<p>Biodiversity decline jeopardizes the foundation of natural ecosystems and human well-being, a concern that prompted major global agreements aiming to bend the curve towards a net positive biodiversity future. Still, the critical importance of safeguarding the diversity of life is far from receiving the attention it deserves, especially in marine settings. To understand (and overcome) the current limits of biodiversity mainstreaming, we integrate insights from the natural and social sciences to offer guidance on how to navigate the seemingly overwhelming complexity of this issue. We start by comparing biodiversity change to climate change to capture key distinctions in their multifaceted and context-dependent nature. Unlike climate change, the status and trends of biodiversity cannot be reduced to a single metric or target. Instead, effective biodiversity governance must focus on understanding how biodiversity is affected and how habitat extent, population size, or trends in composition capture these changes. The rise of molecular data promises to improve the representativeness of assessments and foster mechanistic understanding of the processes involved. Yet, it does not eliminate the need for effective communication of these issues to invoke meaningful action. Given its links to human well-being, biodiversity has a high chance of being engaging, but practitioners and scientists only marginally capitalize on the social, health, economic, and emotional values of their subject. Thus, we advocate for extending the assessment of biodiversity change and its functional consequences to include human values and emotions as an integral part of biodiversity reporting. Such a holistic framing, accounting for the complex spatial and temporal trajectories of biodiversity, will be vital in fostering more effective and inclusive conservation strategies.</p>