Jana Busch

Chris West

Jonathan Green

At the latest meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), held in Rome, Italy, in February, governments made important progress on financing mechanisms and finalising elements of the monitoring framework for the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). But significant challenges remain in turning these mechanisms into action – particularly on how to effectively monitor and respond to the biodiversity impacts of global consumption and trade.

The Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI), one of Trase’s founding partners, developed the Global Environmental Impacts of Consumption (GEIC) indicator to help answer this question in collaboration with the UK’s environment department (Defra) and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC). Between 2022 and 2025, GEIC was included as a component indicator under 

target 16 of the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)

. In Rome, GEIC was a casualty of the negotiation process due to concerns about its use of modelled data and dependence on globally compiled, rather than nationally validated, statistics. While other indicators that link human consumption to pressures placed on the global environment remain under target 16, the removal of the GEIC indicator leaves the CBD without a specific mechanism to quantify and track biodiversity-specific impacts driven by consumption and trade.

This gap matters because developing consensus around shared accountability for global biodiversity loss depends on the visibility of, and prioritisation of responses to, the pressures that connect global markets to local ecosystems. At a time when the world should be coming together to take action to reverse the drivers of international biodiversity loss, the absence of tools like GEIC risks weakening the very frameworks designed to guide international progress.

Informing government strategy with biodiversity footprint data

Many countries lack harmonised national datasets for monitoring biodiversity impacts and have limited supply chain transparency, making it difficult to map the global trade in agricultural commodities. This prevents policymakers from making concrete connections between production in one part of the world and consumption in another – connections that are essential for understanding and addressing global biodiversity loss.

GEIC helps close this gap. By linking national consumption patterns to land-use change and resource extraction via international trade statistics, and then to key environmental impacts such as biodiversity loss, 

 and water stress, it enables governments to identify where impacts are occurring and how they relate to commodity trade and consumption within their economies. Its approach is grounded in internationally recognised impact assessment methods and combines peer-reviewed modelling with global production and trade statistics through 

SEI’s Input-Output Trade Analysis (IOTA) mode

l. GEIC and the IOTA framework are also flexible enough to allow for the integration of national or 

, making it adaptable to different policy contexts and data environments. The IOTA framework has also been successfully applied to assess supply chain impacts for governments such as 

, further demonstrating its adaptability to diverse data environments.

GEIC contributes to a growing toolbox designed to improve transparency in global commodity supply chains. The indicator is methodologically transparent, openly documented and publicly accessible. It captures the full footprint of consumption, including domestic and international sourcing, and complements national statistics to support evidence-based action on biodiversity, deforestation and resource stress.

Unlike the material and ecological footprint indicators still included under target 16, GEIC provides direct estimates of biodiversity-relevant impacts. It includes a suite of metrics – such as deforestation footprint, extinction risk linked to habitat conversion, and water scarcity footprints – that offer a more focused lens for biodiversity monitoring. These insights are important for shaping more effective, equitable and transparent policy. Without such tools, we risk missing key trends, undermining efforts to monitor global biodiversity loss, and potentially stalling collaboration between the countries driving and experiencing its effects.

Consumption impacts are not evenly distributed. Countries often drive environmental change far beyond their borders, placing pressure on ecosystems in producer countries. Understanding these connections, and the degree to which countries are responsible in absolute or relative terms, is essential for fair and effective biodiversity policy.

Indonesia, for instance, has shown a decline in its deforestation footprint

 in managing production-linked impacts – though more recent data suggests a potential upturn, which should be captured in future GEIC releases as consumption and production patterns shift. India also has consistently maintained a low per-capita deforestation footprint, less than half that of several other major economies.

In contrast, Mexico has seen a steady increase, while the UK has reduced its overall footprint and yet still ranks relatively high on a per-capita basis. These trends reveal a complex and evolving picture of global responsibility – highlighting not only traditional north-south consumption dynamics and a need for developed countries to further reduce the burden that their relative affluence places on the global environment, but also the increasing relevance of south-south trade. Overall, this provides insight on the specifics of what is, ultimately, shared accountability for biodiversity impacts.

Building such a picture has benefits for both consuming and producing countries. Consumers can understand the degree to which the commodities on which they rely are having impacts domestically or overseas, helping to avoid ‘offshoring’ of impacts that would potentially offset domestic biodiversity gains. Producing countries can highlight where international markets are impacting local ecosystems and can work with supply chain actors and downstream governments alike to progress discussions on investment to protect and restore essential habitats.

GEIC shows differences in the footprints of countries...

...and how they change over time

A bridge between global goals and national action

GEIC’s national-level data allows countries to move beyond general awareness and into targeted action. Governments can use it to identify high-impact commodity flows, monitor trends over time, and inform national strategies or reporting processes under the GBF. It can also serve as a conversation starter between trading partners, helping consumer and producer countries align around shared goals. For countries already developing biodiversity action plans, GEIC can highlight priority sectors or geographies where policy interventions or investments are most urgently needed.

GEIC provides national-level data for over 180 countries. This global coverage enables governments to analyse their consumption-linked environmental impacts – even in countries where national statistical data is limited or unavailable. While no model is without limitations, relying on the best available data is essential. Without tools like GEIC, we risk leaving major drivers of biodiversity loss unmonitored and unaddressed. By using globally consistent datasets and peer-reviewed modelling, GEIC can support informed national strategies and stronger international cooperation.

GEIC is freely available for use on a voluntary basis as a national indicator for CBD reporting, and can complement other indicators to provide a fuller picture of biodiversity impacts. GEIC is also relevant to other global frameworks, including the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It is already being used to inform government reporting and engagement linked to these agendas – and others such as for food security – making it a versatile tool for governments aiming to monitor and meet biodiversity, climate and development goals.

The GEIC team is actively working with governments, technical experts, civil society organisations and researchers to support adoption and refinement of the tool and the data it provides. As it is applied in more contexts, user feedback will guide improvements, enhancing both its technical foundations and policy relevance.