IUCN Review Protocol for
Biodiversity Net Gain
A guide for undertaking independent reviews of progress
towards a net gain for biodiversity

About IUCNIUCN is a membership Union uniquely composed of bothgovernment and civil society organisations. It provides
public, private and non-governmental organisations withthe knowledge and tools that enable human progress,
economic development and nature conservation to takeplace together.
Created in 1948, IUCN is now the world’s largest andmost diverse environmental network, harnessing theknowledge, resources and reach of 1,300 member
organisations and some 16,000 experts. It is a leading
provider of conservation data, assessments and analysis.
Its broad membership enables IUCN to fill the role ofincubator and trusted repository of best practices, tools
and international standards.
IUCN provides a neutral space in which diverse
stakeholders including governments, NGOs, scientists,businesses, local communities, indigenous peoples
organisations and others can work together to forge andimplement solutions to environmental challenges andachieve sustainable development.
Working with many partners and supporters, IUCN
implements a large and diverse portfolio of conservation
projects worldwide. Combining the latest science withthe traditional knowledge of local communities, theseprojects work to reverse habitat loss, restore ecosystems
and improve people’s well-being.
www.iucn.org
https://twitter.com/IUCN/IUCN Review Protocol for
Biodiversity Net Gain
A guide for undertaking independent reviews of progress
towards a net gain for biodiversity

The designation of geographical entities in this book,and the presentation of the material, do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the partof IUCN concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, or area, or of its authorities, or concerning thedelimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Published by

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland

Copyright© 2017 International Union forConservation of Nature and Natural
Resources

Reproduction of this publication for educational or othernon-commercial purposes is authorized without priorwritten permission from the copyright holder provided thesource is fully acknowledged.
Reproduction of this publication for resale or othercommercial purposes is prohibited without prior written
permission of the copyright holder.
Citation

IUCN Business and Biodiversity
Programme (2017). IUCN Review
Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain: A
guide for undertaking independent
reviews of progress towards a net gain
for biodiversity. Gland, Switzerland:
IUCN. 32pp.

DOI

10.2305/IUCN.CH.2017.08.en

Cover photo

Stephen Edwards

Layout by

Stéfane Mauris, ROSAFILMS

Available from IUCN (International Union forConservation of Nature)
Business and Biodiversity Programme
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland, Switzerland
Tel +41 22 999 0000
Fax +41 22 999 0002
www.iucn.org/resources/publications

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 5

Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS6EXECUTIVE SUMMARY1.

7

OVERVIEW OF THE IUCN BIODIVERSITY NET GAINREVIEW PROTOCOL

8

THE BNG REVIEW PROTOCOL

10

2.1. What is BNG?

10

2.2. What is the BNG Review Protocol?

10

2.3. How should this BNG Review Protocol be used?

12

PREPARING FOR A REVIEW

133.1. Before the review13

3.2. The Team13

3.3. The Review Process

15

4.

VISIT

18

5.

POST-VISIT20

6.

GLOSSARY

22

7.

ANNEXES26

7.1. Terms of Reference for a BNG Review Team

26

7.2. Terms of Reference for a BNG Review Team Lead

28

7.3. Terms of Reference for a BNG Review Team Member

30

2.

3.

6 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain

Acknowledgements

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain would not have been possible without the experience
gained from working with Rio Tinto, which piloted the application of a Net Positive Impact (NPI) approachat several sites from 2011-2014.
This work also builds on a two-year collaborative effort on NPI, under the auspices of the NPI Alliance,
which included IUCN, Rio Tinto, Shell and The Nature Conservancy. IUCN is extremely grateful toindividuals within these organisations, who generated new knowledge around Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG)
for business and conservation, and ultimately, helped inform IUCN’s strategy moving forward.
More specifically, the authors and contributors to the original NPI Panel and draft protocols, which lead tothis publication, are listed in alphabetic order with their affiliation at time of their involvement:
Stuart Anstee (Rio Tinto)
Rachel Asante-Owusu (IUCN)
Monica Barcellos Harris (IUCN/UNEP-WCMC)
Leon Bennun (formerly BirdLife International)
Gerard Bos (IUCN)
Thomas Brooks (NatureServe)
Stephen Edwards (IUCN)
Dennis Hosack (IUCN/Rio Tinto)
Pippa Howard (Fauna & Flora International)
Sam Luccitti (Rio Tinto)

Sally Madden (Rio Tinto)
Leon Payne (Rio Tinto)
Conrad Savy (formerly an independent
consultant)Rainer Schneeweiss (Rio Tinto)
Melissa Tolley (UNEP-WCMC)
Manon Vincelette (Rio Tinto)
James Watson (Wildlife Conservation Society/
University of Queensland)Samir Whitaker (BirdLife International).

Finally, this protocol is a reflection of a much larger body of work focused on engaging business inbiodiversity conservation, and therefore, IUCN would like to acknowledge these contributions as well.

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 7

Executive Summary

From engaging on biodiversity conservation
projects and developing new science-based tools,
IUCN is committed to working with businessto advance our common objectives on nature,knowledge sharing and good practice.
This latest guide, the IUCN Review Protocol for
Biodiversity Net Gain, aims to assist companies,
which are interested in transforming theiroperations to meet today’s widely-accepted global
goals for biodiversity and sustainable development.
In many forward-looking companies, projects are
already required to apply systematic proceduresto avoid, minimise, rehabilitate and offset, if
possible, any residual impacts to biodiversity onsite. This decision-making process, known as the
mitigation hierarchy, is increasingly being adopted
by companies and governments as a standard that
not only enhances environmental management, butalso contributes to ensuring a biodiversity net gain.
As IUCN describes it, the difference between nonet loss and biodiversity net gain are determinedby the level of ambition in applying the mitigation
hierarchy. In some cases, the development project
goal is to achieve a no net loss of biodiversity and it
others, it is to ensure biodiversity gain significantly
exceed the loss, in which case the term ‘net gain’
may be used.
The IUCN Review Protocol provides a step-bystep guide for project managers to measure
their progress on achieving their biodiversity net
gain targets. The Protocol describes a robust
process for preparing for such a review, as wellas the components required to ensure such anassessment is rigorous yet responsive to ongoingdevelopments throughout the project lifespan.

