Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 s2.0 S1574954119303449 Main
1 s2.0 S1574954119303449 Main
Ecological Informatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolinf
a
UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC), 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, UK
b
EUMETSAT (European Organisation for the Exploitation of Meteorological Satellites), EUMETSAT-Allee 1, 64295 Darmstadt, Germany
c
World Meteorological Organization, 7 bis Avenue de la Paix, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland (until 2018)
d
Remote Sensing Laboratories, Dept. of Geography, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, CH – 8057 Zurich, Switzerland
Keywords: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
Essential climate variables Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services have presented unequivocal evidence for human induced climate change
Essential biodiversity variables and biodiversity decline. Transformative societal change is required in response. However, while the Global
Observing systems Observing System for Climate has coordinated climate observations for these assessments, there has been no
Nature's contributions to people
equivalent actor for the biodiversity assessment. Here we argue that a central agency for coordinated biodi-
versity observations can lead to an improved assessment process for biodiversity status and coupled climate -
biodiversity observations in areas of mutual interest such as monitoring indicators of Nature's Contributions to
People. A global biodiversity observation system has already begun to evolve through bottom up development of
the Essential Biodiversity Variables. We propose recommendations on how to build on this progress through
definition of user requirements, observation principles, creation of a community data basis and regional actions
through existing networks.
Climate change is accelerating biodiversity loss at an alarming rate and biodiversity targets, and to be able to monitor progress towards
(IPBES, 2019), altering the distribution of life on Earth itself (Burrows these targets effectively. Satellite Earth Observation (EO) can be a key
et al., 2014). Global transformative change is urgently required to tool in this endeavour because of its global coverage, rapid assessment
tackle this existential crisis. The global assessments of the capability and systematic observation capacity. As this perspective
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the piece illustrates, there is as yet unrealised potential for joint EO-based
Intergovernmental Science- observing systems to monitor biodiversity and climate change sy-
Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) nergistically - not least through shared space-borne monitoring assets
have recognised the dependencies and interactions between biodi- and existing in situ networks. In order to realise this potential, the
versity loss and climate change, not least in the biosphere's role in biodiversity community must catch up with their climate counterparts
regulating climate extremes. Both the IPCC and IPBES have called for and define what, where and when to observe from space. Only then can
urgent and dramatic societal action to reduce the human ecological priorities be communicated clearly to policy makers.
footprint and decarbonisation of the global economy (IPBES, 2019; This perspective is timely as biodiversity policy makers will meet
IPCC, 2018). next year to create new targets at the 2020 UN Conference on
The political response has been to set climate and biodiversity tar- Biodiversity as part of a new deal for nature, while other climate po-
gets that must be achieved if the worst impacts are to be avoided, e.g. licies and plans (Nationally Determined Contributions, National
the 2 °C target set by the 2016 Paris Agreement and the 2020 Aichi Adaptation Plans) offer good opportunities for integrating EO-based
Biodiversity Targets, respectively. However, we have largely failed to targets and exploring the potential for shared observing strategies.
meet the Aichi Targets (Tittensor et al., 2014), while all evidence
suggests that the targets set out by the 2016 Paris Agreement to limit 1. Essential biodiversity and climate variables – current status
global temperature rise this century will also be challenging to meet
(IPCC, 2018). It is now more important than ever to set robust climate In 2013, Pereira et al. proposed a global observation system based
⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (B. O'Connor).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2019.101033
Received 7 October 2019; Received in revised form 31 October 2019; Accepted 1 November 2019
Available online 06 November 2019
1574-9541/ © 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
B. O'Connor, et al. Ecological Informatics 55 (2020) 101033
2
B. O'Connor, et al. Ecological Informatics 55 (2020) 101033
Table 1
Current EBVs (candidates) and ECVs (GCOS-2016).
Domain (ECV) GCOS essential climate variables
Atmospheric Surface: Air temperature, Wind speed and direction, Water vapour, Pressure, Precipitation, Surface radiation budget
Upper-Air: Temperature, Wind speed and direction, Water vapour, Cloud properties, Earth radiation budget, Lightning
Composition: Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Other long-lived greenhouse gases (GHGs), Ozone, Aerosol, Precursors for aerosol and ozone.
Oceanic Physics: Temperature: Sea surface and Subsurface, Salinity: Sea Surface and Subsurface, Currents, Surface Currents, Sea Level, Sea State, Sea Ice,
Ocean Surface Stress, Ocean Surface heat Flux
Biogeochemistry: Inorganic Carbon, Oxygen, Nutrients, Transient Tracers, Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Ocean Colour
Biology/ecosystems: Plankton, Marine habitat properties
Terrestrial Hydrology: River discharge, Groundwater, Lakes, Soil Moisture
Cryosphere: Snow, Glaciers, Ice sheets and Ice shelves, Permafrost
Biosphere: Albedo, Land cover, Fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation, Leaf area index, Above-ground biomass, Soil carbon, Fire,
Land Surface Temperature
Human use of natural resources: Water use, GHG fluxes
2.1. ECVs are partitioned by physical realm, EBVs are grouped according to “atmosphere”, “land” and “ocean”. In contrast EBVs are organised
biological organization along different levels of biological organization: genes, species, popu-
lations, and ecosystems. While this is conceptually useful, there are
ECVs are partitioned by the physical realms of the Earth system: aspects of diversity which overlap between these categories, e.g. plant
Box 1
Synergies between ECVs and EBVs for tracking nature's contributions to people.
Nature's contributions to people (NCP), embodying both the intrinsic value of nature and the services rendered by nature to humanity (Díaz
et al., 2018), are in serious decline (IPBES, 2019). The assessments that have led to this conclusion have centred on knowledge of biodiversity,
human culture but also climate. Therefore, NCPs are dependent on interactions between climate and the living world. To illustrate how NCPs
can be the nexus of ECV and EBV collaboration, we have taken four of the NCP indicators, used by IPBES, and identified ECVs and candidate
EBVs which have potential to inform those indicators in future assessments (Table 2).
Table 2 lists potential examples of input variables to NCPs – land cover, Above-Ground Biomass (AGB), Leaf Area Index (LAI) and Fire:
• Land cover is a central component of habitat and therefore to track habitat creation and maintenance.
• AGB has a demonstrable relationship with regulation of climate, as biomass is positively correlated with higher carbon but also higher species
richness, especially in tropical forests (Strassburg et al., 2010).
• LAI is major structural component of vegetation and therefore a determinant of habitat suitability for a range of pollinators in an agricultural
context.
• Wild fires shapes terrestrial ecosystems while human induced fires increasingly threaten them (Pausas and Keeley, 2009)
We have mapped the most relevant candidate EBV to each NCP indicator. Arguably there are missing variables in the list, e.g. to calculate
the indicator “Extent of natural habitat in agricultural areas” in addition to the EBV “habitat structure” and LAI, such as vertical structural
elements - height of tree canopy and number of leaf strata. Similarly net primary productivity requires respiration rates in addition to AGB.
Nevertheless, coupling EBVs and ECVs in this way can highlight potential opportunities for downstream indicators of relevance for policy
making.
Table 2 Essential variables that can benefit both scientific communities, framed in terms of nature's contributions to people.
Nature's Contribution to Peo- Current indicator Input Description ECV EBV (candidate)
ple Variable
Habitat creation and mainte- Extent of suitable habitat; Land cover Biophysical Earth surface cover which can ✓ Ecosystem extent and fragmenta-
nance Biodiversity intactness support habitat tion
Regulation of climate Prevented emissions and uptake of Above Quantity of terrestrial organic matter for ✓ Net primary productivity
greenhouse gases by ecosystems Ground carbon uptake and storage
Biomass
Pollination and dispersal of Pollinator diversity; Leaf Area Leaf canopy density and distribution to iden- ✓ Habitat structure
seeds and other propa- Extent of natural habitat in agricul- Index tify natural from agricultural vegetation
gules tural areas
Regulation of hazards and e- Ability of ecosystems to absorb and Fire The ability of ecosystems to absorb fire deter- ✓ Disturbance regime (an indirect
xtreme events buffer hazards mines their resilience measure of the impact of fire)
However, there are currently no shared variables among EBVs and ECVs, in contrast to 14 common EOVs and ECVs, as illustrated in Fig. 2.
Yet within the EBVs themselves there are dimensions of biological organization, as illustrated, for example, when five of the 22 candidate EBVs
are projected along five dimensions, or “states” of biological diversity – genetic, phylogenetic, species, functional and ecosystem diversity
(Fig. 3). This illustration of a theoretical EBV “feature space” derives from the authors' estimation of the theoretical position of the 5 selected
EBVs along the “state” or “target” dimension of biological diversity. The extent of overlap illustrates not only semantic issues in EBV definitions
but could lead to issues of data redundancy when observing them in practice.
3
B. O'Connor, et al. Ecological Informatics 55 (2020) 101033
younger and global models of biodiversity status and changes are still in
their infancy (Kim et al., 2018). Pettorelli et al. (2016) suggested that
the users of EBVs could be scientists working to understand changes in
biodiversity on behalf of the CBD and IPBES. However, more clar-
ification is needed on who the users are – a starting point to define their
requirements.
4
B. O'Connor, et al. Ecological Informatics 55 (2020) 101033
over or under estimating species occurrences (Rocchini et al., 2017). similarly a complex of many different measurable quantities but is
Although there are a very large number of non-biological variables that neither bounded nor constrained by what can be measured along one
can cause changes in biodiversity such as precipitation or surface dimension of change e.g. genetic diversity of a population versus that of
temperature changes, biodiversity should be described in terms of an individual.
evolution along different lines of biological organization: genes, spe-
cies, populations, and ecosystems. These different elements do not scale 2.6. ECVs have established measuring methods, EBVs lack measurement
linearly with each other, neither in space nor time, e.g. there will not be standards
the same amount of genetic material, species and population per unit
area of ecosystem in the boreal, compared to the tropical zone, nor can ECVs were based on a long history of climate records, for instance,
the rate of change of genetic or species diversity per unit area of forest through meteorological observations underpinned by standardised
be yet approximated accurately through physical, analytical relation- monitoring protocols maintained by the World Meteorological
ships since so many unknowns are at play, e.g. physical ecosystem Organization (WMO). With the ECV-initiative these efforts were in-
disturbances. However, with further research the correct analytical tensified and expanded to many other observation systems outside
measure may be found for biodiversity. classical meteorology. The ECV concept is founded on three elements
(Bojinski et al., 2014): (i) quantitative user requirements for observa-
2.5. ECVs are described as simple or compound variables, while EBVs may tions (measurand, resolution in time and space, uncertainty etc.), (ii)
be multidimensional observing principles and standards, and (iii) guidelines for dataset
generation. These are recognised and maintained by the climate com-
The set of ECVs are defined in a manner that they can be measured munity for most ECVs. Currently candidate EBVs are not founded on
in unambiguous terms. For instance, sea surface temperature is a rela- such a pathway from requirement to observation to dataset generation.
tively simple, absolute, unambiguous measurement (measurement However, measurement and metadata standards do exist, especially for
method not withstanding) while for compound variables such as gla- species distribution and abundance data (e.g. Simple Darwin Core,
ciers and ice caps, changes in glacier length, area, volume, and mass are Darwin Core ‘event’ and Humboldt Core). Nevertheless, there are
the key, single variables that constitute the parent ECV (Bojinski et al., broader standards for all ecological data such as the Ecological Meta-
2014). The EBVs and in particular the EBV classes mostly have a data Language (EML) which describes a dataset's spatial, temporal and
“living” dimension and are described as multidimensional complexes, taxonomic coverage (Kissling et al., 2018a, 2018b). Adopting such a
not as simple variables, with the exception of species richness (number standard would make EBV datasets “discoverable” and open up the
of species per unit area) or net primary productivity (mass per unit area possibility of global EBV dataset inventories which must be the starting
per unit time interval). On the other hand, the EBV candidate phe- point for a coordinated observing system. The status quo – of amassing
nology would for instance describe a time-dependent process consisting biodiversity observations without being able to access them centrally or
of phenological events per year and one single event cannot be isolated via a distributed network, using a common protocol and standard, risks
without tracking the time-dependent process. Genetic diversity is an uncoordinated use of such observations. The climate community
5
B. O'Connor, et al. Ecological Informatics 55 (2020) 101033
adopted a standardised Climate Data Record (CDR) definition for each without in-situ validation the uncertainty in EO data would be difficult
ECV which should be stable and include a characterization of un- to quantify. In addition, EO data are approximations of the processes
certainty (statistical, systematic, etc.). Collaboration of the climate observed on the ground, and some processes might not be observable
community with the metrology community, guided internationally by (yet) from space (e.g. genetic signatures; Cavender-Bares et al., 2016).
the BIPM (BIPM, 2019), has helped establish standards for ensuring Therefore, a strong integration and a physical basis for joint analysis of
traceability of measurements, and for describing and calculating un- in-situ and EO data sets is needed. Within the biodiversity community,
certainty in CDRs (BIPM, 2010). CDRs are used in modelling, attribu- the integration of multi-scale observations is challenging as small-scale
tion, projection, prediction, trend assessment, and data assimilation. variability is highly relevant for biodiversity monitoring and scaling
Validation of the ECV data sets and assessment of different datasets effects are important. Furthermore, integrating in-situ observations on a
describing the same ECV with the corresponding scientific users is a species level, and remote sensing observations on a community level, is
core element of ECV development and operationalisation in order to still challenging. Nevertheless, with an ever increasing amount of
understand uncertainties in climate predictions. EBVs have not yet an higher resolution EO data available, such as from Landsat, Sentinel-2 or
equivalent standard for the CDR aside from the stated need for the through the CEOS Analysis Ready Data for Land Initiative (CEOS,
“primary observations” to supply the EBVs, however since its inception 2019), approaching plant species- scale, this gap is becoming smaller.
in 1993 the International Long-term Ecological Research Network
(ILTER) could play such a role. The primary role of ILTER to elucidate 2.9. There is a steadily evolving set of ‘essential’ variables but the process for
the mechanism of response of ecosystem structure, function, and ser- nominating and selecting EBVs and ECVs differs
vices in response to a wide range of environmental forcing using long-
term, place-based research. Space agencies also have a role to play in One of the main criteria for defining the ECV is the “feasibility” and
providing long-term, continuous observations of relevance to EBVs as “cost effectiveness” of observing them (GCOS, 2016). As technology
outlined by Skidmore et al. (2015). and scientific understanding continually evolves, the catalogue of ECVs
can be changed and extended. Likewise, the EBVs are not static and will
2.7. The selection of ECVs is grounded in user needs, primarily climate change in respond to user demand. However, their definition and
modellers, while EBVs have been selected based on expert knowledge prioritization is under ongoing discussion (Turak et al., 2017;
Vihervaara et al., 2017). Furthermore, there appears to be divergence in
The concept of ‘Essential Climate Variables’ was introduced in the how the EBV datasets should be procured or produced, collated, cu-
2003 Second Adequacy Report to the UNFCCC (GCOS, 2003), in order rated, and disseminated with a variety of data portals currently serving
to ensure that the needs of the UNFCCC and the IPCC for systematic EBV-relevant information to the user community. This divergence
climate observations were addressed. Furthermore, it was stressed that among experts across biodiversity relevant domains must be overcome
these variables should be global in coverage and of sufficient quality for if a centralised biodiversity observation system is to be realised. A first
climate analyses while being feasible (i.e., measurement methods are step to achieve this goal is the launch of the GEO BON EBV portal,
mature and datasets exist) and cost effective. In contrast the conception currently under development, containing a growing repository of da-
and definition of EBVs was through an initial expert workshop, orga- tasets for some EBVs.
nised in 2012 by GEO BON, as a response to the lack of coordination
and interoperability between biodiversity measures such as those 2.10. Measuring EBVs should be prioritized using a dimensional analysis;
mentioned above (point 6). The purpose of said workshop was to pro- ECVs inherently describe different spatio-temporal dimensions of the climate
vide guidance on key observations of biodiversity change that can be system
efficiently monitored. The concept has subsequently been progressed
through the peer reviewed literature, and while a strategy document The aim of the EBV concept to capture the “major dimensions of
has been issued (GEO BON, 2017), there has been no definitive list of biodiversity change”, as illustrated in Fig. 3 (above), infers a sense of
EBVs which allows a coordinated response, e.g. from civilian space order or priority in EBV definition in that higher dimensions should be
agencies via the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites (CEOS). The more important in terms of explaining variance, than lower ones. For
driver of such a coordinated effort should come from the CBD Sub- ECVs, this is implicit as the climate system can be described by larger-
sidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice scale (e.g. global albedo) and smaller-scale (e.g. lake extent) variables.
