A new study is turning attention toward one of the most consequential questions in global conservation: does it matter who governs protected land and water, and how those governance systems are designed? Published in Nature Communications, the research by P.J. Negret, V.J. Rincon-Parra, K.R. Jones and colleagues examines the potential of different area-based governance mechanisms to help countries achieve the goals of the Global Biodiversity Framework, the international agreement intended to slow and reverse the rapid decline of nature.
The question is urgent because the world has entered an era of accelerating biodiversity loss. Species are being pushed toward extinction by habitat conversion, climate change, pollution, invasive organisms and the overuse of natural resources. In response, governments agreed under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to conserve at least 30 percent of the planet’s terrestrial, inland-water, coastal and marine areas by 2030. Often called “30 by 30,” the target has become one of the most recognizable environmental commitments in modern conservation. Yet protecting an area on a map does not automatically protect the life within it.
Area-based conservation can take many forms. Conventional protected areas may be managed by national agencies, regional authorities or other public institutions. Elsewhere, Indigenous peoples and local communities govern territories according to customary law, cultural practices and long-established systems of resource management. Private reserves, community-managed forests, locally managed marine areas and other conservation arrangements can also contribute to biodiversity protection. These approaches may differ sharply in legal status, decision-making power, enforcement capacity and ecological objectives, even when they cover similar amounts of land or sea.
That distinction is central to the study’s scientific significance. A simple tally of protected territory can conceal major differences in ecological performance. Two areas of equal size may deliver very different outcomes if one is effectively managed while the other exists mainly as a legal designation without staff, funding or enforcement. Researchers therefore increasingly distinguish between geographic coverage and conservation effectiveness, asking not only where conservation areas are located, but also who governs them, which ecosystems they represent and whether management reduces the pressures driving biodiversity decline.
The Global Biodiversity Framework includes goals that extend beyond the headline 30-percent target. It calls for ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected and conserved areas, improved protection of threatened species and ecosystems, restoration of degraded environments, and greater recognition of the rights and contributions of Indigenous peoples and local communities. Achieving these objectives requires more than expanding boundaries. It requires governance systems capable of maintaining ecological integrity over time while also addressing issues of equity, participation, tenure and access to resources.
The researchers’ focus on “different area-based governance mechanisms” reflects a growing shift in conservation science. Instead of treating protected areas as a single category, scientists are examining a spectrum of institutions and management models. One important category is the “other effective area-based conservation measure,” or OECM. Under the Convention on Biological Diversity, an OECM is an area outside the conventional protected-area system that is governed and managed in a way that produces sustained, positive and long-term outcomes for biodiversity. The designation can include territories managed for purposes such as fisheries, forestry, water security or cultural protection, provided biodiversity benefits are demonstrable.
This broader framework could transform how progress is measured. Countries may be able to contribute to international conservation targets through combinations of national parks, Indigenous and community-conserved territories, private initiatives, sustainable-use areas and other locally appropriate arrangements. But flexibility also creates risks. If governments count areas that have little real protection, global statistics could improve while habitats continue to deteriorate. Conversely, if reporting systems ignore community-led conservation because it does not resemble a conventional national park, important contributions may remain invisible.
Technical evaluation is therefore essential. Researchers can compare governance mechanisms using indicators such as habitat condition, population trends of sensitive species, rates of deforestation, fishing pressure, connectivity between ecosystems and the degree to which management objectives are implemented. Spatial analysis can reveal whether conservation areas overlap with places of high biodiversity importance, climate refugia, migration corridors and areas under intense human pressure. Governance assessments can add information about legal recognition, participation, accountability, conflict resolution and the distribution of costs and benefits. Together, these measurements provide a more realistic picture than area coverage alone.
The study arrives at a moment when governments and conservation organizations are searching for strategies that are both ambitious and practical. Expanding state-managed protected areas everywhere may be politically, financially or socially impossible, particularly in regions where people depend directly on forests, rangelands, rivers and coastal waters. Recognizing multiple governance pathways could make global conservation more adaptable and inclusive. However, success will depend on whether these mechanisms receive durable financing, clear legal support, scientific monitoring and meaningful involvement from the people who live in and manage the areas concerned.
The implications reach far beyond conservation policy. The governance of land and sea determines how societies respond to climate change, protect freshwater supplies, maintain pollination and fisheries, and preserve cultural relationships with nature. The research by Negret, Rincon-Parra, Jones and colleagues places these questions at the center of the biodiversity debate, highlighting that the future of the planet may depend not simply on how much area is declared conserved, but on how conservation works in practice. As nations attempt to turn the Global Biodiversity Framework from a diplomatic promise into measurable action, the most important map may be the one showing not only protected places, but the institutions, communities and decisions that keep them alive.
Subject of Research: The potential of different area-based governance mechanisms to achieve the goals of the Global Biodiversity Framework.
Article Title: Potential of different area-based governance mechanisms for achieving Global Biodiversity Framework goals.
Article References: Negret, P.J., Rincon-Parra, V.J., Jones, K.R. et al. “Potential of different area-based governance mechanisms for achieving Global Biodiversity Framework goals.” Nature Communications (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-76225-9
Image Credits: AI Generated
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-76225-9
Keywords: biodiversity conservation, Global Biodiversity Framework, protected areas, area-based governance, OECMs, Indigenous conservation, community-managed areas, 30 by 30, conservation policy, Nature Communications
