Ilse R Geijzendorffer
email: geijzendorffer@tourduvalat.org

Emmanuelle Cohen-Shacham

Anna F Cord

Wolfgang Cramer

Carlos Guerra

Berta Martín-López

Ecosystem Services in Global Sustainability Policies

Keywords: Aichi Targets, human well-being, indicators, monitoring, reporting, Sustainable Development Goals. Highlights

+ Acknowledgements (95) + References (1796). The manuscript contains 4 Figures (296 words

), 3 Tables (668 words), 55 References and an Online appendix.

Introduction

Multiple international policy objectives aim to ensure human well-being and the sustainability of the planet, whether via sustainable development of society or via biodiversity conservation, e.g. the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Conventional of Biological Diversity (CBD) Aichi Targets. To evaluate progress made towards these objectives and to obtain information on the efficiency of implemented measures, effective monitoring schemes and trend assessments are required [START_REF] Hicks | Engage key social concepts for sustainability[END_REF]. Whereas the CBD has been reporting on progress towards objectives in Global Outlooks since 20011 , a first list of indicators has recently been launched.

There is broad consensus that pathways to sustainability require a secure supply of those ecosystem services that contribute to human well-being (Fig. 1; [START_REF] Griggs | Policy: Sustainable development goals for people and planet[END_REF][START_REF] Wu | Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes[END_REF]. The ecosystem service concept is an important integrated framework in sustainability science [START_REF] Liu | Systems integration for global sustainability[END_REF], even if the term ecosystem services is not often explicitly mentioned in policy objectives. Nevertheless, a number of specific ecosystem services are mentioned in documents relating to the different objectives stated in the SDGs and Aichi Targets. For example, there is an explicit mentioning of regulation of natural hazards in SDG 13 and of carbon sequestration in Aichi Target 15. Especially for the poorest people, who most directly depend on access to ecosystems and their services [START_REF] Daw | Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being[END_REF][START_REF] Sunderlin | Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: An Overview[END_REF], information on ecosystem services state and trends should be highly relevant [START_REF] Wood | Ecosystems and human well-being in the Sustainable Development Goals[END_REF]. Trends in biodiversity, ecosystem services and their impact on human well-being as well as sustainability must be studied using an integrated approach [START_REF] Bennett | Linking biodiversity, ecosystem services, and human well-being: three challenges for designing research for sustainability[END_REF][START_REF] Liu | Systems integration for global sustainability[END_REF]. The SDG ambitions could potentially offer key elements for this integration. Most assessments use a pragmatic approach to select indicators for ecosystem services, often only focusing on those indicators and ecosystem services, for which data are readily available. Although this helps to advance the knowledge on ecosystem services on many aspects, it may not cover the knowledge required to monitor progress towards sustainability [START_REF] Hicks | Engage key social concepts for sustainability[END_REF]. Regions characterized by high vulnerability of ecosystem services supply and human well-being, such as the Mediterranean Basin [START_REF] Schröter | Ecosystem Service Supply and Vulnerability to Global Change in Europe[END_REF], require information on the trends in on all aspects ecosystem services flows including the impact of governance interventions and pressures on social-ecological systems.

Considerable progress has been made in developing integrative frameworks and definitions for ecosystem services and the quantification of indicators (e.g. [START_REF] Kandziora | Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators-A theoretical matrix exercise[END_REF][START_REF] Maes | An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to[END_REF], but it is unclear to which extent the current state of the art in ecosystem services assessments is able to provide the information required for monitoring the SDGs and the Aichi Targets. Since the publication of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005, multiple national ecosystem services assessments have been undertaken, such as the United Kingdom National Ecosystem Assessment (UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011), the Spanish NEA [START_REF] Santos-Martín | Unraveling the Relationships between Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing in Spain[END_REF] or the New Zealand assessment [START_REF] Dymond | Ecosystem services in New Zealand[END_REF]. Furthermore, in the context of the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), regional and global assessments are planned for 2018 and 2019, respectively. The ecosystem services indicators used in these national, regional and global assessments could also provide relevant information for monitoring the progress towards these global sustainability objectives.

The main goal of the present study is to explore to what extent the ecosystem services concept has been incorporated in global sustainability policies, particularly the SDGs and the Aichi Targets. For this objective, we i) assessed the information on ecosystem services currently recommended to monitor the progress on both policy documents and ii) identified which information on ecosystem services can already be provided on the basis of the indicators reported in national ecosystem assessments. Based on these two outputs, we iii) identified knowledge gaps regarding ecosystem services for monitoring the progress on global policy objectives for sustainability.

