Blog

Bumblebee Hunting in Belmullet, Co. Mayo (Mayo for Sam!)  

stoutj123

By Sarah Browne, Research Assistant in Botany, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin

Figure 1. The GYB hunters: from L to R: Julia, Kilian, Jane, Harry, Catherine, Elena, Dave, Irene, Fern, Irene, Sarah B, Moya, and Sarah L.

First and foremost, a big congratulations to Mayo for breaking the curse and winning the All-Ireland Final just days after our visit (one could infer that this little group of bumblebee enthusiasts had something to do with this broken curse).  

On a beautiful July day, a group of us from Trinity’s People and Nature Research Group (Figure 1), armed with our nets, ventured out to the great County of Mayo for a bumblebee hunt. Now you may be wondering why we made a four and a half hour journey to the other side of the country to see a singular bumblebee species? It was not just our great, albeit concerning, passion for bumblebees that brought us there. It was also the Great Yellow Bumblebee (Bombus distinguendus), A.K.A Ireland’s rarest true bumblebee species. The Mullet Peninsula in Belmullet, Co. Mayo (Figure 2) is home to the healthiest population of Great Yellow Bumblebees (henceforth referred to as GYB in the interest of saving time) in Ireland (Figure 3). So, this was really our best chance of seeing a GYB in the flesh!  

Figure 2. the Mullet peninsula

Figure 3. Bombus distinguendus (photo by Dave Suddaby)

Once found all across the island of Ireland, the GYB is now our most endangered bumblebee species. As a result of increasingly intense farming practices and general land use changes throughout Ireland, the GYB no longer has easy access to suitable shelter or food resources. The GYB needs species-rich wildflower meadows and undisturbed nesting sites in order to survive, and with these qualities becoming more and more difficult to find in the Irish landscape, the species has experienced an 80% decline in distribution in the last century. GYB populations have become almost entirely restricted to coastal Machair sites, like the one found on the Mullet Peninsula (Figures 4 and 5).  

Figure 4. Species-rich meadow on the Mullet

Figure 5. Mullet Machair magic  

Beyond the GYB, the Mullet Peninsula is a haven for a number of rare insect and bird species. We met some experts with both local and professional knowledge of the peninsula that were kind enough to show us around. Dave Suddaby from Birdwatch, Irene O’Brien from the National Parks and Wildlife Service, Trinity’s own Professor Catherine Farrell, Joe Tighe of the Life on Machair project, and lead ecologist on the Great Yellow Bumblebee EIP, Karina Dingerkus. Though the EIP itself was only a one-year project, it has had lasting effects on farm and commonage management for nature, as well as on pollinator engagement from the local community. The project’s efforts are being continued under the Life on Machair project. 

Figure 6&7. The look of love: our live reaction to catching our first GYB. 

Figure 8. Somehow the best photo we got of the GYB 

So, what is Machair?  

In a nutshell, Machair is a rare and vital coastal grassland system. Rare because it is found only in parts of Ireland and Scotland, and vital because it supports a number of endangered pollinator and bird species, and also protects coastlines from erosion. The Life on Machair project works with landowners to improve Machair sites and preserve their ecosystems. This work is not without its challenges, as we heard from the team, yet slowly but surely, through integrated and collaborative measures, improvements are being made to Machair sites along the west coast of Ireland, which in turn supports pollinator populations. Good news for the GYB! 

You’ll be glad to hear the hunt was a great success. Not only did we catch sight of a couple GYBs (Figures 6 & 7), which we discovered are aptly often referred to as ‘Blonde Bombshells’ (Figure 8). We also spotted some Bombus muscorum individuals, some cuckoo bumblebees, plenty of six-spotted burnets (Figures 9-16), and other pretty pollinators doing their jobs. 

Fig. 9 Six-spot Burnet

Fig. 10 Eristalis intricaria

Fig. 11 Bombus muscorum 

Figure 12. Sarah L and her new cuckoo bumblebee pet

Figure 13. Common Blue butterfly friend 

Figure 14. Soldier beetle

Figure 15. Red-tailed bumblebee

Figure 16. Soldier fly   

After our busy bumblebee hunt, we all flocked down the road to the Annagh Marsh where we learned of the work being done to conserve some of the migratory waders that land in this area every year to breed. Dave Suddaby from BirdWatch Ireland talked us through the trials and triumphs of trying to create a haven for rare species. This is not an easy feat in conservation projects as the outcomes of certain actions are often unforeseen and unpredictable. He gave us a brief history on Red-necked phalarope (Figure 17) and Lapwing in the area (Figure 18). 

