Facilitating better ecological outcomes from high-stakes decision-making requires evaluation of biodiversity models to address risk and transparency

Biodiversity offsetting and compensation are high-stakes endeavours. Much rests on the process by which an offset or compensation proposal is designed and the tools used to evaluate the proposal, as this has a strong and direct influence on the potential outcomes for biodiversity. Models by their nature are imperfect, but their ecological robustness, and therefore usefulness, can be improved by adhering to well-established principles of good model development. Model limitations need to be well understood and described to ensure that models are employed appropriately and with adequate caution. We welcome the response from Baber et al. (2025) to our opinion piece highlighting the risks of poorly designed biodiversity loss-gain models (Corkery et al. 2023). We are encouraged by the engagement and debate and urge the wider ecological community to further engage in this important topic. In this response, we identify the fundamental areas of agreement between the two papers, of which there are several. We then clarify our remaining concerns with the use of the Biodiversity Compensation Model (BCM). Despite the counterarguments provided by Baber et al. (2025) we remain concerned about the application of insufficiently robust models and the misuse of biodiversity models. The implications of decision-making based on potentially misleading information are of grave concern for biodiversity, especially when considered in the context of the dual biodiversity and climate crises.