Net positive outcomes for nature

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

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 synthesizing 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)

A Global Mitigation Hierarchy for Nature Conservation

Efforts to conserve biodiversity comprise a patchwork of international goals, national-level plans, and local interventions that, overall, are failing. We discuss the potential utility of applying the mitigation hierarchy, widely used during economic development activities, to all negative human impacts on biodiversity. Evaluating all biodiversity losses and gains through the mitigation hierarchy could help prioritize consideration of conservation goals and drive the empirical evaluation of conservation investments through the explicit consideration of counterfactual trends and ecosystem dynamics across scales. We explore the challenges in using this framework to achieve global conservation goals, including operationalization and monitoring and compliance, and we discuss solutions and research priorities. The mitigation hierarchy's conceptual power and ability to clarify thinking could provide the step change needed to integrate the multiple elements of conservation goals and interventions in order to achieve successful biodiversity outcomes

Four steps for the Earth: mainstreaming the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

The upcoming Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting, and adoption of the new Global Biodiversity Framework, represent an opportunity to transform humanity's relationship with nature. Restoring nature while meeting human needs requires a bold vision, including mainstreaming biodiversity conservation in society. We present a framework that could support this: the Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy. This places the Mitigation Hierarchy for mitigating and compensating the biodiversity impacts of developments (1, avoid; 2, minimize; 3, restore; and 4, offset, toward a target such as "no net loss" of biodiversity) within a broader framing encompassing all conservation actions. We illustrate its application by national governments, sub-national levels (specifically the city of London, a fishery, and Indigenous groups), companies, and individuals. The Mitigation and Conservation Hierarchy supports the choice of actions to conserve and restore nature, and evaluation of the effectiveness of those actions, across sectors and scales. It can guide actions toward a sustainable future for people and nature, supporting the CBD's vision

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