Figure 17. Female Red-necked phalarope (Photo from BirdWatch Ireland)

Figure 18. Lapwing (Photo from BirdWatch Ireland)

Breeding Red-necked phalarope pairs were discovered in the wetland at Annagh in 1901, which at the time was the most southerly location that they were known to be breeding. Their numbers started to decline throughout the 1920s and 30s mainly because of grazing animals trampling their nests, as well as collectors taking chicks and eggs away for museum collections. BirdWatch Ireland stepped in and negotiated with local commonage owners to secure 17 acres of land to dedicate to the restoration of these waders. This piece of land was the first piece of machair to be fenced off and became known as ‘The Birdcage’. This was great in theory as it gave the waders an undisturbed breeding ground. What was not foreseen, was that without grazing animals in the area, the water in the marsh became overgrown meaning the birds no longer had access to open water, and if there’s one thing breeding waders need, it’s open water. Red-necked phalarope numbers declined and the last breeding pair left in the area was recorded in the 1980s. Restoring the delicate balance of nature is often a complex problem to solve and shows the importance of research efforts for successful conservation. In other words, nature is finicky!  

While the Red-necked phalarope made its exit from the unsuitable landscape to find better breeding ground elsewhere, other waders were still benefitting from the reserve. One such species was the Lapwing. Conservation efforts were working and breeding pairs were recorded at the Annagh Marsh, but something was amiss; these breeding pairs weren’t actually producing any young. Through some overnight investigations, it was found that foxes were preying on the young chicks only hours before they were due to hatch. Alright, easy fix – get a better fence! This helped for a while but it created a ‘honey-pot’ for other predators such as otters and mink. This meant it was time for fence 2.0 (Figure 20). Finally, Lapwing populations were improving. Then, it was time to get the Red-necked phalarope back. Through some conversations with the commonage owners, a compromise was made which suited everyone. The farmers graze their animals on the site to prevent overgrowth, and then, when the waders come back to breed, the animals are moved elsewhere so as not to disturb the nests. A win-win!

   

Figure 19. Cow finding out he has to move field AGAIN Figure 20. ‘Birdcage fence 2.0’            

So, the results of all this great effort? There are now 67 breeding Lapwing pairs in the Annagh marsh, with populations spreading further along the peninsula. And as for the Red-necked phalarope, breeding pairs returned to the site in 2015 and have been returning every year since. These fantastic results are a testament to the massive effort put into the project by everybody involved. 

This is what I meant when I said trials and triumphs. Nature is finicky, but it is also resilient and if you create the space for it to thrive, it will. 

The END  

All-Ireland Pollinator Plan 2026-2030

stoutj123

Written by Prof Jane Stout, co-founder of the All-Ireland Pollinator Plan and the Irish Pollinator Research Network (IPRN), and Research Module lead.

In July 2026, the third phase of the All-Ireland Pollinator Plan was launched. After two successful phases (2015-2020 and 2016-2025), this time, we wanted to build on the huge enthusiasm, engagement and commitment that now exists across the island of Ireland (see the 100 Tales of Hope, an incredible collection of stories from the second phase), but become more ambitious about reaching our 2030 targets of halting and reversing pollinator decline.

The Plan aims to bring together communities, farmers, businesses and public bodies to create pockets of nature every 200 meters across the island of Ireland and create a more biodiversity-rich landscape. Former Trinity College and RestPoll project researcher, Dr Sarah Larragy, delivered a wonderful webinar introducing the new Plan.

