From Mission Impossible to Measurable Progress: The Next Evolution in Nature Measurement

Over the past fifteen years, I’ve worked across multiple initiatives trying to answer a deceptively simple question: how do we measure the state of nature in a way that supports real decisions in boardrooms and financial institutions? When I started, consensus was limited and the technical foundations were shaky. We understood the urgency but not the mechanics.

That picture is now changing - and in a meaningful way.

We’re seeing a shift from fragmented thinking to a much clearer architecture for nature measurement. Initiatives such as the ALIGN project, the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD), the Science Based Targets Network (SBTN), the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Partnership for Biodiversity Accounting Financials (PBAF) have each contributed to a shared understanding of what needs to be measured and why. TNFD provides a structure for identifying and disclosing impacts, dependencies and risks; SBTN anchors organisational ambition in ecological thresholds; GRI 101 brings biodiversity firmly into mainstream sustainability reporting; and PBAF offers practical guidance for the financial sector. At the same time, technical methods such as biodiversity footprinting, remote sensing, eDNA and improved site-level monitoring have moved from emerging to credible.

Against this backdrop, the proposed Nature Measurement Protocol (NMP) feels like a natural next step. Its purpose is straightforward: to provide practical guidance on how measurement should be done consistently across organisations. This comes at a pivotal moment, as the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) considers how nature could be integrated into global sustainability reporting standards. If nature becomes part of mandatory disclosure, the need for a common and robust measurement approach becomes unavoidable.

Thinking back to an early meeting at UNEP-WCMC, I once played the Mission Impossible theme tune after lunch to coax everyone back into the room to talk about indicators. At the time, it didn’t feel far off the mark. Today, it does. The field is converging, and we finally have the foundations and momentum to move beyond discussion and into delivery.

But measurement on its own won’t safeguard nature. The real shift lies in how organisations choose to act on the information. Much of what needs to change sits in our priorities and habits. We already know we depend on nature for everything - the question is whether we’re prepared to make decisions that reflect that reality. Robust measurement can drive accountability and comparability, but only if we use it well.

The alignment across TNFD, SBTN, GRI, PBAF, ISSB and the proposed NMP is encouraging. We’re no longer in “Mission Impossible” territory. The path is visible. Now we need the collective resolve to follow it.