TNFD Nature Targets: Baselines, Locations, Value Chains and Progress

Nature targets often fail for one of four reasons. The target has no clear ecological or business pathway; the boundary excludes the locations or value-chain relationships driving the issue; the baseline cannot be reproduced; or progress measures activity rather than the pressure or outcome the target is supposed to change.

A group-wide target such as “reduce water use by 20%” can look precise but be weak if water use is concentrated in low-stress locations while a small high-stress basin is deteriorating. A “100% certified sourcing” target can improve traceability but may not show whether conversion, pollution or ecosystem condition changed. The target architecture should therefore preserve location, pathway and evidence.

Figure 1. A nature target is a controlled chain from a material issue and location to action, evidence and governance.

A target should respond to a material pathway rather than a general nature theme. The organisation should identify the activity or value-chain relationship, dependency or impact, affected ecosystem service or state-of-nature change, related risk or opportunity, and priority location.

Useful target types include:

impact-driver targets, such as reducing abstraction, nutrient loading, land conversion or overexploitation;

state-of-nature targets, such as improving ecosystem condition, habitat extent or species status;

response targets, such as restoration, traceability, supplier improvement or capital deployment;

risk or opportunity targets, such as reducing exposure, increasing resilient sourcing or growing revenue from demonstrably positive solutions; and

enabling targets, such as improving origin traceability or completing location assessments.

Enabling and response targets can be valuable, especially early in implementation, but should not be presented as ecological outcomes unless evidence supports that conclusion.

The baseline is more than a year. It includes the value, location, boundary, method, data source, quality, reference condition, organisational changes and any normalisation or intensity denominator.

A reproducible baseline should address:

why the date or period was selected;

whether it represents normal operations;

which sites, suppliers, commodities, products or portfolio exposures are included;

how acquisitions, disposals and boundary changes will be handled;

whether data are measured, modelled, estimated or proxied;

which ecological reference condition or threshold applies, where relevant;

uncertainty and known gaps; and

who approved the baseline.

Avoid choosing a baseline solely because it produces a favourable trend. Where historical data are weak, use a transparent provisional baseline and an improvement plan rather than inventing precision.

Nature outcomes depend on ecological context. TNFD transition-plan guidance emphasises location-associated targets for priority locations and allows broader organisation-wide metrics to complement them. It also discusses interim “location-informed” approaches where exact location data are still developing.

A practical hierarchy is:

location-specific target - tied to a known site, basin, landscape, seascape or sourcing region;

location-informed target - uses available geography and risk evidence while a more precise boundary is developed;

portfolio or organisation target - aggregates performance across the defined population; and

strategic ambition - communicates direction but is not a substitute for measurable targets.

The report should explain which level is used and why. Group totals should not conceal failure in a material priority location.

Value-chain targets need a controlled population. For upstream targets, identify commodities, volumes, supplier tiers, sourcing regions, traceability thresholds and non-response treatment. For downstream targets, identify product categories, customers, use phases, disposal routes or financed activities.

The target should state whether it covers:

all suppliers or only a risk-based population;

direct suppliers, deeper tiers or origin locations;

spend, volume, area, production or another denominator;

controlled, influenced or screened relationships;

known origins, modelled origins and unknown origins; and

exclusions and the plan to expand coverage.

A supplier-engagement target can support implementation but should not be described as a value-chain impact reduction unless the pressure or outcome is measured.

The ambition should be linked to the nature issue and the organisation's role. Possible anchors include ecological thresholds, basin or landscape objectives, legal limits, science-based methods, conservation plans, the organisation's risk appetite and the goals of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

SBTN currently provides technical methods for freshwater, land and ocean targets. Its freshwater methods focus initially on water use and nitrogen/phosphorus pollution; land targets include no conversion of natural ecosystems, land-footprint reduction and landscape engagement; ocean targets address overexploitation, structural habitats and risks to endangered, threatened and protected species in relevant seafood value chains.

Using an SBTN method requires following the applicable method and validation process. Referencing SBTN without applying the method should be described as informing target design, not as a validated science-based target.

The Global Biodiversity Framework is a government-agreed policy framework. Its targets can inform corporate alignment and ambition, but they do not automatically create a company-specific trajectory, baseline or validated claim.

A target should not sit apart from action. Link each target to avoidance, minimisation or reduction, restoration or regeneration, transformation and any residual-impact decision. Identify the expected contribution of each action, costs, dependencies, sequencing and safeguards.

Where a target relies on offsets, credits or compensation, keep them separate from gross impact-driver reduction and restoration performance. Explain the residual impact, why earlier steps were insufficient, and the quality and monitoring controls applied.

Long-term targets need near-term accountability. Use milestones for data coverage, location assessment, policy change, operational delivery, supplier progress, pressure reduction, restoration implementation and state-of-nature outcomes.

The metric register should distinguish:

leading indicators, such as capex committed or suppliers mapped;

activity indicators, such as hectares under restoration work;

pressure indicators, such as water consumed or pollutants released;

state indicators, such as ecosystem condition or species trend;

risk/opportunity indicators, such as exposed revenue or resilient sourcing; and

outcome verification, including ecological and stakeholder evidence.

Do not allow a leading indicator to replace the target outcome indefinitely.

Define performance frequency, owner, reviewer, escalation thresholds, board or committee oversight and public-claims approval. Progress should be calculated using the approved baseline and method. Method changes, acquisitions and improved data should be handled through a controlled change or restatement process.

When a target is missed or at risk, disclose the variance, root cause, affected locations, consequences, corrective action, revised resources and whether the original target remains. Rebasing or redefining a target can be legitimate, but it should not erase underperformance. Preserve the original record and explain the change.

Figure 2. Target credibility depends on a reproducible baseline, controlled action data and transparent variance handling.

A beverage company has a group ambition to reduce water consumption but operates in basins with very different scarcity and recharge conditions. It creates basin-specific targets for the two priority basins, using a reproducible operational baseline, local water context and interim milestones for efficiency and replenishment actions. A group intensity metric remains in the report but does not replace the basin targets.

Upstream, the company identifies land-conversion and nutrient-pollution risks in agricultural ingredients. It introduces a traceability milestone, followed by commodity and location targets aligned to available SBTN methods. Supplier participation is reported as an enabling measure, while conversion and pollution indicators show the intended pressure reduction. When one basin target falls behind because a planned reuse project is delayed, the report retains the original target, explains the variance and revised capex timetable, and does not present group-wide improvement as evidence that the location target was achieved.

Illustrative scenario only; scientific thresholds and target methods require company- and location-specific work.

Setting a global target for a local nature issue. Add location-associated targets for material sites, basins, landscapes or sourcing regions.

Using a baseline year without a baseline method. Record value, boundary, source, quality, reference condition and approval.

Treating action completion as ecological progress. Separate activity, pressure and state-of-nature indicators.

Calling a target science-based without applying the method. State whether the method was used, informed design or was independently validated.

Linking directly to the GBF as if it set a company trajectory. Use it as policy context and define the organisation-specific target basis.

Ignoring unknown supplier origins. Include origin coverage, uncertainty, proxy use and a traceability improvement plan.

Quietly rebasing a missed target. Preserve the original target, disclose variance and approve any revision through change control.

Netting offsets against operational performance. Report gross reductions, restoration and residual-impact measures separately.

The accompanying TNFD Metrics, Targets and Mitigation Register contains a target register with baseline, location, value-chain, action, progress and variance fields.

SRC-01 - TNFD Recommendations v1.0: https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Recommendations_of_the_Taskforce_on_Nature-related_Financial_Disclosures_September_2023.pdf

SRC-07 - TNFD guidance on nature in transition plans: https://tnfd.global/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Guidance-on-nature-in-transition-plans_DIGITAL-1.pdf

SRC-08 - TNFD guidance for corporates on science-based targets for nature: https://tnfd.global/publication/additional-draft-guidance-for-corporates-on-science-based-targets-for-nature-2/

SRC-09 - SBTN target-setting process: https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/companies/take-action/set-targets/

SRC-10 - SBTN Act / AR3T: https://sciencebasedtargetsnetwork.org/companies/take-action/act/

SRC-11 - Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework Target 15: https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets/15/