The 2026-2030 Plan is organised into Modules addressing key sectors and themes:

Protecting Farmland Pollinators: Supporting farmers with practical, evidence-based agricultural measures.
Creating Buzzing Communities: Mobilizing local towns, community gardens, and volunteer groups.
Local Authority & Public Body Engagement: Standardizing biodiversity practices across public land.
Transport Authority & Public Utilities Engagement: Managing roadside verges, railways, and utility corridors.
Business & Industry Engagement: Assisting companies in creating eco-friendly commercial sites.
Rare & Threatened Pollinator Species: Implementing specialized protection plans for at-risk species like the Great Yellow Bumblebee.
Monitoring: Running systematic pan-trapping, transects, and Flower-Insect Timed Counts (FIT Counts).
Mapping: Managing the tracking map database to view localized ecological corridors.
Research: Translating university and field research into layman-friendly practices.
Communications: Distributing resource toolkits, media outreach, and public campaigns like “No Mow May”

It is implemented by the National Biodiversity Data Centre, all overseen by the amazing Dr Una FitzPatrick and supported by an incredible team of project officers, including our own research group alumni, Dr Sarah Larragy and Dr Emma King.

Key to our work in Trinity College, is the Research Module, which cuts across and links in with all the other modules. The role of the Research Module is to ensure that the actions taken for pollinators are evidence-based. This means that practical actions are more likely to work when implemented, which can save practitioners time and money. And it means that the discoveries made can inform relevant policy development.

In 2017, we, the researchers, formed the Irish Pollinator Research Network (IPRN), which is a dynamic network of researchers addressing issues and providing the evidence base that supports the Plan. We have met as a group every year (see previous blogs from 2018, 2019, 2021, 2024, 2025, 2026), and maintain the ethos of the IPRN, which is to collaborate and share about our research – our findings, our approaches, our equipment and samples – and to support one another.

Ethos: Great science, great vibes!
The IPRN, including any subgroups, operates under an overarching ethos that prioritises positivity, constructive collaboration, and the cultivation of a welcoming, inclusive, and informal environment. It is a community where researchers are supported and encouraged to conduct excellent science while developing meaningful, collaborative connections with colleagues at all stages of their careers. The network aims to provide a space in which researchers can share ideas openly, engage in informal discussions, and do so in a collegial, enjoyable, and supportive atmosphere.

It’s a wonderful network and one I am very happy and proud to be part of. In the next phase, we are keen to emphasis that this research encompasses all disciplines, not just ecological ones, and already the network includes people working on a wide range of social, economic, and business issues relating to pollinator conservation.

In the next phase of the Pollinator Plan, we also aim to work harder to close the gap between research and practice. Although we have tried to keep up the information flow with our “Dispatches from Researchers” series of blogs (eg https://pollinators.ie/are-new-woodlands-good-for-nature/), in the next phase, we want to also have more face-to-face policy-practice dialogues. This enables us to explain what the research is suggesting (in terms of current status and trends, threats and solutions), and for stakeholders to tell us what they need to know in implementing pollinator conservation and restoration in the field. These research-practice dialogues will be organised in conjunction with the NBDC team.

Finally, we will continue to ensure that the data we collect on pollinators is not just used in the research, but is shared with landowners and other stakeholders and pollinator data/records will be submitted to the appropriate organisation (NBDC, CEDaR) and samples will be lodged in appropriate collections (museums).

Personally, it’s so wonderful to see a thriving pollinator research community across the island of Ireland, working together to understand the problems and help provide insight for the solutions. As researchers, we can’t reverse pollinator decline by ourselves – we need to work with other stakeholders across all sectors and in all organisations. And that’s what we want to do…

Jane Stout is Professor of Ecology in the Discipline of Botany, School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin. She leads the Plant-Animal Interactions Research Group and is a founder member of the Trinity Business and Nature Hub.

World Bee Day at Trinity College Dublin

stoutj123

Blog by Moya Owens, Research Assistant on the ANTENNA project in the School of Natural Sciences at Trinity College Dublin

May 20th marked World Bee Day, where the world celebrates the tiny pollinators that play a huge role in our lives. Bees are one of the most important members of our ecosystems and provide an important ecosystem service in pollination. In Ireland, we have 100 bee species: 78 solitary bee species, 21 species of bumblebee and 1 honeybee. Sadly, bee populations are declining, both in Ireland and across the globe. Six out of the 100 bee species in Ireland are listed as critically endangered on the IUCN regional red list for Ireland. Celebrations like World Bee Day serve as a reminder of the importance of bees (as well as other pollinators!) to our ecosystems, and gives us an opportunity to highlight the crucial and necessary research that we are carrying out at Trinity to protect our pollinator species.