Material and methods

Numerous frameworks exist to describe ecosystem services (e.g., [START_REF] Kandziora | Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators-A theoretical matrix exercise[END_REF][START_REF] Maes | An indicator framework for assessing ecosystem services in support of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to[END_REF], but there is general agreement that a combination of biophysical, ecological and societal components is required to estimate the flow of actual benefits arriving to the beneficiary. In line with the ongoing development of an Essential Ecosystem Services Variable Framework in the scope of the Global Earth Observation Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON), we used a framework that distinguishes variables of ecosystem services flows (Tab. 1): the ecological potential for ecosystem services supply (Potential supply), and the societal co-production (Supply), Use of the service, Demand for the service as well as Interests and governance measures for the service (Tab. 1, adapted from [START_REF] Geijzendorffer | Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments[END_REF]. We hereafter refer to these variables with capitals to increase the readability of the text. Using this framework, we i) identified and ranked the frequency at which specific ecosystem services are mentioned, within and across the selected policy documents [START_REF] Cbd | Decision document UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/2; Quick guides to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, version 2[END_REF]United Nations, 2015a); ii) reviewed indicators currently used for reporting on the Aichi Targets (Global Outlook) and iii) reviewed the 277 indicators currently being used in national ecosystem assessments, to identify any existing information gaps.

Only monitoring data that feed all the variables of this framework allows detecting trends and interpreting changes in ecosystem services flow. One example relevant for the SDGs is a food deficit indicator (e.g. insufficient calories intake per capita). An increase in calorie intake in a specific country would indicate the need for additional interventions. However, depending on the cause of this increased deficit, some interventions are more likely to be effective than others. For example, the food deficit could be caused by a change in demand (e.g. increased population numbers), in the service supply (e.g. agricultural land abandonment), or in the ecological potential to supply services (e.g. degradation of soils).

We structured our analysis of indicators by distinguishing between indirect and direct indicators (Tab. 1). While direct indicators assess an aspect of an ecosystem service flow (e.g. tons of wheat produced), indirect indicators provide proxies or only partial information (e.g. hectares of wheat fields under organic management) necessary to compute the respective indicator. Our review does not judge the appropriateness or robustness of the respective indicator (as proposed by [START_REF] Hák | Sustainable Development Goals: A need for relevant indicators[END_REF], nor did we aim to assess whether the underlying data source was reliable or could provide repeated measures of indicators over time. We only looked at the type of information that was described for each of the ecosystem services mentioned in the policy objectives and the type of indicators proposed for reporting on these policies.

The data for reporting on the SDGs is currently provided by national statistical bureaus and we therefore wanted to identify which ecosystem services indicators might be available at this level. To get a first impression, we reviewed the indicators used in 9 national ecosystem assessments and the European ecosystem assessment.

A network analysis was used to determine the associations between i) ecosystem services within the SDGs and the CBD Aichi Targets, ii) the variables of ecosystem services flows and proposed indicators for both policies and iii) the categories of ecosystem services and the components of the ecosystem service flow, in the indicators used in national and the European ecosystem assessments. The network analysis was performed using Gephi [START_REF] Bastian | Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks[END_REF] and their visualization was subsequently produced using NodeXL (https://nodexl.codeplex.com/, last consulted January 13 th 2017).

Managed Supply

Type and quantity of services supplied by the combination of the Potential supply and the impact of interventions (e.g., management) by people in a particular area and over a specific time period.

Capacity [START_REF] Schröter | Ecosystem Service Supply and Vulnerability to Global Change in Europe[END_REF], supply [START_REF] Crossman | A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services[END_REF], service capacity [START_REF] Villamagna | Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery[END_REF]; supply capacity of an area [START_REF] Burkhard | Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets[END_REF]; actual ecosystem service provision [START_REF] Guerra | Mapping Soil Erosion Prevention Using an Ecosystem Service Modeling Framework for Integrated Land Management and Policy[END_REF]; ecosystem functions under the impact of "land management" [START_REF] Van Oudenhoven | Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services[END_REF]; Service Providing Unit-Ecosystem Service Provider Continuum [START_REF] Harrington | Ecosystem services and biodiversity conservation: concepts and a glossary[END_REF].

Harvested biomass; potential pressures that a managed landscape can absorb; extent of landscape made accessible for recreation.

Modelled estimates of harvestable biomass under managed conditions; soil cover vegetation management; financial investments in infrastructure.

Use

Quantity and type of services used by society.

Flow [START_REF] Schröter | Ecosystem Service Supply and Vulnerability to Global Change in Europe[END_REF][START_REF] Schröter | Accounting for capacity and flow of ecosystem services: A conceptual model and a case study for Telemark, Norway[END_REF]; service flow [START_REF] Villamagna | Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery[END_REF]; "demand" (match and demand aggregated into one term) [START_REF] Burkhard | Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets[END_REF][START_REF] Crossman | A blueprint for mapping and modelling ecosystem services[END_REF].

Biomass sold or otherwise used; amount of soil erosion avoided while exposed to eroding pressures; number of people actually visiting a landscape.

Estimations of biomass use for energy by households; reduction of soil erosion damage; distance estimates from nearby urban areas.

Demand

Expression of demands by people in terms of actual allocation of scarce resources (e.g. money or travel time) to fulfil their demand for services, in a particular area and over a specific time period.

