We have also completed the first two of the five steps of SBTN’s methodology to better understand how to prioritise our efforts in managing our impacts on nature, including biodiversity. The steps are based on locating impacts on nature, including biodiversity, across our upstream value chain and on locating direct impacts.

In addition to the operational sites, we had 12 assets under construction in 2024, which were identified as material sites that temporarily have activities negatively affecting biodiversity-sensitive areas.

In addition to the operational sites, we had 12 assets under construction in 2024, which were identified as material sites that temporarily have activities negatively affecting biodiversity-sensitive areas.

During the project development phase of all our offshore and onshore assets where we are responsible for development, we conduct early risk screenings and develop environmental impact assessments (EIAs) or equivalent plans to assess the potential impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems at the locations of potential new assets.

The company discloses the metrics used to assess and manage material nature-related risks and opportunities in line with its strategy and risk management process. It also describes the targets used to manage climate-related risks and opportunities and performance against targets.

We have completed an assessment of all our operational assets in collaboration with The Biodiversity Consultancy, using their Biodiversity Risk Screening Kit (BRISK). This assessment focused on biodiversity- and ecosystem-related impacts, risks, dependencies, and opportunities at an asset level, helping us to better understand which sites are material in this respect. It takes a variety of factors into account that indicate impacts on biodiversity on a scale ranging from low over medium to high. These factors include species, designated areas (including protected areas and key biodiversity areas (KBAs)), ecoregion intactness, water pollution, and marine habitats, amongst others. The assessment highlights a list of matters, indicating that there are potential negative impacts on biodiversity if nothing is done to avoid or mitigate these. From that output, we have found that the majority of the identified risks have already been identified through our EIA or equivalent processes as well as mitigated as a part of our biodiversity action plans. Therefore, we are taking all necessary steps to limit risks and negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems at all our site locations. When we identify overlaps with e.g. an IUCN Red-listed species, an action plan is developed to ensure that we do no significant harm to this species, nor any threatened species, both during construction and the operational phase.

In addition to the operational sites, we had 12 assets under construction in 2024, which were identified as material sites that temporarily have activities negatively affecting biodiversity-sensitive areas. These sites are listed in the table on page 114 and include nine offshore wind and three solar PV projects. At the offshore construction sites, biodiversity impacts were primarily associated with monopile piling, which generates noise pollution, and cable laying, which disrupts benthic and intertidal habitats. Additionally, the increased vessel traffic during construction caused further disruption to the ecosystem through noise pollution. For the solar PV assets under construction, biodiversity impacts were primarily due to land clearing and cable laying, which caused temporary habitat disruption and species displacement. Additionally, the operation of machinery contributed to noise pollution. All these impacts are appropriately managed or mitigated through implementation of measures agreed through impact assessment and permitting processes.

In total, we have 63 operational sites across our portfolio of renewable energy assets (i.e. offshore and onshore wind, solar PV, and power stations) that currently overlap with or are adjacent to protected areas or KBAs. This is the majority of our assets and is connected to the fact that a buffer zone has been applied (25 km for offshore assets, 10 km for onshore assets), increasing the amount of overlaps with both protected areas and KBAs. Through our mitigation planning and restoration of impacts, we have found that we have no negative impacts on biodiversity and ecosystems at these sites. In addition to the operational sites, we had 12 assets under construction in 2024, which were identified as material sites that temporarily have activities negatively affecting biodiversity-sensitive areas. These sites are listed in the table on page 114 and include nine offshore wind and three solar PV projects.

In addition to the operational sites, we had 12 assets under construction in 2024, which were identified as material sites that temporarily have activities negatively affecting biodiversity-sensitive areas. These sites are listed in the table on page 114 and include nine offshore wind and three solar PV projects. At the offshore construction sites, biodiversity impacts were primarily associated with monopile piling, which generates noise pollution, and cable laying, which disrupts benthic and intertidal habitats. Additionally, the increased vessel traffic during construction caused further disruption to the ecosystem through noise pollution. For the solar PV assets under construction, biodiversity impacts were primarily due to land clearing and cable laying, which caused temporary habitat disruption and species displacement. Additionally, the operation of machinery contributed to noise pollution. All these impacts are appropriately managed or mitigated through implementation of measures agreed through impact assessment and permitting processes.

We have found no negative impacts related to land degradation during the operational phase of our projects, including desertification or soil sealing. Any potential impacts on land degradation are mitigated during the construction phase.