Explainer: Biodiversity measurement & monitoring

Why It Matters

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework commits 196 nations to halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030, yet only 15 percent of companies reporting under the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework can quantify their biodiversity impacts with confidence (TNFD, 2025). This measurement gap is not merely a reporting inconvenience. An estimated $44 trillion of global economic value generation, more than half of world GDP, depends moderately or highly on nature and its services (World Economic Forum, 2024). Financial regulators in the EU, UK and Australia are integrating nature-related risk into supervisory expectations, and the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS E4) require companies to disclose biodiversity metrics starting in fiscal year 2025. Without credible measurement and monitoring systems, organisations cannot set meaningful targets, track progress, allocate capital efficiently or satisfy disclosure obligations. The ability to quantify biodiversity outcomes is rapidly shifting from a scientific niche to a core competency for sustainability teams, investors and supply chain managers.

Key Concepts

Species richness. The simplest measure of biodiversity: the total number of distinct species present in a defined area. Species richness is intuitive and widely used but does not capture relative abundance or functional roles. A site with 100 equally abundant species is functionally different from one with 100 species where a single dominant organism accounts for 95 percent of individuals. Despite its limitations, species richness remains the most commonly reported metric in corporate biodiversity assessments.

Species abundance. Measures the number of individuals of each species within a community. Abundance data reveal population trends over time and are essential for detecting declines before species disappear entirely. The Living Planet Index, compiled by WWF and the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), tracks abundance trends across 5,495 vertebrate species and reported an average 73 percent decline in monitored wildlife populations between 1970 and 2024 (WWF, 2024).

Biodiversity Intactness Index (BII). Developed by the Natural History Museum in London, the BII estimates how much of a site's original biodiversity remains compared to an undisturbed baseline. A BII score of 90 percent means the area retains 90 percent of the species abundance expected under natural conditions. The global average BII stands at approximately 75 percent, below the proposed safe planetary boundary of 90 percent (Newbold et al., 2025). BII is increasingly used by investors and lenders to screen portfolios for nature-related risk.

Mean Species Abundance (MSA). Developed by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, MSA measures the average remaining abundance of native species relative to their abundance in undisturbed ecosystems. An MSA of 1.0 represents pristine conditions; 0 means total loss. MSA integrates impacts from land use change, climate change, nitrogen deposition, infrastructure and other pressures, making it useful for scenario modelling and footprint assessments.

Ecosystem services valuation. Monetising biodiversity outcomes through ecosystem services, such as pollination, water filtration, carbon sequestration and flood regulation, helps translate ecological metrics into financial language. The Capitals Coalition's Natural Capital Protocol and the Align project provide standardised approaches for corporate valuation. However, monetisation is controversial: critics argue it risks reducing complex ecosystems to narrow economic calculations and can undervalue culturally or spiritually significant species and habitats.

Alpha, beta and gamma diversity. Ecologists distinguish three scales of diversity. Alpha diversity is the species diversity within a single site. Beta diversity measures how species composition changes between sites. Gamma diversity is the total diversity across all sites in a landscape. For corporate reporting, alpha diversity at individual facilities or sourcing regions is most practical, but landscape-level gamma diversity assessments are needed to understand cumulative supply chain impacts.

How It Works

Biodiversity monitoring combines field-based and technology-enabled methods. The choice of approach depends on the ecosystem type, target taxa, spatial scale, budget and reporting requirements.

Environmental DNA (eDNA). Organisms shed DNA into their environment through skin cells, mucus, faeces and decomposition. Water or soil samples can be analysed to detect species presence without direct observation. NatureMetrics, a UK-based company, has processed more than 100,000 eDNA samples across 90 countries as of 2025 and can identify hundreds of species from a single litre of water (NatureMetrics, 2025). eDNA is particularly effective for aquatic ecosystems, where traditional surveys are labour-intensive and invasive. A 2024 study in Molecular Ecology demonstrated that eDNA metabarcoding detected 40 percent more fish species than conventional electrofishing surveys in European rivers. Limitations include the inability to determine abundance from eDNA concentrations with precision and the degradation of DNA in warm, acidic or UV-exposed environments.