Stakeholder prioritisation of ecosystem services [START_REF] Martín-López | Trade-offs across valuedomains in ecosystem services assessment[END_REF], service demand [START_REF] Villamagna | Capacity, pressure, demand, and flow: A conceptual framework for analyzing ecosystem service provision and delivery[END_REF], demand [START_REF] Burkhard | Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets[END_REF].

Prices that people are willing to pay for biomass; amount of capital directly threatened by soil erosion; time investment, travel distances and prices people are willing to pay to visit a landscape.

Computation of average household needs; remaining soil erosion rates; survey results on landscape appreciation.

Interests

An expression of people's interests for certain services, in a particular area and over a specific time period. These tend to be longer wish-lists of services without prioritisation.

Identification of those important ecosystem services for stakeholders' well-being [START_REF] Martín-López | Trade-offs across valuedomains in ecosystem services assessment[END_REF]; beneficiaries with assumed demands [START_REF] Bastian | The five pillar EPPS framework for quantifying, mapping and managing ecosystem services[END_REF].

Subsidies for bio-energy; endorsement of guidelines for best practices for soil management; publicity for outdoor recreation.

Number of people interested in green energy; number of farmers aware of soil erosion; average distance of inhabitants to green areas.

Identification of ecosystem services in the SDGs and Aichi Targets

Two international policy documents were selected for review: the SDGs (United Nations, 2015a) and the CBD Aichi Targets (CBD, 2013). Both documents have global coverage and contain objectives on sustainable development, related to maintaining or improving human well-being and nature. The classification of ecosystem services used in this paper is based on [START_REF] Kandziora | Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators-A theoretical matrix exercise[END_REF], which matched best with the terminology of policy documents and the national assessments.

For each policy document, we determined the absolute and relative frequency at which an ecosystem service was mentioned. This frequency was also used to produce a relative ranking of ecosystem services, within and across these policy documents. Although the SDGs and the Aichi Targets include several statements on specific ecosystem services (e.g. food production, protection from risks), the term "ecosystem services" is not often mentioned. In the SDGs, for instance, ecosystem services explicitly occur only once (Goal 15.1). In contrast, "sustainable development or management" and "sustainable use of natural resources" are mentioned several times, although not further specified. While the latter could be interpreted to mean that the use of nature for provisioning purposes should not negatively affect regulating services, we preferred to remain cautious and not make this assumption, when reviewing the policy documents. We are therefore certain that we underestimate the importance of knowledge on ecosystem services regarding the different policy objectives.

Proposed ecosystem services indicators for the SDGs and Aichi Targets

In addition to the ecosystem services directly mentioned in the policy objectives, we also reviewed the type of information on ecosystem services proposed to monitor the progress towards the policy objectives. To this end, we used the 2015 UN report (United Nations, 2015b) for the SDGs. For the Aichi Targets, we focused on the recently proposed (but still under development) indicator list [START_REF] Cbd | Report of the ad hoc technical expert group on indicators for the strategic plan for biodiversity 2011-2020[END_REF] and on the indicators recently used in the Global Biodiversity Outlook 4 (CBD, 2014).

Review of national ecosystem services assessments

Although many authors propose indicators for ecosystem services (e.g. Böhnke-Hendrichs et al., 2013;[START_REF] Kandziora | Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators-A theoretical matrix exercise[END_REF], not all indicators can be used for monitoring, due to lack of available data at the relevant scale or because current inventories do not provide sufficient time series for trend assessment.

For the CBD reporting, continuous efforts are made to provide monitoring information at global level, for instance via the use of Essential Biodiversity Variables (e.g. [START_REF] O'connor | Earth observation as a tool for tracking progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets[END_REF]. Reporting for the SDGs, however, will heavily rely on the capacity of national statistical bureaus to provide the required data (ICSU, ISSC, 2015).

To estimate the type of ecosystem services indicators that might be available at national level, we selected national ecosystem assessment reports, which were openly available and written in one of the seven languages mastered by the co-authors (i.e. English, Spanish, Portuguese, Hebrew, French, German and Dutch). Nine assessments fulfilled these criteria (see Tab. 2). We complemented them with the European report [START_REF] Maes | Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services: Trends in ecosystems and ecosystem services in the European Union between 2000 and[END_REF], which is considered to be a baseline reference for upcoming national assessments in European member states. The selection criteria resulted in the inclusions of 9 national assessments from three continents, but there is a bias towards European and developed countries.

Results and discussion

Ecosystem services mentioned in policy objectives

The need for information on ecosystem services from all three categories (i.e. provisioning, regulating and cultural) is mentioned in both policies, and reflects earlier suggestions on the integrative nature of the policy objectives on sustainable development, especially for the SDGs (Le [START_REF] Blanc | Towards Integration at Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of Targets: The sustainable development goals as a network of targets[END_REF]. Among the 17 SDGs and the 20 Aichi Targets, 12 goals and 13 targets respectively, relate to ecosystem services. Across both policy documents, all ecosystem service categories are well covered, the top 25% of the most cited ecosystem services being: Natural heritage and diversity, Capture fisheries, Aquaculture, Water purification, Crops, Livestock and Cultural heritage & diversity (Table 3). In the SDGs, provisioning services are explicitly mentioned 29 times, regulating services 33 times and cultural services 23 times. In the Aichi Targets, provisioning services are explicitly mentioned 29 times, regulating services 21 times and cultural services 13 times.

