343 pages.
Harvey, C.A., O. Zerbock, S. Papageorgiou, and A. Parra. 2010. What is needed to make REDD+ work on the
ground? Lessons learned from pilot forest carbon initiatives. Conservation International, Arlington. 132
pages. Available online at http://www.conservation.org/Documents/CI_REDD_Lessons_Learned.PDF.
Heil, G.W., B. Muys, and K. Hansen (eds.). 2007. Environmental effects of afforestation in north-western Europe:
From field observations to decision support. Series: Plant and Vegetation, Vol. 1. Springer, New York.
320 pages.
Heyer, R., M. Donnelly, R. McDiarmid, L. Hayek, and M. Foster (eds.). 1994. Measuring and monitoring biological
diversity standards: Methods for amphibians. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC, and
London.
Hill, D., M. Fasham, G. Tucker, M. Shewry, and P. Shaw. (eds.). 2005. Handbook of biodiversity methods: Survey,
evaluation and monitoring, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Holck, M. 2008 Participatory forest monitoring: An assessment of the accuracy of simple cost-effective
methods. Biodiversity and Conservation 17(8): 2023–2036.
Jennings, S., R. Nussbaum, N. Judd, and T. Evans. 2003. The high conservation value forest toolkit. Three
volumes. ProForest, Oxford. Available online at http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/global-hcv-
toolkits.

Josse, C., G. Navarro, F. Encarnación, A. Tovar, P. Comer, W. Ferreira, F. Rodríguez, J. Saito, J. Sanjurjo, J. Dyson,
E. Rubin de Celis, R. Zárate, J. Chang, M. Ahuite, C. Vargas, F. Paredes, W. Castro, J. Maco, and F.
Reátegui. 2007. Ecological systems of the Amazon basin of Peru and Bolivia. Classification and
Mapping. NatureServe. Arlington, Virginia, USA. Available online at
http://www.natureserve.org/aboutUs/latinamerica/pubs/sistema_low_SPAN.pdf.
Karousakis, K. 2009. Promoting biodiversity co-benefits in REDD. OECD Environment Working Papers No. 11,
Paris. 26 pages. Available online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/220188577008.
Kleijn, D., F. Berendse, R. Smit, and N. Gilissen. 2001. Agri-environment schemes do not effectively protect
biodiversity in Dutch agricultural landscapes. Nature 413: 723–725. Available online at
http://www.stat.ucla.edu/~dinov/courses_students.dir/STAT10_Fall01/STAT10_Fall01/NaturePaperSa
mplingProtocol.pdf.
Kleijn, D., and W.J. Sutherland. 2003. How effective are European agri-environment schemes in conserving and
promoting biodiversity? Journal of Applied Ecology 40: 947–969. Available online at
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2664.2003.00868.x/pdf.
Kremen, C., A.M. Merenlender, and D.D. Murphy. 1994. Ecological monitoring: A vital need for integrated
conservation and development programs in the tropics. Conservation Biology 8: 388–397.
Kuusipalo, J.;Kangas, J. 1994. Managing biodiversity in a forestry environment. Conservation Biology. 8: 450-
460.
Langhammer, P.F., M.I. Bakarr, L.A. Bennun, T.M. Brooks, R.P. Clay, W. Darwall, N. De Silva, G.J. Edgar, G. Eken,
L.D.C. Fishpool, G.A.B. da Fonseca, M.N. Foster, D.H. Knox, P. Matiku, E.A. Radford, A.S.L. Rodrigues, P.
Salaman, W. Sechrest, and A.W. Tordoff. 2007. Identification and gap analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas:
Targets for comprehensive protected area systems. Best Practice Protected Areas Guidelines Series No.
15. International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland. 116 pages. Available online at
http://www.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAG-015.pdf.
Lindenmayer, B.D., and G.E. Likens. 2010. Effective ecological monitoring. Canberra: CSIRO.
Lindenmayer, D.B., C.R. Margules, and D.B. Botkin. 2000. Indicators of biodiversity for ecologically sustainable
forest management. Conservation Biology 14: 941–950. Available online at
http://my.tbaytel.net/mgluck/blog/lind.pdf.
Loreau, M., S. Naeem, P. Inchausti, J. Bengtsson, J.P. Grime, A. Hector, D.U. Hooper, M.A. Huston, D. Raffaelli, B.
Schmid, D. Tilman, and D.A. Wardle. 2001. Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning: Current knowledge
and future challenges. Science 294: 804– 808.
Magnusson, W.E., F. Costa, A. Lima, F. Baccaro, R. Braga-Neto, R. Laerte Romero, M. Menin, J. Penha, J.-M.
Hero, and B.E. Lawson. 2008. A program for monitoring biological diversity in the Amazon: An
alternative perspective to threat-based monitoring. Biotropica 40(4): 409–411. Available online at
http://ppbio.inpa.gov.br/Port/public/ai/biotropicaetal.pdf.
Marjokorpi, A., and J. Salo. 2007. Operational standards and guidelines for biodiversity management in tropical
and subtropical forest plantations: How widely do they cover an ecological framework? Silva Fennica
41(2): 281–297.