Figure 1 Celebrating World Bee Day at Trinity

To celebrate World Bee Day 2026, we organised a Pollinator Workshop focusing on the monitoring efforts that are being carried out by researchers at Trinty and the National Biodiversity Centre. Prof. Jane Stout introduced the workshop, emphasising the importance of monitoring pollinators and the collection of data in order to have up to date trends on insect populations. This set the scene for a morning of flash presentations from researchers involved in pollinator monitoring (Fig. 3) which then led to some interesting discussion surrounding challenges, monitoring gaps and opportunities within monitoring schemes.

Figure 2 The agenda for the day

One of the main challenges with insect monitoring is surrounding variability – there are so many things to consider before even getting into the field to monitor! Insects are incredibly variable year to year and can be sensitive to environmental stressors which results in population fluctuations. Pesticides, habitat loss and climate change all impact our insect species and negatively impact populations. Additionally, the weather plays a huge role in insect activity and detection. Insects like warm, sunny weather conditions so choosing when to survey is crucial in order to detect insect activity (spoiler alert – Ireland is not the best at giving us sunny, dry weather). There are also gaps within monitoring schemes – monitoring methods don’t capture the whole picture, which is why projects like Wing Sense and ANTENNA can help fill these gaps. Novel technologies can capture richness over a wider spatial and temporal scale, improving our data and giving us a better understanding of population trends. We also discussed the new EU Pollinator Monitoring Scheme (EU-PoMS) which is being rolled out from 2027. Under the Nature Restoration Law, all EU Member States are required to reverse the decline in pollinators by 2030 – an ambitious task, but a good starting point that will hopefully a) Increase awareness surrounding the decline of pollinators and b) Lead to the implementation of effective measures that will improve pollinator diversity across Europe.

Figure 3 Researchers presenting their projects. L-R: Dr. Sarah Larragy, Dr. Kate Harrington, PhD student Hazel Cravan, Research Masters student Ailis Wynne, MSc student Katie Gahan, Dr. Maryam Morouzi, Dr. Michelle Larkin, Research Assistant Moya Owens

After the presentations and discussions, we took advantage of the dry weather and went on a bee hunt on campus. We found lots of insects flying about – honeybees (Apis mellifera), mining bees (Andrena spp.), white-tailed bees (Bombus lucorum agg.) and early bumblebees (Bombus pratorum). It was a great day celebrating all things bee – until next year!

Figure 4 Enjoying learning about bees!

Figure 5 L: Red Mason Bee Osmia bicornis and R: Jane showing off a male Bombus pratorum

Birds Bees and Business – Mole National Park, Ghana.

stoutj123

Written by PhD student Elaine Marshall, whose thesis focuses on gender in ecosystem restoration and management.

I recently returned from a 10 day trip to Ghana, participating in the ‘Birds Bees and Business’ project kick off, led by Vogelbescherming (VBN) ‘Birdlife Netherlands’, with Birdlife International in-country partners: Ghana Wildlife Society, the UK’s RSPB, Naturama (Burkina Faso), SOS Foret (Cote D’Ivoire), NABU (Birdlife Germany), as well as the ‘Fair Climate Fund’ (Netherlands) and ‘Tiigalpa’ (Burkina) NGOs, and a regionally important natural product social enterprise called ‘Vitara’.

Arriving in a hot, humid Accra, I met with the core team including project leader who I have worked with on and off since 2017. The following morning we flew Northwards to Tamale, and with the Harmattan winds blowing from the Sahara, the dust impeded much visibility both from the plane, and during the wider regional visit. Once all project partners had arrived in Tamale, and as the sun went down and the impossibly large fruit bats began their night patrols, we assembled in the evening cool to begin our journey working together, in French and English, introducing our technical backgrounds, organisations and interests. The next day we departed overland on a 3 hour drive to Mole National Park in Savannah Region, the location of our 6 day inception workshop.  

Leaving the urban chaos of Tamale, you are immediately struck by the amount of degradation in the landscape, the absence of trees other than occasional small shea (Vitellaria paradoxa), baobab (Adansonia), African locust bean (Parkia biglobosa) or Kapok (Ceiba pentandra), the volumes of charcoal being sold on the side of the road (bulked up for collection by commercial scale intermediaries), grazing livestock – particularly goats, and areas of extensive ‘controlled’ burning.

