IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v17y2025i2p677-d1568554.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Impact Assessment Frameworks for Nature-Based Climate Solutions: A Review of Contemporary Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Shane Orchard

    (School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury|Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha, Christchurch 8140, Aotearoa, New Zealand
    School of Earth and Environment, University of Canterbury|Te Whare Wānanga o Waitaha, Christchurch 8140, Aotearoa, New Zealand
    Commission on Ecosystem Management, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 28 Rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland)

  • Ben M. Fitzpatrick

    (Commission on Ecosystem Management, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 28 Rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
    Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia, Fairway, Perth, WA 6009, Australia)

  • Mohammad A. R. Shah

    (Commission on Ecosystem Management, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 28 Rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
    City of Moncton, Moncton, NB E1C 1E8, Canada)

  • Angela Andrade

    (Commission on Ecosystem Management, International Union for the Conservation of Nature, 28 Rue Mauverney, 1196 Gland, Switzerland
    Conservation International-Colombia, Carrera 13 No. 71–41, Bogotá 110221, Colombia)

Abstract

This study provides a comparative analysis of ecological impact assessment (EcIA) guidance for the design and approval stages of carbon sequestration and emission reduction projects, which are rapidly proliferating in response to the global need for climate change mitigation. Previous reports of negative effects on biodiversity from such projects suggest a need for more robust project design and assessment processes to improve synergies with conservation. Using a content and thematic analysis methodology, we compared four published frameworks that guide the assessment of carbon projects in natural environments. The results showed considerable variation in environmental assessment components including the level of attention to ecosystem services and the identification of areas of high conservation value that may require specific protections. There was a general lack of guidance on the inclusion of indirect and supply chain effects despite their relevance to ecological impacts. Critically, guidance in common use in the climate mitigation sector shows differing applications of the baseline and counterfactual scenarios that are used to quantify impacts. We discuss the need to focus assessment and reporting on comparisons with recent baselines to identify the contributions of individual projects and enable adaptive management and show how aligning with the concepts of Nature-based Solutions and nature-positive could be used to reimagine the role of EcIA to achieve these objectives. If these current weaknesses can be improved, EcIA has the potential to become an important implementation pathway for the conservation–climate change nexus due to its pivotal role in project design and approval processes. Conversely, a failure to reliably address these aspects will undermine the utility of EcIA as a decision support tool for sustainable development. We encourage the further exploration of EcIA practices in this direction and highlight the pressing need for reliable comparisons to support more strategic and sustainable solutions for both the conservation and climate change agendas.

