Com­mer­cial agri­cul­ture and forestry could have a net pos­i­tive impact on bio­di­ver­sity – say the authors of a recent report. Thanks to Fabien Quetier for inform­ing me about one of the lat­est IUCN reports enti­tled “No Net Loss and Net Pos­i­tive Impact Approaches for Bio­di­ver­sity. Explor­ing the poten­tial appli­ca­tion of these approaches in the com­mer­cial agri­cul­ture and forestry sec­tors”.  You can find the full report and the exec­u­tive sum­mary online. See also an extract form the exec­u­tive sum­mary pasted below.

Exec­u­tive Sum­mary: Is an NPI approach poten­tially applic­a­ble to the com­mer­cial agri­cul­ture and forestry sectors?

Yes – based on the appli­ca­tion of the five stage process, which includes the full imple­men­ta­tion of the mit­i­ga­tion hier­ar­chy – an NPI approach could poten­tially be applied in A&F devel­op­ment projects under two main con­di­tions (not mutu­ally exclusive):

1.Enhancing native bio­di­ver­sity, and/or pro­tect­ing species or areas of con­ser­va­tion concern:

• Where A&F pro­duc­tion sys­tems are designed to host more native wildlife, and to reduce impacts on native wildlife.
• Where species or areas of con­ser­va­tion con­cern are iden­ti­fied within the project site and are pro­tected against neg­a­tive impacts from pro­duc­tive activities.

2.Diversifying A&F pro­duc­tion species on–site, and/or, improv­ing pro­duc­tiv­ity and nat­ural resource use effi­ciency on–site along with pro­mo­tion of safe­guards to pro­tect nat­ural habi­tats off–site against conversion:

• Where crop and tim­ber species are diver­si­fied through the intro­duc­tion of new crops, agro­forestry, or tim­ber species on site.
• Where the pro­duc­tiv­ity of A&F pro­duc­tion sys­tems are increased through yield gains and improved use of nat­ural resources (e.g. water, soil, energy) and accom­pa­nied with safe­guards to pro­tect against con­ver­sion of exist­ing nat­ural areas includ­ing beyond project boundaries.

By high­light­ing favourable con­di­tions for NPI approaches in A&F sec­tors, the report also indi­cates three main con­di­tions that would not be favourable, on the basis that the risk of bio­di­ver­sity losses would out­weigh any oppor­tu­nity for addi­tional con­ser­va­tion gains:

1. Where the devel­op­ment project will cause large–scale impacts on ecosys­tems and/or species in nat­ural areas where regional bio­di­ver­sity loss is not occurring.
2. Where there is a risk that the pro­tec­tion mea­sures and safe­guards for nat­ural habi­tat areas and/or species and areas of con­ser­va­tion con­cern in and around the pro­duc­tion site will be poorly designed or will not be enforced effectively.
3. Where the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of rel­e­vant bio­di­ver­sity val­ues to estab­lish NPI goals has not been derived from exist­ing soci­etal bio­di­ver­sity con­ser­va­tion goals in poli­cies or plans (e.g. national bio­di­ver­sity poli­cies, strate­gies, action plans, inter­na­tional pol­icy), and not taken account of local and other rel­e­vant stake­holder input (includ­ing farm­ers, foresters, and res­i­dent com­mu­ni­ties as applicable).