The inception workshop was a carefully planned opportunity to enable us all to present our individual work and research, identify what we bring to the project including opportunities for synergy, support and partnership across the region, and input into a Theory of Change for the region, building on collective in-country partner progress, across the 3 project pillars of biodiversity conservation, socio economic well-being, and climate change adaptation and mitigation.

I presented a summary of my PhD research to date, including my conceptual framework drawing on feminist political ecology (FPE), outlined research questions and methodological approach for evaluating differentiated gender perspectives around restoration and sustainable land management (SLM). It generated lots of interest across the project partners, including interesting discussions around the sensitive nature of gender work, particularly in Islamic culture, and the importance of working with both women and men. We discussed the challenges of empowering women in ways which are culturally and socially acceptable, and how successful community engagement can enable sustained project outcomes.

We considered the possibilities of undertaking research in Cote D’Ivoire as well as Ghana, and also the relevance of previous work between 2016-2020 with Naturama colleagues in Burkina Faso. An opportunity to follow up and evaluate the perceived impacts by men and women, of farmer led interventions for nature restoration in Burkina Faso, would have been ideal. Sadly, regional insecurity and broken Diplomatic ties between Burkina and Europe, underpins Foreign Office advice not to travel, making this field work option challenging to insure. As such, for now the focus is on Ghana.

I set up meetings with the Ghana partners to discuss my community-based research in the Mole buffer zone. I wanted to assess the lie of the land, including ongoing and envisaged work, selection of research communities (location and number), and identify a research assistant, community ‘gatekeeper’, and access officer to help with translation. Physical infrastructure is limited in places to dirt roads, necessitating 4×4 vehicular access, and best avoided during the rainy season (June – September). We talked about the possibility of undertaking research in April, between Ramadan finishing and the rains beginning from mid May. Helpfully I was able to visit 5 communities in total and speak with some of the community women who are involved in shea production.

Communities in the Mole National Park (MNP) buffer zone have community resource management plans (CREMAS) which are developed and implemented with the support of Ghana Wildlife Society. Mole was established in 1956 and is the first and largest National Park in Ghana, covering 4577 km2, located in the Guinea savanna vegetation zone. A variety of mammals, including elephants, birds and tree species, attract international tourists. A history of conflict exists between local communities and MNP, tracing back to enforced eviction and involuntary relocation, at the time of protected area gazetting. The establishment of MNP resulted in the loss of hunting grounds, farmland, and sacred sites, with notable impact on women through reduced access to traditional harvesting sites for important non timber forest products (NTFPs), including shea. Cultural norms which alienate women from accessing land and making decisions relating to natural resources, reinforce inequalities and exacerbate the impact of protected area conflicts on women: “Land issues are men’s issues—we women have little say in matters of land” (Soliku, 2024). Wildlife laws prohibiting local people from hunting and accessing other resources in the park, as well as ongoing human wildlife conflict around elephants and crops, further aggravates the relationships between local communities, chiefs, park and government officials. Households in the region are predominantly male headed (90%), with sociocultural norms determining women’s access to productive resources, participation in decision-making, and expected caregiving roles (Nyarko, 2002). Male economic migration to the South of Ghana continues, leaving behind wives (and children) who assume dual roles as caregivers and breadwinners.

I spoke with community women and men in all 5 communities, around shea production and the importance of the landscape in meeting wider livelihood needs, from fuelwood and water, to food and income. Women consistently reported unreliable rains resulting in drought last year and lost harvests. The importance of shea in terms of helping with ‘income smoothing’ for households is significant, as were observations that the availability and abundance of nuts is declining. “ Before, ten years back, we used to collect all that we needed and there were still so many nuts left on the ground. Now we struggle to find what we need….” Local women attributed this shortage to unpredictable rains and a changing climate, but previous research in neighbouring Burkina confirming that shea is insect pollinated, also identified pollination limitation across shea sample plots, and this was greatest where plant diversity was lowest and least able to support healthy pollinator populations (Delaney et al., 2020).