(SBSTTA), IPBES and other science-policy platforms, policy frameworks Depending on the application of ECV datasets, this helps to prioritise
and action plans so that the development of EBVs can be thoroughly observations. Yet, the EBVs have no concept of dimensionality or
justified for use at the science-policy interface. priority as currently defined, with all classes and their EBV candidates
being defined at the same level, i.e. all appear to be equally important.
2.8. Space-based observations play a role in ECV and EBV data continuity Yet, some EBVs should be prioritized, at least for the sake of resource
allocation. This raises the prospect of a true dimensionality analysis of
The necessity for monitoring on a global scale implies a regular and the current EBV candidates, in order to define priorities within the
cost efficient observing system yet we argue that resources should be current EBV list. For example, how much of terrestrial plant diversity
focused (initially) on biodiversity hotspot areas (Myers et al., 2000) can be described by chlorophyll content versus ecosystem extent and
with a view to scaling up later, e.g. as has been done with the Hot Spot fragmentation? Currently of all the EBVs candidates, some variables
Land Cover Change Explorer of the Copernicus Global Land Service may be more important than others in explaining global biodiversity
(Copernicus Global Land Service, 2019). Satellite remote sensing has change.
already been shown to identify regional cluster of high vegetation
productivity which can be linked to hotspots of species richness, at least 3. Summary and conclusion
for amphibians and mammals (Coops et al., 2018). Earth Observation
(EO) satellites are the only platforms capable of providing continuous, We have outlined ten lines of evidence to examine dependencies,
consistent datasets with global coverage. The production of ECVs synergies but also key differences between EBVs and ECVs in order to
therefore relies strongly on EO data and time series thereof: the EO- demonstrate that there can be greater cooperation between climate and
based contribution is significant for measuring more than half of the biodiversity scientists which can lead to synergistic efforts to develop a
ECVs. Based on satellite-specific, quantitative requirements (GCOS, global observation system for biodiversity. Additionally, the inclusion
2011), many satellite agencies around the world launched major pro- of biodiversity as a key component of the climate system is key to
grammes to generate satellite-based climate data records. Nevertheless, linking concepts of ECVs and EBVs in a more holistic fashion, finally
6
B. O'Connor, et al. Ecological Informatics 55 (2020) 101033
improving representation of Earth system function. However, funda- inspired the EBV concept, initially coordinated efforts to document user
mental differences between EBV and ECV definition, not least the requirements for the ECVs, which necessitated a definition of who the
physical basis for ECVs, need to be acknowledged when defining the users are – an issue for EBVs that still needs clarification. To date the
minimum requirements for overlapping variables in these different bottom-up evolution of EBVs has suggested a scientific user base, but
domains. Yet, with further scientific research there are multiple benefits this will need elucidation to determine who uses observations of bio-
to coupling some ECVs and EBVs in assessments of environmental diversity variables and derivative indicators, for what purpose, and
change, not least in their potential contribution to indicators of nature's where the biggest gaps are in data availability – spatial, temporal,
vital goods and services to people. Specifically, we foresee three mutual taxonomic, ecoregion representativity etc. Firstly, this information
benefits for both communities in closer cooperation: should be extracted from ‘anchor’ users such as scientists involved in
the IPBES assessments, national authorities, taxonomists and species
• Improved Earth System models where specific attributes of biolo- experts of the IUCN, other research organisations and non-govern-
gical diversity such as tree height or ocean colour can be linked to mental organisations (NGOs) involved in biodiversity and ecosystem
improved quantification of radiative transfer, required for increas- science & conservation as well as the UN Environment and its affiliated
ingly sophisticated Earth System models partners. Second is the requirement to produce a traceability matrix of
• Efficient and cost effective observation networks at the national or science requirements to engineering specifications, finally allowing
regional level pooling human and financial resources for joint bio- engineers to build instruments and observation networks to serve the
diversity and climate observations goal to measure EBV's (and hence biodiversity) on the ground and from
• Political potency of a joint agenda will generate greater impact and space. Even though ‘biodiversity can never be fully captured by a single
increase pressure for political action to tackle climate change and number’ (Purvis and Hector, 2000), a science traceability matrix would
biodiversity decline strongly support the prioritization of EBVs.
