Example cases from Europe to support the Nature-wise Espoo project

EU cities which observe the No Net Loss policy (NNL), i.e. ways of operating which ensure no net loss in terms of biodiversity or green spaces, were of particular interest.

Concisely put, no net loss means, for example, that biodiversity or ecosystem services should not decrease as land use changes. Losses have to be offset elsewhere if the negative environmental impacts cannot be avoided or minimised on site.

The EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 guides towards prevention of biodiversity loss in many ways. More time is needed to address the topic of No Net Loss in the preparation of the strategy.

Practices to support biodiversity vary between EU countries. Hamburg, Bristol and Stockholm were identified as pioneers so people from these cities were chosen to be interviewed. Stockholm in particular compares well to Finnish conditions.

In Germany, offsetting environmental impacts has been regulated by law since the 1970s. A decree which requires 10% biodiversity net gain from construction projects is being prepared in the UK as part of the Environmental Act. It means that a project has to increase natural values by 10% from the initial state.

There is no legislation on No Net Loss in Sweden yet, apart from Natura 2000 and nature conservation areas which are an exception. However, the topic is observed particularly in terms of wildlife corridors.

A project-specific optional principle of no net loss has been in use for a couple of years in Bristol, South West England. 10% biodiversity net gain calculation will become mandatory in all construction projects in the UK within the next few years.

A digital biodiversity evaluation tool which has been developed and piloted for about 10 years is used in construction projects. However, there is currently no monitoring of the permanence of no net loss in the project areas. Bristol’s Sustainability Project Manager Ben Smallwood  says that construction in the city mostly takes place in existing built-up areas. The tool has guided towards improvement in the project area so offsetting elsewhere has not been necessary.

Projects where No Net Loss calculations were used are available as public information. When asked to provide tips for Espoo, Smallwood sees a public register as an incentive to act in a nature-wise manner despite the fact that aiming for no net loss is not mandatory.

A state of natural emergency has been declared in Bristol and the city also has other natural value policies in place: mandatory BREEAM certification, Building with Nature standards and increasing canopy coverage.

Hamburg has decades of experience in assessment of environmental impacts and offsetting. In German nature conservation legislation,  the principle of no net loss largely concerns ecosystem function as well as landscape values to some extent.

Habitat type quality assessments and calculations take place as early as the planning stage. At that stage, the way a single construction project will be implemented is still unknown. Therefore, things are also looked at on a project level: the natural values within the project’s area of influence are determined and required offsets, which are part of the construction project costs, are planned. Offsetting negative environmental impacts elsewhere is the last resort as the primary goal is to avoid or minimise them.

Offsets are transparent as there is a public register of offset areas. This compensation has to continue for as long as the negative impact exists. In Espoo’s case, monitoring negative environmental impact offsets should be planned from the start. This enables us to evaluate whether no net loss targets have been reached and to reserve adequate resources.

Tobias Langguth from Hamburg Environmental Agency points out that calculations alone are not enough to secure natural values. Hanna Köneke from Green Space Planning adds that areas where people can experience nature without disturbing nesting birds, destroying vegetation or causing other harm to nature should be identified in a compact city. A local agreement on the preservation of green space surface area was passed in Hamburg in 2021.

In Stockholm, avoiding negative environmental impacts and restoring nature on site is required as part of both planning conventions and building legislation. A no net loss assessment tool has not yet been developed. Offsets which concern Natura 2000 and nature conservation areas are handled case by case.

The city uses a green factor tool to evaluate e.g. the quality of a district’s green spaces as well as ecosystem services. However, the tool cannot be applied to measuring no net loss.

Gunilla Hjorth from Stockholm Environment Management says that the goal is to increase evaluation of negative environmental impacts on ecosystem services and urban wildlife corridors as well as offset planning. Wildlife corridors are researched by, for example, modelling suitable habitats and monitoring changes in green spaces from satellite images.

The interviews highlight a need to create no net loss tools from the perspective of Nordic countries. Both Finland and Sweden where forests and forestry are abundant face similar challenges when it comes to construction and land use. Everyman’s rights in terms of biodiversity could also be thought of.

Urban nature also has valuable elements which are rare outside cities in cultural landscapes and commercial forests. Peter Wiborn from Stockholm Environmental Administration mentions the city’s old oaks as an example. Such special features and ecological networks should be considered when making plans on ways to measure no net loss.

Good practices identified in the interviews will be utilised in the Nature-wise Espoo project.

Ben Smallwood, Sustainability Project Manager, Bristol City Council. 

Hanna Köneke and Tobias Langguth, Behörde für Umwelt, Klima, Energie und Agrarwirtschaft, Hamburg.

Peter Wiborn, Gunilla Hjorth and Magnus Rothman, Miljöförvaltning, Stockholm