How biodiversity is affected by technical infrastructure

Where and how can the impact of technical facilities on biodiversity best be minimised?

The greatest impact on biodiversity occurs within the value chain, i.e. during the extraction of the raw materials used for the technical facility. The impact on the actual construction site is, however, less significant if the facility is not located in natural areas. The focus should be on minimising impacts within the value chain and avoiding siting in natural areas. The impacts, both during extraction and on the construction site, should be assessed collectively and individually; to this end, the expert group recommends the mitigation hierarchy to systematically minimise, restore and compensate for damage to biodiversity at both levels.

Construction and civil engineering projects for technical infrastructure have a significant negative impact on biodiversity, particularly within the sector’s value chains – for example, the costs associated with the extraction of raw materials, transport and the production of building materials (value chain impacts). On-site impacts, where the facilities are established, can be substantial if they are located in a natural area, but far less so if they are situated on existing production land (e.g. fields). Similarly, larger projects, particularly roads, can have some negative effects and act as barriers to dispersal in the landscape, preventing the movement of animal species between surrounding natural areas. However, the overall impact on biodiversity resulting from construction and civil engineering projects is generally less than the negative effect of the actual loss of natural habitat in the natural area through which a road might pass.

In general, it is important to note that the greatest impact on biodiversity has so far been predominantly within the value chain, whilst on-site impacts – if located in non-natural areas – are relatively much smaller. The focus should therefore be primarily on minimising the impacts within one’s own value chain and on avoiding the siting of facilities in natural areas (see the respective reports from the Biodiversity Council and the Climate Council from 2024). The impacts of technical installations on biodiversity should be assessed according to the principle of materiality, whereby the impacts within the value chains – particularly those relating to materials and the siting of installations – should be assessed collectively and in relative terms to one another. Once this has been mapped out, it is beneficial, both in strategic planning and in the evaluation of specific projects, to apply the mitigation hierarchy by implementing measures that, in order of priority, ‘minimise’, ‘restore’ and ‘compensate’ for the damage to biodiversity (see the Biodiversity Council’s 2024 report).

Generally speaking, technical facilities located in natural areas have fewer positive effects on on-site biodiversity. If facilities are situated in non-natural areas (e.g. fields) and nature conservation measures are implemented on the site, it is possible to increase local biodiversity. Similarly, it is possible to implement measures that minimise the project’s negative impact as much as possible. We must therefore move away from the mindset that a project site is a blank canvas and instead seek to minimise the impact when construction finally takes place. On this page, you will find examples of such measures.
 
Unfortunately, small local measures within on-site projects cannot, in themselves, remedy or provide a solution to the biodiversity crisis or the state of nature in Denmark. This requires investment in larger natural areas and improvements to their quality (Biodiversity Council 2022, 2023, 2024). Technical installations – particularly on-site measures – do not have an overall positive effect on biodiversity, but serve other societal needs and can contribute to addressing climate challenges. However, by applying the principle of materiality and the mitigation hierarchy, there is considerable potential to make these projects far less harmful to biodiversity than is generally the case today.
 
The prerequisite for this is that construction projects take the value chain into account to a far greater extent during construction, as the measures implemented on-site do not come close to offsetting the negative effects of the materials used in the projects through the impacts within the value chains.
 
Measures such as green roofs and walls on buildings, flower beds along the facilities, as well as rainwater basins and wetlands, can create small ecosystems that will attract insects and birds in local and urban areas, thereby increasing species richness locally. However, it must be borne in mind that small habitats cannot stand alone, as they cannot support viable populations; therefore, urban nature must be viewed in the context of the surrounding natural areas. These measures can, however, have a positive impact on people’s attitudes towards biodiversity initiatives in general, improve health and increase property values.
 
Solar panels and wind turbines should, in accordance with the Climate Council’s land-use analysis (2024) and recommendations, be sited outside natural areas of value for groundwater and biodiversity. From a biodiversity perspective, the focus in relation to such installations should primarily be on the negative impact of the extraction, production and transport of materials for the installations, and this off-site impact should be prioritised for assessment and minimised as far as possible. The facilities should be designed to cause the least possible disturbance to wildlife and have the least possible negative impact on local species. Furthermore, biodiversity considerations can be incorporated into the operational phase of the projects by creating conditions that allow nature to be re-established. For example, it has been common practice to bring in topsoil for road verges, but nutrient-poor raw soil would be preferable in order to encourage native herbs, whilst also saving resources for construction and operation within the project. In the case of construction projects in areas of high natural value, attempts can be made to provide replacement habitats and restoration by compensating for the lost habitats, although in practice this has proved almost impossible. In such cases, a replacement ratio (to offset the lost biodiversity values) of between 1 and 8 is required (see, for example, the review article by Bull and Strange 2016).

The cases described focus primarily on on-site measures. This simply reflects where efforts in Denmark have so far been concentrated with regard to technical installations. Mapping and implementing measures that address the off-site impacts and the impacts of materials throughout the value chains of installations on biodiversity should be the next and crucial step to take.
 
Section: The greatest impact on biodiversity is off-site 
Section on the mitigation hierarchy 

Reducing and offsetting negative impacts on biodiversity associated with the construction or siting of engineering works are important measures for halting biodiversity loss.

The mitigation hierarchy should be used as a fundamental approach to managing the negative impacts on biodiversity caused by engineering works. The mitigation hierarchy should be followed as a matter of principle, regardless of whether the impacts of a project are on-site or off-site. The mitigation hierarchy is recommended by the Biodiversity Council (2024) and is an approach that has been used internationally to balance economic development and nature conservation in industrial production.

The fundamental principle of the mitigation hierarchy is that negative impacts should be avoided as far as possible, and subsequently measures should be implemented which, in order of priority, ‘minimise’, ‘restore’ and ‘compensate’ for the damage to biodiversity.

Being able to identify and quantify the potential negative impacts on biodiversity arising from a given activity, and where they occur, is crucial to reducing these negative impacts and, where necessary, offsetting them through other measures.

An important principle is that measures should be implemented where the adverse effects are taking place. This also applies, and in particular, across value chains – locally, nationally and globally. If the measures associated with the first three steps (avoid, minimise and restore) are insufficient to mitigate the negative impact on biodiversity, compensatory measures, such as nature restoration, may be used.

The mitigation hierarchy as an approach to reducing negative impacts on biodiversity – both off-site and on-site – from technical installations, by first avoiding (1) and then minimising any remaining impacts (2). Any remaining impacts can then be further reduced through restoration. ‘Net-positive compensatory measures’ are measures that have a positive impact exceeding the negative impact on biodiversity caused by the activity in question. ‘Additional contributions’ refer to voluntary contributions to the protection and restoration of biodiversity that are independent of specific damaging activities (Figure from the Biodiversity Council 2024).

References