Data story: Global biodiversity monitoring coverage and species decline trends

Why It Matters

The Living Planet Index (LPI), published by WWF and the Zoological Society of London, documented a 69% average decline in monitored vertebrate populations between 1970 and 2020, yet the species behind that headline represent less than 5% of known vertebrate diversity (WWF, 2024). We are making planetary-scale decisions based on a sliver of data. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), adopted in December 2022, committed 196 nations to protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030 and halting human-driven species extinction, but Target 21 of the framework explicitly acknowledges that achieving these goals requires a step change in monitoring infrastructure. As of 2025, only 34 of 196 signatory nations have submitted National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) with quantified monitoring budgets (CBD Secretariat, 2025). The monitoring gap is not merely a scientific inconvenience; it is the single largest obstacle to evidence-based conservation finance, corporate biodiversity disclosure under the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), and credible progress reporting against GBF targets.

Key Concepts

Living Planet Index (LPI) tracks population trends of vertebrate species using time-series data from monitored populations. It does not measure extinction rates directly but rather the average rate of change across tracked populations, weighted by taxonomic group.

Monitoring coverage refers to the proportion of known species for which repeated, standardised population assessments exist. The Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON, 2025) estimates that adequate monitoring (defined as three or more population assessments over a ten-year period) exists for only 3 to 5% of the approximately 70,000 known vertebrate species and less than 0.1% of invertebrates.

Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBVs) are a standardised set of measurements proposed by GEO BON to harmonise biodiversity monitoring globally, analogous to Essential Climate Variables used in atmospheric science. EBVs include species abundance, genetic diversity, ecosystem extent and community composition.

Environmental DNA (eDNA) enables detection of species from water, soil or air samples without direct observation. Costs have fallen from US$300 per sample in 2019 to approximately US$35 in 2025, enabling rapid multi-taxa surveys across large areas (Bohmann et al., 2025).

The Data

The most comprehensive picture of global biodiversity monitoring comes from overlaying multiple databases. The LPI 2024 update tracked 34,836 population trends across 5,495 vertebrate species from 32,660 monitoring sites (ZSL, 2024). When set against the IUCN Red List's catalogue of approximately 160,000 assessed species, the coverage gap becomes stark:

• Vertebrates: 5,495 of ~70,000 species monitored (7.9%), but only ~3,500 with adequate time-series depth.
• Insects: Fewer than 2,000 of an estimated 5.5 million species have any population trend data (Wagner et al., 2025). The global insect biomass decline is estimated at 1 to 2% per year based on long-term trap studies in Germany, Costa Rica and Puerto Rico.
• Plants: The State of the World's Plants and Fungi report (Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, 2024) estimates that 45% of flowering plant species have never been assessed for conservation status.
• Marine species: The Ocean Biodiversity Information System (OBIS) holds 108 million occurrence records, but only 12% are linked to repeated surveys that allow trend analysis (OBIS, 2025).

Geographic bias compounds the taxonomic gap. An analysis by the Map of Life project at Yale (Jetz et al., 2025) found that 78% of long-term biodiversity monitoring stations are located in Europe, North America and Australia, while these regions host less than 20% of global terrestrial species richness. Tropical forests, which harbour an estimated 80% of terrestrial biodiversity, contain only 6% of monitoring stations with data series exceeding ten years.

The IUCN Red List reached a milestone in 2025 by surpassing 163,000 species assessments, but the organisation estimates that 44,000 species (28%) are threatened with extinction, the highest proportion ever recorded (IUCN, 2025).

Trend Analysis

Population declines are accelerating in tropical regions. The LPI for Latin America and the Caribbean showed a 95% average decline in monitored populations since 1970, the steepest of any region. Freshwater species globally declined by 83%, driven by habitat loss, pollution and dam construction (WWF, 2024). These figures carry significant uncertainty because monitoring effort is thinnest precisely where declines appear largest, meaning true losses may be even greater.

Technology is closing monitoring gaps at unprecedented speed. Camera trap networks coordinated through Wildlife Insights, a Google-backed platform, now process over 200 million images annually using AI species identification with 95% accuracy across 850 projects in 98 countries (Wildlife Insights, 2025). Acoustic monitoring through the Arbimon platform, operated by Rainforest Connection, covers 1,400 sites in 52 countries and uses machine learning to identify species from sound recordings, detecting rare and nocturnal species that visual surveys miss.

eDNA is scaling toward operational deployment. NatureMetrics, a UK-based eDNA analytics company, reported processing over 120,000 water and soil samples in 2025, up from 40,000 in 2023. Their data contributed to biodiversity baselines for over 300 corporate clients, including mandatory assessments under the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive. Norway's national eDNA programme surveyed 3,200 freshwater sites in 2025, detecting 40% more fish species per site than traditional electrofishing methods at one-third the cost (Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, 2025).

Satellite-based habitat monitoring is maturing. The European Space Agency's Copernicus Land Monitoring Service now provides 10-metre resolution habitat maps updated quarterly across the EU. Global Forest Watch recorded 3.7 million hectares of primary tropical forest loss in 2024 (World Resources Institute, 2025), continuing a trend that directly translates to biodiversity loss.

