No abstract

Context Montados are dynamic agroforestry systems of southern Portugal, with high economic and ecological values. Changes in land use and cover have important implications for landscape-level biodiversity and its conservation. Objectives Our objectives were to evaluate the biodiversity values and trends in a montado system in the Alentejo, Portugal so as to inform landscape level conservation approaches. In doing so, we aimed to develop a replicable and robust approach drawing together field observation, expert opinion, and remote sensing to produce predictions relevant to land management planning.Methods Field sampling and subsequent analysis of data on the birds, butterflies and plants in eight distinct land covers allowed the identification of two principal habitat groupings of importance: 'montado mosaic' and 'shrubland'. Morphological spatial pattern analysis was performed on Landsat-derived GIS habitat layers for 1984 and 2009, generating maps and statistics for change in the different landscape functional classes. In addition, we demonstrated how the modelling of ecotones between open and closed biomes can identify the preferred hunting grounds of the threatened Iberian lynx and black vulture, flagship species whose conservation provides benefits to the area's wider biodiversity values. Results Total and core area of montado mosaics and shrubland increased over the 25 year period, whilst the amount of habitat connectivity declined in the case of shrubland. Considerable local variation in these trends highlighted targetable areas for conservation action (e.g. through agri-environment spending).

Launch of innovative guidance to protect marine biodiversity and ecosystem servicesFauna & Flora International (FFI) has developed guidance for the oil and gas sector to protect marine biodiversity and ecosystem services. The guidance is designed to help operators identify and prioritize marine biodiversity and ecosystem services, determine impacts from their activities, and select suitable measures to avoid, minimize, restore and, where appropriate, offset these impacts. This guidance is the first to address oil and gas in the marine environment and will be officially launched at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in September .Oceans produce more than half of the oxygen in the atmosphere and absorb carbon. The coastal environment provides food for over  billion people and supports the livelihoods of over  million people. Awareness of the importance of marine habitats for biodiversity and ecosystem services is growing, yet the oceans are under threat from pollution, overfishing and degradation.It is within this context that the extractive energy sector is increasingly turning to oil and gas reserves offshore to meet rising energy demands; currently over a third of oil and gas is extracted from offshore sources and this is expected to increase. Marine oil and gas developments and their effects on marine biodiversity and ecosystem services are subject to increasing scrutiny at local, national and international levels, and operations face reputational, operational and financial risks. National policy and legislation, lender safeguards, and company commitments are further driving improvements in the mitigation and management of impacts. However, little guidance exists on how to apply, monitor and enforce existing standards and policies in a marine context. FFI's good practice guidance provides pragmatic advice for identifying, mitigating and managing risks and impacts on marine biodiversity and ecosystem services for oil and gas developments. The mitigation hierarchy is central to the application of this guidance, which describes potential impacts and preventative mitigations (avoidance and minimization) at each phase in the oil and gas project cycle. Supporting activities such as shipping are also assessed. For each phase of the project cycle a table identifying activities, potential impacts, and known avoidance and minimization measures is presented.Remedial mitigations, in the form of restoration and offsetting, are presented in dedicated sections. The challenges and opportunities for marine ecosystem restoration are discussed in the context of recent progress in ecological restoration research. Restoration case studies for a range of high value habitats, including mangrove, sea grass and coral reefs, are drawn upon.Policy and legislation increasingly incorporate commitments to no net loss of biodiversity, and require or allow biodiversity offsets and/or compensation. The guidance considers the potential for marine biodiversity offsetting or compensation to address the residual impacts of project devel...

The Company aims to implement best practice, and as such adheres to the IFC's Performance Standard 6 (PS6) and IPIECA guidelines to better understand the environment where activities take place and to mitigate potential impacts in the early stages of a development, proactively and effectively. The international NGO and the Company worked together to identify priority ecosystem services defined by PS6 as (i) those services which a project's activities are likely to impact and therefore could affect local communities, and (ii) those services which the project directly depends on (e.g., water) in a pipeline development project located in the sensitive Peruvian Western Amazon. The driver for this study is the aim to widen the current risk management approach to include an ecosystem approach. This concept includes considerations of human dependency and impacts on ES alongside conservation objectives highlighting the interdependence of humans with the environment. The Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) methodology was adapted from the World Resources Institute's (WRI) Ecosystem Services Review and IPIECA's Ecosystem Guideline. This methodology required input from the social and environmental baselines and grounding through the amalgamation of experiences from social and environmental teams in the field. The information was gathered through desk top reviews and in a workshop that was facilitated by FFI and brought together the Company staff including the construction project team, the Safety and Environment team, the Community Relations team and successfully engaged the Company Peru's executive board. The review of documents and baselines highlighted issues relating to the alignment of habitats and ecosystem services provision that both the company and the communities depend on. Without this information it was difficult to map the source and flow of ecosystem services across the landscape and therefore determine the impacts that a pipeline development might have on the provision of ecosystem services. The workshop however, produced important and interesting results that allowed for the identification of impacts that were not always captured within baselines. Participants also identified mitigation options related to impacts through the application of the mitigation hierarchy. The main conclusions are that biodiversity baselines need to better integrate considerations of ecosystem services and that the social baselines need to provide more clarity with regards to communities’ dependence on natural resources before an effective impact and risk assessment of type (i) and (ii) ecosystem services can be completed. The key strength of this project was the communication and multidiscipline approach including the construction and engineering project team, the Safety and Environment team and the Community Relations team. From this process, mitigation actions were identified and are going to be part of a BES action plan. For the oil and gas industry, this study provides a framework to integrate an ecosystem approach into business management.

No abstract