After working with partners in the extractives
industry to apply a net positive impact approach,as well as piloting this approach with the agriculture
and forestry sectors, IUCN is convinced thatcompanies can achieve a no net loss in biodiversity
at the very least, and in most cases, a biodiversity
net gain.
This Protocol reflects input from numerous IUCN
colleagues, partners and experts, who are actively
engaged in on-site biodiversity management.
In particular, IUCN’s partnership with Rio Tinto,
where a similar methodology was tested on threemine sites, has been invaluable to informing thisprocess. The knowledge gained from this practicalexperience, as well as from other corporate
partners, the International Finance Corporation,
IUCN Members and Commissions, and others who
participated in consultations at the 2016 IUCNWorld Conservation Congress, have all played a
key role in shaping this guide.
The IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net
Gain aims to contribute to a growing understanding
and series of tools that can assist business andgovernments committed to safeguarding nature.
While such reviews are not yet commonplace,
IUCN envisions that one day soon ensuring a net
gain for biodiversity will be standard practice for all.

8 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain

1. Overview of the IUCN Biodiversity Net Gain
Review Protocol
Objective

The IUCN Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Review Protocol is anindependent evaluation tool for assessing the planning andprogress towards achieving a net gain for biodiversity, as well asserves as a guide for identifying any potential limits for
implementing BNG at a particular project.

The IUCN Review Protocol is a robust and tested process that project reviewers and assessors can use
to evaluate projects that have adopted a biodiversity net gain target. While undertaking a BNG Review
includes several components (as illustrated in the below box), it is strongly recommended that prior to thefirst application of the Review Protocol, to a project spend time on the customization and developmentof a project-specific, fit-for-purpose approach. No two projects are exactly alike, but as more companies
and governments strive to achieve BNG, the Protocol is a tool that can help measure their efforts andultimate success.
Minimum requirements for a BNG Review include:
BNG
REVIEW TEAMMINIMUM
INFORMATIONPROJECT
REPRESENTATIVEIUCN
REPRESENTATIVE• Expertise in natural
and/or social science
aspects of biodiversity
conservation.

• An assessmentof project risks
and impacts on
biodiversity.

• Liaison between BNG
Team and project,including logistics
management.

• Disclosed conflict ofinterest.

• A forecast (qualitativeor quantitative) of theprocess and timing of
BNG achievement.

• Knowledge of BNGrelated assessments,
plans, activities andmanagement.

• Staff member of IUCN
Member organization
or IUCN Commission
member of relevant
country or region.

• A management planthat describes detailed
objectives, tasks,
timelines, and tasks
owners related to
BNG-related activities.

• Strong senior
management
endorsement to allow
access to information,sites and staff asrequested by BNG
Team.

• At least one
member with siterelevant biodiversity
conservation
experience.
• Balanced bygender and otherlocally appropriate
considerations.
• BNG Team Lead:prior experience withleading BNG Reviews
and leadership oftechnical teams and/or
evaluation processes.

• A Biodiversity Offset
Plan, in cases where
offsets are considered.

• Observe confidentiality
where required.
• Guide on projectspecific terminology,
systems and teams.

• Encourage access &information sharing
with IUCN network.
• Alignment with
IUCN Policies andResolutions.
• Provide additional
technical capacity on
BNG-related issues
where required.

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 9Stages for a BNG Review Process

BEFORE THE REVIEW – agreements & terms of reference• Formal agreement on need for BNG Review.
• Engage project staff to provide notice of review facilitate buy-in by key
project representatives, and agree on formation and disclosure approach forreporting on review.
• Define terms of reference for review and team members.
• Assemble BNG Review Team and project representatives.

PRE-VISIT – desktop review & identification of sites/stakeholders to be visited• Adequacy of data sources.
• BNG assessments, plans and forecasts.
• BNG-related assumptions.
• BNG-related targets and actions in place.
• Reported progress resulting from actions in place.
• Adequacy of team access to BNG assessments/monitoring plans and reports.
• Adequacy of BNG plans, assessments/monitoring plans and forecasts.

VISIT – on-site review & confirmation• Integration of BNG-related plans into overall site strategies and plans.
• Stakeholders and partners for BNG.
• On-site appraisal of reported BNG actions.
• Sufficiency of monitoring to assess BNG outcomes.
• On-site appraisal of progress to BNG for each priority biodiversity feature.

POST-VISIT – feedback & preparation for future reviews• Compile report on findings and recommendations.
• Allow review by team members and project staff.
• Provide final feedback to project and relevant stakeholders.
• Compile supporting information and store report in order to facilitate future reviews.
• Observe confidentiality where required.

10 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain

2. The BNG Review Protocol

2.1. What is BNG?
The concept of minimizing impacts on environment and society has been long established in some
sectors (e.g. mining and other extractive industries). In recent years, however, there has been a growing
expectation from civil society, regulators and investors for developers, both in private and public sector,
to not only do no harm but, in some cases, to also contribute to local, national or global targets forenvironmental and social wellbeing.
Within the context of biodiversity, this has led to the establishment of measurable targets for mitigationof development impacts that would result in a net maintenance of biodiversity features, resulting in “nonet loss”, or a net improvement of biodiversity features known as “net gain” or “net positive impact”. This
simple definition is however subject to a number of established principles and good practice for when andhow such targets can be successfully delivered. These include defining a clear reference level based on
the status of biodiversity under a pre-project or no project scenario, as well as implementing mitigation
actions according to a hierarchy that flows from avoidance to restoration and offsets, as final options.
Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) or Net Positive Impact (NPI) have become popular umbrella terms for theseapproaches and a number of guidance documents, reviews and policy statements have been produced by
IUCN and partners that explore this concept and its appropriate application.

2.2. What is the BNG Review Protocol?
The BNG Review Protocol grew out of a stated need by developers and civil society for having greater
assurance around the risks and likelihood of implementing the mitigation hierarchy to achieve a net gain
for biodiversity within a specific development project (e.g. a mine, a plantation, or a forestry concession).
Given the time required to deliver BNG, there was a need to look not only at BNG outcomes, but also theplanning and progress towards these outcomes and the status of supporting systems and resourcing
required. This required an ability to consistently review BNG implementation at various stages through a
project’s lifespan, whether at early design or advanced implementation stages.
In order to provide external assurance,
the Protocol is explicitly designed to be
implemented by independent external experts
but may also be adapted for internal monitoringneeds that may take place in between moreformal, external reviews.
The Protocol is thus intended as a tool for
projects and project assessors to use whendeveloping and undertaking a review process
to assess BNG implementation. At a minimum,
it should be made available to projectreviewers. It provides a template to be followed
for BNG Reviews involving past and current
actions, as well as future plans, associated withthe achievement of BNG at the project.

