In a paper released during the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Cali Colombia, UNEP-WCMC scientists examine the challenges faced when implementing effective biodiversity metrics. As we look to build on discussions and decisions at COP16 and beyond, what lessons can we learn, and what changes can be made to improve this process?

Over the past decade, businesses, governments and civil society have made ever-increasing pledges and commitments to address the climate and biodiversity crises. From private-sector forums like the World Economic Forum (WEF) to the United Nations' convened events such as the 2022 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15), organisations and people are uniting around the vision of living in harmony with nature by 2050.

Regulatory, investor and societal pressures continue to push businesses to measure their biodiversity impacts and dependencies. Businesses, therefore, are calling for more ambition from governments. Over 5800 private organisations have set Paris Agreement-aligned climate targets. 1400 called for action on biodiversity at COP15. Frameworks such as the Taskforce on Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) have emerged alongside mandatory regulatory requirements such as the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. 

In the wake of these new commitments, organisations have partnered with scientists to develop numerous biodiversity metrics. Effective metrics provide governments and businesses with the means to make informed decisions: on where best to allocate resources, mitigate impacts on nature and build more sustainable growth strategies.

We are reaching a metric saturation point. Whilst the lack of metrics can no longer be seen as a barrier to better decision making, as the number of biodiversity metrics has grown  it becomes more difficult to work out which are the most reliable, scientifically robust and applicable for certain use cases. Due to the vast number of often conflicting metrics, it can be unclear how best they should be interpreted, and for which sort of organisation they are best suited.

The challenges faced by governments and businesses

Global Metrics for Terrestrial Biodiversity has whittled down a database of 573 metrics, indicators, indices and layers into a more focussed list that will have the most impact on governments and businesses. The paper applies the state-pressure-response-benefit model to assess the robustness, quality and benefits of each of the metrics.

Organisations regularly cite the overcomplexity of metrics as a major sticking point when it comes to their implementation. Although there are biodiversity metrics available to inform decision-making on screening, planning and resource allocation – the large number of metrics confuses users and hinders effective decision-making.

Governments, for example, typically use metrics generated at a national level. These metrics have undoubted benefits. They allow better application to a nation’s specific circumstances. As a result, these kinds of metrics receive national-level political buy-in and legitimacy. Conversely, at a global scale this leads to inconsistency of metrics among nations, challenging globally consistent reporting of progress towards goals and targets.

There is a need for metrics to help governments deliver on national and regional policy commitments (such as those agreed by the European Union, East African Community etc.) in addition to globally agreed-upon environmental agreements such as the SDGs and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). Government uptake is much more likely if the metrics are part of a global or regional framework as it allows for easy reporting against the data they generate.

The challenges faced by different user groups underscore an ever-increasing need for metrics to align more effectively with users. Global Metrics for Terrestrial Biodiversity explores this. Biodiversity metrics used by governments are often politically agreed upon at different levels: national, regional, subnational etc. At the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) in 2022, parties adopted 26 headline indicators to track the goals and targets of the KMGBF alongside an additional 230 indicators to use at a national level.

Businesses and their supply chains face similar challenges. Global metrics are typically most applicable for screening processes, but metrics based on primary data are often needed. These calculate on-the-ground impacts and track the outcomes of management decision-making, for example, in Environmental Impact Assessment processes.

A minimum set of metrics and looking to the future

Governments and businesses have highlighted the need for simplified biodiversity metrics. The same has happened on the climate change agenda, where a complex landscape has is reduced to the three goals of the Paris Agreement (reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, climate change adaptation, and climate financing), with associated metrics.

Biodiversity is measured at different levels (genes, species and ecosystems), and across various facets (such as structure, function and composition) suggesting a single metric would not be scientifically adequate. Biodiversity can also be measured in terms of its benefits (its contribution to people or ecosystems) and can be prioritised in terms of rarity or extinction risk. As such, there is a need to identify a pool of core minimum metrics encompassing these various considerations.

Global Metrics for Terrestrial Biodiversity uses the following criteria to propose a core set of metrics:

• Included as SDG 14 and 15 indicators and/or KMGBF headline indicators
• Published, with available methodology and data
• Data flows exist to update the metric
• One or more institutions have committed to maintaining the metric for a minimum of 10 years
• There is an established way to use the metric for commercial decision-making
  

The paper sets out the above as a minimum set of usable metrics for biodiversity, whilst recognizing that the development of new metrics, such as the Ecosystem Integrity Index will also be important to respond to specific use cases.

Data availability remains an issue in remote and/or less well-studied parts of the world. Species data, for example, is typically underpinned by data sources biased towards plants and vertebrates without considering fungi and invertebrates. Civil society has a critical role to play in enhancing data from around the world. Web-based collection tools such as iNaturalist and eBird and devices such as camera traps and smart listening tools are beginning to develop some of the best quality data on species, albeit often with a need for validation.

Investment in current and future metrics remains a sticking point. Society has created funding systems to provide the data flows and metrics that underpin decision-making for health, education, poverty, weather, seeds, genetics. However, biodiversity data flows are project-based or rely on volunteer efforts, with no agreed core funding mechanism. Such a practice is unsustainable and leads to both fragmentation and duplication. Institutional commitments must underpin core metrics to deliver them to agreed-on user communities. Implementation needs to be made simpler, faster and cheaper. New technologies must play a role in facilitating this. New products utilizing new technology all too often fail to be representative globally in the context of biodiversity conservation. They also lack political legitimacy.

The importance of metrics is clear.  High quality metrics will facilitate efforts to plan and implement global, regional and national policy agreements.  They will allow the measurement of progress towards goals and targets, whether this happens at global, regional or national scales.

UNEP-WCMC is seeking strategic partners to help maintain this overview of available metrics, and deliver them using sustainable funding flows into the future. If your organisation could help us in this process, get in touch with the team via communications@unep-wcmc.org.

Main image AdobeStock_900470301