Ambatovy Project – Madagascar - Forest Trends

Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme (BBOP) 

BBOP Pilot Project 

Case Study 

The Ambatovy Project

Forest Trends, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society provided the 

Secretariat for BBOP during the first phase of the programme's work (2004 – 2008). 

Publication Data 

The Ambatovy Project Business and Biodiversity Offsets Programme Pilot Project Case Study, 2009: The 

Ambatovy Project is a Joint Venture project between Sherritt Incorporated, Sumitomo Incorporated, Kores and 

SNC Lavalin. The Ambatovy Project is comprised of the following two Madagascan operating companies, 

Ambatovy Minerals SA (AMSA) and Dynatec Madagascar S.A. (DMSA). The Project Administrative offices are 

located at Trano Fitaratra, 7ème étage, Ankorondrano, Antananarivo, Madagascar (PO Box 12085, Poste 

Zoom, Ankorondrano), T: +261 20 22 230 88 / 22 397 35 – 37 F: +261 20 22 540 30, http://www.sherritt.mg/ 

Available from www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/ambatovy-case-study.pdf. 

© The Ambatovy Project (Ambatovy Minerals SA/Dynatec Madagascar SA) 2009. 

Reproduction of this publication for educational or other non-commercial purposes is authorised without prior 

written permission from the copyright holder provided the source is fully acknowledged. 

Reproduction of this publication for resale or other commercial purposes is prohibited without prior written 

permission of the copyright holder. 

The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily 

reflect the views of The Ambatovy Project. Any errors are purely the responsibility of the authors. 

Cover and graphic design by Rima Design.

THE AMBATOVY PROJECT 

BBOP PILOT PROJECT 

BUSINESS AND BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS 

PROGRAMME 

CASE STUDY 

PREPARED BY PIERRE O. BERNER, STEVEN DICKINSON AND ARISTIDE ANDRIANARIMISA 

JANUARY 2009

About this document 

To help developers, conservation groups, communities, governments and financial institutions that wish to 

consider and develop best practice related to biodiversity offsets, the Business and Biodiversity Offsets 

Programme (BBOP) has prepared a set of Principles, interim guidance and resource documents 1 , including 

pilot project case studies, of which this Document 2 is one. All those involved in BBOP are grateful to the 

companies who volunteered pilot projects in this first phase of its work. 

The ability to test methods and learn from practical experience in a set of pilot projects has played an 

important role in the development of the BBOP Principles on Biodiversity Offsets and supporting materials 

during the first phase of the programme’s work (2004 – 2008). The Ambatovy Project’s four shareholders 

volunteered to undertake pilot projects during BBOP’s first phase, with some joining at the outset, and some 

at later stages. While BBOP has offered some support and technical advice to the individual pilot projects 

through its Secretariat and Advisory Committee, each pilot project has been directed and managed by a team 

employed or contracted by the companies and city council leading the respective projects. Each of the case 

studies prepared by the pilot projects explains the approach taken and how close the Project has come to 

completing the design of the biodiversity offset concerned, and sets out the developer’s current thinking on the 

most appropriate offset. This may change as the Project teams finalise their offset programme design and 

further implementation. The nature of the guidance used by the pilot projects has varied according to which 

drafts of the evolving BBOP Handbooks were available to them at the time. This and the individual 

circumstances and context of each pilot project have affected the extent to which they have used or adapted 

the BBOP guidance. Consequently, the case studies do not necessarily reflect the range of interim guidance 

currently presented in BBOP’s Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook, Cost-Benefit Handbook and 

Implementation Handbook. 

This Document has been provided by the Ambatovy Project subject to the limitations set out herein. 

The Ambatovy Project is still working on the design of the proposed biodiversity offset discussed in this case 

study. Consequently, none of the suggested or projected activities based on fieldwork to date represent a 

commitment on the part of The Ambatovy Project, it shareholders or potential partners to proceed with the 

offset as described in draft form in this Document. Such commitment is the subject of continuing internal 

discussions. The information and data relating to possible offset sites, areas and activities are presented here 

to communicate the initial work that has been done on a potential offset design and to illustrate one possible 

approach to the design of a biodiversity offset intended to comply with the BBOP principles. 

Where data supplied by external sources, including previous site investigation data, have been used, it has 

been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise stated. No responsibility is accepted by the 

Ambatovy Project for incomplete or inaccurate data supplied by others. 

1 The BBOP Principles, interim guidance and resource documents, including a glossary, can be found at 

www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/. To assist readers, a selection of terms with an entry in the BBOP 

Glossary has been highlighted thus: biodiversity offsets. Users of the Web or CD-ROM version of this document can move their 

cursors over a glossary term to see the definition. 

2 This case study was prepared by Pierre O. Berner, Steven Dickinson and Aristide Andrianarimisa. 

BBOP Pilot Project Case Study – Ambatovy Project 

1

About this document 2 

The Ambatovy Project may have retained sub-consultants affiliated with the Ambatovy Project to provide 

Services for the benefit of the Ambatovy Project. To the maximum extent allowed by law, users of this 

Document acknowledge and agree they will not have any direct legal recourse to, and waive any claim, 

demand, or cause of action against, the Ambatovy Project’s contractors, sub-contractors, partners, 

shareholders and other related or affiliated companies, and their respective employees, officers and directors. 

This Document is provided for the use by developers, conservation groups, communities, governments and 

financial institutions that wish to consider and develop best practice related to biodiversity offsets. No 

responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Document will be accepted by any person. Any use made of 

this Document or any reliance on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such users. The 

Ambatovy Project accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of 

decisions made or actions based on this Document. 

For greater certainty, this Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined herein and no 

responsibility is accepted for the use of this Document, in whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other 

purpose. 

BBOP is embarking on the next phase of its work, during which BBOP hopes to collaborate with more 

individuals and organisations around the world, to test and develop these and other approaches to biodiversity 

offsets more widely geographically and in more industry sectors. BBOP is a collaborative programme, and we 

welcome your involvement. To learn more about the programme and how to get involved please: 

See: www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/ 

Contact: bbop@forest-trends.org 

BBOP Pilot Project Case Study – Ambatovy Project

Contents 

Table of contents 

About this document 1 

1. Executive Summary 6 

2. Project Context 11 

2.1 Policy context 11 

2.2 Regional context 12 

2.3 Shareholders involved in offset design 14 

3. Project Summary 15 

3.1 General project description 15 

3.2 Ambatovy offset programme 17 

4. How the Ambatovy Project is Applying the BBOP Principles 19 

5. Current Status of the Project and Offset 24 

5.1 Project chronology and status (as of December 2008) 24 

5.2 Offset chronology and status (as of December 2008) 24 

6. Business Case for a Biodiversity Offset 26 

7. The Offset Design Process 28 

7.1 Guidance and methodologies used 28 

7.2 Roles and responsibility 28 

7.3 The offset design process 29 

7.3.1 Step 1: Review project scope and activities 29 

7.3.2 Step 2: Review the legal framework and / or policy context for a biodiversity offset 29 

7.3.3 Step 3: Initiate a stakeholder participation process 29 

7.3.4 Step 4: Determine the need for an offset based on residual adverse effects 29 

7.3.5 Step 5: Choose methods to calculate loss / gain and quantify residual losses 35 

7.3.6 Step 6: Review potential offset locations and activities and assess the 

biodiversity gains which could be achieved at each 46 

7.3.7 Step 7: Calculate offset gains and select appropriate offset locations and activities 51 

7.3.8 Step 8: Record the offset design and enter the offset implementation process 51 

8. Implementation Plan and Long-term Management 53 

9. Summary of Offset Process Costs 54 


3

Contents 4 

10. Project Outcomes 56 

11. Lessons Learned 58 

11.1 Limitations 58 

11.1.1 Available data 58 

11.1.2 Averaging 59 

11.2 Recommendations 59 

12. Next Steps 60 

13. References 62 

Tables 

Table 1: Summary of the Ambatovy pilot Project 9 

Table 2: Ambatovy Project offset programme 18 

Table 3: Summary of attribute weighting (December 2008) 41 

Table 4: Azonal habitat (December 2008) 43 

Table 5: Transitional habitat (December 2008) 43 

Table 6: Zonal habitat (December 2008) 43 

Table 7: Pipeline zonal habitat (December 2008) 43 

Table 8: Biodiversity loss calculations scenarios at impact site and effect of post-impact remediation 45 

Table 9: Summary of estimated costs 54 

Table A5.1: Fauna and flora species vulnerability matrix (April 2008) 92 

Table A5.2: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) vulnerability scores (April 2008) 92 

Graphs 

Graph 1: Post-impact mitigation influence on biodiversity loss for forest habitats at impact site 45 

Photographs 

Photograph 1: Ankerana aerial view 48 

Photograph 2: Ankerana azonal habitat 48 


Contents 5 

Figures 

Figure 1: Project location map 13 

Figure 2: Project components map 16 

Figure 3: Mine area, showing conservation zones (green) that constitute on-site offset area 

(including azonal, transitional and zonal forests) 32 

Figure 4: Mine area habitat map 37 

Figure 5: Mine footprint and environmental buffer map 37 

Figure 6: BBOP benchmark site map 40 

Figure 7: Forest habitat percentage hectares loss for the mine component (the pipeline affects only 

a small portion of the zonal habitat) 44 

Figure 8: Ankerana offsite offset area location and other candidate sites surveyed by the project, in 

relation to the Ambatovy mine area 47 

Figure 9: Correlation between EVC (azonal, transitional and zonal), substrate and topography 48 

Figure 10: Ankerana map 50 

Figure 11: Mine area and Analamay-Mantadia forest corridor, allowing link between on-site offset and 

forest corridor 50 

Figure 12: Actions and timings (2004 – onwards) 53 

Appendices 

Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, 

December 2008 Iteration 64 


February 2008 Iteration 78 


April 2008 Iteration 80 

Appendix 4: Mine Footprint Status Sheet, 2nd Iteration 87 

Appendix 5: Vulnerability Index 91 

Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops (in French) 94 

Appendix 7: Comparison of Ambatovy / Analamay and Ankerana Azonal Habitats 115 


1. Executive Summary 

The Ambatovy Project is a large-tonnage nickel project in Madagascar with an annual design capacity of 

60,000 tonnes of nickel and 5,600 tonnes of cobalt. The Project is comprised of two companies Ambatovy 

Minerals SA and Dynatec Madagascar SA each owned in the same proportion by Sherritt Incorporated, 

Sumitomo Incorporated, Kores and SNC Lavalin. The Project was permitted in December 2006. Construction 

began in early 2007 and production is due to begin by the end of 2010, reaching full capacity by 2013. The 

Project’s expected LIFECYCLE is 27 years, although operation beyond this is likely. 

The Ambatovy Project has six components: the mine, the slurry pipeline, the processing plant (including 

refinery), the tailings management facility, the harbour extension and the resettlement site. The Project covers 

a large territory extending over two of Madagascar’s twenty-two regions. The mine is located at an elevation 

of approximately 1,000 m above sea level, on Madagascar’s eastern escarpment, near the town of 

Moramanga. The industrial complex (plant, tailings management facility and harbour) is located 130 km to the 

northeast of the mine site, in the seaport city of Toamasina. A 218 km slurry pipeline carrying a water laterite 

slurry, which contains the ore, links the mine and plant. The proposed off-site offset of Ankerana, which 

constitutes the key component of the multifaceted offset programme, is situated in a very remote area 

between the mine site and Toamasina. 

The Ambatovy Project’s vision states that it will operate a sustainable nickel / cobalt mining and processing 

enterprise that delivers outstanding environmental and social records. The Project developed an 

environmental strategy aiming at honouring the Project’s vision, by producing positive CONSERVATION 

OUTCOMES on biodiversity through an offset programme. The offset programme aims at achieving NO NET LOSS 

on biodiversity, and preferably NET GAIN. The business benefit is essentially linked to risk management and 

aims to sustain ‘a good citizen project’ status in a host country recognised to constitute a BIODIVERSITY 

HOTSPOT but suffering from chronic poverty. 

The Ambatovy offsets programme is multifaceted with many components. The programme has been adopted 

voluntarily to go above and beyond the Project’s impacts management strategy. The Programme includes: 

1. The Ankerana offset: the off-site offset area covers 11,600 hectares (ha) of endangered forest, with 

similar ABIOTIC and BIOTIC conditions to those found at the mine site; the Project aims to ensure its long 

term protection through legal arrangements, financing and community consensus. 

2. Two azonal forest sites: two on-site (mine) azonal forest conservation areas occur partially over the 

ore body footprint; the Project aims to ensure their long term protection through legal and managerial 

commitments. 

3. The mine area conservation forest: the conservation forest area around the mine footprint is 4,900 

ha; the Project aims to ensure its long term conservation as part of the priority species management 

programme and maintenance of the ecological services for the local communities. 

4. The Analamay-Mantadia forest corridor: the Project is spearheading the establishment of a forest 

corridor between the mine area forests and the nearby Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor; the forest 

corridor aims at long term landscape level CONNECTIVITY for the protection of mine area biodiversity 

through partnerships with government, NGOs and local communities. 


6

Executive Summary 7 

5. The Torotorofotsy Ramsar wetland ecosystem: the Project is supporting the site management plan 

design and implementation in conjunction with government and local NGOs; these efforts aim to ensure 

the permanency of legal and managerial commitments in partnership with government and a local NGO. 

6. The pipeline right of way reforestation programme: the programme aims at enhancing FOREST 

CONNECTIVITY in targeted areas of the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor through expanded reforestation 

activities along the slurry pipeline right of way by conducting targeted reforestation in partnership with 

government and local NGOs. 

7. The mine footprint replacement forest: the Project aims to create a replacement, multifunctional 

forest on the footprint during progressive reclamation with an established, integrated managerial 

structure by mine closure. 

The Ambatovy offset programme design approach was tailored according to the guidelines provided by the 

BBOP Secretariat and Advisory Committee. It includes the following steps: 

Step 1. Reviewing the offset project scope and activities: the offset project was outlined in the 

ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (ESIA), to go above and beyond the expected 

regulatory requirements, and was presented during stakeholder consultation; the Project became a 

pilot project in 2006 before obtaining its operating permit. 

Step 2. Reviewing the legal policy context for its biodiversity offset programme: key elements 

comprise the MECIE decree (Mise en Compatibilité des Investissements avec l'Environnement, 

Decree N° 2004-167 modified), the Madagascar Action Plan (MAP) 2007 – 2012, the regional and 

communal development plans and the EQUATOR PRINCIPLES. 

Step 3. Initiating stakeholder participation: PARTICIPATION has been pursued since the ESIA stage, 

engaging the Project’s shareholders, government, financiers, NGOs and local communities in the 

design of the offset programme and integrating their feedback. 

Step 4. Determining the need for an offset based on residual adverse effects: the Project’s principal 

impacts on natural systems and biodiversity were assessed by the project ESIA. DIRECT IMPACTS 

were predicted to occur at the mine area through the phased clearing of the 1,336 ha mine footprint 

within an ecologically sensitive semi-pristine forest mosaic. The KEY BIODIVERSITY COMPONENTS in 

the mine area and upper slurry pipeline portion include significant numbers of fauna (16 lemurs, 62 

birds, 123 herpetofauna), fish and 376 flora species, three structurally distinct HABITAT TYPES and a 

landscape-level habitat assemblage with functional interactions between its forest habitats. A very 

substantial MITIGATION programme was implemented through the Ambatovy Project’s Biodiversity 

Management Plan (BMP). The Project’s most significant RESIDUAL IMPACTS occur at the mine site, 

including both direct impacts through the clearing of the 1,336 ha footprint (and associated 

biodiversity) and indirect residual impacts from edge effects on the environmental buffer (790 ha). 

Other key Project components are located in areas that are already heavily and historically 

degraded and thus have negligible negative impacts on biodiversity. 

Step 5. Methods to calculate LOSSES / GAINS and quantify residual losses: the Project used the BENCHMARK 

and HABITAT HECTARES methodology to determine the scale of the offset needed to achieve the 

CONSERVATION GAINS that will achieve no net loss of biodiversity. The Project will generate a total loss 

of 1,168 habitat hectares that any offset will be required to compensate; this result will be refined with 

complementary fauna quantitative data acquired in early 2009. Socioeconomic losses and 

compensations from the offset programme will be determined during 2009. 



Step 6. Reviewing potential offset locations and activities to assess biodiversity gains which could 

be achieved: preliminary surveys of offset candidate sites were undertaken in 2005 with the 

objective of identifying potential IN-KIND type offsets. The Ankerana forest site has many similarities 

with the Ambatovy mine site forests, supporting the hypothesis that Ankerana can be considered ‘inkind’ 

relative to the Ambatovy azonal habitats. 

Step 7. Calculating offset gains and select appropriate offset locations and activities: additional work 

to verify Ankerana’s similarities is required and planned for 2009, including detailed quantification of 

potential offset gains. Gains from other offset programme components will also be calculated and 

integrated. 

Step 8. Recording the offset design and entering the offset implementation process: the Ankerana 

offset design and other components of the offset programme have not yet been finalised, thus the 

implementation process has not formally begun. The Project will finalise the offset programme 

design, using BBOP guidance, during the course of 2009. 

The team plans to complete the design of the offset programme implementation plan by the end of 2009, with 

the Ankerana and other offset sites’ gain calculated in 2010, and thus the final offset design completed at that 

point. The Project will have the responsibility of ensuring the management of the Ankerana site, while actual 

site protection and local management will likely be entrusted to an NGO. For Ankerana, the annual 

operational costs are in the process of being established and are estimated to be in the range US$ 250,000 – 

300,000 per annum. Since the offset programme is still in the design phase, the actual conservation outcomes 

to date are limited. They represent what the Project has achieved thus far and the benefits the Project has 

already enjoyed and include securing the temporary protection of Ankerana until the Ministerial decree for its 

protection is finalised; integrating Ankerana into the national protected areas network; coordination between 

government organisations, NGOs, local communities and the private sector; local community awareness and 

reforestation activities. At the mine site, forest and TAXA-specific conservation management plans were 

developed for flora and fauna, (e.g., lemurs, Mantella frog species and fish). Although these programmes 

were developed as part of the Biodiversity Management Plan, their importance is reinforced by their aim of 

ensuring the conservation of azonal habitat and associated species, thus ensuring that all key biodiversity 

components present on the IMPACT SITE are present at the offset. 

A summary of the Ambatovy Project pilot project BBOP programme is presented in Table 1. 



Table 1: Summary of the Ambatovy pilot Project 

Company name Ambatovy Minerals SA & Dynatec Madagascar SA (AMSA / DMSA) 

Project name Ambatovy Project – Madagascar 

Sector & 

project 

description 

Ambatovy is a large-tonnage nickel Project with an annual design capacity of 60,000 tonnes of 

nickel, 5,600 tonnes of cobalt and 190,000 tonnes of ammonium sulphate. Production is scheduled 

to begin in 2010, with full capacity expected to be achieved by 2013. The Project’s assessed reserve 

life is 27 years, with potential for extension beyond this. The main impacts to biodiversity are located 

at the mine footprint with the clearing of near-primary forest. The Project has designed and 

implemented a Biodiversity Management Programme to mitigate and monitor the residual impacts 

associated to development, whilst pursuing its impact AVOIDANCE and reduction approach. The 

mitigation measures cover flora, fauna and aquatics. 

Country Republic of Madagascar (Alaotra Mangoro and Atsinanana regions, eastern Madagascar). 

Shareholders Sherritt International Corporation, Sumitomo Corporation, Kores, and SNC Lavalin Incorporated. 

Principal 

biodiversity 

components 

affected by 

Project 

The key biodiversity components, mostly confined to the mine area and upper slurry pipeline portion, 

can be summarised as follows: 

Priority species: 

– 16 lemurs species, including Prolemur simus (IUCN CR), Propithecus d. diadema (IUCN 

EN), Indri indri (IUCN EN), Eulemur rubriventer (IUCN VU), Daubentonia madagascarensis 

(IUCN NT), Hapalemur griseus (VU), Allocebus trichotis (IUCN DD); 

– 62 birds species, including Tyto soumagnei, Anas melleri and Ardea humbloti, Sarothura 

watersi (IUCN EN); 

– 123 herpetofauna species, including Mantella aurantiaca (IUCN CR), M. crocea (IUCN EN) 

and Sanzinia madagascariensis (IUCN VU); 

– 5 fish species of which Rheoles alaotrensis (IUCN VU) and at least two new Ratsirakia 

species; 

– 24 insect species, which are considered rare at a national level; 

– 376 plants including Asteropeia mcphersonii (IUCN VU), Leptolaena multiflora (IUCN EN), 

Dalbergia baroni (IUCN VU) and 330 species of concern, which are considered rare in 

Madagascar; 

Three structurally distinct habitat types: zonal, transitional and azonal forests (the latter including 

seasonal ponds and upper watershed stream systems) and their fauna and flora communities; 

and 

The landscape-level habitat assemblage with the functional interaction between the zonal, 

transitional and azonal forests. 

Scale of impact The main anticipated residual impacts on biodiversity caused by the Project will occur at the mine 

site and in the upper portion of the slurry pipeline through the progressive clearing of the mine 

footprint (approximately 1,336 ha), located within an ecologically sensitive natural forest mosaic of 

the eastern mid-altitudinal forest corridor. Stringent impact avoidance and minimisation strategies 

were applied in the design phase of the Project. Residual impacts on biodiversity at the other Project 

components are insignificant due to human-induced degradation in these areas but will nonetheless 

be offset. These include pipelines, the processing plant, the tailings area and a pier extension 

project. 

The 218 km of buried slurry pipelines will involve the clearing of a mix of native and non-native 

secondary vegetation resulting from historical slash and burn with comparatively little biodiversity 

value. However, two sections of the pipeline cross sensitive habitats: the first 2 km of zonal, nearprimary 

forest accounted for in the mine footprint and the crossing of the Ankeniheny-Zahamena 

Corridor at Vohimana, where the pipeline has been routed to avoid residual primary forest fragments. 



Description of 

offset 

Links to further 

information 

The processing plant occupies 2.6 km 2 of the Toamasina industrial zone. The associated tailings 

system of 14 km 2 will be located in a highly degraded agricultural matrix. An existing pier at the 

harbour will be extended by over 300 m to accommodate the Project’s logistical needs. The 

processing plant, tailings and pier extension have been assessed in the Environmental and Social 

Impact Assessment (ESIA) to have negligible residual impacts on biodiversity. 

As the Project is developing the ESIA is being revisited to ensure that no residual impact to 

biodiversity is being neglected. Any further residual impacts identified will be accounted for in the 

biodiversity offset calculation. 

The Ambatovy offsets programme is multifaceted with many components. The Ambatovy Project is 

committed to achieve positive conservation outcomes through designing and implementing its 

multifaceted programme, that includes: 

1. Ankerana offset: establishing an 11,600 ha endangered forest off-site offset, with similar abiotic 

and biotic conditions to those found at the mine site and ensuring long term protection through 

legal arrangements and community consensus. 

2. Azonal forest sites: establishing two on-site (mine) azonal forest habitats conservation areas 

that occur partially over the mine footprint and ensuring long term protection through legal and 

managerial commitments. 

3. Mine area conservation forest: establishing a 4,900 ha conservation forest area around the 

footprint and ensuring long term conservation as part of the priority species management 

programme and maintenance of the ecological services for the local communities. 

4. Analamay-Mantadia forest corridor: spearheading the establishment of a forest corridor 

between the mine area forests and the nearby Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor and securing 

long term landscape level connectivity for the protection of mine area biodiversity through 

partnerships with government, NGOs and local communities. 

5. Torotorofotsy Ramsar: supporting the site management plan design and implementation in 

conjunction with government and local NGOs and ensuring permanency of legal and managerial 

commitments with its partnerships. 

6. Pipeline right of way reforestation: enhancing forest connectivity in targeted areas of the 

Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor through expanded reforestation activities along the slurry 

pipeline right of way and conducting targeted reforestation in partnership with government and 

local NGOs. 

7. Mine footprint replacement forest: creating a replacement, multifunctional forest on the 

footprint during progressive reclamation with an established, integrated managerial structure by 

mine closure. 

While the design and implementation of the several components of the Ambatovy offset programme 

has progressed, the predicted conservation outcomes from these various offset components have 

not yet been fully calculated. Meanwhile, Ambatovy has focused on its proposed Ankerana offset as 

the most significant component of its offset. However, the high degree of social sensitivity around 

Ankerana has led the project to undertake community involvement before the planned biodiversity 

assessment at the site. The impact of the first pipeline section will be included in the offset 

calculation for the mine site. The second section of pipeline will be offset by reforestation not only of 

the pipeline footprint but also of broader areas with the aim of reconnecting the forest corridor. 

http://www.sherritt.com and http://www.sherritt.mg 


2. Project Context 

2.1 Policy context 

Investment projects in Madagascar must be compatible with Malagasy environmental regulations. This 

principle is embedded in the MECIE (Mise en Compatibilité des Investissements avec l'Environnement) 

decree (Decree N° 2004-167 modified). The application of this decree is enforced by the environmental 

regulator, ONE (Office National de l’Environnement), which has developed stringent guidelines and protocols 

on how to elaborate, review, permit and monitor Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA). 

Although the terms of reference for an ESIA in Madagascar typically require stringent mitigation of impacts, 

biodiversity offsets are not included in the text. 

The Government of Madagascar became aware of biodiversity offset mechanisms through interactions with 

environmental NGOs in 2005 (WWF, Conservation International – CI, Wildlife Conservation Society – WCS). 

Subsequently, the BBOP Secretariat attended a presidential audience to discuss biodiversity offsets in June 

2006 during which the concept of offsets as a complementary mechanism to reduce impacts on Madagascar’s 

heritage was well received by the President of Madagascar. Biodiversity offsets were subsequently referred to 

in the Madagascar Action Plan (MAP) 2007 – 2012: 

Commitment # 7 “Cherishing the Environment” 

Challenge # 3 “Develop the Environmental Reflex at All Levels" 

Priority Projects and Activities # 3 “Develop a policy for mining companies and logging companies for 

biodiversity offsets and other mechanisms and incentives for environmental protection” 

The ESIA for the Ambatovy Project (MINEVEF/ONE Permit # 47/06 dated December 1st, 2006) established 

that the Project, and specifically the mine component, would be located in a sensitive biodiversity area and 

that the mitigation of residual impacts would require both on-site and off-site compensation measures. While 

on-site measures at the mine are commitments made in the ESIA, the Ambatovy offset programme goes 

above and beyond compliance with legal obligations. The offset programme is believed to deliver positive 

conservation outcomes under a vision of no net loss of biodiversity, and possibly net gain. This would enable 

the Project to honour its stringent biodiversity policy developed and endorsed by its shareholders: 

“… to cause no net harm to biological diversity where we operate, to mitigate unavoidable impacts, and to 

practice responsible closure procedures; 

… to assure the conservation of habitats, flora and fauna, using all reasonable actions and technologies; 

… to ensure responsible attention to the maintenance and, where possible, enhancement of biodiversity in 

the best interest of our business, the communities in which we operate, and the world at large.” 

The Project’s principal financial lenders have subscribed to the Equator Principles (http://www.equatorprinciples.com/index.shtml). 

In this context, full regulatory compliance and the implementation of a thorough 

impact management strategy is expected. In addition, the lenders also require the Project’s general 

compliance with the IFC Performance Standards and specifically Performance Standard 6 (Biodiversity 

Conservation and Sustainable Natural Resource Management). In the context of biodiversity offsets, 


11

Project Context 12 

paragraph 8 of Standard 6 is particularly relevant and requires the design of mitigation measures to achieve 

no net loss of biodiversity where feasible. These measures may include a combination of actions, such as: 

Post-operation restoration of habitats 

Offset of losses through the creation of ecologically comparable area(s) that is managed for biodiversity 

Compensation to direct users of biodiversity 

The Project is thus designed to comply with the IFC Performance Standards for major projects. 

2.2 Regional context 

The Ambatovy Project has six components, including the mine, the slurry pipeline, the processing plant 

(including refinery), the tailings management facility, the harbour extension and resettlement sites (see Figure 

1). The Project covers a large territory extending over two of Madagascar’s twenty-two regions (Alaotra- 

Mangoro and Toamasina). The mine is located at an elevation of approximately 1,000 m above sea level 

(m.a.s.l.), near the town of Moramanga. The industrial complex (plant, tailings management facility and 

harbour) is located 130 km to the northeast of the mine site, in the seaport city of Toamasina. A slurry pipeline 

carrying a water laterite slurry, which contains the ore, links the mine and plant. The proposed Ankerana 

offset, constituting the key component of the multifaceted offset programme, is situated in a very remote area 

between the mine site and Toamasina. 

As presented in the Project ESIA, the principal biodiversity sensitivities of the Project are concentrated in the 

forested mine area and within the upper portion of the slurry pipeline, while social issues are relevant for all 

components. Biodiversity resources within the mine region have strong intrinsic and USE VALUES and 

communities there largely depend on these biodiversity resources for their LIVELIHOODS. However, in light of 

current agricultural practices and population growth, natural resource and biodiversity utilisation by local 

communities is far from sustainable in the mine region; the depletion is such that this natural capital will not be 

available to future generations unless fundamental changes take place. The socioeconomic impacts on the 

local communities from the Project’s offset programme will need to be considered. The mitigation of these 

impacts needs to be designed in the context of national, regional and communal plans that address long-term 

issues of sustainable resource use in the regions in which the Project operates. 



Figure 1: Project location map 



2.3 Shareholders involved in offset design 

Shareholders: the Project is jointly owned by Sherritt Incorporated, Sumitomo Incorporated, Kores and 

SNC Lavalin. Each partner has played an important role in the Project’s environmental programme, 

including regulatory compliance, impact mitigation, risk management and design of a comprehensive 

biodiversity offset programme. The Ambatovy vision, besides the goal of generating attractive economic 

results, is to contribute significantly to the host country and to deliver outstanding safety, social and 

environmental performance. 

Government: the general offset principle is captured in the MAP (see Policy Context section above) and 

specific governmental entities have been involved in the offset design, including the Ministry of 

Environment, Water, Forests and Tourism (MEWFT) and the Malagasy Forest Service, which have actively 

participated in securing the proposed offset site at Ankerana via a community-led zoning process. 

Lenders: the Ambatovy Project is one of the largest capital investment projects in the world and it is 

financially supported by a number of lender banks, most of which have adopted the EQUATOR PRINCIPLES. 

Lenders includes the African Development Bank (AFDB), Export Development Canada (EDC), Export- 

Import Bank of Korea (K-EXIM), the European Investment Bank (EIB), the Japan Bank for International 

Cooperation (JBIC) and various commercial banks such as Société Générale and BNP Paribas. The 

consideration of Performance Standard 6 in the Project’s Biodiversity Management Plan, including the 

taxa-specific plans, reflects this. 

NGOs: environmental NGOs in Madagascar are aware of the offset concept and are encouraging the 

Ambatovy Project to continue moving its offset programme forward in an effort to ensure NO NET LOSS on 

biodiversity and, preferably, net gain. However, it is worth noting that some STAKEHOLDERS voice concerns 

about the Project’s ability to deliver no net loss of biodiversity and are closely scrutinising the Project’s 

offset initiative. Given this, the Project has been actively working to enhance its offset programme in 

collaboration with NGOs such as CI, WCS and ERI (Eco Regional Initiative). A number of other NGOs 

working with the Ambatovy Project on impact mitigation have also provided valuable input to the offset 

design process (e.g., Groupe d’Etudes et de Recherche des Lémuriens, Henry Doorly Zoo and its 

Madagascar Biodiversity Program, Madagasikara Voakajy, Missouri Botanical Garden, Mitsinjo, University 

of Antananarivo Biology department, the South African Institute of Aquatic Biology, WWF and others). 

Local communities: the Project continues to engage stakeholders, including local communities, to ensure 

that any offset is compatible and integrated with regional and local land and resource management visions. 


3. Project Summary 

3.1 General project description 

The Ambatovy Project is a large-tonnage nickel project with an annual design capacity of 60,000 tonnes of 

nickel and 5,600 tonnes of cobalt. Additionally, the Project will produce 190,000 tonnes of fertiliser 

(ammonium sulphate) as a by-product from the refinery, a product much needed in this part of the world. 

The Project was permitted in December 2006 and construction began in early 2007. Production is due to 

begin at the end of 2010, reaching full capacity by 2013. Based on proven nickel and cobalt ore reserves, the 

Project’s expected lifecycle is 27 years, although operation beyond this is likely, as stored low-grade ore could 

become an economic commodity in the future. 

The locations of the main Project components are shown in Figure 2, and the key features are summarised below: 

The Ambatovy mine lies within the mid-altitude forests, at the westerly limit of the residual eastern rain 

forest known as the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor. The near-primary forests of the mine area have 

undergone considerable human-induced pressures including hunting and gathering, selective logging, 

slash and burn agriculture, uncontrolled fires and species collection for trade; 

The slurry pipeline, buried over the majority of its route, will pass through 2 km of near-primary forest 

surrounding the mine, crosses a Ramsar site (avoiding the wetlands by following an old railroad spur) and 

traverses the Ankeniheny-Zahamena forest corridor by avoiding residual forest fragments whenever 

possible. It then continues to the coast through hilly terrain of the former eastern rain forest destroyed by 

extensive slash and burn agriculture; 

The industrial complex, including the processing plant and the refinery, the tailings and the harbour, is 

located within an anthropogenic coastal landscape in a suburban setting. The plant and harbour lay within 

the industrial zones of Toamasina; and 

The proposed Ankerana offset site, which is equidistant between the mine and Toamasina, is a large, 

mountainous dome covered with primary forest, encroached only by slash and burn agriculture in 

surrounding valleys where frontier dwellings exist. The pristine character of the site is a result of its 

remoteness and the low density of surrounding human populations. 

The Project’s principal impacts on natural systems and biodiversity will occur at the mine area, through the 

phased clearing of the mine footprint within an ecologically sensitive natural forest mosaic. The sensitivity of 

this mosaic arises from the considerable local heterogeneity in terms of geology, geomorphology, substrate, 

topography and meso-climate. 

It is widely documented that the average annual deforestation rate calculated over the period between 2000 

and 2005 was 0.35%. In total, between 1990 and 2005, Madagascar lost 6.2% of its forest cover, 

approximately 854,000 ha. The current annual loss of the residual eastern rain forest is equivalent to 14,000 

ha per year. The total mine footprint to be cleared (1,336 ha) represents only 0.03% of the residual eastern 

rain forest, estimated in 2008 at 4,012,100 ha. In consideration of the large forest loss in eastern Madagascar, 

the INTRINSIC VALUE of the offset area at Ankerana (11,600 ha) will increase over time as such forest estates 

and their associated biodiversity become rarer. 


15

Project Summary 16 

Figure 2: Project components map 

While the bulk of the residual biodiversity impact will arise in the mine area and in the upper portion of the 

pipeline, the Project’s offset calculation considers residual impacts from each project component including the 

entire slurry pipeline, the processing plant, the tailings and the harbour extension. The intention is that all 

residual impacts will be offset. 

Approximately 90% of the pipeline’s 218 km right of way will require the clearance of secondary, non-sensitive 

and mostly non-ligneous vegetation, which has resulted from historical slash and burn and has comparatively 

little biodiversity value. Disturbed land will ultimately be rehabilitated using species appropriate to current land 

use in the different pipeline sectors (including provision of fuel wood species to reduce pressure on native 

forests). However, two sections of the pipeline cross sensitive habitats: 

The first 2 km of zonal, near-primary forest at the mine area; these losses are integrated to the mine 

footprint loss calculations; and 

The Ankeniheny-Zahamena forest corridor area, which led to 16.5 ha of zonal forest being cleared, despite 

planning and routing efforts to avoid the residual primary forest fragments present there. 

The processing plant, currently under construction, covers 2.6 km 2 of Toamasina’s industrial zone. The 

tailings management facility has a footprint of 14 km 2 and is located in a highly degraded, fire-driven 

agricultural matrix, where irreversible, human-induced depletion of the original biodiversity occurred during 

historical forest clearance. The harbour expansion requires the construction of an extended pier (over 300 m) 

to accommodate the unloading of equipment during the construction and the importation of raw material (coal, 

sulphur, limestone and diesel) and the loading of nickel and cobalt briquette bags and ammonium sulphate 

during operation. At the Project’s industrial complex (plant, tailings management facility and harbour), most of 

the biodiversity values were lost many years ago through extensive habitat conversion. The Project’s ESIA 



notes that the industrial complex will have negligible residual impacts on biodiversity, which will nonetheless 

be traded up through the Project’s offset programme. 

Specific aspects of the biological environment assessed in the ESIA are being revisited through expanded 

BASELINE STUDIES to ensure that residual impacts are fully documented and included in the biodiversity offset 

calculation. 

The KEY BIODIVERSITY COMPONENTS in the mine area and upper slurry pipeline portion can be summarised as: 

Priority species, with home ranges overlapping (and or potentially overlapping) the mine footprint: 

– 16 lemurs species, including Prolemur simus (IUCN CR), Propithecus d. diadema (IUCN EN), Indri indri 

(IUCN EN), Eulemur rubriventer (IUCN VU), Daubentonia madagascarensis (IUCN NT), Hapalemur 

griseus (VU), Allocebus trichotis (IUCN DD); 

– 62 birds species, including Tyto soumagnei, Anas melleri and Ardea humbloti, Sarothura watersi (all 

IUCN EN); 

– 123 herpetofauna species, including Mantella aurantiaca (IUCN CR), M. crocea (IUCN EN), Sanzinia 

madagascariensis (IUCN VU); 

– 5 fish species of which Rheoles alaotrensis (IUCN VU) and at least two new Ratsirakia species; 

– 24 insects species, which are considered rare at a national level; 

– 376 plants including Asteropeia mcphersonii (IUCN VU), Leptolaena multiflora (IUCN EN), Dalbergia 

baroni (UCN VU) and the 330 species of concern which are considered rare in Madagascar; 

Three structurally distinct HABITAT TYPES: zonal, transitional and azonal forests (the latter including 

seasonal ponds and upper watershed stream systems) and their fauna and flora communities; and 

The landscape-level habitat assemblage with the functional interaction between the zonal, transitional and 

azonal forests. 

Section 7.3 presents more detail in the form of a Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and the steps 

followed in its completion. The full KBCM (December 2008 iteration) is provided in Appendix 1. Earlier 

iterations (February and April 2008) are presented in Appendices 2 and 3 respectively. 

3.2 Ambatovy offset programme 

The Ambatovy Project offset programme is a multifaceted endeavour to achieve measurable CONSERVATION 

OUTCOMES resulting in no net loss and preferably a NET GAIN of biodiversity. It has been adopted voluntarily to 

go above and beyond the Project’s impacts management strategy. The Ambatovy Project intends to 

implement its diversified offset portfolio, as presented in Table 2. 



Table 2: Ambatovy Project offset programme 

# 

Offset 

component 

Design Implementation 

1 Ankerana Establishing a large off-site offset site at 

Ankerana, encompassing similar ABIOTIC 

and BIOTIC conditions to those found at 

the mine site. The site is located 71 km to 

the northeast of the mine site and would 

involve conservation of 11,600 ha of 

endangered forest, including a multiple 

use area of 7,000 ha and a core 

conservation area of 4,600 ha, within 

which there is a large tract of azonal 

forest. 

2 Azonal forest 

sites 

3 Mine area 

conservation 

forest 

4 Analamay- 

Mantadia 

forest corridor 

5 Torotorofotsy 

Ramsar 

6 Pipeline right 

of way 

reforestation 

7 Mine footprint 

replacement 

forest 

Protecting, for the long term, two on-site 

conservation sites of the azonal forest 

habitats that occur partially over the mine 

footprint that would otherwise be lost to 

deforestation. 

Ensuring long term conservation of the 

forest surrounding the mine footprint as 

part of the priority species management 

programme and maintenance of the 

ecological services for the local 

communities. The area consists of the 

establishment of 4,900 ha of buffer forest 

around the footprint. 

Promoting the landscape level 

connectivity of the mine area forests with 

the nearby Ankeniheny-Zahamena 

Corridor to secure long term protection of 

mine area biodiversity as part of the 

Durban Vision implementation. 

Supporting the Torotorofotsy Ramsar site 

management plan design and 

implementation in conjunction with 

government and local NGO. 

Enhancing FOREST CONNECTIVITY in 

targeted areas of the Ankeniheny- 

Zahamena Corridor through expanded 

reforestation activities along the slurry 

pipeline right of way. 

Creating a replacement, multifunctional 

forest on the entire footprint during 

progressive reclamation with an 

established, integrated managerial 

structure by mine closure. 

Ensure long term protection of the Ankerana offset 

site through the stringent legal arrangements and 

strong community consensus. Community 

motivation and consent is the highest priority of the 

Ambatovy Project offset implementation in its early 

phase and needs to be obtained before the 

BIODIVERSITY INVENTORIES are conducted (perceived 

as external intrusions by the local communities if ill 

prepared). Adhere to BBOP principles and 

guidelines for offset processes. Monitoring of 

efficacy of BBOP tools used and offset programme 

evaluation in 2011 and option analysis. 

Ensure permanency of on-site conservation azonal 

sites through legal and managerial commitments. 

Ensure permanency of surrounding mine area 

forests (see offset component #3) with same 

measures as mentioned above. Ensure connectivity 

of mine area forests with surrounding protected 

areas (see offset component #4). 

Conduct multifunctional zoning based on existing 

models in Madagascar and ensure management of 

leased lands and in areas of targeted community 

transfer. It is believed that site that would otherwise 

be lost given regional deforestation rates. 

Enter into formal partnerships with government, 

NGOs and local communities to design and develop 

implementation plans for the Analamay-Mantadia 

Corridor, that take present and future community 

needs into account. 

In partnership with government and local NGO, 

ensure permanency of legal and managerial 

commitments. In a first phase, complete zoning and 

management plan for Ramsar site. Development of 

pragmatic viable resources uses to maintain 

ecological functions of wetland area while 

community needs are met. 

In partnership with government and local NGOs 

conduct targeted reforestation of the Ankeniheny- 

Zahamena Corridor (CAZ) with the aim of reestablishing 

forest connectivity. 

Design and implement management plans for 

engineering, water management, erosion control, 

early vegetation establishment, targeted species 

reforestation, induced and facilitated secondary 

successions and sylviculture treatments. 


4. How the Ambatovy Project is 

Applying the BBOP Principles 

During the ESIA in 2004 and 2005, the Ambatovy Project initiated its offset programme based on an improved 

understanding of RESIDUAL IMPACTS and the need for developing compensatory conservation activities. In 

2006, Ambatovy became a BBOP PILOT PROJECT and refined its initial offset vision and the design approach 

was tailored according to the guidelines provided by the BBOP Secretariat and Advisory Committee. 

The BBOP PRINCIPLES ON BIODIVERSITY OFFSETS were finalised in December 2008 3 , following several years of 

groundwork including the development of draft guidance and tools. The Project’s offset initiative was 

developed alongside, and is generally well-aligned with, the BBOP Principles. The Project’s alignment with the 

BBOP Principles is illustrated in more detail in Section 7. The Project applies the BBOP Principles as follows: 

1. No net loss: 

The Project’s aim is to achieve measurable conservation outcomes that deliver NO NET LOSS of biodiversity 

and a possible net gain through a mix of complementary offset and mitigation activities, including: 

An offset site at Ankerana that contains a core conservation area designed to compensate for the Project’s 

residual impacts on azonal forest biodiversity. 

Protection of viable tracts of azonal forest habitats through the set-aside of two specific on-site azonal 

forest habitat conservation zones within the forests surrounding the mine footprint (see next point). 

Implementation of a ‘no species EXTINCTION’ commitment and protection of forests surrounding the mine 

footprint to ensure the long-term viability of priority species populations impacted by the Project. This 

approach would include the on-site azonal forest habitat conservation zones and mechanisms to control 

current human pressure on these areas. 

Design and implementation of protection measures for an existing residual forest corridor linking forests 

surrounding the mine area and the Mantadia National Park to ensure landscape-level forest connectivity. 

Targeted reforestation of the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor, in partnership with government and local 

NGOs, to re-establish forest connectivity between Mantadia National Park and the Man and the Biosphere 

Private Reserve. 

Development of the Ramsar Torotorofotsy Management Plan in partnership with government and local 

NGOs, and contribution to its subsequent implementation. 

Progressive rehabilitation at the mine site to produce a multifunctional replacement forest with reinstated 

biodiversity values to be included in the offset calculation. 

To date, the Project’s offset planners have used BBOP guidance and methodologies to assess the impact on 

biodiversity and to identify potential sites for biodiversity offsets. BBOP methodologies will also be followed to 

3 The full text of the BBOP Principles is available in the BBOP document “Business, Biodiversity Offsets and BBOP: An Overview” – 

see www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/overview.pdf. 


19

How the Ambatovy Project is Applying the BBOP Principles 20 

determine the scale of the offset required to deliver no net loss, to verify that no net loss has been achieved 

and to define implementation measures that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the offset. 

2. Additional conservation outcomes: 

The Project is designing and implementing conservation activities that are predicted to deliver ADDITIONALITY, 

as summarised below for each of the Project’s components: 

The proposed Ankerana offset site is currently being integrated within the recently established SAPM 

(National Protected Areas System) under the Durban Vision. However, there is a significant shortfall in the 

financial and human resources to offer protection to all these areas and the Durban Vision can only be 

implemented if an array of different partners commits to developing the required financial and human 

resources. Through the proposed offset, the Project will play a role in that development process. 

Historically the azonal forest habitats of Ambatovy and Analamay have suffered significant anthropogenic 

impacts (e.g., from hunting and gathering, destructive honey collection, fire, charcoal, slash and burn, and 

the pet trade). The long-term survival of this habitat in the absence of the Project is far from proven. This is 

clearly seen in the baseline data for the mine area: of the total area of 1,347 ha of azonal forest habitat in 

the mine area, only 60% is of prime quality, the rest being significantly degraded before the project was 

established. While the mine development is predicted to impact 590 ha of prime quality azonal forest 

habitat, 212 ha (26.4% of the total prime quality habitat) will be preserved through the Project’s on-site 

azonal habitat conservation initiative. The likelihood of successful conservation of a viable portion of the 

unique azonal forest habitat at Ambatovy is therefore significantly increased by the presence of the Project. 

Similarly, the zonal forests surrounding the mine footprint have experienced historic anthropogenic impacts 

such as forest structure modification (logging), species composition modification though canopy openings 

(invaders, heliophytes), FOREST FRAGMENTATION through clear cutting, and plain, irreversible loss of forest 

areas. The Project has committed to preserving the residual forests of the mine area by, for example, 

implementing forest community transfer 4 to avoid further anthropogenic losses. Such additionality, if clearly 

established, will be included in the offset calculations once data and a model for the rate of regional 

deforestation are available. 

In the long-term, the forests of the mine area and Mantadia National Park are likely to become isolated 

unless the existing forest corridor that links these areas is managed and protected. The loss of this corridor 

would cause landscape-level forest fragmentation and jeopardise the long-term viability of populations of 

critical species that the project has committed to protect at the mine area. As of December 2008, the forest 

corridor has not been included in the first zoning approximation of the Durban Vision. The Project and its 

partners plan to create a westerly extension of the Durban Vision zoning to incorporate this area in the 

protection zone of the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor. Forest loss avoidance via the successful 

management and protection of the corridor will be taken into account in offset calculations based on a fair 

assessment of the resulting additionality. 

The Ramsar Torotorofotsy site is experiencing considerable pressure from inward migration, the drainage 

of wetlands and subsequent conversion to rice paddies, wildfires, slash and burn activities in the forested 

watersheds, hunting and the pet trade. The National Committee on Ramsar (CONARAMS) has given a 

local NGO (Mitsinjo) the mandate to design and implement a management plan. Ambatovy has joined this 

effort as a partner and will work with Mitsinjo and others to enhance the management plan. The first step 

4 The targeted forest areas are jointly managed with local communities, using a defined management programme that meets 

conservation and sustainable use requirements. 



will be to establish a functional zoning that results in the avoidance of BIODIVERSITY LOSS, which will be 

taken into account in offset calculations, again based on a fair assessment of the resulting additionality. 

Reforestation activities to reconnect residual patches of primary forests at the perimeter of the slurry 

pipeline right of way within the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor will contribute to an overall corridor 

defragmentation. The areas to be reforested sit outside of the SAPM and will be accounted for in the offset 

GAIN calculation as clearly additional outcomes. 

3. Adherence to the mitigation hierarchy: 

Given the Project’s setting (high regional biodiversity and endemicity), rigorous biodiversity management is 

necessary to meet its policy of ‘no net harm to biodiversity’. Before considering biodiversity offsets, the 

Ambatovy Project implemented appropriate avoidance and minimisation measures according to the 

MITIGATION HIERARCHY, for example: 

AVOIDANCE: analysis of pipeline route alternatives, including the study of 21 major re-routes to avoid 

ecologically, socially and culturally sensitive areas; avoidance of other sensitive areas during the 

development of other Project components whenever possible. Also, set-aside of an area of the ore body 

that would otherwise be mined as the foundation of the on-site azonal habitat conservation initiative. 

Minimisation: reduction of the surface area subject to impacts through appropriate design and 

implementation. 

– Early (2004 / 05) impact mitigation through the rehabilitation of 50 km of exploration roads and 

platforms in the mine area. 

– Mitigation of impacts following forest clearance through biodiversity rescue and management programs 

(lemurs, small mammals, herpetofauna and fish). 

– Management of surges in total suspended solids to protect water quality and aquatic biodiversity in 

seven affected watersheds downstream of the mine site using large retention dams (at a cost of US$ 40 

million). 

Restoration / rehabilitation: planned progressive rehabilitation of the mine site footprint to create a 

replacement forest with reinstated biodiversity values and reduce the net residual impact. 

4. Limits to what can be offset: 

The Ambatovy Project currently believes that all its direct residual impacts on biodiversity are OFFSETABLE. No 

habitat or species (flora and fauna) ENDEMIC to the mine footprint alone have been identified during the 

thorough investigations to date. Nevertheless, given the high levels of biodiversity and endemicity around the 

Project, field studies will continue as the mine is developed and forest clearance progresses. 

In contrast, the Project believes that there are limits to offsetting certain social impacts. For local communities, 

there were few legal and cultural constraints on the exploitation of natural resources and biodiversity prior to 

the arrival of the mine. In light of forest clearance during development of the mine and the Project’s 

commitment to conserve the surrounding forests by introducing a zoned approach to forest use, the local 

communities’ existing way of life, including unsustainable use of biodiversity, will undoubtedly be disrupted. 

The Ambatovy Project believes that this disruption cannot be entirely offset and also that, in light of dwindling 

forest resources and population growth, it is desirable from a BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION perspective to seek 

to break the cycle of unsustainable use by local communities and replace it with a more sustainable model. 



The present unfettered community exploitation of resources may reflect a lack of community empowerment 

and choice. Hence, the changes envisioned by the Project (sustainable, participatory forest use) may 

ultimately be viewed by local communities as a positive transformation relative to the current situation. 

The same concept applies to the Ankerana offset site where the Project believes that the pre-project 

socioeconomic conditions should not be, and ultimately cannot be, maintained. While this change can also not 

be offset, the Project believes the change to sustainable use of natural resources will ultimately be to the 

benefit of both local communities and biodiversity. 

5. Landscape context: 

The spatial spread of the Project has driven the integration of planned conservation activities with regional 

and landscape-level environmental and social initiatives. At the mine, the landscape approach currently 

consists of maintaining forest connectivity between the on-site azonal habitat conservation zones (and 

rehabilitated areas as these progress) and the surrounding forests. Moreover, forest connectivity between the 

mine area and the Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor will be maintained through landscape-level designs and 

interventions in line with the Durban Vision to increase the surface areas of protected areas in Madagascar; 

the development of this programme is at an early stage and aims to be conducted in collaboration with 

Conservation International. At Ankerana, the offset design is based on a phased and spatially concentric, 

landscape-level approach. Long-term community needs have been identified and participative zoning has 

been completed. 

6. Stakeholder participation: 

The Project is committed to stakeholder PARTICIPATION and has made significant progress with local 

communities and NGOs. Examples include interaction during the integration of the Ambatovy Project offset 

programme with national, regional and local plans and community involvement at the heart of the zoning 

project at the proposed Ankera offset site. In the latter example, a functional, participatory forest zoning 

process is being implemented by the community with assistance from the Forest Services and the help of 

local NGOs. This will result in areas identified for multiple-use at the periphery of the offset site being 

transferred to the community as stipulated by Malagasy law and promoted in the regional plan. 

7. Equity: 

While the Ambatovy Project is committed to BBOP Principles 6 and 7, insufficient data are currently available 

to apply the latter strictly. As data become available, the Project will develop its cost-benefit model and 

analysis using key elements of the BBOP BIODIVERSITY OFFSET COST-BENEFIT HANDBOOK 5 and in consultation 

with stakeholders. The Project is currently in the process of establishing a strategy to implement the socioenvironmental 

action programme, including assessing natural resources usages by the local communities at 

the Ankerana and mine sites, further to which dollar value of the losses will be determined and compensation 

options identified and provided. 

8. Long-term outcomes: 

The Ambatovy offset programme for the mine region, comprising on-site azonal habitat conservation, 

community-based forest management, forest connectivity of mine area, Ramsar wetland management, forest 

5 Available at www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/cbh.pdf. 



corridor rehabilitation and the proposed Ankerana offset, is being designed for long-term success following its 

implementation. Four activities will support the long-term outcomes: 

Strong community involvement throughout the planning, designing and implementation phases with the 

development of complementary sustainable activities in the surrounding agricultural matrix and in the 

multiple use area of the forests surrounding the critical habitats (core areas). Appropriate joint activities are 

being identified as the result of ongoing stakeholder interaction and data gathering. 

Development of financial strategies, mechanisms, and commitments as the operational phase of the 

Project begins (2011), based on the analysis of stakeholder needs and the Project’s predicted economic 

operating environment. In light of the ongoing financial crisis and the resulting economic uncertainties, 

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT strategies will play a key role in securing long-term financing for the Ambatovy 

offset programme. 

Identification of long-term governmental legal and political commitment to protect the conservation sites in 

the mine region and the proposed offset site at Ankerana. A high level of commitment is expected as 

elements of the mine area and the proposed offset site have been designed to fall under the future 

Malagasy protected area system (SAPM), which itself is a part of the Presidential Durban commitment and 

which is expected to attract significant outside funding as a result of a global concern for biodiversity. 

Determining the institutional arrangements for managing the offset sites into the long-term. It has not yet 

been decided how the Ankerana site will be managed, with all options remaining open, i.e., managed by 

governmental institutions, by an NGO, by the community, by the company or a combination of any of the 

foregoing. The on-site conservation zones forests will be managed by the Project, the FOREST 

CONNECTIVITY programme will likely be community-based, while the Ramsar site has a defined 

management structure. 

9. Transparency: 

The Ambatovy Project’s intention to offset its residual impacts on biodiversity is a commitment developed in 

the ESIA, which has undergone thorough public consultation, hearings and a public information process. 

Consequently, the Project’s strategic environmental and social commitments are in the public domain and its 

offset activities have been, and are being, scrutinised by the Malagasy environmental authorities, regional and 

international NGOs, the local communities and the lender banks. Since becoming a BBOP Pilot Project, 

Ambatovy has committed to ensuring that design (and ultimately implementation) activities are completed in a 

transparent fashion. Transparency allows the Project to ensure stakeholders are well informed and able to 

offer insightful feedback that contributes to the optimisation of conservation outcomes. 

10. Science and traditional knowledge: 

In order to evaluate residual impacts on biodiversity and quantify the required offset, the Project has applied 

established and developing scientific methodologies. In parallel, traditional knowledge is being utilised (for 

example, species identification in time and space, identification of species’ utilisation by humans (medicinal) 

and animals (fruit trees), and land use patterns (plant-substrate relationships)). 


5. Current Status of the Project 

and Offset 

5.1 Project chronology and status (as of December 2008) 

1960: Genim, a French company, conducts exploration drilling and identifies the Ambatovy and Analamay 

nickel cobalt ore bodies; environmental considerations of the early feasibility study were very limited and 

did not consider vegetation anomalies nor the importance of nearby wetland (e.g. using Torotorofotsy for 

tailings disposal); 

1970: Under the President of Madagascar, Didier Ratsiraka, a partnership with North Korea leads to the 

analysis of a bulk sample that confirmed the existence of nickel and cobalt but which led to no further 

development; environmental considerations were absent during exploration (e.g. no rehabilitation of test 

pit, which remains unvegetated today); 

1994 – 1997: Phelps-Dodge conducts exploration drilling and develops a feasibility study and an ESIA (not 

submitted to ONE); vegetation anomaly recognised and quantified (vegetation map), biological inventories 

created; management principles for surrounding forests conceptualised; importance of azonal habitats 

recognised; 

1998 – 2003: Restoration of exploration roads and platforms undertaken in light of Project development 

uncertainties; 

2003 – 2006: Dynatec conducts exploration drilling and develops a feasibility study and an ESIA; Final 

Investment Decision taken by the investors (Dynatec and partners); on-site and offset conservation ideas 

captured in the ESIA; Ambatovy becomes BBOP pilot Project; ESIA was permitted by ONE on December 

1 st , 2006; and 

2007 – 2008: Elaboration of the Ambatovy Project thematic Environmental and Social Plans (18 plans: air, 

noise, water etc and biodiversity); implementation of Biodiversity Action Plan (and others), development of 

priority TAXA-specific draft management plans (lemur, Mantella species, fish and flora). Confirmation of 

shareholders and loans and start of construction. 

5.2 Offset chronology and status (as of December 2008) 

2004 – 2005: Concept of biodiversity offset integrated with other Project activities, with a preliminary 

survey of proposed offset site undertaken and documented in the ESIA; proposed offset site selection 

based on geological, substrate, altitude and forest structure similarity (relative to principal IMPACT SITE); 

2006: Ambatovy Project selected as a BBOP Pilot Project at Pretoria meeting; 

2007: Participation in BBOP meetings (London and Bainbridge) and contribution to development of BBOP 

handbooks and guidelines; concepts for Ankerana site management programme developed and zoning 

initiated; 


24

Current Status of the Project and Offset 25 

2008: 

– Preparation of interim report outlining technical aspects of the offset process (e.g. benchmark 

selection, confirmation of impacts, preliminary loss calculations and completed Key Biodiversity 

Components Matrix (KBCM); 

– Preparation of supplementary report with revised benchmark selection and loss calculations, including 

updated KBCM with quantitative species data; 

– Preparation of complementary field work (terrestrial fauna) in response to gap analysis; inclusion of other 

Project components (pipeline, tailings, plant and harbour) in overall assessment of residual impacts; 

– Implementation of Ankerana site management programme: 

Stakeholder consultations (local communities, NGOs and government including Office National 

l’Environnement (ONE,) Forestry Department, Gendarmerie, District of Brickaville, local mayors and 

police forces); 

Reforestation work on periphery area of proposed offset; this focused mainly on planting wood for 

construction uses to avoid primary forest logging in the offset area; 

Population awareness campaigns around the proposed offset, conducted by field teams and 

partners. The objectives of the campaigns were to define the offset site boundary and explain 

existing laws that prohibit forest clearance; 

Support provided to the mixed brigade (includes local communities, NGOs, local administrative staff 

and the police force) which manages forestry resource exploitation through out the local communes; 

Financial and logistic support to update the five year Communal Development Plans for impacted 

communes; and 

Technical committee meeting with SAPM focusing on integration of the proposed offset site with the 

national protected areas network. 

Conceptualised and pending (for 2009): 

– The offset design work, following guidance in the BBOP BIODIVERSITY OFFSET DESIGN HANDBOOK has to 

date quantified biodiversity losses as presented below. The next phase of work will be to calculate 

offset gains and continue with the design of the offset and offset activity plan; 

– The proposed Ankerana offset site has undergone only preliminary characterisation. Detailed baseline 

ecological characterisation is planned for 2009 focusing on ecosystems, habitats, fauna, flora and 

socioeconomic attributes. This information will underpin the calculation of offset gains; 

– Socio-environmental losses will be defined and subsequently an appropriate compensation calculation 

strategy and programme will be designed; and 

– Continued interaction with stakeholders to refine and enhance the offset activity plan. 

In summary, the Project is committed to designing and financing a long-term offset programme that aims at 

achieving NO NET LOSS on biodiversity and preferably NET GAIN. Substantial progress has been made by 

calculating the residual impacts on biodiversity and identifying potential offset mechanisms. Ambatovy will 

continue to work closely with stakeholders on the offset design and plan the financial mechanisms to secure 

the offsets in the long-term, using adaptive management in response to the insecurities of the global financial 

crisis. The following pages of this case study detail the actions conducted and those that are planned for the 

future. 


6. Business Case for a 

Biodiversity Offset 

The vision of the Ambatovy Project is stated as follows: The Ambatovy partnership will develop and operate a 

sustainable nickel / cobalt mining and processing enterprise that significantly contributes to our host country, 

delivers outstanding safety, environmental and social records and generates attractive economic returns. 

The environmental strategy designed to honour the Project’s vision to deliver outstanding environmental 

records consists of: 

Ensuring full regulatory compliance and conformity with international loan agreements; 

Minimising residual impacts through the stringent application of the mitigation hierarchy; 

Reducing environmental risks through dynamic management guided by Malagasy know-how and 

stakeholder consultation; and 

Producing positive CONSERVATION OUTCOMES on biodiversity through the offset programme that aims at 

achieving no net loss on biodiversity, and possibly net gain, in order to sustain ‘a good citizen project’ 

status in a host country recognised as constituting a biodiversity hotspot. 

The business benefit of its offset programme is essentially linked to risk management. As a world class mining 

project, Ambatovy and its shareholders believe in demonstrating good environmental management practices 

to secure its license to operate. To Ambatovy, a license to operate consists of the permanent support of civil 

society, local communities, national and international NGOs and governmental authorities in the manner 

social and environmental affaires are managed. Because Madagascar’s biodiversity is universally considered 

of utmost importance by national and international STAKEHOLDERS producing positive conservation outcomes 

that offset the residual impacts on biodiversity is a critical component of this license to operate. 

It is recognised by the Project’s shareholders that the Ambatovy offset programme has provided additional 

confidence to the lender banks in securing access to capital. This has created reputational benefits to the 

shareholders that can result in easier access to land, human and financial resources for future projects in 

Madagascar and elsewhere in the world. It is expected that this approach will result in competitive advantage 

for the shareholders in relation to other governments. 

Conversely, bad environmental practice is bound to produce higher operating costs, expensive permit delays, 

liabilities, and lost revenues. Consequently, engaging in good environmental practice will maximise the overall 

long-term economic return to shareholders, stakeholders and government. 

It is worth mentioning that the Malagasy governmental policy, through the Madagascar Action Plan, refers to 

biodiversity offsets. The Ambatovy offset programme under the BBOP guidance is thus aligned with 

Madagascar’s endeavour to protect its unique biodiversity heritage. 


26

Business Case for a Biodiversity Offset 27 

In summary, Ambatovy believes that its offset programme will bring about the following advantages: 

Continuing access to land and capital; 

Increasing investor confidence and loyalty; 

Reducing risks and liabilities; 

Strengthening relationships with local communities, government regulators, environmental groups and 

other stakeholders; 

Building trust on a credible reputation for environmental and biodiversity related management performance 

and winning a ‘social license to operate’; 

Increasing ‘regulatory goodwill’ which leads to faster permitting; 

Influencing emerging environmental regulation and policy; 

Developing more cost effective means of complying with increasingly stringent environmental regulations; 

Taking advantage of ‘first mover’ benefits in the marketplace Madagascar; 

Maximising strategic opportunities in the new markets and businesses emerging as biodiversity offsets 

become more widespread; and 

Improving staff loyalty. 


7. The Offset Design Process 

7.1 Guidance and methodologies used 

The Ambatovy biodiversity offset programme has been developed as an iterative process calling upon BBOP 

principles and guidance. Additional inputs towards the development of the Project’s offset programme came 

from a number of recent good practice guides, including Good Practice Guidance for Mining and Biodiversity 

(International Council on Mining and Metals 2006), Planning for Integrated Mine Closure: Toolkit (International 

Council on Mining and Metals 2008), Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable 

Natural Resource Management (International Finance Corporation 2006) and Biodiversity Offsets: Views, 

Experience, and the Business Case (ten Kate et al. 2004). 

The BBOP guidance supports the development of either single or COMPOSITE OFFSET sites to compensate for 

residual impacts on biodiversity. The Ambatovy offsets programme is multifaceted because it is a large project 

with many components (see Section 3.2). While the design and implementation of the several components of 

the Ambatovy offset programme has progressed, the predicted conservation outcomes from these various 

offset components have not yet been fully calculated. Meanwhile, Ambatovy has focused on its proposed 

Ankerana offset as the most significant component of its offset. The proposed Ankerana offset design is 

based on the guidance in the draft BBOP Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook revised in December 2008 

(available at www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines/odh.pdf). However, the high 

degree of social sensitivity around Ankerana has led the project to undertake community involvement before 

the planned biodiversity assessment at the site. 

7.2 Roles and responsibility 

The Ambatovy offset programme is designed, implemented and financially supported by the Ambatovy 

Project. The offset commitment was reiterated by Sherritt Incorporated, the Project’s operator, in November 

2008 during a clarification meeting with the BBOP Secretariat and representatives of Forest Trends, CI and 

WCS. The offset programme is managed and monitored by the Project’s environmental department. Since 

Ambatovy became a BBOP Pilot Project, the BBOP Secretariat and members of the BBOP Advisory 

Committee have also monitored progress. Senior Project representatives attend all BBOP meetings and 

provide updates and feedback to the BBOP Secretariat. The Project’s BBOP team includes: 

A focal point (Pierre O. Berner, Environmental Director, Ambatovy Project); 

A full time consultant responsible for supporting the offset programme management implementation 

(Steven Dickinson of Golder Associates / Ambatovy Project); 

An ecological assessment consultant responsible for the benchmark, loss and gain calculations (Aristide 

Andrianarimisa of WCS); and 

Environmental superintendent (monsieur Alphonse) leading a technical environmental and social field team 

responsible for social and environmental management at the proposed Ankerana offset site. This team led 

consultations with local stakeholders, including local communities, local forestry and police authorities and 

local NGOs. A legal team is supporting the superintendent to ensure the legal protection status of the 

Ankerana site. 


28

The Offset Design Process 29 

7.3 The offset design process 

7.3.1 Step 1: Review project scope and activities 

The nature, scope and geographical location of the Ambatovy offset programme was outlined in the ESIA as a 

COMPENSATION measure that would go above and beyond the expected regulatory commitments. The basic 

Ambatovy offset concept was presented and discussed in the many stakeholder public information meetings 

associated with the ESIA review. As Ambatovy was accepted as a BBOP Pilot project in 2006, a more 

structured approach was developed, which led to the multifaceted programme outlined in Section 3.2. 

7.3.2 Step 2: Review the legal framework and / or policy context for a biodiversity offset 

The key elements of the legal framework and policy context for the Ambatovy Project’s biodiversity offset 

programme comprise the MECIE decree, the Madagascar Action Plan (MAP) 2007 – 2012, the regional and 

communal development plans and the EQUATOR PRINCIPLES. Further information on these and other regulatory 

requirements is provided in Section 2.1. 

7.3.3 Step 3: Initiate a stakeholder participation process 

As noted previously, the Ambatovy Project obtained its permit from the Malagasy regulatory authorities in 

December 2006, based on a large ESIA that involved public information, consultation and enquiry throughout 

the development and review process. Subsequently stakeholder consultations have been central to 

discussions on integrating the offset programme with national, regional and local plans. At the Ankerana offset 

site, the community buy-in process is progressing well and precedes the hard-core biological assessment that 

can only be conducted after full community participation is demonstrated. 

The offset stakeholder participation process can be summarised as: 

Confirming key stakeholders (the JV partners, government, financiers, NGOs and local communities, see 

Section 2.3); 

Engaging stakeholders in the offset design process by presenting and discussing the offset’s objectives 

and the proposed implementation process; 

Engaging communities in the offset design process by assessing the impact the offset will bring about and 

agreeing on an acceptable MITIGATION strategy; and 

Integrating stakeholder feedback into the design process, especially with respect to land use in the multiple 

use areas (site zoning); this part of the process is in its initial stage and will continue throughout the offset 

zoning processes. 

7.3.4 Step 4: Determine the need for an offset based on residual adverse effects 

This section describes how the Ambatovy offset planning team: 

1. Assessed the likely impacts on biodiversity caused by the Ambatovy Project; 

2. Prepared a Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM); 

3. Applied the mitigation hierarchy; 

4. Determined residual impacts; and 

5. Checked whether these residual impacts could be offset. 



7.3.4.1 Assessing biodiversity impacts 

Biodiversity impacts are presented in the Project’s 2006 ESIA. The ESIA BASELINE and impact analysis 

(including CUMULATIVE IMPACTS) followed World Bank (IFC, International Finance Corporation) standards. 

A formal summary is available at: 

http://www.sherritt.com/doc08/files/coal/abatovy/EAAmbatovy_EnglishSummary.pdf. 

Details of the biodiversity impacts are available in Volume J of the full ESIA report (full document available in 

French or English, on CD, through the Ambatovy Project or the Malagasy Ministry for Environment). 

The Project’s main impacts will occur at the mine site, through the progressive clearing of the mine footprint 

(total footprint of 2,126 hectares, of which 1,336 ha will result from clearance and the balance resulting from 

indirect (edge effect) impacts around the cleared area) located within an ecologically sensitive natural forest 

mosaic of the eastern mid-altitudinal forest corridor. Stringent impact avoidance and minimisation strategies 

were applied in the design phase of the Project, so RESIDUAL IMPACTS on biodiversity from the other key 

Project components, most of which lie in heavily degraded areas, are of less significance (but will nonetheless 

be offset). These include pipelines, the processing plant and refinery, tailings management facility and pier 

extension (see Section 3 for a summary of associated impacts). 

As the Project has evolved, specific aspects covered in the ESIA are currently being revisited to ensure that 

no residual impacts to biodiversity have been neglected. Any further residual impacts identified will be 

included in the biodiversity offset calculation. 

7.3.4.2 Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) 

Key biodiversity components 

KEY BIODIVERSITY COMPONENTS were identified for the impact area, including mainly species and habitats, but 

also landscapes / ecosystems. The completed key biodiversity components matrix (KBCM) conveys the 

essence of the character of the site by identifying a range of its highest biodiversity values. The KBCM can 

help ensure that the offset generates additional conservation outcomes for these key biodiversity values, and 

the matrix can also contribute to the design of the BENCHMARK that will help with the calculations of residual 

BIODIVERSITY LOSS caused by the Project (see Appendix 1) and the gain that will be achieved through the 

offset. Both intrinsic and NON-USE VALUES of key species and habitats / ecosystems were assessed according 

to their significance level and IRREPLACEABILITY. The KBCM based on the current data is in Appendix 1. The 

Project will conduct additional surveys and improve analysis of existing data during 2009. 

The key biodiversity components listed here will subsequently be considered during the offset site selection 6 

and characterisation stage. 

7.3.4.3 Applying the mitigation hierarchy 

Prior to consideration of biodiversity offsets, the Ambatovy Project implemented appropriate avoidance, 

minimisation and restoration measures through its Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP) to avoid species 

EXTINCTION and EXTIRPATION (all IUCN EN and CR species), avoid sensitive areas where possible and 

minimise impacts on flora, fauna and aquatic resources. 

6 A rapid assessment of the Ankerana site provided preliminary species-level data. The potential offset site is located within the same 

biogeographical setting as the impact area, so it is anticipated that more detailed assessments will also reveal the presence of the key 

biodiversity components at Ankerana. 



Specific avoidance strategies include the use of conservation barriers to physically isolate the on-site azonal 

conservation areas from construction activities in surrounding areas and ensure that modification of the mine 

footprint follows a strict environmental protocol (see Appendix 4: Protocol for Mine Area Modification). 

A very substantial minimisation programme was implemented through the BMP. Significant activities include: 

Directional and paced forest clearance to optimise the natural migration of terrestrial fauna. Clearance 

procedures are provided to the forest clearing team manager as part of Forest Clearing Biodiversity Action 

List procedure; the proper implementation of the actions is monitored on a daily basis by the mine 

environmental team and any deviation reported for immediate corrective action. 

Repetition of full biological surveys in the clearing perimeter and surrounding areas prior to any forest 

clearance in order to inventory fauna taxa present, particularly priority species (IUCN Endangered [EN] and 

Critically Endangered [CR] categories) but also including lemurs, other mammals, birds, reptiles and 

amphibians. The surveys facilitate the development of taxa-specific mitigation measures. For example, a 

representative sample of individuals from all lemur species are captured and fitted with radio collars and 

subcutaneous microchips in order to monitor their ability to migrate from an area as it is cleared and the 

receiving populations’ behaviour on arrival of displaced groups in their territory. For plants, a list of species 

of concern (SOC) was drawn up during ESIA baseline studies in collaboration with the Project’s botanical 

expert partner. Pre-clearance work involves identifying whether SOC are present in the clearing perimeters 

and searching for these SOC outside the mine footprint (in protected areas) to avoid potential species 

extinction. For fish in streams, a spatial and genetic survey (endemicity assessment) was conducted to 

determine whether the species present were ENDEMIC to the mine footprint. Until genetic results became 

available, fish from impacted streams were recovered and temporarily maintained in aquaculture systems; 

subsequent management actions are currently being undertaken. 

Monitoring of fauna during and after clearance. For example, lemur spatial dispersion is monitored during 

forest clearance to assess their capacity to (i) migrate (avoid immediate impacts); (ii) settle in their new 

home range (a medium-term impact) and (iii) reproduce and maintain population viability (a long-term 

impact). Biomedical health is assessed in parallel to behavioural assessments with the aim of improving 

analysis of trends in the Project’s long-term lemur population viability assessment programme. 

Salvaging activities focused on fauna likely to require human aid to migrate towards refuge areas (the 

conservation zones shown in green on Figure 3). A crew of 80 technical agents was trained by experts to 

identify and salvage all small mammals, stranded lemurs, nocturnal birds and herpetofauna. Systematic 

salvage of these taxa was undertaken for all mine, pipeline and plant site clearings, under the supervision 

of external experts (e.g. biologists from the University of Antananarivo) and the Ambatovy biodiversity 

team. Taxa were logged and relocated / monitored in refuge areas. Limited salvaging of flora was also 

conducted. Some SOCs required ex situ conservation, with individuals translocated to a dedicated on-site 

area while searches for the SOC in areas outside the footprint were completed; cells from these SOC were 

collected for micro-propagation and cryoconservation as a back-up. To date all SOC surveys have lead to 

the identification of off-site VIABLE POPULATIONS, and the Project and its botanical partners remain confident 

that this will be the case for all remaining SOCs. In the event that SOC are not found, then the 

aforementioned mitigation will be applied. 



Figure 3: Mine area, showing conservation zones (green) that constitute on-site offset area (including 

azonal, transitional and zonal forests) 

The mine restoration programme includes progressive footprint rehabilitation through erosion control, 

reforestation with targeted species and facilitated secondary successions. The aim is to produce a 

multifunctional replacement forest with biodiversity values that can be included in the offset calculation (by 

reducing the residual impact on biodiversity that will require offsetting). The pipeline restoration programme 

will focus on targeted reforestation of the right of way. 

7.3.4.4 Determining residual impacts 

The Project’s most significant residual impacts will occur at the mine site. Residual impacts caused by the 

other key Project components are limited as these components are located in areas that are already heavily 

and historically degraded. Nonetheless, these less significant residual impacts will also be included in the 

offset calculations. 

The Project’s residual impacts are summarised below. 

Direct negative impacts 

The total loss of habitats as progressive clearance of the mine footprint (1,336 hectares, excluding the 

environmental buffer) proceeds in an ecologically sensitive natural forest mosaic. Following clearance 

some areas will be built on and / or eventually mined. In the areas lost to DIRECT IMPACT the HABITAT TYPES 

were identified (azonal, transitional and zonal forests, ephemeral ponds and streams) and the quality of 



each determined (good or degraded). Flora, fauna and aquatic taxa assemblages were associated where 

feasible with these habitat types and quality. Finally, habitat surface areas were calculated using ESIA 

habitat maps and GIS. Taxa assemblages and forest structural characteristics were determined for each 

habitat where possible. Available fauna data were generally qualitative, although pre-clearance survey 

data from both the mine footprint and surrounding conservation areas were used, providing updated lemur 

densities and abundance. 

Clearance of 16.5 ha of fragmented and degraded primary forest during installation of the 218 km buried 

slurry pipeline (a total clearance permit for approximately 70.5 hectares was granted as 98% of the pipeline 

route passes through secondary, non-sensitive vegetation (e.g. non-native eucalyptus) resulting from 

historic slash and burn). Two sections of the pipeline do, however, cross sensitive habitats: the first 2 km 

passes through zonal, near-primary forest and the pipeline also crosses the Ankeniheny-Zahamena 

Corridor (CAZ). Losses associated with the pipeline’s first 2 km have been included in the mine losses 

using the same approach for determining residual impacts as applied to the mine footprint. 

Indirect negative impacts 

INDIRECT IMPACTS through edge effects (dust, noise, plant desiccation, invasion of natural heliophytes), will 

potentially affect 790 ha of forest surrounding the mine footprint. This area was defined on the basis of a 100 

m zone surrounding polygon features (e.g. mine pits and ancillary facilities) and a 50 m zone around linear 

features such as roads (except the main access road) and pipelines (see Appendix 4: Mine Footprint 

Definition, 2nd Approximation, December 12, 2007). The degree to which these areas will be affected 

remains unclear; as a precautionary approach the full 790 ha has been included in the total loss calculations. 

This may be modified as information on the degree of impact becomes available through monitoring. 

Low or negligible negative impacts for biodiversity 

The processing plant is being constructed on a 150 ha (1.5 km 2 ) area of the Toamasina industrial zone. The 

1,400 ha (14 km 2 ) tailings management facility will be located in a highly degraded fire-driven agricultural 

matrix. An existing pier at the harbour will be extended by over 300 m. The residual biodiversity impacts 

associated with the processing plant, tailings facility and pier extension are expected to be negligible. The 

habitat classes for the plant site and tailings facility location would be defined as highly impacted and 

degraded and have been omitted from the loss calculations for the time being. However, the Project will 

consider how to trade-up these areas by conserving higher priority biodiversity elsewhere; one suggestion is 

to simply add the surface areas lost (i.e., 15.5 km 2 ) and apply a MULTIPLIER to determine the area of higher 

BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION priority land as part of the offset. The Project will seek assistance from the BBOP 

Advisory Committee before making a decision. 

Socioeconomic impacts 

The Project will conduct loss calculations for the socio-environmental aspects in 2009. The aim of the offset 

programme is to compensate for all AMENITY and LIVELIHOOD related losses experienced by local communities 

as a result of the biodiversity offset. Potential compensation measures include the introduction of improved 

agricultural techniques to increase crop yield and the provision of jobs related to environmental protection. 

At present, a number of positive socioeconomic impacts are also apparent: 

Over 80 members of the local community at the mine are permanently employed in biodiversity 

management-related jobs (in total, over 8,000 jobs for Malagasies will be generated by the Project); the 

biodiversity jobs include ongoing training. 



14 community members have been hired as park rangers at the mine site to protect the mine forests. 

A public awareness programme is underway to raise community understanding of their natural heritage 

and their role in its protection. 

Reinforcement of the local forestry service’s capacity to protect forests (and their fauna and flora) around 

the mine footprint; the work at the Torotorofotsy wetland will also improve the forest service’s capacity 

there. 

Over 50 local expert biologists have been hired (on a project-by-project basis) to bring their knowledge to 

the Project’s activities and to promote the development and use of Malagasy skills). 

7.3.4.5 Offsetable nature of residual impacts 

The Project is ensuring that its residual impacts are OFFSETABLE by focusing on the avoidance of species, 

habitat and ecosystem loss and checking that the particular biodiversity components affected can be found in 

the surrounding area and beyond, so that their populations will not be unduly affected by the Project and will 

benefit viably from the offset activities. The Project has ensured that species of concern (SOC) were present 

outside of the mine footprint and is using taxa-specific management programs to define the relevant 

conservation management activities: 

The Flora Management Programme aims to ensure that SOC – flora species that were only identified on 

the mine footprint during the ESIA baseline – are not lost. These species remain listed as SOC until viable 

populations are located outside the mine’s footprint in protected areas. Surveys and viability assessments 

are being conducted by experts in flora taxonomy and ecology from Missouri Botanical Garden – 

Madagascar. 

The Lemur Management Programme aims to confirm that the mine’s construction and operation activities 

are not leading to a long-term reduction in the viability of priority species’ populations present in the mine 

area. The programme focuses on IUCN EN and CR species, but includes all 16 species as a BEST 

PRACTICE measure due to the unique nature of lemurs. The programme includes two principal phases, a 

short-term three year assessment (covering the 2007 – 2010 construction phase) to begin identifying any 

trends in lemur groups and populations in the footprint and receiving areas located in the conservation 

forests. The second phase (from 2010 to end of the mine’s life), aims to identify any long-term viability 

trends and to develop appropriate mitigation measures, such as off-site relocation programs, recruitment 

boosting (e.g. captive breeding and release), reduction of slash and burn activities and strict control of 

hunting (bushmeat). 

The Mantella Management Programme aims to ensure that there are no measurable adverse impacts on 

the ability of the mine area forests to support the established Mantella aurantiaca (IUCN CR) and Mantella 

crocea populations (IUCN EN). Any reduction in their population sizes is also to be avoided. The 

programme was implemented in November 2007, although the species are located in areas that will not be 

mined for 10 years or more. The Project is defining populations present on the footprint and in the 

conservation zones and comparing them to regional population sizes. Various mitigation measures are 

possible including footprint reduction or shifting (i.e., modifying the footprint to avoid breeding areas), 

relocation (based on successful trials) and increasing population recruitment. 

The Fish Management Programme aims to avoid the extinction of fish species and to maintain population 

viability at pre-Project levels. Endemicity assessments have been conducted as the species present were 

only previously described to the genus level. Mitigation measures will be applied accordingly and may 

include, for example, the creation of conservation streams and relocation. 



7.3.5 Step 5: Choose methods to calculate loss / gain and quantify residual losses 

The Project is using methodologies described in the BBOP Biodiversity Offset Design Handbook to assess the 

Project’s impact on biodiversity, to identify appropriate activities and sites for the biodiversity offset, and to 

determine the scale of the offset needed to achieve the CONSERVATION GAINS that will achieve NO NET LOSS. 

The methodologies combine consideration of biodiversity of equivalent or higher value and site selection to 

ensure that all key biodiversity components are represented at the offset and have two key features: 

‘benchmarks’ and ‘HABITAT HECTARES’: 

BBOP defines a ‘benchmark’ as reference point against which the losses of biodiversity due to the Project 

and gains through the proposed offset can be quantified and compared consistently and transparently. A 

benchmark usually comprises a number of representative and characteristic ‘ATTRIBUTES’ used to represent 

the type, amount and quality of biodiversity which will be lost / gained. Comparison of the observed level 

(or ‘score’) of each BENCHMARK ATTRIBUTE at the impact site (before and as predicted after the impact) 

against the level at the benchmark can help to quantify the loss of biodiversity to be caused by the Project. 

Similarly, comparing the observed level (or ‘score’) of each benchmark attribute at the offset site (before 

the offset and as predicted after the offset intervention) against the level at the benchmark can help to 

quantify the gain in biodiversity caused by the offset. A benchmark can be based on an area of land that 

provides a representative example, in a good condition, of the type of biodiversity that will be affected by 

the proposed development project. 

‘Habitat hectares’ are units of measurement that take into account the area affected and the quality or 

CONDITION of the biodiversity impacted (determined by the quantities of a number of chosen attributes 

related to the structure, composition and function of that habitat). The habitat hectares METRIC was 

originally developed in Victoria, Australia to focus on HABITAT STRUCTURE, particularly native vegetation, 

and thus to provide proxies for composition and function. It has since been adapted by BBOP to cover both 

flora and fauna, and to include some aspects of composition and function as benchmark attributes. The 

habitat hectares approach is described in more detail in Section 7.3.5.1 below. 

The Project’s proposed benchmark meets specific predetermined criteria with respect to surface area, habitat 

quality and connectivity (see below). It is ideally located as it is in the mine area conservation zones, thus 

ensuring its long term protection. The long-term presence of the benchmark is important as it will enable 

background environmental degradation arising from external factors (such as climate change) to be quantified 

and subsequently addressed at the offset site. 

Lists of key biodiversity components were identified in the impact area; these include species and habitat 

types (structural). Complementary faunal data will be collected by the Project in 2009 to integrate more 

species attributes into the habitat hectares loss calculation, as current calculations are limited to quantitative 

information for only three priority lemur species. 

The Project has calculated its habitat hectares loss values for forest habitats. Scores for streams and 

ephemeral pools were calculated in April 2008, but have been temporarily excluded subject to re-assessment 

during the next iteration of the loss calculations. 

Two habitat hectares calculation scenarios were assessed in April 2008: without and with post-impact 

MITIGATION. It is important to note that both potentially relate to real situations since restoration performance 

is not well documented for Madagascar or the Ambatovy region. ‘Post-impact mitigation’ significantly 

decreases the habitat hectares loss value and will ultimately be included in the final (definitive) offset 

calculations. However, care is necessary to avoid overestimating the potential for rehabilitation success as 

this can result in the underestimation of the number of habitat hectares that the offset must deliver. Only the 

‘without post-impact mitigation’ scenario is reported here as further analysis (modelling) is required to 

accurately calculate losses based on the ‘with post-impact mitigation’ scenario. 



7.3.5.1 The habitat hectares approach 

This section: 

Introduces the ‘HABITAT HECTARES’ approach; 

Describes how the ‘benchmark’ was defined for forest habitats; and 

Explains how the Project’s residual impacts on biodiversity have been calculated using the benchmark. 

The habitat hectares approach 

Biodiversity loss was calculated using the habitat hectares approach, summarised as: 

1. Completion of the Key Biodiversity Component Matrix (KBCM), which corresponds to conducting a 

biodiversity assessment of species, habitats and ecosystems components and determining intrinsic 

(significance and irreplaceability) and use (socioeconomic and cultural) values; 

2. Completion of a table to review the application of the MITIGATION HIERARCHY to the key biodiversity 

components; 

3. Selecting attributes for the key biodiversity components using available or complementary data and 

assigning ‘weights’ to each. For example: 

Forest structural attributes can be selected and compared (weighed) against each other, e.g. tree 

species richness is considered to be the most important attribute at Ambatovy and therefore has a 

higher WEIGHTING than attributes related to forest physical structure. 

Taxa attributes such as quantitative fauna data (e.g. density) from priority species can also be 

integrated and therefore allow key fauna data into the weighing of attributes; this reflects more 

accurately the importance of species biodiversity in the habitat hectares scores. 

4. Defining and selecting a BENCHMARK for selected habitats; 

5. Calculating biodiversity loss at the IMPACT SITES by comparison to the benchmark, for each habitat 

CONDITION classes in light of impact levels; 

6. Completion of a table to record and compare whether POTENTIAL OFFSET SITES could deliver conservation 

gains for key biodiversity components; and 

7. Calculating the habitat hectares gained at the offset site. 

Using the previously cited information, habitat hectare scores were determined for all habitats (e.g., forests, 

streams and ephemeral ponds). Calculation of the forest habitat hectare loss at Ambatovy requires the 

following condition information: 

Habitat types, namely azonal, transitional and zonal forests and respective surface areas (see Figure 4 

showing the mine area habitat map); 

Habitat condition class and respective surface areas (see Figure 4), namely: 

– Quasi pristine primary forest (see definition in benchmark section hereafter, Forest habitats, 3rd and 4th 

bullets); 

– Disturbed / degraded primary forest; and 

– Heavily fragmented and degraded primary forest. 

Impact types, namely high (cleared footprint) and medium (environmental buffer) and respective surface 

areas (see Figure 5). 



Figure 4: Mine area habitat map 

Figure 5: Mine footprint and environmental buffer map 



The Ambatovy forest habitat loss scores were determined by merging data from the three existing habitat 

types, since the selected forest attributes did not exhibit a statistical difference and faunal movement from 

intensive fauna surveys in the pre-clearing perimeters showed the same occupancy pattern for the three 

habitat types. Knowledge of the condition class is particularly important, since it reflects the biodiversity loss at 

stake, thus highlighting the application of multipliers in degraded habitats that are subsequently subject to 

negative impacts. The importance of multipliers was highlighted, for example, when considering degraded 

azonal forests which constitute 44.6% of the azonal habitat loss, but equivalent to only 29.3 habitat hectares 

of the total 620 habitat hectares score for the azonal habitat. High impact areas corresponded to 100% forest 

clearance with earthworks, medium impacts corresponded to the potential edge effects on the forest 

environmental buffer (50 m for linear features and 100 m for polygons), while low impacts did not apply to the 

impact areas. The habitat hectares score provided above is for the ‘without post-impact’ mitigation scenario. 

The habitat hectare gain for the proposed offset site has not yet been calculated, as detailed forest structure and 

quantitative species attribute data are still being acquired, with field surveys for flora / forest structure and aquatics 

planned in July 2009 and terrestrial fauna in November 2009. As the proposed Ankerana site is considered to be 

an ‘IN-KIND’ offset (relative to the impact site), the same benchmark will be used to calculate gains. 

Benchmark 

Based on the BBOP definition of a benchmark, the following criteria were used to define and identify a 

candidate site: 

Forest habitats: 

– Minimal critical size: in the Ambatovy forests, a benchmark is required that captures the progressive 

structural changes between the existing three vegetation types, and the faunal movement between 

them throughout the seasons. A contiguous area of quasi pristine ‘azonal’, ‘transitional’ and ‘zonal’ 

forests, each of which must be a minimum of 40 ha is proposed. This area of 120 ha includes the core 

area of original habitat with a 100 m wide buffer around it and appears to be the minimum required as a 

home range for lemurs and to represent an adequate assemblage of vegetation. 

– CONNECTIVITY: the contiguous forest area (minimum size – 120 ha) must be connected to other forest 

habitats. 

– Human disturbance: there must be no sign that the site has ever been cleared by humans (in both core 

and buffer areas). However other evidence including tree stumps, historical records, soil charcoal, 

archaeological remains and signs of selective logging (defined as less than 12.5% of crown cover loss) 

over the last 20 years do not exclude a site from consideration as a benchmark (such evidence is 

widespread and unavoidable in the region). Any small degraded areas within the larger benchmark area 

are mapped and excluded from the benchmark calculations (and surface area). 

– Natural disturbances: a site that has experienced a natural fire in the last 20 years, at a level of 10% of 

its surface area (in both its core and buffer area) is excluded. Also, no evidence of cyclonic events is 

acceptable (above 10% loss of canopy crown cover in the last 20 years). 

Streams and ephemeral pools: 

– The benchmark must be the mostly pristine habitat. 

– The stream locations where benchmark data were acquired must be surrounded by quasi-pristine 

and natural habitat, unaffected by any major human-induced disturbance and under pristine forest 

cover. 



– Since many natural ephemeral pools occur in hollow rocky ground, benchmark data must be taken 

where the rock outcrops are of natural origin and not the result of forest clearance or other human 

disturbance. 

Assumptions: 

– Within the azonal and transitional habitats, the highest ENDEMISM is associated with the lowest human 

impact. 

– No sylviculture or tree enrichment has been carried out in Ambatovy. 

The benchmark site is presented in Figure 6. 

Quantifying biodiversity residual impacts calculations using the benchmark 

Benchmark 

A scoping exercise was undertaken to determine from the KBCM and other studies which biodiversity 

components would be most appropriate as attributes of the benchmark. The data quality associated with 

each of these components available in the ESIA was checked. The selected attribute types are: 

Species: 

– 3 lemurs: Propithecus d. diadema, Indri indri, Allocebus trichotis (the attributes of species such as 

Prolemur simus and Daubentonia madagascariensis will be re-examined in the next iteration of the 

offset calculations); and 

– 2 fish: Ratsirakia sp and Rheocles sp (suspended for the moment and to be re-examined in the next 

iteration). 

Communities / habitats: 

– Forest (three habitats, azonal, transitional and zonal); 

– Streams (suspended for the moment and to be re-examined in the next iteration); and 

– Ephemeral pools (suspended for the moment and to be re-examined in the next iteration). 

Impact assessment and mitigation hierarchy application: 

An impact assessment of the biodiversity components was subsequently conducted based on the anticipated 

impacts, of which the principal impact is forest clearance and subsequent habitat loss. The corresponding 

mitigation strategies for each biodiversity component are presented below: 

Species: lemurs are displaced from their habitats by forest clearance. The Project’s mitigation measure is 

to monitor (through radio collars and telemetry) their ability to migrate from the clearance area towards the 

refuge areas (see Figure 3, conservation zones). The mitigation measures include assisting stranded 

individuals from all 16 known species identified on-site and limited off-site relocation to protected areas 

(e.g. Propithecus diadema) following IUCN translocation guidelines. 

Habitats: the main mitigation strategy for the three forest habitats is offsetting due to their fixed location. 

AVOIDANCE will also be applied to the azonal habitat since 26.4% of this habitat will be protected in the 

form of the mine area conservation zones (see Figure 4). 

The December 2008 iteration of the impact assessment and mitigation strategies is presented in Appendix 1. 



Benchmark and attributes 

A benchmark site was selected (see Figure 6) in line with the BBOP definition and Project-specific criteria 

noted above. The benchmark includes a forest tract of 1,149.15 ha, composed of quasi pristine azonal, 

transitional and zonal forests, at least two streams and several ephemeral ponds. 

Figure 6: BBOP benchmark site map 

A limited number of ATTRIBUTES were selected as SURROGATES for both forest habitat structure and function 

based on the following characteristics: 

Sensitive INDICATORS to habitat quality; 

Simple and practical to measure and quantify; 

Reliable and repeatable in assessments; and 

Reflect outstanding biodiversity values (e.g. species of conservation concern, or CULTURAL VALUE). 

Due to data limitations (e.g., difficulties faced in obtaining quantitative data for fauna at the impact site), the 

present loss calculations are limited to forest structural attributes (streams, number of tree species, canopy 

height, basal area and Diameter to Breast Height, Dbh) and the attributes of selected fauna species (lemur 

density). Future iterations will include additional attributes as appropriate data become available. 

The December 2008 iteration results are presented in Table 3, with WEIGHTING assigned to forest habitat and 

species attributes according to their relative importance for biological diversity. 



Table 3: Summary of attribute weighting (December 2008) 

Attributes Unit Weighting (%) Justification 

Stems (a) 

Number of tree 

species (per ha) 

number / ha 15 

number / ha 20 

Canopy height m 5 

Basal area (b) 

m 2 / ha 5 

Dbh m 5 

Propithecus 

diadema density (c) 

Allocebus density 

Indri indri density 

individual 

number / ha 

Individual 

number / ha 

Individual 

number / ha 

20 

10 

20 

Total 100 

(a) Number of trees with diameter ≥10 cm, with measurements taken at 1.3 m above the ground. 

(b) Basal area is calculated as π x (diameter at breast height / 2) 2 . 

Reflects forest density, an important ecological attribute 

for fauna, especially lemurs. 

Provides overall floral diversity and habitat 

heterogeneity. Higher numbers are better. 

Indicator of forest maturity and canopy continuity. For 

azonal habitat lower canopy height is better. 

Indicator of habitat CONDITION. Higher value is better as 

it is an indication of mature forest. 

Indicator of habitat condition. Higher value is better as it 

is an indication of mature forest. 

IUCN CR (d) status, species very sensitive to human 

activities in their habitat. 

Nocturnal species sparsely distributed and appears to 

be sensitive to forest structure. 

Madagascar’s largest lemur species sparsely confined 

to eastern rain forest, IUCN EN status, and also has a 

cultural value (the most taboo lemur species). 

(c) Lemur species density is estimated based on line transect samples within a surface area, S = 2 x (Width x Length) in which density D 

= individual number / S. 

(d) 

Was recently lowered to EN. 

The selection and weighting of the attributes is examined below. 

Selected attributes are divided in two groups: 

– Forest structure, as a general surrogate for forest dependent biodiversity; and 

– Lemur species, as an ‘umbrella species’ fauna group considered to be the most sensitive to human 

disturbance in Ambatovy (bush meat, slash and burn, logging); the species selected include both 

diurnal and nocturnal species. 

Weighting: 60% and 40% importance were chosen for forest structure and faunal assemblage species, 

respectively. Attributes that express biological diversity (e.g., tree SPECIES DIVERSITY and stem number) are 

weighted with higher importance, as are species with CR rather than EN status. Since the mine is located 

in a BIODIVERSITY HOTSPOT area, IUCN species of concern have been chosen as the main attributes to 

reflect the principles of ‘IRREPLACEABILITY’ and no loss of NON-OFFSETABLE components. 

TAXA selection: lemurs were selected over other fauna groups, due to their wide presence in forest 

habitats. Fish, amphibians and reptiles are restricted to specific habitats at Ambatovy, for example 

microhabitats for herpetofauna. Therefore any impact occurring away from these specific microhabitats 

(which are yet to be defined) might not reflect the Project’s impact on these taxa. The possibility of 

considering some of the herpetofauna and pond invertebrate species will be explored after new data has 



been collected in 2009. The inclusion of fish components for stream habitats will also require further 

analysis and consideration. 

VULNERABILITY: although this attribute was integrated in the April 2008 calculations (see Appendix 5), it is 

excluded from the present iteration of the loss calculations. The taxa groups should be considered 

together, not only at the species level, so that the same weight can be given to all taxa (lemurs, birds, 

herpetofauna, etc). This would allow the Project to consider not only specific species, but also the 

taxonomic groups that are important for monitoring purposes. In fact species EXTIRPATION can sometimes 

be linked to group effects or intra-species interactions; therefore, it is best to consider taxa group 

vulnerability rather than that of specific species. It is thus assumed that vulnerability considered as an 

attribute makes more ecological sense than that considering specific species alone. However, the use of 

vulnerability attributes requires further detailed analysis, to be conducted in 2009. 

Calculating biodiversity loss at the impact site 

The attributes presented above are for the mine and pipeline components. 

As described in the previous sections, the pipeline’s impact on forest habitat is very limited since routing 

avoided relic forest fragments present in the first 32 km (after which the area crossed is entirely exotic 

secondary vegetation resulting from slash and burn activities). Only the first 2 km of the pipeline cross quasi 

primary forest, and these losses were included in the mine loss calculations. The pipeline’s losses thus 

correspond to the forest fragments (16.5 ha) that could not be avoided: the habitat hectares could be 

calculated for this as the area impacted could be compared to the zonal forest BENCHMARK ATTRIBUTES. The 

pipeline’s forest fragments are classed as Ecological Vegetation Class (EVC) 3: ‘heavily fragmented and 

degraded primary forest’. Instead of using the ‘basal area’ attribute, ‘volume’ was considered since these 

forests are heavily exploited by the local communities for fire wood. Volume can also be used in the future 

socioeconomic compensation analyses. The pipeline’s aquatic components include the crossing of more than 

400 streams with variable levels of ecological integrity and sensitivity. However, pipeline-related impacts to 

the aquatic environment are considered temporary, which cannot be captured by the habitat hectare 

methodology. The Project will therefore use methodological options for integrating temporary impacts in the 

next iteration of the loss calculations. 

The locations of the processing plant and tailing management facility have an EVC of 4 (essentially heavily 

degraded, with no remaining integrity, based on ESIA data). The habitat hectares calculation for this fourth 

category has not yet been undertaken for these areas. However the Project is committed to ‘TRADING UP’ 

these areas and will work with BBOP to define an appropriate methodology for doing so. The harbour has 

been used as an industrial port for some time and little biodiversity of any significant conservation value is 

found there now. 

The mine area includes two Ecosystem Vegetation Classes (EVC): ‘quasi pristine primary forest’ and 

‘disturbed primary forest’. The pipeline has only one EVC: ‘heavily fragmented and degraded primary forest’. 

For each EVC the Project will have either a: 

‘High impact’ corresponding to total forest clearance with or without grubbing (removal of stumps, roots, 

and vegetable matter). A total area of 1,336 ha will fall in this impact category. 

‘Medium impact’ corresponding to the environmental buffer around the mine footprint (100 m) and linear 

features (pipeline / roads, with a 50 m buffer), which will be indirectly affected by forest clearance (impacts 

are mainly through edge effects such as light, dust and unauthorised disturbances. 



Results of the HABITAT HECTARES scores for each HABITAT TYPE at the mine and along the pipeline are 

presented in Tables 4 to 7. 

Table 4: Azonal habitat (December 2008) 

AZONAL FOREST 

… of Condition 

Class 1: 

Quasi pristine 

primary forest 

…of Condition 

Class 2: 

Disturbed primary 

forest 

Total areas 590.74 475.55 

High impact 528.86 427.22 

Medium impact 61.88 48.33 

Table 5: Transitional habitat (December 2008) 

TRANSITIONAL 

FOREST 


Class 1: 




Class 2: 


forest 

Total areas 126.37 328.22 

High impact 53.38 222.68 


Table 6: Zonal habitat (December 2008) 

ZONAL FOREST 


Class 1: 




Class 2: 


forest 

Total areas 412.74 124.97 

High impact 256.9 14.94 


Table 7: Pipeline zonal habitat (December 2008) 

PIPELINE 

…of Condition Class 3: 

Heavily fragmented and degraded 


Total area 71.04 

High impact 16.5 

Medium impact 4.95 

TOTAL HABITAT 

HECTARE LOSS 

620 

TOTAL HABITAT 

HECTARE LOSS 

239 

TOTAL HABITAT 

HECTARE LOSS 

305 

TOTAL HABITAT 

HECTARE LOSS 

The forest habitat percentage hectares loss for the mine (and pipeline) components is shown in Figure 7. 

4 



Figure 7: Forest habitat percentage hectares loss for the mine component 

(the pipeline affects only a small portion of the zonal habitat) 

Zonal 

26.13% 

Transitional 

20.46% 

Pipeline 

(Zonal ) 0.33% 

Based on the current iteration, calculations show that: 

The project will generate a total loss of 1,168 habitat hectares that any offset will be required to 

compensate. 

In the mine area, the azonal forest habitat hectares score is the highest, with a total loss of 620 habitat 

hectares, representing over half of the entire forest habitat lost. 

The pipeline terrestrial biodiversity losses are minimal at 3.83 habitat hectares (0.33% of the total loss). 

The Project’s offset programme must focus its offset efforts on the azonal forest and associated 

biodiversity components, whilst ensuring that the other two habitats (transitional and zonal) habitat 

hectares losses are also compensated. Early analysis of trends in lemur species distribution (based on 

ESIA and construction mitigation management data) indicates that none of the three habitats has distinctly 

higher species richness. Instead it appears that the combination of the three habitats underpins high lemur 

species richness at Ambatovy. The azonal and other forest habitats that will be cleared during mine 

construction are not required for the survival of critically endangered or endangered species, since each 

lemur species found at Ambatovy is also present outside the mine area. However, the azonal forest 

habitats, including the forest assemblage composed of the azonal, transitional and zonal habitats, appear 

to favour the presence of lemur species biodiversity, with 16 species identified in the mine area compared 

with 6 to 10 species (depending on location) in the forest corridor (Schmid and Alonso 2005) 

Post-impact mitigation 

Azonal 

53.08% 

By excluding post-impact MITIGATION, the results remain conservative. When rehabilitation (as a mitigation 

measure) is considered, the habitat hectares losses are decreased by 50% within a 30 year period and there 

is a trend in the decrease of the habitat hectares loss using this mitigation strategy. It is important to note that 

the absence of a temporal parameter that integrates post-impact mitigation in the habitat hectares calculation 

may mask a project’s success over time in reducing habitat hectares loss. 



Table 8: Biodiversity loss calculations scenarios at impact site and effect of post-impact remediation 

Habitat Habitat hectares loss 

Percentage of attributes 

rehabilitated 

1800 

1600 

1400 

1200 

1000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

0 

Year 

0 5 20 40 75 90 

Post-project mitigation level (%) 

Habitat type – forest 

HABITAT HECTARES loss 

0% 0 (without mitigation) 1,168 

5% 0 – 7 1,110 

20% 7 – 15 934 

40% 15 – 30 701 

75% 30 – 60 292 

90% 60 – 120 117 

For the forest habitat, the results show a significant difference for the varying levels of post-impact mitigation. 

However, in order to obtain a more realistic assessment of the post-impact condition, the Project considered 

the influence of forest rehabilitation on the habitat hectares loss numbers over time. Although the temporal 

factor is not considered in the habitat hectares loss calculations, a basic simulation was designed that 

integrated basic forest regeneration activities and specific ecosystem dynamics in the context of the Ambatovy 

forests. There are four essential steps in forest regeneration: 

1. Erosion control (involves engineering, addition of organic matter and water control). 

2. Planting of heliophytes species (including native and potentially some non-natives). 

3. Planting of native tolerant species to increase ground cover. 

4. Assisted natural succession of native species. 

The inclusion of post-impact rehabilitation based on these activities shows a distinct decrease in the habitat 

hectares loss score over time, due to forest regrowth patterns and increases in the values of attributes 

(Pearson correlation R2 = -0.98 p< 0.001, n = 6; see Graph 1). 

Graph 1: Post-impact mitigation influence on biodiversity loss for forest habitats at IMPACT SITE 



It is important to note reforestation of the azonal forest area will create zonal type forest, with some azonal 

influences arising from the use of backfill originating in the azonal areas (which has specific geochemistry and 

broken ferricrete crust and pisolitic iron). Complete restoration to azonal habitat is deemed impossible due to 

its strong links with the removed ground structure and geochemistry. 

To improve the basic simulation discussed above, the Project will collect available rehabilitation data for 

Madagascan lateritic soils and the eastern domain. This will enable the refinement of reforestation predictions. 

Based on Madagascan forestry experience, it is estimated that at 30 years forests will begin to offer a habitat 

that can be exploited by lemurs and other important taxa, for both food and shelter. The closure biodiversity 

programme will include monitoring of priority taxa in these rehabilitated areas to define the rate of 

recolonisation. Irrespective of improvements in the model, continuing care in integration of rehabilitation data 

in the loss calculations will be necessary due to: 

1. Limitations in the availability of specific information on Malagasy forests rehabilitation success rates; 

2. The specificity of the Ambatovy mine site forests and overall associated uncertainties; and 

3. The risk that lower success rates may occur despite improved confidence in predictions. 

Consequently, the Project may decide to take a more precautionary approach and retain conservative habitat 

hectares scores to ensure that NO NET LOSS is not undermined by an undersized offset design. 

7.3.6 Step 6: Review potential offset locations and activities and assess the 

biodiversity gains which could be achieved at each 

Identifying offset options 

Preliminary surveys of offset candidate sites were undertaken in 2005 (see Appendix 6, Survey for Off-site 

Azonal Outcrops (in French)) with the objective of identifying potential in-kind type offsets. The surveys were 

based on geological, substrate, altitude and forest structure similarities (see Figure 9, showing correlation 

between the EVC (azonal, transitional and zonal), substrate and topography) and comprised: 

A desk study using geological maps to identify ultramafic outcrops and satellite imagery for remaining 

forest cover. 

Aerial (plan) reconnaissance survey to confirm the presence of forest cover and rapid visual integrity 

assessment; the survey had to be conducted by air, due to the absence of road infrastructure and general 

remoteness of the areas. Two potential candidate sites (of 14 initially identified – see Figure 8) were 

chosen based on forest integrity and surface area. 

Aerial (helicopter) reconnaissance survey and walk over ground survey of potential candidate sites 

(Vohimenakely and Ankerana). Vohimenakely, located northwest of Zahamena National Park appeared to 

have azonal characteristics but was very small (500 ha) and with no signs 

of disturbance (see Photograph 1). 

A ground-level vegetation survey at selected candidate site (Ankerana) to determine if it has similar habitat 

and floristic (see Photograph 2) characteristics as at Ambatovy and Analamay. The preliminary comparison 

of the Ankerana area with Ambatovy / Analamay is presented in Appendix 7. Ankerana had previously and 

independently been identified by the Missouri Botanical Garden – Madagascar (a Project partner) as a 



potential conservation area based on its floral assemblages. Overall, many similarities were noted in the 

physical, climatic and biological characteristics compared to Ambatovy / Analamay, supporting the 

hypothesis that Ankerana can be considered ‘IN-KIND’ relative to the Ambatovy azonal habitats. Additional 

work to verify these similarities is required and planned for 2009. 

Figure 8: Ankerana offsite offset area location and other candidate sites surveyed by the Project, in 

relation to the Ambatovy mine area 



Figure 9: Correlation between EVC (azonal, transitional and zonal), substrate and topography 

Photograph 1: Ankerana aerial view 

Photograph 2: Ankerana azonal habitat 



Quantifying gains of offset options 

The detailed quantification of potential offset GAINS has not yet been conducted. Rough estimates of gains 

have been prepared based on mapping data and the surface areas that would be protected: 

1. Ankerana offset site (see Figure 10): the Ankerana offset has a total surface area of approximately 11,600 

ha, consisting of a 4,600 ha core conservation area and a 7,000 ha multiple use buffer area surrounding 

the core. The site lies within the area planned for inclusion in the Malagasy protected area system (SAPM). 

Consequently, the Project funding is being designed to ensure that any biodiversity offset offers 

conservation ADDITIONALITY. The field surveys to characterise species, habitats and ecosystems at the 

proposed offset site will be conducted in 2009, allowing calculation of the habitat hectares gains. Based on 

the preliminary survey conducted during the ESIA, the Project is confident that the KEY BIODIVERSITY 

COMPONENTS identified at Ambatovy (species, habitats and ecosystem) can be found at Ankerana, 

although Ambatovy species assemblages may not all be present at Ankerana. It is important to note that 

this issue justifies the conservation of the two on-site azonal forest tracts (the mine area conservation 

zones). The forest will form part of the on-site offset component. The on-site offset includes all forest 

habitats present on the mine footprint, including two azonal forest areas (one being the Project’s 

BENCHMARK site). Therefore it is acceptable to assume that all key biodiversity components are present in 

the on-site offset. 

2. On-site azonal habitat conservation sites (see Figure 4): the azonal forest surface area equals 212.33 ha 

(26.4% of the total prime quality habitat; the azonal habitat remaining outside the mine footprint is all 

pristine). 

3. Management of mine area forests (see Figure 3): the Ambatovy offset programme includes the 4,900 ha 

conservation zones forest around the mine footprint; the azonal conservation zones noted above are 

located within this area. The Project aims to reinforce the legally protected status of these forests to ensure 

their continued protection following mine closure. Their current protection is ensured by the mine Forest 

Management Plan, since most of the forest areas are within the mine lease where the Project has 

exclusive management rights. The Project is also currently discussing with Conservation International the 

regional integration of its on-site offset. 

4. Mine area / Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor link (see Figure 11): the forest corridor between the mine area 

conservation zones forest and the rest of the eastern rain forest corridor is a key component in ensuring 

CONNECTIVITY between these two areas. The corridor concept has been integral to the Project’s species 

management strategies (particularly for lemurs). The exact boundaries have not yet been defined, but are 

likely to enclose about 2,500 ha. The Project is also currently discussing with CI the regional integration 

and protection of this forest corridor to ensure its connection with the relic Ankeniheny-Zahamena Corridor 

and the SAPM protected areas (e.g. Mantadia National Park). 

5. Torotorofotsy Ramsar site management (see Figure 11): the total surface area of this site’s watershed is 

8,500 ha of which 1,100 ha is wetland. However, results of recent surveys led by Ambatovy indicate that 

the ecological integrity of the overall area has been several degraded, resulting in reduced gains for 

biodiversity. The true gains will be quantified based on analysis of the survey results. 

6. FOREST CONNECTIVITY CAZ (see Figure 11): the total area of zonal forest lost to the pipeline right of way will 

be reforested (so a gain of 16.5 ha, the first 2 km reforested route being integrated with the mine). The 

exact surface area to reforest for the CAZ connection has yet to be determined, but may be around 200 ha. 

7. Footprint rehabilitation: the total surface area of the mine footprint will be rehabilitated, of which a majority 

will be reforested (approximately 1,336 ha). 



Figure 10: Ankerana map 

Figure 11: Mine area and Analamay-Mantadia forest corridor, allowing link between on-site offset and 

forest corridor 



Comparative analysis of offset options 

A comparative analysis of offset options was conducted during the site selection process (as noted above). 

Results are presented in Appendix 6 (in French). 

7.3.7 Step 7: Calculate offset gains and select appropriate offset locations and 

activities 

Finalising offset sites and activities 

The habitat hectares gain score for the offset sites has yet to be calculated, as detailed forest structure and 

species attribute quantitative data need to be obtained for the Ankerana and other offset sites. This will take 

place as soon as the stakeholder consultation process is completed. As the Ankerana site is considered ‘inkind’ 

with the Ambatovy azonal habitats, the same benchmark will be used to calculate gains. A detailed 

BASELINE STUDY of the Ankerana offset will be conducted in 2009 to check the offset site for the presence and 

suitability for all the key biodiversity components identified at the impact site and to support the gain score 

calculations. 

The plan for the Ankerana offset will include a core conservation area, surrounded by a multiple use area to 

ensure social integration of the offset and thus its sustainability in the context of local community support. 

The principle of pursuing an offset was established in 2004. However, the offset was not fully established 

before the Project’s impacts began occurring in May 2007 (the date that mine forest clearance began). The 

Project must thus still determine whether the temporal loss is critical or not (i.e. that any biodiversity 

component cannot be offset because of impacts in the period before the offset is created). However, the 

Project is confident that this is not the case for any of the taxa present; especially for very sensitive species 

such as Mantella aurantiaca and Mantella crocea (whose habitats will not be disturbed for at least 10 years, 

when Analamay will be cleared for mining). With respect to lemurs, a short-term and long-term trend 

assessment programme (Lemur Viability Assessment Programme) is underway for all priority species (IUCN 

CR and EN species). However, even though the temporal loss will not compromise the success of the offset, 

the offset design does plan to take it into account. Conventionally, this could be done through application of a 

MULTIPLIER and TIME DISCOUNTING (the concept that 1 habitat hectare delivered accruing in 10 years time has 

only a fraction of that value at the present time). The Project will explore and define a methodology and apply 

it to the next iteration of loss and gain calculations in 2009, taking into consideration that the main impacts will 

be spread over a period of approximately 20 years, while the offset could be in place much earlier. 

7.3.8 Step 8: Record the offset design and enter the offset implementation process 

The Ankerana offset design and other components of the offset have not yet been finalised, thus the 

implementation process has not formally begun. The Project will finalise the offset design, using BBOP 

guidance, during the course of 2009. A summary of the management plan will be presented in subsequent 

case study revisions. However, a brief description of the progress made to date is presented below: 

Stakeholder consultations: the Project has pursued stakeholder consultations, ensuring through a 

participatory process that the offset can be integrated into national, regional and local plans and that 

feedback is taken into account in the offset design and the development of multiple use zones. 

Legal protection: the Ankerana forest was under temporary protection status until the end of 2008. The 

Project requested that this protection status be prorogated (continued) until the final Ministerial Protection 

Decree is finalised and made law (planned for July 2009). 



Boundary definition: delimitation of the Ankerana offset boundaries (see Figure 10). The mapping has been 

presented to the local communities, regional authorities and partner NGOs. Several awareness campaigns 

have enabled presentation of this information to remote habitations around the proposed offset site. The 

campaigns will be repeated twice per year at key periods i.e. before and during the traditional clearing 

period (with police enforcement against passing the boundary). Results if the campaigns to date indicate 

that Ankerana has been extremely isolated for a long time and people had no idea of forest laws restricting 

forest clearance. 

Zoning: the current land uses have been described and will be integrated with the offset design in 2009. 

Reforestation activities: continuation of reforestation on the periphery of the proposed offset; this has 

focused mainly on planting construction wood to avoid primary forest logging in the core offset area. 

Support (financial and logistic) for updating of the Marserana commune’s five year Communal 

Development Plan. This commune covers the offset area. Discussions with a second commune, 

Andahamana have begun; this commune includes a small fraction of the offset area and will also be 

assisted with updating of its five year plan. 

Integration of Ankerana with the SAPM: a technical committee meeting with SAPM was used to discuss 

the integration of the offset site into the national protected areas network. 


8. Implementation Plan and 

Long-term Management 

The team plans to complete the design of the offset implementation plan by the end of 2009, with the 

Ankerana and other offset sites’ gain calculated in early 2010 and thus the final offset design completed at 

that point. The Ministerial Protection Decree should be ready by June 2009, thus allowing the Project to 

legally implement the management of the core and multiple use buffer area of the Ankerana part of the offset. 

While the ESIA stated the Project’s commitment to establish a biodiversity offset at Ankerana, no timing 

commitment was made. The offset establishment is therefore assumed to be in line with the Project’s 

temporal goals. The Project is establishing the offset to last the Project’s lifetime of 30 years and beyond. The 

establishment of a Ministerial Protection Decree is underway and the financing mechanisms are being 

discussed. Actions and timings are summarised in Figure 12. 

Figure 12: Actions and timings (2004-onwards) 

The Project will have the responsibility of ensuring the management of the Ankerana site. Actual site 

protection and local management will likely be entrusted to an NGO. The exact mode of financing has not yet 

been defined precisely. An in depth financial assessment will be conducted to determine the most viable 

means of ensuring long term financial revenue to support site protection. 


53

9. Summary of Offset Process Costs 

The Ambatovy Project BBOP programme component is part of the Project’s Biodiversity Programme (itself 

part of the Environmental Programme). Specific activities are designed, budgeted and implemented. Offset 

design and early implementation cost estimates are presented in Table 9. 

Table 9: Summary of estimated costs 

Human resources Staff Tasks 

Project focal point : 

Pierre Berner (Ambatovy 

Project Environmental 

Director) 

Superintendent 

responsible for Ankerana 

site: monsieur Alphonse 

(Ambatovy Project) 

Superintendent 

responsible for Special 

Programs: Irene Daso 

(Ambatovy Project) 

Environmental 

Coordinator for Ankerana 

(Sylvain Be Totozafy) 

Technical support team 

Ankerana management: 

Environmental Forest 

Technician (to be filled) 

Environmental 

Community Agent (to be 

filled) 

Guest house manager 

(to be filled) 

BBOP programme 

management: Steven 

Dickinson (Golder 

Associates) 

BBOP design ecological 

assessment: Aristide 

Andrianarimisa (WCS) 

1 Ensure communication / meetings (international) 

with BBOP committee and management of 

overall Ambatovy BBOP programme. 

1 Ankerana off-site offset management. 

Spearheading legal protection status programme 

with governmental and local STAKEHOLDERS. 

Supervising financial arrangements for 

programme’s long term viability. 

1 Support Project focal point. Liaising with local 

and international stakeholders (e.g. CI). 

1 Ensuring local stakeholder involvement. 

Supervising Ankerana zoning (core / buffer / 

inhabited areas). Awareness campaigns. 

Costs (man 

days per 

annum*) 

Cost for 2008, 

2009 (USD) 


24 

36 

12 

132 

3 Ankerana Forest and community management. 264 

(currently 

one staff 

member) 

1 Managing overall BBOP design, including 

benchmark / loss / gain calculations. 

1 Conducting benchmark / loss / gains calculations 

and overall ecological assessments. 

36 

140 

54

Summary of Offset Process Costs 55 

Human resources Staff Tasks 

BBOP external auditing 

progress reports: Jon 

Ekstrom (TBC) 

(1) Carry out a technical peer review of the 

Ambatovy offset (e.g. benchmark, losses and 

gain calculation). 

Costs (man 

days per 

annum*) 

Cost for 2008, 

2009 (USD) 

TOTALS 9 646 560,000 

* based on 2008 man days 

The average annual operational costs are in the process of being established and are estimated to be in the 

range US$ 250,000 – 300,000 per annum. 


2

10. Project Outcomes 

Actual outcomes 

Since the offset is still in the design phase, the actual CONSERVATION OUTCOMES to date are limited. They 

represent what the Project has achieved thus far and the benefits its shareholders already enjoyed, including: 

Legal protection status: the extension of the temporary protection of Ankerana has been secured until the 

Ministerial Decree for protection is finalisation; 

Integration of Ankerana into the national protected areas network; 

Coordination between government organisations, NGOs, local communities and the private sector; 

Public awareness; 

Reforestation activities; and 

Forest and TAXA-specific conservation management plans: specific taxa conservation management 

programs were developed for flora, lemurs, Mantella species and fish. Although these programs were 

developed as part of the Biodiversity Action Plan, their importance is reinforced by their aim of ensuring the 

conservation of azonal habitat and associated species, thus ensuring that all KEY BIODIVERSITY 

COMPONENTs present on the impact site are present at the offset. 

Anticipated outcomes 

The benefits anticipated as the final outcome of the offset include: 

Averted loss of forest habitat: 

– The offset is designed to result in no net loss of biodiversity and will strive to attain a NET GAIN. 

– The initial objective was to secure the Ankerana site, but with additional insight the Project is presently 

aiming to extend the expanse of protected areas it will be managing indirectly (Ankerana) or directly 

(e.g. the on-site mine area conservation zones). 

– The Project aims to also spearhead the creation of the Analamay-Mantadia forest corridor enabling 

connectivity between the mine area conservation areas and the SAPM. 

Community benefits: The creation of the offset will be conducted though integration of a socioeconomic 

and cultural component, which is the key to its long-term viability. A socio-environmental compensation 

programme will be designed during 2009 and subsequently to support social integration and ensure this. 

The programme will assess the compensation options available. Its partnerships with NGOs and agencies 

such USAID, PACT and ERIE will provide valuable insights. Specific activities that will be explored include 

fuel wood reforestation using native species, planting in suitable locations that avoid biodiversity impacts of 

biofuel crops (e.g., Jatropha plant), aquaculture and improved crop yield techniques. The programs will be 

integrated with social programs, especially complementary educational and family planning programs that 

contribute to reductions in human pressure on natural resources and forests. Other programs that will be 

critical to the overall success of the offset include fire management, hunting / bushmeat management and 

forest resource management. 


56

Project Outcomes 57 

Improved communication: information available to international NGOs did not reflect the full scale of works 

conducted in the field by the Project. The reason was linked to rather limited communication efforts by the 

Project, which was subsequently ramped up. The high velocity of Project implementation has been 

generally overwhelming for most NGOs, who felt they needed a deeper involvement with the Project. Such 

aspects were discussed in detail with CI, Forest Trends and WCS in November 2008. The Project will 

present and implement its communication strategy on biodiversity management and BBOP activities in 

2009. The offset programme is not yet mentioned as a standalone project on the Sherritt web site, however 

it is mentioned on the Environmental Assessment documents (page 12), available at: 

http://www.sherritt.com/doc08/subsection.php?submenuid=operations&category=operations/metal 

s_ambatovy. 

A specific web page will ultimately describe in detail the biodiversity offset process and activities, including 

this case study and subsequent, updated versions of it. 

Stakeholder confidence: the Project hopes to increase and consolidate the confidence of the public 

(government, NGOs, authorities and the public at large) and private partners, (banks) and demonstrate its 

commitment to sustainability. This is strongly linked to both the communication effort and compliance 

activities. The governmental authorities and local communities are aware of, and have taken part in, the 

offset activities. Project partners and lender banks have monitored the progress of the offset programme 

through quarterly audits and bi-annual biodiversity audits. 

Significant scientific knowledge will be obtained through biological surveys (which underpin the loss and 

gain calculations), especially at Ankerana, where studies have been limited despite the description of these 

ultramafic outcrops as biodiversity hotspots. The Project intends to prepare external publications of its 

biodiversity management programs, especially for MITIGATION in high biodiversity areas, possibly setting a 

precedent for other mining projects in Madagascar. A publication, likely a monograph of both the impact 

and offset sites, will be produced in collaboration with scientific partners. An article on the Project was 

provided to the CBD newsletter Business 2010 in April 2008 (www.cbd.int/doc/newsletters/news-biz- 

2008-04/). 

Forest restoration: the reforestation activities include targeted reforestation with native species to improve 

connectivity around the Ankerana offset site and between it and the remaining forest corridor; similar 

programs exist around the mine and the pipeline component. 

Taxa-specific conservation: species taxa conservation management programs will be developed for key 

taxa such as lemurs, Mantella spp., flora and fish, on the same basis as those developed at the mine site. 


11. Lessons Learned 

The main lesson learned to date (during the offset conceptualisation and design stages) is that a commitment 

to implement a biodiversity offset can generate substantial interest and respect from third parties for the 

Project developer in tandem with delivering real and measurable benefits for biodiversity. The ‘NO NET LOSS’ 

offset represents a strong and positive vision that allows the Project to present its mitigation programme 

elegantly and coherently to third parties. 

The main difficulties encountered to date have been: 

While beneficial, the BBOP guideline development process has been lengthy, dense and not always 

readily applicable to the Ambatovy Project. However, the Project feels privileged to continue with its 

contribution to the improvement of the offset design tools though its feedback. 

The integration of biodiversity offsets at the ESIA stage is also crucial if baseline data collection is to: 

– Prioritise target species with high biodiversity value for the Key Biodiversity Components Matrix; 

– Target sampling stations to ensure that a benchmark is identified; 

– Ensure loss and gain sites are adequately covered; and 

– Ensure that quantitative data is gathered for the HABITAT HECTARES calculations. 

Ideally, the offset calculations for LOSSES and GAINS should have been completed before Project construction 

began, in order to alleviate the risk of being confronted with a low gains score. Greater targeting of baseline 

data collection during the ESIA would have helped reduce the cost and time associated with subsequent filling 

of data gaps. 

11.1 Limitations 

Limitations and issues identified during the habitat hectare calculations are presented below. 

11.1.1 Available data 

The main limitation for the Ambatovy Project offset design is that only azonal forests were sufficiently 

sampled for habitat structure ATTRIBUTES. Fewer data exist for zonal and transitional habitats. In addition, 

more accurate improved diversity and abundance data were required for species (especially lemurs and 

other taxa) in both the benchmark and impact areas. Obtaining these data in 2009 should improve 

precision of the habitat hectares loss calculation. 

No available data exist at present for the selected attributes at the proposed Ankerana offset site. This 

means that offset gains cannot yet be calculated. 

Some of the existing data were not sufficiently habitat specific to meet the requirements of the habitat 

hectares calculations. The fauna data did not allow the species identified to be clearly linked to either the 

three ecological vegetation classes (azonal, transitional and zonal) or the habitat CONDITION classes. The 

January 2009 fauna surveys will aim to resolve this. 


58

Lessons Learned 59 

11.1.2 Averaging 

Averaging of attribute values was necessary in the habitat hectares calculation in order to avoid overly 

conservative results and to reflect the reality of conditions on the ground. However, it is commonly recognised 

that by calculating averages of vegetation parameters within a large area, habitat heterogeneity and its 

variations, which are the key elements for microclimate and ecological processes, are masked (Whittaker et 

al. 1974; Parkes et al. 2003). This approach thus limits the impact of variability on the calculation. While the 

variation is small-scale, considering its effects is important. 

11.2 Recommendations 

1. Integrate a temporal parameter to the post-Project impact in the habitat hectares calculation in order to 

show the Project’s success through time in reducing habitat hectares loss. This aspect is important for time 

discounting (i.e. delay of offset creation and delivery of ultimate habitat hectares gain, see Step 7). 

2. Averaging of contiguous HABITAT TYPES as far as habitat classes is optimal as it best reflects the reality of 

conditions in the impact area. 

3. Tools are based merely on numerical data that might not always have a biological and / or ecosystem 

health significance. It is important to assess how to integrate biodiversity qualitative data (like ENDEMISM, 

only presence / absence etc.) with the habitat hectares calculation. 

4. There is a need for a ‘Weighting Guideline’ to guide the operator in weighting attributes, since this will 

ultimately affect the scoring. 

5. SPECIES DIVERSITY and other fauna attributes should be used (e.g., lemur and herpetofauna) as often as 

possible to better reflect true biodiversity values (as opposed to forest structural SURROGATES). 

6. The Project should design its data acquisition programs at the ESIA stage (baseline collection) to ensure it 

meets the habitat hectares calculation requirements in an optimal fashion (e.g. fauna, flora, aquatics 

sample sites linked with all main vegetation types likely to be impacted, as well as their condition classes – 

for example, good / disturbed). 


12. Next Steps 

The next steps for the Ambatovy offset team are presented below: 

1. Habitat hectares loss scores: 

a. Integrate the IMPACT SITE and benchmark terrestrial fauna data being gathered in January 2009, 

integrate Mantella aurantiaca and M. crocea data that is being acquired for these two key species as 

part of the Mantella Management Programme during 2009, re-evaluate the fish and aquatic (stream 

and ponds) data to adequately integrate with the KBCM; this will imply reassessing the weighting of 

the attributes generally, giving more importance to the species attributes to better reflect BIODIVERSITY 

LOSS values. 

b. Re-calculate habitat hectares loss scores for the impact site, for each forest habitat type (azonal, 

transitional and zonal), aquatic ecosystems (streams and ponds) and condition class. 

2. Habitat hectares gain scores: 

a. Prepare and implement the habitat, flora, fauna and aquatics BASELINE data collection at the proposed 

Ankerana offset site. 

b. Calculate habitat hectares gains scores for the variety of POTENTIAL OFFSET SITES (e.g. contiguous with 

the mine footprint, the Analamay-Mantadia Corridor and the Ankerana offset site), for each forest 

habitat type (azonal, transitional and zonal), aquatic ecosystems (streams and ponds) and condition 

class. 

3. Socio-environmental losses and compensation calculations: 

a. Apply cost-benefit model and analysis using key elements of the BBOP BIODIVERSITY OFFSET COST- 

BENEFIT HANDBOOK to determine the ecosystems services to the local communities in and around 

Ankerana as well as the mine site (COMPOSITE OFFSET). 

b. Determine socio-environmental compensations required, including compensations options; the Project 

will distinguish between legal and illegal activities specifically (the latter being obviously recognised by 

local legislation as unsustainable). 

c. Design and implement a compensation programme. 

4. Offset management programme: 

a. In light of both the biodiversity and socio-environmental inputs, the Project will finalise the design of 

the Ankerana (and mine site) management programs. 

b. The Project will implement and monitor the implementation of the programs. 


60

Next Steps 61 

5. Legal protection status: 

a. The Project will pursue the finalisation of the Ministerial Protection Decree for Ankerana and creation 

of a protection status for the mine area conservation zones forests; the status of other offset 

programme components (Analamay-Mantadia Corridor, Ramsar site) will also be pursued in 

collaboration with the Project’s partners (CI). 

b. The Ankerana offset jurisdictional protection status is being finalised with Malagasy authorities with its 

integration in the National Park network, in order to ensure the long-term protection status of the site 

from a legal perspective. 

6. Other activities: 

a. The Project will be pursuing the implementation of its MITIGATION HIERARCHY strategy, namely through 

the Biodiversity Action Plan and the taxa-specific management programmes for lemurs, Mantella, fish 

and flora. 


13. References 

Benstead, J.P., De Rham, P.H., Gattolliat, J.-L., Gibon, F.-M., Loiselle, P.L.V., Sartori, M., Sparks, J.S. and 

Stiassny, M.L.J. 2003. Conserving Madagascar’s Freshwater Biodiversity. Bioscience 53 (11): 1101-1111 [see 

Appendix 3]. 

Dufils, J.-M. 2003. Pact Madagascar (see http://www.pactworld.org/cs/africa/madagascar). 

Ganzhorn, J.U., Andrianasolo, T., Andrianjazalahatra, T., Donati, G., Fietz, J. et al. 2007. Lemur in evergreen 

littoral forest fragments. In Biodiversity, Ecology and Conservation of Littoral Ecosystem in Southeastern 

Madagascar, Tolagnaro (Fort Dauphin). Serie editor Alfonso Alonso. SI/MAB Serie # 11. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington DC. USA [see Appendix 3]. 

Grooves, C. 2000. The genus Cheirogaleus: unrecognized diversity in dwarf lemurs. International Journal of 

Primatology, 21 (6): 943-962 [see Appendix 3]. 

International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). 2006. Good Practice Guidance for Mining and 

Biodiversity. ICMM, 19 Stratford Place, London W1C 1BQ, United Kingdom. 

International Council on Mining and Metals (ICMM). 2008. Planning for Integrated Mine Closure: Toolkit, 

ICMM, 19 Stratford Place, London W1C 1BQ, United Kingdom. 

International Finance Corporation (IFC). 2006. Performance Standard 6, Biodiversity Conservation and 

Sustainable Natural Resource Management, World Bank Group. 

ten Kate, K., Bishop, J., and Bayon, R. 2004. Biodiversity offsets: Views, experience, and the business case. 

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK and Insight Investment, London, UK. ISBN: 2-8317-0854-0. 

Kattan, G.H. 1992. Rarity and vulnerability: The Birds of the Cordillera Central of Colombia. Conservation 

Biology 6 (1): 64-70. 

Kleynhans, C.J. 1996. A qualitative procedure for the assessment of the habitat integrity status of the Luvuvhu 

River (Limpopo System, South Africa). J. Aquat. Ecosystem Health 5: 41-54 [see Appendix 3]. 

Kleynhans, C.J. 1999. Comprehensive Habitat Integrity Assessment. In: Water Resources Protection. Policy 

Implementation. Resource Directed Measures for Protection of Water Resources. River Ecosystems. Version 

1 Department of Water Affairs and Forestry [see Appendix 3]. 

Meyers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Fonseca, G.A.B da and Kent, J. 2000. Biodiversity hotspots 

for conservation priorities. Nature 403: 853–858 [see Appendix 3]. 

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. 


62

References 63 

Rabinowitz, D.S., Cairns, S. and Dillon, T. 1986. Seven forms of rarity and their frequency in the flora of the 

British Isles. In Soulé, M. E. (eds.). Conservation biology: the science of scarcity and diversity. Sinauer 

Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. 

Rakotoarison, N., Zimmermann, H., & Zimmermann, E. 1997. First discovery of the hairy-eared dwarf lemur 

(Allocebus trichotis) in a higland rain forest of eastern Madagascar. Folia Primatologica 68 : 86-94 [see 

Appendix 3]. 

Schmid, J. and Alonso, L.E. (eds). 2005. A rapid biological assessment of the Mantadia-Zahamena Corridor, 

Madagascar. RAP Bulletin of Biological Assessment No. 32. Conservation International. Washington, D.C.). 

Watson, J. E. 2007. Conservation of Bird Diversity in Madagascar Southeastern Littoral forest [see Appendix 

3]. 

Whittaker, R.H., Bormann, F.H., Likens, G.E. and Siccama, T.G. 1974. The Hubbard Brook Ecosystem Study: 

forest biomass and production. Ecol. Monogr. 44(2):233-254. 


Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components 

Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, 

December 2008 Iteration 


64

Appendix 1: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, December 2008 Iteration 65 

Key Biodiversity Components Matrix 

Biodiversity Component 

Significance 

Intrinsic, 'non use' Values 

Biodiversity Assessment 

Irreplaceability 

(mark only one) 

Global National Local Site Endemic Localized Widespread 

Species 

MAMMALS 

Prosimans (primates) 

Allocebus trichotis DD X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I Tabou 

Avahi laniger LC X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I 

Cheirogaleus crossleyi DD X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I 

Cheirogaleus major LC X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I 

Daubentonia madagascariensis NT X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I 

Eulemur fulvus fulvus NT X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I, pet trade 

Eulemur rubriventer VU X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I 

Hapalemur griseus griseus VU X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I 

Indri indri EN X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I Tabou Existence of illegal bush meat for all these lemur species 

Lepilemur microdon DD X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I 

Lepilemur mustelinus DD X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I 

Microcebus lehilahytsara DD X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I 

Microcebus rufus LC X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I 

Prolemur simus CR X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I Ecological services: main seeds disperseurs 

Propithecus d. diadema EN X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I Ecological services: main seeds disperseurs 

Varecia v. variegata 

Carnivores 

CR X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat, CITES I 

Cryptoprocta ferox VU X Ecotourism, illegal bush meat 

Fossa fossana NT X illegal bush meat 

Galidia elegans 

Small mammals 

LC X illegal bush meat 

Brachytarsomis albicauda NE X illegal bush meat symbiotic to Allocebus trichotis 

Eliurus minor LC X illegal bush meat 

Eliurus tanala LC X illegal bush meat 

Eliurus webbi LC X illegal bush meat 

Microgale cowani LC X illegal bush meat 

Microgale drouhardi LC X illegal bush meat 

Microgale majori LC X illegal bush meat 

Microgale thomasi LC X illegal bush meat 

Myotis goudoti LC X illegal bush meat 

BIRDS 

Accipiter henstii NT X pet trade, CITES II 

Accipiter madagascariensis NT X pet trade, CITES II 

Acridotheres tristis NE X 

Agapornis cana cana LC X pet trade, CITES II 

Alectroenas madagascariensis LC X 

Anas melleri EN X 

Ardea humbloti EN X 

Asio madagascariensis LC X pet trade, CITES II 

Atelornis pittoides LC X 

Aviceda madagascariensis LC X pet trade, CITES II 

Berneria zosterops LC X 

Bernieria cinereiceps NT X 

Brachypteracias squamigera VU X 

Buteo brachypterus LC X 

Calicalicus madagascariensis LC X 

Canirallus kioloides LC X 

Caprimulgus enarratus LC X 

Caprimulgus madagascariensis LC X 

Circus m. macrosceles VU X 

Copsychus albospecularis LC X 

Coracopsis nigra nigra LC X pet trade, CITES II 

Coracopsis vasa vasa LC X pet trade, CITES II 

Coua caerulea LC X 

Coua reynaudii LC X 

Coua serriana LC X 

Crossleyia xanthophrys NT X 

Cyanolanius madagascarinus LC X 

Dromaeocercus brunneus LC X 

Eurystomus glaucurus LC X 

Falco eleonorae LC X pet trade, CITES II 

Falco newtoni newtoni LC X pet trade, CITES II 

Foudia madagascariensis LC X 

Foudia omissa LC X 

Gallinago macrodactyla NT X 

Hypsipetes madagascariensis LC X 

Leptopterus chabert LC X 

Lonchura nana LC X 

Lophotibis cristata NT X 

Margaroperdix madagascariensis LC X 

Milvus migrans LC X pet trade, CITES II 

Mystacornis crossleyi LC X 

Nectarinia notata LC X 

Neodrepanis coruscans LC X 

Neomixis flavoviridis NT X 

Neomixis tenella LC X 

Neomixis viridis LC X 

Nesillas typica LC X 

Newtonia brunneicauda LC X 

Ninox superciliaris LC X pet trade, CITES II 

Otus rutilus rutilus LC X pet trade, CITES II 

Oxylabes madagascariensis LC X 

Philepitta castanea LC X 

Ploceus nelicourvi LC X 

Polyboroides radiatus LC X pet trade, CITES II 

Rallus madagascariensis VU X 

Sarothrura insularis NE X 

Sarothrura watersi EN X 

Tylas eduardi LC X 

Tyto soumagnei EN X CITES I 

Vanga curvirostris LC X 

Xenopirostris polleni NT X 

Zosterops maderaspatana LC X 

Use Values 

Socioeconomic Values Cultural Values 

Justification 

(Insert comments here explaining 

data entered in columns A to I) 





Significance 






Species 

REPTILES 

Amphiglossus melenopleura NE X 

Amphiglossus minutus NE X 

Amphiglossus mouroundavae NE X 

Amphiglossus punctatus NE X 

Brookesia superciliaris NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Brookesia therezieni NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Brookesia thieli NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Calumma brevicornis NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Calumma cf nasuta NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Calumma crypticum NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Calumma gastrotaenia NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Calumma malthe NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Calumma nasuta NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Calumma parsoni NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Ebenavia inunguis NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Exallodontophis albignaci NE X 

Furcifer lateralis NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Furcifer willsii NE rare X pet trade, CITES II 

Geodipsas laphystia NE X 

Itycyphus perineti NE X 

Leioheterodon madagascariensis NE X 

Liophidium nov. sp. 1 NE X 

Liophidium nov. sp. 2 NE X 

Liophidium rhodogaster NE X 

Liophidium torquatus NE X 

Liopholidophis dolicocercus NE X 

Liopholidophis epistibes NE X 

Liopholidophis infrasignatus NE X 

Liopholidophis pinguis NE X 

Liopholidophis thieli NE X 

Lygodactylus guibei NE X 

Lygodactylus miops NE X 

Mabuya gravenhorstii NE X 

Madagascarophis colubrinus NE X 

Micropisthodon ochraceus NE rare X 

Paroedura gracilis NE X 

Phelsuma lineata bifasciata NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Phelsuma lineata lineata? NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Phelsuma madagascariensis NE X 

Phelsuma pronki NE high extinction risk X pet trade, CITES II 

Phelsuma pusilla hallmanni NE X 

Phelsuma quadriocellata bimaculata NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Phelsuma quadriocellata quadriocellata NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Pseudoxyrhopus microps NE X 

Pseudoxyrhopus tritaeniatus NE X 

Sanzinia madagascariensis VU X bushmeat, CITES I 

Stenophis arctifasciatus NE X 

Typhlops sp. NE X 

Uroplatus phantasticus NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Uroplatus pieschmanni NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Uroplatus sikorae NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Zonosaurus aeneus NE X 

Zonosaurus madagascariensis LC X 

AMPHIBIANS 

Aglyptodactylus madagascariensis LC X 

Anodonthyla boulengeri LC X 

Blommersia blommersae LC X 

Blommersia grandisonae LC X 

Boophis albilabris LC X 

Boophis boehmei NE X 

Boophis brachychir NE X 

Boophis burgeri NE X 

Boophis cf.burgeri NE X 

Boophis cf.miniatus NE X 

Boophis cf.sibilans NE X 

Boophis erythrodactylus LC X 

Boophis goudoti LC X 

Boophis guibei LC X 

Boophis idae LC X 

Boophis luteus LC X 

Boophis madagascariensis LC X 

Boophis marojezensis LC X 

Boophis nov. sp. NE X 

Boophis pyrrhus NE X 

Boophis reticulatus LC X 

Boophis sibilans DD X 

Boophis viridis LC X 

Gephyromantis cf. leucocephala NE X 

Gephyromantis asper NE X 

Gephyromantis boulengeri LC X 

Gephyromantis cf.boulengeri NE X 

Gephyromantis plicifer NT X 

Guibemantis albolineatus DD X 

Guibemantis cf. bicalcaratus NE X 

Guibemantis cf.albolineatus NE X 

Guibemantis depressiceps LC X 

Guibemantis flavobrunneus NE X 

Guibemantis liber LC X 

Guibemantis tornieri LC X 

Heterixalus betsileo LC X 

Mantella aurantiaca CR X pet trade, CITES II 

Mantella baroni NE X pet trade, CITES II 

Mantella crocea EN X pet trade, CITES II 

Mantidactylus argenteus LC X 

Mantidactylus betsileanus LC X 

Use Values 


Justification 







Significance 



Species 

Mantidactylus cf. betsileanus NE X 

Mantidactylus femoralis LC X 

Mantidactylus guttulatus LC X 

Mantidactylus melanopleura LC X 

Mantidactylus opiparis LC X 

Mantidactylus sp. C NE X 

Mantidactylus sp. H NE X 

Mantidactylus zipperi LC X 

Paradoxophyla palmata NE X 

Platypelis barbouri LC X 

Platypelis cf.barbouri NE X 

Platypelis grandis LC X 

Platypelis pollicaris DD X 

Platypelis sp. (aff. mavomavo) NE X 

Platypelis sp.nov NE new undescribed species X 

Platypelis tuberifera LC X 

Plethodontohyla inguinalis LC X 

Plethodontohyla mihanika LC X 

Plethodontohyla notosticta LC X 

Plethodontohyla nov. sp. NE X 

Plethodontohyla sp. NE X 

Rhombophryne alluaudi LC X 

Rhombophryne coronata VU X 


Scaphiophryne marmorata VU X 

Scaphiophryne spinosa NE X 

Spinomantis aglavei LC X 

Spinomantis phantasticus NE X 

Stumpffia sp. "kibomena" NE X 

FISH 

Ratsirakia sp nov 1 (Mangoro catchment) NE new undescribed species X 

Ratsirakia sp nov 2 (Berano catchment) NE new undescribed species X 

Rheocles alaotrensis VU X 

Rheocles spp ? (Berano catchment) NE potential new species X 

Rheocles spp ? (Mangoro catchment) NE potential new species X 




INSECTS 

Amblyopone sp. mad-01 NE rare X 

Amblyopone sp.2 NE rare X 

Artitropa hollandi NE rare X 

Cerapachys lividus NE rare X 

Cerapachys sp. mad-38 NE rare X 

Cerapachys sp.6 NE rare X 

Cerapachys sp.7 NE rare X 

Coeliades fidia NE rare X 

Colotis lucasi NE rare X 

Fulda imorina NE rare X 

Heteropsis andasibe NE rare X 

Heteropsis paradoxa NE rare X 

Hovala sp. 2 NE rare X 

Malaza carmides NE rare X 

Mystrium mysticum NE rare X 

Mystrium rogeri NE rare X 

Proceratium sp.1 NE rare X 

Smerina manoro NE rare X 

Strabena consobrina NE rare X 

Strabena dyscola NE rare X 

Strabena modestissima NE rare X 

Strabena niveata NE rare X 

Strabena perroti NE rare X 

Vitsika sp.1 NE rare X 

Use Values 


Justification 



FLORA 

Adenia acuta rare X 

Aerangis citrata rare X ornemental 

Aerangis fastuosa rare X ornemental 

Aerangis macrocentra rare X ornemental 

Aerangis sp. rare X ornemental 

Aerangis stylosa rare X ornemental 

Aeranthes adenopoda rare X ornemental 

Aeranthes angustidens rare X ornemental 

Aeranthes antennophora rare X ornemental 

Aeranthes ecalcarata rare X ornemental 

Aeranthes fasciola rare X ornemental 

Aeranthes longipes rare X ornemental 

Aeranthes nidus rare X ornemental 

Aeranthes peyrotii rare X ornemental 

Aeranthes sp. rare X ornemental 

Aloe leandrii rare X medicinal value 

Amyrea sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Angraecum calceolus rare X ornemental 

Angraecum caricifolium rare X ornemental 

Angraecum chaetopodum rare X ornemental 

Angraecum chloranthum rare X ornemental 

Angraecum compactum rare X ornemental 

Angraecum danguyanum rare X ornemental 

Angraecum filicornu rare X ornemental 

Angraecum finetianum rare X ornemental 

Angraecum germinyanum rare X ornemental 

Angraecum graminifolium rare X ornemental 

Angraecum humblotianum rare X ornemental 

Angraecum lecomtei rare X ornemental 

Angraecum linearifolium rare X ornemental 

Angraecum mauritianum rare X ornemental 

Angraecum panicifolium rare X ornemental 

Angraecum pinifolium rare X ornemental 





Significance 






Use Values 


Justification 



Species 

Angraecum rhynchoglossum rare X ornemental 

Angraecum rostratum rare X ornemental 

Angraecum sedifolium rare X ornemental 

Angraecum setipes rare X ornemental 

Angraecum sp. rare X ornemental 

Angraecum teretifolium rare X ornemental 

Angraecum urschianum rare X ornemental 

Angraecum viguieri rare X ornemental 

Antirhea borbonica rare X 

Asparagus similens X Magical against demonic possessions 

Aspidostemon conoideum rare X 

Asplenium nidus patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Asplenium sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Asteropeia mcphersonii VU rare X timber for construction, bark = medicinal 

Astrotrichilia parvifolia rare X 

Baroniella acuminata rare X 

Baroniella linearis rare X 

Bathioramnus sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Benthamia sp. rare X ornemental 

Biophytum sp. nov. rare X ornemental 

Brexia montana rare X 

Bulbomolossus sp1 patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Bulbomolossus sp2 patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Bulbophyllum alexandrae rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum analamazoatrae rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum ankaizinense rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum aubrevillei rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum auriflorum rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum baronii rare,patrimonial value X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum complanatum rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum coriophorum rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum francoisii rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum leandrianum rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum longiflorum rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum lyperocephalum rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum molossus rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum multiflorum rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum occlusum rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum occultum rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum oxycalyx rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum pachypus rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum peyrotii rarepatrimonial value X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum platypodum rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum rhizomatosum rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum sandrangatense rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum sp. indet. rare X ornemental 