When considering the different ecosystem service categories, SDG 2 (end hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture) and Aichi Goal B (reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use) heavily rely on provisioning services, with the latter also relying on regulating services (Fig. 2). Cultural services are more equally demanded over a range of policy objectives, with the service Natural heritage & diversity being the most demanded ecosystem service (see Tab. A.1).

Recent reviews of scientific ecosystem services assessments (e.g.

Proposed ecosystem services indicators

The analysis of the proposed indicators for reporting on both policy objectives (n=119) demonstrated that in total 43 indicators represented information on Potential supply with the other variables being represented by indicators in the 15-24 range (Fig. 3A). This bias towards supply variables is remarkable for the Aichi Targets (Fig. 3A). Another observed pattern is that the variables Demand and Interest are more often represented by proposed indicators for the SDGs than for the Aichi Targets (i.e. demand 11 versus 5 and interest 13 versus 4, respectively). The results therefore provide support for the claim that the SDGs aim to be an integrative policy framework (Le [START_REF] Blanc | Towards Integration at Last? The Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of Targets: The sustainable development goals as a network of targets[END_REF], at least in the sense that the proposed indicators for SDGs demonstrate a more balanced inclusion of ecological and socio-economic information.

A comparison of the number of ecosystem services that are relevant for the SDGs with the total number of indicators proposed for monitoring, however, reveals that balanced information from the indicators is unlikely to concern all ecosystem services (Figure 3). The proposed indicators never cover all five variables for a single SDG target except for one SDGs target (i.e. SDG 15: "Protect, restore and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, and halt and reverse land degradation and halt biodiversity loss"). Among the Aichi Targets, none of the Strategic Goals was covered by indicators representing all five variables. The frequencies at which ecosystem services are presented for the policy reports are surprisingly low (Figure 3B). In an ideal situation, each of the ecosystem services would have been covered by indicators representing the five variables (i.e. frequency value of 1). Our results demonstrate a highest frequency value of 0.4 for SDG target 13 ("Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts"), caused by several indicators representing only two variables (i.e. demand and interest). The SDG list of indicators is kept short on purpose to keep reporting feasible, but if the indicators and data were available through national or global platforms (e.g. IPBES, World Bank), a longer list of readily updated indicators might not be so problematic. Despite the identified value of information on ecosystem services as presented in section 3.1, it seems that entire ecosystem service flows (from Potential supply to Interest) are poorly captured by the proposed and (potentially) used indicators. The information recommended for Aichi Targets shows a strong bias on the supply side of ecosystem services flow (i.e. Potential supply and Supply), whereas this seems more balanced for SDGs. However, the overall information demanded is very low, given the number of services that are relevant for the policies (Fig. 3). Variables linked to social behaviour and ecosystem services consumption (i.e. Demand and Use) and Governance (i.e. Interest) are much less represented in Aichi targets and this bias is enforced when looking at the actually used indicators. As the SDGs reporting is based on information from national statistical bureaus, we can wonder whether their data will demonstrate a similar bias or not, as the used data sources can be of a different nature (e.g. some indicators may come from national censors). Results from section 3.3 make it clear that if SDGs reports rely only on national ecosystem reports for their information, it will likely demonstrate the same bias as found in the Aichi Target reports. To obtain more balanced information for the SDGS, national statistical bureaus would be ideally placed to add complementary social and economic data on other variables.

Ecosystem service information in national assessments

The national ecosystem assessments analysis demonstrates the availability of a significant amount of information on ecosystem services flows at national level (Appendix A,Tab. A.4). It has to be noted that as the analysed national ecosystem assessments under represent developing countries and non-European countries, the available information at a global level might be significantly lower. However, some national reports may not have been detected or included in our review, for instance because we did not find them on the internet or because they were not written in any of the languages mastered by the authors.

The available knowledge in the selected ecosystem assessments on ecosystem services flows shows, however, a considerable bias towards Supply information on provisioning services and Potential supply information for regulating services. Cultural ecosystem services as well as Use, Demand and Interest variables are not well covered in national assessments. In addition, only for some ecosystem services (e.g., Timber, Erosion Regulation, Recreation) information is available for all relevant ecosystem services variables (Fig. A.2).