Reflecting on methodological approach and research questions:

  • The wider project partnership recognises the importance of working with men and women, sharing valuable insight around the importance of respect for cultural practices in interventions which seek to empower women. Many ongoing projects have elements of gender mainstreaming incorporated.
  • There are partner limitations in capacity and personnel, but I met with 2 excellent local staff whom I hope to engage full time to work with during the next field work visit.
  • I will use the FPE (feminist political ecology) framework to provide an approach for evaluating gendered perceptions of landscape management, risk, resilience, benefit sharing, decision-making, and changes over time, etc.. The scoping visit has been enlightening as to what elements of different lived experiences the case study communities are best able to talk about, and what areas might provide most insight around gendered community dynamics.
  • Interventions to increase food security through vegetable gardens and bee keeping are underway, and restoration activities are being established in the communities, with community tree nurseries leading the way following consultation around species selection.
  • The data collection will be a mixed methods approach collecting both qualitative and quantitative data using: surveys, semi structured interviews with key informants; focal groups with both men and women; my observations and journal notes; and time use maps. All communities have women who collect, process and sell shea (as members of a producer group), and these women will provide my targeted sample across 3 different communities, Male key informants will be identified from each community, and additional perspectives gleaned from male and female focus groups. 
  • Deliberately parking the language of ‘gender equality’, to enable a more nuanced exploration of ‘gendered perceptions around wider community resilience and livelihood strategies’, when working in the field.

Using a gender lens to identify and explore how people interact with their natural environment:

  • Gender roles in income generation, farming and food production, and natural resource management? What are the gendered priorities, opportunities, challenges?
    • What does a typical day look like? Who does what, where, and why?
      • What decisions are made and how and who makes them? And how has all of this changed over time? Observing any areas of tension or conflict.

Thematic areas for discussion include: access to resources and land; restoration and sustainable land management; labour and care burdens; livelihoods and income (agricultural, shea, other NTFPs etc).

And finally, we were lucky and enjoyed a couple of safaris around MNP near to our lodge, early morning and evening, and a special opportunity to walk to the watering hole. We saw elephants, wart hogs, crocodiles, antelopes, monkeys, and huge bird diversity, from fly catchers, to kingfishers, to martial eagles and vultures, and on an evening drive, some very cute bush babies!  

Delaney, A., Dembele, A., Nombré, I., Gnane Lirasse, F., Marshall, E., Nana, A., Vickery, J., Tayleur, C., Stout, J.C., 2020. Local‐scale tree and shrub diversity improves pollination services to shea trees in tropical West African parklands. Journal of Applied Ecology 57, 1504–1513. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.13640

Nyarko, P., 2002. Navrongo DSS, Ghana,. Population and Health in Developing Countries in vol. 1, Population, Health, and Survival at INDEPTH Sites 247–256. https://www.indepth-network.org/Resource%20Kit/INDEPTH%20DSS%20Resource%20Kit/LinkedDocuments/INDEPTH%20Monograph%20I%20Ch1-7%20Introduction,%20Methods%20&%20Life%20Tables.pdf.

Soliku, O., 2024. Living around Mole National Park: Grassroots Perspectives on Gendered Experiences of Protected Area Conflicts and Peacebuilding Strategies.

Natural Capital Accounting | Accounting for the Crossroads of Human Nature

stoutj123

Written by Owen Small, researcher on the For-ES project in the School of Natural Sciences, Trinity College Dublin

Dramatisation of the headline aside, Natural Capital Accounting (NCA) is a trending framework for ascribing value to ecosystems, that – in the eyes of this particular researcher – has a wide disparity in the potential outcomes it may lead to.

On one hand, we have a means to reshape our current economic systems in a manner that prioritises nature like the essential driving force of life it is. On the other, we have a streamlined methodology for powerful private interests to further commodify the natural world, widening existing wealth gaps and propagating the exploitation of developing countries. Standing at this crossroads, the scientists, economists, conservationists and humanists that recognise the powerful tool NCA might be, must face it for what it could be bastardised into.

“Concern for man himself and his fate must always constitute the chief objective of all technological endeavors… in order that the creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations.”
                                                                                    – Albert Einstein.

Einstein uttered these words at a speech at the California Institute of Technology on 16 February 1931. Despite Einstein’s words, there still sometimes seems to exist a lack of consideration for externalities during the rigors of research. It’s of course a folly of a system that demands constant advancement and output, otherwise experts face redundancy, but still a flaw in the process none the less. The point I’m overexplaining is we must move cautiously and deliberately with frameworks connecting the living, natural world to monetary values.