Bulbophyllum sulfureum rare X ornemental 

Burasaia sp. nov A rare X 

Byttneria heteromorpha rare X 

Caesalpinia delphinensis rare X 

Calantica sp nov. rare X 

Calophyllum mulvis X Magical against thunder 

Canarium sp. 2 (egregium) rare X 

Carallia brachiata X Magical astrology 

Carex sphaerogyna rare X 

Cassinopsis sp. nov. rare X 

Ceropegia cf. racemosa rare X 

Chassalia bojeri rare X 

Chassalia leptothyrsa rare X 

Chassalia stenantha rare X 

Cheirostylis gymnochiloides rare X ornemental 

Cirrhopetalum longiflorum rare X ornemental 

Claoxylon lancifolium rare X 

Claoxylopsis purpurascens rare X 

Cleistanthus sp. 1 rare X 

Coffea liaudii rare X 

Coffea mangoroensis rare, patrimonial value X 

Colea fusca rare X 

Colea sp nov. A rare X 

Combretum sp. nov. rare X 

Coptosperma sp. nov. '17' rare X 

Coptosperma sp. nov. '36' rare X 

Craterispermum laurinum rare X 

Croton alceicornu rare X 

Croton droguetioides rare X 

Croton lepidotoides rare X 

Croton sp. cf. jennyanum rare X 

Croton sp. nov. cf nitidulus 'cinereum' rare X 

Cryptocarya myristicoides rare X 

Cryptocarya pervillei rare X 

Cryptocarya spathulata rare X 

Cryptopus brachiatus rare X ornemental 

Cryptopus paniculatus rare X ornemental 

Cyathea cf tsaratananensis CITES II 

Cyathea dregei X CITES II 

Cyathea hildebrandtii rare X 

Cynanchum moramangense rare X 

Cynorkis angustipetala rare X ornemental 

Cynorkis aurantiaca rare X ornemental 

Cynorkis fastigiata rare X ornemental 

Cynorkis flexuosa rare X ornemental 

Cynorkis gibbosa rare X ornemental 

Cynorkis graminea rare X ornemental 

Cynorkis jumelleana rare X ornemental 

Cynorkis lilacina rare X ornemental 

Cynorkis lowiana rare X ornemental 

Cynorkis purpurascens rare X ornemental 





Significance 






Use Values 


Justification 



Species 

Cynorkis ridleyi rare X ornemental 

Cynorkis sp. rare X ornemental 

Cynorkis uncinata rare X ornemental 

Cyperus longifolius rare X 

Dalbergia baronii VU X timber for furniture (rose wood) 

Danais andribensis rare X 

Danais humblotii rare X 

Danais ligustrifolia rare X 

Danais pauciflora rare X 

Danais pubescens rare X 

Dicoryphe laurina rare X 

Dilobea thouarsii patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Diospyros sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Diporidium louvelii rare X 

Disperis oppositifolia rare X ornemental 

Distephanus aff. garnieriana rare X 

Dombeya biumbellata rare X 

Dombeya megaphylla rare X 

Dombeya sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Dombeya spectabilis rare X 

Dracaena sp. 3 rare X 

Dracaena sp2 patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Dypsis sp. nov. 2 (aff. hildebrandtii) rare X 

Elaphoglossum sp. 'B' rare X 

Embelia nummulariifolia rare X 

Erica sp. 'senescens' rare X 

Erythroxylum "sp. 2 rare X 

Erythroxylum ferrugineum rare X 

Erythroxylum sp. 1 rare X 







Eugenia alaotrensis rare X 

Eugenia arthroopoda rare X 

Eugenia goviala rare X 

Eugenia sp. Nov 3 rare X 

Eugenia sp. Nov 4 rare X 

Eugenia sp. Nov. 1 rare X 

Eugenia sp. Nov. 2 rare X 

Euphorbia rangovalensis rare X 

Exacum bulbilliferum rare X 

Filicium sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Gaertnera aff. Pauciflora rare X 

Gaertnera madagascariensis rare X 

Gaertnera obovata rare X 

Gaertnera obovata rare X 

Gaertnera phanerophlebia rare X 

Gaertnera phyllostachya rare X 

Gallienia sclerophylla rare X 

Gastropis sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Gastrorchis francoisii rare X ornemental 

Gastrorchis humblotii rare X ornemental 

Gastrorchis pulchra rare X ornemental 

Gouania mauritiana X Magical against evil spirits 

Grammangis ellisii rare X ornemental 

Grammangis sp. indet. rare X ornemental 

Gravesia setifera rare X 

Gravesia setifera vel. sp.aff. rare X 

Gravesia sp. nov. cf. baronii rare X 

Gravesia tanalensis rare X 

Gussonea gilpinae rare X ornemental 

Habenaria sp. indet. rare X ornemental 

Helichrysum sp. nov. aff. ambondrombeense rare X 

Homalium axillare rare X 

Homalium maringitra rare X 

Homolliella sericea rare X 

Homolliella sp. nov. 'pauciflora' ined. rare X 

Hyperacanthus sp. indet. rare X 

Hyperacanthus sp. nov. ined. 'mangoroensis' rare X 

Hyperacanthus thouvenotii rare X 

Inula speciosa rare X 

Ixora trichocalyx rare X 

Jasminum sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Jumellea arborescens rare X ornemental 

Jumellea brachycentra rare X ornemental 

Jumellea francoisii rare X ornemental 

Jumellea gracilipes rare X ornemental 

Jumellea lignosa rare X ornemental 

Jumellea punctata rare X ornemental 

Jumellea sagittata rare X ornemental 

Jumellea sp. rare X ornemental 

Jumellea teretifolia rare X ornemental 

Keraudrenia macrantha rare X 

Khaya madagascariensis rare X 

Korthalsella commersonii rare X 

Lemurella virescens rare X ornemental 

Lemyrea sp. rare X 

Leptolaena multiflora EN X timber for construction, bark = medicinal 

Leptolaena sp2 patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Liparis bulbophylloides rare X ornemental 

Liparis hildebrandtiana rare X ornemental 

Liparis jumelleana rare X ornemental 

Liparis longicaulis rare X ornemental 

Liparis sp rare X ornemental 





Significance 






Use Values 


Justification 



Species 

Ludia madagascariensis rare X 

Ludia sp. nov. 1.aff. scolopioides rare X 

Ludia sp. nov. 2 rare X 

Ludia sp. nov. 3 rare X 

Ludwia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Macaranga racemosa rare X 

Mailardia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Margaritaria sp. nov. A rare X 

Medinilla cf. oblongifolia rare X 

Medinilla chermezonii rare X 

Medinilla lophoclada rare X 

Medinilla mandrakensis rare X 

Medinilla micrantha rare X 

Medinilla sp nov 2. rare X 

Medinilla sp. nov. 1 rare X 

Meineckia orientalis rare X 

Melicope discolor rare X 

Melicope sp. nov. rare X 

Memecylon faucherei rare X 

Memecylon sp. nov. aff. vaccinioides rare X 

Mendoncia sp. nov. 1 rare X 

Microcoelia gilpinae rare X ornemental 

Microcoelia macrantha rare X ornemental 

Molinaea sp. nov rare X 

Morinda retusa rare X 

Morinda sp. nov. rare X 

Mussaenda arcuata rare X 

Neobathia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Nervilia bicarinata rare X ornemental 

Noronhia emarginata rare X 

Noronhia gracilipes rare X 

Noronhia louvelii rare X 

Noronhia sp nov. A rare X 

Noronhia sp. nov E rare X 

Noronhia sp. nov. C rare X 

Oberonia disticha rare X ornemental 

Ochrocarpos orthocladus rare X 

Oeonia oncidiiflora rare X ornemental 

Oeonia rosea rare X ornemental 

Oeonia volucris rare X ornemental 

Oeoniella polystachys rare X ornemental 

Olax emirnensis X Magical against bad luck 

Oldenlandia lancifolia rare X 

Oldenlandia trinervia rare X 

Oncostemum cauliflorum rare X 

Oncostemum evonymoides rare X 

Oncostemum filicinum rare X 

Oncostemum humbertianum rare X 

Oncostemum laevigatum rare X 

Oncostemum linearisepalum rare X 

Oncostemum neriifolium rare X 

Oncostemum nitidulum rare X 

Oncostemum oliganthum rare X 

Oncostemum paniculatum rare X 

Oncostemum sp nov aff. triflorum rare X 

Oncostemum sp. cf. leprosum rare X 

Oncostemum sp. nov. D rare X 

Oncostemum triflorum rare X 

Paederia mandrarensis rare X 

Pauridiantha paucinervis rare X 

Pellaea sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Peltiera nitida rare X 

Pentopetia cotoneaster rare X 

Pentopetia longipetala rare X 

Pentopetia pinnata rare X 

Phaius pulchellus rare X ornemental 

Phaius pulcher rare X ornemental 

Phylica emirnensis rare X 

Phyllanthus moramangicus rare X 

Phyllarthron sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Phylloxylum sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Platylepis polyadenia rare X ornemental 

Plectrantus sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Podocarpus sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Polyscias sp. nov. 'abrahamiana' rare X 

Polyscias sp. nov. 'ambatovyensis' rare X 

Polyscias sp. nov. 'anjozorobensis' rare X 

Polystachya aurantiaca rare X ornemental 

Polystachya concreta rare X ornemental 

Polystachya cornigera rare X ornemental 

Polystachya cultriformis rare X ornemental 

Polystachya fusiformis rare X ornemental 

Polystachya humberti rare X ornemental 

Polystachya mauritiana rare X ornemental 

Polystachya rosea rare X ornemental 

Polystachya rosellata rare X ornemental 

Polystachya sp. rare X ornemental 

Polystachya tsinjoarivensis rare X ornemental 

Pseudopteris sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Psorospermum nervosum rare X 

Psorospermum sp. nov. A. aff. rienanense rare X 

Psorospermum sp. nov. B. rare X 

Psychotria sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Psychotria taxifolia rare X 

Pycreus ferrugineus rare X 

Pyrenacantha humblotii rare X 

Pyrenacantha laetevirens rare X 





Significance 



Species 

Pyrostria analamazaotrensis rare X 

Rhodolaena bakeriana patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Rhynchospora sp. nov. 1 rare X 

Saldinia coursiana rare X 

Saldinia mandracensis rare X 

Saldinia myrtilloides rare X 

Saldinia proboscidea rare X 

Saldinia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Sarcolaena sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Schismatoclada concinna rare X 

Schismatoclada psychotrioides rare X 

Scleria madagascariensis rare X 

Scolopia taimbarina rare X 

Scolopia thouvenoti rare X 

Secamone glaberrima rare X 

Secamone sp. aff. Perrieri rare X 

Secamone sp. nov. 1 rare X 

Selaginella lyalii patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Senecio vel. sp. aff. multidenticulatus rare X 

Stenandrium amoenum rare X 

Syzigium sp. 1 rare X 



Syzygium bernieri rare X 

Syzygium condensatum rare X 

Syzygium emirnense rare X 

Syzygium lugubre rare X 

Syzygium onivense rare X 

Syzygium parkeri rare X 

Tacca sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Tambourissa capuronii rare X 

Tambourissa sp nov. aff. mandrarensis rare X 

Tambourissa sp. nov. A rare X 

Tambourissa trichophylla rare X 

Tarenna alleizettei rare X 

Tarenna sp. nov. aff spiranthera rare X 

Terminalia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Terminalia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Tragia perrieri rare X 

Tricalysia sp. ined. 'analamazaotrensis' rare X 

Tristellateia grandiflora rare X 

Vepris sp1 patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Vepris sp2 patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Vigueranthus sp_ patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Viguieranthus sp. X Magical sorcellery 

Viscum multicostatum rare X 

Viscum radula rare X 

Viscum sp. Nov. 1 rare X 

Viscum sp. Nov. 2 rare X 

Vitex coursii rare X 

Vitex oscitans rare X 

Xylopia sp patrimonial value X as defined by MBG 

Communities/Habitats 

Azonal thicket X X medecinal, bushmeat 

Disturbed azonal thicket X X medecinal, bushmeat 

Azonal forest X X medecinal, bushmeat 

Disturbed azonal forest X X medecinal, bushmeat 

Brunt azonal forest X 

Disturbed azonal habitat (sucessions I and II) X X 

Disturbed azonal habitat (sparse vegetation) X 

Transitional forest of azonal influence on gabbro sustratum X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources 

Distrubed transitional forest of azonal influence on gabbro sustratum X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources 

Transitional forest X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources 

Exploited transitional forest X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources 

Moderately exploited zonal forest X X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources 

Moderately exploited zonal gallery forest X X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources 

Heavily exploited zonal forest (with other disturbances), mine and pipeline timber, medecinal, bushmeat 

Ephemeral ponds X X 




Streams X X water resources 

Use Values 


Whole Landscapes/Ecosystems 

Edaphic mid-altitudinal eastern humid forest on laterite profil above ultramafic X outcrop 

X timbers, medecinal, bushmeat, water ressources 

Justification 





Key to Global Significance Criteria 

Further detailed information is available at http://www.iucnredlist.org/info/categories_criteria2001. 

EXTINCT (EX) 

A taxon is Extinct when there is no reasonable doubt that the last individual has died. A taxon is presumed 

Extinct when exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, 

annual), throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame 

appropriate to the taxon's life cycle and life form. 

EXTINCT IN THE WILD (EW) 

A taxon is Extinct in the Wild when it is known only to survive in cultivation, in captivity or as a naturalized 

population (or populations) well outside the past range. A taxon is presumed Extinct in the Wild when 

exhaustive surveys in known and/or expected habitat, at appropriate times (diurnal, seasonal, annual), 

throughout its historic range have failed to record an individual. Surveys should be over a time frame 

appropriate to the taxon's life cycle and life form. 

CRITICALLY ENDANGERED (CR) 

A taxon is Critically Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A 

to E for Critically Endangered (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing an extremely high 

risk of extinction in the wild. 

ENDANGERED (EN) 

A taxon is Endangered when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for 

Endangered (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing a very high risk of extinction in the 

wild. 

VULNERABLE (VU) 

A taxon is Vulnerable when the best available evidence indicates that it meets any of the criteria A to E for 

Vulnerable (see Section V), and it is therefore considered to be facing a high risk of extinction in the wild. 

NEAR THREATENED (NT) 

A taxon is Near Threatened when it has been evaluated against the criteria but does not qualify for Critically 

Endangered, Endangered or Vulnerable now, but is close to qualifying for or is likely to qualify for a threatened 

category in the near future. 

LEAST CONCERN (LC) 

A taxon is Least Concern when it has been evaluated against the criteria and does not qualify for Critically 

Endangered, Endangered, Vulnerable or Near Threatened. Widespread and abundant taxa are included in 

this category. 

DATA DEFICIENT (DD) 

A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its 

risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status. A taxon in this category may be well 

studied, and its biology well known, but appropriate data on abundance and/or distribution are lacking. Data 

Deficient is therefore not a category of threat. Listing of taxa in this category indicates that more information is 



required and acknowledges the possibility that future research will show that threatened classification is 

appropriate. It is important to make positive use of whatever data are available. In many cases great care 

should be exercised in choosing between DD and a threatened status. If the range of a taxon is suspected to 

be relatively circumscribed, and a considerable period of time has elapsed since the last record of the taxon, 

threatened status may well be justified. 

NOT EVALUATED (NE) 

A taxon is Not Evaluated when it is has not yet been evaluated against the criteria. 



CALCULATING BIODIVERSITY LOSS AT IMPACT SITE 

(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through Project Impact, via Habitat Hectares) 

Attribute 

Steams 


species 

Canopy height 

1. To the left, label each pre-project site condition class found. 

(Three or less. e.g. "pristine", "good", "degraded", or "good", "poor", etc.) 

2. Fill in the area of … 

(enter "0" for non-relevent 

condition classes and 

impact levels) 

BENCHMARK 

Reference Level 

Units/ 

# 

Bands 

Basal area 19.6 m2/ha 

Dbh 

Propithecus 

diadema density 

Allocebus density 0.025 number/h 

a 

Indri indri density 0.013 number/h 

a 

Weight 

Each Site Class… 

Post-Project, High Impact Sites… 

Post-Project, Medium Impact Sites… 

Post-Project, Low Impact Sites… 

Habitat Type 1: 

Azonal thicket 

… of Condition …of Condition Class …of Condition 

Class 1: 


2: 


Class 3: 


forest 

590.74 475.55 

0 

528.86 427.22 

0 

61.88 

48.33 0 

0 0 0 

Total Habitat 

Hectares Lost: 

3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in 

question… 

Condition Class 1: Condition Class 2: Condition Class 3: 

Quasi pristine Disturbed primary 

0 

Rationale 

Trad'ble/ 

Pre/Post-Project Conditions primary forest 

forest 

Habitat 

(enter comments explaining data in columns 

Non? 

Condition/ Net Condition/ Net Condition/ Net Hectares Lost 

B to Q) 

(T/NT) 

Level Loss Level Loss Level Loss 

1015 

stems 

number/h 

a 

0.15 NT 

Pre-Project 

Post-Project, High Impact Sites 

Post-Project, Medium Impact Sites 

Post-Project, Low Impact Sites 

911 

0 

911 

911 

0 

0 

285 

0 

285 

285 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

89.19445714 

41 

Tree 

species/h 

a 

0.2 NT 





43 

0 

43 

43 

0 

0 

18 

0 

18 

18 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

148.4436098 

Pre-Project 8.98 5.45 

11.5 Meter 0.05 NT 



0 

8.98 

8.98 

0 

0 

5.45 

5.45 

0 

0 

0 

30.77179043 

Post-Project, Low Impact Sites 0 0 0 


0.05 NT 



0 

19.42 

19.42 

0 

0 

3.55 

3.55 

0 

0 

0 

30.06911276 



0.05 NT 



0 

13.29 

13.29 

0 

0 

9.95 

9.95 

0 

0 

0 

57.90240452 


Pre-Project 0.033 0 

0.033 0.2 NT 



0 

0.033 

0.033 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

105.772 



0.1 NT 



0 

0.0248 

0.0248 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

52.886 





0 

0.013 

0.013 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 


number/h 

9.74 cm 

a 

0.2 NT 

104.9645802 

620.00 

No mitigation Year _0 



LOSS AT IMPACT SITE 


Attribute 

Stems 

Number of Tree species 

Canopy height 

BENCHMARK 


Units/ 

# 

Bands 


Dbh 

Propithecus diadema 

density 


8.55 

7.65 cm 

0.033 number/h 

a 


a 


a 


1273 

138 





stems/ha 

Tree 

species/h 

a 

m 

Weight 

Trad'ble/ 

Non? 

(T/NT) 





… of Condition Class 1: 

Quasi pristine primary 

forest 

forest 

Condition/ 

Level 

Net 

Loss 



forest 

126.37 328.22 

Condition Class 1: 


forest 

Condition/ 

Level 

Net 

Loss 

Condition/ 

Level 

Pre-Project 1045 880 

0.15 NT 


Post-Project, Medium Impact Sites 1045 

1045 

0 880 

880 

0 

0 

0 

29.6630597 



0.2 NT 


Post-Project, Medium Impact Sites 138 

138 

0 55 

55 

0 

0 

0 

28.42585507 



0.05 NT 


Post-Project, Medium Impact Sites 8.48 

8.48 

0 10.1 

10.1 

0 

0 

0 

15.79959298 



0.05 NT 



23.88 

0 17.2 

17.2 

0 

0 

0 

10.26298834 



0.05 NT 



12.26 

0 9.18 

9.18 

0 

0 

0 

17.63817778 



0.2 NT 



0.033 

0 0.033 

0.033 

0 

0 

0 

55.212 



0.1 NT 



0.0248 

0 0.0248 

0.0248 

0 

0 

0 

27.606 



0.2 NT 



0.013 

0 0.013 

0.013 

0 

0 

0 

54.79053435 


105.54 



[Fill in name here] 

3. For each relevant condition class and impact level below, please fill in the condition/level of the attribute in question… 

Pre/Post-Project Conditions 

72.99 


53.38 222.68 

Transitional Forests 




Net 

Loss 

Habitat 

Hectares Lost 

Total Habitat Hectares Lost: 239 

Rationale 

(enter comments explaining data in columns B to Q) 





Attribute 

Stems 

Number of tree species 

Canopy height 







BENCHMARK 


Units/ 

# 

Bands 

Basal area 22 m2/ha 

Dbh 


density 


a 


a 

Weight 






Zonal Forests 

… of Condition Class 1: …of Condition Class 2: 

Quasi pristine primary Disturbed primary 

forest 

forest 



412.74 124.97 

256.9 14.94 

155.84 

110.03 

Total Habitat Hectares Lost: 305.13 


Trad'ble/ 

Non? 

(T/NT) 




forest 

Condition/ Net 

Level Loss 



forest 


Level Loss 




Level Loss 

Habitat 

Hectares Lost 

Rationale 


1065 

Stem 

number/h 

a 

0.15 NT 





1207 

1207 

1207 

0 

1207 

970 

970 

970 

0 

970 

0 

0 

0 

45.71409859 

72 

Tree 

species/h 

a 

0.2 NT 





107 

107 

107 

0 

107 

30 

30 

30 

0 

30 

0 

0 

0 

77.60138889 


9.9 meter 0.05 NT 



10.5 

0 12.65 

12.65 

0 

0 

0 

14.57798485 

Post-Project, Low Impact Sites 10.5 12.65 0 


0.05 NT 



33.3 

0 21.65 

21.65 

0 

0 

0 

20.177775 



0.05 NT 



13.77 

0.4 15.44 

15.44 

0 

0 

0 

12.84548156 



0.033 0.2 NT 



0.033 

0 0.033 

0.033 

0 

0 

0 

54.368 



0.1 NT 



0.025 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

25.89717742 

Post-Project, Low Impact Sites 0.025 0 0 




0.013 

0 0.013 

0.013 

0 

0 

0 


number/h 

14.91 cm 

a 

0.2 NT 

53.9529771 





Attribute 

Stems 

Number of tree species 

Canopy height 

Volume 34.17 m3/ha 

Dbh 


density 



9.9 

14.91 cm 

0.033 number/h 

a 


a 


a 

Weight 





BENCHMARK 



Units/ 

# 

Bands 

Trad'ble/ 

Non? 

(T/NT) 


0 

Condition/ 

Level 

Net 

Loss 

1065 

72 





Stems/ha 

Tree 

species/5 

00m2 

m 


… of Condition Class 1: …of Condition Class 2: …of Condition Class 3: 

Heavily fragmented and 

degraded primary forest 

71.04 



0 

Condition/ 

Level 

Pipeline degraded zonal forests 

Net 

Loss 

Condition/ 

Level 

Pre-Project 104 

0.15 NT 



0 

0 

0 

0 104 

104 

0 

0.241690141 



0.2 NT 



0 

0 

0 

0 45 

45 

0 

2.0625 


Pre-Project 4.139 

0.05 NT 



0 

0 

0 

0 4.139 

4.139 

0 

0.344916667 

Post-Project, Low Impact Sites 0 0 4.139 


0.05 NT 



0 

0 

0 

0 14.502 

14.502 

0 

0.350136084 



0.05 NT 



0 

0 

0 

0 14.978 

14.978 

0 

0.828762575 



0.2 NT 



0 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 



0.1 NT 



0 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 



0.2 NT 



0 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 


16.5 

4.95 


Heavily fragmented and 

degraded primary forest 

Net 

Loss 

Habitat 

Hectares Lost 

Total Habitat Hectares Lost: 3.83 

Rationale 



Appendix 2: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and 

Habitat Hectares Score, February 2008 Iteration 






Significance 



Socioeconomic 

Values 

Use Values 

Cultural Values 

Justification 

(Insert comments here explaining data entered in columns 

A to I) 

Species 

Prolemur simus CR X Ecotourism, bush meat Ecological services: main seeds disperseurs 

Propithecus d. diadema CR X Ecotourism, bush meat Tabou Existence of illegal bush meat for all these lemur species 

Indri indri EN X Ecotourism, bush meat Tabou 

Allocebus trichotis EN X Ecotourism, bush meat 

Daubentonia madagascarensis EN X Ecotourism, bush meat Tabou 

Tyto soumagnei EN X Ecotourism 

Platypelis sp. nov X X Rational exportation 

There's annual quota for those species under CITES 

exporation. However, there are lacks of study on 

population density 

Scaphiophryne marmorata VU X Rational exportation 

Rhombophryne coronata VU X Rational exportation 

Mantella aurantiaca CR X Rational exportation 

Mantella crocea EN X Rational exportation 

Mantidactylus plicifer NT X Rational exportation 

Pararhadinaea sp.nov X X Rational exportation 

Sanzinia madagascariensis VU X Rational exportation, bush meat 

Aloe leandri X X 

Ratsirakia sp X X Bush meat 

Rheocles sp X X Bush meat 

Asteropeia micraster EN 

Leptolaena multiflora EN 

Dalbergia baroni VU 

Cyathea dregei NE Cites II 

Cyathea cf tsaratananensis NE Cites II 

Eulemur rubriventer 

Communities/Habitats 

VU X Bush meat 

Azonal forest X X medecinal, bushmeet, 

Transitional forest X X timbers, medecinal, bushmeet, water ressources 

Zonal forest X timbers, X medecinal, bushmeet, water ressources 

Azonal fauna X X 

Azonal flora 

Whole Landscapes/Ecosystems 

X X 

Edaphic mid-altitudinal eastern humid forest on Xlaterite profil above ultramafic outcrop X forest & water ressources 

For ‘Key to Global Significance Criteria’ see Appendix 1 above. 


