We have neat metrics for all our vanities and virtues: extending from economical to ecological; tonnes of carbon cut, hectares of forest preserved, species counted. As we quantify biodiversity — evaluating its complex value — a simple indicator falls short, and this could cause problems. A new study warns that even well-meaning biodiversity targets could encourage trade-offs that harm the very ecosystems they aim to protect.
The Promise and Peril of “Net Positive” Goals
Governments and businesses are increasingly adopting “net positive” pledges for biodiversity: the idea that their actions will leave nature better off overall. On paper, this sounds like progress. But how do we measure it?
At present, most monitoring relies on headline indicators. These are summary figures, such as the number of protected species, the extent of tree cover, or the overall change in ecosystem integrity. The study indicated that while these are indeed useful at a large scale, they can mask losses in specific places or species, so long as gains elsewhere balance the books.
In other words, net positive could turn into biodiversity accounting, where damage in one area is excused by restoration in another.
What’s New in This Research
The authors argue that indicators must be paired with explicit safeguards. These safeguards prevent the misuse of “net” approaches by ensuring:
- No critical losses: Certain ecosystems or species cannot be offset at all; their protection must be absolute.
- Distributional fairness: Gains and losses cannot simply be shifted between regions, especially where vulnerable communities depend on local ecosystems.
- Transparency in trade-offs: Where choices must be made, they should be reported openly, not hidden in aggregate figures.
This approach reframes biodiversity metrics as not just numbers, but tools for accountability and justice.
Why It Matters Now
The timing is critical. Under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, countries are required to report progress against global biodiversity targets. Corporations, too, are pledging nature-positive strategies. If headline indicators remain unaccompanied by safeguards, there is a real risk of greenwashing—claims of net gains while unique habitats or species are quietly lost.
For policymakers and conservation groups, the message is clear: metrics shape behaviour. Setting the wrong ones can entrench harm, even when intentions are good.
From Climate Lessons to Biodiversity Action
The study draws a parallel with climate policy. Carbon accounting has sometimes encouraged offsetting schemes that reduce emissions on paper while delaying structural change. The same risk now looms for biodiversity.
By proposing safeguards alongside indicators, the research offers a way to avoid these pitfalls—ensuring that biodiversity accounting does not become biodiversity bookkeeping.
The Key Takeaway
Biodiversity cannot be captured in a single number. This study shows that if we are serious about leaving nature better off, we must design metrics that not only measure gains but also protect what cannot be replaced.
It’s a reminder that in sustainability, how we count is as important as what we count.
Source
Towards positive net outcomes for biodiversity, and developing safeguards to accompany headline biodiversity indicators, Nature Sustainability, 2025-08-11
Boˆreal 