Regional Patterns

Latin America and the Caribbean. The Amazon basin alone lost 13,200 km² of forest in 2024 according to INPE satellite data, a reduction from 2022 peaks but still well above sustainable thresholds. Brazil's SisBio biodiversity database, the region's largest, covers only 23% of the Amazon's estimated vertebrate species with repeated population assessments. The region hosts the world's highest freshwater fish diversity (over 6,000 species), yet monitoring programmes cover fewer than 500 of them.

Sub-Saharan Africa. The African Biodiversity Collaborative Group (2025) estimates that the continent has fewer than 2,000 professional biodiversity field researchers for an area of 30 million km². Long-term monitoring programmes exist primarily in East African savannah parks (Serengeti, Masai Mara, Kruger), while Central and West African forests remain severely under-monitored. The Great Green Wall initiative has planted or restored 18 million hectares of degraded land but lacks systematic biodiversity monitoring to assess ecological outcomes.

Southeast Asia. The region's remaining primary forests in Borneo, Sumatra and Papua New Guinea harbour some of the highest vertebrate endemism on Earth, yet the ASEAN Centre for Biodiversity (2025) reports that only Indonesia and Malaysia maintain national biodiversity monitoring systems, and both focus primarily on flagship species such as orangutans and tigers rather than community-level diversity metrics.

Europe. The EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030 and the Nature Restoration Law (adopted 2024) require member states to restore 20% of degraded ecosystems by 2030. Europe has the densest monitoring infrastructure globally, with the Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme covering 28 countries and providing one of the longest continuous biodiversity time series (1980 to present). Common farmland bird populations have declined 36% since 1980, serving as a proxy indicator for broader agricultural biodiversity loss (European Bird Census Council, 2025).

Sector-Specific KPI Benchmarks

What the Data Suggests

The monitoring coverage gap represents both a risk and an opportunity. From a risk perspective, organisations that rely on self-assessed biodiversity baselines or qualitative disclosures face growing regulatory and reputational exposure as the TNFD reporting framework moves from voluntary to quasi-mandatory (320 organisations signed up by Q1 2026, including 11 of the world's 30 largest financial institutions). Without robust monitoring data, biodiversity claims will face the same scrutiny that "greenwashing" brought to carbon markets.

From an opportunity perspective, the economics of biodiversity monitoring have shifted dramatically. The combination of eDNA, acoustic sensors, AI-powered camera traps and satellite imagery means that a comprehensive multi-taxa baseline for a 10,000-hectare concession can now be completed for US$50,000 to US$150,000, down from US$500,000 or more using traditional survey methods (NatureMetrics, 2025). This cost reduction opens the door to monitoring-as-a-service business models and integration of biodiversity metrics into supply chain due diligence.

The data also reveals that monitoring investment follows funding, not biodiversity. Countries with higher GDP per capita monitor a larger share of their species, creating a perverse situation where the most biodiverse and most threatened regions receive the least monitoring attention. Closing this gap will require blended finance mechanisms that pair public conservation funding with private sector demand for verified biodiversity data.

Key Players

Established Leaders

• Zoological Society of London (ZSL) — Produces the Living Planet Index; maintains the Living Planet Database with 34,836 population time series covering 5,495 species.
• IUCN — Operates the Red List of Threatened Species, the global standard for species conservation status assessment, with 163,000+ species assessed.
• GEO BON (Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network) — Coordinates the Essential Biodiversity Variables framework and links national monitoring programmes globally.
• World Resources Institute — Manages Global Forest Watch, providing near-real-time satellite monitoring of forest loss and habitat change.

Emerging Startups

• NatureMetrics — UK-based eDNA analytics company; processed 120,000+ samples in 2025 for 300+ corporate clients; raised US$50 million in Series B funding (2024).
• Rainforest Connection (Arbimon) — Acoustic biodiversity monitoring platform covering 1,400 sites in 52 countries using AI species identification from sound.
• Wildlife Insights — Google-backed AI camera trap image platform processing 200 million images annually across 98 countries.
• Pivotal (formerly Map of Biodiversity Importance) — Spatial analytics platform mapping species ranges and monitoring gaps to prioritise conservation investment.

Key Investors/Funders

• Bezos Earth Fund — Committed US$300 million to biodiversity monitoring and conservation data infrastructure through 2030.
• Moore Foundation — Major funder of GEO BON, eBird and global biodiversity informatics platforms.
• European Commission Horizon Europe — Allocated EUR 180 million to the EU Biodiversity Partnership, including standardised monitoring protocols and data infrastructure.
• Global Environment Facility (GEF) — The largest public funder of biodiversity projects in developing countries, disbursing US$1.4 billion for GBF implementation (2023 to 2026).