78

Appendix 2: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, February 2008 Iteration 79 


(Quantifcation of Biodiversity Loss Through Project Impact, via Habitat 

Hectares) 


Attribute 

Steams 


species 

Canopy height 

variation 



Dbh 

Height to crown 6.13 m3 










Azonal forest 


Class 3: 

Ponds 

793.02 549.17 

0 

615 447.04 

0 

0 

0 0 


586 steam/ha 0.2 NT 



739 

739 

0 263 

263 

0 

0 

195.2411331 


41 

Tree 

species/5 

00m2 

0.25 NT 





58 

0 58 

58 

58 

15 

15 

15 

15 

0 

0 

0 

258.3878049 


9.54 Meter 0.15 NT 



0 4.43 

4.43 

2.02 

2.02 

0 

0 

57.0357044 



0.15 NT 



0 7.07 

7.07 

1.18 

1.18 

0 

0 

134.1896477 



9.74 m 0.15 NT 



0 9.64 

9.64 

7.26 

7.26 

0 

0 

141.2850678 



0.1 NT 



0 4.98 

4.98 

3.13 

3.13 

0 

0 

72.78850245 


Total Habitat 



question… 

BENCHMARK 



Units/ 

# 

Bands 

Trad'ble/ 

Non? 

(T/NT) 


Good forest 


Level Loss 

Disturbed 


Level Loss 

Ponds 


Level Loss 

Habitat 

Hectares Lost 

Rationale 

(enter comments explaining data in 

columns B to Q) 

Weight 


Class 1: 

…of Condition Class 

2: 

Good forest Disturbed 

0 0 0 

859 

Good: P.5; Disturbed: P. 20 

after 30 years estimated 

approximately about 40% to 60% of 

the structure attribute value will be 

restored on the impact site 


Appendix 3: Key Biodiversity Components 

Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, 

April 2008 Iteration 

BIODIVERSITY LOSS calculations scenarios at IMPACT SITE, and post-Project remediation effects on biodiversity 

loss calculations scenarios at impact site, Ambatovy Project 

Percentage of 

attributes 

rehabilitation 

0% 

Year 

0 (without 

mitigation) 

Habitat types 

Forest Streams/Rivers Ephemeral pools 

1620 1.16 0.64 

5% 0-7 1539 1.1 0.61 

20% 7-15 1296 0.93 0.51 

40% 15-30 972 0.69 0.38 

75% 30-60 405 0.29 0.16 

90% 60-120 162 0.12 0.06 

Detailed calculations can be found below. 


80

Appendix 3: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) and Habitat Hectares Score, April 2008 Iteration 81 

Habitat hectares lost – no mitigation 



Hectares) 



Attribute 











Stems 1118 stems/ha 0.1 NT 



1004.8 

1004.8 

0 735.57 

735.57 

0 

0 

175.4906165 



Basal area 22.16 

Square 

meters/ha 

0.05 NT 



0 23.22 

23.22 

14.57 

14.57 

0 

0 

99.55773885 



Mean tree height 

canopy 

9.98 Meter 0.025 NT 



0 9.07 

9.07 

9.5 

9.5 

0 

0 

47.92328259 



Top height tree 14.54 Meter 0.025 NT 



0 13.57 

13.57 

15.17 

15.17 

0 

0 

50.03226773 



Tree species density 83.63 number/ha 0.1 NT 



0 85.08 

85.08 

36.86 

36.86 

0 

0 

183.4857277 



Propithecus 

diadema Density 

0.033 

0.1 NT 



0.033 

0.033 

0 

0 

0 

0 

158.71055 


Propithecus 

diadema 

vulnerability index 

123.3 0 0.05 NT 





123.3 

123.3 

123.3 

123.3 

123.3 

123.3 

123.3 

123.3 

0 

0 

0 

104.3221485 


Allocebus trichotis 

density 

0.025 number/ha 0.1 NT 



0.025 

0.025 

0 

0 

0 

0 

160.3136869 





142.4 0 0.05 NT 



142.4 

142.4 

142.4 

142.4 

0 

0 

104.2548391 



Prolemur simus 

density 




0.007 

0.007 

0 

0 

0 

0 

169.8818697 





4.13 0 0.05 NT 



4.13 

4.13 

4.13 

4.13 

0 

0 

104.2894121 



Indri indri density 0.013 number/ha 0.1 NT 



0.013 

0.013 

0 

0 

0 

0 

157.7474504 



Indri indri 


31.12 0 0.05 NT 



31.12 

31.12 

31.12 

31.12 

0 

0 

104.275906 



Deforestation rate 0 

Percentag 

e 

0.1 NT 



0.8 

0.8 

14.05 

14.05 

0 

0 

0 


Forest 


Class 3: 

Ponds 

1587.963 497.7 

0 

1587.963 497.7 

0 

0 

0 0 

Total Habitat 



question… 

BENCHMARK 



Units/ 

# 

Bands 

Trad'ble/ 

Non? 

(T/NT) 


Good forest 


Level Loss 

Disturbed 


Level Loss 

Ponds 


Level Loss 

Habitat 

Hectares Lost 

Rationale 



Weight 


Class 1: 


2: 


0 0 0 

1620 

Good forest is the average of : P.5, 

6, 9, 12, 14, & 18; Disturbed forest 

average of : P. 10 &20 




Habitat hectares lost – 5% mitigation 



Hectares) 



Attribute 

Stems 

Basal area 


canopy 

Top height tree 14.54 Meter 

Tree species density 83.63 number/ha 

Propithecus 


Propithecus 

diadema 



density 




density 




31.12 0 0.05 

Percentag 

e 





Condition/ 

Level 


0.1 NT 



50.2375 954.51 

1004.8 

36.7785 698.79 

735.57 

0 

0 

166.7160857 



0.05 NT 



1.161 22.059 

23.22 

0.7285 13.842 

14.57 

0 

0 

94.57985191 



0.025 NT 



0.4535 8.6165 

9.07 

0.475 9.025 

9.5 

0 

0 

45.52711846 



0.025 NT 



0.6785 12.892 

13.57 

0.7585 14.412 

15.17 

0 

0 

47.53065434 



0.1 NT 



4.254 80.826 

85.08 

1.843 35.017 

36.86 

0 

0 

174.3114413 



0.1 NT 



0.00165 0.0314 

0.033 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

150.7750225 





6.165 117.14 

123.3 

6.165 117.14 

123.3 

0 

0 

99.10604103 



0.1 NT 



0.00125 0.0238 

0.025 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

152.2980025 



0.05 NT 



7.12 135.28 

142.4 

7.12 135.28 

142.4 

0 

0 

99.04209716 



0.1 NT 



0.00035 0.0067 

0.007 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

161.3877762 



0.05 NT 



0.2065 3.9235 

4.13 

0.2065 3.9235 

4.13 

0 

0 

99.07494151 



NT 



0.00065 0.0124 

0.013 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 



NT 



1.556 29.564 

31.12 

1.556 29.564 

31.12 

0 

0 

99.06211074 



0.1 NT 



0.04 0.76 

0.8 

0.7025 13.348 

14.05 

0 

0 

0 


Indri indri density 0.013 number/ha 0.1 149.8600779 

Indri indri 


1118 

22.16 

9.98 

0.033 





stems/ha 

Square 

meters/ha 

Meter 

123.3 0 0.05 NT 

0.025 number/ha 

142.4 0 


4.13 0 

Weight 


Class 1: 

Good forest 


2: 

Disturbed 

1587.963 497.7 

1587.963 497.7 


Class 3: 

Ponds 

0 0 0 

BENCHMARK 

Condition Class 1: Condition Class 2: 


Units/ 

# 

Bands 

Trad'ble/ 

Non? 

(T/NT) 


Good forest 


Level Loss 

Disturbed 


Level Loss 

0 



0 

0 0 


Ponds 

Net 

Loss 

Total Habitat 



question… 

0 

Habitat 

Hectares Lost 

1539 

Rationale 












Hectares) 



Attribute 

Stems 

Basal area 


canopy 



Propithecus 


Propithecus 

diadema 



density 




density 




31.12 0 0.05 

Percentag 

e 





Condition/ 

Level 


0.1 NT 



200.95 803.8 

1004.8 

147.114 588.46 

735.57 

0 

0 

140.3924932 



0.05 NT 



4.644 18.576 

23.22 

2.914 11.656 

14.57 

0 

0 

79.64619108 



0.025 NT 



1.814 7.256 

9.07 

1.9 7.6 

9.5 

0 

0 

38.33862607 



0.025 NT 



2.714 10.856 

13.57 

3.034 12.136 

15.17 

0 

0 

40.02581418 



0.1 NT 



17.016 68.064 

85.08 

7.372 29.488 

36.86 

0 

0 

146.7885821 



0.1 NT 



0.0066 0.0264 

0.033 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

126.96844 





24.66 98.64 

123.3 

24.66 98.64 

123.3 

0 

0 

83.45771876 



0.1 NT 



0.005 0.02 

0.025 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

128.2509495 



0.05 NT 



28.48 113.92 

142.4 

28.48 113.92 

142.4 

0 

0 

83.40387129 



0.1 NT 



0.0014 0.0056 

0.007 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

135.9054958 



0.05 NT 



0.826 3.304 

4.13 

0.826 3.304 

4.13 

0 

0 

83.43152969 



NT 



0.0026 0.0104 

0.013 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 



NT 



6.224 24.896 

31.12 

6.224 24.896 

31.12 

0 

0 

83.42072484 



0.1 NT 



0.16 0.64 

0.8 

2.81 11.24 

14.05 

0 

0 

0 



Indri indri 


1118 

22.16 

9.98 

0.033 





stems/ha 

Square 

meters/ha 

Meter 

123.3 0 0.05 NT 


142.4 0 


4.13 0 

Weight 


Class 1: 

Good forest 


2: 

Disturbed 

1587.963 497.7 

1587.963 497.7 


Class 3: 

Ponds 

0 0 0 

BENCHMARK 



Units/ 

# 

Bands 

Trad'ble/ 

Non? 

(T/NT) 


Good forest 


Level Loss 

Disturbed 


Level Loss 

0 



0 

0 0 


Ponds 

Net 

Loss 

Total Habitat 



question… 

0 

Habitat 

Hectares Lost 

1296 

Rationale 












Hectares) 



Attribute 














401.9 602.85 

1004.8 

294.228 441.34 

735.57 

0 

0 

105.2943699 




Square 

meters/ha 

0.05 NT 



9.288 13.932 

23.22 

5.828 8.742 

14.57 

0 

0 

59.73464331 




canopy 

9.98 Meter 0.025 NT 



3.628 5.442 

9.07 

3.8 5.7 

9.5 

0 

0 

28.75396955 






5.428 8.142 

13.57 

6.068 9.102 

15.17 

0 

0 

30.01936064 






34.032 51.048 

85.08 

14.744 22.116 

36.86 

0 

0 

110.0914366 



Propithecus 


0.033 

0.1 NT 



0.0132 0.0198 

0.033 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

95.22633 


Propithecus 

diadema 


123.3 0 0.05 NT 





123.3 

49.32 73.98 

123.3 

123.3 

123.3 

49.32 73.98 

123.3 

123.3 

0 

0 

0 

62.59328907 



density 




0.01 0.015 

0.025 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

96.18821212 





142.4 0 0.05 NT 



56.96 85.44 

142.4 

56.96 85.44 

142.4 

0 

0 

62.55290347 




density 




0.0028 0.0042 

0.007 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

101.9291218 





4.13 0 0.05 NT 



1.652 2.478 

4.13 

1.652 2.478 

4.13 

0 

0 

62.57364727 






0.0052 0.0078 

0.013 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

94.64847026 



Indri indri 


31.12 0 0.05 NT 



12.448 18.672 

31.12 

12.448 18.672 

31.12 

0 

0 

62.56554363 




Percentag 

e 

0.1 NT 



0.32 0.48 

0.8 

5.62 8.43 

14.05 

0 

0 

0 




Class 3: 

Ponds 

1587.963 497.7 

0 

1587.963 497.7 

0 

0 

0 0 

Total Habitat 



question… 

BENCHMARK 



Units/ 

# 

Bands 

Trad'ble/ 

Non? 

(T/NT) 


Good forest 


Level Loss 

Disturbed 


Level Loss 

Ponds 


Level Loss 

Habitat 

Hectares Lost 

Rationale 



Weight 


Class 1: 


2: 


0 0 0 


972 




No mitigation Year _0





Hectares) 



Attribute 














753.5625 251.19 

1004.8 

551.6775 183.89 

735.57 

0 

0 

43.87265413 




Square 

meters/ha 

0.05 NT 



17.415 5.805 

23.22 

10.9275 3.6425 

14.57 

0 

0 

24.88943471 




canopy 

9.98 Meter 0.025 NT 



6.8025 2.2675 

9.07 

7.125 2.375 

9.5 

0 

0 

11.98082065 






10.1775 3.3925 

13.57 

11.3775 3.7925 

15.17 

0 

0 

12.50806693 






63.81 21.27 

85.08 

27.645 9.215 

36.86 

0 

0 

45.87143191 



Propithecus 


0.033 

0.1 NT 



0.02475 0.0083 

0.033 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

39.6776375 


Propithecus 

diadema 


123.3 0 0.05 NT 





123.3 

92.475 30.825 

123.3 

123.3 

123.3 

92.475 30.825 

123.3 

123.3 

0 

0 

0 

26.08053711 



density 




0.01875 0.0063 

0.025 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

40.07842172 





142.4 0 0.05 NT 



106.8 35.6 

142.4 

106.8 35.6 

142.4 

0 

0 

26.06370978 




density 




0.00525 0.0018 

0.007 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

42.47046743 





4.13 0 0.05 NT 



3.0975 1.0325 

4.13 

3.0975 1.0325 

4.13 

0 

0 

26.07235303 






0.00975 0.0033 

0.013 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

39.43686261 



Indri indri 


31.12 0 0.05 NT 



23.34 7.78 

31.12 

23.34 7.78 

31.12 

0 

0 

26.06897651 




Percentag 

e 

0.1 NT 



0.6 0.2 

0.8 

10.5375 3.5125 

14.05 

0 

0 

0 




Class 3: 

Ponds 

1587.963 497.7 

0 

1587.963 497.7 

0 

0 

0 0 

Total Habitat 



question… 

BENCHMARK 



Units/ 

# 

Bands 

Trad'ble/ 

Non? 

(T/NT) 


Good forest 


Level Loss 

Disturbed 


Level Loss 

Ponds 


Level Loss 

Habitat 

Hectares Lost 

Rationale 



Weight 


Class 1: 


2: 


0 0 0 


405 









Hectares) 


Attribute 

Stems 

Basal area 


canopy 



Propithecus 


Propithecus 

diadema 



density 




density 




31.12 0 0.05 

Percentag 

e 





Condition/ 

Level 


0.1 NT 



904.275 100.48 

1004.8 

662.013 73.557 

735.57 

0 

0 

17.54906165 



0.05 NT 



20.898 2.322 

23.22 

13.113 1.457 

14.57 

0 

0 

9.955773885 



0.025 NT 



8.163 0.907 

9.07 

8.55 0.95 

9.5 

0 

0 

4.792328259 



0.025 NT 



12.213 1.357 

13.57 

13.653 1.517 

15.17 

0 

0 

5.003226773 



0.1 NT 



76.572 8.508 

85.08 

33.174 3.686 

36.86 

0 

0 

18.34857277 



0.1 NT 



0.0297 0.0033 

0.033 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

15.871055 





110.97 12.33 

123.3 

110.97 12.33 

123.3 

0 

0 

10.43221485 



0.1 NT 



0.0225 0.0025 

0.025 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

16.03136869 



0.05 NT 



128.16 14.24 

142.4 

128.16 14.24 

142.4 

0 

0 

10.42548391 



0.1 NT 



0.0063 0.0007 

0.007 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

16.98818697 



0.05 NT 



3.717 0.413 

4.13 

3.717 0.413 

4.13 

0 

0 

10.42894121 



NT 



0.0117 0.0013 

0.013 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 



NT 



28.008 3.112 

31.12 

28.008 3.112 

31.12 

0 

0 

10.4275906 



0.1 NT 



0.72 0.08 

0.8 

12.645 1.405 

14.05 

0 

0 

0 



Indri indri 



1118 

22.16 

9.98 

0.033 





stems/ha 

Square 

meters/ha 

Meter 

123.3 0 0.05 NT 


142.4 0 


4.13 0 

Weight 


Class 1: 

Good forest 


2: 

Disturbed 

1587.963 497.7 

1587.963 497.7 


Class 3: 

Ponds 

0 0 0 

BENCHMARK 



Units/ 

# 

Bands 

Trad'ble/ 

Non? 

(T/NT) 


Good forest 


Level Loss 

Disturbed 


Level Loss 

0 



0 

0 0 


Ponds 

Net 

Loss 

Total Habitat 



question… 

0 

Habitat 

Hectares Lost 


162 

Rationale 







Appendix 4: Mine Footprint Status Sheet, 

2nd Iteration 


87

Appendix 4: Mine Footprint Status Sheet, 2 nd Iteration 88 






Appendix 5: Vulnerability Index 

VULNERABILITY can be expressed based on: 

Geographical range (largely, more restricted), 

Level of habitat types dependence (more ubiquiste to stenocene species etc.), and 

Abundance indices (rare to common) (Kattan 1992; Rabinowitz et al. 1986). 

The approach used allows the offset planner to attribute an index score in each cell of the matrix in order to 

represent the vulnerability level of each species based on above parameters. For a community, the 

percentage of species constituting its total number could be included in a cell in order to indicate how 

vulnerable a community is. The original concept of the vulnerability matrix following (Rabinowitz et al. 1986) is 

presented below, where Vi is the vulnerability index. 

Abundance 

Range (geographical distribution) 

Large Restricted 

Habitat type 

dependence level Ubiquiste Stenocene Ubiquiste Stenocene 

Common Vi=8 Vi=6 Vi=4 Vi=2 

Rare Vi=7 Vi=5 Vi=3 Vi=1 

In order to ensure that the matrix is properly used as part of the calculation of loss and gain of biodiversity, the 

following points must be taken into consideration: 

Since the BENCHMARK approach is based on the principle that higher values are better in the habitat 

hectares calculations, higher index values should be given with increased vulnerability (e.g. Vi= 1 becomes 

Vi = 8 etc…). 

The BBOP ‘Key Biodiversity Component Matrix (KBCM) ‘Irreplaceability’ level (Widespread, Localised, SITE 

ENDEMIC) will be used instead of ‘Range’ (geographical distribution); and 

The KBCM ‘Significance level’ Global column will consider (CR, EN, VU, NT) instead of using ‘habitat type 

dependence level’. 

Thus the Vulnerability matrix concept proposed for BBOP is: 

IUCN Status 

Irreplaceability : Widespread Localised Site endemic 

Abundance level: Common Rare Common Rare Common Rare 

LC 1 4 11 16 21 26 

NT 2 5 12 17 22 27 

VU 3 6 13 18 23 28 

EN 7 8 14 19 24 29 

CR 9 10 15 20 25 30 


91


There are several ways to obtain ATTRIBUTES from the species Vulnerability matrix: 

1. Fit all KBCM fauna and flora species into the matrix and assign a Vi number (1 to 30) and then simply 

compare to the total number of species in the community considered with how many have specific Vi 

numbers. 

2. Determine the % of species with specific Vi numbers. For example, for all tree species assume that 30% of 

those recorded in the benchmark have a Vi of 19 (EN, rare, localised), equating to 30% x 19 = 57. This can 

be repeated for other Vi indices and finally a sum for the entire matrix table can be generated (for example 

560). This value of 560 can then be compared with values for tree species from the impact site etc. 

3. Taking a smaller community group, e.g. all lemur species, and proceed as above, assigning each species 

a Vi score and then multiplying it with species biological data (e.g. density / ha) in order to obtain a sum for 

each site. The higher the total Vi score is, the higher is the vulnerability of this group (note that the density 

in the excel table is set at 1 until further data is collected during subsequent at Ambatovy). 

The Vulnerability matrix developed by Ambatovy is presented below. This matrix was developed in April 2008, 

as part of the second iteration of the benchmark and loss assessment 7 . 

Table A5.1: Fauna and flora species Vulnerability matrix (April 2008) 

IUCN Status 

Irreplacebility : 

Abundance level: 

Nocturnal/diurnal 

Ability to move away 

Widespread 

Localised 

Common 

Rare 

Common 

Rare 

Diunral Nocturnal Diunral Nocturnal Diurnal Nocturnal Diurnal Nocturnal 

Site endemic 

Common Rare 

Diurnal Nocturnal Diurnal Nocturnal 

from impact Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N Y N 

LC 1 4 7 10 13 16 19 22 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101 106 111 116 

NT 2 5 8 11 14 17 20 23 42 47 52 57 62 67 72 77 82 87 92 97 102 107 112 117 

VU 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 43 48 53 58 63 68 73 78 83 88 93 98 103 108 113 118 

EN 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 44 49 54 59 64 69 74 79 84 89 94 99 104 109 114 119 

CR 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 

A worked example of the application of the matrix to the Ambatovy KBCM is presented below (extract of 

Ambatovy Project BBOP Bonn report (April 2008)). 

Table A5.2: Key Biodiversity Components Matrix (KBCM) Vulnerability scores (April 2008) 

Site 

Diurnal/Noct: Moves: Vulnerabilty 

Amabtovy KBCM Species IUCN Widespread Localised endemic Rare D/N Y/N indices' 

Prolemur simus CR 

X X 65 

Propithecus d. diadema CR 

X 

Indri indri EN X 

Lemurs Allocebus trichotis EN 

X X 74 

Daubentonia madagascarensis EN 

X 

Eulemur rubriventer VU X 

Birds Tyto soumagnei EN X 

Platypelis sp. nov NE X 

Scaphiophryne marmorata VU X 


Mantella aurantiaca 

Herptiles 

Mantella crocea 

CR 

EN 

X 

X 

Mantidactylus plicifer NT X 

Pararhadinaea sp.nov NE X 

Sanzinia madagascariensis VU X 

Ratsirakia sp NE ? 

Fish Rheocles sp NE ? 

Aloe leandri NE X 

Asteropeia micraster EN X 

Plants 

Leptolaena multiflora 

Dalbergia baroni 

EN 

VU 

X 

X 

Cyathea dregei NE X 

Cyathea cf tsaratananensis NE ? 

7 Ambatovy Project BBOP Bonn report (April 2008), with revised Benchmark selection and losses calculations, including KBCM matrix 

update with species quantitative data). 



Note that the results of the Biodiversity Assessment in relation to intrinsic NON-USE VALUES and USE VALUES are 

presented in the KBCM sheet of the April 2008 report. 

December 2008 iteration: the Project believes that the use of the Vulnerability attributes still requires more in 

depth analysis, which will be conduced in 2009: the justifications for excluding the vulnerability index in the 

December 2008 calculations are that: 

This attribute should be calculated by taxonomic group not by single species as was done in the April 2008 

report: this index is a product of the combination of the IUCN status and that of relative abundance; 

Abundance is already considered in the other attributes for each species. Calculating the vulnerability 

index by taxonomic group (not single species) will give a greater ‘overall scope’ of the vulnerability and 

irreplaceability: 

– The index will provide a more scientific approach to determining the group requiring most effort for onsite 

conservation relative to other selected species. 

– It gives first same value (weight) for the various taxonomic groups. In fact not only species must avoid 

EXTIRPATION, but also the overall ecosystem characteristics should be offset. Among the latter is the 

community composition that can be tackled through a biodiversity vulnerability index. Furthermore, a 

gain on the vulnerability index by a taxonomic group will be more significant for biodiversity and 

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES than a gain for a single species. 


Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 

Volume J 

Section 1.1 

Attachment 2 

Survey for off-site azonal outcrops 


94

Appendix 6: Survey for Off-site Azonal Outcrops 95 








































Appendix 7: Comparison of Ambatovy / Analamay and 

Ankerana Azonal Habitats 


115

To learn more about the BBOP principles, guidelines and optional methodologies, go to: 

www.forest-trends.org/biodiversityoffsetprogram/guidelines

Ambatovy Project – Madagascar - Forest Trends

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?