Nationally reported metrics can’t adequately guide transformative change in biodiversity policy

Abstract

Biodiversity loss is rampant (1⇓–3). To safeguard the future of life on Earth, there are growing calls for transformative change in biodiversity policy [i.e., for a fundamental and system-wide reorganization of how such policy is designed, implemented, and enforced across scales and sectors (1)]. Here we argue that to achieve this change, nations need to urgently implement robust biodiversity metrics into decision-making processes and policy. To have any chance of retaining the globe’s biodiversity, nations must implement better, more robust biodiversity metrics into decision-making processes and policy. Image credit: Shutterstock/Stu Shaw. Because biodiversity sustains human life and economy, biodiversity metrics should be elevated to the same level as other core statistics and should be regarded as essential for guiding societies toward transformative change. Biodiversity metrics should be held to the same standards, rigor, and accuracy as any other nationally reported data, such as those on human population size, age structure, economic growth, and agricultural or industrial production. Measures of the state of biodiversity should thus be published as part of national statistics and mandated by legislation to ensure delivery. In March 2021, the 52nd United Nations Statistical Commission introduced the notion of biodiversity accounting in economic and financial decision-making, a move that represents an important step in changing international attitudes toward enhancing biodiversity policies. As researchers continue to gather knowledge on the structure, mechanisms, and determinants of biodiversity, governments should leverage that knowledge to guide policy. We therefore call for stronger efforts to implement monitoring schemes that provide species abundance data and for metrics that are globally harmonized to provide a more accurate quantification of patterns of biodiversity change (4, 5). To guide policy, governments and institutions require statistics that adequately and sensitively reflect ongoing change. Most current assessments of biodiversity status and trends are … [↵][1]1To whom correspondence may be addressed. Email: tomas.roslin{at}helsinki.fi or anna-liisa.laine{at}uzh.ch. [1]: #xref-corresp-1-1