Acoustic monitoring. Bioacoustic sensors deployed in forests, wetlands and marine environments record soundscapes that algorithms classify by species. Rainforest Connection, a non-profit, operates a network of over 15,000 acoustic monitoring devices across 35 countries, using machine learning to identify species calls, detect illegal logging and track ecosystem health in real time (Rainforest Connection, 2025). The Arbimon platform, developed by Rainforest Connection and now supported by Google, can process 100,000 hours of audio per day. Acoustic indices such as the Acoustic Complexity Index (ACI) and the Biodiversity Index provide proxy measures of species richness and habitat quality without requiring expert taxonomists.

Remote sensing and satellite imagery. Earth observation satellites, drones and LiDAR map habitat extent, fragmentation, vegetation structure and land-use change at scales from individual sites to entire continents. The European Space Agency's Copernicus programme provides free, high-resolution imagery updated every five days. Planet Labs operates a constellation of over 200 satellites delivering daily 3-metre resolution imagery that conservation organisations use to track deforestation, coral bleaching and wetland degradation. Remote sensing excels at habitat-level monitoring but cannot directly measure species-level biodiversity without ground-truthing.

Camera traps and image recognition. Automated cameras triggered by motion or heat detect terrestrial mammals, birds and reptiles. The Wildlife Insights platform, a partnership between Google, Conservation International and seven other organisations, hosts more than 200 million camera-trap images and uses AI to classify species with 95 percent accuracy for common mammals (Wildlife Insights, 2025). Camera traps are cost-effective for long-term monitoring of elusive or nocturnal species but are limited to medium and large-bodied animals.

Citizen science. Platforms like iNaturalist, eBird and the UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme engage millions of volunteers in biodiversity observation. iNaturalist surpassed 200 million observations in 2025, contributed by 3.5 million users worldwide. While data quality varies, structured citizen science programmes with validated protocols produce research-grade data that supplements professional surveys and fills geographic gaps.

Integrated monitoring frameworks. Leading practice combines multiple methods into a tiered monitoring system. Tier 1 uses satellite and remote sensing for landscape-level habitat assessment. Tier 2 deploys eDNA, acoustics and camera traps for site-level species detection. Tier 3 involves targeted field surveys by ecologists for high-priority or data-deficient taxa. The Science Based Targets Network (SBTN) recommends this tiered approach for companies setting science-based targets for nature.

What's Working

Regulatory momentum. The TNFD published its final recommendations in September 2023, and by mid-2025 over 1,200 organisations across 65 countries had begun TNFD-aligned disclosures (TNFD, 2025). The EU's Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) mandates biodiversity impact disclosure under ESRS E4 starting 2025, creating legal compliance pressure that drives investment in monitoring capability. The UK's Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) policy, effective since February 2024, requires all major developments in England to deliver at least 10 percent net gain in biodiversity, measured using the statutory biodiversity metric.

Technology cost reduction. The cost of eDNA analysis has fallen by approximately 60 percent since 2020, from $500 to $600 per sample to $180 to $220 per sample for standard metabarcoding panels (NatureMetrics, 2025). Acoustic sensor units now cost $100 to $300 each, down from $1,000 or more five years ago. These cost reductions make comprehensive monitoring accessible to mid-market companies and smaller conservation organisations, not just large multinationals and research institutions.

Corporate adoption. Kering, the luxury group, has used the Environmental Profit and Loss (EP&L) methodology to quantify biodiversity impacts across its supply chain since 2015 and published detailed results covering land use, water and pollution pressures for each brand. Holcim, the cement manufacturer, partnered with the Natural History Museum to assess BII across 800 quarry and production sites globally, establishing baseline scores and site-level restoration targets (Holcim, 2025). Olam Food Ingredients deployed eDNA monitoring across cocoa-sourcing landscapes in Ghana, detecting 30 percent more species than conventional surveys and identifying priority corridors for conservation investment.

Standardisation progress. The SBTN published its first corporate biodiversity targets methodology in 2024, covering freshwater and land use. The Align project, funded by the EU, delivered harmonised biodiversity measurement indicators for financial institutions. The Partnership for Biodiversity Accounting Financials (PBAF) released its updated standard in 2025, providing banks and asset managers with a consistent methodology to assess portfolio-level biodiversity footprints using MSA metrics.