Box 1: The IUCN-Rio Tinto review process
The BNG Review Protocol draws from thevaluable work of the IUCN-Rio Tinto NPI Panel,
which ran from 2011–2014. The primary objectiveof the panel was to develop and test, through aseries of pilot reviews of active Rio Tinto sites,a method for independent review of progress
towards biodiversity net gain. The panel was
supported by selected experts from IUCN and
Rio Tinto that were familiar with this approach.
The pilot tests included active mining projects inAustralia, Madagascar and Mongolia.

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 11

While the Protocol is generic, and designed to promote a standard approach for all BNG Reviews, someelements may not be relevant to all projects. The Protocol requires reviewers to be familiar with thespecific policies, strategies and plans relevant to BNG at a project, as well as biodiversity conservation
issues in general.
Projects may frame their biodiversity targets and approaches in various ways that may not be easily
comparable (e.g. no net loss vs BNG, biodiversity management plans vs environmental management
plans). This can be a result of company policies, government regulation or established sector-specificnorms. In such cases, reviewers should spend time with the project to ensure they understand the specificterminology and approaches used, which will facilitate the application of the Protocol.
The objective of a BNG Review is an independent evaluation of planning, assessment and review ofprogress towards, and identification of potential limits, to achieving BNG at a particular project. In somecases, a more detailed investigation of specific issues and progress may be needed as part of the BNG
Review and this should be noted within the reviewers’ recommendations.
In order to usefully conduct a BNG Review, some minimum information needs to have been produced by
the project:•

An assessment of project risks and impacts on biodiversity, including significant residual
impacts. This may be in the form of one or more impact assessments, scoping studies, baseline
studies or other specialist studies. It is important that such an assessment provide information on
biodiversity, particularly priority biodiversity features, and the nature of project impacts on these,including the potential for and scale of any significant residual impacts.

•

A forecast of the process and timing of BNG achievement, including monitoring
methodology and schedule. Such BNG forecasts are not yet common practice in many
sectors, but it is important to have some form of credible technical rationale to justify if, whenand how BNG will be achieved as part of the basis for developing management plans. This may
range from a credible qualitative assessment based on expert opinion to a quantitative, modelled
projection of biodiversity metrics. In either case, such forecasts should be clearly informed bycredible biodiversity assessments, and subsequently influence relevant planning by the project.
This includes:>> Expected or documented biodiversity losses due to project related impacts.
>> Expected timing and extent of biodiversity gains required to achieve BNG via themitigation hierarchy (avoidance, minimization, rehabilitation and biodiversity offsets).
>> Clear definition and justification for social, economic, and environmental assumptions
and risks related to expected outcomes of future activities. This includes considering
important external changes beyond the project itself, such as climate change, local or
national political circumstances, and/or change in local communities support.
>> Assessment of the proposed timeline for achieving BNG and a clear judgment in relation
to experience elsewhere as to whether the target will be achieved. Inevitably, this will
be case-specific and somewhat subjective, but it should be based on backgroundinformation and mapped uncertainties in the BNG Forecast.
>> An assessment of confidence in the BNG forecast. It is expected that this will changeover time; and, it should be updated as new information and feedback from monitoring of
implementation and outcome of mitigation efforts is received.

•

A management plan that describes detailed objectives, tasks, timelines, and task owners
related to BNG-related activities. This may be in the form of one or more management plans,
depending on the sector (e.g. closure plans, restoration plans, environmental management plans ordedicated biodiversity management plans). Biodiversity Action Plans are the most common vehicle

12 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gainfor capturing BNG-related actions but not yet widespread in some sectors (e.g. agribusiness). The
management plans should follow the mitigation hierarchy in order to be aligned with good practice.
•

A Biodiversity Offset Plan, in cases where offsets are considered. This should include aims,
objectives, key activities and deliverables for biodiversity offsets at a project. The plan typically
identifies the required human and financial resources for delivery of the planned offsets, andit identifies the key risks to achieving the proposed offsets. Such plans may be integrated into
broader management plans or stand-alone.

2.3. How should this BNG Review Protocol be used?
The Protocol is not a one-size fit all approach. The intent is that the Protocol be used as guidance in thedevelopment, implementation and reporting of a fit-for-purpose review process that will be expected tolast for the life of a project. While it is strongly recommended that BNG reviews maintain consistency
between reviews for any one project, different projects and sectors should carefully consider how to adapt
the guidance offered here. This may require significant additional time before the first review to scope thespecific needs of the project, consult with project staff and stakeholders, and align with familiar or existing
review systems that will encourage uptake of findings and recommendations.
It is at this time that consultation with IUCN may be crucial for delivering a credible Protocol that canbe used to review the project. In some cases, customizing the Protocol may need to consider existing
reporting requirements (e.g. regulatory compliance audits, certification audits) to reduce redundantassessments and/or to build on existing processes.
It will also be important to agree on transparent criteria for selecting and assembling a review team that is
appropriate to the project and/or local circumstances. The final Protocol should be made available to allteam members as well as project staff or stakeholders wishing to familiarize themselves with the specific
BNG review process, outputs and expectations.

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 13

3. Preparing for a review

3.1. Before the review
As noted in section 2.3, it is important that the project spend time prior to the first application of
the Review Protocol to customize and develop a project-specific, fit-for-purpose approach. Withan agreed approach in hand, it becomes imperative that approval and involvement by the project beestablished as early as possible in order to provide adequate notice of the impending BNG Review tofacilitate involvement and buy-in by key project representatives, and to reach agreement on the extent
and audience for disclosure of the final review report. At this stage, the focus turns to assembling ateam, including the BNG Review Team and project representatives, and defining logistics for ensuring
a successful review. An important next step is defining the Terms of Reference for the BNG Review. An
example of the Terms of Reference is included in Annex 7.1.

3.2. The TeamThe team implementing the BNG Review will include the BNG Review Team, as well as a dedicated Project
Representative. The BNG Review Team may also include one or more IUCN representatives. This teamshould include the following roles and responsibilities:• Team Members – BNG Review Team Members should have expertise in natural and/or social
science aspects of biodiversity conservation. They will be expected to support the review
throughout, including document review, site visits, and preparation of presentations and reports.
BNG Review Team Members should disclose and document any potential for a conflict ofinterest in undertaking a view, and recuse themselves if necessary. Moreover, in aggregate, the
BNG Review Team as a whole should meet the following criteria: i) the BNG Review Team should
include at least one member with national, regional, or local biodiversity conservation experience
appropriate to the site and issues in question; and ii) the BNG Review Team should strive to bebalanced by gender and other locally appropriate considerations relevant to the process.
• Team Lead – The BNG Team Lead should ideally have prior experience of implementing the
BNG Review Protocol. Specifically, this experience could comprise either (or both) experienceof implementing a previous BNG Review at the site in question, or experience of implementing a
BNG Review elsewhere. The BNG Review Team Lead should have prior experience in leadershipof technical teams and/or evaluation processes. It is extremely important that the BNG Review
Team Lead be identified as soon as possible in order to supervise activities and ensure that the
Review Team is thoroughly prepared for what can be a challenging endeavor. It is also highly
advantageous for the BNG Team Lead to either have or be able to establish a good working
relationship with appropriate project staff in order to facilitate access to the documents andpersonnel that the BNG Review Team may require. Information confidentially/non-disclosure willin most cases need to be followed. See Annex 8 for more details.
• Project Representative – The Project Representative will be responsible for liaising between
the BNG Review Team and the project being reviewed, including managing the logistics of thesite visit. The Project Representative should have knowledge of BNG-related assessments,
plans, activities and their management. In many cases, they will be the primary source of14 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain

information but this should be supported by other project staff, consultants and stakeholders
in order to deliver a credible review. The representative should have strong endorsement fromsenior management to allow timely access to information, sites and staff as requested by the
BNG Team. The representative will also be an important guide to the BNG Team in terms ofproject-specific terminology, systems and teams.
• IUCN Representative – The BNG Review Team should include at least one member drawn fromthe conservation community (e.g., an IUCN staff member, IUCN Member organization or an IUCN
Commission member) with relevant regional or national experience where the site in question
is located. This is also important for encouraging access and information sharing within the
IUCN network, alignment with IUCN Policies and Resolutions, and providing additional technicalcapacity on BNG-related issues where required. The IUCN Representative will also be importantfor supporting appropriate customization of the BNG Review Protocol to the project in question
prior to the first review.
The specific selection process to be followed must be discussed and agreed before the first review is
implemented. A typical selection process might include the following steps:
Initiation of a BNG Review planning
process and identification of key
expertise required by the project and
IUCN, particularly the IUCN Businessand Biodiversity Programme (BBP) andrelevant IUCN Regional offices.

STEP

#1

STEP

#2
BBP approach and seek commitment
from the candidate for the role of BNG
Review Team Lead, sharing the Terms ofReference for the BNG Review(Annex 10.1) and Terms of Reference for
the BNG Review Team Lead (Annex 10.2)
accordingly. If the candidate is not able toserve the role, return to Step 2.

STEP

#3

STEP

#4
BNG Review Team Lead approaches andseeks commitment from the candidates toserve as a Review Team Member, in orderof preference, until at least two additional
BNG Review Team Members havebeen confirmed.

STEP

#5

STEP

#6
The relevant project management for thesite in question to propose a
Project Representative.

BBP consults with the relevant IUCN
Regional Office to propose names ofpotential candidates for the BNG Review
Team Lead. The final selection for Team
Lead should be discussed among andapproved by: i) IUCN BBP; ii) the relevant
IUCN Regional Office; and iii) relevant
project management.
Once the BNG Review Team Lead isconfirmed, their first task will be to work with
BBP and the appropriate IUCN Regional
Office to propose a short-list of candidates
in order of preference to serve as the two
additional BNG Review Team Members,
subject to the selection criteria below. This
short-list should be discussed among andapproved by: i) the BNG Review Team Lead;ii) BBP; iii) the relevant IUCN Regional Office;and iv) relevant project management.

The relevant project management toconfirm commitment from the candidate
for the role of Project Representative.

STEP

#7

With the team now assembled the BNG Review Process can be initiated.

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 15

3.3. The Review Process
The BNG Review process includes the following stages:• Pre-visit – This stage explores issues to be assessed prior to a site visit via desktop review ofexisting information. The review focuses on biodiversity-related assessments and plans, previous
BNG Review reports (if these have taken place) and reported progress on BNG. This pre-visit
review is intended to familiarize the BNG Review Team members with the local context, project
management systems and activities, and key strategic issues that may affect progress towards
BNG within the agreed timeframe. The pre-site assessment should assist in a preliminary
identification of potential issues and further information needs that might require more intensive
on-site review or access to specific experts as the BNG Review Team seeks to assess planningfor, progress towards, and potential problems with achieving BNG at the site level. It is importantto remember that partners and stakeholders requiring interview need to be identified andprioritized so that the key people / organizations can be contacted in advance of a visit.
• Visit – This stage explores issues related to the specific project site(s) being reviewed. It
is intended to build an understanding of the factors influencing the project being reviewed,
as it works towards delivering BNG. It includes a series of statements intended to act as aprompt to the strategic issues that may be discussed during the site visit. Each area of inquiry/
review commences with an evaluation of the broader management implications associatedwith the issue and then targets more specific areas of interest. In some instances, the pre-site
assessment or initial on-site discussions may point to the need for a more comprehensive
review of certain aspects of BNG-related plans, assumptions and actions, including additional
interviews with key experts.
• Post-visit – At this stage all necessary information should be compiled and analyzed, including
the identification of gaps and recommendations. During this stage any reporting will be delivered,shared and approved between the BNG Review Team and the project representative. Careful
documentation of team members, project representatives, external consultations, documents
reviewed, and sites visited will be critical to ensuring a credible review which will allow future
reviews to be conducted more efficiently, effectively and credibly. This stage also attempts
to ensure that openness and transparency, while protecting confidential information; so it
documents how and where the review will be shared, thus increasing the opportunity for wider
stakeholder buy-in and confidence in the review outputs.

The following sections (Sections 4 and 5) provide examples of the detailed questions to be addressed
during various stages of the review. The questions provided should be subject to careful review andagreement before the first review in order to ensure they are appropriate to the project in question. This
may relate to the level of risk, nature of BNG implementation, regulatory obligation, stakeholder concernsand expected use for outputs from the BNG Review. Once this is established for the first review, future
reviews must follow the agreed approach taken in order to ensure consistency and allow for comparisonsof results and monitoring of change over time. However, any subsequent changes reflecting national andfinancial regulations should be clearly described in a re-visit.

16 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain

ISSUE
1.1.

1.2.

Adequacy of data
sources

Adequacy of
BNG assessments,
plans and forecasts

INDICATOR
1.1.1.

Are the data sources used appropriate, justified, and the best available? Are
all cited references available to the BNG Review Team?

1.1.2.

Have the BNG-related assessments, plans and forecasts been reviewed
internally, and where required, developed in consultation with appropriate,
independent regional specialists? If so, is this consultation documented andacknowledged? If not, is there a reason why it was not shared with outside
experts for review and comment?

1.1.3.

Are there any major uncertainties around the data used that could affect the
BNG forecast?

1.2.1.

Has an appropriate project scope been defined and justified, including spatial
extent (of infrastructure and of impact)?

1.2.2.

Has an appropriate timeframe over which BNG will be achieved, been definedand justified?

1.2.3.

What are criteria for identifying priority biodiversity features? If there are any
differences between priority biodiversity features used in the BNG-related
assessments, plans and/or forecast, are these documented and justified?

1.2.4.

Have appropriate metrics for biodiversity been documented and justified?
Examples include species populations or a surrogate thereof, extent of
habitat, and background rate of loss?

1.2.5.

Have baselines for biodiversity metrics been estimated appropriately?

1.2.6.

Have the losses and gains been appropriately quantified using
these metrics?

1.2.7.

Have the losses and gains been quantified following the
mitigation hierarchy?

1.2.8.

What is the level of confidence associated with the projected trajectory of themetrics?

1.2.9.

Are there any major gaps in the BNG-related plans and/or forecast? If so,
what are they?

1.2.10. Do BNG-related assessments, plans or forecast account for potential
long-term changes in context that could affect BNG-related plans orforecasts (e.g. demographics, climate change, other developments in thearea) and the cumulative affects thereof?
1.3.

Adequacy of
BNG-related
assumptions

1.3.1.

Are the assumptions reasonable and adequately documented regarding
background rates of biodiversity loss?

1.3.2.

Are the assumptions reasonable and adequately documented
regarding additionality?

1.3.3.

Are the assumptions reasonable and adequately documented regarding theequivalence of gains and losses, including implementation of mitigation andoffsetting measures?

1.3.4.

Are the assumptions reasonable and adequately documented regarding therisk of mitigation failure?

1.3.5.

Are the assumptions reasonable and adequately documented
regarding fungability?

1.3.6.

Have the main external and internal stakeholders relevant to BNG-related
activities been defined and documented? Who was consulted and how?
Stakeholders may include other internal teams, senior project management,
biodiversity-related groups and experts (e.g. NGOs, government agencies,
and academia) as well as directly affected local communities.

1.3.7.

Are assumptions reasonable and adequately documented regarding
stakeholder support and critical dependencies for the project, especiallygovernment awareness and support for off-site activities?

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 17

1.4.

1.5.

BNG-related targets 1.4.1.
and actions in place

Reported progress
resulting fromactions in place

Have time-bound and measurable targets been established for each action
for each priority biodiversity feature?

1.4.2.

Do these targets appear sufficient to achieve BNG?

1.4.3.

Have clear actions been planned to achieve BNG for each priority biodiversity
feature? Do these actions have clear indicators of success, deadlines fordelivery and defined owners?

1.4.4.

Are these actions, as documented, sufficient to reach the set targets?

1.4.5.

What is the documented status of the actions required by BNG-relatedplans? Planned? Started? On track? At risk? Complete?

1.4.6.

Are there any documented potential problems/issues/setbacks with plannedor on-going BNG actions?

1.4.7.

Are outputs documented to date as expected from the actions designed, orcompleted within appropriate timeframes to achieve desired progress?

1.5.1.

Are adequate and credible data available to justify the
documented progress?

1.5.2.

Does the documented progress reflect documented milestones in the BNGrelated plans and forecast for each priority biodiversity feature? If not, why
not and what issues were encountered?

1.5.3.

Are the reductions in threat in line with predictions? If not, why not, and whatissues were encountered? What remedial actions have been taken?

18 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain

4. Visit

ISSUE
2.1.

2.2.

2.3.

2.4.

Team and expertiseto implement BNG

INDICATOR
2.1.2.

Does staffing for BNG-related activities in project organograms appear
reasonable? Is this staffing in place?

2.1.2.

Are staff and consultant qualifications and expertise appropriate?

2.1.3.

Are resources adequate to implement BNG-related plans? In cases where
offsets are being used, is a long-term financing mechanism in place tosupport delivery?

2.1.4.

Are there plans in place to maintain/build long-term staffing and resourcing?

Integration of
2.2.1.
BNG-related plans
into overall site
2.2.2.
strategies and plans

Are internal commitments and obligations for implementing the plans aiming
to achieve BNG documented?

2.2.3.

How are BNG-related plans integrated into other relevant project strategies
and plans that fall outside the core team responsible for BNG-related actions(e.g. communities or social management systems)? Is this integration
adequate to ensure effective implementation of actions necessary to achieve
BNG?

2.3.1.

Have the main external and internal stakeholders relevant to BNG activities
been engaged? Is this documented (e.g. agreements, meeting records, otherevidence etc.)? If not, why not?

2.3.2.

Are terms of reference or other approaches to each partnership adequate tosuccessfully implement actions necessary to achieve BNG?

2.3.3.

If a key external or internal stakeholder has not been engaged, what are therisks to achieving BNG?

2.4.1.

Does on-site appraisal support the findings of this review of BNG-related
assessments, plans, forecasts and related documentation to date? Does onsite appraisal identify any actions or issues that have not been considered inavailable documentation?

2.4.2.

Does on-site appraisal confirm that the available documentation on
implementation of BNG-related actions to date?

2.4.3.

Does on-site appraisal concur that the appropriate internal and externalrisks to achieving BNG have been identified and that appropriate actions areunderway to minimize them?

Stakeholders andpartners for BNG

On-site appraisalof reported BNG
actions

Are actions necessary to achieve BNG integrated into necessary projectplans and management systems ? Is this integration adequate to ensure
effective implementation of actions necessary to achieve BNG?

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 19

2.5.

2.6.

Analysis of theadequacy ofmonitoring plans
and their execution
to assess BNG
outcomesOn-site appraisalof progress to BNG
for each priority
biodiversity feature

2.5.1.

Has the appropriate internal or external expertise been engaged in support ofmonitoring?

2.5.2.

Are the methods documented and appropriate?

2.5.3.

Have appropriate variables been employed in the monitoring program (state
indicators, pressure indicators, etc.) that allow tracking of actions andoutcomes, particularly with respect to status of priority biodiversity features?

2.5.4.

Is monitoring occurring at the appropriate frequency to detect change? Has
the monitoring program provided adequate and appropriate coverage toinform BNG progress?

2.5.5.

Is there appropriate documentation and reporting on the monitoring program
and results?

2.5.6.

Do formal feedback mechanisms and schedules exist for monitoring results
to be factored into adaptive management of the actions necessary toachieve BNG? Have any updates taken place or been planned for BNG
plans or forecasts?

2.6.1.

Does the projected trajectory of metrics apparent on-site reach the required
target set for the nearest future milestone within BNG-related plans orforecasts?

2.6.2.

