Lately at Digby Wells we’ve had a lot of conversations about nature-risk management in the extractives sector. One thought I keep coming back to is this: nature-related risk can’t continue to be assessed solely through a biodiversity focused lens. We also need to consider ecosystem service risk.
Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. They underpin operations and support community resilience, but are under increasing pressure. As competition for land and natural capital intensifies, expectations of sustainable practice and community-led development are rising. At the same time, the stability of social license is becoming less predictable. This puts a spotlight on the role ecosystems play in supporting both operations and stakeholders.
The Gap That Becomes Risk
A 2025 paper by the EU Joint Research Centre (La Notte et al., 2025) introduces a concept that is worth paying attention to: ecosystem service vulnerability. In simple terms, it’s the gap between what ecosystems can provide and what society and the economy demand. When demand exceeds potential, that mismatch becomes a measurable source of risk.
For extractives, this is not abstract. It shows up in very practical ways: water availability and purification, flood regulation, erosion control and land stability and the services communities depend on for livelihoods. As the gap widens, operational exposure increases and stakeholder dynamics can shift quickly. When crops fail due to water shortages, it is not experienced as a biodiversity issue. It becomes a question of resilience, responsibility and operational continuity.
Bridging Ecology and Decision-Making
What is compelling about this framework is that it starts to bridge ecology and decision-making. Emerging approaches such as ecosystem accounting, including SEEA-EA are beginning to standardise how these dependencies and mismatches are described. There is growing potential to translate this into insights that are relevant for risk management and disclosure frameworks such as TNFD, although practical application is still evolving.
A Better Question for the Sector
For me, the key question for the sector is: How well do we really understand the dependencies that keep our operations running? Because the answer to that question speaks directly to resilience. Nature-related risk is often positioned as a new concept. But in reality, it reflects a set of exposures that have been present for a long time but insufficiently accounted for. They become visible when they disrupt water, land stability and community development.
Opening the Conversation
Curious to hear how others are incorporating ecosystem services into risk registers, particularly in relation to land stability and community dependence.
(Reference: La Notte et al., 2025, Ecological Economics – JRC. Available here: The assessment of nature-related risks: From ecosystem services vulnerability to economic exposure and financial disclosures – ScienceDirect)
About the Author
Lydia Clarke is a Nature Economist at Digby Wells Environmental, specialising in Ecosystem Services and Impact Assessments. She holds a BSc in Economics from the University of York and an MSc in Global Development, Environment and Climate Change from the University of Manchester.