Halting and reversing biodiversity loss is central to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, yet a lack of consistent, spatially comprehensive data on ecosystem distributions has undermined our ability to monitor progress against its goals and targets. Here we introduce the Global Ecosystems Atlas initiative, convened by the intergovernmental Group on Earth Observations (GEO) in collaboration with the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), and developed through an international collaboration among intergovernmental organisations, non-government organisations, scientists, governments, and practitioners. The core elements of the Global Ecosystems Atlas (www.globalecosystemsatlas.org) are (i) an open-access geospatial dataset designed to represent the spatial distribution of 110 ecosystem functional groups, 25 biomes, and 10 realms as classified by the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology, (ii) a data catalogue of pre-existing geospatial datasets that were developed to represent ecosystems, and (iii) a spatial dataset of ecosystem occurrence records (EcoTrain) annotated by a team of trained interpreters to provide training and validation data across the initiative. In addition to these three core data products, the Global Ecosystems Atlas initiative includes guidelines, mapping and analysis tools, an online application and API, and online training resources to enable individuals, governments, corporates and other stakeholders to access ecosystems data, develop their own maps of ecosystem functional groups, and produce reports on the extent and distribution of ecosystems at a variety of spatial scales. Future phases of the Global Ecosystems Atlas initiative will focus on developing further essential data and resources required to advance our knowledge of the distribution, change dynamics and condition of all of the world’s ecosystems. We anticipate that the Global Ecosystems Atlas will emerge as a central resource for distributing knowledge about the distribution and change of all of the world’s ecosystems to support conservation and restoration efforts worldwide.

To combat global biodiversity decline, countries must identify priority ecosystems and species, often through National Ecosystem or Biodiversity Assessments (NEAs/NBAs). In developing nations, resource constraints make effective uptake critical. South Africa has conducted three NBAs (2004, 2011, 2018), which have influenced policy and practice, though their impact has never been quantitatively assessed. This study evaluates NBA uptake via citation tracking, an online survey, and an application inventory. Citations revealed strong academic use, while the survey showed relevance in spatial planning, conservation actions, and environmental assessments. The application inventory demonstrated NBA influence beyond biodiversity, extending to areas like water security. Understanding NBA uptake is key to maximising its impact. We distil two decades of experience into lessons to improve future NBA uptake in South Africa and support implementation in other countries.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity set the agenda for global aspirations and action to reverse biodiversity loss. The GBF includes an explicit goal for maintaining and restoring biodiversity, encompassing ecosystems, species and genetic diversity (goal A), targets for ecosystem protection and restoration and headline indicators to track progress and guide action 1 . One of the headline indicators is the Red List of Ecosystems 2 , the global standard for ecosystem risk assessment. The Red List of Ecosystems provides a systematic framework for collating, analysing and synthesizing data on ecosystems, including their distribution, integrity and risk of collapse 3 . Here, we examine how it can contribute to implementing the GBF, as well as monitoring progress. We find that the Red List of Ecosystems provides common theory and practical data, while fostering collaboration, cross-sector cooperation and knowledge sharing, with important roles in 16 of the 23 targets. In particular, ecosystem maps, descriptions and risk categories are key to spatial planning for halting loss, restoration and protection (targets 1, 2 and 3). The Red List of Ecosystems is therefore well-placed to aid Parties to the GBF as they assess, plan and act to achieve the targets and goals. We outline future work to further strengthen this potential and improve biodiversity outcomes, including expanding spatial coverage of Red List of Ecosystems assessments and partnerships between practitioners, policy-makers and scientists.

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.

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounts Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) provides a statistical framework for measuring ecosystems and the services they supply, complementing the System of National Accounts (SNA). Although accounting for protected areas (PAs) is proposed in the SEEA EA and would provide consistent and useful information on PAs, it has not yet been widely implemented. This article examines different possibilities of applying the SEEA EA to PAs by reviewing existing work in that field, including case studies for South Africa, Uganda and Andalusia. We show that accounting for PAs using the SEEA EA would benefit PA planning, management and investment decisions, by i) bringing statistical rigour and consistent data over time and space, ii) compiling disparate data together and making them coherent, and iii) revealing the relationships between PAs, the economy and social well-being, enabling their integration into development planning and decision making. This information can help inform better decision making by allowing synergies and trade-offs between environmental, economic and social outcomes linked to PAs and their management to be explored, fostering a more integrated development approach. This will be essential if the flagship target of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to conserve 30% of the world's surface by 2030 is to be achieved in an ecologically meaningful, economically sustainable and socially inclusive manner.