MCPFE (Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe). 2009. Pan-European guidelines for
afforestation and reforestation with a special focus on the provisions of the UNFCCC. Aas, Norway. 10
pages. Available online at http://www.foresteurope.org/?module=Files;action=File.getFile;ID=1113.
Miles, L., and V. Kapos. 2008. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation:
Global land-use implications. Science 320: 1454–1455. Available online at
http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Secret/Forests/Reducing%20Greenhose%20Gas%20Emmisions.pdf.
Moreira, F.M.D., E.J. Huising, and D.E. Bignell (eds.). 2008. A handbook of tropical soil biology. Earthscan,
London.
Morse, L.E., J.M. Randall, N. Benton, R. Hiebert, and S. Lu. 2004. An invasive species assessment protocol:
Evaluating non-native plants for their impact on biodiversity. Version 1. NatureServe: Arlington, Virginia,
USA. Available online at http://www.natureserve.org/library/invasiveSpeciesAssessmentProtocol.pdf.
Mueller, G., G.F. Bills, and M.S. Foster (eds.). 2004. Biodiversity of fungi: Inventory and monitoring methods.
Academic Press, Amsterdam. 777 pages.
NatureServe. 2009. International ecological classification standard: Terrestrial ecological classifications.

Sistemas ecológicos de los Andes del Norte y Centro: Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Perú y Venezuela.
NatureServe Central Databases. Arlington, VA. Available online at
http://www.natureserve.org/lacSite/sobreNosotros/documents/EcosistemasAndesNorteYCentro.pdf.
NCASI (National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.). 2003. Wildlife and biodiversity metrics in forest
certification systems. Technical Bulletin No. 0857. NCASI, Research Triangle Park.
NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Ecological indicators for the nation. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC. 180 pages.
Nepstad, D.C, A. Veríssimo, A. Alencar, C. Nobre, E. Lima, P. Lefebvre, P. Schlesinger, C. Potter, P. Moutinho, E.
Mendoza, M. Cochrane, and V. Brooks. 1999. Large-scale impoverishment of Amazonian forests by
logging and fire. Nature 398: 505–508.
New, T.R. 1998. Invertebrate surveys for conservation. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Newton, A. 2007. Forest ecology and conservation: A handbook of techniques. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Niesten, E., P.C. Frumhoff, M. Manion, and J.J. Hardner. 2002. Designing a carbon market that protects forests
in developing countries. Philosophical Transactions: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
360(1797): 1875–1888. Available online at
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/360/1797/1875.full.pdf.
Noss, R.F. 1999. Assessing and monitoring forest biodiversity: A suggested framework and indicators. Forest
Ecology and Management 115: 135–146. Available online at
http://flash.lakeheadu.ca/~rrempel/ecology/Biodiversity_Papers/PDF0259-Noss.pdf.
Olander, J. and J. Ebeling. 2011. Building Forest Carbon Projects: Step-by-Step Overview and Guide. In Building
Forest Carbon Projects, Ebeling, J. and J. Olander (eds.). Forest Trends, Washington, DC. Available
online at http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/index.php?pubID=2555.
Oliver, I., H. Jones, and D.L. Schmoldt. 2007. Expert panel assessment of attributes for natural variability
benchmarks for biodiversity. Austral Ecology 32: 453–475.

