Executive Summary
This white paper demonstrates how biodiversity impact assessment can be applied to a national electricity sector. In Singapore, electricity generation relies on 95% on natural gas imports and combustion. In our analysis, we show how considering biodiversity impacts is relevant for policymakers and regulators in Singapore. For this analysis, biodiversity impact refers to the measurable pressure that the electricity sector and its upstream value chain place on ecosystems, expressed as the loss or degradation of species, habitats, and ecosystem services.
The assessment finds that Singapore’s electricity system generated an estimated 270,000 PDF.ha.yr (Potentially Disappeared Fraction of species per hectare per year) of biodiversity loss in 2024, equivalent to approximately US$1.14 billion in monetised ecosystem service losses. Climate change is the dominant driver, accounting for around 79% of total biodiversity impact, followed by air pollution at 19%. These impacts arise both from domestic power generation and from upstream activities linked to imported gas. Indonesia and Malaysia together contribute nearly 40% of upstream climate-related biodiversity loss due to the carbon intensity and methane leakage associated with extraction and liquefaction infrastructure. This demonstrates that even comparatively “clean” fossil fuels such as natural gas carry substantial biodiversity burdens once full value chain effects are accounted for – we estimate US$ 1.14 bln in monetised biodiversity impact of the electricity sector against US$ ~4 bln GDP from the electricity sector.
We suggest four key learnings for policymakers in Singapore. First, decarbonisation is the most effective biodiversity strategy for the electricity sector, given that biodiversity impacts are highly concentrated in climate-related pathways. Second, optimising upstream gas extraction and distribution can minimise emissions and reduce the GHG intensity of gas. Third, integrating biodiversity valuation into electricity planning, infrastructure design, and regulatory frameworks allows to pre-empt environmental externalities before developing new policies or national projects. Finally, regional coordination with source countries such as Indonesia and Malaysia is vital to reduce biodiversity impact and align ASEAN’s biodiversity and energy transition frameworks.
Taken together, the findings show that biodiversity assessment is a powerful tool to align energy transition choices with environmental protection. The authors demonstrate that integrating biodiversity impact analysis into Singapore’s electricity sector strategy is not only feasible but essential for managing long-term ecological risks, guiding decarbonisation pathways, and supporting national commitments to a resilient, nature-positive energy future.