Stop a person in the street and ask them for a species in the world currently at risk of extinction, and the answer most likely to come will be one of the cute and cuddly faces of conservation campaigns – pandas, orangutans, dolphins, polar bears and the like. But how many people could name an insect that is at risk, a tree that will soon disappear from our planet or a fungus that may never been seen again?

While members of the public may be forgiven for not being able to see beyond the poster boys for the conservation effort, the world of science should not be let off so lightly.

The “red list” of extinct and endangered species published by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) is currently the most comprehensive inventory available.

It has so far assessed and classified the risk level of more than 47,000 species, but it is heavily biased towards a few groups of animals – mammals, birds and amphibians.

Ecologists have acknowledged that this situation needs to be addressed.

Simon Stuart, chair of the IUCN’s species survival commission admits that only half of all vertebrates and “an extremely small proportion” of plants, invertebrates, fungi and other groups like seaweeds have been assessed for the red list, and species from marine, freshwater and arid environments are also “poorly covered”

With nearly 2 million species known to scientists, and research increasingly showing the delicate balance that exists in ecosystems around the world, a plan has been unveiled to develop a “barometer of natural life” that will provide an unprecedented assessment of the state of the natural world.

A cross-section of life will be assessed, from great mammals, fish and birds to obscure insects and fungi, all of which will provide a representative perspective of life on Earth.

The index will contain information on 160,000 species, which is more than triple the scope of the IUCN red list.

The figures could be used to help companies carry out environmental impact assessments, allow national and international organisations to prioritise spending, and draw public attention to problems as a way of building support for policies to protect and improve biodiversity.

Prof Edward O Wilson, who co-authored the project, underlines how such an expansive snapshot of the natural world could provide information useful beyond protecting wildlife:

“The more we learn about indicator species, the more we know about the status of the living environment that sustains us all.”

It is this acknowledgement that wildlife and human life are irrevocably linked and that the effects of one are felt by the other that drives this project.

The high-profile case of honeybee decline in the UK has highlighted the dearth of information that we have on some species and the worrying implications this can have when the fragility of ecosystems is exposed.

Of course a project such as this would be a huge undertaking, requiring the cooperation of thousands of scientists to collect and analyse data at an estimated cost of about US$60m (£39.3m).

But Simon Stuart, who is also the paper’s lead author, believes this outlay is fully justifiable:

“Just think of the other uses $60m are put to by the world, and the amount of money spent on wars or banks, or advertising,”

“We can put our hands on our hearts and say this would be better for the good of humanity.”

WWF PROTECTS AT RISK SPECIES – JOIN THEM TODAY

ADOPT AN ANIMAL WITH WWF TODAY