Olson, D.M., E. Dinerstein, K.E. Wikramanaya, N.D. Burgess, G.V. Powell, E.C. Underwood, J.A. D’Amico, I. Itoua,
H.E. Strand, J.C. Morrison, C.J. Loucks, T.F. Allnutt, T.H. Ricketts, Y. Kura, J.F. Lamoreux, W.W.
Wettengel, P. Hedao, and K.R. Kassem. 2001. Terrestrial ecoregions of the world: A new map of life on
Earth. Bioscience 51(11): 933–938. Available online at
http://www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/WWFBinaryitem6498.pdf.
Olupot, W., and D. Sheil. 2011. A preliminary assessment of large mammal and bird use of different habitats in
Bwindi Impenetrable National Park. African Journal of Ecology 49: 21–30.
Parrotta, J., J. Turnbull, and N. Jones. 1997. Catalyzing native forest regeneration on degraded tropical lands.
Forest Ecology and Management 99: 1–7. Available online at
http://www.fs.fed.us/global/iitf/pubs/catalyzing_native_parrotta_etal.pdf.
Pilgrim, J., J. Ekstrom, and J. Ebeling. 2011. Biodiversity Impacts Guidance: Key Assessment Issues for Forest
Carbon Projects. In Building Forest Carbon Projects, Ebeling, J. and J. Olander (eds.). Forest Trends,
Washington, DC.. Available online at http://www.forest-trends.org/publications.php
Pistorius, T., C.B. Schmitt, D. Benick, and S. Entenmann. 2010. Greening REDD+: Challenges and opportunities for
forest biodiversity conservation. Unpublished policy paper of the University of Freiburg, Germany.
www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/for/ewredd-01/other/ewredd-01-oth-greening-redd-en.pdf.
Pitman, N.C.A., D. Norris, J. Martínez González, E. Torres, F. Pinto, H. Collado, W. Concha, R. Thupa, E. Quispe, J.
Pérez & J.C. Flores del Castillo. 2011. Four years of vertebrate monitoring on an upper Amazonian river.
Biodiversity and Conservation 20: 827-849.
PPP (The Precautionary Principle Project). 2005. Guidelines for applying the precautionary principle to
biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. Fauna & Flora International, IUCN,
ResourceAfrica, and TRAFFIC.
Putz, F.E., and M.A. Pinard. 1993. Reduced-impact logging as a carbon-offset method. Conservation Biology 7:
755–757.
Putz, F.E., P.A. Zuidema, M.A. Pinard, R.G.A. Boot, J.A. Sayer, D. Sheil, P. Sist, Elias, and J.K. Vanclay. 2008.
Improved tropical forest management for carbon retention. PLoS Biology
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0060166. Available online at
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/fetchObjectAttachment.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjou
rnal.pbio.0060166&representation=PDF.
Putz, F.E., and K.H. Redford. 2009. Dangers of carbon-based conservation. Global Environmental Change 19:
400–401.
Rainforest Alliance. 2011. Validation Assessment Report (CCB Standards) for Bosque Sustentable’s Carbon
Sequestration in Communities of Extreme Poverty in the Sierra Gorda of Mexico in Sierra Gorda
Biosphere Reserve, Queretaro, Mexico, June 10, 2011.
Rayden, T. 2008. Assessment, management and monitoring of High Conservation Value Forest (HCVF): A
practical guide for forest managers. ProForest, Oxford. 30 pages. Available online at
http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/folder.2006-09-29.6584228415/hcvf%20-
%20practical%20guide%20for%20forest%20managers.pdf.

Reed, M.S., A.J. Dougill, and T.R. Baker. 2008. Participatory indicator development: What can ecologists and
local communities learn from each other? Ecological Applications 18: 1253–1269. Available online at
http://homepages.see.leeds.ac.uk/~lecajd/papers/reedetal08.pdf.
Richards, M., and S.N. Panfil. 2011a. Social and biodiversity impact assessment (SBIA) manual of REDD+ projects:
Part 1 – Core guidance for project proponents (Version 1). Forest Trends, Climate, Community &
Biodiversity Alliance, Rainforest Alliance and Fauna & Flora International. Washington, DC. Available
online at http://www.forest-trends.org/.
Richards, M., and S.N. Panfil. 2011b. Social and biodiversity impact assessment (SBIA) manual of REDD+ projects:
Part 2 – Social impact assessment toolbox (Version 2.0). Forest Trends, Climate, Community &
Biodiversity Alliance, Rainforest Alliance and Fauna & Flora International. Washington, DC. Available
online at http://www.forest-trends.org/.
Salafsky, N., D. Salzer, A. Stattersfield, C. Hilton-Taylor, R. Neugarten, S.H.M. Butchart, B. Collen, N. Cox, L.L.
Master, S. O’Connor, and D. Wilkie. 2008. A standard lexicon for biodiversity conservation: Unified
classifications of threats and actions. Conservation Biology 22: 897–911. Available online at
http://www.iucnredlist.org/documents/Salafsky_et_al._2008_Unified_Classifications_of_Threats_and
_Actions.pdf.
Schwarze, R., J. Niles, & J. Olander. 2002. Understanding and Managing Leakage in Forest-Based Greenhouse
Gas Mitigation Projects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series A 1797:1685-1703.
Available online at
http://www.ecodecision.com.ec/pdfs/Understanding%20and%20Managing%20Leakage.pdf.
Sheil, D. 2001. Conservation and biodiversity monitoring in the tropics: Realities, priorities, and distractions.
Conservation Biology 15: 1179–1182. Available online at
http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/mla/download/publication/Conservation%20and%20Biodiversity.pdf
Slootweg, R., A. Rajvanshi, V.B. Mathur, and A. Kolhoff. 2009. Biodiversity in environmental assessment.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 456 pages.
Smith, G.F., T. Gittings, M. Wilson, A. Oxbrough, S. Iremonger, S. O’Donoghue, A.-M. McKee, J. O’Halloran, D.L.
Kelly, J. Pithon, A. O’Sullivan, P. Neville, F.J.G. Mitchell, P. Giller, V. O’Donnell, and T. Kelly. 2006.
Biodiversity assessment of afforestation sites. Bioforest Project 3.1.1 Final Report. Unpublished
document available online at http://www.epa.ie.
Soares-Filho B.S., D.C. Nepstad, L.M. Curran, E. Voll, G.C. Cerqueira, R.A. Garcia, C.A. Ramos, A. McDonald, P.
Lefebvre, and P. Schlesinger. 2008. LBA-ECO LC-14 Amazon Scenarios Program, Modeled Deforestation
Scenarios: 2002-2050. Data set. Available on-line [http://lba.cptec.inpe.br/] from LBA Data and
Information System, National Institute for Space Research (INPE/CPTEC), Cachoeira Paulista, Sao Paulo,
Brazil.
Spellerberg, I. 2005. Monitoring ecological change. 2nd edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 391
pages.
Stewart, C., P. George, T. Rayden, and R. Nussbaum. 2008. Good practice guidelines for High Conservation Value
assessments: A practical guide for practitioners and auditors. Proforest, Oxford. 46 pages. Available
online at http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/folder.2006-09-
29.6584228415/HCV%20good%20practice%20-%20guidance%20for%20practitioners.pdf.

Stickler, C.M., D.C. Nepstad, M.T. Coe, D.G. McGrath, H.O. Rodrigues, W.S. Walker, B.S. Soares-Filho, and E.A.
Davidson. 2009. The potential ecological costs and cobenefits of REDD: A critical review and case study
from the Amazon region. Global Change Biology 15: 2803–2824.
Sutherland, W.J. (ed.) 1996. Ecological census techniques: A handbook. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sutherland, W.J., I. Newton, and R.E. Green. 2004. Bird ecology and conservation: A handbook of techniques.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Sutherland, W.J., and 43 others. 2009. One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of global
biological diversity. Conservation Biology 23(3): 557–567.
Tews, J., U. Brose, V. Grimm, K. Tielborger, M.C. Wichmann, M. Schwager, and F. Jeltsch. 2004. Animal species
diversity driven by habitat heterogeneity/diversity: The importance of keystone structures. Journal of
Biogeography 31: 79–92. Available online at http://www.halle.ufz.de/data/Tews20041884.pdf.
Tucker, G., P. Bubb, M. de Heer, L. Miles, A. Lawrence, S.B. Bajracharya, R.C. Nepal, R. Sherchan, and N.R.
Chapagain. 2005. Guidelines for biodiversity assessment and monitoring for protected areas. King
Mahendra Trust for Nature Conservation, Kathmandu, Nepal.
UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe) and FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2000.
Temperate and boreal forest resource assessment 2000. UNECE and FAO, Geneva and Rome.
UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change). 2002. Report on the conference of the
parties on its seventh session, held at Marrakesh from 29 October to 10 November 2001.
FCCC/CP/2001/13/Add.1. 21 January 2002. Available online at http://unfccc.int/2860.php.
Venter, O., W.F. Laurance, T. Iwamura, K.A. Wilson, R.A. Fuller, and H.P. Possingham. 2009. Harnessing carbon
payments to protect biodiversity. Science 326: 1368. Available online at
http://www.wentworthgroup.org/uploads/Harnessing%20Carbon%20Payments%20to%20Protect%20
Biodiversity.pdf.
White, L., and A. Edwards. 2000. Methods for assessing the status of animal populations. Pages 218-268 in
White, L., and A. Edwards (eds.), Conservation research in the African rain forests: A technical
handbook. Wildlife Conservation Society, New York. 444 pages. Available online at
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.81.8095&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
Whitman, A.A., and J.M. Hagan. 2003. Final report to the National Commission on Science for Sustainable
Forestry. A8: Biodiversity indicators for sustainable forestry. National Center for Science and the
Environment, Washington, D.C. 48 pages. Available online at http://www.manometmaine.org.
Wilson, D.E., R.F. Cole, J.D. Nichols, R. Rudran, and M.S. Foster. 1996. Measuring and monitoring biological
diversity: Standard methods for mammals. Smithsonian, Washington DC.

Appendix 1
Biodiversity-related requirements of the CCB Standards (Second Edition; CCBA 2008) and the section where
each is discussed in this toolbox.
Criterion Category Criterion Summary (Criterion Number) Section

