Search

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.

This dataset includes the current version of the indicative distribution maps and profiles for Ecosystem Functional Groups - Level 3 of IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology (v2.1). Please refer to Keith et al. (2020) and Keith et al. (2022). The descriptive profiles provide brief summaries of key ecological traits and processes for each functional group of ecosystems to enable any ecosystem type to be assigned to a group. Maps are indicative of global distribution patterns and are not intended to represent fine-scale patterns. The maps show areas of the world containing major (value of 1, coloured red) or minor occurrences (value of 2, coloured yellow) of each ecosystem functional group. Minor occurrences are areas where an ecosystem functional group is scattered in patches within matrices of other ecosystem functional groups or where they occur in substantial areas, but only within a segment of a larger region. Most maps were prepared using a coarse-scale template (e.g. ecoregions), but some were compiled from higher resolution spatial data where available (see details in profiles). Higher resolution mapping is planned in future publications. We emphasise that spatial representation of Ecosystem Functional Groups does not follow higher-order groupings described in respective ecoregion classifications. Consequently, when Ecosystem Functional Groups are aggregated into functional biomes (Level 2 of the Global Ecosystem Typology), spatial patterns may differ from those of biogeographic biomes. Differences reflect the distinctions between functional and biogeographic interpretations of the term, “biome”., This dataset includes the current version of the indicative distribution maps and profiles for Ecosystem Functional Groups - Level 3 of IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology (v2.1). Please refer to Keith et al. (2020) and Keith et al. (2022). The descriptive profiles provide brief summaries of key ecological traits and processes for each functional group of ecosystems to enable any ecosystem type to be assigned to a group. Maps are indicative of global distribution patterns and are not intended to represent fine-scale patterns. The maps show areas of the world containing major (value of 1, coloured red) or minor occurrences (value of 2, coloured yellow) of each ecosystem functional group. Minor occurrences are areas where an ecosystem functional group is scattered in patches within matrices of other ecosystem functional groups or where they occur in substantial areas, but only within a segment of a larger region. Most maps were prepared using a coarse-scale template (e.g. ecoregions), but some were compiled from higher resolution spatial data where available (see details in profiles). Higher resolution mapping is planned in future publications. We emphasise that spatial representation of Ecosystem Functional Groups does not follow higher-order groupings described in respective ecoregion classifications. Consequently, when Ecosystem Functional Groups are aggregated into functional biomes (Level 2 of the Global Ecosystem Typology), spatial patterns may differ from those of biogeographic biomes. Differences reflect the distinctions between functional and biogeographic interpretations of the term, “biome”.

It is nearly three decades since the world recognized the need for a global multilateral treaty aiming to address accelerating biodiversity loss. However, biodiversity continues to decline at a concerning rate. Drawing on lessons from the implementation of the current strategic plan of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the 2010 Aichi Targets, we highlight three interlinked core areas, which require attention and improvement in the development of the post‐2020 Biodiversity Framework under the Convention on Biological Diversity. They are: (1) developing robust theories of change which define agreed, adaptive plans for achieving targets; (2) using models to evaluate assumptions and effectiveness of different plans and targets; and (3) identifying the common but differentiated responsibilities of different actors/states/countries within these plans. We demonstrate how future multilateral agreements must not focus only on what needs to be done but also on how it should be done, using measurable steps, which make sense at the scales at which biodiversity change happens.