#04 – Differences between the corporate biodiversity metrics

This fourth issue of The Nature Intelligence Newsletter explores the specificities behind the main corporate biodiversity metrics. It covers:

1. The main types of corporate biodiversity metrics

2. The key features of those metrics

3. The coverage and limitations of models used to apply those metrics

4. A focus on MSA and STAR

The main types of corporate biodiversity metrics

Five broad types of metrics are currently used by corporates to assess their impacts on biodiversity:

1. Ecosystem condition realm-specific metrics (see my previous newsletter focused on the topic): Mean Species Abundance (MSA), Potentially Disappeared Fraction (PDF), Ecosystem Integrity Index (EII), Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII)

2. Species extinction risk metrics: Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR)

3. Biodiversity scores: Biodiversity impact index, qualitative/score cards

4. Monetary values: for example from natural capital assessment, including Environmental Profit & Loss methodology (EP&L)

5. Ecosystem condition ecosystem-specific metrics (see previous newsletter) which are not aggregated across ecosystems: for example the Forest Landscape Integrity Index which focuses only on forest ecosystems

Those metrics focus on the state of biodiversity. Corporates also use indicators focusing on drivers of biodiversity loss (i.e. pressures such as land use change) or on management responses (e.g. length of powerline equipped with anti-collision measures) which are beyond this article’s scope.

The ethical and ecological considerations behind each metric

The Aligning Biodiversity Measures for Business (ABMB) project, a parent to the Align (#AlignforNature) European project, published a number of very valuable resources up to 2020.

BII and EII are not listed in the table. In my opinion, the conclusions for the MSA broadly applies to BII, which is very similar to the MSA (see also the comments of the post quoted above for a discussion of BII). EII is slightly different as it combines three sub-metrics (on composition, function and structure) but the conclusions for the MSA also broadly applies.

The pressures and realms covered by the metrics when assessed based on global data layers or modelled based on pressure

It is very important to distinguish between (i) the metrics and (ii) the tools or databases used to calculate the metrics for corporates.

The previous section described how the metrics are defined in theory. This section explores how corporates can currently assess their impacts expressed with these metrics using pressure-based modelling.

The limitations associated with the models involved are not the intrinsic limitations of the metrics but rather the limitations of the models currently available. Models will improve in the future (increasing the coverage of realms and pressures for example).

And impacts may be measured through direct measure of biodiversity state instead of modelling (see the associated column in the table), circumventing the limitations of existing pressure-based models.

BII covers only the terrestrial realm (source). EII, which relies on BII for its composition component, also covers only the terrestrial realm (source).

STAR now covers the marine realm (see below).

Deep dives on two of the leading metrics

Overall, my opinion is that companies should focus on two indicators when assessing their biodiversity impacts at the corporate level: ecosystem condition and species risk of extinction. This is also the direction leading disclosure frameworks are heading towards. For instance, these are the two core disclosure metrics chosen by the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) to track biodiversity state and impacts.

I believe two of the leading metrics for these two indicators are MSA (for ecosystem condition) and STAR (for species extinction risk). They should be used together to get a clear picture of biodiversity impacts.

The following paragraphs and posts point to where you can learn more about them.

Mean Species Abundance (MSA)

A full issue of the Nature Intelligence Newsletter was dedicated to MSA: read it now. Here is the essential on this metric:

Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR)

A global (unresponsive) STAR layer is available on the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) platform.

And since the ABMB table was published, a new layer for marine biodiversity has been produced:

Happy to get your thoughts in comments! Please let me know if there is a topic you'd like me to cover in the future!

And if you found this issue of the newsletter useful, please remember to subscribe and feel free to spread it by liking, commenting or sharing it (for subscribers receiving it in their inbox, please click on the blue button below to be able to like)!

Disclaimer: all views are mine and do not represent any institution or initiative's.

Access previous issues of the Nature Intelligence Newsletter:

#01 - Impacts on ecosystem integrity of a listed equity index assessed for the first time - STOXX600

#02 - All you ever wanted to know about the MSA

#03 - Ecosystem condition: the indicator to watch for corporate biodiversity performance

Credits: the cover of this issue was made using Bing Copilot Designer.