The proliferation of indicators: progress… but also confusion

Biodiversity assessment in real estate and development projects now relies on a multitude of ecological indicators. These tools aim to qualify the quality of habitats, the functionality of environments, ecological continuities, living soils, and the capacity to support living organisms.

This dynamic reflects a real awareness: biodiversity can no longer be treated as a secondary issue. However, it has also generated increasing confusion between indicator, decision and certification, confusion now explicitly framed by Directive (EU) 2024/825.

What a biodiversity indicator is (and what it is not)

A biodiversity indicator is, by nature, a qualification tool.

It allows:

• to describe an ecological state,
• to objectify certain issues,
• to compare design variations,
• to inform upstream technical choices.

It does not allow:

• to produce a consolidated assessment of biodiversity performance,
• to decide between projects for strategic arbitration purposes,
• to make a legally enforceable environmental claim,
• to constitute, on its own, independent and verifiable proof.

An indicator is therefore an input building block. It is neither a decision nor a certification.

Why a single indicator cannot form the basis of a decision

Three structural limitations make any indicator, taken in isolation, insufficient to form the basis of a robust biodiversity decision.

1. Lack of aggregation and hierarchy

A real estate project requires simultaneous involvement of:

• habitats of different types,
• heterogeneous levels of functionality,
• multiple pressures,
• trade-offs between uses, constraints and costs.

An indicator describes a dimension. A decision requires a global, weighted and prioritized reading.

2. Lack of a legally binding methodological framework

An indicator does not define:

• the rules of aggregation,
• the interpretation thresholds,
• the conditions for comparability between projects,
• the traceability requirements for evidence.

Without an explicit, reproducible and independent methodological framework, there can be neither a defensible decision nor an enforceable one.

3. Lack of independent decision-making responsibility

Producing an indicator does not mean making a decision. However, Directive (EU) 2024/825 is explicit: a credible environmental claim requires a clear separation between data production, evaluation and decision.

An indicator, even one developed by a third party, does not carry this responsibility.

From ecological qualification to decision-making: the key role of performance evaluation

To transform indicators into a truly useful decision-making tool, an essential intermediate step must be taken: the independent assessment of biodiversity performance.

This assessment assumes:

• the integration of several indicators,
• an explicit and documented methodology,
• weighted and ranked criteria,
• an independent analysis based on verifiable evidence.

This is precisely the function of a decision support tool, distinct from both upstream indicators and final certification.

The BPS: Transforming indicators into structured decision-making

The Biodiversity Performance Score (BPS) is part of this logic.

It does not replace the indicators. It integrates them.

The BPS:

• aggregates the relevant ecological dimensions,
• structure a comprehensive and coherent reading,
• allows for comparison between projects
• produces a result that can be used for strategic arbitration.

The BPS is not a certification. It constitutes a structured, evidence-based decision, but is not intended to make an assertion that can be used against it on its own.

From decision to legally binding evidence: biodiversity certification

When a project aims for a verifiable and enforceable biodiversity claim, an additional step is required: certification.

Biodiversity certification requires:

• a formalized decision
• supported by an independent certification body
• within a clearly defined perimeter,
• with rules of impartiality, traceability and control.

It is only at this level that we move on:

• decision support,
• to the admissible evidence, in the legal and regulatory sense.

A clear value chain, in accordance with Directive (EU) 2024/825

A rigorous reading of biodiversity provisions in real estate therefore requires an explicit chain of events:

1. Inputs: Indicators, indices, diagnoses, inventories: ecological qualification.
2. Decision Independent assessment of biodiversity performance: structured arbitration.
3. Certification: Formalized, independent and legally binding proof.

This distinction is not theoretical. It is now a requirement for clarity, at the heart of the European framework for combating greenwashing.

Conclusion: the indicator is a building block, not an end in itself

Biodiversity indicators are essential. But their role must be clearly understood.

Taken individually, they:

• illuminate,
• inform,
• orient.

They do not decide. They do not certify.

It is by integrating them into an independent performance assessment, and then, where appropriate, into a dedicated certification, that biodiversity becomes a structuring, credible and enforceable criterion for real estate decision-making.

It is this chain, and this chain alone, that allows us to move from intention to proof.

More information: Environmental quality and functionality indicators: understanding, structuring, deciding