News

3,000 indicators to measure bioeconomy. Which ones matter most?

November 14, 2026

As countries develop bioeconomy strategies, new research reveals a significant gap between measuring economic growth and understanding whether that growth benefits nature and people. The Bioeconomy Challenge is working to close that gap.

Countries around the world are increasingly turning to bioeconomy as a source of economic growth, innovation and employment while addressing the triple planetary crises. But as governments develop strategies to expand bio-based industries, an important question remains: how to make sure bioeconomy delivers on its promises?

An assessment of 20 national bioeconomy strategies, action plans and monitoring frameworks has revealed a striking imbalance. While 90 per cent (18) includes indicators measuring economic performance, measures of environmental sustainability, social outcomes, and food and nutrition security are less consistently represented.

The findings point to a fundamental challenge: a country may be able to measure the economic contribution of its bioeconomy without having an equally clear picture of its effects on biodiversity, climate or communities.

This is one of the questions being addressed by the Bioeconomy Challenge’s Metrics and Indicators Working Group, led by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).

The problem isn’t a lack of indicators

In February 2026, FAO launched an inventory of more than 3,000 bioeconomy-relevant indicators, organised according to a framework developed with the G20 Initiative on Bioeconomy.

The exercise brought together measures from across different fields, including indicators that had not necessarily been developed specifically for bioeconomy but could help assess its wider impacts.

“We found more than 3,000 indicators, so we know there are plenty available. The challenge is to identify which ones matter the most”, explains Alashya Gordes, Natural Resources Office af FAO. The more revealing finding from the inventory came from what countries actually use. After examining 20 national bioeconomy strategies, plans and monitoring frameworks, the Working Group identified 391 indicators already in use, with a strong emphasis on measuring economic performance and less attention to environmental and social dimensions.

For the Working Group, this imbalance matters. The bioeconomy is expected to contribute to multiple objectives, from economic development and industrial innovation to biodiversity conservation, climate resilience and improved livelihoods. Measuring only some of these outcomes makes it difficult to assess whether progress in one area is being achieved at the expense of another.

It’s clear that we don’t need more indicators – but we do need consensus around which ones can provide a credible, balanced picture of bioeconomy performance across diverse contexts, drawing wherever possible on information and methodologies that already exist. Over the next two years, the Working Group will continue to work towards a common core set that allows monitoring and comparability.

One global framework, many different bioeconomies

Selecting a common set of indicators is complicated by a more fundamental issue: there is no multilaterally agreed definition of bioeconomy.

National approaches differ according to economic priorities, natural resources, technological capabilities and local conditions. A bioeconomy strategy focused on biotechnology and advanced manufacturing may look very different from one centred on agriculture, forestry or community-based enterprises.

“The challenge for bioeconomy metrics is really to bridge local diversity with global comparability,” says Gordes.

Ordinarily, developing a measurement framework begins with agreeing on what is being measured. In bioeconomy, countries often approach that question from different starting points.

A common international framework could help governments compare progress, identify successful approaches and understand where further investment or policy intervention is needed. But a framework that is too rigid risks overlooking the distinct economic, ecological and social priorities of individual countries.

The Bioeconomy Challenge’s Metrics and Indicators Working Group is exploring an approach that could accommodate both needs: a manageable set of common indicators for international comparison, alongside additional metrics selected by countries to reflect their own circumstances.

As Gordes explains, the aim is to “build a global umbrella framework that can then still be adapted to the local context.“

Even agreeing on the indicators themselves would not resolve every difficulty. Data availability varies considerably, and countries may use different methodologies to calculate what appears to be the same indicator.

“We may be able to agree on core indicators that are important to us all, but if the methodologies used in order to populate those indicators with data are different, you still have a problem in terms of comparability,” Gordes notes.

Developing common ground will, therefore, require attention not only to what countries measure, but also to how they collect, calculate and interpret the underlying data.

From G20 principles to practical measurement

The Bioeconomy Challenge was launched at COP30 in Belém in November 2025 to help translate the G20 High-Level Principles on Bioeconomy into practical frameworks that governments, businesses and other stakeholders can use.

Its Metrics and Indicators Working Group is one of four interconnected areas of work addressing the conditions needed for a sustainable and inclusive bioeconomy. The group builds on discussions initiated during Brazil’s 2024 G20 presidency and continued under South Africa’s presidency in 2025.

Keeping that international cooperation going has been one of the initiative’s most important contributions, bringing together institutions committed to practical solutions. “The Bioeconomy Challenge gave us some vital international momentum,” says Gordes.

That momentum has been matched by an important recent development at FAO. In 2026, FAO’s technical committees on agriculture and forestry asked the organisation to develop options for a voluntary core set of bioeconomy indicators over the next two years. The mandate sits with FAO and its 194 Members, but it provides a pathway for taking the Working Group’s technical work forward in an intergovernmental setting.

The next test: will the indicators work in practice?

In 2027, the Metrics and Indicators Working Group plans to move from desk-based analysis towards country-level piloting.

So far, Austria, Brazil, Italy, Japan and South Africa have expressed interest in participating in pilots to test the emerging framework in different national contexts.

These exercises will help determine whether the proposed indicators are relevant, whether the necessary data can be collected, and where methodological or capacity gaps remain.

We’re validating whether the proposal we’re developing stands up to the realities on the ground,” says Gordes.

The pilots will also provide an opportunity to examine whether a common framework can accommodate the diversity of national bioeconomies without losing the comparability that makes international measurement useful.

For governments developing bioeconomy strategies, the implications are practical. Better indicators could help policymakers understand whether their strategies are achieving their intended outcomes, identify where adjustments are needed and provide a clearer evidence base for future decisions.

For businesses and financial institutions, more consistent measurement could help establish common expectations about what constitutes credible bioeconomy performance.

The work remains at an early stage. A voluntary core set of indicators has not yet been agreed, and the proposed approach still needs to be tested.

But the significance of this work goes beyond metrics. The way countries measure bioeconomy determines what gets attention, where funding goes, and what decisions they make. If a strategy measures jobs and investment but not biodiversity, it may miss environmental costs that only become visible over time. If it tracks economic output but not food security, it may overlook how benefits and trade-offs are distributed across society. After all, you can’t change what you can’t measure.