So many of our ecosystems are at risk, reflecting changes in biodiversity and ongoing decline in their condition. Assessing which ecosystems are at most risk is a vital task as it helps us understand where to prioritise investment and effort.
The assessment of which species are at risk has been a long-standing body of work embodied in the IUCN Red List of Species. This list is updated regularly to advise on which species are endangered, threatened or worse.
Fifteen years ago, researchers from two different domains – the ecological and the statistical – commenced work to organize data about ecosystems in structured and internationally agreed ways.
The ecological approach was to complement the IUCN Red List of Species and hence the IUCN’s Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) was born.
The statistical approach aimed to extend our understanding of the link between ecosystems and people and became embodied in the UN’s System of Environmental Economic Accounting -Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA).
Fifteen years later, both bodies of work are now recognised as international standards and underpin the headline indicators of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.
But do the two standards for measuring ecosystem risk connect?
This week, Nature published a paper titled ‘Synergies and complementarities between ecosystem accounting and the Red List of Ecosystems’, answering that question.
While both standards record changes in ecosystem extent and condition, the RLE analyses the magnitude of change in terms of the risk of ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss while ecosystem accounting organises the information to analyse the changes as they affect people and the economy.
The researchers analyse the similarities and differences between the two standards, helping to paint a picture of the elements they have in common, with a focus on data and how it is used in both standards. For example, there is a great deal of consistency between the way the two standards treat ecosystem classifications, maps and condition variables.
The researchers argue that the two standards should not continue to be developed in isolation.
Instead, they say that finding pathways for co-investment in foundational data, and for knowledge-sharing between people and organisations who undertake risk assessments and accounting, will improve both processes and outcomes for biodiversity, ecosystems and people.
They also say that, in combination, the complementary roles of the RLE and ecosystem accounting can support emerging mechanisms for the private sector to measure risks, dependencies and impacts on biodiversity, such as the Taskforce for Nature-Related Financial Disclosures (TNFD).
Our Director, Carl Obst, was a co-author on the paper, contributing his expertise as the lead author and editor of the SEEA EA to the mix.
