Since 2014 Mexico has imposed a compact framework for Social Impact Assessment for companies in the Energy Sector as the first industry in the country to be required by law. In the case of PEMEX, the framework was not only the start point to demonstrate a solid understanding of the social conditions of Totonacas, indigenous communities impacted in Veracruz, Mexico, but also to define the complexity of impacts and appropriate social investment solutions. The effective use of Social Impact Assessment allowed PEMEX to understand today’ reality of Totonacas indigenous living within the Area of Influence (AI), therefore directly impacted by PEMEX operation in Veracruz, Mexico through a throughout characterization. The understanding of the indigenous’ limitations and challenges about the industry technical demands, as well as an appreciation of their culture and ancestral knowledge, led to identifying new avenues and opportunities for Totonacas. A savvy approach to Social Investment solutions led to a unique initiative: resuscitating Totonacas’ expertise around the vanilla production and complying with the company’ social investment requirements -sustainability, innovation, entrepreneurship, and seed capital. The above is the result of professional impact assessments, social engagement, indigenous participation, and innovation.

Past planning for extractive projects has emphasized economic benefits but overlooked human health and wellbeing. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) however recognise health as a pillar of sustainable development, with SDG 3 health focused and other SDGs as determinants of health. Recent decisions in national and regional Courts, appealing to climate change and social impacts, are challenging companies and governments to see human health and wellbeing as central to planning decisions and sustainable energy strategy. Health Impact Assessment (HIA) has consistently been the worst health leading performance indicator of the oil sector. The latest HIA guidance for extractive industries promotes an integrated approach, and national governments often have exclusively Environmental and Social Impact Assessment requirements. However research into whether health issues are adequately being considered in EIA is very limited. We investigated ‘How and to what extent are health, well-being and equity issues considered in Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) of major coal mining projects in New South Wales, Australia’ by using a comprehensive coding framework designed to interrogate the publicly available environmental impact statements; we then interviewed varied stakeholders in the same region; and we triangulated the above findings with our experience in impact assessment of oil and gas as well as mining project, and we demonstrated that EIAs fail to consider health and equity comprehensively. Recent decisions in the courts concerning coal mining projects (the last stop in the system for challenges or appeals) have provided legal articulation for how decision-makers should take into consideration a project's impact on human health both through climate change and social impacts as entry points. Unless these issues are addressed up front in planning, designing and assessing, oil and gas projects could not be considered sustainable, and the present paper provides a series of recommendations to address these limitations.

The objective of this paper is to demonstrate how recent technological developments in remote sensing, surveillance, and associated computing capabilities known as Imagery-Based Analysis and Assessment (IBAA) combined with the Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach are revolutionizing the ESIA process. The science-based IBAA analytical approach (which includes high-resolution, multi-spectral satellite imagery and LiDAR-derived digital surface and terrain modeling) aims to efficiently and accurately classify environmental and social sensitivities and quantify anticipated impacts from project activities while reducing the amount of time needed by scientists in the field to undertake baseline surveys. The results of the IBAA are then shared with local communities, NGOs, and other stakeholders and the CBPR approach implemented in order to validate the data and share in the decision-making process for mitigation measures. This allows for capacity-building of local regulators and stakeholders and empowers project-affected communities. A coastal-wide ecosystem services assessment in Guyana (the first ever of its kind) will serve as a case study for this paper to illustrate the technical, commercial, and societal benefits of coupling the IBAA with the CBPR approach. This paper will culminate in the proposal of new industry best practice for utilizing the joint IBAA-CBPA methods to improve rigor in baseline data collection and increase social license to operate. Summary statement: 200 characters for the brochure Guyana's Coastal Ecosystem Services Baseline Assessment: A case study on how baseline data collection using imagery-based analysis coupled with validation through community participation is revolutionizing the ESIA process.

Presentation of a project combining Monitoring and Evaluation with Digitalisation to SPE. New investments in conflict or fragile settings require impact evaluation methods that are particularly apt at understanding the context. Digital technologies, when combined with good design, create new opportunities. Assessing and managing impact is about making the link between very local actions and broader change. Our goal is to track and communicate the implication of project impact goals, in real time, through digital technologies. We see the growth of digital technologies and infrastructures of communication as an opportunity to produce and communicate socially useful information, and to ensure stakeholder participation in new ways.

