Protecting nature while building the future

A renewable energy project shapes more than the energy system, it shapes the landscape around it. Long before construction begins, decisions taken in the development phase determine how a project interacts with biodiversity, local ecosystems, and the wider natural environment. In this interview, Environmental Specialist Johannes Birk Schjelde‑Peronard explains how environmental considerations strengthen the long‑term value and resilience of European Energy’s assets.

Environmental considerations are becoming increasingly important for investors. How do you see their role within our project development?

Johannes: It’s easy to look at environmental considerations as a side task, but for us they are an integral part of responsible project design.

Our primary mission is to combat climate change by developing renewable energy, and we should be transparent about that. The climate crisis is also one of the most significant drivers of biodiversity loss worldwide.

These considerations are embedded in how we develop projects through our Sustainability Operating Model, which ensures that environmental and social considerations are assessed early and followed consistently throughout the project lifecycle.

At the same time, many of our projects are developed to meet international bankability standards set by institutions such as the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC).

These frameworks provide clear and well‑established expectations for environmental due diligence, risk management, and long‑term asset resilience. In practical terms, they help ensure that projects are robust, predictable, and aligned with what financial stakeholders expect from high‑quality renewable energy assets.

You mention coexistence with nature. What does that look like in practice?

Johannes: It begins with thorough environmental assessments. We look at species, habitats, ecological corridors, and local land use before determining whether and how a project can be responsibly placed.

However, we must be careful not to overstate our positive impact, a renewable energy project is still an intervention in the landscape. But by understanding nature’s needs early, we can avoid sensitive areas, design around important habitats, and adapt the project so that it creates the least possible disturbance. That’s where coexistence starts.

The most important outcomes often come from avoidance and design choices rather than from measures added later. By adjusting layouts, buffer zones, access roads, or construction timing, we can often prevent significant impacts from occurring in the first place. This is both environmentally and economically preferable and aligns well with lender expectations.

How do environmental considerations contribute to the long‑term value of an asset from an investor perspective?

Johannes: Investors increasingly recognise that environmental risks are financial risks.

If a project is not designed with proper environmental diligence, it can face delays, legal challenges, reputational issues, and increased operational complexity later. And there is a lot we can and should do proactively to prevent that.

By integrating environmental assessments from day one, we reduce permitting risk, create more stable timelines, and minimise exposure to unforeseen constraints during construction and operation.

Well‑managed environmental processes make a project more predictable, and predictability is a value driver.

What role, if any, do compensatory measures play in our environmental approach?

Johannes: Yes, but only in very specific and limited situations. Actual compensation is something we use rarely, because it implies that a project has a significant adverse impact that cannot be fully avoided or mitigated.

Our primary focus is always on avoidance and mitigation through project design. Compensation is not a substitute for good planning, and it should never be presented as a “net positive” contribution. Under international standards compensation is a last-resort measure applied only when residual impacts remain after all reasonable mitigation efforts.

Separately from project-specific compensation, we may choose to support broader biodiversity restoration initiatives as voluntary contributions, but these are not used to justify or balance on-site impacts.

How do investors respond to this transparent approach—acknowledging impacts while still highlighting environmental diligence?

Johannes: Serious investors appreciate transparency. They are not looking for polished claims, they want to know that risks are understood, addressed, and documented. When we don’t exaggerate benefits but instead show clear processes, credible assessments, and a responsible approach to nature, it strengthens our dialogue with financial partners.

Environmental responsibility doesn’t need marketing gloss to be valuable. Its value lies in reducing risk and demonstrating that the asset will remain compliant, accepted, and resilient over its operational lifetime.

What would you say is the main message for investors looking at our environmental work?

Johannes: That environmental diligence is inseparable from developing high‑quality renewable assets. Still, our contribution to the climate is the biggest environmental benefit we provide—and we should be clear about that.

But at the same time, we take local nature seriously. We work to avoid negative impacts, mitigate what we can, and compensate responsibly where necessary.

We are not claiming perfection. But we work hard to ensure that every project is developed in a way that respects the landscape, meets regulatory expectations, minimises long‑term risk, and ultimately delivers stable, credible value for all partners.

Environmental assessments and biodiversity considerations are not obstacles; they are actually competitive advantages. In a maturing renewable energy market, the ability to deliver projects that balance climate impact with environmental responsibility is a differentiator to keep focus on.