Deep Eco's approach

We ran a full LEAP cycle, scaled to the level of available data:
● Locate: We mapped every asset against ecosystem types (IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology, CORINE) and protected areas. We screened them with ENCORE and the SBTN Materiality Screening Tool. A purpose-built proprietary Ecological Sensitivity Score identified several priority locations where sensitive ecosystems coincide with material dependencies or impacts.● Evaluate: We assessed dependencies and impacts and rated their materiality, with order-of-magnitude financial estimates.● Assess: We long-listed 15 risks and 9 opportunities (physical, transition and systemic) using the WWF Biodiversity Risk Filter. We scored them to ISO 31000 principles on the client's own ERM scale, then shortlisted 8 material risks and 6 opportunities.● Prepare: We developed targets, KPIs and a roadmap based on the mitigation hierarchy (Avoid, Reduce, Restore & Regenerate, Transform), each linked to a TNFD disclosure.

What we found

● Dependence is real, and largely systemic. Wind and solar generation rely on climate-regulated natural flows, so global climate regulation is the top dependency. Flood regulation matters most for wind assets located in a flood-prone catchment.● Land use change is the main impact. Four of the multiple assets, not the whole portfolio, concentrate the nature-related attention.● Transition risks outweigh physical ones. Most physical risks were rated low, partly because the portfolio is geographically diversified. The material risks were regulatory, market and reputational: EU nature restoration requirements, protected-area expansion, nature-conditional financing and greenwashing exposure.● Opportunities are tangible. They include early-adopter credibility, better access to green finance, nature-positive land management on PV sites (native meadows, agrivoltaics), and proactive biodiversity monitoring that eases permitting.