Total E&P Uganda (hereinafter refered to as the Company) is developing oil fields in western Uganda, in an area that lies partially within the Murchison Falls National Park (MFNP) inhabited by many species of wildlife. Due to the sensitivity of the area, the Company is committed to implementing its project in line with International Finance Corporation (IFC) standards by applying the mitigation hierarchy principles. Critical Habitats might potentially be impacted by the project. The Environment and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) is therefore undertaken to i) Give opportunities to mitigate impacts at design stage and ii) Provide visibility on how Company will achieve its commitments. The ESIA process fulfills the Ugandan legal requirements but is also undertaken in line with the IFC Standards. As the development will occur in an area where Critical Habitat has been identified, the Company is committed to achieving No Net Loss (NNL)/ Net Gain (NG) on key biodiversity values. The assessment of NNL/NG has been done in a phased approach starting with a pre-feasibility assessment to identify potential suitable metrics, to be followed by the biodiversity loss/gain accounting for residual impacts. Results shall be used to guide impact mitigation so as to achieve NNL/NG. The ESIA process is undertaken by an external contractor with his Ugandan partner; and the NNL/NG calculations by a biodiversity technical expert contractor. The ESIA and biodiversity expert contractors are hereinafter referred to as external contractors. Due to two processes being merged into one, the Company has to ensure advance planning and coordination between the external contractors. It is important that the ESIA process provides the necessary input to the NNL/NG calculations, and that the output of the NNL/NG calculations is used during impact mitigation iteration. The above should take place through close collaboration between the external contractors at impact assessment stage. The ESIA has recently entered into it and the external contractors are to work together from definition of method until ESIA submission. The results of the impact assessment and recommended mitigations should therefore present the whole picture and guide the Company in order to reach NNL/NG. In addition, as part of the ESIA process, surveys have been undertaken in order to confirm biodiversity values on ground and work iteratively with the project design team to favor early impact avoidance; which ultimately contributes towards NNL/NG. The initial interactions between the external contractors look quite promising, as everyone is ensuring they contribute to optimize the process so that the outcome is used in order to guide and discuss mitigation requirements with project design team during the design phase. It is the Company's understanding that combining the two processes is not common, yet it is tried for this development. This is to allow a more optimized planning and support decision making with full visibility on potential challenges, opportunities and related costs.

For significant developments, particularly on greenfield sites, an evaluation of technically and financially feasible alternatives is recommended by international and industry organizations such as the International Finance Corporation (IFC) and IPIECA. From a social perspective, this evaluation is the opportunity to identify potentially significant social impacts of the development and how these may be avoided or reduced particularly through the choice of alternative project design elements or modified project locations. The process also facilitates early engagement with stakeholders on project design and impacts. In two very different social contexts in Africa and Asia, two Total subsidiaries recently undertook a social evaluation of different potential site locations for major installations, well pads, and onshore pipeline routes. In both cases, the social context was complex and significant social impacts for the local population were likely. Risks to the Company's image and reputation were also highlighted. The methodology for the evaluation included the definition of three categories of screening criteria based on: potential interactions between the community and future project facilities, sensitivity of the receiving environment, and the capacity of the community to accommodate changes driven by project facilities. A range of sub criteria allowed a detailed description of the three criteria and a ranking according to a four level evaluation as well as an estimation of probability. Potential avoidance and mitigation measures for the most significant impacts were identified where possible and, in one of the two cases, cost estimates were presented. While the methodology needed adapting according to the context, the overall approach proved to be robust in the identification of highly sensitive areas from a social perspective. In each case, it was possible to demonstrate social impacts leading to more significant social disruption and the risk of social disarticulation linked with certain sites compared to others. The ability to identify impacts on the population and, subsequently, risks and costs for the Company enabled the modification of preferred sites from a technical perspective in one case. In the second case, a parallel process was applied to evaluate the environmental sensitivities and a combined evaluation presented to the project team. This led to the ex-ante selection of sites with less social and environmental impact. This paper will describe the methodology that was developed for the social evaluation and its application in two contexts. It adds to the existing body of knowledge on the social evaluation of potential site locations by outlining an approach that may be adapted to very different and complex social contexts.

