NbS Triple Win Toolkit: Biodiversity Indicators in Context 36 It is also noted that for certain species complete threat abatement would not necessarily equate to an improvement in conservation status, as some species are threatened by small population sizes. In these cases, habitat restoration (in addition to threat abatement) is crucial to alleviating extinction risk. Mair et al. (2021)37 acknowledge the importance of considering factors such as synergies among threats, potential leakage of threats and the complexities introduced by supply chain analyses, but these concepts are outside the scope of the STAR metric calculation. Assumptions The method calculates the potential contribution to reduction of extinction risk, based on local changes to global data. This is not an outcome indicator that can ascribe the actual change in species threat status within the spatial and temporal scales of most programmes.In addition, the underpinning method quantifies reduction in extinction risk by assuming that complete alleviation of all threats to a species will stabilise and restore populations to downlist their conservation status to Least Concern. However, Mair et al. (2021)37 emphasise that the delivery of threat abatement and restoration actions does not equate to the long-term recovery of species and suggests that additional metrics, such as the IUCN Green Status of Species40 should be used to inform further conservation efforts. It is also recognised that there is significant variation in the feasibility of threat abatement, particularly with irreversible or global threats such as climate change. The Red List assessments upon which the calculations are based comprehensively cover threats, however, the extent to which a reduction in extinction risk can be achieved is dependent on which threats can realistically be addressed. Threat impacts are assumed to be constant across species’ AOH. It is suggested that refinement of this would be possible using global threat heat maps if available. It is also important to note threat abatement in the context of STAR includes both actions to reduce threat extent/intensity and actions mitigating the impact of threats. There are no prescribed thresholds for how much threat reduction/mitigation or habitat restoration activities are required to define inclusion towards the metric, and therefore the programme managers are required to assess whether activities demonstrate an appropriate level of activity to have a probable positive impact to be included, within the context of each project. It should be noted in all STAR reports that complete threat abatement is unlikely but that the metric indicates potential improvement of species status, rather than actual achievedalleviation of extinction risk. Project or programme level indicators Ecosystem integrity/intactness The hectares under ecological restoration indicator reports the area over which restoration actions have been implemented but not the improvement in ecosystem intactness that results (see Restorationvs. Recovery). A wide range of indicators of ecosystem intactness(and related concepts e.g. quality, condition, integrity, fragmentation) also exist, which could be used for reporting at the project level.For example, ‘Live Coral Cover’ is a well-established indicator of the health of reefs41, and there are a range of standard ecological metrics such as species diversity (also see JNCC (2021)29, which includes a list of potential indicators). Most of these indicators are habitat and/or species-specific and so are well-suited to monitoring impacts at the project level (e.g. as the improvement in the indicator relative to the pre-intervention state) and potentially for aggregating to quantify the impacts of several similar projects within a programme. However, aggregating more project-specific indicators becomes difficult as the