The study, “Towards positive net outcomes for biodiversity, and developing safeguards to accompany headline biodiversity indicators,” used data from the Dutch dairy industry—including close to 8,950 farms and approximately 1.6 million cows—to design a scoring system that measures biodiversity impacts against possible sector-wide targets.
A new study says agriculture can better contribute to global biodiversity targets without causing unintended harms—but only if headline indicators are paired with firm guardrails. The research, published in npj Biodiversity by University of Oxford scientists working with Duurzame Zuivelketen (DZK), proposes safeguards so that gains in one area are not offset by losses in another.
RELEVANT SUSTAINABLE GOALS
Progress Only Counts If It Doesn’t Break Something Else
The study, “Towards positive net outcomes for biodiversity, and developing safeguards to accompany headline biodiversity indicators,” used data from the Dutch dairy industry—including close to 8,950 farms and approximately 1.6 million cows—to design a scoring system that measures biodiversity impacts against possible sector-wide targets. The authors found that while a single score can help track overall progress, it can also mask environmental impacts such as nutrient pollution and habitat loss.
The team proposes safeguards—clear, quantitative thresholds for major environmental pressures—to ensure progress in one metric does not come at the expense of another.
“Our study shows that – though they are extremely useful – relying on simplified, combined indicators to track agricultural impacts on biodiversity can mislead if used alone,” said Joseph Bull, associate professor at Oxford’s Department of Biology. “By introducing scientifically grounded safeguards, we can ensure that improvements in one area don’t cause damage somewhere else.”
How the Index Works: Pressures Rolled Into One View
To assess biodiversity losses, the researchers combined data on greenhouse gas emissions, land use change, and ammonia emissions into a composite index. The analysis found that much of the biodiversity impact occurs outside the Netherlands, particularly where land is cleared to produce livestock feed. According to the study, imported feeds were responsible for the largest share of land transformation impacts—and consequently biodiversity loss.
“This study was an interesting test of whether single biodiversity impact scores, that capture many pathways causing biodiversity loss, are practical to implement and reliable,” said co-author Dr Joseph Poore, Department of Biology, University of Oxford. “Our results generally found that these indicators serve a very useful role and the science is advancing fast. Soon we will probably know the biodiversity impacts of every product we buy in the shops and the biodiversity impacts of businesses and their choices. While not the solution to these problems in itself, this is certainly a step towards solving them.”
A single, sector-wide score can guide action, the study concludes, but safeguards are essential to avoid trading one environmental pressure for another. With quantitative thresholds alongside a composite index, agriculture can move toward positive net outcomes for biodiversity—and do so without unintended harms. Read more here.
You may also be interested in :
The Race To Protect Earth’s Biodiversity by 2030: The Protected Planet Report Urges
