Safeguarding biodiversity and human well-being depends on sustaining ecosystems. Two global standards for quantifying ecosystem change, the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) and the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Ecosystem Accounting (EA), underpin headline indicators for the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. We analyse similarities and differences between the standards to understand their complementary roles in environmental policy and decision-making. The standards share key concepts, definitions of ecosystems and spatial data needs, meaning that similar data can be used in both. Their complementarities stem from their differing purposes and thus how data are analysed and interpreted. Although both record changes in ecosystem extent and condition, the RLE analyses the magnitude of change in terms of risk of ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss, whereas EA links ecosystem change with the ecosystem’s contributions to people and the economy. We recommend that the RLE and EA should not be treated as unrelated nor undertaken in isolation. Developing them in concert can exploit their complementarities while ensuring consistency in foundational data, in particular ecosystem classifications, maps and condition variables. Finding pathways for co-investment in foundational data, and for knowledge-sharing between people and organizations who undertake RLE assessments and accounting, will improve both processes and outcomes for biodiversity, ecosystems and people.

保护生物多样性和人类福祉取决于维持生态系统。量化生态系统变化的两项全球标准，即国际自然保护联盟生态系统红色名录 （RLE） 和联合国环境经济核算系统 （EA），是昆明-蒙特利尔全球生物多样性框架的主要指标的基础。我们分析了这些标准之间的异同，以了解它们在环境政策和决策中的互补作用。这些标准共享关键概念、生态系统定义和空间数据需求，这意味着类似的数据可以在两者中使用。它们的互补性源于它们不同的目的，因此也源于数据的分析和解释方式。尽管两者都记录了生态系统范围和条件的变化，但 RLE 分析了生态系统崩溃和生物多样性丧失风险的变化幅度，而 EA 将生态系统变化与生态系统对人类和经济的贡献联系起来。我们建议，不应将 RLE 和 EA 视为无关或孤立进行。协同开发它们可以利用它们的互补性，同时确保基础数据的一致性，特别是生态系统分类、地图和条件变量。寻找对基础数据进行共同投资的途径，以及进行 RLE 评估和会计的人员和组织之间的知识共享，将改善生物多样性、生态系统和人类的流程和结果。