Making Nature Count: Why Biodiversity Needs a Common Assessment Framework

A guide to quantifying the multi-faceted impact of biodiversity funding

The global threat to biodiversity

The diversity of plant and animal life is a foundational prerequisite for ecosystem stability, nutrient cycles and the provision of essentials. Yet, this foundation is rapidly eroding globally. Habitat destruction, overexploitation, pollution, invasive species, diseases and climate change are driving biodiversity loss at an alarming pace with a 73% decline in wildlife population since 1970¹ causing profound consequences for ecosystems and human livelihoods.

Realising this pivotal importance, funding agencies and private donors around the world are increasingly turning to provide financial means to counter biodiversity loss. But, assessing whether biodiversity projects genuinely work against these trends is inherently complex. Biodiversity spans species, functions, resilience and connectivity across landscapes and seascapes, with dynamics that are non-linear, context‑specific and often poorly documented. Data gaps, inconsistent metrics and fragmented methodologies further hinder robust comparison and aggregation of impacts. The causal chains between investment and ecological outcome are long, complex, and often not fully measurable on the timescales that funders can observe. The central challenge for funders is clear: how can biodiversity projects be assessed systematically and comparably in complex environments, such that financial resources are deployed where they generate the greatest possible and most lasting impact.

Our assessment framework

To navigate this challenging complexity, we introduce a deterministic framework for assessing biodiversity projects. Its structure is highly modular and adjustable to the specific needs of the grant maker, donor or institution by adding or removing criteria. It was developed and field-tested in collaboration with a German foundation looking to harmonise their grant making process.

By quantifying ecological outcomes and key contextual factors, our framework aims to ensure that funding is directed toward initiatives with the highest potential for meaningful conservation and restoration. In total, we propose 13 evaluation criteria. This allows for a multi-dimensional impact assessment while keeping it manageable for time-constrained decision-makers. To ensure an actual biodiversity focus of the projects, some criteria are designated as “must‑have” criteria, indicated by an asterisk. If less than 4 out of these 6 criteria are not applicable or cannot be meaningfully assessed for a given project, the project is immediately disqualified from further consideration. For non-must‑have criteria, if information is missing criteria can be excluded from the score calculation. To avoid high but meaningless scores based on very limited information, we recommend a minimum data threshold of 50%, i.e., at least 7 out of 13 criteria should be assessable.

Criterion	Definition
Evolutionary Distinct Species and Endangerment*	Prioritizes species that are both highly endangered and evolutionarily distinct, where extinction would cause disproportionate loss of evolutionary history and ecological function.
Number of species affected*	Estimates how many species benefit from the intervention. Both direct and indirect effects may be considered provided that they are supported by evidence.
Involvement of Priority Species at Risk*	Determines if a species involved is classified as a keystone species, umbrella species, or ecosystem engineer without taxonomic restrictions.
Evidence*	Captures the confidence that the intervention works in theory based on academic data and scientific validity.
Neglectedness*	Captures how much attention and funding a species or ecosystem already receives in total, reflecting asymmetries in conservation funding and public interest.
Longterm Effect*	Assesses the degree to which the positive biodiversity outcomes will persist after the project’s initial phase ends.
Tipping Points	Considers if local or regional ecological tipping points are influenced.
Mitigation Hierarchy	Ranks approaches to dealing with biodiversity impacts from most to least desirable, typically from Avoid to Minimize to Restore to Offset.
Impact on Climate Change	Assesses the intervention’s potential to influence greenhouse gas (GHG) storage and emissions.
Counterfactual	Assesses the risk that the project’s positive effects would occur anyway or elsewhere due to displacement, leakage, or easy replicability, thereby reducing the additional impact attributable to the project.
Negative Side Effects	Evaluates negative side effects of the intervention on other species, ecosystem functions, the climate, or people.
Stakeholder Involvement	Evaluates if all stakeholders including land owners, local authorities etc. have been consulted sufficiently.
Independent Cost Parameters	Are assessed across five dimensions: Location-dependence, Share of overhead costs, Duration, Volume and Scalability/Room for Funding.

Funders wishing to apply our framework will likely need to collect more data from biodiversity projects than current grant-making processes typically require, since meaningful evaluation against each criterion depends on having quantitative evidence. In practice, this means adapting application and reporting templates to request specific measurable indicators from applicants and then consolidating that data into a structured format that allows consistent scoring against our 13 criteria or an adjusted subset of criteria according to the funders priorities. In addition, organisations might want an internal check for funding eligibility to precede the in-depth scoring process.

We are happy to provide further guidance

The recommendations herein reflect the best current thinking of well-informed practitioners, but some uncertainty remains due to the dynamic and complex nature of biodiversity. With this evidence-based framework, funders can nevertheless systematically increase the effectiveness, transparency and impact of biodiversity-related funding decisions. For more information on the application of the framework to your organisation, please do not hesitate to contact us!