CEO at BioInt | Transforming biodiversity impact & dependency measurement | Driving pragmatic & science-based actions for nature | The Biodiversity Footprint Intelligence Company | Views are my own
What are the top 10 countries most negatively impacting biodiversity? We know that for climate, China and the USA are the top greenhouse gas emitters, but what about the impact of countries on ecosystems? About a month ago, The Biodiversity Footprint Intelligence Company (BioInt) published its second thought leadership piece, “Translating Biodiversity Goals into Action: A Global Budget Approach”. It argues for a step-change in biodiversity policies by applying the same accountability tools that have helped move climate policies towards net zero. In it, we calculated the total impacts on ecosystem condition, as measured in #MeanSpeciesAbundance (MSA) of each country. That could form the basis for national budgets similar to the climate’s Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC). The added benefit is that we can rank countries! And it reveals that In total, the 10 most negatively impactful countries represent +91 000 MSA.km², equivalent to approximately the size of Portugal being converted from an undisturbed pristine state to a lifeless parking lot every year. That is 21% of the total global periodic loss in 2023. The top 10 “worst” countries are: 1️⃣ Russian Federation +15 900 2️⃣ Australia +10 800 3️⃣ Brazil +10 700 4️⃣ USA +10 600 5️⃣ Canada +10 100 6️⃣ India +9 600 7️⃣ DRC +7 900 8️⃣ Angola +5 500 9️⃣ Ethiopia +5 400 🔟 Argentina +4 600 💬 What about yours? Find your country in this database that we are releasing today: https://lnkd.in/eX4XQ26u Please let us know in the comments how your country fare and how you feel about it! ⚠Disclaimer: Those figures are based on aggregation at the national level of data from a global layer (Schipper et al 2020) which is meant to be used at a global scale and has limitations. This ranking and database were thus prepared to stimulate discussions and competition to the top but the “real” figures and ranking are likely to differ from the figures presented. PS: I'll be in The Hague and Wageningen (Netherlands) on 18-19 November and in Zurich (Switzerland) on 5-6 December. I have a tight schedule but let me know if you'd like to meet! 😊
Falko Buschke
10mo
These are thought-provoking results, but they should be taken with a pinch of salt. Eight of the top 10 "worst countries", are also in the top 10 countries by surface area. At short timescales, MSA is mostly just a sophisticated way of qualifying landuse change and road building (because climate change, nitrogen deposition, and hunting access change more slowly). So, it makes total sense that there tends to be more landuse change and road expansion in larger countries. Consider as an alternative the way this study quantifies the proportion of ecosystems remaining, as well as countries' development status: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-1067-z
Joshua Berger my first impression about the post: What about countries (like those in Western Europe) that have already destroyed most of their natural environment? Wouldn’t this be considered “worse” and a priority for nature restoration actions?
Jane Fiona Cumming
10mo
Thank you for sharing
Franziska Walde
10mo
Thank you Joshua Berger for this fascinating analysis! It's also interesting to see that Germany ranks at place 81 and Austria at 113.
Cecilia Cronwall
10mo
This is interesting for when we are performing double materiality assessments and trying to understand the impact on biodiversity based on what countries the company has presence in their value chain. On a very high level ofc,but still.
Frederik Buchholz
10mo
Super interesting! Does this approach include or exclude the impacts beyond national borders on Biodiversity driven by trade and consumption patterns?
Jessica Smith
10mo
Interesting results! I'm surprised to see Namibia, Botswana, South Africa and Mozambique so high in the list with their immense conservation and mainstreaming efforts.
Simon Bradley
10mo
Thanks for sharing your (plural) work Joshua Berger -I would like to understand how more granular can we go- that said so much insight being generated with nature based data like this - so thanks again. Reflecting on the above, I have a question: if the target were to change govt policy behaviour then how could we quantify and represent the impact of national/regional policies (such as subsidies and other incentives) on biodiversity impact - e.g. Brazilian beef and all its customers around the world. I ask because while I accept that each country should manage the biodiversity within its own territories and have the resources to do so, that is not the reality given the complexities of the global politico-corporate-consumer economy. Again I appreciate the effort and the results of the work produced- I would like to understand how more granular /accountable can we go?
Sylvain Vanston
10mo
Very interesting, thanks for sharing !
CEO at BioInt | Transforming biodiversity impact & dependency measurement | Driving pragmatic & science-based actions for nature | The Biodiversity Footprint Intelligence Company | Views are my own
10moPost with the full thought leadership piece: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7250399744819171329/ And its summary: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7254386023642624001/ Permalink to the Biodiversity Briefs #2, including the appendix with the list of references: https://tbfic.sharepoint.com/:f:/g/Eji0ke5Q9s1MqxScEp3SjEMBcKerigT-lK5ysrn5k55-wA?e=ew1rX2 And again, thanks to Gabrielle Casteigts for all her work on this piece and the carrousel, and to Anne Devieilletoile! 😊 Our previous Biodiversity Briefs #1: Beyond Rhetoric: A Call for Equivalency Rules for Biodiversity Credits https://www.linkedin.com/posts/joshua-berger-biodiversity_bioint-thought-leadership-biodiversity-activity-7159145961145978881-w0uA