Recent studies examining the risks to financial system stability associated with nature degradation have been conducted for countries such as the Netherlands, France, and others. These studies consistently underscore that biodiversity loss can have profound destabilising effects. Such effects may arise either from the collapse of ecosystems and the services they provide to economies (referred to as ‘physical shocks’) or from shifts in behaviour, technology, or regulation linked to ecological transitions (‘transition shocks’).

However, these risks extend well beyond the financial sector, particularly in countries from the Global South. How can the macro-financial context be better incorporated into analyses of nature-related risks in emerging economies, where it plays a critical role in the resilience of businesses and institutions? And in the context of climate challenges, how can we better account for the territorial dimension of nature-related risks and conduct spatially explicit assessments?

Focusing on the case of South Africa, this study evaluates the potential effects of either a physical shock (resulting from the degradation of ecosystem services) or a transition shock (arising from measures or innovations aimed at reducing the pressures certain economic sectors place on biodiversity). These effects will be examined across multiple dimensions, including production, income generation, inflation, employment, wages, external balance, and fiscal stability.

Beyond this broad analysis, the method seeks to identify the specific locations of these risks within the region. This spatially explicit approach aims to provide actionable insights for local decision-makers, enabling them to implement well-informed measures for an effective ecological transition.

This study introduces innovative methods for assessing the socio-economic risks associated with nature degradation, grounded in two main contributions:

• Multidimensional analysis of macro-financial and social variables: the study examines the exposure of key macro-financial and social variables to nature-related risks. By using input-output tables extended to include environmental and socio-economic satellite accounts, it identifies how these risks could significantly affect sectors that are directly and indirectly critical to production chains and, consequently, socio-economic stability.
• Granular spatial assessment: at the municipal level in South Africa, the study investigates nature-related vulnerabilities through a more detailed spatial analysis. This approach integrates spatially disaggregated economic data with mapped ecological data to ensure consistency, enabling the identification of specific socio-economic exposures.

Together, these two interconnected approaches emphasize the need for a holistic understanding of nature-related risks. They demonstrate the value of interdisciplinary collaboration between economists and ecologists, aiming to balance the intertwined goals of economic prosperity, social stability, and environmental sustainability.

The study identifies economic sectors potentially exposed to significant risks and provides South African stakeholders with a foundation for conducting deeper analyses to determine the extent and materiality of these risks.

In South Africa, for instance, 80% of the country’s exports and 60% of business loans are heavily reliant on the water supply services provided by ecosystems. Beyond direct exposure, shocks affecting sectors dependent on these ecosystem services can cascade through the industrial network, triggering demand or supply disruptions. While 18% of jobs and 24% of salaries are directly exposed to such risks—particularly in the property and manufacturing sectors—these figures rise to 48% and 56%, respectively, when considering activities indirectly linked through value chains.

Given biodiversity’s strong dependence on geographic factors, it is essential to complement prior analyses with geolocalised studies. These analyses identify the economic activities located in areas where ecosystems and their services are already degraded. For example, when factoring in the location of companies involved in exports, the initial estimate that 80% of South African exports depend on surface water supply decreases to around 23%. This revised figure reflects exports generated by activities reliant on surface water supply and situated in municipalities where this ecosystem service is significantly degraded. In other words, when the geographic degradation of ecosystem services is considered, nearly a quarter of net exports are directly vulnerable to water scarcity.

Find out more: 

• Read the research paper: Socio-economic and spatially-explicit assessment of nature-related risks – The case of South Africa
• Read the research paper: A framework to assess socioeconomic and spatialized nature-related risks: An application to South Africa (Environmental and Sustainability Indicators, 2025)
• Watch the replay of the Research Conversations webinar on the research project, with South African partners

The method has garnered interest and validation from numerous economic and environmental policymakers, highlighting its relevance. Rather than focusing on precise numerical results, the emphasis lies on the orders of magnitude and the identification of economic sectors that are either highly dependent on ecosystem services (exposed to physical risks) or exert significant pressure on biodiversity (exposed to transition risks). These insights are sparking interest and debate.