Describe the types and condition of vegetation within the project area
3.1.1
(G1.2)
G1. General Description Describe current biodiversity and threats to biodiversity in the project zone
3.1.2
(G1.7)
Describe High Conservation Values if present (G1.8) 3.1.3
G2. Baseline Projections Describe how biodiversity would be affected without the project (G2.5) 3.2
Summarize project’s major biodiversity objectives (G3.1) 4.1
Describe project activities and their impacts on biodiversity (G3.2) 2.1–2.4
Identify likely risks to expected biodiversity benefits during the projectand
4.4
G3. Project Design and outline measures to mitigate these risks (G3.5)
Goals Show that project design includes measures to conserve High Conservation
4.5
Values (G3.6)
Describe measures to secure biodiversity benefits beyond the project
4.6
lifetime (G3.7)
G4. Management Capacity Document technical skills required to implement the biodiversity
5.1
and Best Practices assessment and monitoring program of the project successfully (G4.2)
Use appropriate methodologies to estimate changes in biodiversity in the
4.2
project lifetime (B1.1)
Demonstrate that no High Conservation Values will be negatively affected
4.2
by the project (B1.2)
B1. Net Positive
Identify all species to be used and show no negative impacts of invasive
Biodiversity Impacts 4.2
species (B1.3)
Describe possible impacts of non-native species on the region’s biodiversity
4.2
(B1.4)
Guarantee that no GMOs will be used (B1.5) 4.2
Identify negative offsite biodiversity impacts (B2.1) 4.3
B2. Offsite Biodiversity Document plans to mitigate offsite impacts (B2.2) 4.3
Impacts Show that biodiversity benefits in project area outweigh offsite impacts
4.3
(B2.3)
Develop a plan to select biodiversity indicators and monitoring methods
5.2-5.4
B3. Biodiversity Impact (B3.1)
Monitoring Develop a plan to assess conservation of High Conservation Values (B3.2) 5.2-5.4
Commit to developing a full biodiversity monitoring plan (B3.3) 5.4
GL3. Exceptional Demonstrate that the project zone includes a site of high biodiversity
3.1.4
Biodiversity Benefits conservation priority
Within 6 mo. of project
Develop monitoring plan and carry out monitoring (See B3.1–3)
start or 12 mo. of validation
Periodically during
implementation and prior Analyze monitoring program data and compare to original starting data (See B3.3)
to verification audits

SBIA Part 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SBIA Part 3

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SBIA Part 3

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Social and Biodiversity

Impact Assessment (SBIA)

©Copyright 2011 Conservation International and Forest Trends Association

All rights reserved.

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | iii

iv | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | v

Cover photo credits:

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | vii

1.2 How This Toolbox Is Organized

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | 1

Wherever possible, the guidance in this toolbox includes:

Reduced emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD), in which biodiversity

2 | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | 3

4 | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3

More negative impacts More positive impacts

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | 5

Box 1. Impacts of Afforestation on Biodiversity in Northern Europe

6 | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | 7

Box 3. In Search of the Biodiversity Impacts of Sustainable Agriculture in Europe

8 | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3

2.4 Biodiversity Impacts of REDD Projects REDD

Box 4. …But What about Specific Biodiversity Impacts?

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | 9

10 | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3

Biodiversity Impacts of REDD REDD

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | 11

3.1.1 Describing the Initial Condition of Vegetation

Satisfying this criterion typically requires:

12 | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3

Main Sources and Further Guidance

Resources for Describing Ecoregions and Vegetation Types

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | 13

Resources for Assessing Vegetation Condition or Quality

3.1.2 Describing the Initial Condition of Biodiversity and Threats to Biodiversity

14 | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3

Threats to Biodiversity Questions:

Main Sources and Further Guidance

Resources for Describing Biodiversity

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | 15

Resources for Describing Threats to Biodiversity

3.1.3 Describing High Conservation Values (HCVs)

16 | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3

Main Sources and Further Guidance

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | 17

3.1.4 Describing a High Biodiversity Conservation Priority (Exceptional Biodiversity

Main Sources and Further Guidance

3.2 Establishing a “Without-Project” Projection for Biodiversity Impacts

18 | SBIA Manual For REDD+ Projects – Part 3

3.2.1 Quantitative vs. Qualitative Scenarios

Main Sources and Further Guidance

Biodiversity Impact Assessment Toolbox | 19

Conditions improve with no

Conditions remain the same with A/R

Conditions worsen with no A/R

Reduced Where biodiversity conditions are expected to worsen without any