Comparative Analysis of the Existing Criteria, Principles, and Safeguards for the Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions

The report compares the IUCN Global Standard for NbS and the CBD Voluntary Guidelines, concluding that both are highly compatible and align with UNEA Resolution 5/5. While the IUCN standard provides high-level overarching criteria for a wide range of NbS, the CBD guidelines offer more detailed, step-by-step operational guidance specifically for ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR). The analysis recommends that future international efforts focus on compiling existing guidance and avoiding the duplication of work rather than creating new sets of guidelines.

• The IUCN Global Standard for NbS and the CBD Voluntary Guidelines are highly compatible and align with UNEA Resolution 5/5, emphasizing social and environmental safeguards, adaptive management, and mainstreaming.
• The two documents differ in their operational approach: the IUCN Global Standard serves as high-level umbrella guidance with criteria and indicators, whereas the CBD Guidelines provide specific, targeted advice and a step-by-step process for project design and implementation.
• The CBD Voluntary Guidelines have a narrower scope, focusing specifically on ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) and ecosystem-based disaster risk reduction (Eco-DRR), while the IUCN Global Standard covers a broader range of NbS, including climate change mitigation and sustainable resource management.
• Both frameworks prioritize social considerations, specifically the requirement for free, prior, and informed consent from Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
• The IUCN Global Standard was approved by a majority vote of IUCN members in 2020, including 128 state and subnational government members, while the CBD Voluntary Guidelines were adopted by 196 parties to the CBD.
• To avoid duplication of work and additional burden, the report recommends that resources be used to compile existing criteria and guidelines rather than developing new ones.

APA

Qi, J., & Terton, A. (2025). Comparative Analysis of the Existing Criteria, Principles, and Safeguards for the Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions. International Institute for Sustainable Development. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-05/comparative-analysis-nature-based-solutions.pdf

Chicago

Qi, Jeffrey, and Anika Terton. Comparative Analysis of the Existing Criteria, Principles, and Safeguards for the Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions. International Institute for Sustainable Development, 2025. https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-05/comparative-analysis-nature-based-solutions.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Qi |first1=Jeffrey |last2=Terton |first2=Anika |title=Comparative Analysis of the Existing Criteria, Principles, and Safeguards for the Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions |publisher=International Institute for Sustainable Development |date=May 2025 |url=https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-05/comparative-analysis-nature-based-solutions.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{qi2025comparative, author = {Qi, Jeffrey and Terton, Anika}, title = {{Comparative Analysis of the Existing Criteria, Principles, and Safeguards for the Implementation of Nature-Based Solutions}}, institution = {International Institute for Sustainable Development}, year = {2025}, month = may, url = {https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2025-05/comparative-analysis-nature-based-solutions.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }