The most commonly used tools to measure corporate impacts on biodiversity require urgent updates as they do not align well with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), according to a study released this week.
While many tools to measure corporate biodiversity footprints have recently emerged, they cannot effectively support businesses in aligning with the GBF, a study led by Yingtong Zhu of the National University of Singapore said.
“The glaring gaps were found in existing biodiversity [impact tools] in the coverage of the metrics needed to support the implementation of the GBF by businesses,” said the study, published in the Journal of Cleaner Production.
Tools examined include the Global Biodiversity Score (GBS), Corporate Biodiversity Footprint (CBF), Species Threat Abatement and Restoration (STAR), and Potential Disappeared Fraction of species.
According to the study, most of the available biodiversity tools “insufficiently addressed” GBF targets on metrics related to:
- Ecosystem integrity
- Nature-based solutions
- Sea use change
- Aquatic biodiversity
- Genetic diversity and resources
- Territory and knowledge of Indigenous Peoples
- Urban green and blue spaces
Biodiversity impact tools must be urgently developed to enable businesses to more effectively disclose their impacts more consistently with the GBF, the study said.
Businesses around the world are beginning to engage more with nature by disclosing their impacts, following the publication of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD) framework earlier this year.
Countries around the world agreed during the GBF at COP15 in 2022 on four long-term goals and 23 targets to achieve its 2050 vision.
Examining how biodiversity measuring tools can assess impacts of businesses on the different aspects of the GBF is essential, the study found. However, the initiative’s gaps in coverage are “likely to impair companies’ progress towards the GBF”.
WATER OVERLOOKED
The study examined 17 tools recommended by either the TNFD or the EU Business & Biodiversity Platform, as the most influential sources.
Source: Journal of Cleaner Production
Most of the tools focused on terrestrial biodiversity, overlooking freshwater, coastal, and marine biodiversity. Biodiversity is notoriously harder to measure in water than on land, although more initiatives have sought to solve this issue in recent years.
Only six tools considered aquatic realms – GBS, PBF, STAR, Biodiversity Footprint Methodology, Bioscope, and Biodiversity Footprint for Financial Institutions, the study said.
However, all of them omitted sea use change, despite it having the same importance as land use change in the GBF, it said.
All the tools failed to recognise the traditional territories of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, while traditional knowledge was only mentioned by the Agrobiodiversity Index.
Some of the gaps may be the result of the GBF emerging in 2022, after many of the biodiversity tools launched, the study said.
Carbon Pulse has requested responses from some of the biodiversity tool operators.
By Thomas Cox – t.cox@carbon-pulse.com
*** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter ***