Thirdly, we recommend that a funded and resourced forum be set
In order to realise these benefits and initiate concrete action we up that would allow regular and organised exchanges between these
propose the following recommendations: prospective users of EBVs and their counterparts in the ECV commu-
nities. This forum dialogue will be a first step from which a roadmap to
3.1. Refinement of the EBV approach through observing system principles coordinated observations could be developed. In addition, we re-
and standards commend that initial efforts should focus on the overlapping variables
required by both communities, such as land cover in the terrestrial
The ten basic monitoring principles for observing climate, issued by domain and marine habitat properties in the marine domain. We pro-
GCOS, after adoption by the UNFCCC in 2003, serve as a basis for a pose that a dedicated working group, composed of experts from GCOS,
similar set of standards for observing biodiversity. However, the GCOS GEOBON, IPCC and IPBES should be established and core funded to
standards are largely concerned with physical observations, their ob- facilitate this forum with a funded secretariat. This would set in motion
serving systems, instruments, operations and associated errors in con- the synergies required and lead to the roadmap towards formalising
trast to the wider knowledge base for assessments of biodiversity status these coordinated efforts, without the danger of losing sight (c.f.,
– such as species conservation, indigenous knowledge and other ob- NEON, Skidmore et al., 2015).
servations gleaned from museum repositories, citizen science networks
and genetic libraries. Despite this heterogeneity in sources of observa-
tions, general principles of the GCOS standards still apply – focusing 3.3. Focus efforts initially on biodiversity hotspots of change, deduced from
priority on additional observations in data poor regions or to fill sig- trend analysis
nificant gaps in critical observations. Furthermore, as a first principle,
GCOS recognised the need to assess the impact of any new observations Decadal time series are needed to assess Earth system change.
systems or changes to existing ones before implementing them – an However, to effectively detect change, (temporal) ‘oversampling’ is
issue that can impact the interpretability of any observational record required to distinguish variability and trend and effectively allocate
including those of biological diversity. Principles governing observa- change to a true trend. Once areas of true, or ‘hotspots’, of change have
tions of terrestrial and oceanic biodiversity from satellites, in situ net- been identified, they would be the focus of intensified efforts where it is
works, or citizen science should focus on a common metadata defini- most needed. These geographically-focused efforts would initially
tion, a common monitoring and reporting format, digitization of paper consist of an adaptation of the GCOS principles for climate monitoring
records and federation of existing but disparate databases as well as to biodiversity and the clear definition of user requirements for EBVs.
guidelines for dataset generation: data availability and policy, format, As alluded to in point 8, there are hotspots of biodiversity change which
representation (i.e. raw vs. derived vs. indices), metadata, curation and are undergoing rapid biodiversity decline and which can be identified
archiving through recognised data centres. Without such measures by satellite remote sensing. We recommend that a series of regional
observations will not be “discoverable” to prospective users. workshops should be initiated with regional partners and invited cli-
International and interdisciplinary scientific networks who coordinate mate and biodiversity experts to examine issues around user definitions,
specialist biological observations such as those of the International monitoring principles and standards in areas of global biodiversity
Geosphere-Biosphere Programme, herbariums and museums, assessors importance. Potential regional partners who could initiate such focal
of species conservations status of the International Union for networks for coordinated biodiversity-climate observations are the
Conservation of Nature's (IUCN) Red List, other in-situ monitoring National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity in
networks and databases (e.g. the TRY plant trait database) should be Mexico (CONABIO), Alexander von Humboldt Biological Resources
included in the establishment of monitoring principles. Research Institute of Colombia or the South African National
Biodiversity Institute. The repositories of expertise, knowledge and
3.2. Apply the concept of science traceability to move from user capacity building that these institutes house are also important for
requirements to indicator production, overseen by a joint working group of South-South cooperation in the area of climate –biodiversity interac-
biodiversity and climate experts tions and initiating a response to global ecological crisis at the regional
level which can spur action elsewhere. These recommendations could
The mode of transition from concept to definition and im- form the basis for the terms of reference of a joint IPCC-IPBES-GCOS-
plementation of the EBVs in an operational observing system is still GEOBON working group which could be later developed through said
largely undefined. The global climate observing system, that partly workshops.
7
B. O'Connor, et al. Ecological Informatics 55 (2020) 101033