Impact assessments (EIA/ESHIA) are generally required for all major developments, including oil and gas exploration and project development. Since introduced in the 1970ties as environmental impact assessments (EIA), they have been extended to include both social and health aspects. Impact assessments are legally required in most countries, and also prescribed in international standards as the IFC Performance Standards. The basic purpose of impact assessments is to ensure that environmental and social aspects are considered in planning and approval processes, and to allow public participation and stakeholder engagement in the process. Statoil has for long considered impact assessments as being a valuable tool in managing environmental and social risks and impacts, and thus also in managing project risks in general. However, we have over the years experienced (especially in some of our international activities), that the efforts and costs involved in doing impact assessments have increased substantially along with the volume of the paper produced. The documentation ends up describing almost everything, including aspects of no or very limited relevance. External consultants are normally engaged in preparing the necessary impact assessment documentation, and it is seems that in many areas a culture has developed partly driven by the consultants, partly by authorities and perhaps also by developers themselves, to prepare very comprehensive and voluminous impact assessment reports as a precautionary approach and to ensure there are no gaps in the documentation. We see this as a challenge. It drives costs, and makes it difficult to focus on key environmental and social aspects and measures to manage those. Furthermore, voluminous impact assessment documentation may be an obstacle to public participation. This paper will with reference to experiences from projects in different parts of the world discuss measures to ensure that impacts assessments become what they are meant to be – a tool to assist in developing good projects both from an environmental, societal and business perspective.

The production of oil & gas from unconventional resources (oil & natural gas from source rock) in the United States, and more generally North America, especially for the last decade, has put a spotlight on an industry that has been reshaping the energy supply market in North America and creating a new business model. Shale gas development is characterised by the drilling and hydraulic fracturing ('fracking') of a large number of wells. Associated actual and potential impacts / risks on the natural and human environment have been assessed by scientists and regulators, and widely publicized by the media, based on case studies from the United States. This resulted in a heated debate among stakeholders, especially on water contamination, air emissions, radioactivity, noise and physical footprint. Since 2010, interest in unconventional resources has grown in Europe with several companies revealing their interest in shale gas. Among them, TOTAL held an 80% stake (with the Danish state-owned oil and gas company Nordsøfonden owning the remaining 20 percent) in the license 1/10 (Nordjylland) license in Denmark. Denmark is known as a leading country in Europe where associations (especially green organisations) play an important role in the debate on the energy mix and on the protection of the environment. The onshore license covered an area of about 3000 km². Following geosciences studies, the first exploration well was drilled in 2015. The activities involved exploration drilling, with the potential for fracking in the future, which has caught the attention of stakeholders. This paper presents the environmental studies concerning the exploration drilling activities on license 1/10: environmental baseline study, environmental impact assessment and monitoring. The studies methodology, outputs and permitting process are presented, as well as the concerns raised, in particular during public consultations. Monitoring results before, during and after drilling operations are presented and discussed with regards to stakeholders environmental concerns. The paper points out the lessons to be learned from this exploration phase for non conventional resources in a sensitive societal context. These findings can also be applied as shale gas exploration moves forward and later for a potential shale gas development phase.

The requirements associated with identifying and managing wetlands and endangered species have expanded globally in the past ten years. The development of a system which enables companies to meet compliance requirements when selecting new facility locations is a necessary component of the due diligence process. Oftentimes, it is necessary to develop property that is adjacent to or includes areas of protected wetlands, endangered species and sensitive environments. The development can be achieved in a manner that meets the business operational needs and supports sensitive ecosystems. This paper compares and outlines the emerging trends in regulatory approaches to wetlands and endangered species globally and describes methodologies that companies can utilize to identify sensitive areas and develop appropriate protection plans. Specific case studies are reviewed for environmental impact assessments conducted in Iraq, Egypt along with a review of endangered species identification requirements for a facility in Colombia. The management plans are discussed with regard to components and integration into facility management. Wetlands identification in the United States is highlighted with case studies in Louisiana, Massachusetts and Ohio which are reviewed to demonstrate processes for identifying wetlands and developing wetlands maintenance and management plans. The paper also discusses alternatives to wetlands management plans where business development necessitates the "taking" of wetlands and the implications for jurisdictional wetlands, wetlands offsets, and wetlands banks. The paper’s discussion of wetlands is expanded from just the United States to compare the developing trends in global regulatory approaches and requirements. The paper outlines the methodology for identifying sensitive environments and the necessity for corporations to adopt a comprehensive and systematic process for validating cost and impact while also meeting business needs that enhance and protect a corporation’s reputation and social responsibility. To maintain their status as responsible corporate citizens, companies must continue to monitor global trends in this area, identify critical requirements and establish comprehensive and systematic management strategies. By employing effective management strategies for wetlands and endangered species as outlined in this paper, companies can protect sensitive environments while meeting their business needs in sustainable manner.

Environmental, Socioeconomic & Health Impact Assessments (ESHIAs) are considerable undertakings that are performed to identify and evaluate the key environmental, socioeconomic and health (ESH) aspects of an activity/project and their associated potential impacts, evaluate appropriate alternatives, propose measures to address ESH risks and fulfill host-country regulatory and/or external financing institution requirements. However, a project’s ESHIA process (as well as the associated process for producing an Environmental, Socioeconomic & Health Management Plan [ESHMP]), its findings and/or the associated documentation that is produced are infrequently revisited during an asset’s operational life. Systematic ESHIA (or ESHIA/ESHMP) hindcasts offer the opportunity to capture lessons learned, identify opportunities to improve the process by which ESHIAs and ESHMPs are synthesized, and develop and implement enhanced environmental, social and health risk management measures. ESHIA/ESHMP hindcasts were conducted for two ExxonMobil assets that are in the middle portion of their operational life – i.e., Angola Block 15 (offshore deep water production) and the Chad Export Project (onshore production). Based on the findings from these investigations, improvements have been integrated into several existing internal ESH management systems and documentation, and the specific process for preparing ESHIAs and ESHMPs for ExxonMobil’s major upstream oil and gas production projects and operations has been strengthened.

Identifying and understanding potential environmental and social impacts and risks are essential in seeking to minimise such impacts. Continual improvement of practices and systems designed to identify such impacts and risks is necessary to help reduce ever-changing risk exposure. This paper describes the approaches taken by the company to identify potential planned environmental and social impacts, as well as unplanned impacts (risks), at the very early stages of new access and project decisions into operations. The processes for identifying and clarifying the nature of these potential planned and unplanned impacts as projects mature through into operations were mapped. This mapping identified potential opportunities for improvements in the risk and impact identification processes. In particular, the understanding of planned impacts separate to unplanned impacts was identified as critical to the identification of subsequent management actions. The mapping also highlighted the importance of understanding the differing risk processes and the linkages between them such as ENVIID and ISO 14001 certified environmental management. These are described in this paper and examples are provided to highlight specific findings. The types of tools and training that the company has developed and deployed are also outlined to share key learnings so far on BP’s continuing journey to seek to improve environmental and social impact and risk management.

The Nord Stream Project ("the Project") comprises two 48" sub-sea pipelines (the longest in the world so far) and landfalls in Russia and Germany, and is currently Europe's largest infrastructure project. The 1 224 km long offshore pipelines will together carry 55 billion cubic metres (bcm) of natural gas each year through the Baltic Sea, supplying European consumers with Russian gas. Nord Stream recently entered operation with commissioning of the first pipeline and the second pipeline is scheduled to become operational in late 2012. The Project is debt financed to the tune of EUR 6.4 billion and is subject to international as well as national standards and guidelines, including the Equator Principles and the OECD Common Approaches on the Environment and Officially Supported Export Credits. In practice, this has meant compliance with international environmental and social benchmarks, including the Performance Standards of the International Finance Corporation (IFC), a member of the World Bank Group. Nord Stream, assisted by its consultant ENVIRON, has developed and is implementing a construction phase Environmental and Social Management System (ESMS), which draws on national ESIAs and construction permits issued in Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, and Germany and a trans-boundary (Espoo) report, which assessed potential trans-boundary impacts on the five transit countries as well as Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. The core of the Nord Stream ESMS comprises 18 discrete construction management plans (CMPs) which document key mitigation, monitoring, and other Project obligations covering a wide range of topics, including conventional and chemical munitions (dumped in the Baltic Sea), marine pollution prevention, biodiversity, hydrotesting, emergency preparedness, cultural resources, waste management, stakeholder engagement and working conditions for construction personnel. To maintain close surveillance of contractor performance and ensure compliance with Project commitments, Nord Stream has to date conducted more than 40 HSES audits and inspections in the field and tracked over 250 Opportunities For Improvement. Key lessons learned include: the need to maintain a coherent HSES Commitments Register during the ESIA phase and a robust Project change management process; early and ongoing engagement with contractors; and rigorous follow-up of audit findings.

