Common Guidance for the
Identification of High Conservation
Values
Draft for Consultation| Version 13 May 2013
HCV Common Guidance
Background to this document
This document is the product of a decision by the Steering Group of the HCV
Resource Network www.hcvnetwork.org to develop common guidance for the
interpretation of HCVs globally, for any type of ecosystem, and across all land use
sectors and standards. It builds on work carried out in 2011 and 2012 by FSC in
partnership with the HCV Network, and on consultation with HCV experts and
stakeholders from relevant standards and schemes. The editorial board for this
document includes: Ellen Brown, Nigel Dudley, Anders Lindhe, Dwi R. Muhtaman,
Christopher Stewart and Timothy Synnott. With additional valuable input from
Robin Abell, Marcus Colchester, Michael Senior and Tim Rayden.
This common guidance is part of a broader quality control scheme in development
by the HCV Resource Network, whose final elements will include:
•
Common global interpretation of HCV definitions (this document)
•
Guidance on HCV assessment (this document)
•
HCV assessor training and capacity building
•
“HCV professional” assessor registration/certification
•
Peer review of HCV assessment reports
HCV definitions were first set forth by FSC in 1999 in version 4.0 of its Principles
and Criteria1. Guidance was further elaborated in 2003 by Proforest in its HCV
Forest (HCVF) Toolkit. In 2005, the newly established HCV Resource Network
adopted a slightly simplified version of the HCVF2 Toolkit formulations in its
founding Charter3 and widened their scope to include “HCV Areas” i.e. both forest
and non-forest ecosystems. Between 2009 and 2011, the HCV Resource Network
and FSC worked together to revise the HCV definitions, involving experts and
stakeholders in other sustainability schemes; this process, resulting in the FSC
P&C version 5.0, brought a focus on ‘values’ rather than ‘areas’, clarified
definitional language and provided better alignment between the FSC’s 2012 P&C
and the HCV Network’s Charter. Since the second half of 2012 Proforest has been
engaged in a consultative process to develop a practical user manual for the
common interpretation and identification of High Conservation Values (HCV),
known as the “HCV Common Guidance”.
This document draws principally from a June 2012 paper by Timothy Synnott with
contributions from Marcus Colchester (Forest Peoples Alliance) Nigel Dudley
(Equilibrium Research), Nilofer Ghaffar (HCV Resource Network), Angeline Gough
(FSC), Daniel Hall (ForestEthics), Anders Lindhe (WWF International), Dwi R.
Muhtaman (ReMark Asia), John Palmer (Forest Management Trust), Richard
Robertson (FSC), Grant Rosoman (Greenpeace New Zealand), Christopher Stewart
(Proforest), Christoph Thies (Greenpeace International), Maria Tyschianouk (FSC
1
FSC-STD-01-001
High Conservation Value Forest
3
www.hcvnetwork.org
2
2
HCV Common Guidance
Russia). The original paper by Synnott focused on the interpretation of HCVs in a
forest context and particularly under FSC.
The Common Guidance also builds on earlier practical guides for HCV
assessments, maintaining valuable information from the earlier guides. It draws
most heavily on: Good practice guidelines for High Conservation Value
assessments: A practical guide for practitioners and auditors (2008) and
Assessment, management and monitoring of High Conservation Value Forest: A
practical guide for forest managers (2008).
Please send comments on this draft to:
Ellen Brown
ellen@proforest.net
3
HCV Common Guidance
Table of contents
1 Introduction .............................................................................. 6
1.1
The High Conservation Value approach ....................................................6
1.2
The six High Conservation Values .............................................................7
1.3
HCV areas and HCV management areas ...................................................7
1.4
Responsible land management .................................................................8
1.5
Common guidance .....................................................................................9
1.5.1
Ecosystems ....................................................................................................... 9
1.5.2
Commodities .................................................................................................. 10
1.5.3
Other uses of the HCV approach .................................................................... 11
1.5.4
Common guidance and national interpretations ........................................... 11
2 Key steps in the HCV process ................................................... 13
2.1
Identification ...........................................................................................13
2.2
Management ...........................................................................................14
2.3
Monitoring...............................................................................................14
3 Key considerations throughout the assessment process .......... 15
3.1
The “significance” of High Conservation Values .....................................15
3.2
Landscape scale .......................................................................................16
3.3
Precautionary approach ..........................................................................16
3.4
Stakeholder consultation ........................................................................18
4 HCV Identification ................................................................... 18
4.1
Preparation and planning ........................................................................19
4.1.1
Gathering Preliminary Data ............................................................................ 19
4.1.2
Dealing with data gaps ................................................................................... 20
4.2
Scoping ....................................................................................................21
4.3
Assessment..............................................................................................21
5 Identification of the six HCVs ................................................... 22
5.1
HCV 1: Biodiversity ..................................................................................22
5.1.1
Key terms and concepts ................................................................................. 23
5.1.2
Indicators and data sources ........................................................................... 26
5.1.3
Case study ...................................................................................................... 28
5.2
HCV 2: Landscape-level ecosystems and mosaics ...................................29
5.2.1
Key terms and concepts ................................................................................. 30
5.2.2
Indicators and data sources ........................................................................... 31
5.2.3
Case study ...................................................................................................... 35
5.3
HCV 3: Ecosystems and habitats .............................................................35
5.3.1
Key terms and concepts ................................................................................. 36
5.3.2
Indicators and data sources ........................................................................... 37
4
HCV Common Guidance
5.3.3
5.4
Case study ...................................................................................................... 37
HCV 4- Critical ecosystem services ..........................................................38
5.4.1
Key terms and concepts ................................................................................. 38
5.4.2
Indicators and data sources ........................................................................... 42
5.4.3
Case study ...................................................................................................... 43
5.5
HCV 5 Community needs.........................................................................44
5.5.1
Indicators and data sources ........................................................................... 47
5.5.2
Data sources ................................................................................................... 50
5.5.3
Methods for assessing HCV 5 ......................................................................... 50
5.5.4
Case study ...................................................................................................... 51
5.6
HCV 6 Cultural Values ..............................................................................52
5.6.1
Key terms and concepts ................................................................................. 52
5.6.2
Indicators and data sources ........................................................................... 55
5.6.3
Case study ...................................................................................................... 56
6 References .............................................................................. 57
Annex ........................................................................................... 58
1.
HCV assessment general checklist ..........................................................58
2.
HCV Resources ........................................................................................60
5
HCV Common Guidance
1
Introduction
This document builds on a series of Good Practice guides for High Conservation
Value (HCV) practitioners and auditors. Over the past few years, as global HCV
definitions are amended and as the HCV approach has been adopted by ever
more and diverse initiatives, it is useful to take stock of current guidance and
provide an update. This document does not intend to completely replace the
existing guidance, but it aims to widen the scope of use of HCV and to provide
some advice/guidance based on practical field experience. In recent years there
has been growing concern amongst members of the HCV Resource Network, HCV
practitioners and other interested parties, that the HCV approach has not been
applied consistently across different land use sectors or geographies. The
identification of values within a specific landscape and site should be based on a
common interpretation of the HCV definitions, as set out in this document. This
document is intended for HCV assessors and land managers, especially those
working without the benefit of national interpretations, to provide guidance on
interpreting the HCV definitions and their applications, with the goal of providing
some degree of standardization in use of the HCV approach. The document can
also help developers of HCV national interpretations. See Annex 2 for additional
HCV guidance materials which can supplement this document.
1.1
The High Conservation Value approach
The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) developed the HCV concept in 1999 to
ensure maintenance of significant environmental and social values in the context
of responsible forest management. Since then, the HCV concept has been
adopted by other natural resource sustainability standards (see Box X) and by
many organisations which aim to maintain and/or enhance critical social and
environmental values as part of responsible land management4. The six HCVs have
been applied principally to land-based production practices such as forestry and
agriculture. These sectors are the primary focus of this document, but an HCV
assessment should consider all ecosystems – terrestrial and aquatic – that occur
within a production site, and ideally within the larger area of influence as well.
International sustainability standards use the HCV concept as a way of ensuring
that environmental and social principles are met. Whilst many ecosystems contain
environmental and social values deserving of protection, the HCV framework
deems some values to be more important than others. These HCVs demand a
greater degree of protection, and therefore precautions and extra management
efforts are necessary to ensure their long term maintenance, particularly if they
may be negatively impacted by practices undertaken in logging concessions,
agricultural plantations or other production sites. These measures may exceed
4
HCV Resource Network Charter
6
HCV Common Guidance
what is required for ‘normal’ good practice, and must be sufficient to address the
threats to HCVs.
The High Conservation Value (HCV) concept was first developed as a component
of a certification process, applied at management unit level, rather than as a
stand-alone conservation tool. Certification schemes usually incorporate critical
safeguards, such as requirements to comply with national law, to protect
endangered species, to respect indigenous peoples’ tenure rights, and a
mechanism to check that management plans are effectively implemented.
Outside of the context of certification, HCV is used to inform land-use planning,
conservation advocacy, and designing responsible purchasing and investment
policies (e.g. governmental and commercial).
1.2
The six High Conservation Values
The six High Conservation Values
HCV 1 - Species diversity: Concentrations of biological diversity including endemic
species, and rare, threatened or endangered species, that are significant at global,
regional or national levels.
HCV 2 - Landscape-level ecosystems and mosaics: Large landscape-level ecosystems
and ecosystem mosaics that are significant at global, regional or national levels, and
that contain viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species
in natural patterns of distribution and abundance.
HCV 3 - Ecosystems and habitats: Rare, threatened, or endangered ecosystems,
habitats or refugia.
HCV 4 - Critical ecosystem services: Basic ecosystem services in critical situations,
including protection of water catchments and control of erosion of vulnerable soils and
slopes.
HCV 5 - Community needs: Sites and resources fundamental for satisfying the basic
necessities of local communities or indigenous peoples (for livelihoods, health,
nutrition, water, etc.), identified through engagement with these communities or
indigenous peoples.
HCV 6 - Cultural values: Sites, resources, habitats and landscapes of global or national
cultural, archaeological or historical significance, and/or of critical cultural, ecological,
economic or religious/sacred importance for the traditional cultures of local
communities or indigenous peoples, identified through engagement with these local
communities or indigenous peoples.
1.3 HCV areas and HCV management areas
To be elaborated…
7
HCV Common Guidance
1.4 Responsible land management
The HCV assessment should occur prior to proposed development activities or
operations rather than retrospectively. But also, a High Conservation Value
assessment and management plan is not a stand-alone guarantee of
sustainability. It should be integrated with responsible land use management
which respects the principles of application as set out by the HCV Resource
Network.
Legality
 There is compliance with all applicable with national and local laws and
international treaties and agreements.
Secure tenure, customary rights and consent
 The right to use the land can be demonstrated, and is not legitimately
contested by local communities with demonstrable rights.
 Use or management of the land does not diminish the legal or customary
rights, of indigenous peoples, local communities or other users, without
their free, prior and informed consent (FPIC).
Conversion
 Areas necessary at the site and landscape scale to maintain or enhance
HCVs shall not be converted to other land uses.
 The absence of HCVs, and the application of the HCV approach, alone
should not be used to justify the conversion of natural ecosystems.
Forest management was the original context for HCV assessments. This assumes
that the areas supporting HCVs will remain forested and will likely even be
surrounded by continuous forest cover. However, there is a growing demand for
HCV assessments both for managing the impacts of existing agricultural/tree
plantations, and for responsibly planning the expansion of plantations (e.g. for
RSPO-certified palm oil). In this context, the HCV process is used as a safeguard
against the destruction of critical values through conversion of natural vegetation
to plantation forestry or agriculture. Regardless of whether the HCV process is
employed within a certification system (such as RSPO) or outside it, a more
thorough and cautious approach is needed both in identifying and managing HCV
areas, and in reviewing the results of HCV assessments.
An HCV assessment should always be completed prior to any irreversible forest
clearance or land preparation activities. Compared to natural forest management,
conversion generally has a more severe and irreversible impact on biodiversity,
ecological functions and social systems. Measures of protection for HCVs must
therefore reflect the severity of the impact. For conversion of non-HCV natural
ecosystems to be justified, benefits resulting from proposed land use
development should outweigh the combined economic, environmental and social
impacts and the decision should be documented through a rigorous, fair and
transparent multi-stakeholder consultation process.
8
HCV Common Guidance
1.5 Common guidance
This document aims to widen the scope of HCV guidance and provide common
interpretations and guidance which can be universally applied to different ecosystems,
different commodities and land uses, and across different geographies.
1.5.1 Ecosystems
This Common Guidance document has adopted the updated HCV definitions (FSC P&C v.
5) which widen the scope of application beyond the forest context to include ecosystems
and mosaics more broadly. The HCV definitions are general and can be applied to several
ecosystem types, however it is useful to provide some additional guidance for
widespread/major ecosystem types which are also affected by the production of food,
fuel, fibre and timber.
Grasslands
The extension of the HCV concept into grasslands is driven by concern about the rate at
which grasslands are being converted into plantations, particularly for soy, oil palm and
pulp. The existence of certification schemes for these industries and the integrated nature
of the market means that some companies involved in debates about crop and biofuels
plantations are already familiar with the HCV concept through forest operations. The
existence of European Union legislation aimed at promoting sustainability in biofuels
production, and explicitly at protecting grassland values (see Bowyer et al, 2010), is
providing further impetus.
Freshwater
All agricultural and plantation developments are intrinsically reliant on water
resources, but also have major impacts on freshwater ecosystems. Freshwater
ecosystems are already more integrated into HCV concept than grasslands,
through the consideration of some water-related ecosystem services in HCVs4 &
5, and the accepted reliance of these services on forest ecosystems, e.g.
watershed protection. But these ecosystem services are just a fraction of
freshwater conservation values and so HCV assessment teams often lack
freshwater experts. There is a need for the full suite of freshwater conservation
values (see Box X) to be integrated as a central part the HCV concept. Another
stimulus for these changes is the variation in freshwater protection legislation,
and the enforcement of this legislation, across countries. Expanding the
freshwater scope of the HCV concept can help to standardise application across
different commodities and countries.
Because the HCV definitions are general and universal, there is a large amount of
overlap in how assessors can identify HCVs in different ecosystem types. For this
reason, it would be too repetitive to produce separate guidance for these
different ecosystems at this point, or even to devote different chapters to them in
this document. Instead, for each HCV section below, special mention will be made
9
HCV Common Guidance
as relevant for identifying HCVs in grasslands, freshwater systems or other
ecosystems.
1.5.2 Commodities
Certification schemes
HCV began in forestry and it continues to be important for sustainable production of
timber, pulp and paper and paperboard. In addition to forestry, HCV is now incorporated
into sustainability schemes and standards for plantation crops such as oil palm, biofuels,
soy and sugar. Some commodities have multi-stakeholder processes/groups which
coordinate/facilitate the sustainable production and supply chain issues for these crops.
Some of the key Roundtables, as they are called, have endorsed this document and they
support/agree with the Network’s efforts to standardize the HCV approach and to further
build capacity of assessors.
It is important to realize that the HCV concept does not cover all social and
environmental issues of concern in forestry, agriculture and other projects. In
addition to HCV, other principles in sustainability schemes recognize local
people’s customary claims to land and resources even when these are not
formally recognized by national governments.
For example:
Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)



Principle 3 Indigenous Peoples’ Rights
Principle 4 Community Relations
Principle 6 Environmental values and impacts
Roundtable for Responsible Palm Oil (RSPO)




Principle 2 Just land acquisition
Principle 5 Environmental responsibility and conservation of natural
resources and biodiversity
Principle 6 Responsible consideration of employees and of individuals and
communities affected by growers and mills
Principle 7 Responsible development of new plantings (respecting local
people’s land and conserving primary forest and peat lands)
International Finance Corporation (IFC)




Performance Standard 2: Labour and working conditions
Performance Standard 5 Land acquisition and involuntary resettlement
Performance Standard 6: Biodiversity conservation and sustainable
management of living natural resources
Performance Standard 8 Cultural heritage
In line with national law, most impact assessments tend to carry out identification
and valuation for private property such as farms, fruit trees, gardens, houses, etc.
However, these sorts of valuation and compensation schemes are unlikely to
recognize important communal resources such as hunting territories, natural
10
HCV Common Guidance
areas where NTFPs are gathered, fishing grounds, etc. This is where the HCV
concept can greatly contribute to the identification and maintenance of valuable
ecosystem resources.
Policy
In addition to the commodity Roundtables mentioned above, some companies and
financial institutions (lenders) have developed policies which consider HCVs. In other
words, the presence of HCVs would affect the development options and management
needs for companies who are producing, sourcing or trading forest and agricultural
commodities. Increasingly, private sector companies are also including HCV assessments
in their due diligence activities and in their social and environmental management
systems.
1.5.3 Other uses of the HCV approach
Land use planning, systematic conservation planning
1.5.4 Common guidance and national interpretations
Though National Interpretations are important, many countries have not yet
elaborated an NI for various reasons (e.g. application of the HCV approach may be
relatively new). For these cases, this document can provide guidance on how to
consider the subjective terms like significant, critical and concentration and can
recommend how to work through the identification process including useful data
sources and potential indicators or proxies for HCV.
Whenever a National Interpretation is available for a country, it should be used by
the assessor. However, it is important to complement the HCV NI with current
HCVRN-endorsed guidance and stakeholder consultation. There is no rule for how
often HCV NIs should be updated, but good practice would be to review and
update NIs after changes to HCV definitions, with the publication of updated
guidance and after lessons learned from the HCV process can be capitalised on
and fed back to improve the quality of the NI.
National interpretation of the six generic values is an important part of the
application of the HCV process, because this provides more specific information
and guidance relevant to land managers in each country. National interpretation
is important for two reasons: Firstly because the generic values include terms like
significant, critical and concentration which need to be qualified according to the
local context. Secondly because appropriate management of a high conservation
value depends on the level of threat to the value, which can vary dramatically
between countries. For example: the way the term large landscape level forest
(HCV2) is understood and applied will be different in Canada (where the country
retains large tracts of undisturbed forest) from the way it will be treated in Ghana,
11
HCV Common Guidance
where there are only a few remaining forest blocks, none of which are undisturbed.
The process of national interpretation is also a useful way to build consensus in
the way each value is understood and applied. Ultimately this enables more
consistency in the use of the concept within the country. For guidance on national
interpretation processes see http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/global-hcvtoolkits/hcvf-toolkit-part-2-final.pdf
The quality of the NI will depend on the amount of data already available
(biodiversity, ecology, socio-cultural), the capacity of participants in the NI process
to define values and thresholds, and the amount of consultation and field testing
which has been conducted to further refine what HCVs mean in the local and
national context. In some cases, national processes have redefined the values so
that the resulting indicators and guidance correspond poorly to the original
concepts framed in the definitions. We recommend that national processes adopt
the following principles to ensure consistency of interpretation:
National Interpretations should adopt the definitions of Box X as the basis for
interpretation. The HCVs should not be renumbered, and new HCVs should not be
added. Other important values that are deemed essential by stakeholders should
still fit within the spirit of the original six HCVs. Where National Interpretations
adopt subdivisions of the HCVs for clarity or by national necessity, these should
not introduce novel concepts that do not directly relate to the global definition or
which imply thresholds of responsibility which are very different to those implied
by the key terms of the global definitions.
12
HCV Common Guidance
Best Practices in National Interpretation
A recent review of National HCV interpretations in 19 countries identified a total
of 28 best practices in six categories (adapted from Neugarten and Savy 2012):
1.
Comprehensiveness: all six HCV categories are addressed. Guidance is
reviewed and updated with stakeholders.
2.
Practicality and ease of application: guidance includes checklists of
potential HCV species or ecosystems, technical methods for mapping,
quantitative thresholds, or HCV areas that are already mapped at
landscape or national scales.
3.
Adherence to recognized key principles such as stakeholder consultation
and the precautionary principle (as per HCV Network Charter).
4.
Adherence to IUCN Red List or the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).
5.
Justification or rationale for distinguishing HCV from non-HCV areas,
such as citations from published literature, if available, to validate the
use of quantitative thresholds.
6.
Links to adaptive management: guidance that includes management or
monitoring guidelines
2
Key steps in the HCV process
The HCV process comprises three key steps:
2.1 Identification
Interpret what the six HCVs mean in the local or national context, decide which
HCVs are present in the area of interest (plantation, concession, etc.), and
determine where the HCVs are located (HCV areas). Map HCVs, including
consideration of the wider area of influence of the project and their significance
at the landscape level (see Box x). The presence or absence of each HCV is
determined based on an analysis of existing information and the collection of
additional information where necessary to fill gaps. The identification process can
be further subdivided into preparation and planning, and may include scoping
studies before full HCV assessments.
HCV identification should lead to clear advice on the presence or absence of
values, their location, status and condition, and as far as possible to provide
information on areas of habitat, key resources, and critical areas etc. which are
important in supporting the values. This will be used to develop management
recommendations to ensure that HCVs are maintained or enhanced.
13
HCV Common Guidance
2.2 Management
Once the assessment is completed the responsible party (e.g. company) should
develop plans for maintaining and enhancing HCVs, and managing threats,
informed by a precautionary approach5 (see section XXX). Identifying an HCV area
and its management regime involves:


Investigating existing and potential threats to the HCVs identified. These may
be threats from proposed management activities, such as logging operations
or plantation establishment, or from external activities such as hunting of
wildlife, illegal logging or construction of a new road or dam.
Establishing both the location and the management requirements for the HCV
area with the aim of ensuring that the HCVs are maintained or enhanced. This
can include delineating areas which need total protection and identifying
areas which can be used for production provided that management is
undertaken in a way consistent with maintaining or enhancing HCVs.
Key questions the management team need to consider:


What are the management options for maintaining HCVs already defined by
assessment?
How can the internal and external threats be mitigated or eliminated?
The aim is to define clear objectives for management, with the purpose of
maintaining or enhancing6 the HCVs, and to set out a precautionary management
plan based on best available data and advice.
2.3 Monitoring
Establish an appropriate monitoring regime to ensure that the management
practices are effective in their aim of maintaining or enhancing the HCVs. The
monitoring regime needs to translate the strategic objectives of the management
regime into operational objectives. Appropriate indicators must be chosen to
assess the status of the HCVs, and thresholds for action must be established to
ensure that the HCVs are maintained or enhanced.
5
See Box X
6
Note that some agricultural standards using HCV don’t require maintaining or
enhancing – they just say that HCVAs can’t be converted.
14
HCV Common Guidance
This document focuses on the first step. Guidance on HCV Management and
Monitoring will be provided in a future document.
3
Key considerations throughout the assessment process
3.1
The “significance” of High Conservation Values
HCV identification relies on significance, which is inherently subjective. But, there
are certain guidelines that, if followed, will lead to a more standardized
interpretation of the term. In practical terms, significant values are those
recognized as being either unique, or outstanding relative to other examples in
the same region, because of their sizes, numbers, frequency, quality, density or
socio-economic importance, on the basis of existing priority frameworks, data or
maps, or through field assessments and consultations.
Land owners and managers may recognise and designate HCV status on the basis
of any one of the following processes:
a) A designation, classification or recognized conservation status, assigned by an
international agency, (e.g. IUCN Red List)
b) A designation by national or regional authorities, or by reputable NGOs, (e.g.
countries signed up to the CBD should all have biodiversity strategies which
may include species action plans)
c) Designations of specific values through a balanced multi-stakeholder process,
d) A voluntary designation (e.g. by a forestry or agriculture organization), on the
basis of available information and consultations about known, suspected or
reported values, even when not officially recognized by other agencies.
Note that for HCV 1, 2, and 3, the values need to be significant at a national or
regional scale (or higher) – with the understanding that countries are highly
variable and what is significant in one country may not be significant in another.
HCV 4, 5, and 6 are significant to the communities that rely on them – so they are
not relative to any scale but absolute in their irreplaceability to that community.
The wording of the values leaves some important decisions open to the
interpretation by the assessor or land manager. For example, when does the use
of an important forest resource become critical for the local community, or how
many threatened species make a concentration? In some countries workshops
have been convened to produce a national HCV interpretation. This is usually
achieved through discussions about how to define and interpret each value for a
given national context. However, some interpretation by the assessor will always
be required. For this reason, the HCV approach emphasises consultation with local
stakeholders and the involvement of independent experts. In many cases, where
no national HCV interpretation exists or limited data needed to identify HCVs is
available, a process of stakeholder consultation is vital.
The concept of significance, and the processes of designating an HCV are crucial in
determining whether an HCV is present. If an area or value is designated as an
15
HCV Common Guidance
HCV by one of these processes, then it will be treated as such by the land
manager, certification body, etc. An area or value is not formally an HCV until so
designated. If it has not been designated by one of these processes, it is only a
candidate (potential HCV).
3.2
Landscape scale
An HCV assessment should be conducted at the production site scale (e.g. forest
concession, agricultural planation). However, ignoring the wider landscape
context (e.g. activities in neighbouring land units, other land use plans being made
in the region, the presence and status of protected areas etc.), can mean that
habitat fragmentation and threats to or disappearance of some HCVs becomes
inevitable. This is a common problem with ‘standard’ EIAs, which are often limited
to the boundaries of a production site and ignore cumulative impacts across the
wider area. Some HCVs are present at the landscape level itself (e.g. landscape
level ecosystems, large watersheds), others depend for their continued existence
on the presence of a mosaic of suitable habitat in the wider landscape (e.g. some
critical water values, populations of rare, threatened or endemic species).
Some countries have undertaken landscape level conservation assessments (e.g.
‘ecoregional plans’ developed by TNC, ‘landscape forest’ maps by
WRI/Greenpeace, landscape level HCVF maps by WWF, etc.). HCV National
interpretations may give additional guidance on equivalent national frameworks
(e.g. PROBIO systematic conservation planning process, Brazil). Assessors should
in every case look at how the following elements affect the HCVs identified:
 Land use adjacent to the assessment area
 Other active players in the landscape (e.g. settlements, forestry,
agriculture, infrastructure)
 Presence and status of a regional land use plan
 Presence and condition of protected areas in the landscape
 Distribution and connectivity of ecosystems across the landscape
 Forest cover and condition, soil and geology
 Biogeographic barriers affecting movement into and out of the
assessment area
 Watershed maps and criticality of area for maintaining water
supply/quality
3.3 Precautionary approach
Many land management activities have some negative impacts on environmental
or social values which should be taken into account in management decisions.
Managers cannot afford to damage or diminish HCVs, which are by definition the
most important features of a landscape or ecosystem. Managing such important
features requires a precautionary approach to risk. For HCV
assessment/identification, when there are credible and reasonable indications
that an HCV is present, the assessor should assume that it is present and should
16
The precautionary approach
If an HCV is present (or can
reasonably be assumed to be
present), and if any activity
is known to be a threat to
that HCV (or can reasonably
be believed to be a threat,
when the evidence is
unclear), then there must be
“explicit and effective
measures to prevent the
damage and avoid the risks”.
HCV Common Guidance
take the appropriate decisions for management strategies, actions and
monitoring. They should also take measures to resolve doubts, by obtaining more
data or expert advice, until such time as there is clear evidence of the absence of
a particular HCV.
For the purposes of HCV management, the Precautionary Approach means that
when there is “a threat of severe or irreversible damage to the environment or a
threat to human welfare”, responsible parties need to take explicit and effective
measures to prevent the damage and risks, even when the scientific information is
incomplete or inconclusive, and when the vulnerability and sensitivity of
environmental values is uncertain7.
What this means in practice depends on the situation and on the intended
land/water use. In the context of land conversion for plantations or agriculture
the threats are likely to be more severe than for development scenarios which are
limited to habitat disturbance/degradation. Where the stakes are higher in terms
of habitat loss or displacement of local peoples’ resource use, the precautionary
approach is even more important.
Box: Landscape Scale or Area of Influence
The area of influence of a project (e.g. forest management unit, agricultural
plantation) may extend to off-site areas that could be affected by infrastructure
developed to support production activities (e.g. roads), by altered disturbance
regimes (e.g. fires), or by displacement of resource use by local communities to
new areas. It may also include downstream, and possibly even upstream, areas
that could be affected by hydrologically-mediated impacts of production
practices.
Box: HCV framework and systematic conservation planning
The HCV approach is aimed at site-level assessment, in places where conversion
or intensified management is planned. It does not replace land use planning,
systematic conservation planning or protected areas gap analysis, used to develop
national or regional conservation strategies. In fact, large-scale planning and gap
analysis can inform HCV assessments in three main ways. First, they can serve as
a filter, informing how deeply to look at the site scale. Second, the data used as
inputs to those analyses can also be used in an assessment, assuming it is at an
appropriate resolution. Third, in some cases priorities identified through those
7
See Precautionary Approach, FSC P&C Glossary
17
HCV Common Guidance
analyses can be integrated into HCV assessments. But, it is important to
understand the criteria and methods used to identify those priorities and to
recognize that there may be a mismatch between them and the HCV framework
(e.g., systematic conservation planning exercises often select sites based on
efficiency and complementarity of the final solution, and so sites may be
prioritized not because they contain absolute high values but because those
values complement other selected sites). It is important to know about the data
gaps of existing exercises and not take the exercises’ outputs as a comprehensive
set of priorities.
3.4
Stakeholder consultation
Ensure key stakeholders are aware that an HCV assessment is being made and
they have an opportunity to participate. Participation can come in many ways,
either in planning, being directly involved with an assessment team, participating
in review meetings, participation on focussed consultations or peer-reviewing the
written outputs. Consultation allows the assimilation of different views and
opinions. Over time these can help steer management in a more sustainable and
conflict-free direction. Though it may be difficult to reconcile contrasting views at
first, it is important to approach the process with the idea of a compromise in
mind.
Box: list of potential stakeholders
Identify stakeholders, who will be directly affected by or bear the cost of a
potential activity (e.g. forestry, agriculture, etc.), directly from the beginning of
the process.
Common examples include:
local communities who use forest products or services
organisations and institutions that represent them
those whose legitimate commercial use of the natural resources will be altered by
development activities
Environmental organisations who represent the wider public and have an interest
in the way the ecosystems are managed
Government bodies will always need to be kept informed of discussions even if
they are not directly affected
4
HCV Identification
The main objective of an HCV assessment is to determine whether any of the six
HCVs (Box X) are present in the area. The HCV assessment should involve
appropriate experts and knowledge holders, local communities, and other
stakeholders throughout the process. Decisions will often have to be made in the
18
HCV Common Guidance
absence of full information, but this does not mean that reasonable, informed
decisions cannot be made. One of the important roles of the HCV assessor is to
involve experts who have informed opinions based on experience and a good
grasp of what is already known.
4.1 Preparation and planning
In the preparation stage, the assessor8 needs to collect enough information to
make a preliminary judgement on the likely HCVs to be found and the likely
impact of operations – this will guide decisions on team composition and data
gaps to be addressed9. A preliminary judgement should be made concerning data
quality and reliability, and any gaps identified should be filled either by data
collection or consultation.
The link with SEIAs
National rules and
regulations generally
require an ESIA to be
carried out for
significant
developments. While
HCV assessments are
generally carried out as
part of voluntary
standards processes, the
two can potentially be
coordinated in terms of
data gathering.
However, regulatory
ESIAs may not cover the
full range of HCVs, or
provide the depth of
information necessary to
establish a credible HCV
assessment.
Key questions:
 What HCVs are known to occur or are likely to occur in the area?
 What is the likely impact of the operations on potential HCVs?
 What data currently exists, and what is still needed, to identify HCVs?
 Is there a National HCV Interpretation10?
Answering these questions will help reach decisions on the skills and expertise
required for a credible HCV evaluation and it will also help plan the consultation
process.
4.1.1 Gathering Preliminary Data
The data should aim to cover the following:
1. Size of the operational area.
2. Landscape context of the operational area.
3. Type of land and water use and associated level of alteration to the
original ecosystem.
4. Likely high conservation values present within the surrounding landscape
5. Likely increased access to remote areas from operations
6. Likely time of recovery after the end of the operations.
7. Existing reports (e.g. has a SEIA been conducted?)
8. Outcomes of priority-setting exercises
8
The ‘assessor’ may be a manager or an external contractor, depending on the situation.
It is sometimes useful to conduct a scoping study, especially in new sites, to gather local
information and ensure that preparations are adequate for a full assessment.
10
National Interpretations vary in their age and detail. It is always useful to consult the NI,
but depending on whether or not it has been well-tested in practice, it is advised to
complement the NI with HCVRN guidance and stakeholder consultation.
9
19
HCV Common Guidance
For detailed guidance on how to address these questions, see Good practice
guidelines for High Conservation Value assessments: A practical guide for
practitioners and auditors (Proforest 2008) page 8-20.
HCV 1 - 3
 Maps of ecosystems
 List of threatened or endangered species
and distribution maps (local or national
law, IUCN Red List, national or regional Red
Books, CITES lists
 Protected areas (location, status, threats)
 Conservation NGOs’ information sources
 National inventory data
HCV 4
 Soil maps, topographic maps
 Watersheds/catchment boundaries
 Fire incidence
HCV 5 & 6

Maps of human settlements and
community data

Social studies conducted by companies,
NGOs, research institutions
Social impact assessments available for
the area or affected communities
NGO projects and current campaigns by
the communities in the area
Cultural data and information from
cultural organisations



Scale and Impact (all HCVs)
 Existing or planned land use plans
 Operational plans for the area
 Existing ESIAs for the area
4.1.2 Dealing with data gaps
In practice HCV assessments often take place in conditions of poor information –
global data gaps, uncertain ecological history etc. – in those cases an even greater
investment of time and resources may be required of an assessor. In general, the
investment into different aspects of an assessment (different HCVs, different taxa,
different habitats) should be broadly commensurate with the likelihood of those
values occurring, but at the same time it is vital that assessments do not falsely
conclude that there are no HCVs present. Where data are incomplete (spatially,
temporally, taxonomically, etc.), expert assessment will be especially important.
Ultimately, all assessments must be supported by ground-truthing. But given that
it may be impractical or impossible to survey an entire site and its area of
influence, ground-truthing should focus on those areas most likely to contain
HCVs. Previously unidentified HCVs may be added to a management and
monitoring plan if they are ‘discovered’ post-assessment.
20
HCV Common Guidance
Internal versus external involvement in the HCV process
Like any other process of management and decision-making, the whole HCV
assessment exercise may be carried out by the company management team, including
engagement and consultations which are planned or have already been carried out for
other purposes. In some cases, a standard may require that HCV assessments are
carried out by an independent team (e.g. New Plantings for RSPO certification). In
other cases, the management may contract specialists to carry out certain tasks if
internal capacity is lacking, if the credibility of the assessment would be enhanced by
an independent team, or if the trust of local people requires 3 rd party involvement.
4.2 Scoping
Depending on the potential impacts of operations, policies in place, etc. a land
manager may first arrange for an HCV scoping study prior to a full HCV
assessment. A scoping study can help to identify available information and initial
stakeholder concerns; enabling the assessor to identify information gaps, high
priority issues and to form a team with the necessary expertise and qualifications
for the assessment. A scoping study can help land managers save resources (time
and money). A scoping study is not necessary in every case. For example in
forestry, a manager can organize an internal HCV assessment, without drawing on
third-party assessors. Scoping studies are often useful when the assessor is not
familiar with a particular site.
4.3 Assessment
The presence or absence of all six HCVs should always be assessed (where studies
only address some HCVs, it should be explicitly stated which HCVs were analysed
and made clear that it was a partial HCV analysis). Interpretation of HCV
definitions is outlined in greater detail below (section X) with a clarification of key
terms and concepts, indicators and data sources for each HCV. Data sources are
most useful in the early stages of the HCV scoping and assessment to identify
potential values in the area. Indicators can include existing ecosystem
classifications, conservation assessments, socioeconomic profiles, or other data
sources which do not specifically quantify HCVs but which may be interpreted as
HCVs based on guidance (HCV National Interpretation, HCV RN guidance and
stakeholder consultation). See Annex 2 for a list.
HCV identification is a combination of fact-based assessment, drawing on
scientific studies, maps, social surveys etc. But at the same time, identifying values
is inherently subjective. Herein lies a challenge, when seeking to provide sound
guidance for HCV identification. On the one hand, assessors would
understandably like to have clear thresholds defined (X hectares of forest, X
number of endangered species present, X degree of dependence on ecosystem
services, X degree of rarity, etc.), but on the other hand, some practitioners are
21
HCV Common Guidance
cautious about setting out specific numbers (area, population size, degree
dependence) or making judgement calls that could have serious impacts on local
people (e.g. food security). The HCV definitions (FSC v.5) are necessarily general
and somewhat open to interpretation, as many standards are, so that they can be
applied as widely as possible. However, the downside of general, universal
definitions is that the range of interpretation can be so wide as to dilute, and in
some cases change/ignore the intent of the definitions. This is one reason that
HCV National Interpretations can be so useful; they provide a more detailed
interpretation of HCV definitions that can guide assessors in the field. However, in
practice not all HCV National Interpretations have been field tested and most
should be considered living documents. Most countries do not yet have HCV NIs,
and therefore they should rely on this Common Guidance, complemented by
previous manuals as relevant.
This section provides an interpretation for each HCV definition with guidance on
how to approach identification (evaluating existing data, methods, consultation).
Useful references and sources of information are provided as well as examples
from case studies.
Key terms:
This document provides globally applicable guidance for key terms which describe
the scope of each Value especially words such as ‘significant’, critical’, ‘basic’ and
‘fundamental’. National interpretations should aim to address these key terms,
conforming to the level of importance or priority described in this document.
Indicators:
This document provides a range of indicators which could be used as a filter for
determining whether an HCV might be present. National Interpretations will need
to adapt or supplement the indicators provided here. Any new indicators
proposed by National Interpretations should address the categories and
thresholds of significance described in the key terms.
5
Identification of the six HCVs
5.1
HCV 1: Biodiversity
Concentrations of biological diversity including endemic species, and rare,
threatened or endangered (RTE) species that are significant at global, regional or
national levels.
HCV 1 covers significant concentrations of biodiversity, recognized as unique or
outstanding in comparison with other areas within the same country or region, on
the basis of existing priority frameworks, data or maps, or through field
assessments and consultations. Any area that contains HCV 1 species (rare,
threatened, endangered, endemic), or which contains habitat critical to the
22
HCV Common Guidance
survival of these species, will be an HCV area. However, there will be many areas
that contain rare or endemic species that are not HCVs because there is not a
globally, regionally or nationally significant concentration. These areas should still
be managed appropriately, but they are not HCVs.
5.1.1 Key terms and concepts
It is important to not worry too much about the technical interpretation of terms
such as biological diversity. Biodiversity, if defined literally, could give HCV 1 a
different meaning, because it is not necessarily important to have a certain
amount of biological diversity to qualify as an HCV; even a single species can be
considered important enough to be an HCV on its own; if the species is for
example, listed in the IUCN Red List or on the National Protected Species list and
is found in a population large enough to qualify as a concentration or significant in
the country in question.
Box: Biological diversity: The variability among living organisms from all sources
including, inter alia, terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the
ecological complexes of which they are a part; this includes diversity within
species, between species and of ecosystems (Source: Convention on Biological
Diversity 1992, Article 2, included in FSC v5 P&C glossary).
Over the past decade many practitioners have found it useful to sub-divide HCV 1
into four subheadings.11 These are: 1) Protected areas, 2) Rare, threatened or
endangered species, 3) Endemic species and 4) Seasonal concentrations of
species. Protected areas are a useful proxy for the likely presence of biodiversity
and high value habitat. Threatened, endangered and endemic species are
included in the official definition of HCV 1. Critical temporal use is more relevant
to the fourth point, concentrations of species which can occur in a given area at
different times. These subdivisions are not exhaustive, but are only meant to
provide some common examples. This document does not maintain the
subdivision numbering (1.1 – 1.4) but in spirit they are all still relevant.
The term rare, threatened or endangered (RTE) species is part of the original
definition of HCV 1. RTE is used as shorthand for the wider set of species that risk
severe population decline. Whether or not they are categorized as threatened,
endangered or vulnerable by a classification schemes such as IUCN is less
important. Although the HCV definition mentions threatened and endangered
species, these are often, together with ‘vulnerable’, subsumed under the
overarching term threatened in a IUCN red list context (as in FSC’s glossary).
11
Good practice guidelines for HCV assessments: A practical guide for practitioners and
auditors. http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/folder.2006-0929.6584228415/HCV%20good%20practice%20-%20guidance%20for%20practitioners.pdf
23
HCV Common Guidance
Rare is scale dependent and includes species that are
 Naturally rare, existing only at very low densities in undisturbed habitat,
or
 Rare because of human activities e.g. habitat destruction, overhunting
(whether or not they are yet classified as Threatened or Endangered)
 At the limit of their natural distribution (even if they are common
elsewhere)
Species may or may not be classified as rare (or some equivalent category) in an
official or widely recognized national or regional classification. In an ideal case,
where there are robust national IUCN red lists for all major organism groups it
should be redundant. Where this is not the case, rare could mean ‘likely red list
candidate if there were more data’.
IUCN considers that species with fewer than 10,000 mature individuals (and
declining) to be globally vulnerable (VU) to extinction; species with smaller
population sizes are often more threatened. However, this is not always the case.
For example, species at the top of the food chain in small countries may well have
natural populations far below 10,000 individuals but may not be particularly
vulnerable12.
Threatened and endangered species are species that are classified as such in
accepted national or international systems because they are more vulnerable to
continued habitat loss, hunting, disease etc. They include species classified by
IUCN as Vulnerable (VU), Endangered (EN) and Critically Endangered (CR) at a
global or regional level, or whose trade is regulated under international
agreements (e.g. CITES), as well as nationally protected species in equivalent
categories (even if many of those species are not classified as globally
threatened). Species that have been formally proposed, or are under
consideration for such classifications, can also be included under this heading. In
areas where no official designation exists, the assessor can rely on expert
consultation to determine the conservation status of species.
Endemic species are those which are only found within a specific geographical
region, which may range from a unique site or a geographical feature (such as an
island, a mountain range or river basin), to a political boundary such as a province
or country. Species which have a very limited distribution are also included.
Endemic and range-restricted species are particularly vulnerable to threats as they
have a limited distribution and may have smaller populations than widespread
species. Species range is a criterion that contributes to the IUCN Red List criteria
for threatened species. Species (other than birds) with an overall extent of
12
But many tropical forest species, regardless of their trophic position are very rare, or
specialised and so will have very small populations and population densities. May be
reliant on one plant species only found in a particularly restricted area, or occurring at
very low densities. As a result, almost any forest conversion could be threatening these
species.
24
HCV Common Guidance
occurrence of less than 20,000 km2 or a known area of occupancy of less than
2,000 km2 should be considered restricted range. For birds, the threshold is
50,000 km2.13
Critical temporal use: Many species use a variety of habitats at different times of
the year or at different stages in their life-history. These may be geographically
distinct or within the same region and include seasonal breeding sites, migration
routes or corridors (latitudinal as well as altitudinal) or areas that contain globally
important seasonal concentrations of species. In temperate and boreal regions,
these critical concentrations will often occur seasonally (e.g. winter feeding
grounds or summer breeding sites), whereas in the tropics, the time of greatest
use may depend more on the particular ecology of the species concerned (e.g.
riverine forests within tropical dry forests may be seasonally critical habitat for
many vertebrate species and many migratory, temperate species may be critically
dependent on tropical habitats for parts of the year). HCV 1 could also include
habitat that is used only in extreme years, when it is critical to the survival of a
population.
Refuges: Seasonal and ecological refuges which provide temporary breeding,
roosting, hibernation, migration sites or habitats essential for RTE species qualify
for HCV 1.
Protected areas: Under the precautionary approach, a protected area is an HCV 1,
because it is assumed that it harbours significant concentrations of biodiversity
values. Of course, in practice much depends on the effectiveness of protected
area management, but as an initial data gathering exercise the presence of a
protected area can alert the assessor to potential HCVs.
Genetic diversity: HCV 1 may include cases of exceptional genetic diversity within
species, or particularly important genetic variants, subspecies or varieties. For
example, the Cross River Gorilla (ca. 250 individuals remaining) is a genetically
distinct subspecies of Western Gorilla (ca. 95,000 individuals).
Significant concentrations of biodiversity, which may be recognized as HCVs
include:
 High overall species richness, diversity or uniqueness within a defined
area when compared with other sites within the same ecoregion.
 Populations of multiple endemic or RTE species.
 Important populations or a great abundance of individual endemic or RTE
species, representing a substantial proportion of the regional, national or
global population which are needed to maintain viable populations either:
o Year-round (e.g. key habitat for a specific species) or ,
13
Birdlife International 2012
25
HCV Common Guidance
o