As countries commit to developing their ocean-based economies sustainably, it is critical to secure the underlying marine biodiversity and ecological processes. Ecosystem-based Marine Spatial Planning (MSP) can support achieving this; however, because competition for ocean space is increasing, biodiversity prioritisation must be spatially efficient, conflict-averse, and robust to secure marine biodiversity appropriately. South Africa has a long history and real-world success in spatial planning on land; we aim to draw on this experience to develop an approach by which the biodiversity sector's input to MSP can be developed, in the context of MSP unfolding in South Africa. We used Marxan to develop the first National Coastal and Marine Map of Critical Biodiversity Areas (CBAs) and Ecological Support Areas (ESAs). There were 976 biodiversity features and design elements, and the cost layer aimed to avoid conflict with 19 sea-use sectors and avoid more heavily impacted areas. Biodiversity targets were met in 27.0% of the planning domain (5.4% Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), 21.6% CBAs), with 6.6% for ESAs. Sea-use guidelines were developed based on a matrix of activity compatibility with the management objective for CBAs (keep or restore to natural) and ESAs (avoid further degradation), with MPAs managed through their gazetted regulations. The CBA Map and sea-use guidelines formed the basis for the marine biodiversity sector plan for inclusion in MSP. This approach can be broadly applied, even with limited data, as the basis for multi-sector negotiations. We share seven recommendations from our experience to guide planners from other countries.

The UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) aims at regular and standardised stocktaking of the extent of ecosystems, their condition, and the services they provide to society. Recording the condition of ecosystems is one of the most complex pieces in this exercise and needs to be supported by consistent guidelines. SEEA EA defines the condition of an ecosystem as its overall quality, measured in terms of quantitative metrics describing its abiotic and biotic characteristics. One of the key challenges lies in identifying the most appropriate metrics for each ecosystem type that capture these essential characteristics. The objective of this paper is to create a well-defined framework for transparent and operative development of ecosystem condition indicators, which can be used in ecosystem accounting and ecosystem assessment studies. Starting from the SEEA EA documentation and a small targeted systematic review, we identified 12 key criteria, which we grouped according to their roles during the indicator development process. Five conceptual criteria (intrinsic relevance, instrumental relevance, sensitivity, directional meaning, and framework conformity) outline the priorities for identifying relevant characteristics of the ecosystems. Five practical criteria (validity, reliability, availability, simplicity, and compatibility) provide guidance on identifying concrete quantitative metrics for the selected characteristics. Finally, two ensemble criteria (comprehensiveness, and parsimony) ensure the completeness and complementarity of the final set of metrics. To tackle the climate and biodiversity crises, the condition of ecosystems needs to be better recognized in national economic planning. The proposed framework supports the selection of a concise set of salient and credible ecosystem condition indicators through a transparent, repeatable and scientific process. This can make the compilation of ecosystem condition accounts more accessible and more standardised on a global level, which is a key prerequisite for the success of SEEA EA. Additionally, the framework presented in this paper may be useful in other contexts where ecological, environmental, or sustainability indicators need to be identified.

The UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA) aims at regular and standardised stocktaking on the extent of ecosystems, their condition and the services they provide to society. Recording the condition of ecosystems is one of the most complex pieces in this exercise, needing to be supported by robust and consistent guidelines. SEEA EEA defines the condition of an ecosystem as its overall quality, measured in terms of quantitative metrics describing both abiotic and biotic characteristics. The main objective of this paper is to propose a simple universal classification (typology) for these ecosystem condition characteristics and metrics, based on long standing ecological concepts and traditions. The proposed SEEA EEA Ecosystem Condition Typology (SEEA ECT) is a hierarchical classification consisting of six classes grouped into three main groups (abiotic, biotic and landscape-level ecosystem characteristics). In order to facilitate practical applications, SEEA ECT is cross-linked to the most relevant existing typologies for ecosystem characteristics currently used for other purposes. To ensure clarity and practicality, we identified potential overlaps between classes and also identified the most important groups of ‘ancillary data’ that should not be considered as ecosystem condition characteristics. We consider that this new typology for ecosystem condition will create a meaningful reporting structure for ecosystem condition accounts, thus facilitating its standardisation and broad application.

Ecosystem condition accounts are part of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). An ecosystem condition account contains aggregated statistical information about the overall abiotic and biotic quality of an ecosystem at a policy relevant spatial scale. This article reviews 23 publicly-accessible reports undertaken or commissioned by government agencies, academic and non-government organisations that discuss or present an ecosystem condition account. This analysis revealed that ecosystem condition is usually reported for one or more ecosystem types, but there is little consistency in the terminology used to define ecosystem types. All case studies report variables or indicators that measure specific ecosystem characteristics in order to make inferences about the overall condition of ecosystems. All studies included biotic indicators and almost all studies included species-based indicators in the condition account. The thematic aggregation of indicators into a single composite index (or in a few composite sub-indices) is not a standard practice, but applied in about half of the studies. The definition and use of a reference condition or reference levels for specific indicators against which the reported condition can be evaluated is not a standard practice, but was applied in about half of the studies. Based on this analysis, we suggest the revision of the SEEA EEA to propose a globally-consistent typology of ecosystem types; to recommend a list of ecosystem condition indicators according to an agreed classification; to provide further guidance on aggregation methods and on the development of an ecosystem condition index that can be used to compare ecosystem condition across ecosystem types and across different accounting areas; to provide further guidance on how best to set reference levels and reference conditions against which the past, current and future ecosystem condition can be assessed; and to propose a standard set of statistical tables for reporting the condition account.

