National and local governments need to step up efforts to effectively implement the post‐2020 global biodiversity framework of the Convention on Biological Diversity to halt and reverse worsening biodiversity trends. Drawing on recent advances in interdisciplinary biodiversity science, we propose a framework for improved implementation by national and subnational governments. First, the identification of actions and the promotion of ownership across stakeholders need to recognize the multiple values of biodiversity and account for remote responsibility. Second, cross‐sectorial implementation and mainstreaming should adopt scalable and multifunctional ecosystem restoration approaches and target positive futures for nature and people. Third, assessment of progress and adaptive management can be informed by novel biodiversity monitoring and modeling approaches handling the multidimensionality of biodiversity change.

Biodiversity conservation faces a methodological conundrum: Biodiversity measurement often relies on species, most of which are rare at various scales, especially prone to extinction under global change, but also the most challenging to sample and model. Predicting the distribution change of rare species using conventional species distribution models is challenging because rare species are hardly captured by most survey systems. When enough data are available, predictions are usually spatially biased towards locations where the species is most likely to occur, violating the assumptions of many modelling frameworks. Workflows to predict and eventually map rare species distributions imply important trade‐offs between data quantity, quality, representativeness and model complexity that need to be considered prior to survey and analysis. Our opinion is that study designs need to carefully integrate the different steps, from species sampling to modelling, in accordance with the different types of rarity and available data in order to improve our capacity for sound assessment and prediction of rare species distribution. In this article, we summarize and comment on how different categories of species rarity lead to different types of occurrence and distribution data depending on choices made during the survey process, namely the spatial distribution of samples (where to sample) and the sampling protocol in each selected location (how to sample). We then clarify which species distribution models are suitable depending on the different types of distribution data (how to model). Among others, for most rarity forms, we highlight the insights from systematic species‐targeted sampling coupled with hierarchical models that allow correcting for overdispersion and spatial and sampling sources of bias. Our article provides scientists and practitioners with a much‐needed guide through the ever‐increasing diversity of methodological developments to improve the prediction of rare species distribution depending on rarity type and available data.

A standardized delineation of the world’s mountains has many applications in research, education, and the science-policy interface. Here we provide a new inventory of 8616 mountain ranges developed under the auspices of the Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA). Building on an earlier compilation, the presented geospatial database uses a further advanced and generalized mountain definition and a semi-automated method to enable globally standardized, transparent delineations of mountain ranges worldwide. The inventory is presented on EarthEnv at various hierarchical levels and allows users to select their preferred level of regional aggregation from continents to small subranges according to their needs and the scale of their analyses. The clearly defined, globally consistent and hierarchical nature of the presented mountain inventory offers a standardized resource for referencing and addressing mountains across basic and applied natural as well as social sciences and a range of other uses in science communication and education.

BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services(IPBES) strengthens the science-policy interface by producing scientific assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services to inform policy. IPBES fosters knowledge exchange across disciplines, between researchers and other knowledge holders, practitioners, societal actors and decision makers working at different geographic scales. A number of avenues for participation of stakeholders across the four functions if IPBES exist. Stakeholders come from diverse backgrounds, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, businesses, and non-governmental organization. They represent multiple sources of information, data, knowledge, and perspectives on biodiversity. Stakeholder engagement in IPBES seeks to 1. communicate, disseminate, and implement the findings of IPBES products; 2. Develop guidelines for biodiversity conservation within member countries; and 3. create linkages between global policy and local actors – all key to the implementation of global agreements on biodiversity. This paper reflects on the role of stakeholders in the first work programme of IPBES (2014–2018). It provides an overview of IPBES processes and products relevant to stakeholders, examines the motivation of stakeholders to engage with IPBES, and explores reflections by the authors (all active participants on the platform) for improved stakeholder engagement and contributions to future work of the platform.