Seasonally including migratory corridors, sites for breeding,
roosting or hibernation, or refuges from disturbance.
Small populations of individual endemic or RTE species, in cases where
the national, regional or global survival of that species is critically
dependent on the area in question (such species are likely to be restricted
to a few remaining areas of habitat, and to be classified as EN or CR on
the IUCN Red List).
Presence of small numbers of nationally or globally iconic species, where
there is a consensus that every surviving individual is globally significant
(e.g. flagship species such as Panda, Indian Rhino, Mountain Gorilla).
5.1.2 Indicators and data sources
Identifying HCV 1 requires basic data on species and their habitats. That is: what
species commonly occur in the area and which species are likely to occur based on
their habitat requirements? Results of biodiversity assessments (e.g. IUCN) which
show species ranges can be consulted to see if species’ ranges overlap with the
production site and larger area of influence, and then see if any of those species
are RTE, endemic, etc.
The sources of information can be used as starting points for desk-based HCV
assessment before field assessment and ground-truthing begins. The relevance of
different sources of information to the project area may be an “indicator” that an
HCV is present (e.g. if the new plantation site is within an important bird area).
This will then need to be verified during the assessment, through methods such as
surveys, mapping and consultation.
Of course all data sources have their limitations, and should ideally be used in
combination with other data sources and consultation.
Landcover classifications that have been used either in the design of protected
area networks or, commonly, as decision-making tools for forestry and
agricultural planning. In the best scenario, the ecosystem descriptions are highly
detailed with extensive species associations listed and a conservation status
assigned (e.g. habitats of conservation interest listed in the EC Habitats Directive;
threatened ecosystems listed under the Biodiversity Act of South Africa).
National priority schemes (e.g. European classifications under the EC Habitats
Directive; PROBIO areas in Brazil; bioregional plans produced under the
Biodiversity Act in South Africa) are usually led by public institutions, government
agencies or ministries as part of spatial planning, environment water and forest
management, or agriculture. Many priority areas identified through such schemes
may not receive protected area status, but may meet HCV criteria. Schemes vary
26
HCV Common Guidance
from country to country and their criteria correspond to some aspects of HCV 1, 2,
or 3. Such schemes have the advantage of having a legislative framework in their
support, which may stiffen the resolve of stakeholders to apply credible
conservation measures.
It may be necessary to consult with an experienced ecologist to produce a list of
what one would expect to find. Following this, if the area contains habitat types
that are known to support rare, threatened, endangered or endemic species, it
will be necessary to define where in the production area (i.e. concession or
plantation) these species are likely to occur.
Independent experts may be able to make informed judgements on this (e.g.
using literature resources or though the analysis of remote sensing information)
but it may be necessary to carry out a survey of the area considering:
 Bird and mammal survey for forest dependent, endemic or threatened
species
 Consultation with local people and workers (if applicable) about recent
sightings
 Survey effort should concentrate on the confirmed/potential presence of
habitat-dependent, endemic or red-listed species.
The Global IUCN Red List of threatened species or the national red-data book of
threatened species should be consulted. Those that are listed as Vulnerable (VU
or equivalent) Endangered (EN) or Critically Endangered (CR) are most likely to be
considered HCV species.
If available information and/or survey results indicate that a number of endemic,
vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered species occur in the area, the
part or parts of the natural ecosystem on which these species depend will be HCV
areas. Therefore survey results should be represented on a map to show the
actual or likely distributions of the species in question.
Sites with RTE species richness, or populations (including temporary
concentrations) of priority species approaching those of key protected areas or
other priority sites (e.g. KBAs) within the same biogeographic boundary should
share an HCV 1 designation. The reference scheme(s) should enjoy a high degree
of support for conservation stakeholders, and will vary from country to country.
Where it is very difficult to determine the presence or population status of
individual endemic or RTE species in practice, suitable habitat for RTE species may
be simpler to define and map.
27
HCV Common Guidance
There are several conservation priority schemes (see http://www.biodiversityaz.org/ and Box XXX) which can be useful during initial desk-based studies to gain
an idea of potential values in the area.
Indicators of a potential HCV 1 include:
At national, regional or local levels many areas have been designated with an
official conservation status based on their biodiversity importance or for water
and soil conservation. These could include:
 The presence of a recognized biodiversity priority area (e.g. IUCN category
I-IV Protected Area, Ramsar Site, UNESCO World Heritage Site)
 A designation by national or regional authorities, or by reputable
conservation organizations, recognizing concentrations of biodiversity
 Designations at regional or national level of areas, species lists and
species categories, by a relevant sustainability standard scheme or
stakeholder group, through a balanced stakeholder process. The
usefulness of the scheme depends on the scale and quality of the
descriptive information and associated data resources. Some priority
schemes are too large-scale to provide reliable indications at the local
level, e.g. the whole of Central America is classified as a Biodiversity
Hotspot. However, some categories such as Protected Areas, World
Heritage Sites and the Key Biodiversity Area group of priority areas (IBAs,
IPAs and others) can provide species and habitats information for HCV 1
and HCV 3 assessment, at a relevant scale e.g. for rarity and threat
analysis. The presence of natural habitat in good condition within such
designations is a strong indicator (but not a guarantee) of the presence of
HCV 1 and HCV 3.
The absence of an official classification may lower the probability that biodiversity
HCVs are present at the site level, but it does not mean that HCVs are absent.
Important Bird Areas (IBAs) have been mapped for over 200 countries and
territories, but few countries have gone through an equivalent process for plants,
reptiles or fish. If there has not been a prioritization exercise in the region, the
best way to proceed is to consult with experts who may be aware of relevant
information or to use proxy data such as a biological survey from a similar habitat
within the region (which is likely to have many of the same species and vegetation
types). It is important to note that many priority-setting processes have not yet
considered freshwater species and other lesser-studied taxa. Also, many areas
either have not been evaluated or are so data poor that they cannot be evaluated.
5.1.3 Case study
HCV1: Areas containing globally, regionally, or nationally significant
concentrations of biodiversity
Site: East Kalimantan, Indonesia
Ecosystem: Secondary riverine and lowland rain forest
28
HCV Common Guidance
Assessment context: HCV assessment for RSPO certification
Tropical forests of the Sundaland biodiversity hotspot support a high biodiversity
and high rates of endemism. However, much of this biodiversity is threatened
with extinction (e.g. >100 threatened species of endemic birds and mammals)1.
The majority of the lowland forest in the region has been heavily logged, but this
logged forest is still able to support the majority of species found in pristine
forest, including higher densities of Bornean Orangutans (EN) than are found in
pristine forest2. An HCV assessment was carried out for a new oil palm planting in
eastern Kalimantan seeking RSPO certification3. The concession area of around
7,000 ha consisted predominantly of logged and fire-disturbed forest. On site HCV
assessment revealed the presence of Proboscis monkeys (EN), and False Gharials
(EN) in the site’s riverine forest. Bornean Orangutans (EN) were also deemed to
be present at the site, based on the observation of nests. The presence of these
three Endangered species, two of which are endemic to Borneo, qualifies as
HCV1. Along with other management recommendations, the HCV assessment
recommended the protection of 500 m of riverine forest, throughout the
concession on both sides of the main river, to protect these species.
References:
1. http://www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/asiapacific/Sundaland/Pages/default.aspx
2. Berry NJ, Phillips OL, Lewis SL, Hill JK, Edwards DP, Tawatao NB, Ahmad N,
Magintan D, Chey VK, Maryati M, Ong RC, Hamer KC. 2010. The value of
logged tropical forests: lessons from northern Borneo. Biodiversity and
Conservation. 19: 985-997.
3. Control Union. 2011. High Conservation Value Assessment of PT Kutai
Mitra Sejahtera
http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/PT%20KMS%20H
CV%20Assessment%20Summary%20MECFINAL.pdf
5.2
HCV 2: Landscape-level ecosystems and mosaics
Large landscape-level ecosystems and ecosystem mosaics, that are significant at
global, regional or national levels, and that contain viable populations of the great
majority of the naturally occurring species in natural patterns of distribution and
abundance.
HCV 2 includes ecosystems and ecosystem mosaics that are sufficiently large and
relatively undisturbed to support viable populations of the great majority of the
naturally occurring species and (implicitly) the great majority of other
environmental values occurring in such ecosystems. HCV 2 may include large,
contiguous and relatively unfragmented ecosystems, or large-scale mosaics of
29
HCV Common Guidance
relatively undisturbed land cover (e.g. forest) alongside other natural ecosystems
(e.g. lakes, wetlands, some types of grasslands, open peat bogs of northern boreal
forests etc.) or traditionally managed ecosystems (especially grasslands and
savannas, which are often maintained by humans and fire).
For freshwater ecosystems, consider intact land cover within a catchment,
whether the hydropattern of the system has been impaired (e.g. through dams,
water withdrawals), and whether lateral and longitudinal connectivity is intact. If
the terrestrial landscape is highly degraded or converted, the freshwater systems
running through it or downstream will be affected. However, freshwater systems
can be impaired (e.g. through water withdrawal) without serious consequences
for upland terrestrial systems.
5.2.1 Key terms and concepts
The significance of HCV 2 areas is linked to their size, quality and function in a
global, regional or national context.
SIZE: Large, landscape level ecosystems and ecosystem mosaics
In principle, threshold size for HCV 2 should be related to the area needed to
maintain viable populations, especially of large or wide-ranging species. An area
threshold of 500 km2 (50,000 ha) has been widely used as a guideline, but this
should be determined by National Interpretations or expert consultations. Smaller
area thresholds may be appropriate in regions that have experienced substantial
ecosystem and habitat fragmentation and degradation. This definition was first
written for forest ecosystems, however it is relevant for all ecosystems such as
large, mainly native and/or long-established grasslands and grassland mosaics.
Additionally, for freshwater ecosystems consider other factors such as the length
of undisturbed rivers and areas of freshwater mosaics.



Large areas (e.g. could be greater than 50,000 ha, but this is not a rule)
that are relatively far from human settlement, roads or other access.
Landscape Level Ecosystems and Mosaics including smaller ecosystems or
habitats dependent on human interventions, especially certain cultural
landscapes.
Smaller areas that provide key landscape functions such as connectivity
and buffering (e.g. protected area buffer zone or a corridor linking
protected areas together). These smaller areas are only considered HCV 2
if they have a role in maintaining larger areas in the wider landscape.
QUALITY and FUNCTION: Viable populations of the great majority of species:
Most large landscapes, which have not been affected by clearance, heavy logging,
damming or straightening of waterways, the dominance of domesticated or
invasive species or other major anthropogenic disturbances for several decades,
probably contain viable populations of the great majority of the naturally
occurring species. HCV 2 often includes ecosystems that contain important subpopulations of wide-ranging species (e.g. wolverine, tiger, elephant) even though
30
HCV Common Guidance
the sub-populations may not in themselves be viable in the long term. To qualify
for HCV 2, it is not necessary that the area is totally undisturbed or pristine. Some
species may be locally extirpated or missing, especially vulnerable or selectively
hunted or harvested species, but only a few. HCV 2 status can apply even when
the few species lost happen to include large, keystone or iconic species.
Box: mammals: the great minority of species
A scientific interpretation of the HCV 2 definition should lead us to consider that
the vast majority of species are actually organisms such as insects, plants and
fungi, which would be viable within even fairly small areas. It must be recognized
(sorry beetles) that there tends to be a bias towards larger, more charismatic
species, particularly mammals and birds. HCV 2 was originally meant to safeguard
species with large habitat ranges, such as tigers, elephants and other charismatic
mega fauna and migratory species, however, these are not literally ‘the great
majority of naturally occurring species’. Though the definition may not be perfect,
the intent is that large landscapes need to be protected for viable populations of
large and migratory species. The intent is also for all of the other, less charismatic
and mobile, species to be protected under an HCV 2 designation.
FUNCTION: Natural patterns of distribution and abundance: This element of the
definition is a recognition that relatively intact ecosystems, where ecological
processes and functioning (e.g. natural disturbance regimes, species distributions
and abundance) are wholly or relatively unaffected by recent human activities
have special importance. The key here is to maintain not only the extent of the
ecosystem and the viable populations of species, but also their ranges and their
patterns of abundance. It is not necessary to measure or estimate accurately the
distribution and abundance of species or populations. However, a large ecosystem
may not qualify for HCV 2 status if it has lost many of the species typical of such
ecosystems in their natural state, or been so heavily disturbed that the spatial
distribution of species and their relative abundance and regeneration has been
seriously and permanently altered. HCV 2 does not include man-made, converted,
heavily degraded or fragmented ecosystems, extensively modified, by human
activity, especially land clearance and farming. HCV 2 is also ruled out in large
ecosystems with features such as a dominance or significant presence of invasive
species, disrupted age/size class distributions of populations, and a loss of
significant ecosystem processes (e.g. fruit masting, dispersal of key species).
5.2.2 Indicators and data sources
Box: National Interpretations of HCV 2
National HCV Interpretations should define HCV 2 based on common sense,
landscape size, quality and function. (e.g. biodiversity corridors that connect two
nationally important conservation areas or buffer zones to an important National
31
HCV Common Guidance
Conservation Area). The occurrence of landscape scale ecosystems differs greatly
from country to country. In countries where there has been extensive forest
conversion, there may be no forests that would be considered under this HCV.
However, some countries retain a relatively large proportion of forest cover and
in such cases the extent to which patterns of historical and current use as well as
current threats have reduced the ability of forests to support the natural array of
species should be assessed. In some countries, where the HCV concept and FSC
are well-established (e.g. Canada) it will be up to the National FSC interpretation
to determine whether or not a particular ecosystem qualifies as HCV 2. There are
also countries or regions where HCV 2 is absent, as no forest or other important
ecosystem-type is large or intact enough to qualify.
HCV 2 identification can benefit from GIS and land cover analysis (e.g. data sets on
forest blocks and intact watersheds and catchments) and maps of areas that have
high landscape importance either as corridors or buffer zones.
Priority Landscapes
In some cases, areas have already been recognized as high value landscapes (e.g.
Ramsar sites, Congo Basin CARPE landscapes, Intact Forest Landscapes, Priority
Tiger Conservation Landscapes). These designations may target a number of
different benefits provided by large and relatively undisturbed ecosystems such as
species protection, climate change resilience, mitigation and adaptation, weather
regulation, nutrient and water cycling, carbon storage, or cultural values. Existing
landscape-level designations are a good starting point, during an initial deskbased review, to investigate whether or not HCV 2 might be present.
However, the absence of a pre-existing landscape designation does not rule out
the presence of an HCV2 area! As mentioned above, areas with low levels of
overall disturbance and high connectivity have a high chance of being HCV 2.
Verification of HCV 2 status does not necessarily require detailed biological
surveys. The likely presence of the great majority of species may be estimated
from a range of proxies including habitat structure, condition, composition,
connectivity, and intensity of human pressures (e.g. shifting agriculture and
hunting).
Habitat structure: GIS and/or ground-truth by straightforward field measurements
(forester’s measurements of tree size, density etc…)
Condition: similar to structure but more of a value judgment? Better to just use
structure?
Composition: Does this mean species composition? Or habitat types? Former
much harder to find, but later easier with GIS
Connectivity: GIS – land cover or satellite imagery
Human pressures: Again hard to quantify. Interviews with local communities,
signs of trapping, hunting, clearance etc…time consuming to do thoroughly
32
HCV Common Guidance
Conservation experts can also provide more detailed guidance in specific priority
landscapes14.
For freshwaters, indicators of HCV could include:
 Intact hydropatterns
 Unfragmented longitudinal and lateral connectivity
 Natural water quality conditions
 Intact watersheds/catchments
 Intact native species communities
Box: Small Forest Management Units contained within HCV 2 ecosystems
A large, landscape-level ecosystem or mosaic may contain more than one FMU.
Equally, FMUs may have some portions which form part of an HCV 2 forest, and
other portions which do not. Although these areas are smaller in size, they should
still be classified as HCV 2, as they support the larger HCV 2. Small, isolated FMUs,
which are not a functional part of such a larger ecosystem or mosaic, do not
qualify as HCV 2.
14
See for example the landscape species approach:
http://wcslivinglandscapes.com/WhatWeDo/LandscapeSpeciesAnalysis/tabid/3737/Defau
lt.aspx
33
HCV Common Guidance
Intact forest landscapes
An important source of information on large, undisturbed landscape-level
forests comes from the World Resources Institute, which has mapped ‘Frontier
Forests’ and ‘Intact Forest Landscapes’ at a global and regional level since the
1990’s.
WRI defines an Intact Forest Landscape (IFL)15 as “a territory within today's
global extent of forest cover which contains forest and non-forest ecosystems
minimally influenced by human economic activity, with an area of at least 500
km2 (50,000 ha) and a minimal width of 10 km (measured as the diameter of a
circle that is entirely inscribed within the boundaries of the territory). Areas
with evidence of certain types of human influence are considered disturbed
and consequently not eligible for inclusion in an IFL:

Settlements (including a buffer zone of 1 km);

Infrastructure used for transportation between settlements or for
industrial development of natural resources, including roads (except
unpaved trails), railways, navigable waterways (including seashore),
pipelines, and power transmission lines (including in all cases a buffer
zone of 1 km on either side);

Agriculture and timber production;

Industrial activities during the last 30-70 years, such as logging, mining,
oil and gas exploration and extraction, peat extraction, etc.
Areas with evidence of low-intensity and old disturbances are treated as
subject to "background" influence and are eligible for inclusion in an IFL.
Sources of background influence include local shifting cultivation activities,
diffuse grazing by domestic animals, low-intensity selective logging, and
hunting.” http://www.intactforests.org/concept.html
Such Intact Forest Landscapes typically contain one or more HCVs. In particular,
the presence of an IFL may be taken as a strong indicator of the presence of
HCV 2. However, HCV 2 is not solely restricted to areas that show no signs of
significant human activity, and “intactness” per se is not explicitly included in
the HCV 2 definition, which rests on the ‘global, regional or national
significance’ of large, landscape level ecosystems, and specifically the presence
of ‘viable populations of the great majority of the naturally occurring species’.
15
www.intactforests.org
34
HCV Common Guidance
5.2.3 Case study
HCV2: Large, landscape-level ecosystems and mosaics
Site: Mistik FMA, Saskatchewan, Canada
Ecosystem: Boreal forest
Assessment context: HCV assessment for FSC certification
The Mistik Forest Management Area (MFMA) covers 1.8 million hectares in
Saskatchewan, Canada1. This area is part of Canada’s extensive boreal forest belt
and as Saskatchewan has a relatively short history of large-scale timber
harvesting, much of the management area can be classified as intact, landscapelevel forest. Furthermore, Canadian forestry practices traditionally use a “coarse
filter” strategy which aims to preserve the range, age, and distribution of forest
types found naturally in the landscape. These natural forest landscapes are
maintained by major, natural fire disturbance events, and so sustainable logging
practices aim to mimic natural levels of disturbance.
With reference to the Canadian national interpretation of HCV (REF), logging
practices include the protection of “core forest areas”, which are broadly similar
to large, landscape level forest areas and are deemed HCV2. These core forest
areas are defined as areas that are at least 20 years post-harvest, at least 500 m
from a permanent cultural feature, and at least 500 m from areas that have been
harvested within the last 20 years. About 50% of the Mistik FMA is defined as
“core” forest1 that supports viable populations of the majority of species in their
natural distribution and abundance patterns (REF).
References:
1. Clark, T. and Burkhardt, R. 2009. High Conservation Value Forest in the
Mistik FMA Area, Version 1.4.
http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/Mistik%20HCVF%
20vers%201.4%202008Ju7%20PDF-1.pdf
5.3
HCV 3: Ecosystems and habitats
Rare, threatened, or endangered ecosystems, habitats or refugia.
HCV 3 is designed to ensure that rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems,
habitats or refugia are maintained. It includes ecosystems which were previously
widespread or typical of large regions. They also include rare associations of
species, even when the constituent species may be widespread.
Native ecosystems that are characteristic of a region but are not rare or
endangered should not be considered HCV 3. HCV 3 includes ecosystems and
habitats which are recognised as being of special importance because of their
rarity or the level of threat that they face, their rare or unique species
composition (e.g. ecological and evolutionary refugia) or certain ecological
characteristics (e.g. age and size structure).
35
HCV Common Guidance
5.3.1 Key terms and concepts
Ecosystems are a “dynamic complex of plant, animal and micro-organism
communities and their non-living environment interacting as a functional unit”16 ,
defined at a relevant scale for decisions in land use management. A practical and
widespread approach is to use vegetation classifications which are easily
recognizable in the field as well as on satellite images, aerial photographs and
other remote sensing imagery. It is important to note that the available
classifications tend to be terrestrial focused and there is no global freshwater
ecosystem map.
Habitat is the place or type of site where a population or organism occurs17 (and is
therefore essential for species level (HCV 1) management). Habitats may be
synonymous with ecosystems as defined above, or be defined at a smaller scale–
e.g. rocky outcrops may be a key habitat for rare or localised plants within a forest
ecosystem. Habitats defined at the site scale are usually too small to be significant
at a national level or above. Interpretation of HCV 3 should therefore focus on
higher-level ecosystem priorities and habitats for key species should be
considered under HCV 1.
Refugia: There are two types of refugia (or refuges) which may have a high
conservation value (in addition to seasonal refuges considered under HCV 1):
 Ecological refugia: Isolated areas which are sheltered from current
changes (e.g. human threats or climatic events), and where plants and
animals typical of a region may survive; and
 Evolutionary refugia: areas where certain types or suites of organisms
persisted during a period when climatic events (e.g. glaciations) greatly
reduced habitable areas elsewhere. Such refugia often support high
overall species richness and significant numbers of endemic species.
Rare, Threatened or Endangered
Thresholds of significance (such as rarity and threat levels) for species and
ecosystems are relative and scale-dependent. To define rare ecosystems, one
must consider the presence of similar ecosystems in the same biogeographic
region and/or country. For example, in regions where old-growth forests are rare
they may be considered HCV 3. However they would not qualify as HCV 3 if
ancient, undisturbed forests are widespread.
Ecosystems or habitats may be HCV 3 when they are:
16
17
FSC FSC Principles and Criteria for Forest Stewardship V5-0.
Idem.
36
HCV Common Guidance

Naturally rare because they depend on highly localised soil types,
locations, hydrology or other climatic or physical features, such as some
types of limestone karst forests, mountain tops, cliffs, or riverine forests
in arid zones.

Anthropogenically rare, because the extent of the ecosystem has been
greatly reduced by human activities compared to their historic extent,
such as natural seasonally-flooded grasslands on rich soils, or fragments
of primary forests in regions where almost all primary forests have been
eliminated.

Threatened or endangered by current or future degradation or conversion
to other land uses.
5.3.2 Indicators and data sources
Where available, nationally recognised classification system of ecosystems and
habitats and their rarity should be consulted. Where little is known about the
species composition of ecosystems, several biophysical factors, e.g. soil type and
climate, can be combined to give suitable proxies for vegetation units. Next an
assessment must be made of whether the ecosystems present are rare,
threatened or endangered in the wider context. Ecosystems may be deemed HCV
3 if they are naturally rare or significantly reduced from their original extent by
the effects of humans.
Identifying HCV 3 is normally done through a land cover classification and
rarity/threat analysis. Confirming the presence of HCV 3 may require remote
sensing, field surveys or in some cases a biological survey to identify specific
ecological components or indicator species. Managers can choose to voluntarily
presume the presence of HCV3 if certain indicators are present, for example:
 In regions where many natural ecosystems or habitats have been
eliminated, and others have been heavily impacted by development,
remaining natural ecosystems of reasonable quality are likely to be HCV 3.
 Where ecosystem proxies indicate the presence of RTE ecosystems, even
if these are inaccessible or have not been confirmed on the ground.
 Where suitable habitat is present within the distribution range of multiple
RTE or endemic species, especially critically endangered species, and
could credibly be supposed to support such species.
The size, age, structure and species composition of an ecosystem may also be
important criteria. For example, in some regions, only large patches of
undisturbed natural forest may be considered ‘significant’ at the global or regional
level; elsewhere, forests may be so scarce and fragmented that even small
patches of heavily degraded natural forests may be considered HCV 3.
5.3.3 Case study
HCV3: Rare, threatened or endangered ecosystems
37
HCV Common Guidance
Site: Argentina
Habitat: Humid and semi-arid Pampas ecoregions
Assessment context:
The La Plata basin supports the main grassland area in South America and
includes the Pampas ecoregions in Argentina1. The area supports a unique
community of species with over 550 grass species and approximately 500 bird
species, and the distinctive climate allows plant species with both C3 and C4
metabolisms to coexist2. Endemism in these grasslands in low, but biodiversity
high3. Across the La Plata basin grasslands historically covered a vast area of
750,000 km2, but the humid and semi-arid pampas grasslands of Argentina have
become anthropogenically rare due to the increase in livestock grazing and soy
croplands1. Only around 30% of the Argentinian Pampas remain in natural or
semi-natural condition, and just 1% of the Pampas is formally protected1. WWF
considers the status of the humid and semi-arid pampas ecoregions to be
Critical/Endangered3. The speed of agricultural expansion across the Pampas over
the last 40 years, means that these previously widespread ecoregions have now
been greatly reduced in size. Therefore, they could potentially qualify as a
nationally or regionally threatened ecosystems under the HCV3 criterion. Typical
species of the pampas such as the grassland-dependent Greater Rhea and Elegant
Crested-Tinamou have also had their distributions substantially reduced1, but
these reductions would probably be insufficient to justify HCV1 classification.
References:
1. Michelson, A. 2008. TEMPERATE GRASSLANDS OF SOUTH AMERICA.
Prepared for The World Temperate Grasslands Conservation Initiative
Workshop Hohhot, China - June 28 & 29, 2008.
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/pastizales_templados_de_sudameric
a.pdf
2. Bilenca, D. and Miñarro F. 2004. Conservation strategy for the natural
grasslands of Argentina, Uruguay and southern Brazil Phase II.
Identification of Valuable Grasslands Areas (VGAs).
http://www.hcvnetwork.org/resources/folder.2006-0929.6584228415/Valuable%20Grassland%20Areas%20Argentina.pdf
3. http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0806,
http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/nt0803
5.4
HCV 4- Critical ecosystem services
Basic ecosystem services in critical situations including protection of water
catchments and control of erosion of vulnerable soils and slopes.
5.4.1 Key terms and concepts
Basic ecosystem services are those processes and functions of nature that serve
to regulate and maintain the environment in which people live. These are
ecosystem outputs that are not consumed but which directly or indirectly affect
the livelihoods, health and wellbeing of individuals and communities. It may be
38
HCV Common Guidance
useful to think about HCV 4 as regulation and maintenance services (see Table
XXX). Such basic services become HCV 4 in critical situations (see below).
Table 1 Types of ecosystem services - adapted from the Common International
Classification of Ecosystem Services (2012). Regulation and maintenance services
contribute to HCV 4, ‘Provisioning’ to human well-being and livelihoods (HCV 5) and
‘Cultural’ ecosystems services contribute to cultural identity (HCV 6). Note that there are
significant overlaps between some service ‘Groups’ e.g. water flow regulation (HCV 4) and
drinking water provision (HCV 5).
HCV
Theme
Class
Regulation of
wastes
Flow regulation
HCV
4
Regulation
and
maintenance
Regulation of
physical
environment
Regulation of
biotic
environment
Nutrition and
health
HCV
5
Provisioning
Materials
Energy
HCV
6
Symbolic
Cultural
Intellectual and
experiential
Group
Bioremediation
Dilution and sequestration
Mass flow regulation (including
erosion control)
Water flow regulation (rivers and
streams)
Atmospheric regulation
Water quality regulation
Soil formation and quality regulation
(e.g. soil fertility and renewal)
Lifecycle maintenance and habitat
protection
Pest and disease control
Terrestrial plant and animal products
Freshwater plant and animal products
Marine plant and animal products
Drinking water
Plant, animal and mineral materials
Renewable biofuels (e.g. fuelwood)
Renewable abiotic energy (e.g.
hydroelectric)
Aesthetic, heritage
Religious and spiritual
Recreation and community activities
Information and knowledge
In practice, HCV Toolkits and national interpretations have used three main
headings under HCV 4: areas critical to water catchments, areas critical to erosion
control, and areas providing barriers to destructive fire. The latter category has
rarely been used successfully as a management tool. However, with this guide we
encourage stakeholders to think about other critical regulating and maintenance
functions of ecosystems. Some national toolkits have added other critical
ecosystems, such as areas critical in providing services to agriculture (e.g.
pollination services in Indonesia, fisheries in Romania) and protecting against
39
HCV Common Guidance
wind (e.g. forest belts in Ghana). Where relevant, these could also be considered
in the absence of a national HCV interpretation.
Critical situations: An ecosystem service is critical where a disruption of that
service poses a threat of severe, catastrophic or cumulative negative impacts on
the welfare, health or survival of local communities, on the functioning of
important infrastructure (roads, dams, reservoirs, hydroelectric schemes,
irrigation systems, buildings, etc.), or on other HCVs
The concept of critical situations relates to two complementary issues:

Cases where loss of or major damage to an HCV 4 would cause serious
prejudice or suffering to recipients of the service either immediately or
periodically (e.g. regulation of water provision during critical drought
periods), or

Cases where there are no viable, readily available or affordable
alternatives (e.g. pumps and wells) that can be relied on if the service
fails.
An area may be considered HCV 4 if it is protecting or providing one of these
services in a critical situation. For example a forest may provide a function in
regulating the flow of water within a catchment. This service may be considered
critical when people are dependent on the water for drinking or irrigation, or
where the regulation of water flow guarantees the existence of fishing grounds or
agricultural land on which the local people are dependent. Similarly, a forest area
may provide a vital function in stabilising slopes above a settlement, or, in the
upper reaches of an important stream catchment. This service may be critical
when disturbing operations in the forest would lead to drastic soil erosion with
impacts on people’s property or livelihoods. Critical protection against destructive
fire is likely to occur in areas which are prone to serious fires, which contain or are
adjacent to human settlements, important cultural sites, protected areas or other
HCVs, and where the natural ecosystem is a barrier to fire. In these examples,
what defines the value is the existence of people who are making use of, or
dependent on, an environmental service.
Areas within water catchments that are critical to flow regulation and water
quality: HCV 4 may apply to river and stream regulation in natural catchments
where these water supplies are critical for human uses including drinking water,
cooking, washing and irrigation, fishing, and there are no viable or readily
available alternatives. There is often an overlap between water catchment
protection and erosion control.
These services can be disrupted by poor production practices even in well-located
production sites, e.g. if a management unit produces point or nonpoint source
pollution or dams a stream. Virtually all activities on the terrestrial landscape will
affect downstream freshwaters – it is just a matter of how much and how far.
40
HCV Common Guidance
Some types of production may be unacceptably harmful to downstream
freshwaters no matter what, whereas good management could minimize impacts
within some types of production.
Possible HCV 4 areas include those critical to:
 Managing extreme flow events
 Vegetated riparian buffer zones or intact floodplains
 Groundwater recharge zones
 Maintaining downstream flow regimes
 Maintaining water quality characteristics
 Grasslands providing buffering against flooding
Erosion control: HCV 4 may apply to steep slopes, fragile soils and other sites
which are critically vulnerable to erosion, flooding, landslides or sedimentation,
and where such processes have a severe impact on communities, infrastructure,
livelihoods and other HCVs. Such impacts might be catastrophic (landslides) or
pernicious and difficult to reverse (gradual loss of soil fertility and land
productivity).
Excessive soil erosion and sedimentation have ecological and economic
consequences important at a landscape scale. Surface erosion causes the loss of
top-soil, which leads to decreasing land productivity. Landslides and ravines
reduce the area of productive lands, damage infrastructure, change a watershed’s
hydrology characteristics, and increase sediment loads, which causes siltation of
water bodies and irrigation channels. This is particularly important for farming and
fishing communities, and for freshwater or coastal biodiversity. HCV 4 occurs in
areas that contain natural vegetation types (e.g. forest or native grasslands) in
good condition that help to prevent erosion, landslip, gulleying, dust storms and
desertification, where such events would have a critical impact on people or the
environment.
Barriers to destructive fire: HCV 4 may apply to forests, wetlands and other
ecosystems which provide a protective barrier against destructive fires that could
threaten communities, infrastructure or other HCVs. This appears to be a rare or
exceptional service in practice; however, poor fire management (in forests
especially) may increase the risk of destructive fires.
Other ecosystem services: Depending on the location and the ecosystem in
question, other services may be of critical importance. For example, pollination of
subsistence crops provided exclusively by native bees for smallholders in the
Kenyan highlands, or of commercial Durian crops by bats in SE Asia. In both cases,
the pollinators are dependent on the presence of suitable forest habitat and do
not survive in purely agricultural landscapes. Other services that may be critical in
some circumstances include the maintenance of soil fertility, local protection
against winds, and the regulation of humidity, rainfall and other climatic
41
HCV Common Guidance
elements. Disruption of natural ecosystems may also result in increases in vectorborne diseases and natural crop pest regulation by predators, although these
effects are complex and unpredictable. Local stakeholders should be given
opportunities to identify important ecosystem services. However, interpretation
of HCV 4 applies only to “critical situations”, and does not extend to every useful
ecosystem service in all situations.
Why isn’t Carbon Storage considered to be an HCV 4 service?
Carbon storage is not currently considered an HCV although this could change in time,
if a suitable formulation can be developed and agreed. Carbon does not fit particularly
well with the way HCV 4 is currently defined and interpreted: while carbon storage
may qualify as a basic service of nature, it does not have the same close linkage to
local communities implied in the examples given in this guide, nor does it fit with the
interpretation of “critical situations”, since climate change is a gradual and long term
problem for all of humanity. Many international standard setting organisations (e.g.
CCBA, RSPO, RTRS, RSB, Bonsucro) have either discussed or established specific
criteria related to greenhouse gas emissions in land use management, and some
organisations have begun to define “High Carbon Stock” as a separate (non-HCV)
issue.
5.4.2 Indicators and data sources
HCV 4 is likely to occur wherever local communities are largely dependent on
natural rivers and springs for drinking water, or where natural ecosystems (often
forested areas) play an important role in stabilising steep slopes. These two values
frequently occur together and the area which provides the critical services (water
provision and erosion control) may overlap partially or completely. Assessors will
need to analyse hydrological and topographic maps, soil maps with erosion risk
indicators, human habitations and infrastructure (such as major transport routes,
reservoirs, hydroelectric dams etc). Many countries have systems for identifying
critical watersheds, and this is often part of national forest regulations.
Consult national classification systems and laws regulating water catchment areas
and disturbance to steep slopes to determine whether such sites occur in the
assessment area. Any relevant classifications and the areas to which they
correspond (including steep slope areas, watersheds, catchment boundaries)
should be presented on maps. Streams, rivers and settlements will also need to be
mapped in detail. The following questions should be considered:

Are all the relevant regulations and guidelines on slope protection and
water course management being observed?

Are there any slope/catchment areas that appear particularly significant
to local people?
It is then necessary to consider whether current regulations and restrictions for
such areas effectively protect this conservation value. This is a difficult judgement
42
HCV Common Guidance
that may mean management goes beyond the existing requirements of the law.
Expert opinion should be sought, and consultations held with organisations
working with the local people before a final decision on the presence of this value
is made.
The location of HCV 4 can be derived from a variety of maps (land cover,
topographic and hydrological maps, human settlements and infrastructure),
requirements from national regulations and guidance in national interpretations,
and expert opinion. Where it is necessary to assess the status of the HCV, this may
be linked to the quality of the service provided and to the ecological integrity of
the ecosystem.
In the absence of detailed information, HCV 4 is more likely to be present:
 In remote or poor rural areas where people rely directly on natural
resources to supply most of their needs, including water.
 Upstream of extensive or important wetlands, fish nurseries and
spawning grounds, or sensitive coastal ecosystems (e.g. mangrove forests,
coral reefs etc.)
 In steep or mountainous areas, or areas of high rainfall, where the risk of
catastrophic erosion is high
 In areas of naturally low soil fertility, especially on sandy, peaty or fragile
soils, where land clearance, drainage, use of heavy machinery or other
intensive land use might affect soil structure and fertility.
5.4.3 Case study
HCV4: Areas that provide basic ecosystem services in critical situations
Site: Southern Portugal
Ecosystem: Cork and holm oak woodlands and water catchments
Assessment context: Regional HCV assessment for conservation prioritisation
Cork oak and Holm oak woodlands (or montados in Portugese) are silvi-pastoral
systems covering around 1 million hectares in Spain and Portugal. They produce
sustainable, and in many cases FSC-certified, outputs of cork and also support
high biodiversity. Although they are well known for the provisioning service of
cork production, they are less known for their other ecosystem services. However,
an HCV assessment by WWF showed that watershed protection, prevention of
soil erosion, and carbon storage1 could be as valuable as cork production.
Watershed protection provided by montados is especially important in the
Mediterranean region, where water can be seasonally scarce. In the Tejo-Sado
River Basin, the Low Tejo Basin supports several key aquifers, including the
Margem Esquerda aquifer that supplies water for urban and industrial
populations in the Santarém and Setúbal districts. The Margem Esquerda aquifer
supports 36% of all cork oak forests, and these are located primarily on sites of
medium to high aquifer recharge. Crucially, recharge of the Margem Esquerda
aquifer is largely reliant on water infiltration and atmospheric precipitation that
43
HCV Common Guidance
are thought to be facilitated by the tree cover and management of the montados
ecosystem. The montados in the Low Tejo Basin qualify as HCV4 because they are
crucial to aquifer recharge and water quality.
References:
1. Branco, O. et al. 2010. Hotspot areas for biodiversity and ecosystem
services in montados. WWF Mediterranean – Portugal.
http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/HABEaSReport20
10FINAL.pdf
5.5
HCV 5 Community needs
Sites and resources fundamental for satisfying the basic necessities of local
communities or indigenous peoples (for example for livelihoods, health, nutrition,
water), identified through engagement with these communities or indigenous
peoples.
HCV 5 refers to sites and resources that are fundamental for satisfying the basic
necessities of local people. The social values of natural ecosystems are likely to be
more important in areas where whole communities or significant portions of them
are heavily dependent on those ecosystems for their livelihoods, and where there
is limited availability of alternatives. In general, if local people derive benefits
from natural or traditionally managed ecosystems, HCV 5 may be present. The
role of the HCV assessment is to characterize the level of importance of the
resource and to guide management responses to peoples’ needs.
If the scale and impact of the proposed project are expected to significantly
threaten resources and sites upon which local people depend, such sites and
resources must be protected to the extent necessary to supply or satisfy their
identified role. Where insufficient areas are secured for basic needs, communities
may feel obliged to make use of other lands and resources, thereby putting at risk
other HCVs or investments. The designation and maintenance of an HCV 5 site or
resource is only one element of what should be a wider rights-based approach to
responsible land management, including appropriate impact assessment,
consultative processes and negotiation.
Key terms and concepts
A site or resource is fundamental for satisfying basic necessities if the services it
provides are irreplaceable (i.e. if alternatives are not readily accessible or
affordable), and if its loss or damage would cause serious suffering or prejudice to
affected stakeholders. The importance of natural resources to local communities
can be characterized by the intensity of use, length of use, quality of use and
legitimacy of claims.
Basic necessities in the context of HCV 5 may cover any or all of the provisioning
services of the environment (see Table XXX) including tangible materials that can
44
HCV Common Guidance
be consumed, exchanged or used directly in manufacture, and which form the
basis of daily life.
Possible HCV 5 resources include:
 hunting and trapping grounds (for game, skin and furs),
 non-timber forest products (NTFPs) such as nuts, berries, mushrooms,
medicinal plants, fish (as essential protein sources),
 fuel for household cooking, lighting and heating
 freshwater animal and plant species relied on by local communities,
 building materials (poles, thatching, timber),
 fodder for livestock and seasonal grazing
 forest fallows for rotational farming.
 water sources necessary for drinking water and sanitation.
 items which are bartered in exchange for other essential goods, or sold
for cash which is then used to buy essentials including medicine or
clothes, or to pay for school fees.
The degree of dependence on HCV 5 resources may alter rapidly due to changes
in the area such as the creation or repair of a road, improved communication
infrastructure or an influx of migrants. It is important, is to ensure that HCV 5
resources are not abruptly restricted without a transition plan with suitable
alternatives using highly participative methods, and ideally with a full FPIC
process. Even where FPIC is obtained, managers need a far-sighted approach to
ensure that changes in population needs are foreseen. In cases where insufficient
or unsuitable land is assigned for present and future farming there is a risk that
livelihood activities such as farming will conflict with the maintenance of
biodiversity HCVs.
Agricultural and pasture land
Due to its origins as a concept covering priority forests (in FSC), to date, HCV 5
has not been interpreted as including monoculture tree plantations, short
rotation crops or other heavily modified agrisystems, or “land banks” (fallows
and reserves of land which are essential for future agricultural expansion by
communities or indigenous peoples), but it has been applied to traditionally
managed landscapes such as ancient coppiced woodlands in Europe, wild
rattan gardens or complex agroforestry systems in some parts of the tropics.
As the HCV concept refocuses on values, the question of farming should be reevaluated. Most rural communities require land for agriculture or pasture;
subsistence farming as practised by many of the poorest rural communities is a
clear case of a “basic necessity”. Therefore, some propose including the
provisioning services of agriculture (especially subsistence farming), and future
production value of ‘land banks’ within HCV 5. This HCV status would require
essential farmland to be protected from conversion to plantations, for example,
if such protection is essential to safeguard basic community needs. It is
45
HCV Common Guidance
important to include the essential needs derived from farming in the scope of
HCV assessments, as an incomplete picture of human activities is likely to
undermine the validity of recommendations both to protect affected
communities, and the ecosystems in the landscape.
However, the HCV concept was not originally designed to address provisioning
services that depend on, or derive from, the clearance of natural ecosystems,
and inclusion of farmland and land banks as HCV 5 could result in unintended
consequences, such as reducing the safeguards against the clearance of natural
ecosystems and creating conflicts between the aims of the different HCVs (e.g.
biodiversity vs. conversion value of natural forests). Until this question is
resolved through further work, we recommend that in every HCV assessment,
specific attention should be given to the question of subsistence farming and
how this impacts food security and other values contained or dependent on
natural ecosystems.
Box: HCV 5&6 Lessons learned and on-going initiatives
The HCV approach is an important tool for responsible land management and
responsible sourcing by the private sector, and is now a keystone component of
voluntary sustainability schemes (e.g. FSC, RTRS, RSPO, Bonsucro). Experience
with using the HCV approach to identify values concerned with safeguarding the
needs of communities (HCV5) and their cultural values (HCV6) has presented
challenges:
 In some cases the HCV approach fails to secure basic community needs due to
ambiguities in the definition of HCV areas;
 There are uncertainties about how actions to protect HCVs best fit with other
processes such as Environmental and Social Impact Assessments (ESIA) and
the right to free, prior and informed consent (FPIC);
 Where community lands and livelihoods are not secured, people may feel
compelled to open up new lands, often putting in jeopardy other HCVs;
HCV Resource Network members, Forest Peoples Programme, Proforest Initiative
and Solidaridad Network are working on a three-year multi-stakeholder project
that includes participatory action research, capacity-building, a review of existing
tools and guidance, and the creation of a practitioners’ group to strengthen the
identification, management and monitoring of HCVs 5 & 6 in practice.
For more information on this project please contact NAME.
Identification through engagement with communities
Determining whether or not a resource qualifies as “fundamental for satisfying
basic necessities” is largely subjective and local communities and/or indigenous
peoples should play a key role in proposing and identifying potential HCVs
through a participative process. This should be done with a recognition that local
communities contain variation in age, sex, wealth or ethnicity which creates very
diverse needs and aspirations. When evaluating sites and resources as HCV 5 it is
necessary to consult widely and ensure that participatory mapping and social
46
HCV Common Guidance
surveys include representatives from minority, vulnerable and marginalized
groups.
Local communities need to be involved in a consultative process and agree to decisions
through a process of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC). This means that any decision
or consent derived should be made without coercion or intimidation, with all relevant
information provided and prior to any damaging activities or operations taking place. In
addition to local consultation, experts, local authorities and NGOs can often
provide helpful information and context.
5.5.1 Indicators and data sources
In practice HCV values, which are fundamental for satisfying basic necessities,
tend to be identified where at least some people, including the most
impoverished or dependent members of a community, derive most of their daily
nutrition and other livelihood needs from surrounding ecosystems. Resources that
are important to the community should be verifiable independently with different
individuals or groups within that community (triangulation of responses).
47
HCV Common Guidance
There is a high likelihood of HCV 5 in the area if:










Communities are far from main roads or towns, and have poor quality
access roads or tracks
Access to health centres or hospitals is difficult,
Most houses are built from locally available traditional/natural materials,
People have a low capacity to accumulate wealth
Farming and livestock raising are done on a small or subsistence scale
Indigenous hunter-gatherers are present
Hunting is a major source of protein and income18
Subsistence fishing
Presence of permanent or nomadic pastoralists
A food resource constitutes a significant part of their diet, either
throughout the year or only during one critical season
A word of caution: quantifying dependence on natural resources
Some national HCV interpretations have used numerical thresholds to define
dependence on sites and resources. These tools must be used with caution, and
seen as indicators rather than absolutes e.g. the difference between 29% and 31%
dependence on a resource cannot be accurately measured, and is not very
meaningful. Rather than trying to quantify degrees of dependence, it is more
useful for managers to understand the different resources and activities which
contribute to local livelihoods, to assess how any new project may impact those
livelihood resources and then to mitigate the impacts.
18
This does not refer to commercial hunting but to small-scale hunting where people
obtain cash for basic needs such as cooking oil, salt, medicine, school fees, etc.
48
HCV Common Guidance
Hunting
In areas where some people rely exclusively on hunting or where most people hunt
occasionally/seasonally to supplement their diets and incomes there is a likelihood of
HCV 5 (i.e. essential provision of animal protein). However, hunting frequently
conflicts with biodiversity conservation (unsustainable harvesting of target species,
hunting endangered species), and/or may involve illegal practices such as killing
protected species, using prohibited methods, and hunting in prohibited places or
during closed hunting seasons. In trying to determine if hunting is fundamental for
basic needs, assessors have tried to consider whether the level of hunting is
subsistence or commercial, but this is difficult to distinguish in practice and in any
case may not relate to sustainability. The table below provides some useful examples
of how to recognize when hunting may provide basic necessities for local people in
the project area. Managers need to maintain or enhance the HCV (in this case the
protein provisioning service), but must also discourage illegal and unsustainable
harvesting of key species. This may require regulating or controlling hunting rates. In
practice, there should be negotiation (ideally through FPIC) over reduced access to
resources and a transition to alternative sources of protein and income.
Customary Hunting (likelihood of HCV 5)
Commercial/Extractive Hunting (HCV
absent)

Hunters have customary rights to
particular territories.


People consume a portion of their
catch, trade a portion for basic
products (e.g. flour, bananas, cooking
oil) and may also sell some or most of
their catch in order to buy basic
products (cooking oil, salt,
paraffin/kerosene) or pay for basic
services (school fees, medicine).
Hunters may negotiate access to
hunting territories and use local
guides, but they do not have
customary rights to a hunting
area.

Larger quantities of meat are
transported greater distances for
cash sale.

Meat is consumed, sold and traded
locally.

Indigenous people live in the forest in
temporary hunting camps, rotating
throughout a hunting territory over
the course of the year.

Domestic livestock are fairly rare, or
they are rarely consumed. Instead
used for insurance, dowries, etc.
49
HCV Common Guidance
Where the community’s use of resources is extractive, and particularly if the uses
may affect biodiversity HCVs such as endangered species, assessors should gather
data on the past and present status and likely future trends, to help assess the
current and future sustainability of the activities.
5.5.2 Data sources
It is strongly recommended that an independent organisation is used to carry out
social surveys as independence from the owner or manager of the production site
is necessary to facilitate open discussion. Assessors will need to collect or review
information on natural resource use by communities (food, construction
materials, firewood, medicines etc.), the level of dependence of communities on
these resources and the areas used.
Valuable sources of information include:

Review of any social assessments/socio-economic assessments carried
out in the area

Consultations with relevant organisations working on community
development with the communities in question (or other similar
communities in the area)

A survey of the relevant communities, to determine their interactions
with the assessment area and the products and services they use

Review of all results/findings to determine the levels of use of each
resource.

Studies on natural resource use and livelihoods by conservation and
development NGOs, local or national agencies etc.
Anthropological works on diet and subsistence activities
Consultation with experts


5.5.3 Methods for assessing HCV 5
If existing data on HCV 5 are sparse then assessors may need to collect new data.
The tools or methods used will depend on several factors including the scale of
potential risks and impacts and the assessment budget and timeline. Below we list
some tools which may be used or adapted depending on the assessment.
Participatory methods normally require social assessment expertise.
 Participatory mapping can be used to map the forms of current and
historical land use, the extent of rights and different areas of customary
management
 Participatory surveys or land transects can also be used to identify the
key elements in landscapes basic to livelihoods
 Community workshops and discussion groups help identify vital activities
and resources and explore how values are maintained or enhanced
50
HCV Common Guidance





Socioeconomic studies on household income sources, diet, hunting
practices, etc.
Seasonal calendars: Helps to identify changes according to seasons and
circumstances, such as seasonality of forage and habitat uses, and
migration patterns of animals.
Coping mechanisms: This kind of questioning or exercise can reveal the
economic drivers that trigger the use of a resource (e.g. famine foods,
wild game).
Wealth definition and ranking exercises
Basic Needs Survey: BNS tends to cover household items, but it can be
adapted to ecosystem services and natural products such as fish, game,
building materials, etc.
Guidance for FPIC
The right to FPIC includes the right of indigenous peoples and local communities to
give, withhold or withdraw consent to those activities that would affect their rights.
FPIC is different from an engagement process which gives the Organization the right to
take the final decision.
Guidance on the use of FPIC has been prepared for FSC, RSPO and climate change
activities (REDD+) and these guidance documents should be consulted for a
comprehensive explanation of the process. For the case of HCV 5 & 6, FPIC can be
used to identify values with local people and to consider the positive and negative
impacts that a project could have. At this point, local people should be “informed”
about how the proposed development project could impact their use of HCVs, and can
decide whether or not they are still interested in engaging with the company and
negotiating changed access to these values. For example, in cases where significant
portions of hunting territories could be cleared for agriculture, local communities
would need to decide on whether alternatives (e.g. fish farming, livestock and
employment with company) are acceptable forms of compensation. A full FPIC process
can take anywhere from weeks to months depending on the number of communities
involved and the scale of impact. Managers may need to make a provisional
identification and assessment of HCVs 5 and 6, based on available information and
pending the completion of full consultative processes or FPIC negotiations.
5.5.4 Case study
HCV5: Areas fundamental to meeting basic needs of local communities
Site: Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique
Ecosystem: Mosaic landscape of agricultural land, forest, woodland and wetland
areas.
Assessment context: Field test of HCV assessment for large-scale sugarcane
agriculture
Biofuel feedstock production for renewable energy is set to increase in coming
years and this case study focuses on an HCV assessment for potential sugarcane
51
HCV Common Guidance
production in Mozambique1. The assessment was conducted to try and define
best practice for HCV assessment in this context1. The site chosen in the Cabo
Delgado Province, Mozambique is a mosaic landscape of agricultural land, as well
as some secondary and more pristine woodland and forest areas. There are a
number of villages within the site boundaries, and social surveys revealed that all
communities within 3-5 km of forest or woodland areas were heavily dependent
on natural resources from these areas. The resources included building materials,
meat, and firewood. For all communities, these were the only available sources of
these products. In many cases, water was also being transported up to 3 km from
wetland areas to villages without water pumps. The dependence of the
communities on these forest and wetland resources classifies these forest and
wetland areas as HCV5. However, this study was only a field test and so detailed
village-level evaluations would be required before a project area is finalised. The
study also identified the presence of HCV1 at the site, and so overlap and
potential conflict of HCV1 and HCV5 areas would require further consideration.
References:
1. Proforest. 2009. An assessment of potential High Conservation Values
within Cabo Delgado Province, Mozambique.
http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/Mozambique%20
HCV%20Cabo%20Delgado%20report%20final%20v1.1.pdf
5.6
HCV 6 Cultural Values
Sites, resources, habitats and landscapes of global or national cultural,
archaeological or historical significance, and/or of critical cultural, ecological,
economic or religious/sacred importance for the traditional cultures of local
communities or indigenous peoples, identified through engagement with these
local communities or indigenous peoples.
5.6.1 Key terms and concepts
The definition of HCV 6 is extremely broad and it is useful to divide it into two
different categories: cultural values of global or national significance, and values
critical for local people at the site scale.
Values of global or national significance
Cultural, archaeological or historical values:
Sites, resources, habitats or landscapes which are significant at the global or
national level are likely to have widely recognised historical, religious or spiritual
importance and in many cases will have an official designation by national
52
HCV Common Guidance
government or and international agency like UNESCO19. Occasionally, new sites or
resources of extraordinary cultural significance may be discovered through
exploration of sites for development (such as ‘lost cities’, important
archaeological relics such as monumental ancient burial sites or prehistoric cave
art,); these can qualify as HCV6 based on expert and stakeholder opinion, without
an official designation.
Cultural landscapes20
The term "cultural landscape" often includes specific techniques of sustainable
land-use, considering the characteristics and limits of the natural environment
they are established in, and a specific spiritual relation to nature. The continued
existence of traditional forms of land-use, or sometimes measures mimicking such
practises, can maintain or enhance natural values in the landscape.
Unesco Cultural Landscapes
In 1992 the UNESCO World Heritage Convention became the first international
legal instrument to recognise and protect cultural landscapes. UNESCO
acknowledges that cultural landscapes represent the "combined works of
nature and of man" designated in Article 1 of the Convention. They are
illustrative of the evolution of human society and settlement over time, under
the influence of the physical constraints and/or opportunities presented by
their natural environment and of successive social, economic and cultural
forces, both external and internal.
UNESCO cultural landscapes fall into three main categories namely:
Clearly-defined landscape designed and created intentionally by man: This
embraces garden and parkland landscapes constructed for aesthetic reasons
which are often (but not always) associated with religious or other monumental
buildings and ensembles.
Organically evolved landscape: This results from an initial social, economic,
administrative, and/or religious imperative and has developed its present form
by association with and in response to its natural environment. Such landscapes
fall into two sub-categories.
A relict (or fossil) landscape is one in which an evolutionary process
came to an end at some time in the past, either abruptly or over a
period. Its significant distinguishing features are, however, still visible in
material form.
Continuing landscape: retains an active social role in contemporary
society closely associated with the traditional way of life. At the same
time it exhibits significant material evidence of its evolution over time.
19
20
United Nations Environmental, Social and Cultural Organisation
http://whc.unesco.org/en/culturallandscape/#1
53
HCV Common Guidance
Associative cultural landscape. The inclusion of such landscapes on the World
Heritage List is justifiable by virtue of the powerful religious, artistic or cultural
associations of the natural element rather than material cultural evidence,
which may be insignificant or even absent.
Values of critical importance for traditional cultures
At the local level, HCV 6 includes sites and resources of critical cultural, ecological,
economic or religious/sacred importance for the cultures of local communities or
indigenous peoples, identified through their engagement. Much like HCV 5, which
is defined at a local level, it is not possible to provide an exhaustive list of
culturally important sites and resources. Some countries will have such lists – at
least at national level. Local considerations may add to these HVC 6 should be
expected to have even more variation than HCV 5 given the diversity of cultures,
languages and ethnic groups which could be encountered during HCV
assessments. HCV 6 covers a wide range of significant areas and resources with
importance according to traditional customs, religions and belief systems,
including burial grounds, sites used for traditional ceremonies, sacred mountains,
forests, rivers, caves, waterfalls, trees, rocks, totem animals and many more.
HCV 6 should be identified through engagement with local communities or
indigenous peoples, when critical for them. Many of the same methods and
sources of information used for HCV 5, such as participatory mapping and
consultations, will be useful. Certain sites and resources qualify as HCV 6 even if
those who value the cultural resources do not live locally (for example, where
communities maintain active cultural rituals linked to areas inhabited by their
ancestors, or perform pilgrimages to sacred sites far from their homes); therefore
it is important to identify all affected communities, not just those immediately
adjacent to the sites or resources, with special attention to groups with less
power and influence so stakeholders do not get missed out of the process.
HCV 6 represents areas of cultural significance that have traditional importance to
local or indigenous people. These may be religious/sacred sites, burial grounds or
sites at which regular traditional ceremonies take place. These are frequently well
known by the local people, and most national laws require them to be identified
and protected. However, if the value is present, you will need to assess whether
existing laws are sufficient to safeguard the sites/areas.
54
HCV Common Guidance
Economic values in HCV 6
Most critical economic issues naturally fall within HCV 5 (i.e. extractive use of natural
resources for subsistence purposes). However, HCV 6 includes any critical situations
where the economic and the spiritual or cultural value are strongly linked, e.g. where
local communities’ basic income is related to cultural sites or resources. This income
may derive from payment in kind (e.g. offerings) or in cash for culturally important
services (e.g. religious ceremonies); from tourism to sites of cultural importance
(where communities are critically dependent on such tourism); or from the collection
and sale of culturally important natural products (e.g. magic or religious herbs, roots
etc), where such products are of critical importance for the traditional culture of
affected communities.
However, HCV 6 does not include the commercial-scale extraction and sale on an
open market of natural resources with cultural resonance, where the link to the
traditional cultural identity of the communities has been broken (e.g. many natural
aphrodisiacs such as ‘Tongkat Ali’, many ‘traditional’ but mass-produced ceremonial
objects carved from bone and horn, natural narcotics etc.). Care must also be taken
to ensure that designation of HCV 6 does not create conflicts with national or
international law (e.g. harvesting protected species for magic or religious purposes).
5.6.2 Indicators and data sources
There is no universal approach for identifying cultural values. HCV 6 cultural
values are linked to human needs and perceptions, and to the cultural values of
communities and peoples, which may change over time and vary within and
between communities. HCV 6 may be identified through consultation with
informed stakeholders and experts (e.g. at the national or subnational level) and
with local people in affected communities. If there is clear evidence of a
community agreement (agreement by consensus, by a majority or by legitimate
representatives) that the sites or resources are culturally significant or critical for
them, then they should be considered HCV 6.
Global and national




UNESCO
Museums, heritage lists, national data sets, authorities and any
organizations which specialize in particular geographic areas or cultures
Some countries have specific directives concerning archaeological sites
and resources in their EIA regulations
Consultation with anthropologists, historians and archaeologists
Local
Participatory consultations with all affected settlements and communities, with
special attention to affected indigenous peoples. Consultations should be direct,
not only through government authorities or NGOs, inclusive of all interest groups,
and neutral for age, gender, caste, nationality and class.
55
HCV Common Guidance
However, in practice, consultations of this kind should be held with the
appropriate people as there are often certain people who hold this kind of
specialized knowledge (e.g. shaman, elders). Another challenge is that cultural
information such as this may be secret and it can therefore be difficult to obtain
accurate information. The choice of methods is important as it may not always be
culturally appropriate to take photos and video, for example. It is also important
to understand any possible sensitivity or risk involved with sharing customary
tenure maps. This is why it is important to establish trust and to work with social
experts such as anthropologists if possible.
5.6.3 Case study
HCV6: Areas critical to communities’ cultural identities
Site: Konkan region, Western Ghats, India
Ecosystem: Dry and moist tropical forest
Assessment context: HCV assessment for prioritising forest conservation
The Western Ghats have a long history of human habitation, and the relatively
high population density is seen as a threat to the region’s forests. Although
agricultural expansion has left forest in the region highly fragmented, many
communities in the Western Ghats still attach great cultural significance to certain
forest areas and so protect these areas against any disturbance. A pilot HCV
assessment in the Konkan region of the Western Ghats found that virtually every
village in the region had a sacred grove, and these ranged in size from about 1
hectare to several hundred hectares1. These sacred groves are of great religious
importance to the communities and in some cases any disturbance as slight as the
removal of leaf litter is thought to be a sin. These forest areas classify as HCV6.
Given the dwindling forest extent in the region these groves are often the only
undisturbed areas of forest and so are also of conservation importance for the
325 threatened species found in the forest. The recent declaration of the Western
Ghats rainforest as a UNESCO World Heritage Site should improve biodiversity
conservation in the region, and possibly the protection of sacred forest groves2.
References:
1. Punde, S. 2007. Prioritising areas for Forest Conservation in the Konkan
region of the Western Ghats hotspot (India) – a pilot study.
http://hcvtest.textmatters.com/resources/assessments/SEPG707_821.pdf
2. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1342/
56
HCV Common Guidance
6
References
Proforest. 2008 (July). Good practice guidelines for High Conservation Value
assessments: A practical guide for practitioners and auditors.
Proforest. 2008 (April). Assessment, management and monitoring of High
Conservation Value Forest: A practical guide for forest managers.
HCV Resource Network. 2010 (September). Reviewing High Conservation Value
Reports: HCV Resource Network guidance for peer reviews of HCV assessment
reports - Version 2.1.
More to be added
57
HCV Common Guidance
Annex
1. HCV assessment general checklist
The HCV RN provides guidance on best practice for the contents of an HCV
Report; the main elements are summarized below. Note that sustainability
standards such as RSPO have specific reporting formats for HCV public summary
reports. The appropriate format must be followed depending on the assessment
context.
1. Executive summary
a) Are the key findings clearly presented and summarised?
b) Does the summary accurately reflect the findings and
recommendations of the main document?
2. Scope of the assessment
a) Is the assessment area and surrounding landscape clearly defined?
b) Is there a basic summary of the company and its operations in the
area?
c) Are the potential impact and scale of proposed operations adequately
described?
d) Did exploitation of any kind (especially clearance) take place prior to
the assessment, and if so, how are such areas treated?
e) Is the purpose of the HCV assessment clear?
3. Wider landscape context and significance of the assessed area
a) Is the wider landscape described?
b) Are the key social and biological features of the wider landscape clearly
described? Such features include:
• Protected areas (existing or in process of gazettement)
• Regional or sub-regional biogeography (is the assessment area part of a distinct
and/or narrowly restricted biogeographic region?)
• Location and status of areas of natural vegetation (including a description of
ecosystem types, size, quality)
• Occurrence of known populations of species of global concern
• Major landforms, watersheds and rivers, geology and soils
 Human settlements and infrastructure, agricultural areas
• Social context (ethnicity, major social trends and land use activities)
• History of land use and development trends, including future plans (e.g. spatial
planning maps, development initiatives and existing/proposed commercial
exploitation and production licenses)
For each of the sub-topics, was the process or effort proportionate and adequate
relative to the likely impact and scale of operations?
4.1. Composition and qualifications of the assessment team
a) Did the team include or have adequate access to relevant expertise to assess
biological and social values?
4.2. Data sources and data collection methodologies
58
HCV Common Guidance
a) Are data sources and data collection methodologies clearly described or
referenced and summarised (and presented in annexes if appropriate), and are
they adequate to identify HCVs? This section should cover:
• Background and desk research
• Field data collection, if any (including dates and itineraries). NB: are aims of any
fieldwork clearly stated relative to specific HCVs?
b) Were reasonable efforts made to fill gaps in the data, proportionate to the
impact and scale of the operations?
Evidence that relevant stakeholders were appropriately consulted
• Is this documented in a verifiable manner?
• Were their views or the information they provided incorporated into the
relevant process?
Were conclusions fed back to consultees as appropriate?
d) Were appropriate existing initiatives engaged wherever possible (including
existing local or international social, ecological or biological
conservation initiatives)?
For all HCVs, the following points should be addressed with effort proportionate
and adequate relative to the likely impact and scale of operations
5.1. Addressing all six HCVs
a) All six HCVs are addressed in the report
b) If one or more HCVs are not addressed, there is adequate justification for
this (e.g. the HCV is absent beyond reasonable doubt)?
5.2. Data quality
a) Are data detailed, recent and complete enough to make informed decisions on
presence/status/location of the HCV? (NB: particular care to be taken with
quality, analysis and use of remote sensing data)
b) Is the precautionary principle appropriately invoked in the use of data?
c) Were maps, reports and other data up to date and adequate?
5.3. Reference to HCV toolkits
a) Has a National Interpretation of HCVs been used, or (in the absence of a
National Interpretation), have the generic HCV Common Guidance guidelines
been appropriately interpreted?
b) Are decisions to apply National Interpretation definitions/thresholds, or to
deviate from its recommendations, adequately explained and justified?
5.4. Decision on HCV status
a) Is the HCV present, potentially present or absent in the assessed area?
b) Has the presence of the HCV in the wider landscape and nationally, regionally
or globally been addressed?
c) Is the HCV (and its components) clearly defined and described?
5.5. Mapping decisions
a) Are maps of HCV occurrence clear, accurate and useful?
b) Are maps of HCV occurrence presented at an adequate level of resolution and
sufficient completeness for management decisions?
• Are decisions on the resolution and completeness of mapping justified?
59
HCV Common Guidance
• If HCV occurrence is NOT mapped at the required resolution and completeness,
is this justified, and is an adequate process defined for mapping the HCV, prior to
commencing any operation?
2. HCV Resources
General guidance
The HCV Resource Network Web site http://www.hcvnetwork.org/ is a rich source of
information and resources including guidance document, national interpretations,
National interpretations
HCV 1-3 Biodiversity and Ecology
Areas of biodiversity importance
Usefulness for HCV identification
Macro scale
Biodiversity Hotspots
www.conservation.org/where/priority_areas/hotspots/
WWF Terrestrial Ecoregions
www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions
Conservation International’s Biodiversity
Hotspots are usually large and threatened
areas, designated for extremely high
regional vascular plant endemicity (>
1,500 endemic species) under great
threat (≥ 70% loss of original native
habitat). Hotspot data is most useful for
preparing potential/general HCV 1
species lists and HCV 3 priorities, and for
ecoregions. They are usually too large to
provide landscape-scale context.
Terrestrial ecoregions – and equivalent
freshwater and marine ecoregions –
aren’t areas of biodiversity importance so
shouldn’t be in this table. They are
merely biogeographic units that cover the
earth’s surface (for
terrestrial/freshwater) or the marine
environment (for marine ecoregions).
These are relatively large units of land or
water containing a distinct assemblage of
natural communities sharing a large
majority of species, dynamics, and
environmental conditions. Ecoregions
represent the original distribution of
distinct assemblages of species and
60
HCV Common Guidance
communities. Ecoregions may be helpful
for providing a large-scale biogeographic
boundary for biological HCV assessment
(HCV 1-3). They are usually too large to
provide landscape-scale context.
WWF Global 200 Ecoregions:
www.worldwildlife.org/science/ecoregions/g200.cfm
These are the most threatened
ecoregions (see above) and are focus
areas for several conservation groups.
Global 200 data is most useful for
preparing HCV 1 species lists and HCV 3
priorities, and large scale perspective.
Many local conservation programmes
may provide additional context.
The G200 are aggregations (for the most
part) of terrestrial, freshwater, and
marine ecoregions – though global
freshwater and marine ecoregion maps
didn’t exist at the time of the G200 so
there’s not a 1:1 correspondence. Level
of threat did not play a role in identifying
G200 ecoregions. They are based on
globally outstanding level s of richness,
endemism, and ecological and
evolutionary processes. There are no
species lists associated with G200
ecoregions, though there are lists of
vertebrates for component terrestrial
ecoregions and fish for freshwater
ecoregions. The scale of G200 ecoregions
makes them of limited value to an HCV
identification process (same for
Hotspots).
Country or Regional Schemes
61
HCV Common Guidance
National Biodiversity Strategies
http://www.cbd.int/nbsap
EU Natura 2000
http://www.natura.org/
Key Biodiversity Areas: sites listed in the Integrated
Biodiversity Assessment Tool
www.IBATforbusiness.org
All CBD consignatories should have
National Biodiversity Strategies and
Action Plans
Natura 2000 is. It is an EU-wide network
of nature protection areas. The aim of the
network is to assure the long-term
survival of Europe's most valuable and
threatened species and habitats.
KBAs are “sites of global significance for
biodiversity conservation. They are
identified using globally standard criteria
and thresholds, based on the needs of
biodiversity requiring safeguards at the
site scale”.21 KBA and HCV criteria overlap
substantially for biological/ecological
values (HCV 1, 2 and 3).
Currently these are only terrestrial. KBAs
in IBAT (and freshwater KBAs haven’t
really been developed yet, though there
is a methodology)
Important Bird Areas IBAs,
www.birdlife.org
There are over 12,000 IBA sites
worldwide which may (1) hold significant
numbers of one or more globally
threatened species, (2) be one of a set of
sites that together hold a suite of
restricted-range species or biomerestricted species, and (3) have
exceptionally large numbers of migratory
or congregatory species. These criteria
overlap strongly with HCV 1.
There are also Endemic Bird Areas, EBAs,
covering over 7 million km2, covering the
habitat of most of the world’s endemic
birds, and useful in assessing HCV 1.
21
Langhammer et al (2007). Identification and Gap Analysis of Key Biodiversity Areas.
Gland, Switzerland: IUCN
62
HCV Common Guidance
Important Plant Areas (IPAs)
www.plantlife.org.uk
Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE)
www.zeroextinction.org/
IPAs are “the most important sites for
plants in any country in a regional context
– identification and protection of these
sites is the ultimate goal”. IPA projects
are ongoing in 66 countries (as of 2010).
An IPA site is characterised by significant
populations of species of global or
regional conservation concern, an
exceptionally rich flora in a regional
context, or an outstanding example of a
habitat or vegetation type of global or
regional importance. IPAs therefore
correspond well to HCV1 (Criterion 1) or
HCV 3 (Criteria B and C).
AZE sites comprise nearly 600 sites
identified as critical and irreplaceable for
the survival of one or more Endangered
or Critically Endangered species. AZE sites
are amongst the highest global
conservation priorities and would
unquestionably qualify as HCV 1 or 3.
Only terrestrial and marine-building
corals
World Heritage Sites
whc.unesco.org
Centres of Plant Diversity, IUCN, WCMC
http://botany.si.edu/projects/cpd
Ramsar sites,
www.ramsar.org
World Heritage Sites are designated on
the basis of global natural or cultural
priorities, including biodiversity,
landscape and human features, and often
have national Protected Area
designation. Any of the 6 HCVs may be
present.
The CPD project described sites of global
plant diversity (high total species counts
and >10% plant endemicity). Sites are
variable in size from a few hundred to >
1M km2; each has data on plant diversity
and ecosystem descriptions which are
useful for preparing HCV 1 species lists
and HCV 3 ecosystems.
These sites are designated under the
‘Ramsar’ Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance and include
>2000 globally significant wetland sites,
containing a) representative, rare or
63
HCV Common Guidance
unique wetland types (HCV 3) or b) areas
of international importance for
conserving biological diversity. The latter
overlap significantly with HCV 1. Several
other HCVs are likely to be present.
Intact Forest Landscapes
www.intactforests.org
IFLs are large (> 500 km2) forests showing
little evidence of human intervention.
Although HCV 2 forest is not necessarily
‘intact’, IFL have a strong presumption of
containing HCV 1, HCV 2 and may also
contain several other HCVs.
64