Three Key considerations for biodiversity conservation in multilateral agreements

It is nearly three decades since the world recognized the need for a global multilateral treaty aiming to address accelerating biodiversity loss. However, biodiversity continues to decline at a concerning rate. Drawing on lessons from the implementation of the current strategic plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the 2010 Aichi Targets, we highlight three interlinked core areas, which require attention and improvement in the development of the post‐2020 Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity. They are: (1) developing robust theories of change which define agreed, adaptive plans for achieving targets; (2) using models to evaluate assumptions and effectiveness of different plans and targets; and (3) identifying the common but differentiated responsibilities of different actors/states/countries within these plans. We demonstrate how future multilateral agreements must not focus only on what needs to be done but also on how it should be done, using measurable steps, which make sense at the scales at which biodiversity change happens

Overstating the value of the IUCN Red List for business decision‐making

The relationship between business and conservation is growing increasingly closer, with the recognition that collaboration can lead to better outcomes for biodiversity. Bennun et al. introduce the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (the Red List) to inform businesses' mitigation of biodiversity impacts; and subsequently how it can be improved to further increase its effectiveness. While we applaud this ever‐closer union of business and conservation, we believe the authors overinflate the value of the Red List in decision‐making, do not account for its limitations and therefore do not justify their conclusions for improving the Red List for business use. We are concerned this focus on wide application of the Red List promotes it as a “one‐stop‐shop” and could lead to discounting of more appropriate approaches

Overstating the value of the IUCN Red List for business decision‐making

The relationship between business and conservation is growing increasingly closer, with the recognition that collaboration can lead to better outcomes for biodiversity. Bennun et al. introduce the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (the Red List) to inform businesses' mitigation of biodiversity impacts; and subsequently how it can be improved to further increase its effectiveness. While we applaud this ever‐closer union of business and conservation, we believe the authors overinflate the value of the Red List in decision‐making, do not account for its limitations and therefore do not justify their conclusions for improving the Red List for business use. We are concerned this focus on wide application of the Red List promotes it as a “one‐stop‐shop” and could lead to discounting of more appropriate approaches

Navigating uncertainty in environmental composite indicators

Composite indicators (CIs) are increasingly used to measure and track environmental systems. However, they have faced criticism for not accounting for uncertainties and their often arbitrary nature. This review highlights methodological challenges and uncertainties involved in creating CIs and provides advice on how to improve future CI development in practice. Linguistic and epistemic uncertainties enter CIs at different stages of development and may be amplified or reduced based on subjective decisions during construction. Lack of transparency about why decisions were made can risk impeding proper review and iterative development. Research on uncertainty in CIs currently focuses on how different construction decisions affect the overall results and is explored using sensitivity and uncertainty analysis. Much less attention is given to uncertainties arising from the theoretical framework underpinning the CI, and the sub-indicator selection process. This often lacks systematic rigour, repeatability and clarity. We recommend use of systems modelling as well as systematic elicitation and engagement during CI development in order to address these issues. Composite indicators make trends in complex environmental systems accessible to wider stakeholder groups, including policy makers. Without proper discussion and exposure of uncertainty, however, they risk misleading their users through false certainty or misleading interpretations. This review offers guidance for future environmental CI construction and users of existing CIs, hence supporting their iterative development and effective use in policy-making

Bringing sustainability to life: A framework to guide biodiversity indicator development for business performance management

Biodiversity loss is a critical sustainability issue, and companies are beginning to seek ways to assess their biodiversity performance. Initiatives to date have developed biodiversity indicators for specific business contexts (e.g., spatial scales—from site, to product, to regional, or corporate scales); however, many are not widely translatable across different contexts making it challenging for businesses seeking indicators to manage their biodiversity performance. By synthesising the steps of common conservation and business decision‐making systems, we propose a framework to support more comprehensive development of quantitative biodiversity indicators, for a range of business contexts. The framework integrates experience from existing tried‐and‐tested conservation frameworks. We illustrate how our framework offers a pathway for businesses to assess their biodiversity performance and demonstrate responsible management by mitigating and reversing their biodiversity impacts and sustaining their dependencies, enabling them to demonstrate their contribution to emerging global biodiversity targets (e.g., Convention on Biological Diversity post‐2020 targets)

Bringing sustainability to life: A framework to guide biodiversity indicator development for business performance management

Biodiversity loss is a critical sustainability issue, and companies are beginning to seek ways to assess their biodiversity performance. Initiatives to date have developed biodiversity indicators for specific business contexts (e.g., spatial scales—from site, to product, to regional, or corporate scales); however, many are not widely translatable across different contexts making it challenging for businesses seeking indicators to manage their biodiversity performance. By synthesising the steps of common conservation and business decision‐making systems, we propose a framework to support more comprehensive development of quantitative biodiversity indicators, for a range of business contexts. The framework integrates experience from existing tried‐and‐tested conservation frameworks. We illustrate how our framework offers a pathway for businesses to assess their biodiversity performance and demonstrate responsible management by mitigating and reversing their biodiversity impacts and sustaining their dependencies, enabling them to demonstrate their contribution to emerging global biodiversity targets (e.g., Convention on Biological Diversity post‐2020 targets)

Net positive outcomes for nature

Much research and policy effort is being expended on ways to conserve living nature while enabling the economic and social development needed to increase equity and end poverty. We propose this will only be possible if policy shifts away from conservation targets that focus on avoiding losses towards processes that consider net outcomes for biodiversity