Intersection of Biodiversity Action Plans and Environmental Impact Assessments in the Context of ESG: A Comparative Analysis

Biodiversity action plans (BAPs) become mandatory to be implemented for new projects as part of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) criteria in navigating the sustainability and responsibility for new projects that require land clearing. Although Biodiversity Action Plans (BAPs) is relatively new concept for Organization, the Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) is not considered as new concept and all new projects have relatively complete EIAs as part of their approval process (called AMDAL or UKL-UPL for Indonesia). This paper offers an analytical assessment of BAPs and EIAs requirements, comparing the conceptual frameworks, scopes, methodologies, and effectiveness of each in the landscape of ESG. We aim to establish whether the actual tool (EIAs) can be used to replace BAPs to advance ESG conceptually.

?

1. Introduction

As part of awareness and regulatory requirements for environmental protection, BAPs and EIAs become focal points for stakeholders involved in new projects depends on the requirement of the respective stakeholders where BAPs is for ESG investors and EIAs is for Government approval. These tools potentially have overlapping goals in environmental stewardship, their approaches and outcomes differ significantly. This analysis draws on literature research, policy documents, and case studies to dissect the similarities and differences between BAPs and EIAs aligning with ESG objectives.

?

2. Biodiversity Action Plans: An Overview

BAPs are strategic frameworks designed specifically designed to protect and restore biodiversity, and to be commenced before the project started as part of feasibility study. They involve setting targets for species and habitat conservation, establishing timelines, and implementing conservation actions. BAPs stem from a proactive approach, focusing on preservation and enhancement rather than solely mitigating negative impacts.

?

3. Environmental Impact Assessments: An Overview

EIAs are systematic processes to evaluate the overall potential environmental effects of proposed projects before they commence. They consider various environmental and social perspectives and aim to predict negative impacts, proposing measures to prevent, reduce, or offset them to make a net positive impact. EIAs are mandatory regulatory requirements before projects even start and failure to comply may result of law enforcement action.

?

4. Comparative Analysis

4.1 Conceptual Framework

BAPs are focused on preserving the natural environment, often tied to specific ecosystems, species, or habitats. Meanwhile, EIAs are broader, encompassing potential social, economic, and cultural impacts as well as biophysical environmental effects. Simply put, BAPs are specialized while EIAs are generalized framework with relatively the same objectives.

?

4.2 Scope and Implementation

BAPs have a narrower scope targeting biodiversity conservation, while EIAs have a wider application, assessing an array of potential environmental impacts. EIAs also include aspects of biodiversity as part of their assessment.

?

4.3 Methodology

There are differences in methodology of how to do that between BAPs and EIAs: BAPs use conservation science and species habitat requirements, while EIAs employ a variety of predictive techniques and cross-disciplinary analysis to forecast and mitigate environmental damage.

?

5. Effectiveness in the ESG Context

5.1 Advantages of BAPs for ESG

BAPs align with the 'E' aspect in ESG, through their direct focus on ecological conservation, potentially enhancing a project's environmental performance with net positive impact.

?

5.2 Advantages of EIAs for ESG

EIAs might contribute to a broader ESG with also covering broader environment aspect (emission, environmental footprint, and biodiversity) with also contributing in governance practices (compliance with clean and clear permitting process) and minimizing social risks.

?

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

Both BAPs and EIAs have critical parts and neither is better for ESG in a broader scope. Their effectiveness, however, is context dependent. For projects with significant biodiversity components or in highly sensitive areas, BAPs may offer a more targeted approach to deliver net positive impact. Meanwhile, EIAs provide a broader risk management tool that sits well for environment, social, and governance aspect. We recommend that organizations do not view BAPs and EIAs as a singular choice between them, but rather as complementary components of a robust ESG strategy