Action Checklist

• Conduct a biodiversity materiality assessment. Map your operations and supply chain against biodiversity-sensitive areas using IBAT (Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool) or similar spatial risk platforms.
• Commission technology-enabled baselines. Use eDNA, acoustic monitoring and camera traps to establish multi-taxa baselines for key operating sites and sourcing landscapes; costs have fallen to US$50,000 to US$150,000 per 10,000 hectares.
• Align with TNFD disclosure recommendations. Adopt the LEAP (Locate, Evaluate, Assess, Prepare) approach and begin publishing nature-related risk assessments alongside financial reporting.
• Invest in monitoring infrastructure in data-poor regions. Support or co-fund monitoring programmes in tropical sourcing regions through blended finance mechanisms or supply chain partnerships.
• Integrate biodiversity KPIs into procurement contracts. Require suppliers to report on species monitoring coverage, habitat condition and restoration progress using standardised EBV-compatible metrics.
• Contribute to open data platforms. Share monitoring data with GBIF, OBIS, eBird or other open-access databases to help close global coverage gaps and improve collective decision-making.

FAQ

Why does the Living Planet Index show a 69% decline when many common species seem abundant? The LPI measures average population change, not absolute abundance. A 69% decline means that, on average, monitored populations are 69% smaller than they were in 1970. This average is heavily influenced by severe declines in tropical and freshwater species. Many common species in temperate regions have remained stable or increased (e.g., white-tailed deer in North America), which can create a misleading perception of overall biodiversity health. The index also only covers vertebrates with sufficient monitoring data, leaving the vast majority of invertebrate and plant species unrepresented.

How can companies assess their biodiversity impact if monitoring data is so sparse? Companies can combine three approaches: (1) spatial risk screening using tools like IBAT or the ENCORE database to identify which operations overlap with Key Biodiversity Areas or areas of high species richness; (2) site-level monitoring using cost-effective technologies such as eDNA and acoustic sensors; and (3) proxy indicators such as land use change, water quality and pesticide application rates. The TNFD LEAP framework provides a structured process for moving from screening to quantified disclosure.

What is the cost of closing the global biodiversity monitoring gap? GEO BON (2025) estimates that establishing a functional global biodiversity observation system capable of tracking EBVs across all major taxonomic groups and ecosystems would cost US$3 to US$5 billion per year, roughly equivalent to 0.3% of annual global conservation spending. For comparison, global military spending exceeds US$2.4 trillion annually. The technology now exists to close the gap affordably; the constraint is institutional coordination and sustained funding.

How does eDNA compare with traditional biodiversity surveys? eDNA detects species from trace genetic material shed into the environment (water, soil, air). Studies consistently show that eDNA detects 20 to 50% more species per site than traditional methods such as electrofishing, pitfall traps or visual transects, at roughly one-third the cost and with minimal habitat disturbance (Bohmann et al., 2025). Limitations include inability to estimate population size (presence/absence only), potential for false positives from degraded DNA, and the need for comprehensive reference databases to match sequences to species.

Will the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework actually deliver results by 2030? Early signs are mixed. The 30x30 protected area target has spurred new commitments (marine protected areas expanded by 2.8 million km² between 2023 and 2025), but only 34 of 196 signatories have submitted NBSAPs with quantified targets and budgets (CBD Secretariat, 2025). Financing remains the critical bottleneck: the Biodiversity Finance Gap analysis estimates that US$700 billion per year is needed to halt biodiversity loss, against current flows of approximately US$150 billion (Paulson Institute, 2025). Without a dramatic increase in monitoring capacity, it will be impossible to verify whether countries and corporations are meeting their commitments.

Sources

• WWF. (2024). Living Planet Report 2024: Building a Nature-Positive Society. World Wide Fund for Nature, Gland.
• ZSL. (2024). Living Planet Database: Technical Update and Population Trend Methodology. Zoological Society of London.
• IUCN. (2025). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species: Summary Statistics. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland.
• GEO BON. (2025). Global Biodiversity Observation System: Monitoring Coverage Assessment and Investment Needs. Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation Network, Leipzig.
• CBD Secretariat. (2025). Progress Report on National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans Under the Kunming-Montreal Framework. Convention on Biological Diversity, Montreal.
• Bohmann, K., et al. (2025). Environmental DNA at Scale: Cost Reductions, Multi-Taxa Detection and Operational Deployment in National Monitoring Programmes. Molecular Ecology Resources, 25(2), 189–205.
• Wagner, D. L., et al. (2025). Global Insect Decline: Updated Estimates and Drivers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(8), e2418763122.
• Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. (2024). State of the World's Plants and Fungi 2024. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
• Jetz, W., et al. (2025). Global Biodiversity Monitoring Gaps: A Spatial Analysis of Taxonomic and Geographic Bias. Science, 383(6689), 1124–1130.
• World Resources Institute. (2025). Global Forest Watch Annual Update: 2024 Tree Cover Loss Data. WRI, Washington, DC.
• NatureMetrics. (2025). Annual Impact Report: eDNA Analytics for Corporate Biodiversity Disclosure. NatureMetrics, Guildford.
• Wildlife Insights. (2025). Platform Statistics and AI Species Identification Performance Report. Wildlife Insights / Google.
• European Bird Census Council. (2025). Pan-European Common Bird Monitoring Scheme: 2024 Update. EBCC, Nijmegen.
• Paulson Institute. (2025). Financing Nature: Closing the Global Biodiversity Financing Gap. Updated Assessment. Paulson Institute, Chicago.