Is the level of confidence associated with the projected trajectory of themetrics appropriate given considerations on-site?

2.6.3.

Are mitigation actions (avoidance, minimization, rehabilitation/restorationand preparation for this, and offsets) apparent as being implemented asscheduled or, if not, why not?

20 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain

5. Post-visit

On completion of the visit, the BNG Team will be expected to produce a final report. The final format forthis report should be discussed and agreed with between IUCN and the project prior to commencementof the BNG Review. Final report format should be clearly aimed at documenting key findings andrecommendations in the most actionable way for the project and so ensure uptake of results. This
may range from a simple presentation to a written report of findings and recommendations to a fullycompleted table based on the detailed issues and indicators. It is strongly recommended that findings
and recommendations are captured with sufficient detail to ensure that future action or lack thereof
can be assessed. This should include establishing roles and responsibilities, timelines and indicators ofcompletion wherever possible.
Regardless of the final format, the following supporting information or meta-data should be captured. This
supporting information is important to supporting the credibility of the review and enabling future reviews
to build from previous reviews.

Example of minimum supporting information to be recorded for each BNG Review.
BNG REVIEW PROTOCOL: TEAM DETAILS
Issue

Indicator

3.1. Team and3.1.1.
expertise to
3.1.2.
implement BNG
3.1.3.

Team Lead
Team member #1
Team member #2[ADD ROWS IF NECESSARY]
3.2. IUCN
representative

2.2.1.

IUCN Representative #1

3.3. Project
representative,
staff and
consultants

2.3.1.

Project Representative #1

2.3.2.

Project Representative #2

2.3.3.

Project Representative #3[ADD ROWS IF NECESSARY]
3.4. Additional
consultations

3.4.1.

Interviewee #1

3.4.2.

Interviewee #2

3.4.3.

Interviewee #3

3.4.4.

Interviewee #4

3.4.5.

Interviewee #5

3.4.6.

Interviewee #6

3.4.7.

Interviewee #7[ADD ROWS IF NECESSARY][BNG REVIEW DATE 1]
Roles &
Responsibilites

Full nameAffiliation

EmailIUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 21

3.5. Key sites
visited3.5.1

Site #1

3.5.2

Site #2

3.5.3

Site #3

3.5.4

Site #4

3.5.5

Site #53.5.6

Site #6[ADD ROWS IF NECESSARY]
3.6. Access to BNG
Review Team
Reports

3.6.1

Contact name(or justification of whyreport is not publicly
available)

3.6.2

Website URL(where applicable)

Sufficient time should be allowed for review by the BNG Review Team, the project and IUCN in order
to arrive at a final approved report. This should be coordinated by the Team Lead. If issues regarding
approval of the BNG Review report exist, these should be documented to the mutual agreement of the
BNG Team Members and BNG Review Team Lead. The Team should work on the basis of consensus, butwhere this is not possible the Team Lead will serve as the final decision maker. Remaining Team Members,
IUCN and/or the Project Representative are also welcome to document any significant differences of
opinion as an addendum to the final report.
Finally, it is important that BNG Reviews, or at least summaries thereof, are made available to external
stakeholders in the interests of transparency. The details of how much, when and the final vehicle forsuch sharing should be discussed and agreed during the early planning of the review, ensuring that all
confidentiality requirements are met.

22 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain

6. Glossary

Relevant literature may contain different definitions of the terms used throughout this document. The aimof this glossary is not to determine a unique definition for the terms set out here, but rather to enable thereader to understand how terms are used in this Protocol. Further detail and full citations can be found in
the IUCN study, Biodiversity Offsets Technical Study Paper.

Additionality

The need for a compensation measure to provide a new contribution toconservation, additional to any existing values, i.e. the conservation outcomesit delivers would not have occurred without it.

Assurance

A positive declaration intended to give confidence; to promise or pledge;
guaranty; surety; in this case, assurance of the progress made towards
Biodiversity Net Gain.

Baseline

A description of existing conditions to provide a starting point (e.g. pre-projector no-project condition of biodiversity) against which comparisons can bemade (e.g. post-impact condition of biodiversity), allowing the change tobe quantified.

Background rate of loss A description of expected conditions in the project zone in the absence of
project activities. It can be framed around species’ population, extent of
habitat or (preferably) both. As the BNG forecast will be measured against
this ‘without-project’ reference scenario to prove the BNG status, the project
proponents must develop a defensible and well-documented ‘without-project’reference scenario that must: (1) describe the most likely land-use scenarios
without the project activities, and justify why the land-use scenario selected
is most likely, (2) describe how the ‘without project’ reference scenario would
affect biodiversity in the project area. This may require input and/or agreementfrom external experts and other relevant stakeholders.
Biodiversity Net Gain(or Net Positive Impact)

A target for a development project in which the impacts on biodiversity causedby the project are balanced or outweighed by measures taken to avoid andminimise the project’s impacts, to undertake on-site restoration, and finally, tooffset the residual impacts, so that no loss remains. Where the gain exceeds
the loss, the term ‘net gain’ (NG) may be used instead of no net loss.

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 23

Biodiversity Net Gain
Forecast

A credible rationale, based on qualitative expert opinion and/or quantified
modelling of metrics, to justify if, when and how BNG will be achieved at a
project site. This should include:• Expected or documented biodiversity losses due to project related impacts.
• Expected timing and extent of biodiversity gains required to achieve BNG
via the mitigation hierarchy (avoidance, minimization, rehabilitation andbiodiversity offsets).
• Clear definition and justification for social, economic, and environmental
assumptions and risks related to expected outcomes of future activities.
This must consider important external changes beyond the project itself,such as climate change, change in local or national political circumstances,
and/or change in local communities support.
• Assessment of the proposed timeline for achieving BNG and a clear
judgment in relation to experience elsewhere as to whether the target will beachieved. This, inevitably, will be case-specific and somewhat subjective,
but should be based on background information and mapped uncertainties
in the BNG Forecast.
Confidence in the BNG forecast will change over time and the assessment
needs to be included as the forecast is revised due to new information andfeedback from monitoring of implementation and outcome of mitigation efforts.

Biodiversity offsets

Biodiversity offsets are measurable conservation outcomes resulting fromactions designed to compensate for significant residual adverse biodiversity
impacts arising from project development after appropriate prevention andmitigation measures have been taken. The goal of biodiversity offsets is toachieve NNL and preferably a NG of biodiversity on the ground with respect tospecies composition, habitat structure, ecosystem function and people’s use
and cultural values associated with biodiversity.

Compensation

Measures to recompense, make good or pay damages for loss of biodiversity
caused by a project. In some languages ‘compensation’ is synonymous with‘offset’, but in this paper ‘compensation’ is a more general term of which
biodiversity offsets are just one subset. Compensation may achieve NNL/NG(in which case it is an offset), but in other cases, compensation can involve
reparation that falls short of achieving no net loss (and is therefore not an
offset). This can be for a variety of reasons, including that the conservation
actions were not planned to achieve no net loss; that the residual losses of
biodiversity caused by the project and gains achievable by compensation are
not quantified; that no mechanism for long term implementation has been
established; that it is impossible to offset the impacts (for instance, because
they are too severe or pre-impact data are lacking, so it is impossible to knowwhat was lost as a result of the project); or that the compensation is throughpayment for training, capacity building, research or other outcomes that will
not necessarily result in measurable conservation outcomes on the ground.

24 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain

Ecological equivalence

In the context of biodiversity offsets, this term is synonymous with theconcept of ‘like for like’ and refers to areas with highly comparable biodiversity
components. This similarity can be observed in terms of species diversity,
functional diversity and composition, ecological integrity or condition,
landscape context (e.g., connectivity, landscape position, adjacent land uses
or condition, patch size, etc.), and ecosystem services (including people’s use
and cultural values).

Exchange rules

A set of rules established by policy makers or offset planners to define which
components of biodiversity can and cannot be substituted for others in a
biodiversity offset, and how such substitutions can occur. These rules may be
explicit, or they may be implicit within the definitions adopted of biodiversity
offsets and associated requirements, such as ‘like for like’ and ‘trading up’.

Fungibility

The ability to substitute or exchange one item with another identical item.
An item is fungible if it is directly convertible for or replaceable by anotherof like nature or kind. Fungibility, as a concept in conservation science, andspecifically relating to biodiversity offsets, refers to the validity of exchanging
one biodiversity value with another like-value in a different space or time.
This concept is commonly referred to as ‘like-for-like’. See also ‘Ecologicalequivalence’.

Like-for-like or betterSee ‘Ecological equivalence’, ‘Fungibility’ and ‘Trading up’

Metrics

A set of measurements that quantifies results. In this Protocol, we consider
metrics (or currencies) to be the unitary measures of biodiversity lost,
gained or exchanged. These vary from very basic measures such as area, tosophisticated quantitative indices of multiple biodiversity components which
may be variously weighted.

Mitigation hierarchy

The mitigation hierarchy comprises:• Avoidance: measures taken to avoid creating impacts from the outset, suchas careful spatial or temporal placement of elements of infrastructure, inorder to completely avoid impacts on certain components of biodiversity.
• Minimisation: measures taken to reduce the duration, intensity and / orextent of impacts that cannot be completely avoided, as far as ispractically feasible.
• Rehabilitation / restoration: measures taken to rehabilitate degradedecosystems or restore cleared ecosystems following exposure to impacts
that cannot be completely avoided and / or minimised.
• Compensation or Offset: measures taken to compensate for any residual
significant, adverse impacts that cannot be avoided, minimised and / orrehabilitated or restored. Measures to achieve NNL or a NG of biodiversity
for at least as long as the project’s impacts are biodiversity offsets. Offsets
can take the form of positive management interventions such as restorationof degraded habitat, arrested degradation or averted risk, where there isimminent or projected loss of biodiversity. Measures that address residual
impacts but are not quantified to achieve NNL or not secured for the longterm are compensation, otherwise known as compensatory mitigation.

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 25

Mitigation measures

The full set of activities covering the entire mitigation hierarchy.

No Net Loss and a
Net Gain

A target for a development project in which the impacts on biodiversity causedby the project are balanced or outweighed by measures taken to avoid andminimise the project’s impacts, to undertake on-site restoration and finally tooffset the residual impacts, so that no loss remains. Where the gain exceeds
the loss, the term ‘net gain’ (NG) may be used instead of no net loss.

Non-offsetable
threshold and Nonoffsetable
impacts

This is a level of severity beyond which impacts on biodiversity by adevelopment project may no longer be capable of being offset. For example,
it is not possible to offset the global extinction of a species. Levels of
irreplaceability and vulnerability of the biodiversity components to be affectedby the project, and the degree of uncertainty with respect to severity of
impacts and the probability of success of a biodiversity offset, are all likely
to be material factors in determining whether impacts on biodiversity canbe offset.

OffsetSee Biodiversity offset

Priority biodiversity
featuresFeatures occurring within and outside a project’s direct area of control or
influence, including species of conservation value, sensitive habitats, protectedareas and other stakeholder identified biodiversity which are considered to bea priority for management. Various approaches to defining biodiversity features
exist and will vary depending on corporate policy, investor performancestandards or safeguards, stakeholder concerns and/or national regulation.

Trading up(or ‘like-for-like or
better’)Conserving through an offset components of biodiversity that are ahigher conservation priority (e.g. because they are more irreplaceable andvulnerable) than those affected by the development project for which theoffset is envisaged.

26 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain

7. Annexes

7.1. Terms of Reference for a BNG Review Team
ObjectiveTeam

The BNG Review will review BNG planning, implementation and outcomes at[PROJECT SITE, COUNTRY]. The sites included in the BNG Review include[NAMES, LOCATION]. The following aspects will be excluded from this review:[ISSUES OR SITES]. This will be the [RANK E.G. FIRST? SECOND?] BNG
Review conducted. The last BNG Review conducted was on [DATE] and isavailable via [SOURCE].
The BNG Review Team will require the close coordination and collaboration
between all members. Key supporters of the BNG Review Team include:[DESCRIBE SUPPORTERS AFFILIATIONS WITHIN IUCN AND PROJECT].
These key supporters will select the BNG Review Team Lead from among
qualified leads chosen according to the Selection Criteria and following the
Selection Process (Annex). These supporters and the chosen BNG Review
Team Lead will select the rest of the BNG Review Team Members, according therecommendations in the BNG Review Protocol. Terms of reference for the BNG
Review Team Lead and Members are included in (Annex 0 and 0).
The supporters and BNG Review Team designated to deliver this BNG Review
will be: [LIST SUPPORTERS NAMES, AFFILITATION].

Term

Activities &Deliverables

Depending on the size of the project, the BNG Review will take place over anagreed period of time, from acceptance of the TOR on [DAY/MONTH/YEAR].
The intervals between any subsequent visits will also be agreed
The BNG Review process will include
Pre-Visito Project Representative initiates BNG Review planning process (atleast 4 months prior to BNG Review commencement).
o Confirm BNG Review Team & key supporters, including finalization
and acceptance of Terms of Reference for BNG Review (thisdocument), BNG Review Team Lead and Members.
o Review and confirm calendar for key activities.
o Key documents will be shared with BNG Review Team Lead by
Project Representative (at least 4 months prior to Visit). These key
documents include [EDIT AS NECESSARY].
o Implement all pre-visit activities described in Terms of Reference
for BNG Review Team Lead and Members.