Biodiversity policy has been established in the Total Group since 2007 which promotes minimization the impact of its activities on biodiversity, baseline surveys and environmental and social impact assessments for all new projects, giving special attention in zones where biological diversity is particularly rich and to provide information and raise awareness among its employees, clients, and the general public. Indonesia has ratified United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity which requires any activities to conduct Environment monitoring and assessment prior to start. With respect on this requirement and adapt to Total Group's value, Total E&P Indonesie (TEPI) has launched several biodiversity program dedicated to Delta Mahakam considering Delta Mahakam is one of biggest mangrove forest lies on the earth and act as habitat for vulnerable and distinctive species and nurseries and spawning ground for fishes and shrimps. Biodiversity program starts from the pre project phase until decommissioning phase through environment and social baseline studies in order to establish environment and social baseline condition. This information is critical and valuable to define sensitivity of the environment and identify biodiversity exist in the area. By knowing environment condition, mitigation efforts prepared and implemented during projects and activities. For sustainability of the program, involvement and partnership with stakeholder and local villagers in the biodiversity program has being introduced. Biodiversity program has also being supported by local authority in formation of government structural dedicated to Delta Mahakam management to synchronize all related sectors. Biodiversity monitoring is also being conducted in order to know status of biodiversity and measure the effectiveness of the program. The results were reported and registered in GIS which can be accessed through TEPI internet. In coordination with Total Group and partnership with local university, several studies were also being conducted in order to support the program. This paper is dedicated to share biodiversity program implemented by TEPI and East Kalimantan government in Delta Mahakam because we believe through biodiversity, we invest nature for future generation.

The Frigg Field Cessation Project 1 , operated by TOTAL E&P NORGE AS, is the single largest offshore field decommissioning project during the recent years. This project comprised the execution of the removal of three steel substructures, five topside facilities and several sea-lines from the Frigg Field has formed a complex scope of work involving disposal / recycling of 73,000 tonnes of materials, lasting over five years and involving some 4,500 maritime vessel days. An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) was performed for the Frigg field installations as part of the decommissioning planning in accordance with the programme approved by Norwegian authorities. This was based upon current knowledge and assumptions. During execution of the project relevant environmental aspects have been quantified and/or recorded. Based on the recorded data and information a comparison is made between the Impact Assessment and the actual experienced environmental performance. Further, an evaluation of the overall impacts or "footprint" of the disposal work is made. Experiences gained from this can be valuable input to future decommissioning planning processes as well as clarify the actual environmental impacts related to a major offshore field being shut in and associated installations disposed of (decommissioned). In the 2010 SPE HSE conference in Rio a paper was presented on Key Performance Indicators for Energy consumption and CO 2 emissions (SPE 126825) developed based on the Frigg Cessation Project. However, more experiences and on a wider spectrum can be shared. The current paper addresses the following issues: – Energy (consumption and balance) – Atmospheric emissions – Discharges to sea, water or ground – Waste management /material utilisation – Physical environmental impacts – Aesthetic impacts – Littering