What Isn't Working

Data fragmentation. Biodiversity data are scattered across thousands of databases, taxonomies and formats. The Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) hosts over 2.7 billion occurrence records, but geographic coverage is heavily biased toward Europe, North America and Australia. Tropical regions, which contain the majority of global biodiversity, remain severely under-sampled. Only 20 percent of described insect species have sufficient distribution data for trend analysis (GBIF, 2025).

Metric proliferation. The absence of a single agreed biodiversity metric analogous to tonnes of CO2 equivalent for climate creates confusion. Companies must navigate species richness, abundance, BII, MSA, ecosystem condition indices and multiple sector-specific indicators. A 2025 survey by the Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership found that 68 percent of corporate sustainability directors consider metric selection the primary barrier to biodiversity target-setting (CISL, 2025).

Baseline uncertainty. Many organisations lack historical biodiversity data for their sites and supply chains, making it difficult to establish baselines against which to measure progress. Without baselines, targets are arbitrary and progress claims are unverifiable. Establishing robust baselines typically requires 2 to 3 years of monitoring data, delaying target-setting and action.

Taxonomic expertise shortage. Despite advances in AI-assisted identification, trained taxonomists remain essential for validating species records, especially for invertebrates, fungi and microorganisms. A 2024 study in BioScience estimated that fewer than 50,000 professional taxonomists are active globally, a number insufficient to describe the estimated 8.7 million species on Earth, of which only 1.5 million have been formally described (Mora et al., 2024).

Greenwashing through selective metrics. Companies can present favourable biodiversity narratives by reporting only on charismatic species or high-performing sites while ignoring supply chain hotspots. Without mandatory, comprehensive and audited disclosure, cherry-picking metrics undermines credibility and delays corrective action.

Key Players

Established Leaders

• Natural History Museum, London — Developed the Biodiversity Intactness Index. Provides BII assessments for corporate and financial clients covering global land areas.
• WWF and Zoological Society of London (ZSL) — Publish the biennial Living Planet Report tracking global wildlife populations. ZSL's SPOTT platform assesses transparency of commodity companies.
• GBIF — Global Biodiversity Information Facility hosting 2.7 billion species occurrence records. Free and open-access data infrastructure.
• Conservation International — Co-leads Wildlife Insights. Operates in 30+ countries with integrated biodiversity monitoring programmes.

Emerging Startups

• NatureMetrics — UK-based eDNA company. Processed 100,000+ samples across 90 countries. Offers subscription-based monitoring for corporate biodiversity commitments.
• Rainforest Connection — Deploys acoustic sensors across 35 countries. Arbimon platform processes 100,000 hours of audio per day with AI species identification.
• Pivotal (formerly Xylo Systems) — AI-driven biodiversity data analytics platform integrating satellite, acoustic and eDNA data streams for real-time dashboards.
• Spatial Finance Initiative — GeoAsset project mapping physical assets to biodiversity risk using satellite data and AI for financial sector screening.

Key Investors and Funders

• Bezos Earth Fund — Committed $10 billion to climate and nature, including major biodiversity monitoring grants.
• Moore Foundation — Funds marine biodiversity monitoring and eDNA research globally.
• European Commission Horizon Europe — Funds the Biodiversa+ partnership with $800 million for biodiversity research and monitoring 2021 to 2027.
• Norges Bank Investment Management — World's largest sovereign wealth fund. Integrating biodiversity risk screening across $1.7 trillion portfolio.

Sector-Specific KPI Benchmarks

Action Checklist

• Map nature dependencies and impacts. Use the TNFD LEAP framework to identify priority locations and sectors where your organisation interacts most intensively with biodiversity.
• Select appropriate metrics. Choose a core set of metrics aligned with ESRS E4, SBTN and your sector context. At minimum, track species richness, habitat extent and ecosystem condition for priority sites.
• Deploy a tiered monitoring system. Combine remote sensing for landscape-level assessment, eDNA and acoustics for site-level species detection, and targeted field surveys for data-deficient taxa.
• Establish baselines. Commit to 2 to 3 years of baseline data collection before setting quantitative targets. Use BII or MSA as headline indicators for portfolio-level reporting.
• Invest in data infrastructure. Centralise biodiversity data in interoperable platforms that integrate with existing ESG reporting systems. Ensure data quality through taxonomic validation and spatial accuracy checks.
• Build internal expertise. Train sustainability teams on biodiversity metrics, monitoring technologies and disclosure frameworks. Partner with academic institutions and specialist consultancies to fill knowledge gaps.
• Set science-based targets. Use the SBTN methodology to set measurable, time-bound biodiversity targets for land, freshwater and marine ecosystems across your value chain.

