Making sense of nature metrics for reporting and action.
Nature decline is driving financial risk. Discover how banks are responding.
Read the article
Making sense of nature metrics for reporting and action.
Making sense of nature metrics for reporting and action.
The “state of climate” is often boiled down to a clear, if alarming, metric: global temperature rise above preindustrial levels. But what about the state of nature?
For too long, the sheer volume of potential metrics - approaching the thousands – has felt like a dense forest, obscuring our path to effective action. It's no wonder initiatives like the Nature Positive Initiative are striving for standardisation.
This blog post aims to cut through the undergrowth, offering a clear view on how we measure the health of our natural world. Without clear, standardised metrics, it's impossible for policymakers and businesses to make informed decisions that genuinely benefit nature. Here’s how clear metrics change that.
Often, these terms are used interchangeably.
“Nature” refers to the natural world - which is made up of living and non-living. elements.
"Biodiversity" specifically refers to the living elements of nature.
However, "state of nature" metrics frequently concentrate on these biotic (living) indicators because they offer strong signals about the overall condition of the natural world and are responsive to environmental shifts. Trying to measure every abiotic (non-living) factor – like soil chemistry or water pH – alongside complex ecological processes such as nutrient cycling, becomes incredibly complex and impractical for consistent, large-scale reporting.
In broader nature reporting, these metrics help us understand the condition of our Environmental Assets. These assets provide essential ecosystem services and are affected by various impact drivers (or "pressures"). You can learn more about this terminology in our interactive Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) guide. Ultimately, state of nature metrics answer a vital question: "Is the natural world (our environmental assets) improving or declining?" They measure outcomes, showing whether our conservation and restoration efforts are truly making a difference and helping to refine future strategies.
Since we're primarily using living systems as a proxy for nature's overall health, it's useful to consider the three levels of biodiversity recognised by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity:
While crucial, genetic data is the least readily available, typically requiring intensive fieldwork, which makes it less suitable for widespread, high-level analyses. Therefore, it doesn't usually feature prominently in general "state of nature" metrics.
This leaves us primarily with ecosystem data and species data and ecosystem data.
Species data often centres on species at risk of extinction, frequently drawing from the IUCN Red List. While an invaluable resource, the IUCN itself acknowledges certain biases, such as a stronger focus on terrestrial (especially forest) ecosystems and animals over plants or fungi.
Ecosystem data, on the other hand, is often modelled based on proximity to pressures because directly measuring all aspects of ecosystem condition from remote sensing is extremely challenging. Good examples of metrics used here include the Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII) and Mean Species Abundance (MSA). These are considered 'ecosystem' rather than 'species' metrics because they describe the condition of an entire ecosystem, not just individual species within it.
The TNFD offers a helpful framework, further breaking down ecosystems into ‘extent’ and ‘condition’ metrics and species into ‘population size’ and ‘extinction risk’ metrics. As can be seen - some state of nature metrics are easier to use ‘out of the box’, whereas others require more detailed site-specific work.
This is one of the proposed metrics from the Nature Positive Initiative. For this metric to be comparable globally, everyone needs to use a single, standardised "map legend" for ecosystems. The IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology is that standard. However, creating consistent global maps using this new legend is a huge task that is still in progress.
Status: 🟠 still requires a local approach, often combining remote sensing with ground truthing.
Measures changes in ecological communities due to human pressures, by comparing it to a "natural baseline" of what would exist with minimal human pressure. It gives a simple score from 0% (an ecosystem with no original species left) to 100% (a fully intact, pristine ecosystem), making it a powerful indicator of overall condition.
Status: 🟢 available and easy to use globally (though still requires careful interpretation)
Metrics related to population size are highly context-dependent. There is no single metric that can track the population of insects in a field, birds in a woodland, and fish in a river in the same way. This requires targeted, local monitoring (e.g., bird counts, camera trapping, or butterfly transects), making a simple, universal metric impossible.
Status: 🟠 no simple universal metric that can summarise this.
STAR Scores quantify the potential for conservation actions at a site to reduce species' extinction risk, based on the presence and range coverage of threatened species, the pressures they face, and how effectively those pressures can be mitigated.
Status: 🟢 available and easy to use globally (though still requires careful interpretation).
It’s crucial to view global metrics like BII and STAR not as static, 'black box' answers, but as evolving scientific models. Their credibility depends on a commitment to continuous improvement, which happens in three key areas:
Ultimately, trust is built not just on transparency, but on seeing this cycle of refinement and validation in action, powered by the best available data.
Discussions around nature metrics often draw fire from two sides. Experts sometimes argue that standardised metrics are too simplistic and fail to capture nature's intricate complexities. Conversely, businesses attempting to implement nature reporting can find even these standardised metrics dauntingly complex to put into practice.
This debate highlights the core challenge: balancing the need for actionable simplicity with the reality of ecological complexity. The solution isn't to find one "perfect" metric, but to apply the right tool to the right decision.
Global metrics are powerful for prioritisation, addressing the "too complicated" concern by providing a clear, standardised way to direct resources at a high level. However, for assessing a specific location, these broad-stroke metrics can potentially miss the nuances that only site-specific data can provide.
The urgent need for action means we must use the best tools available now, rather than waiting for perfection. Navigating this requires a clear understanding of what a metric can and cannot tell you. The Earth Blox team can advise on the appropriate use and interpretation of these metrics, helping you blend global insights with local context to drive genuinely nature-positive outcomes. Contact us here to get started.
Tim Newman is Head of Product at Earth Blox. He spent eight years at Ordnance Survey where he oversaw a 5X increase in subscriber numbers for the OS Maps consumer app. Tim holds a Master's degree in Chemistry (Oxon) and an MSc in Polar and Alpine Change from Sheffield University.