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 27

Visit

o Implement all Visit activities described in Terms of Reference for
BNG Review Team Lead and Members.
o Deliver introductory presentation to project site staff, including[NAME KEY STAFF], describing: BNG background Visit objectives & itinerary BNG Review Teamo Deliver close-out meeting to site staff, including [NAME KEY
STAFF], describing: Key impressions, findings, observations
 Next steps

o Visit will include [EDIT AS NECESSARY]: Day 1: Arrive & acclimatize Day 2: Draft Pre-visit review
 Day 3: Opening meeting, on-site reviews
 Day 4: On-site reviews
 Day 5: Draft Review Report, Close-out meeting Day 6: Deliver hard and electronic copies of draft Review Report Day 7: Depart
Post-Visito Implement all post-visit activities described in Terms of Reference
for BNG Review Team Lead and Members.
o Project Representative/s to share responses to Draft BNG
Review Report.
o BNG Review Team Members to finalize BNG Review Report.
This may include discussions with Project Representative/s,
as necessary.
o Project Representative to approve final Review Report.
o BNG Review Team Lead to approve Review Report on
consultation with BNG Review Team.

28 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain7.2. Terms of Reference for a BNG Review Team Lead
Objective

Term

Activities &Deliverables

The BNG Review Team Lead will represent IUCN as leader of the BNG Review
as well act as expert reviewer of BNG planning, implementation and outcomes at[PROJECT SITE, COUNTRY]. Further details on the BNG Review are included in
the Terms of Reference for the BNG Review (see Annex 7.1).
The BNG Review Team Lead will lead the BNG Review Team and support the
BNG Review process for a maximum of [NUMBER E.G. 25] works days, spreadover a period of [NUMBER E.G. 10-12] months from acceptance of the TOR.
The BNG Review Team Lead will be expected to:
Pre-Visit(10 days)o Review and select BNG Team Members in collaboration with IUCN
and Project Representative.
o Coordinate with designated Project Representative to: Discuss and agree on Terms of Reference for BNG Review.
 Plan and confirm Visit logistics, including travel dates, requirements,
accommodation, vaccinations and/or interpreter assistance.
Logistics should be confirmed at least 2 weeks prior to Visit.
 Confirm calendar of activities and deliverables for BNG Review
process, including pre, during and post-Visit.
 Agree on issues of confidentiality and non-disclosure.
 Initiate acquisition of key documents, at least four months prior to ascheduled visit.
 Acknowledge receipt of key documents and request additional
information as necessary.

o Coordinate with BNG Review Team Members to: Contact and confirm availability of proposed BNG Review Team
Members.
 Disseminate and confirm agreement on Terms of Reference for BNG
Team Members.
 Confirm Visit logistics, including travel dates, requirements,
accommodation, vaccinations and/or interpreter assistance.
 Confirm availability of BNG Review Team Members regarding virtualand in-person meetings, including travel related to the Visit.
 Coordinate dissemination and confirm receipt of key documents to
BNG Review Team Members.
 Identify and prioritize additional information resources (e.g.
documents, organizations, experts and/or stakeholders) required forcomprehensive BNG Review, as requested by BNG Team Members.
 Coordinate access to additional information resources (e.g.
documents, organizations, experts and/or stakeholders) required forcomprehensive BNG Review, as requested by BNG Team Members.
This includes contact with required individuals and/or organizations
to schedule interviews pre or during Visit, as appropriate.
 Provide expert review of key documents.

IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain | 29

Visit
(5+ days)o Coordinate and participate fully in Visit, including key meetings,
presentations and interviews.
o Coordinate development and delivery to Project Representative/sof hard and electronic copies of: Draft BNG Review Report,
Introductory presentation, and Close-out presentation.

Post-Visit(10 days)o Coordinate with Project Representative/s to incorporate responses
to Draft BNG Review Report within agreed time frame.
o Coordinate with BNG Review Team Members to finalize andapprove BNG Review Report. If issues regarding approval of the
BNG Review Report exist, these will be documented to the mutual
agreement of the BNG Team Members and BNG Review Team Lead.
o Serve as final decision maker for BNG Review Team in the event ofa lack of consensus. The BNG Review Team, however, will work on
the basis of consensus as far as is possible.
o Coordinate with Project Representative/s to approve final BNG
Review Report.
o Coordinate delivery of appropriate BNG Review documentation
to IUCN.

30 | IUCN Review Protocol for Biodiversity Net Gain

7.3. Terms of Reference for a BNG Review Team Member
Objective

The BNG Review Team Member will represent IUCN as an expert reviewer of
BNG planning, implementation and outcomes at [PROJECT SITE, COUNTRY].
Further details on the BNG Review are included in the Terms of Reference for the
BNG Review Team (see Annex 7).

Term

The BNG Review Team Member will support the BNG Review process for a
maximum of [NUMBER E.G. 14] works days, spread over a period of [NUMBER
E.G. 10-12] months from acceptance of the TOR.

Activities &Deliverables

The BNG Review Team Member will be expected to:
Pre-Visit(3-5 days)o Confirm availability with the BNG Review Team Lead regarding
virtual and in-person meetings, including travel related to the Visit.
o Acknowledge receipt of key documents.
o Provide expert review of key documents as agreed with BNG
Review Team Lead.
o Identify and prioritize additional information resources (e.g.
documents, organizations, experts and/or stakeholders) requiredfor comprehensive BNG Review. These will be communicated to
BNG Review Team Lead to allow access before or during Visit.

Visit(5+ days)o Participate fully in Visit, including key meetings, presentations andinterviews as agreed with BNG Review Team Lead.
o Collaborate with BNG Review Team Lead and other Team Members
to develop and present opening and close-out presentations, anddraft BNG report.

Post-Visit(3-5 days)o Collaborate with BNG Review Team Lead and Team Members to
finalize BNG Review Report.
o Approve final BNG Review Report. If issues regarding approvalof the BNG Review Report exist, these will be documented to themutual agreement of the BNG Team Member and BNG Review
Team Lead.

INTERNATIONAL UNIONFOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE
WORLD HEADQUARTERS
Rue Mauverney 28
1196 Gland, Switzerland
mail@iucn.org
Tel +41 22 999 0000
Fax +41 22 999 0002
www.iucn.org