Article 17 'do no significant harm' (DNSH) test: an economic activity is considered to significantly harm an environmental objective where (a) for climate change mitigation - it leads to significant GHG emissions; (b) for climate change adaptation - it leads to an increased adverse impact of the current climate + expected future climate on the activity itself or on people / nature / assets; (c) for water + marine resources - it is detrimental to the good status / good ecological potential of water bodies or to the good environmental status of marine waters; (d) for circular economy + waste prevention + recycling - it leads to significant inefficiencies in the use of materials + direct + indirect use of natural resources / non-renewable energy + a significant increase in the generation + incineration + disposal of waste; (e) for pollution prevention + control - it leads to a significant increase in the emissions of pollutants into air + water + land; (f) for biodiversity + ecosystems - it is significantly detrimental to the good condition + resilience of ecosystems + to the conservation status of habitats + species, including in protected areas. The DNSH test is operationalised via specific DNSH criteria in the Climate Delegated Act + Environmental Delegated Act Annex points (typically 'DNSH 1' through 'DNSH 6' per environmental objective). DNSH is a HARD GATE - failing DNSH on any objective fails the four-part Article 3 test entirely.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.