A function-based typology for Earth's ecosystems.

As the United Nations develops a post-2020 global biodiversity framework for the Convention on Biological Diversity, attention is focusing on how new goals and targets for ecosystem conservation might serve its vision of 'living in harmony with nature'1,2. Advancing dual imperatives to conserve biodiversity and sustain ecosystem services requires reliable and resilient generalizations and predictions about ecosystem responses to environmental change and management3. Ecosystems vary in their biota4, service provision5 and relative exposure to risks6, yet there is no globally consistent classification of ecosystems that reflects functional responses to change and management. This hampers progress on developing conservation targets and sustainability goals. Here we present the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Global Ecosystem Typology, a conceptually robust, scalable, spatially explicit approach for generalizations and predictions about functions, biota, risks and management remedies across the entire biosphere. The outcome of a major cross-disciplinary collaboration, this novel framework places all of Earth's ecosystems into a unifying theoretical context to guide the transformation of ecosystem policy and management from global to local scales. This new information infrastructure will support knowledge transfer for ecosystem-specific management and restoration, globally standardized ecosystem risk assessments, natural capital accounting and progress on the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal, milestones and indicators for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework.

Despite substantial conservation efforts, the loss of ecosystems continues globally, along with related declines in species and nature's contributions to people. An effective ecosystem goal, supported by clear milestones, targets and indicators, is urgently needed for the post-2020 global biodiversity framework and beyond to support biodiversity conservation, the UN Sustainable Development Goals and efforts to abate climate change. Here, we describe the scientific foundations for an ecosystem goal and milestones, founded on a theory of change, and review available indicators to measure progress. An ecosystem goal should include three core components: area, integrity and risk of collapse. Targets-the actions that are necessary for the goals to be met-should address the pathways to ecosystem loss and recovery, including safeguarding remnants of threatened ecosystems, restoring their area and integrity to reduce risk of collapse and retaining intact areas. Multiple indicators are needed to capture the different dimensions of ecosystem area, integrity and risk of collapse across all ecosystem types, and should be selected for their fitness for purpose and relevance to goal components. Science-based goals, supported by well-formulated action targets and fit-for-purpose indicators, will provide the best foundation for reversing biodiversity loss and sustaining human well-being.

Using decision science to evaluate global biodiversity indices.

Global biodiversity indices are used to measure environmental change and progress toward conservation goals, yet few indices have been evaluated comprehensively for their capacity to detect trends of interest, such as declines in threatened species or ecosystem function. Using a structured approach based on decision science, we qualitatively evaluated 9 indices commonly used to track biodiversity at global and regional scales against 5 criteria relating to objectives, design, behavior, incorporation of uncertainty, and constraints (e.g., costs and data availability). Evaluation was based on reference literature for indices available at the time of assessment. We identified 4 key gaps in indices assessed: pathways to achieving goals (means objectives) were not always clear or relevant to desired outcomes (fundamental objectives); index testing and understanding of expected behavior was often lacking; uncertainty was seldom acknowledged or accounted for; and costs of implementation were seldom considered. These gaps may render indices inadequate in certain decision-making contexts and are problematic for indices linked with biodiversity targets and sustainability goals. Ensuring that index objectives are clear and their design is underpinned by a model of relevant processes are crucial in addressing the gaps identified by our assessment. Uptake and productive use of indices will be improved if index performance is tested rigorously and assumptions and uncertainties are clearly communicated to end users. This will increase index accuracy and value in tracking biodiversity change and supporting national and global policy decisions, such as the post-2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Uso de las Ciencias de la Decisión para Evaluar los Índices Globales de Biodiversidad Resumen Los índices globales de biodiversidad se usan para medir el cambio ambiental y el avance hacia los objetivos de conservación, aunque pocos han sido evaluados completamente en cuanto a su capacidad para detectar las tendencias de interés como las declinaciones de especies amenazadas o la función del ecosistema. Evaluamos cualitativamente nueve índices de uso común para dar seguimiento a la biodiversidad a escala global y regional contra cinco criterios relacionados con los objetivos, diseño, comportamiento, incorporación de la incertidumbre y restricciones (p. ej.: costos y disponibilidad de datos) mediante una estrategia estructurada basada en las ciencias de la decisión. La evaluación se basó en la literatura de referencia para los índices disponibles al momento del análisis. Identificamos cuatro vacíos importantes en los índices estudiados: las vías para lograr los objetivos (objetivos medios) no fueron siempre claras o relevantes para los resultados deseados (objetivos fundamentales); el análisis del índice y el entendimiento del comportamiento esperado casi siempre fueron escasos; pocas veces se consideró o explicó la incertidumbre; y casi nunca se consideraron los costos de la implementación. Estos vacíos pueden hacer que los índices sean inadecuados en ciertos contextos de toma de decisiones y son problemáticos para los índices vinculados a los objetivos de biodiversidad y las metas de sustentabilidad. Es de suma importancia asegurarse que los objetivos del índice sean claros y que su diseño esté respaldado por un modelo de procesos relevantes para tratar con los vacíos identificados en nuestro estudio. La aceptación y el uso productivo de los índices mejorarán si el desempeño del índice es evaluado rigurosamente y las suposiciones e incertidumbres se les comunican claramente a los usuarios finales. Lo anterior aumentará la precisión y valor del índice en el seguimiento de los cambios de la biodiversidad y en el apoyo a las decisiones políticas nacionales y mundiales, como el marco de trabajo para la biodiversidad post-2020 establecido por la Convención sobre la Diversidad Biológica.