In total, we identified 277 ecosystem services indicators in the ten selected ecosystem services assessments (Tab. A.2). Within these 277 indicators, most provide information on provisioning services (126, 45%), whereas 121 indicators provide information on regulating services (44%). The remaining 30 indicators (11%) provide information on cultural services. Based on the network analysis, we can clearly see that indicators used for provisioning services mostly represent information on the Supply variable, whereas indicators used for regulating services mostly represent the Potential supply variable (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Relative representation of the indicators used in analysed National

Ecosystem Assessments, according to ecosystem services category (provisioning, regulating or cultural services) and the ecosystem service variables (Potential supply, Supply, Use, Demand or Interest). The line width indicates the frequency at which indicators of a certain ecosystem service category were used to monitor any of the components of the ecosystem services flow. The size of the nodes is proportional to the number of ties that a node has. Among the 277 indicators, 39 did not provide a measure of service flow, but rather of the pressure (e.g. amount of ammonia emission) or of the status quo (e.g. current air quality). None of these measures provide information on the actual ecosystem service flow; they rather reflect the response to a pressure. The status quo can be considered to result from the interplay between exerted pressure and triggered ecosystem services flow. Among the 39 indicators, 38 were used to quantify regulating services, leaving a total number of 83 indicators to quantify variables of regulating ecosystem services flows.

The 238 indicators of ecosystem service flows are almost equally divided between direct and indirect indicators, namely 124 versus 114, respectively (Tab. A.2). The distribution of the indicators within the different ecosystem service categories differs. Among the different variables, Interest is least represented by the different indicators. The pattern is most pronounced for provisioning services, where there is relatively little information available on Demand and Interest (Fig. 4). For regulating services, most information seems available on the Potential supply side of the ecosystem services flow (Fig. 4).

The cultural ecosystem services category has the lowest number of indicators used for monitoring the ecosystem service flow (Tab. A.2). Regardless of general patterns, indicators are available only for very few services, for all five variables (Fig. A.2). For the top 25% services most frequently mentioned in the policies, there is a similar bias towards indicators on Supply (Tab. A.3), mainly stemming from the provisioning services crop and livestock (Tab. A.4), whereas no indicators were included for the ecosystem service Natural heritage and natural diversity.

As already acknowledged by IPBES, capacity building is needed to increase the number of readily available indicators for ecosystems services at national and global levels. The capacity to monitor spatially-explicit dynamics of ecosystem services, including multiple variables of the ecosystem services flow simultaneously, could benefit from the application of process-oriented models (e.g. [START_REF] Bagstad | Spatial dynamics of ecosystem service flows: A comprehensive approach to quantifying actual services[END_REF][START_REF] Guerra | An assessment of soil erosion prevention by vegetation in Mediterranean Europe: Current trends of ecosystem service provision[END_REF], the use of remote sensing for specific variables (e.g. [START_REF] Cord | Monitor ecosystem services from space[END_REF], or by aligning with censor social and economic data (e.g. Hermans-Neumann et al., 2016).

Recommendations for improvement towards the future

The biased information on ecosystem service flows hampers an evaluation of progress on sustainable development. If policy reports are not able to identify whether trends in supply, consumption and demand of ecosystem services align, it will be difficult to identify if no one is left behind [START_REF] Geijzendorffer | Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments[END_REF]. Apart from the results of the structured analysis, three other issues emerged from the review, which we want to mention here to raise awareness and stimulate inclusion of these issues in further scientific studies.

First, trade-offs play a crucial role in the interpretation of the sustainability of developments related to human well-being [START_REF] Liu | Systems integration for global sustainability[END_REF][START_REF] Wu | Landscape sustainability science: ecosystem services and human well-being in changing landscapes[END_REF] and often include regulating services [START_REF] Lee | A quantitative review of relationships between ecosystem services[END_REF]. Interestingly, in the case of the SDGs, where the objective of sustainable development is a key concept, no indicators are proposed to monitor whether the impacts of progress on some objectives (e.g. industry development mentioned in Target 16) might negatively affect progress towards another objective (e.g. water availability and water quality mentioned in Target 6). Without monitoring of tradeoffs between objectives and underlying ecosystem services, it will be difficult to determine whether any progress made can be considered sustainable for improving human well-being [START_REF] Costanza | The UN Sustainable Development Goals and the dynamics of well-being[END_REF][START_REF] Nilsson | Policy: Map the interactions between Sustainable Development Goals[END_REF]. Reporting on global sustainability policies would greatly benefit from the development and standardisation of methods to detect trends in trade-offs between ecosystem services, and between ecosystem services and other pressures. The ongoing IPBES regional and global assessments could offer excellent opportunities to develop comprehensive narratives that include the interactions between multiple ecosystem services and between them and drivers of change. Global working groups on ecosystem services from GEO BON2 and the Ecosystem Services Partnership3 can render ecosystem services data and variables usable in a wide set of monitoring and reporting contexts by developing frameworks connecting data to indicators and monitoring schemes.

