Natural capital, nature’s contribution to people, ecosystem functions, benefits from nature, ecosystem services, biodiversity’s benefits, the list goes on; let’s face it–it’s confusing at best. Since the mid 1980’s, there has been a litany of lists, typologies, groupings and classification systems trying to identify what is and what is not an ecosystem service.

Two of these–CICES (Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services) and NESCS Plus (National Ecosystem Services Classification System)—are the only ones that can honestly be called classification systems. They are complete, mutually exclusive, consistent and relevant to users. A new paper in the journal Ecosystem Services, explores why they are not used more often and if their use would be worth the cost of transition. The paper identifies 18 benefits to using ecosystem services classification systems. The simplicity of adopting these classification systems is magnified by their broad benefit and are at heart of IDEEA Group’s work.

We are keen to discuss how the adoption of these systems might impact your work – please reach out to discuss.

Subscribe to our newsletter to receive a round up of our posts each month