Community involvement in oil and gas activities has significantly increased in the past decade as a result of regulatory requirements around consultation and social impact assessment, global policy initiatives such as those led by the IFC and the UN Special Representative for Business and Human Rights, and advocacy from civil society. Gaining community acceptance is on the critical path for many projects across the industry. Concerned citizens can and do stop oil and gas activities that they view as impacting their way of life. Stakeholder resistance can lead to cost overruns and schedule delays that directly affect the bottom line. They can occasionally lead to litigation, withdrawal or refusal of permits, risks to the safety of the workforce and community members, and inability to operate a facility. Many companies have external policy commitments around the social dimensions of sustainability, such as community relations, interaction with indigenous groups, local contracting, social benefits and human rights. These commitments are often supported by a series of internal requirements, systems and processes that support the delivery of effective social responsibility in practice. In some cases, integration of social responsibility is a simple matter of adding additional elements to existing management systems, and in other cases, separate systems may be put in place. These efforts are often supported by changes to organisational structure, and skilling up of staff. IPIECA is developing guidance to its member companies on how to integrate social responsibility into their management systems in a number of areas. Relevant elements of these management systems include policies and standards, impact assessment and management, stakeholder engagement and grievance procedures, assurance and auditing, company risk assessment, competence development and reporting. This paper outlines the current trends and challenges for integration and provides examples of good practice from across the industry.

BP Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey (AGT) Region has developed an Integrated Environmental Monitoring Program (IEMP) for its upstream activities, which include the Azeri-Chirag-Gunashli (ACG) and Shah Deniz (SD) Contract Areas located in the Azerbaijan sector of the Caspian Sea, as well as near-shore and onshore areas located near Sangachal onshore terminal. The IEMP maximizes the cost: benefit ratio by standardizing, coordinating, and sharing information thereby allowing for a more a synergistic interpretation of results, resulting in informed management decisions to correct environmental problems. The IEMP optimizes a balance between AGT Region operations and environmental protection. The IEMP is unique in that it is designed to evaluate the effects of operational outputs (emissions, discharges, and spills) against environmental changes to provide "early warning" of potential impacts on the environment. The IEMP seeks to identify patterns and problems before the compliance limits are exceeded and enable management actions to respond to environmental change in a rapid and informed manner. This allows enhanced environmental protection that is not possible when environmental monitoring is carried out with a non-integrated, system of individual monitoring projects. Key components that were developed to enable this integration were: 1. A standardized core of monitoring procedures, 2. A central database with monitoring data that is available for sharing within AGT Region and externally, 3. Coordination among the diverse aspects of ambient and operations monitoring around AGT Region operational areas. Between 2004 – 2010 a total of 90 monitoring studies were completed including 41 offshore, 11 near-shore and 38 onshore surveys. The IEMP is implemented with support of local and international experts based on the long-term Strategy and annual monitoring programs approved by an external panel including representatives from the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (the regulator), State Oil Company of the Azerbaijan Republic, and the Azerbaijan National Academy of Sciences.

The Nord Stream Pipeline (a two-pipeline system) from Russia to Germany through the Baltic Sea was constructed during 2010–2012. In Swedish waters, subsea post-lay trenching by ploughing was carried out at minimum 4 km distance to two Natura 2000 areas 1 , which was considered by the environmental authorities to be relatively close. The Swedish construction permit required that the excess Suspended Sediment Concentration (SSC; often the indirect measure turbidity is used) caused by sediment spill as a result of the construction works (particularly post-lay trenching by ploughing) never exceeded 15 mg/l above natural background at the borders of the Natura 2000 areas. Because natural turbidity levels were not well-described in this area, a monitoring programme combining passive, real-time turbidity monitoring and active, vessel-based spill monitoring combined with a feedback mechanism was established. The method proved successful in documenting compliance with permit requirements with regard to threshold limits for excess SSC caused by construction activities during construction of Line 1. This ensured that trenching activities could be completed as planned, and it also enabled a significant reduction in the scope of the monitoring programme for Line 2. The monitoring was also successful in verifying that numerical modelling of sediment spreading carried out as part of the pre-construction impact assessment was correct. Finally, the new knowledge on spill rates acquired from the vessel-based monitoring will enable a more accurate assessment of the environmental impact of future subsea ploughing operations.

The Oil and Gas industry has long recognised the importance in assessing interactions of its activities with the natural environment and the need to integrate biodiversity issues into environmental management practices. This is key to ensuring business continuity, access to new resources and the sustainable shared use of nature. The joint work of the oil and gas trade associations, IPIECA and OGP, addresses biodiversity risk management and the increasingly-adopted concept of ecosystem services. This concept considers humans as an integral part of an ecosystem economy that both depends on, and potentially affects, natural capital through a supply and demand process. To achieve sustainable, shared use of natural resources, we must ensure that combined demand does not exceed nature's ability to supply. Governments, organisations and the financial sector are embracing the concept, which enables more rigorous determination of environmental and business risk, but also highlights new revenue generation and cost saving opportunities. Oil and gas activities both depend upon and impact biodiversity and the services ecosystems provide (such as by using water and relying on natural waste assimilation). Therefore, there is a clear business case for companies to identify and manage dependencies and impacts effectively, as well as to consider the maintenance or enhancement of ecosystems providing valuable services. This paper overviews the recent IPIECA-OGP publication, Ecosystem Services Guidance , drawing on a hypothetical arctic case study. This guide was produced to help member companies apply the concept of ecosystem services as part of existing environmental assessment and management practices. The guide explains the relationships among biodiversity, ecosystem services and oil and gas activities; provides a set of checklists for identifying important ecosystem service dependencies and potential impacts through the asset life-cycle stages and key habitat types, onshore and offshore; and finally highlights some associated risks and opportunities, providing guidance on management measures.

Globally, Chevron's vision is to be the energy company most admired for its people, partnership and performance. It has continuously strived to be recognized and admired by industry and local communities for its world-class performance on safety, health, the environment, reliability and efficiency. To contribute to the achievement of this vision and promote responsible operations to protect people and the environment, Chevron performs a risk-based Environmental, Social and Health Impact Assessment (ESHIA) on all major capital projects to identify, analyze and develop measures that enhance benefits and avoid or mitigate potentially harmful effects of new projects. A goal of ESHIA is to establish and maintain dialogue with stakeholders throughout the lifetime of the project, solicit their views on potential benefits and impacts, and consider their ideas in the company's assessments and planning through a participatory approach. This is because Chevron is a firm believer that establishing and maintaining good relationships with communities and other key stakeholders are a significant factor in the foundation of the company's success in securing and maintaining both legal and social licenses to operate, and thus enhancing our presence as a ‘neighbor of choice’. This paper explores the importance of stakeholder engagement to the development of a major capital project in Thailand – Chevron Thailand Shore Base Project – the correlation of the stakeholder engagement process in relation to the Chevron Project Development and Execution Process (CPDEP) and requirements under Thai National Environmental and Health Impact Assessment (EIA/HIA) regulations. Best practices and lessons learned for stakeholder engagement and participation are reviewed. Mechanisms for gaining stakeholders’ understanding and support of the project applicable to both large and small projects are also recommended.

Even on the most high-risk projects in the some of the most challenging locations, it is possible and even advantageous to progress the social and environmental aspirations of host communities and contribute towards improving the lives of those communities. This paper discusses the business case for developers for establishing joint development goals with host communities. It case studies a number of complex projects that are upturning traditional approaches to project development by engaging host communities in the development proposition. The paper, supported by the case studies, considers: The importance of establishing the broader social aspirations of communities in relation to development at the outset. The criticality of establishing a mutual understanding of the commercial, non-negotiable parameters of the developer. The cumulative impacts and opportunities for both developer and community of multiple, large scale projects. The role of government and donors. The limitations of developers in contributing to broader social development. The paper examines the social impact assessment and performance techniques used to understand and manage the risks and opportunities of oil and gas development. It illustrates the effectiveness of such an approach and provides practical experience for the benefit of future oil and gas exploration and production. The case studies presented in this paper demonstrate the advantages of progressing project and social development aspirations mutually with commercial project development. They illustrate how oil and gas development can be a powerful force in the long-term, sustainable progression of developing societies. The concepts described herein expand the boundaries of leading practice in respect to environmental and social impact assessment, community engagement and social responsibility in the oil and gas industry.