Three paragraphs in, perhaps it’s a decent time to define NCA, and the specific ecological-based aspects I’m referring to. Natural capital is simply all that comes from nature; soil, water, animals, plants, etc. The accounting bit refers to measuring the change in extent and condition of this natural capital, the stock as it’s called. In a more particular context, we have ‘Ecosystem Accounting’ which measures and tracks this stock over time, as well as how humans use it, or the flow of ‘ecosystem services.’ These services again are how humans use the ecosystems they exist in or adjacent to. Generally, they’re divided into four types: provisioning (food, timber), regulating (flood control, carbon sequestration), cultural (recreation areas, sacred sites), and supporting (photosynthesis, the water cycle). Fundamentally, human life and society do not exist without ecosystem services.

Figure from SEEA EA, conceptualising Ecosystem Accounting

At face value, this all sounds great. A system that seeks to monitor and track where ecosystems are, how they’re doing, and what they provide us. The issue lies not in the means or purported ends, but the potential perversion of its goals. Under the System of Environmental Economic Accounting (SEEA), there is an intention to reach a level where monetary values are calculated for ecosystem services and stock, albeit these monetary valuations are not ratified by the UN. The SEEA Implementation Strategy explicitly mentions intended uses for ecosystem accounting (EA) being to drive private and public investment for nature restoration, inform policy, and support current reporting requirements.

Figures from Mascolo et al. (2025) showing Natural Capital Accounts for Italy in 2021. (left) Net carbon sequestered by ecosystems. (right) Wood provisioning provided by forested areas.

This all sounds excellent, and there have been successful pilot projects and ongoing uses of SEEA EA. At a national scale in Italy, spatially explicit valuation of ecosystem services has improved the allocation of EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) subsidies, directing restoration funding to areas indicated for high returns (European Union, 2024; Mascolo et al., 2025). A multi-national SEEA EA pilot initiative helped quantify where forest degradation was avoided in Central and South America, as well as Southeast Asia, and even saw reform of forest repayment schemes in Mexico through the Natural Capital Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services Project (NCAVES) (United Nations Statistics Division & United Nations Environment Programme, n.d.). Some studies even claim that the principles of NCA adopted in green accounting with private corporations have demonstrated improved financial performance (Tjandrakirana et al., 2024). It’s that last example, however, where the cause for concern can arise.

Accusations of politicising a discussion can be brought up when critiques of capitalism, and its impacts on the environment, are contended. Personally – as an independent individual whose views are my own and not any group or institution’s – I see enough categorical and empirical evidence supporting the statement that traditional capitalist systems, and the inherent growth dependency and profit maximization, are contradictory to current climate and biodiversity goals. While it’s encouraging to see organisations willfully partaking in more sustainable practices, it begs the question of whether these goals and practices are maintainable for profit-driven sectors.

Now, credit where credit’s due, that is in a sense the point of NCA and ecosystem accounting. Realign the priorities of financial systems so that profit is not the sole goal, but overall environmental health and human equity is an aim. In a vacuum, monetary systems are not destructive to ecology. Just as there’s exchanges of energy in a rich and dynamic trophic web, humans exchange currency in equally complex economies. That said, I’d safely assume most researchers in the field of NCA would all agree that the relationship between humanity, our economy, and nature needs to be overhauled in order to meet critical ecological goals. Where my previous sentiment was drawing alarms are the various stakeholders that would not view ecosystem accounting as means to change a system, but rather to further perpetuate their own economic power.

Image of common ‘Greenwashing’ terms from How to tell if a company is greenwashing – spunout

‘Greenwashing’ as it’s called is the new buzzword that really captures where a lot of my worries would lie. Thanks in part to ineffectual policy, or enforcement of existing legislation, countless companies in the developed world sell products labelled as “green” or “sustainable” with no true data to support it. Often the products are actually significantly damaging the environment. The easiest example, which the veil has been pulled back a little, is plastics and recycling. It’s very well documented that only a fraction of plastic products are truly recycled, and even the process of recycling them has its impacts, yet many companies still push “100% recyclable container” or “packaged made of 50% recycled plastic.” It’s predatory marketing practices harvesting a premium from environmentally conscious consumers.