One of the key outcomes has been fostering dialogue among South African stakeholders who previously had limited interaction, including the South African National Biodiversity Institute (SANBI), the Department of the Environment, the Department of Finance, and the South African Reserve Bank (SARB).

South African stakeholders are now working to translate these technical findings into accessible materials for non-specialist audiences and to facilitate deeper discussions with representatives from sectors identified as either risk-exposed or offering opportunities for resilience and positive socio-economic impacts.

Furthermore, the South African Reserve Bank, in collaboration with the Agence Française de Développement (AFD), is applying this method to assess the financial sector's exposure to nature-related risks across member countries of the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA) has also begun using this approach to evaluate the exposure of its own portfolio. Future iterations and enhancements of the method are anticipated as its use expands.

• Paul Hadji-Lazaro, Ecological Macroeconomist at AFD
• Julien Calas, Research Officer on Biodiversity, AFD
• Antoine Godin, Economist, Head of AFD Macroeconomic Modelling Unit
• Andrew Skowno, National Biodiversity Analysis Coordinator at SANBI
• Pamela Sekese, Geospatial Consultant

Today, the loss of biodiversity has become a major risk for financial systems. In September 2023, Ravi Menon, Chairman of the NGFS – the network of central banks, financial regulators and financial institutions for the greening of the financial system – warned: "Along with the climate crisis, the degradation of nature is an existential threat facing our planet. Addressing nature-related risks and its broader implications for the financial sector is no longer just prudent – it is an imperative". 

As these risks require rigorous measurement, several frameworks have been proposed. The NGFS has published a conceptual framework for taking into account the risks associated with biodiversity loss. Target 15 of the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework also encourages businesses and financial institutions to assess, report on and reduce the risks associated with biodiversity loss and the negative impacts they have by 2030. Lastly, the Task Force on nature-related Financial Disclosure (TNFD) has proposed a reporting framework to help businesses and financial institutions analyse and disclose these risks and impacts, recommending the use of various biodiversity metrics. 

However, as the missions of PDBs focused on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are very specific within financial institutions, there are few studies to help this type of institution identify the biodiversity metrics best suited to their activities. 

The main objective is to compare six biodiversity metrics to determine which are best suited to the needs of Public Development Banks. By identifying the best practices, this project aims to guide PDBs in their financing decisions, by better integrating biodiversity considerations. This harmonisation of biodiversity measurement practices will improve the environmental impact of the projects financed. 

The research project also seeks to reveal the accessibility costs and the need for training within PDBs so that they can effectively integrate biodiversity considerations into their risk assessments. 

Following an preliminary comparative study by The Biodiversity Consultancy, six metrics for assessing biodiversity in PDBs projects were selected:  ENCORE, ABC-map, STAR, CBF, BFFI and GBS. These relevant and scientific metrics cover the main drivers of biodiversity loss. 

A sample of six varied AFD projects was selected to test these metrics. The projects include initiatives in Africa, Pakistan and Mexico. The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) also tested the same metrics on three of its projects.

The study, conducted by Biotope and Arcadis, is being carried out in three phases:

1. Launch and data collection: briefing, project validation and data collection with recommendations;
2. Implementation: summary assessment, then in-depth assessment depending on the data available;
3. Consolidation and reporting: analysis of results, comparison of metrics and drafting of summary report.

A preliminary study proposes several protocols for the use of several metrics in order to compare their results. It also contains information that may be useful to some development banks that simply want to choose a metric and see how they can use it. With this in mind, a decision tree for choosing one of the metrics studied is proposed in Appendix 2 of this preliminary report.

This research project aims to produce a comparative analysis detailing the advantages and limitations of the different biodiversity metrics studied. A Public Policy Dialogue provides synthetic results, a case study and specific recommendations for the integration of these metrics into PDBs financing processes.

The full report will be published on this page after the Biodiversity COP16 by the end of 2024. In addition, webinars and publications will be used to share the findings with a wider audience, including development and biodiversity protection stakeholders.