RCI Report Reviews Biodiversity Assessment Methods Used in Life Cycle Assessments
New study compares nine leading LCA approaches, finding that no single method currently captures the full complexity of biodiversity impacts
Biodiversity is becoming an increasingly important factor in sustainability assessments, but accurately measuring its impact through life cycle assessments (LCA) remains a challenge. A new report from the Renewable Carbon Initiative (RCI), supported by nova-Institute, reviews and compares nine of the most advanced biodiversity assessment methods currently available for terrestrial LCAs.
The report, “Biodiversity in Sustainability Assessments – in Particular Life-Cycle-Assessments (LCA)”, evaluates methodologies developed or significantly advanced over the past decade. It provides an overview of their capabilities, limitations and practical use for companies and researchers working on environmental impact assessments.
Nine Biodiversity Assessment Methods Compared
The report examines the following biodiversity assessment approaches:
- ReCiPe2016
- IMPACT World+
- LC-IMPACT
- Product Biodiversity Footprint
- Biodiversity Impact Assessment+
- BioMAPS
- Global Extinction Potential
- UNEP-GLAM
- Biodiversity Value Increment
Each method is assessed based on several factors, including:
- Coverage of biodiversity levels
- Ability to address major biodiversity loss drivers
- Data requirements
- Regional applicability
- Methodological characteristics
- Practical implementation
- Availability within established LCA software
No Single Method Covers Every Biodiversity Dimension
According to the report, none of the reviewed methodologies currently addresses all three biodiversity dimensions:
- Species diversity
- Genetic diversity
- Ecosystem diversity
Similarly, no single approach fully accounts for all five primary drivers of biodiversity loss:
- Land and sea-use change
- Climate change
- Pollution
- Direct exploitation of organisms
- Invasive alien species
While the study notes significant progress in biodiversity assessment methodologies, it also identifies ongoing challenges related to data availability, uncertainty, impact-pathway modelling and interpretation.
Expert Perspective
Dr. Matthias Stratmann, Head of Sustainability at nova-Institut GmbH, said:
“We have known for years that biodiversity is a critically important issue, but our ability to account for it in life cycle assessments remains limited. This work does not solve the problem, but it highlights which models and tools are currently the most advanced. Practitioners can use the methodology to select and apply suitable approaches, while researchers can build on their expertise to further develop these tools.”
Emerging Approaches Highlighted
For high-level biodiversity risk screening, the report identifies UNEP-GLAM and BioMAPS as particularly relevant emerging approaches, especially once incorporated into the European Environmental Footprint methodology.
The authors also recommend complementing LCA-based assessments with additional evaluation tools, including:
- Certification schemes
- Field measurements
- Site-specific biodiversity assessments
Recommendations for Practitioners
The report notes that the choice of biodiversity assessment method can influence the identification of environmental hotspots, affecting sustainability priorities and resource allocation.
To improve decision-making, the authors recommend:
- Conducting sensitivity analyses using multiple biodiversity assessment methods
- Combining LCA approaches with broader biodiversity evaluation tools
- Avoiding the use of biodiversity-related LCA results as the sole basis for consumer-facing environmental claims due to current methodological uncertainties
The report concludes that although biodiversity assessment within life cycle analysis has advanced considerably, further research and methodological development are needed before any single framework can comprehensively measure biodiversity impacts.