FAQ

What is eDNA and how reliable is it for corporate biodiversity monitoring? Environmental DNA is genetic material shed by organisms into water, soil or air. By collecting and sequencing samples, analysts can identify which species are present without seeing or capturing them. Reliability has improved substantially: peer-reviewed studies consistently show eDNA detects equal or greater species diversity than traditional survey methods for aquatic taxa. For terrestrial ecosystems, reliability varies by habitat type and sampling conditions. NatureMetrics reports detection rates exceeding 90 percent for target fish and amphibian species. However, eDNA cannot yet provide precise abundance estimates, and results require careful interpretation by trained ecologists.

How much does a comprehensive biodiversity monitoring programme cost? Costs vary widely by ecosystem complexity, geographic scale and monitoring intensity. For a single site of 100 to 500 hectares, a tiered programme combining satellite analysis, quarterly eDNA sampling and annual acoustic monitoring typically costs $15,000 to $40,000 per year. Large-scale programmes covering supply chain landscapes run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Technology cost reductions, particularly for eDNA analysis, which has fallen 60 percent since 2020, are making monitoring increasingly accessible. The key cost driver is the frequency and comprehensiveness of sampling, not the technology itself.

Which metric should my organisation prioritise for TNFD reporting? The TNFD recommends disclosing a combination of metrics covering species, ecosystems and ecosystem services. For most organisations, the Biodiversity Intactness Index or Mean Species Abundance provides the most robust headline indicator because they capture community-level change rather than individual species trends. However, sector-specific metrics matter: extractive industries should track habitat restoration area and species recovery rates at operational sites, while agricultural companies should focus on pollinator diversity, soil biodiversity and landscape connectivity metrics. Aligning with ESRS E4 requirements ensures regulatory compliance while providing investors with comparable data.

Can AI replace traditional ecological surveys? AI significantly enhances monitoring efficiency but does not eliminate the need for ecological expertise. Machine learning models can process millions of camera-trap images, acoustic recordings and satellite scenes at speeds no human team could match, and they achieve high accuracy for well-represented species. However, AI models require large, well-labelled training datasets that often do not exist for rare or understudied taxa. Taxonomic validation by qualified ecologists remains essential, particularly for invertebrates, plants and microorganisms. The most effective monitoring programmes use AI as an accelerator, not a replacement, for human expertise.

Sources

• TNFD. (2025). Status Report: Global Adoption of TNFD Recommendations. Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures.
• World Economic Forum. (2024). Nature Risk Rising: Why the Crisis Engulfing Nature Matters for Business and the Economy. WEF.
• WWF. (2024). Living Planet Report 2024: A System in Peril. World Wildlife Fund and Zoological Society of London.
• Newbold, T. et al. (2025). Global Biodiversity Intactness Index: Updated Estimates and Planetary Boundary Assessment. Nature Ecology and Evolution.
• NatureMetrics. (2025). State of eDNA: Annual Report on Environmental DNA Monitoring at Scale. NatureMetrics Ltd.
• Rainforest Connection. (2025). Global Acoustic Monitoring Network: 2025 Impact Report. Rainforest Connection.
• Wildlife Insights. (2025). Camera Trap Data at Scale: 200 Million Images and AI Classification. Wildlife Insights Partnership.
• GBIF. (2025). Global Biodiversity Data Report: Coverage, Gaps and Trends. Global Biodiversity Information Facility.
• CISL. (2025). Corporate Biodiversity Target-Setting: Barriers and Enablers. Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership.
• Holcim. (2025). Biodiversity Strategy: Intactness Assessment Across 800 Sites. Holcim Group.
• Mora, C. et al. (2024). The Global Taxonomy Workforce: Scale, Distribution and Capacity Gaps. BioScience.