Second, the applied framework of variables of ecosystem service flows did not allow for an evaluation of the most relevant spatial and temporal scales, or for indicators' units. Most ecosystem services are spatially explicit and show spatial and temporal heterogeneity that requires information on both ecological and social aspects of ecosystem services flows (e.g. [START_REF] Guerra | An assessment of soil erosion prevention by vegetation in Mediterranean Europe: Current trends of ecosystem service provision[END_REF][START_REF] Guerra | Mapping Soil Erosion Prevention Using an Ecosystem Service Modeling Framework for Integrated Land Management and Policy[END_REF]. To monitor progress towards the Aichi Targets, the tendency to date has been to develop indicators and variables that could be quantified at global level, with the framework of Essential Biodiversity Variables being a leading concept [START_REF] O'connor | Earth observation as a tool for tracking progress towards the Aichi Biodiversity Targets[END_REF][START_REF] Pereira | Essential Biodiversity Variables[END_REF][START_REF] Pettorelli | Framing the concept of satellite remote sensing essential biodiversity variables: challenges and future directions[END_REF]. Although indicators with global coverage can be very effective in communicating and convincing the audience on the existence of specific trends (e.g. the Living Planet Index4 ), they are not likely to provide sufficient information to inform management or policy decisions, at local or national scales. For the SDGs, which are at a much earlier stage of development than the Aichi Targets, data will be provided at national level by national statistical bureaus (ICSU, ISSC, 2015), which may better suit national decision makers deciding on implementation of interventions. The current approach of reporting on SDGs progress at national level may also allow easier integration of information on ecosystem services available from national assessments. Although the number of available national ecosystem assessments is still rising, developing countries are currently underrepresented. Developing national assessments in these countries is therefore an important for the credible reporting on Aichi targets and SDGs.

Third, national ecosystem assessments would ideally provide information at the spatio-temporal scale and unit most relevant for the ecosystem services at hand [START_REF] Costanza | Ecosystem services: Multiple classification systems are needed[END_REF][START_REF] Geijzendorffer | The relevant scales of ecosystem services demand[END_REF]. This would allow for the identification of people who do not have enough access to particular ecosystem services (e.g. gender related, income related) at a sub-national level. The assessment of progress in human well-being for different social actors within the same country, requires alternative units of measurement than national averages for the whole population in order to appraise equity aspects [START_REF] Daw | Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being[END_REF][START_REF] Geijzendorffer | Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments[END_REF]. Further, although the setting of the SDGs was done by national governments, achieving sustainable development requires the engagement of multiple social actors operating at local level. Some of these local actors (e.g. rural or indigenous communities, low-income neighbourhoods, migrants or women) play a relevant role in achieving the SDGs, because they are more vulnerable to the impact of unequal access to and distribution of ecosystem services.

Although some of the indicators and objectives of SDGs mention particular actor groups (e.g. women), the representation of vulnerable groups will require special attention throughout the different targets and ecosystem services.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that information from all ecosystem services categories is relevant for the monitoring of the Aichi Targets and the SDGs. It identifies a bias in the information demand as well as in the information available from indicators at national level towards supply related aspects of ecosystem services flows, whereas information on social behaviour, use, demand and governance implementation is much less developed.

The National statistical bureaus currently in charge of providing the data for reporting on the SDGs could be well placed to address this bias, by integrating ecological and socio-economic data. In addition, IPBES could potentially address gaps between national and global scales, as well as improve coverage of ecosystem services flows. As its first assessments of biodiversity and ecosystem services are ongoing, IPBES is still adapting its concepts. To live up to its potential role, IPBES needs to continue to adapt concepts based on scientific conceptual arguments and not based on current day practical constraints, such as a lack of data, or political sensitivities. This manuscript demonstrates the importance of data and indicators for global sustainability policies and which biases we need to start readdressing, now.

Appendix A: The frequency at which ecosystem services are mentioned per target, in the policy documents. The review of the national assessment reports showed no indicators explicitly linked to the Natural heritage and natural diversity service (Table S3). We might consider that some aspects of this service may be captured by other cultural services, such as the appreciation by tourists or knowledge systems.

However, the interpretation of this specific service is generally considered to be very difficult. Many consider that the intrinsic value of biodiversity, although very important, cannot be considered an ecosystem service as the direct benefit for human well-being is not evident, but rather as an ecological characteristic [START_REF] Balvanera | Quantifying the evidence for biodiversity effects on ecosystem functioning and services: Biodiversity and ecosystem functioning/services[END_REF][START_REF] Kandziora | Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators-A theoretical matrix exercise[END_REF]. To include to the Natural heritage and natural diversity service in our review, we considered that only information on biodiversity aspects for which human appreciation was explicitly used as criteria, should be included in this particular ecosystem service. This means that general patterns in species abundance (e.g. Living Planet Index), habitat extent or the presence of red list of species, were considered as important variables for biodiversity, only if they supported specific ecological functions (e.g. mangrove extent for life cycle maintenance by providing nurseries for fish), but not as an indicator for the supply of the natural heritage service in general.

Figure 1 .

 1 Figure 1. Contribution of ecosystem services to human well-being, with direct contributions being indicated with black arrows and indirect contributions by dotted arrows.Figure adapted from Wu (2013).

  Figure 1. Contribution of ecosystem services to human well-being, with direct contributions being indicated with black arrows and indirect contributions by dotted arrows.Figure adapted from Wu (2013).

Fig 2 .

 2 Fig 2. Relative importance of ecosystem service categories for the different policy objectives. The line width indicates the frequency at which a certain ecosystem service category was mentioned in relation to a specific goal of the SDGs or Aichi Targets (goals for which no relation to ecosystem services was found are not shown). The size of the nodes is proportional to the number of ties that a node has.

For3BFigure 3 .

 3 Figure 3. Relative importance of each of the ecosystem services variables (Potential supply, Supply, Use, Demand and Interest) recommended for the monitoring of the global sustainability objectives. (A) The number of proposed and used indicators for the reporting on the progress of the sustainability goal in policy documents per ecosystem service variable. (B) Relative frequencies (0-1) at which information from variables are represented by indicators per policy target. Frequency values are standardized for the total number of services linked to individual policy target (nES) and the legend indicates nSDG and nAichi for the total number of proposed indicators for each ES variable per policy programme respectively. Policy targets which did not mention ecosystem services were not included in the figure.

  nSDGS=13; nAichi = 30) Supply (nSDGs=7; nAichi =14)) Use (nSDGs=10; nAichi=3) Demand (nSDG =11;nAichi=5)Interest (nSDG = 13; nAichi=4) 3.

Figure A. 1 :

 1 Figure A.1: Degree (the number of connections) per ecosystem service across both policy documents

Table 1 : Evaluation framework for the indicators on ecosystem service flows (

 1 adapted from[START_REF] Geijzendorffer | Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments[END_REF]. While direct indicators can be used to immediately assess the needed information, indirect indicators provide proxies or only partial information necessary to compute the respective indicator.

	Information

component Definition Related terms used in other papers Examples of direct indicators Examples of indirect indicators Potential Supply

	Estimated supply of ecosystem	Ecosystem functions (de Groot et	Modelled estimates of	Qualitative estimates of
	services based on ecological and	al., 2002); ecosystem properties	harvestable biomass under	land cover type
	geophysical characteristics of	that support ecosystem functions	natural conditions; potential	contributions to biomass
	ecosystems, taking into account	(van Oudenhoven et al., 2012)	pressures that an ecosystem	growth; species traits (e.g.
	the ecosystem's integrity, under		can absorb; landscape	root growth patterns);
	the influence of external drivers		aesthetic quality.	landscape heterogeneity
	(e.g., climate change or			of land cover types.
	pollution).

Table 2 : Ecosystem service assessments considered in the analysis Included countries Reference

 2

	Belgium	(Stevens, 2014)
	Europe	(Maes et al., 2015)
	Finland	http://www.biodiversity.fi/ecosystemservice s/home, last consulted January 13 th 2017
	New Zealand	(Dymond, 2013)
	South Africa	(Reyers et al., 2014)
	South Africa, Tanzania and Zambia	(Willemen et al., 2015)
	Spain	(Santos-Martín et al., 2013)
	United Kingdom	(UK National Ecosystem Assessment, 2011)

Table 3 . Frequency at which the different ecosystem services were mentioned in both policy

 3 [START_REF] Geijzendorffer | Improving the identification of mismatches in ecosystem services assessments[END_REF] Lee and Hautenbach, 2016) demonstrate that easily measurable ecosystem services (i.e. most of the provisioning services) or ecosystem services that can be quantified through modelling (i.e. many of the regulating services) are most often studied, whereas cultural ecosystem services are much less represented, despite their importance for global sustainability policies. The reason for this knowledge gap is partly theoretical (e.g. lack of agreement on for monitoring and measuring, and partly because the assessment of cultural services in particularly requires a multi-disciplinary approach (e.g. landscape ecologists, environmental anthropologists, or environmental planners) which is difficult to achieve(Hernández- 231 Morcillo et al. 2013;[START_REF] Milcu | Cultural ecosystem services: a literature review and prospects for future research[END_REF]. The development of cultural services indicators would benefit 232 from a truly interdisciplinary dialogue which should take place at both national level and international 233 level to capture cultural differences and spatial heterogeneity. The capacity building objectives of IPBES 234 could provide an important global incentive to come to a structured, mutli-disciplinary and coherent 235 concept of cultural services. 236

	237
	238	documents. Presented ecosystem services frequency scores are for the SDGs per target (n=126) and for
	239	the Aichi Targets per target (n=20).
		Ecosystem services	SDGs	Aichi Targets
		Provisioning services (total)	29	29
		Crops	4	3
		Energy (biomass)	2	1
		Fodder	0	1
		Livestock	4	3
		Fibre	0	2
		Timber	0	3
		Wood for fuel	2	1
		Capture fisheries	8	3
		Aquaculture	5	3
		Wild foods	2	3
		Biochemicals/medicine	0	3
		Freshwater	2	3
		Regulating services (total)	33	21
		Global climate regulation	0	2
		Local climate regulation	3	1
		Air quality regulation	2	0
		Water flow regulation	5	2
		Water purification	5	3
		Nutrient regulation	0	3
		Erosion regulation	3	3
		Natural hazard protection	6	1
		Pollination	1	2
		Pest and disease control	2	2
		Regulation of waste	6	2
		Cultural services (total)	23	13
		Recreation	4	0
		Landscape aesthetics	0	0
		Knowledge systems	2	3
		Religious and spiritual experiences	0	1
		Cultural heritage & cultural diversity	4	3
		Natural Heritage & natural diversity	13	6
	240
	241

Table A .1. Overall ranking of the frequency that ecosystem services were mentioned across both the SDGs and the Aichi Targets.

 A The top 25% most frequently mentioned ecosystem services are highlighted in bold. Ecosystem services categories are Provisioning (P), Regulating (R) and Cultural (C).

	Ecosystem		SDGs	Aichi Targets	Combined
	service category Ecosystem services	Ranking	Ranking	ranking
	C	Natural heritage & natural diversity	1	1	1
	P	Capture fisheries	2	8	2
	P	Aquaculture	6	8	3.5
	R	Water purification	6	8	3.5
	P	Crops	9,5	8	6
	P	Livestock	9,5	8	6
	C	Cultural heritage & cultural diversity	9,5	8	6
	R	Erosion regulation	12,5	8	8,5
	R	Regulation of waste	3,5	17,5	8,5
	R	Water flow regulation	6	17,5	10
	P	Wild foods	17	8	12
	P	Freshwater	17	8	12
	C	Knowledge systems	17	8	12
	R	Natural hazard protection	3,5	23,5	14
	P	Timber	25,5	8	16
	P	Biochemicals/medicine	25,5	8	16
	R	Nutrient regulation	25,5	8	16
	R	Pest and disease control	17	17,5	18
	R	Local climate regulation	12,5	23,5	19
	C	Recreation	9,5	28	20
	R	Pollination	21	17,5	21
	P	Energy (biomass)	17	23,5	22,5
	P	Wood for fuel	17	23,5	22,5
	P	Fibre	25,5	17,5	24
	R	Global climate regulation	25,5	17,5	25
	R	Air quality regulation	17	28	26
	P	Fodder	25,5	23,5	27,5
	C	Religious and spiritual experiences	25,5	23,5	27,5
	C	Landscape aesthetics	25,5	28	29

Table A .2. Number of indicators identified from national ecosystem assessments, presented per ecosystem service category

 A (provisioning, regulating or cultural services), ecosystem service variable (Potential Supply, Supply, Use, Demand or Interest) or indicator type (direct or indirect). For regulating services, 39 additional indicators describing pressures and states were identified.

				Potential
		Direct Indirect	Supply	Supply Use	Demand Interest
	Total	124	114	59	89	46	31	13
	Provisioning	82	43	22	61	31	8	3
	Regulating	26	57	34	19	5	18	7
	Cultural	16	14	3	9	10	5	3
	Potential Supply	19	40
	Supply	45	44
	Use	40	6
	Demand	17	14
	Interest	3	10
	Table A.3.

Number of indicators identified from ecosystem services assessments for the top 25% of ecosystem services recommended by the reviewed policies, presented per ecosystem service variable

(Potential Supply, Supply, Use, Demand or Interest) or indicator type (direct or indirect).

(https://www.cbd.int/gbo/) last consulted on the

nd of April 2017

http://geobon.org/working-groups/, last consulted 22th of April 2017

http://es-partnership.org/community/workings-groups/, last consulted 22th of April 2017

www.livingplanetindex.org/home/index, last consulted 22th of April 2017

Acknowledgements

We thank the two anonymous reviewers for their suggestions, which have led to an improved final version of the manuscript. This work was partly supported by 7th Framework Programmes funded by the European Union the EU BON (Contract No. 308454) and the OPERAs project (Contract No.308393). It contributes to the Labex OT-Med (no. ANR-11-LABX-0061) funded by the French Government through the A*MIDEX project (no. ANR-11-IDEX-0001-02). This study contributes to the work done within the GEO BON working group on Ecosystem Services and the Mediterranean Ecosystem Services working group of the Ecosystem Services Partnership.

 [START_REF] Kandziora | Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators-A theoretical matrix exercise[END_REF], but based on the indicators found in the selected ecosystem services assessments, we made small adjustments: 1) for livestock the definition remained the same, but we changed the name for clarity in the table; 2) noise reduction, soil quality regulation and lifecycle maintenance were absent from [START_REF] Kandziora | Interactions of ecosystem properties, ecosystem integrity and ecosystem service indicators-A theoretical matrix exercise[END_REF] and were added; 3) we split natural hazard regulation in two: flood risk regulation and coastal protection; and 4) we separated recreation and tourism.