More about this guideline
Three types of indicators are generally used to monitor biodiversity management performance (Bubb et al. 2014):
To be fit for purpose, monitoring programmes should be:
Monitoring also needs to measure different kinds of impacts. Direct impacts are those that occur on site, generally appear fairly quickly, and are directly linked to the project activity or operations. Indirect impacts are impacts triggered in response to the project or operations but not directly caused by them. Indirect impacts may therefore originate farther away from the site, for example pollution upstream could impact KBAs far away in another part of the watershed, or reduction in prey species could impact on a predator. Cumulative impacts are perhaps the most difficult to measure and include all impacts from the project or operations, as well as all impacts generated by activities of others (other businesses and all other users of the resources).
Within the context of the management of a Key Biodiversity Area (KBA), monitoring and evaluation of biodiversity and biodiversity management activities at the site level is critical for assessing progress towards the set biodiversity target. KBA trigger species (or ecosystems) need to be monitored as part of the biodiversity monitoring, and there should be an aim to maintain or increase the trigger species populations (or ecosystem extent/condition). It is also important for determining when targets and objectives are not being met and changes need to be made to the project’s management activities.
In particular, the process of biodiversity loss and gain accounting is also important for operations that are seeking to achieve a net gain on biodiversity through the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy. Commonly used metrics for loss and gain calculation include area quality measures (Parkes et al. 2003; Temple et al. 2010 & Temple et al. 2012) and units of global distribution (Temple et al. 2012).
References and Resources
Bubb, P., Brooks, S., and Chenery, A. (2014). Incorporating Indicators into NBSAPs- Guidance for Practitioners. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, 20pp.
Parkes, D., Newell, G., and Cheal, D. (2003). Assessing the quality of native vegetation: the ‘habitat hectares’ approach. Ecological Management and Restoration, 4: S29-S38.
Temple, H., Edmonds, B., Butcher, B., and Treweek, J. (2010). Biodiversity Offsets: Testing a Possible Method for Measuring Biodiversity Losses and Gains at Bardon Hill Quarry, UK. In In Practice, Edition 70, December 2010. Chartered Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management.
Temple, H.J., Anstee, S., Ekstrom, J., Pilgrim, J.D., Rabenantoandro, J., Ramanamanjato, J.B., Randriatafika, F., and Vincelette, M. (2012). Forecasting the path towards a Net Positive Impact on biodiversity for Rio Tinto QMM. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
UNEP-WCMC (2017) Biodiversity Indicators for Extractive Companies: An assessment of needs, current practices and potential indicator models. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK, 39pp. (PDF report)