Nature is deteriorating at an alarming rate. 80% of Europe’s natural habitats are in danger and climate change will be the main driver of biodiversity loss by 2050.
But changing course is still possible. Clean electricity can become a key solution in the fight against ecological loss and climate change. It can break the cycle of environmental degradation and help regenerate indigenous species. This means massive efforts at an unprecedented scale, and changing things up like our very lives depend on it. Because they do.
With appropriate design of new renewable projects, we can enhance biodiversity.
Our decarbonisation efforts can already lower risks to biodiversity by up to 75% and contribute to reducing climate change-induced global economic losses by more than €4 trillion. And we can do even more…
At the project level, adopting a nature-inclusive approach in the design and deployment of renewables and grid projects can yield positive contributions to biodiversity.
As we transition towards a renewables-dominated electricity system, developers and system operators are striving for a sustainable build-out. While this is being internalised in corporate strategies, challenges persist in mainstreaming biodiversity integration practices.
Eurelectric commissioned a first-of-a-kind Guidebook to support renewable developers and system operators in scaling up nature-inclusive practices across the lifecycle of their projects. In particular, we zoomed in wind, solar and hydropower technologies as well as the power grid infrastructure to lay down twelve guiding principles for integrating biodiversity when siting, designing, building, operating and decommissioning an installation.
In partnership with WSP, we surveyed 25 renewables developers and grid operators, assessed internationally-recognised approaches to nature conservation and gathered more than 15 real-life case studies where the sector has integrated biodiversity into their wind, solar, hydro and distribution grid projects in order to come up with our biodiversity integration strategy.
Our aim is to inspire a biodiversity integration approach that could become mainstream for public and private companies across economic sectors.
Our Guidebook presents 12 principles for biodiversity integration to achieve the best outcome for biodiversity conservation when siting, building, operating and decommissioning renewables and grid projects. With a strategic process, the right resources and effective mechanisms, developers can make a positive impact on nature by prioritising sustainability in their practices and operations.
We can group our principles into three overarching categories:
The mitigation hierarchy is a step-by-step approach that limits as much as possible the negative effects on biodiversity. Ever heard of prevention is better than cure?
Every developer should do everything possible to first prevent and then minimise negative effects on nature. Where impacts cannot be avoided, companies should restore those indigenous species affected by project activity. As a last resort, a business can also offset residual biodiversity losses that cannot be restored either within or outside the development footprint in agreement with external actors, the impacted community and related decision-makers.
Guess what? These principles actually work!
The highest gains can be achieved in areas with low-biodiversity value. These are lands whose health was already altered by previous activities and where species diversity is rather low. This is why it’s crucial to plan strategically the siting of a project. Prioritising areas of low-biodiversity-value such as brownfields, degraded lands and redevelopment areas when choosing the project location, for example, can reduce negative impacts and increase potential gains to biodiversity compared with a higher nature-value site for the same project type and extent.
Continuing to apply the mitigation hierarchy protocol can further reduce the residual impact, achieving more positive outcomes for biodiversity – and even a net gain in some cases – with the same amount of offsetting effort from companies. In our example below, a greater net gain was achieved on a lower baseline value site for the same amount of offsetting. This means the company involved actually enhanced species diversity in that specific community compared to before the project.
The benefits of investing in biodiversity-enhancing business models transcend nature protection. Companies can improve their reputation and garner social acceptance for their installations, thereby avoiding delays due to public concerns. They can reduce the consenting and investment risks and inspire investors’ confidence and trust. These projects also add wider environmental benefits to local communities, build in climate and disaster resilience and potentially reduce generation curtailments as well as operational costs, making a more attractive business case.
Yet, several challenges persist in the integration of nature-friendly practices. 84% of developers surveyed in the study reported that integrating biodiversity is costly, ranging from €25,000 to €280 million per project. Scientific data is also limited and there is no common guidance nor agreed-to metric for measuring nature protection. This can complicate the adoption and management of nature-inclusive measures.
Another frequent issue is the complex interaction between the different actors who operate in the area whose objectives, policies and demands might clash. It’s important to balance priorities in a way that provides the best outcomes for nature, whilst also delivering on other legislative, community and social requirements.
Here are a few practical examples showing how to apply a biodiversity integration strategy to individual wind, solar, hydropower and grid infrastructure.
Our Guidebook provides a toolbox of global quantitative resources to measure changes in biodiversity such as the Statutory Biodiversity Metric in the UK, the Net Gain Calculator or the Biotope Valuation in Germany.
Yet, the lack of an EU-wide biodiversity assessment process makes it difficult to make comparisons between projects and for companies to monitor and evaluate progress. At the same time, strict standardisation would not work either as the results may vary depending on the geography, type of project, feasibility of mitigation measures, type of ecosystems, national policy and planning conditions, as well as other socio-economic pressures like land use.
Many other organisations were consulted throughout the development of the report including: Arup, Birdlife, CGG, CLG Europe, Fugro, Global Renewables Alliance, IUCN, SolarPower Europe, UNEP-WCMC and Wind Europe. The report has benefitted greatly from their contributions, although the consultation does not mean endorsement from their side.
