Performance standards and biodiversity no net loss commitments: An assessment of status and implementation gaps in Norway

Rusch, G. M., Tingstad, L., Sutcliffe, T. E. & Lein, U. 2024. Performance standards and biodiversity no net loss commitments: An assessment of status and implementation gaps in Norway. NINA Report 2390. Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. \nThe importance of protecting biodiversity has been repeatedly highlighted in recent assessments and new international obligations related to the Kunming-Montreal Agreement, of which Norway is signatory. At the same time, new infrastructure development, including from the energy sector, increasingly puts pressure on Norwegian nature. An allocation of areas to renewable energy infrastructure implies a trade-off with other land-uses, hereunder nature conservation. These conflicting objectives places great demands on the processes for renewable energy development projects, and the private sector has an important role in making effective protection of nature an integral part of all planning and development of renewable energy. \nRecently, considerable emphasis has been placed on goals of no net loss (NNL) of biodiversity, with the aim to revert trends of biodiversity and ecosystem functions loss. Norway’s commitment to biodiversity conservation is anchored e.g., in the Global Biodiversity Framework (the Kunming-Montreal Agreement) (GBF), the white paper “Nature for life” (“Natur for livet”) and the Nature Diversity Act. In addition, the Norwegian Environment Agency have recently reviewed the national guidelines of impact assessments (M-1941). \nFor the goals of NNL to be credible, the implementation should follow a systematic approach to quantify and manage impact. For this, the mitigation hierarchy is a widely applied tool to guide decisions about biodiversity in line with a goal of NNL. Hydro is one of many companies whose goal is to mitigate biodiversity loss through a NNL policy. To this aim, standards to help the private sector manage biodiversity impacts have been developed, among others, the IFC performance standard on “Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources” (PS 6), which have been specifically tailored toward the private sector operating in infrastructure development projects. \nIn this report, we first present an overview of concepts embedded in the mitigation hierarchy. In this context we review the concepts used to assess impacts on biodiversity, and mitigation and compensation measures, including the concepts of biodiversity no net loss and net gains. The principles of the mitigation hierarchy involve taking nature into account in all stages of a development process, from strategic and detailed planning to actual project implementation. At all stages of the project plan, it must first be assessed whether – and how – negative impacts on nature can be avoided, for example through alternative locations or by making changes in the project design This refers especially to biodiversity features of high conservation value in need of special protection. The next step is to minimize the negative impact by limiting the damage and repairing where possible within the project area. Finally, ecological compensation must be considered for remaining negative impacts, if NNL objectives are to be met. Ecological compensation means compensating for irreversible damage to nature caused by development projects by restoring, creating new habitats, or designating protected areas elsewhere than where the impact on nature takes place.\nWe then present how the mitigation hierarchy and NNL concepts have been operationalized in the IFC PS6 standard, and compare the criteria used with those in the recently updated guidelines for impact assessment on biodiversity produced by the Norwegian Environmental Agency (web-based report M-1914 2023). We also present an overview of the authorities with responsibility for nature management in Norway and the legislation that supports their areas of action. Specifically, we describe the roles of the national and local authorities making decisions on nature and the energy sector. \nWe further present an overview of methods and data sets that can be used to evaluate impacts, and which could support the implementation of no net loss policies in Norway. We highlight both the status of development, availability, as well as NNL policy implementation gaps. \nIt is critical that the knowledge base is up-to-date, and that high-quality ecological data are available for the particular area of interest for renewable energy development projects. Although Norwegian management authorities are working towards improving habitat mapping and indicators of ecological condition at project relevant scales, data at this level of resolution with national coverage will be in most cases incomplete. We refer to the guidelines in the M-1941 which indicate data sources and the methods to be used to collect missing data.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.