Challenges and barriers to implementing nature-positive engineering

A central challenge for advancing NPE is that nature-positivity is not yet a standard part of the engineer’s brief. Infrastructure projects still prioritise conventional performance metrics -cost, efficiency, safety, and compliance – while ecological outcomes are often treated as secondary or optional. This is reinforced by enabling environments that favour traditional infrastructure approaches, including policy and regulatory frameworks that overlook nature-positive requirements and financing mechanisms that fail to adequately value ecosystem services. Embedding NPE into routine practice will therefore require systemic change, with nature-positive principles integrated into planning, permitting, procurement and investment processes.

Equally critical is the development of clear standards and technical guidance that provide engineers with the confidence to design and deliver nature-positive solutions. In the absence of consistent benchmarks, projects risk being seen as experimental rather than replicable models for wider adoption. At the same time, building professional capacity is essential: engineers will need new skills, tools, and modes of interdisciplinary collaboration to integrate ecological knowledge into design and delivery. Overcoming these barriers will demand coordinated efforts across policymakers, regulators, professional bodies, and the engineering sector. Only through such systemic shifts can NPE move from the margins into the mainstream. These are further discussed in the Implementation Pathways chapter.

Inadequacy of measurement and monitoring

Measurement and monitoring is a core tenet of NPE implementation as it forms the empirical foundation for engineering and evidence-based decision-making and justifying investment in nature. However, the current landscape of ecological measurement and monitoring faces several significant challenges that impede comprehensive environmental assessment and management.

 Selecting appropriate metrics depends on measurement purpose, operational scale, and data availability.57 Metrics need to reflect not only ecological performance but also contextual realities, including local priorities, capacities, and knowledge systems.

What are we measuring?

The health of marine ecosystems can be assessed through multiple indicator types:58 

• Biological indicators track population trends and ecological roles (e.g. species abundance, biodiversity, keystone/invasive species) 
• Physical indicators reveal environmental stability (e.g. water quality, carbon sequestration, hydrodynamic conditions) 
• Functional indicators assess ecosystem services, habitat connectivity, and resilience 
• Human pressures measured through fishing intensity, pollution, and coastal development 
• Management effectiveness evaluated through marine protected areas and community engagement, capturing local knowledge systems

Scale of measurement – in terms of measurement scope (project to planetary), timescale (short-term versus long-term outcomes) and spatial resolution (individual species to full ecosystems) – is a fundamental challenge for NPE implementation.59

There is a disconnect between local to global impacts. At the project level, it is vital to define clear, project-specific metrics early in the planning phase to better link environmental monitoring with operational and financial decisions. These are essential for understanding the direct impacts of local actions and fulfilling regulatory requirements or voluntary commitments by companies and developers. However, global goals – such as those articulated under the Global Biodiversity Framework – require aggregation, tracking change in biodiversity and function at larger spatial and time scales.

A further scale-related challenge is the distinction between attribution and contribution. At the site or project level, stakeholders often aim to attribute biodiversity outcomes directly to specific interventions they have taken. However, at larger scales, particularly in national reporting or corporate disclosures, the question shifts to contribution: how does this activity contribute to broader biodiversity trends? Given the number of existing variables, (e.g. climate, land-use change), direct attribution becomes nearly impossible.

To monitor progress, nature-positive outcomes must be aggregated across sites, sectors, companies, and countries. This is a formidable challenge given the diversity of ecological contexts and data types. Without a common measurement framework, these diverse efforts cannot be meaningfully compared. Efforts like the State of Nature Metrics60 and the Biodiversity Indicators Partnership,61 and frameworks such as the Science Based Targets for Nature (SBTs)62 and Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD)63 are working to align indicators. The push for standardisation must balance rigour and flexibility, allowing for contextual relevance while maintaining enough consistency to enable broader tracking.

Lack of ecological baselines

‘Nature-positive’ requires demonstrable improvements against defined baselines, which provide essential reference points for assessing intervention effectiveness over time.64 A critical implementation barrier is the persistent absence of robust ecological baselines, particularly in marine ecosystems where biodiversity complexity makes tracking inherently challenging. Compounding this challenge are missing or inconsistent baseline data, 65,66 non-standardised monitoring methods,67 and unresolved questions about long-term funding responsibilities, especially beyond initial project phases.

Technical barriers include high costs, logistical difficulties in data collection, and concerns about data quality and verification. Current approaches often marginalise crucial qualitative insights, traditional knowledge, and local community perspectives, whilst regulatory frameworks lag behind technological innovations, creating uncertainty in compliance and data utilisation. The complexity of marine environments, jurisdictional variation, and fast-changing ecological conditions68 all pose significant challenges. Weak environmental and hydrodynamic models make it difficult to predict ecosystem changes or measure intervention success.

Complexity of ecological dynamics

Ecological change unfolds across multiple spatial and temporal scales, creating significant challenges for biodiversity management and nature-positive engineering. A persistent issue in biodiversity offsetting is the temporal mismatch between immediate biodiversity losses and gains that may only materialise years or even decades later. Localised benefits from projects can also mask broader risks, such as regional ecosystem fragmentation or the disruption of species migration corridors. These complexities are especially pronounced for infrastructure that integrates natural elements, which rarely respond to stress in simple or linear ways. As engineered systems increasingly interact with dynamic ecological processes, their performance becomes harder to predict, particularly under shifting climatic conditions.

Evidence gap

Evidence on the safe implementation and long-term effectiveness of such solutions remains limited. While pilot projects demonstrate promising near-term benefits, few are supported by long-term monitoring programmes that can track ecological outcomes, safety, and resilience over time. This lack of evidence, combined with the high costs of monitoring, constrains our ability to evaluate effectiveness and establish robust design standards. Learning from implementation is therefore critical – not only to assess long-term safety and ecological implications, but also to identify unintended consequences for ecosystems and communities. To move beyond the pilot mentality, lessons need to be consolidated and scaled, helping to close the evidence gap and strengthen confidence in nature-positive approaches.