One of the stated applications of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems (RLE) is to influence government policy and decision-making. We share 15 years' experience in integrating an independently developed indicator of ecosystem threat status into government policies and practice. South Africa's ecosystem threat status indicator was conceptualised in the early 2000s and progressed from a project-based indicator to listing of threatened ecosystems in terms of national legislation in 2011. We show the range of applications of the indicator, from its use as a headline indicator in the National Biodiversity Assessment to its role as a direct trigger for Environmental Impact Assessment. The strong link between threatened ecosystems and systematic conservation planning in South Africa also enabled ecosystem threat status to inform multi-sectoral development planning and decision-making. We show how bridging products, data availability, persistent mainstreaming and stakeholder engagement have encouraged the use of the indicator in government policy. The advantages and disadvantages of legislative listing are shared. Sound scientific foundations, combined with pragmatism, have provided a policy-relevant tool for focussing management on threatened ecosystems. We make active recommendations that will facilitate the policy uptake of the IUCN RLE in other countries.

Ecosystem condition is a fundamental component in the ecosystem accounting framework as part of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). Here, we develop a conceptual framework and present a practical structure for implementing ecosystem condition accounts to contribute to the revision process of the SEEA EEA, focussing on six core elements: (1) developing a common definition of ecosystem condition, (2) establishing a conceptual framing for ecosystem condition, (3) portraying the role of condition within the SEEA EEA accounting system, (4) deriving an inclusive multi-purpose approach, (5) describing the components of condition accounts and (6) developing a three-stage structure for reporting accounts. We develop a conceptual framework for an inclusive condition account, building on an ecological understanding of ecosystems upon which definitions, concepts, classifications and reporting structures were based. The framework encompasses the dual perspectives of first, the interdependencies of ecosystem composition, structure and function in maintaining ecosystem integrity and second, the capacity of ecosystems to supply services as benefits for humans. The following components of ecosystem condition accounts are recommended to provide comprehensive, consistent, repeatable and transparent accounts: (1) intrinsic and instrumental values, together with ecocentric and anthropocentric worldviews; (2) a formal typology or classification of characteristics, variables and indicators, based on selection criteria; (3) a reference condition used both to compare past, current and future levels of indicators of condition and as a basis for aggregation of indicators; and (4) a three-stage approach to compiling accounts with increasing levels of information and complexity that are appropriate for different purposes and applications. The recommended broad and inclusive scope of ecosystem condition and the demonstrated practical methods for implementation of accounts will enhance the ecosystem accounting framework and thus support a wider range of current and potential applications and users.

Systematic conservation planning is intended to inform spatially explicit decision making. Doing so requires that it be integrated into complex regulatory and governance processes, and there are limited instances where this has been achieved effectively. South Africa is a global leader in the application of conservation plans, the outputs of which are widely used for spatial planning and decision making in many spheres of government. We aimed to determine how conservation planning in the country progressed from theory to implementation, and to identify practical actions that enabled this transition, by assessing temporal trends in the characteristics of conservation plans (1990–2017, n = 94). Since 2010 conservation planning has entered an operational period characterized by government leadership of plans, administrative rather than ecological planning domains, decreasing size of planning units, increasing emphasis on end‐user products, and scheduled revision of plans. Key actions that enabled this progression include transitioning leadership of plans from scientists to practitioners, building capacity within implementing agencies, creating opportunities to integrate plans in legislative processes, establishing a strong community of practice, adopting implementation‐focused methods, and balancing standardization with innovation. Learning from this model will allow other countries, particularly those with a similar megadiverse, developing context, to operationalize conservation planning into spatial planning and decision making.

Background: 'Mainstreaming biodiversity' aims to integrate biodiversity priorities directly into the policies and practices of production sectors, including the mining sector. In South Africa, the need emerged for a biodiversity guideline specifically relevant to the mining sector that would interpret a wide range of available spatial biodiversity information and frame it in a user-friendly format. Objectives: The aim of this article was to document and review the development of the Mining and Biodiversity Guideline. This serves as a case study of a product developed to assist in bridging the gap between available biodiversity information and use of this information by a production sector. Methods: We examined the development of the Mining and Biodiversity Guideline with reference to three factors known to be beneficial to creating policy-relevant science: a sound scientific foundation (credibility), relevance to decision-making (salience) and involvement of stakeholders (legitimacy). Results: The Mining and Biodiversity Guideline was developed through collaboration between the mining and biodiversity sectors. It provides a tool that contributes to the sustainable development of South Africa's mineral resources in a way that enables regulators, industry and practitioners to minimise the impact of mining on biodiversity and ecosystem services. It includes a single integrated map of biodiversity priority areas summarised into four sensitivity categories relevant for the mining industry, with detailed guidance on how these should inform the application of the mitigation hierarchy. Conclusion: The Mining and Biodiversity Guideline has received political endorsement from the relevant regulatory government departments. A focussed training programme has promoted awareness and understanding of the Guideline. Preliminary reports indicate that the Guideline has been effective in influencing decision-making.