Lets imagine greenwashing, but on a systemic scale rather than just the marketing and retail level. Weaponising NCA methods, companies whose industrial practice, regardless of any adjustments they can make, damage the environment (fossil fuels, strip-mining) could use ecosystem accounting to minimise and mask their impacts. One objective critique of NCA is, while there are standards in place, the operationalising of SEEA EA is largely site/stakeholder dependent. Accounts must be developed with goals in mind and vary region by region. Now, if a fossil-fuel company wipes out a protected habitat, there is not much data manipulation to be done to mask that, but what could be done is active minimisation of the wider impact. Ensuring condition and ecosystem service accounts downplay what this ecosystem provided, and perhaps even upscaling what other land the company may own has.

Yes, I’m jumping several steps ahead and making very large and brash assumptions, but that was precisely my point with the Einstein quote. His work, however indirect, contributed to the atomic bomb, and he even signed a letter with others warning the U.S. government of Germany’s atomic potential, a decision he would later voice regrets on learning more about how far they were. Despite that, America’s advancements in the 1930s/40s led the world to a nuclear era with unforeseen risks and consequences. Could physicists have treaded more carefully and brought us instead into an age of safe, nuclear energy? Similar questions, not quite as heavy questions could be asked when developing valuations for ecosystems. How do we, as NCA researchers, avoid a similar mistake and prevent for-profit private enterprises from misusing the principles of ecosystem accounting?

I’ve worked in the field for less than a year, so obviously have no answers myself. Moreover, there are countless distinguished experts in the NCA landscape who have had these same worries and asked the same questions. This is just the outward reflections of someone that has dove in and been inundated with a fascinating new perspective on quantifying and understanding humanity and our relationship with nature. Frankly, I worry it is too anthropocentric, plain and simple. It takes something that should be inherent, care for nature, and frames it in a transactional manner: nature good = humans good. If used as intended and responsibly, could NCA still contribute to our separation from nature? We frame it as capital – nature is an asset. I disagree; nature is us. We are innately part of the formula, not one side of an equation: nature good + humans good = Earth good.

Science Communication cartoon by Tom Dunne

But, as a realist rather than idealist, ecosystem accounting is a practical solution regarding an already degraded relationship. Perhaps as it becomes mainstream, develops and improves, that inherent sense of caring for nature will be restored. In many ways, natural capital serves to speak on protecting biodiversity and improving sustainability in terms the people with significant impact understand. It’s the language of policymakers that fret about GDP, and the vernacular of corporations that cause the larger scale impacts. An ecologist’s understanding of something means little if it can’t be communicated to people making decisions. Creating ecosystem accounts is a form of communicating info many experts already know. On a macro-scale, it’s “laymen’s terms” for describing ecosystems, how they’re doing, and how important they are.

As we continue advancing Natural Capital Accounting, especially those of us developing new methods to quantify ecosystem services and their valuations, the responsibility is not abstract. I work on experimental recreation-related services accounts using relatively novel methods and a dataset with inherent bias. They offer an interesting perspective into understanding how people feel about and use an ecosystem. In the wrong hands, the accounts could easily be used to misrepresent the true sentiment of a community for a natural area. That’s a powerful tool that should be handled properly.

“The creations of our mind shall be a blessing and not a curse to mankind,” Einstein said. It’s not the ecosystem accounts alone that determine which contrivance of humanity it shall be; it’s the structures and systems that use it that decide. We can communicate nature as an asset but must make it clear that nature’s value is irrespective of its ability to serve people. Nature is valuable to humans. When we restore those last two words, we turn our relationship with nature into a transaction.

A photo of something ‘valuable’, from a walk in Co. Wicklow, Ireland

References

European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/3024 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2024 amending Regulation (EU) No 691/2011 as regards introducing new environmental economic account modules (SEEA EA). Official Journal of the European Union, L 3024. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/3024/oj/ 

Mascolo, R. A., et al. (2025). Towards National Ecosystem Accounts: A First Application of EU Regulation 2024/3024 in Italy. One Ecosystem. https://oneecosystem.pensoft.net/article/161992/

United Nations Statistics Division & United Nations Environment Programme. (n.d.). Natural Capital Accounting and Valuation of Ecosystem Services Project (NCAVES). SEEA UN Project Portal. https://seea.un.org/home/Natural-Capital-Accounting-Project

Tjandrakirana, R. D. P., Ermadiani, E., & Aspahani, A. (2024). The impact of environmental performance, green accounting, and corporate social responsibility (CSR) on financial performance. International Journal of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences (IJHESS), 4(3). https://doi.org/10.55227/ijhess.v4i3.1335