Indicators selected for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) should be regularly reviewed to ensure that contradictions are identified, and progress toward global conservation goals is not misrepresented, a study has recommended.

A suite of indicators is usually needed to capture biodiversity, six Australian researchers led by a Deakin University academic said in the paper. 

“For the suite to be effective, it needs to capture the important aspects of the system without overrepresenting some at the expense of others,” they said. 

The researchers analysed the relationships between eight terrestrial biodiversity indicators proposed for use in the GBF monitoring framework, covering 846 terrestrial ecoregions globally, including the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List Index, the Living Planet Index, and the Biodiversity Habitat and Biodiversity Intactness indices.

The paper then identified four main categories of biodiversity indicators:

• Shared source indicators, building on some shared input data, though aiming to measure different variables of biodiversity, such as species abundance and ecosystem area
• Independent source indicators, informed by different datasets but seeking to represent highly related biodiversity components, such as species abundance and distribution
• Unrelated indicators, using different data sources to measure different aspects of biodiversity
• Related indicators, sharing both input data and measuring target

The researchers emphasised the importance of taking into account relevant environmental variables when integrating independent indicators.

“It is important to consider location-specific contexts and compare the indicators in locations where correlations should be expected to occur,” such as areas where land use change is the main driver of biodiversity impacts, the paper said.

The study also warned against the risks of relying on the same datasets for multiple indicators, such as the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, which informs a number of metrics worldwide.

“The Red List Index, the proportion of threatened species and the proportion of extinct species all share some input data from the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, but may be sufficiently different to produce uncorrelated outputs,” the researchers said.

According to the paper, using related indicators may result in overrepresenting specific trends, misleading decision making, and perpetuating mistakes.

“Alternately, one indicator may serve as a proxy for the other, which can be valuable if one indicator is more accessible, data rich or economical to produce.” 

In November, a study carried out by 25 scientists warned against an overreliance on the IUCN Red List for quantifying extinction risk in conservation policies.

By Sergio Colombo – sergio@carbon-pulse.com

** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter **