The document discusses the application of the mitigation hierarchy for linear infrastructure, highlighting the increasing business risks associated with biodiversity loss and rising societal expectations. It outlines effective business responses, such as defining good mitigation practices, implementing 'no net loss' commitments, and developing offset policies to minimize environmental impacts. Additionally, it emphasizes the challenges of identifying biodiversity impacts due to the complexity of linear infrastructure and offers examples of successful mitigation strategies.

1. Applying the Mitigation Hierarchy for
Linear Infrastructure
1
Jan-Willem van Bochove
African Conference for Linear Infrastructure and Ecology
Skukuza, Kruger NP, 12th March, 2019

2. Drivers for changing business practice
• Rising societal expectations
• Reputational risk (and opportunity)
• Ecosystem service dependencies
• Tightening regulation and financing safeguards

3. Source: World Economic Forum 2019 Risk Report
Biodiversity increasing as a business risk

4. Business responses
• Define and encourage
good mitigation
practice
• Rise in corporate ‘no
net loss’ commitments
• Growth in offset
policies
4
www.portals.iucn.org/offsetpolicy

5. Good mitigation practice for biodiversity
5
Identification of biodiversity and impacts at appropriate
spatial scale
Rigorous application of the Mitigation Hierarchy
No Net Loss for developments in sensitive habitats
Implementation of offsets where needed

6. Overview of the mitigation hierarchy
6
Source: CSBI (2015)

7. Iterative application of the Mitigation
Hierarchy
7
Source: CSBI (2015)

8. Identification of appropriate unit of analysis
• Challenging to define for
linear infrastructure
• Relatively small footprint,
but:
• Routed over long distances
• Cross varied habitats and ecological
zones
• Area of influence hard to
predict:
• Fragmentation and barrier effects
• Indirect impacts
8
LAPSSET corridor project, Kenya

9. Simandou Mine rail corridor
• A 640 km rail corridor
across Guinea
• 20 km buffer
intersecting with 25
other ecological units
• Merged into a single
areas of analysis to
determine presence
of biodiversity
priorities for impact
assessment

10. Avoiding impacts
• Project and infrastructure siting
• Avoiding need for linear infrastructure
• Re-routing of linear infrastructure
• Using existing corridors
• Temporal avoidance
• Moratoriums on road transport at night
• Restricting construction during sensitive
periods
10
CAMISEA gas project, Peru
Lichen field near Trekkopje
uranium mine, Namibia
AREVA, Nunavut, Canada
Source: CSBI (2015)

11. ‘Critical Oil Roads’, Murchison Falls Protected Area, Uganda
Minimising impacts
11
• Reducing rights of way
• Overpasses and speed controls
• Traveling in convoy
• Sequencing of construction activities

12. Offsetting residual impacts
12
Oyu Tolgoi mine, Rio Tinto, Mongolia
• Impacts to nomadic
Khulan due to mining
related infrastructure
Fence!
Photo: Petra Kaczensky

13. Offsettting residual impacts
• Opportunities to offset
impacts in landscape
through anti-poaching
and removal of
migration barriers
• Railway fence removal
along the Ulaanbaatar-
Beijing railway to
compensate for
fragmentation and
habitat loss
13
Photo: Petra Kaczensky
Khulan range use – one month

14. Thank you!
14
www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com