Integrating Biodiversity Conservation into Oil and Gas ... - EBI

4. MITIGATING IMPACTS
What are the potential negative impacts on biodiversity from oil and gas development, and what practices can
companies adopt at their operational sites that will mitigate these impacts?
Once a company is convinced of the benefits of
integrating biodiversity considerations into decisionmaking,
management systems and operations, the
question arises as to what are those considerations?
In order to measure, evaluate and act on a project’s
potential impact on biodiversity, it is first important to
know what those impacts might be and how to address
them. Impacts – changes in the quality and quantity of
biodiversity in a physical environment – can be roughly
divided into primary and secondary impacts (see Box
12). While impacts can be both positive and negative,
this section focuses on understanding and addressing
negative impacts (see Section 7 for more information
about promoting positive impacts to biodiversity).
4.1 PRIMARY VS. SECONDARY IMPACTS
Both primary and secondary negative impacts to
biodiversity can mean habitat conversion, degradation
and fragmentation; wildlife disturbance and loss of
species; air, water and soil pollution; deforestation;
soil erosion and sedimentation of waterways; soil
compaction; contamination from improper waste
disposal or oil spills; and loss of productive capacity and
degradation of ecosystem functions – offshore as well
as onshore. The principal differences between the two
types of impact relate to cause, scope, scale, intensity
and boundaries of responsibilities, all of which can
sometimes produce gray areas with impacts that are
difficult to define as one or the other (see Box 13 for an
example of one cause of both primary and secondary
negative impacts).
In general, primary impacts result specifically from
project activities. These are the impacts that will be most
familiar to project managers and which may be included
in a standard ESIA. Primary impacts are normally limited
to the geographical area of influence of the project
and can often be alleviated when projects incorporate
sound operational management, impact mitigation and
biodiversity conservation practices from the earliest
stages of design.
Secondary impacts, on the other hand, usually do not
result directly from project activities but instead are
triggered by the project’s presence. These impacts may
reach outside project or even concession boundaries
and begin or endure far beyond a project’s life cycle.
Secondary impacts are often the result of government
decisions or indecision and the actions and practices of
nearby communities in response to a project’s presence,
rather than from the operational decisions and activities
of project personnel. Thus, it may be difficult to identify
who is responsible for addressing such impacts.
Secondary impacts are most commonly caused by human
population changes in an area and new or additional
economic activities resulting from project infrastructure
such as roads, ports and towns. These impacts are
particularly pronounced in previously undeveloped and
BOX 12. USE OF THE TERM “SECONDARY”
This document uses the terms primary and secondary to describe the different causes and scales of potential impacts to
biodiversity from oil and gas development. There are a number of other terms that can and have been used to describe
similar concepts. Primary impacts are often called direct impacts, while secondary impacts are referred to as indirect or
induced impacts. Although we have chosen to use the term secondary in this document and throughout related products
of the EBI, it is not meant to imply secondary importance or secondary significance as an issue for the oil and gas industry.
Rather, secondary refers to timing and scope of these impacts. In fact, in many cases, the effects on biodiversity from
secondary impacts are much more significant than those of primary impacts and represent an important priority for the
industry to understand and effectively address.
34 The Energy & Biodiversity Initiative