How measuring biodiversity and ecosystems is possible, and can help companies and financial institutions in the mission to halt and reverse nature loss.
In this series, we look into how to measure nature directly versus indirectly, and how we are working to make this a regular, normalised, practice for companies and connected parties.
The consequences of the interlinked biodiversity and climate crises have become one of the most profound threats to our future. These crises are threatening over one million plants and animals with extinction, and have led to the decline of wildlife populations by approximately 69% in the past 50 years.
This loss of biodiversity creates risks for communities and for businesses through the degradation of both resources and services (like pollination, flood mitigation and soil fertility) – elements upon which we depend. As the economic impact of our collective activities on nature becomes more apparent, governments and businesses are recognizing the urgency for understanding and action to preserve our natural life-support system.
As a result, a shift is now underway with new regulatory and voluntary frameworks being rolled out to incentivize businesses to act. These frameworks aim to provide a structured approach for companies to frame and disclose their interactions with nature.
Amidst the plethora of reporting requirements, a critical question remains: how do we measure nature accurately? Is there a central metric?
It is understandable that a first step for many entities looking into their nature touchpoints is to use a broad-brush, wide-angle, approach to assess where they may have hotspot issues. The second and third steps, however, rapidly take them into the field and into the detail of what is happening – in order to seek to halt negative actions, and start to become nature positive. Additionally, there are many projects focused on nature restoration and conservation, similarly seeking to support recovery and protection.
So how do we measure this? Yes, nature is complex, but distinct ecosystems can be identified – the ecosystem range from grasslands to mangroves to deserts, from coral reefs to woodlands. Entire living natural communities should exist within ecosystems, containing various habitat features and species, and creating important functions, such as intact food webs. Whether terrestrial or aquatic, it is the nature and biodiversity situation at an ecosystem-level which is of key importance. Ultimately, the aim is to achieve a variety of healthy, functioning, resilient ecosystems globally, which work because of all their interacting parts.
Using scientifically robust approaches, it is possible to analyse an ecosystem. In a given location, and identified ecosystem type, one can assess three key components, and then, in ecologically-appropriate ways, combine these components to produce a measure of an ecosystem’s overall condition. The three component parts are:
The Ecosystem Condition metric is applicable across ecosystem types in marine, coastal and terrestrial areas. In each case, ecosystem-specific sub-metrics are required for each of the three component parts – for example, looking for fish species in a mangrove ecosystem versus soil fungi in a woodland.
Additionally, variants of the metric are technically possible per ecosystem. One variant might measure change against a baseline or project inception state, another variant could compare a site’s changing condition versus a desired or known target state – thus making the metric applicable to a variety of efforts, from conservation to corporate assessment, or from rewilding projects to appropriately set-up markets or instruments.
We believe it is important to ‘ground-truth’ as much ecosystem condition data as possible – that is, measure it at site to capture the actual situation. Technologies like environmental DNA (eDNA) analysis, high-resolution satellite sensing and bio-acoustics (species identification via sound) offer unprecedented opportunities to gather accurate and verifiable data. It is essential that we understand what is truly taking place on the ground, or in the water, at site-level, to really track change and the actual condition of an ecosystem. This is what has been missing at scale to date. To achieve this, eDNA provides a meaningful solution given the unprecedented amounts of data capture it provides and which can be used alongside other data sets to build a full condition picture.
And excitingly, certain new monitoring technologies do not necessarily require a high level of external expertise – meaning that local experts and local communities can be involved in ongoing measurement processes.
For businesses navigating the complex landscape of environmental regulations, focusing in on the Ecosystem Condition accounting measure can help to practically frame the many other required metrics in a holistic context – facilitating the jump from theoretical or modeled nature impacts (for example those stemming from negative actions, like polluting activities) to measuring the actual biodiversity present. Quantifying changes in ecosystem health over time should enable companies to track progress towards nature-positive goals and inform strategic decision-making – as well as being able to report and disclose for regulatory purposes.
As we embark on this journey towards a nature positive future, NatureMetrics is committed to pioneering science-based, ecologically-sound, innovative solutions which empower businesses to measure and mitigate their impact on nature. In the next installment of this series, we'll delve deeper into assessing how ground-truthed Ecosystem Condition is valuable in relation to other measures.
To find out more about our work at NatureMetrics and how we can help, drop our Nature Strategy team a message, here.
New guide from NatureMetrics reveals the importance of integrating site-based nature data into CSRD ESRS E4 disclosure for long-term sustainable operations.
.png)
.jpg)
