Stopping declines in biodiversity is critically important, but it is only a first step toward achieving more ambitious conservation goals. The absence of an objective and practical definition of species recovery that is applicable across taxonomic groups leads to inconsistent targets in recovery plans and frustrates reporting and maximization of conservation impact. We devised a framework for comprehensively assessing species recovery and conservation success. We propose a definition of a fully recovered species that emphasizes viability, ecological functionality, and representation; and use counterfactual approaches to quantify degree of recovery. This allowed us to calculate a set of 4 conservation metrics that demonstrate impacts of conservation efforts to date (conservation legacy); identify dependence of a species on conservation actions (conservation dependence); quantify expected gains resulting from conservation action in the medium term (conservation gain); and specify requirements to achieve maximum plausible recovery over the long term (recovery potential). These metrics can incentivize the establishment and achievement of ambitious conservation targets. We illustrate their use by applying the framework to a vertebrate, an invertebrate, and a woody and an herbaceous plant. Our approach is a preliminary framework for an International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Green List of Species, which was mandated by a resolution of IUCN members in 2012. Although there are several challenges in applying our proposed framework to a wide range of species, we believe its further development, implementation, and integration with the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species will help catalyze a positive and ambitious vision for conservation that will drive sustained conservation action.

Preventing biodiversity loss in the face of global change is a major challenge in ecology and conservation (Folke et al., 2004;Scheffer et al., 2012). As global change accelerates (Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2018), species-and the services that they provide (Pecl et al., 2017)-are being lost at an unprecedented rate (Barnosky et al., 2012;Pimm et al., 2014). Still, some species can persist or even increase their abundance despite the increasingly frequent and intense disturbance events, as a consequence of global change (Antão et al., 2020;Blowes et al., 2019;van Klink et al., 2020). Such an ability to persist after a disturbance depends, to a large extent, on the species' inherent ability to resist and recover from such events, their resilience (Capdevila, Stott, et al., 2020;Hodgson et al., 2015). Therefore, understanding what makes some species more/less resilient than others is crucial to developing effective management and conservation plans (Pressey et al., 2007). Yet, the lack of data regarding species' natural population's responses to disturbances and robust methods to quantify resilience have hampered

Species interactions matter to conservation. Setting an ambitious recovery target for a species requires considering the size, density, and demographic structure of its populations such that they fulfill the interactions, roles, and functions of the species in the ecosystems in which they are embedded. A recently proposed framework for an International Union for Conservation of Nature Green List of Species formalizes this requirement by defining a fully recovered species in terms of representation, viability, and functionality. Defining and quantifying ecological function from the viewpoint of species recovery is challenging in concept and application, but also an opportunity to insert ecological theory into conservation practice. We propose 2 complementary approaches to assessing a species' ecological functions: confirmation (listing interactions of the species, identifying ecological processes and other species involved in these interactions, and quantifying the extent to which the species contributes to the identified ecological process) and elimination (inferring functionality by ruling out symptoms of reduced functionality, analogous to the red-list approach that focuses on symptoms of reduced viability). Despite the challenges, incorporation of functionality into species recovery planning is possible in most cases and it is essential to a conservation vision that goes beyond preventing extinctions and aims to restore a species to levels beyond what is required for its viability. This vision focuses on conservation and recovery at the species level and sees species as embedded in ecosystems, influencing and being influenced by the processes in those ecosystems. Thus, it connects and integrates conservation at the species and ecosystem levels. Article impact statement:The ecological functionality concept is applicable to species conservation and supports an ambitious definition of species recovery.

Historical data are a valuable resource for addressing present-day conservation issues, for example by informing the establishment of appropriate recovery targets. However, while the recovery of threatened species is the end goal of many conservation programmes, data made available through the efforts of palaeoecologists and historical ecologists are rarely consulted. The proposal of a ‘Green List of Species’ by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) will soon change this. The Green List of Species measures recovery against historical baselines; in particular, the method requires estimates of species range and abundance in previous centuries. In this paper, we present the case for why setting species recovery against a historical baseline is necessary to produce ambitious conservation targets, and we highlight examples from palaeoecology and historical ecology where fossil and archival data have been used to establish historical species baselines. Finally, we introduce Conservation Archive (https://conservationarchive.shinyapps.io/ConservationArchive/), a database of resources that can be used to infer baseline species conditions, and invite contributions to this database. This article is part of a discussion meeting issue ‘The past is a foreign country: how much can the fossil record actually inform conservation?’

Although evidence-based approaches have become commonplace for determining the success of conservation measures for the management of threatened taxa, there are no standard metrics for assessing progress in research or management. We developed 5 metrics to meet this need for threatened taxa and to quantify the need for further action and effective alleviation of threats. These metrics (research need,