Search bioRxiv⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Vallecillo, S.

Publications and source records attributed to Vallecillo, S..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Advancing the global statistical standard for urban ecosystem accounts

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting-Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA-EA), adopted by UNSD, provides a standardized global framework for measuring and monitoring ecosystems extent, condition, and services. However, its application to urban ecosystems faces conceptual and operational challenges. Building on SEEA-EA, we propose advancing the framework for thematic urban ecosystem accounting, identifying main challenges and framing potential solutions based on existing lessons and approaches. Through a literature review on ecosystem accounting and urban science, we identified 24 challenges, with lessons and approaches suggested for 17 of them. Results show that many challenges are highly interconnected and shared with accounts for other ecosystem types. Urban-specific challenges include a lack of consensus in defining urban ecosystems, their specific assets, and their classifications. Additionally, findings highlight the need for defining appropriate methods to capture socio-ecological degradation, impacts, and dependencies of urban ecosystems. Suggested solutions include adapting the accounting structure and prioritizing the resolution of urban- specific challenges.

ecology↗

Making the Monitoring Framework of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework fit for purpose.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is the most ambitious agreement on biodiversity conservation and sustainable use to date. It calls for a whole-of government and whole-of-society approach to halt and reverse biodiversity loss worldwide. The Monitoring Framework of the GBF lays out how Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are expected to report their progress. A CBD expert group provided guidance on its implementation, including a gap analysis to identify the strengths and limitations of the indicators in the Monitoring Framework. We present the results of the gap analysis, highlight where more work is needed and provide recommendations on implementing and improving monitoring to allow effective and comprehensive tracking of the GBFs ambition. We find that with the headline and binary indicators, which Parties are required to use, the Monitoring Framework fully covers 19% of the GBFs ambition and partially covers an additional 40%. Including disaggregations of the headline indicators improves coverage to 22% fully and an additional 41% partially. Adding optional (component and complementary) indicators brings full coverage to 29% with an additional 47% partial coverage. No indicators are available for 12% of the GBF. In practice, the coverage of the Monitoring Framework will depend on which indicators (headline and binary as well as component and complementary) and disaggregations are used by countries. Disaggregations are particularly relevant to monitor the cross-cutting considerations defined under section C. Substantial investment is required to collect the necessary data to compute indicators, infer change, and effectively monitor progress. We highlight important next steps to progressively improve the efficacy of the Monitoring Framework.

ecology↗