Suggested Citation

  • Shane Orchard & Ben M. Fitzpatrick & Mohammad A. R. Shah & Angela Andrade, 2025. "Impact Assessment Frameworks for Nature-Based Climate Solutions: A Review of Contemporary Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(2), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:677-:d:1568554
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/677/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/17/2/677/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. T. Gasser & C. Guivarch & K. Tachiiri & C. D. Jones & P. Ciais, 2015. "Negative emissions physically needed to keep global warming below 2 °C," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 6(1), pages 1-7, November.
    2. Martine Maron & Susie Brownlie & Joseph W. Bull & Megan C. Evans & Amrei von Hase & Fabien Quétier & James E. M. Watson & Ascelin Gordon, 2018. "The many meanings of no net loss in environmental policy," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 1(1), pages 19-27, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Silva, Daiane Vitória da & Pavan, Ana Laura Raymundo & Faria, Luiz Carlos de & Piekarski, Cassiano Moro & Saavedra, Yovana María Barrera & Lopes Silva, Diogo A., 2024. "Opportunities to integrate Ecosystem Services into Life Cycle Assessment (LCA): a case study of milk production in Brazil," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    2. Ma, Chunyan & Wang, Nan & Chen, Yifeng & Khokarale, Santosh Govind & Bui, Thai Q. & Weiland, Fredrik & Lestander, Torbjörn A. & Rudolfsson, Magnus & Mikkola, Jyri-Pekka & Ji, Xiaoyan, 2020. "Towards negative carbon emissions: Carbon capture in bio-syngas from gasification by aqueous pentaethylenehexamine," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 279(C).
    3. Zhou, Hui & Park, Ah-Hyung Alissa, 2020. "Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage via alkaline thermal Treatment: Production of high purity H2 from wet wheat straw grass with CO2 capture," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 264(C).
    4. Gregory Casey, 2024. "Energy Efficiency and Directed Technical Change: Implications for Climate Change Mitigation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(1), pages 192-228.
    5. T. B. White & S. O. Petrovan & L. A. Bennun & T. Butterworth & A. P. Christie & H. Downey & S. B. Hunter & B. R. Jobson & S. O. S. E. zu Ermgassen & W. J. Sutherland, 2023. "Principles for using evidence to improve biodiversity impact mitigation by business," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(7), pages 4719-4733, November.
    6. Wang Lu & Pietro Bartocci & Alberto Abad & Aldo Bischi & Haiping Yang & Arturo Cabello & Margarita de Las Obras Loscertales & Mauro Zampilli & Francesco Fantozzi, 2023. "Dimensioning Air Reactor and Fuel Reactor of a Pressurized CLC Plant to Be Coupled to a Gas Turbine: Part 2, the Fuel Reactor," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, April.
    7. Vaissière, Anne-Charlotte & Quétier, Fabien & Calvet, Coralie & Levrel, Harold & Wunder, Sven, 2020. "Biodiversity offsets and payments for environmental services: Clarifying the family ties," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 169(C).
    8. Michele Bertone & Luca Stabile & Giorgio Buonanno, 2024. "An Overview of Waste-to-Energy Incineration Integrated with Carbon Capture Utilization or Storage Retrofit Application," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(10), pages 1-18, May.
    9. Gyan Charitha de Silva & Eugenie Christine Regan & Edward Henry Beattie Pollard & Prue Frances Elizabeth Addison, 2019. "The evolution of corporate no net loss and net positive impact biodiversity commitments: Understanding appetite and addressing challenges," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(7), pages 1481-1495, November.
    10. Galina Viktorovna Morozova & Irina Dmitrievna Porfireva, 2021. "Features of Information Coverage of Regional Environmental Policy on the Instance of the Republic of Tatarstan," International Journal of Financial Research, International Journal of Financial Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 12(2), pages 210-218, April.
    11. Holly Jean Buck, 2016. "Rapid scale-up of negative emissions technologies: social barriers and social implications," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 139(2), pages 155-167, November.
    12. Hélène Barbé & Nathalie Frascaria-Lacoste, 2021. "Integrating Ecology into Land Planning and Development: Between Disillusionment and Hope, Questioning the Relevance and Implementation of the Mitigation Hierarchy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(22), pages 1-16, November.
    13. Yonghua Li & Song Yao & Hezhou Jiang & Huarong Wang & Qinchuan Ran & Xinyun Gao & Xinyi Ding & Dandong Ge, 2022. "Spatial-Temporal Evolution and Prediction of Carbon Storage: An Integrated Framework Based on the MOP–PLUS–InVEST Model and an Applied Case Study in Hangzhou, East China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-22, December.
    14. Emily Ho & David V. Budescu & Valentina Bosetti & Detlef P. Vuuren & Klaus Keller, 2019. "Not all carbon dioxide emission scenarios are equally likely: a subjective expert assessment," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 545-561, August.
    15. Liu, Ying & Feng, Chao, 2023. "Promoting renewable energy through national energy legislation," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    16. repec:osf:socarx:gjps6_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Katie Devenish & Sébastien Desbureaux & Simon Willcock & Julia P. G. Jones, 2022. "On track to achieve no net loss of forest at Madagascar’s biggest mine," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 498-508, June.
    18. Hernandez, Stephanie & Adams, Vanessa M. & Duce, Stephanie, 2024. "The hidden impact of policy changes on remnant vegetation in Queensland, Australia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    19. Frederick Ploeg, 2018. "The safe carbon budget," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 147(1), pages 47-59, March.
    20. Tiphaine Chevallier & Maud Loireau & Romain Courault & lydie chapuis-lardy & Thierry Desjardins & Cécile Gomez & Alexandre Grondin & Frédéric Guérin & Didier Orange & Raphaël Pélissier & Georges Serpa, 2020. "Paris climate agreement: Promoting interdisciplinary science and stakeholders' approaches for multi-scale implementation of continental carbon sequestration," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/312984, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    21. Patrice Dumas & Stefan Wirsenius & Tim Searchinger & Nadine Andrieu & Adrien Vogt-Schilb, 2022. "Options to achieve net - zero emissions from agriculture and land use changes in Latin America and the Caribbean," Post-Print halshs-03760573, HAL.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:17:y:2025:i:2:p:677-:d:1568554. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.