A whole-of-society approach is needed to meet ambitious global biodiversity targets by 2030. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) sets out 23 major biodiversity targets to achieve by 2030, from conserving and restoring ecosystems to aligning financial flows to support biodiversity outcomes.

Earlier in May, UNEP-WCMC hosted this year’s Nature Action Dialogues, which explored the critical need and options to scale private sector nature action, as part of its theme ‘Countdown to 2030: Aligning Ambition, Scaling Integrated Action’. The Nature Action Dialogues brought together businesses and financial institutions with leading biodiversity experts, to discuss approaches to integrate nature into corporate decision-making.  

Now in its third year, the Dialogues facilitate genuine private sector collaboration through expert, business and finance-led interactive workshops. Here, we highlight some of the key outcomes from this year’s Dialogues.

Aligning action across scales: from local to global

With the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment launching in February this year, there is now a clear and robust scientific foundation for the relationships between business and biodiversity. The assessment provides clarity to enable businesses and financial institutions to take action to safeguard nature and reduce nature-related risk across their operations, supply chains and investment portfolios.

The assessment sets out key actions businesses can take to ensure that nature thrives, and to safeguard the ecosystem services on which companies and people depend. It shares the current state of knowledge on the connections between business and biodiversity, exploring themes from nature measurement through to mobilizing finance for nature. The Nature Action Dialogues’ opening plenaries considered how businesses can best follow through with these actions, as well as mechanisms for changing financial systems.

The opening panellists also highlighted the importance of building trust with local communities and stakeholders along value chains. Trust enables collaboration across complex value chains to better align local with global action. Working with communities is key as there is no one-size-fits-all approach to achieving global goals. An example of this was highlighted in a session on scaling biodiversity in the food sector, which stressed the importance of having expert intermediaries between retailers and farmers. These intermediaries can support farmers with finding opportunities to protect biodiversity at the farm-scale and help to monitor progress towards wider goals. This enables aligned action across value chains.

Ensuring decision-making is driven by the latest biodiversity science

Action is most effective when it is evidence-driven, whether from science, or insights from local communities. Various sessions explored the best practice in harnessing data and tools, such as Exploring Natural Capital Opportunities, Risks and Exposure (ENCORE), which helps companies identify their nature-related dependencies, impacts, risks and opportunities. As part of this year’s event, the Integrated Biodiversity Assessment Tool (IBAT) team also launched a new tool to assess species’ extinction risk.

However, companies can find it challenging to navigate all the different tools available. A key takeaway from this year’s Dialogues was that using a range of approaches is better than just applying one. How nature is measured depends on the type of landscape, decisions being taken and the kind of knowledge being considered – whether species data or traditional knowledge. Applying a variety of approaches allows for a wider range of these points to be integrated, a principle that the Nature Tools Compass enables. One session also explored the possibility of a Nature Measurement Protocol, to provide clear overarching guidance on nature measurement.

Financing nature action

Investments that degrade nature outnumber those protecting nature at a ratio of 30:1. This needs to change, and financial flows must be redirected to activities that conserve and restore nature if we are to meet the KMGBF’s 2030 targets. A session with the World Economic Forum shared 10 key solutions to help close this finance gap, with 50 specific investment opportunities across different sectors. For example, one largely untapped opportunity for investment is the blue economy, to better ensure marine ecosystems are safeguarded for continued benefits for people and nature.

Another key insight for many at the Dialogues is that nature-related risks are already impacting business activities. This year’s Dialogues hosted a debate on whether nature-related risk was already a real financial threat for companies. The case was successfully made that businesses face supply chain disruptions due to nature-related shocks. For example, the clearing of habitats is hindering local climate regulation, making crops more vulnerable to extreme weather events. This vulnerability often results in decreased yields and particularly affects smallholder farmers. At present, financial markets respond to these risks only when they are realized. Once they have already affected supply chains. However, there are clear advantages in proactively accounting for – and managing – such risks.

The opening plenary session on ‘Applied Hope for Biodiversity’ highlighted that companies and financial institutions are starting to take nature risk seriously. Drawing on perspectives spanning policy, private finance, nature markets and disclosure, panellists explored which signals can genuinely shift financial behaviour to align with ambitions for nature. They highlighted what a credible path to 2030 looks like from those closest to capital-allocation decisions, including opportunities for redirecting harmful financial flows and increasing finance for activities that support nature.

Systemic solutions drawing on available knowledge

Biodiversity knowledge takes many forms, including the latest science and the long-standing traditional knowledge belonging to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Representatives from Indigenous-led companies joined the Dialogues to share examples of what transformative business practices could look like. These include shifting the mindset underlying business-as-usual, moving from maximizing shareholder value to providing goods and services that meet people’s needs whilst living in harmony with nature.

We will release details about the 2027 Nature Action Dialogues in the coming months. Please email communications@unep-wcmc.org to register early interest.

Main image: Neville Ash, UNEP-WCMC director, addresses the closing plenary at the Nature Action Dialogues (© UNEP-WCMC)

The post UNEP-WCMC hosts third Nature Action Dialogues appeared first on UNEP-WCMC.

Climate change is rapidly transforming our planet. While its effects are being felt globally, some areas of the world face these impacts more acutely. Countries are largely underprepared for the serious consequences associated with longer periods of drought, higher levels of flooding, increased frequency and severity of wildfires and more intense heatwaves caused by climate change.  

While there has been global action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, climate change continues to proceed at a rapid rate.  A concerted effort to implement robust and resilient adaptation measures is required to protect people, economies and nature from its consequences. Some communities are feeling the impacts of climate change more immediately and severely than others, and these communities urgently need additional resources and capacity to adapt to a changing reality.  

Ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) is one way to respond to the urgent need for climate change adaptation. When working alongside communities to support the health of ecosystems and people’s livelihoods, EbA is a holistic type of adaptation that is often both resilient and cost-effective. 

Ecosystem-based adaptation provides ecological, social and economic benefits

While nature is heavily affected by climate change, it can also help to buffer the impacts of these changes on people. EbA refers to efforts to work with nature to help people adapt to the adverse effects of a changing climate. It works to restore ecosystems and can provide a range of ecological, social and economic benefits, from protecting coasts during storms to increasing food security. 

UNEP-WCMC works with a diverse range of partners and stakeholders to strengthen the evidence base for EbA. We also help develop tools to support on-the-ground implementation, as well as monitoring, evaluation and learning. For example, we co-developed an EbA Tools Navigator to help practitioners find the most relevant tools to support their EbA projects. Another example is our Partnerships for Large-scale Adaptation through Nature (PLAN) project, in collaboration with WWF, which is scoping the creation of an online knowledge platform for nature-based solutions related to climate adaptation. These activities directly support governments, civil society organizations and others who want to embrace EbA to protect communities, economies and nature from climate risks. 

Addressing challenges across the Water-Energy-Food-Ecosystem Nexus 

Water, energy and food are closely interlinked and competition for these, in some areas limited, resources is expected to become more acute as a consequence of climate change. For example, if there is less rainfall in an area, the remaining water will still need to be divided between a range of priorities. These could include producing drinking water for urban areas, hydro-electricity generation and irrigating crops that are a vital source of food for communities. This competition will further strain the natural ecosystems providing these resources and could increase social conflict. Thinking about the water-energy-food-ecosystem nexus helps us to better understand and manage these interdependencies. 

The REXUS project, funded by the European Union, was a collaboration between 17 partners. It worked in five pilot river basins to help local stakeholders co design real-world solutions to nexus challenges. 

UNEP-WCMC helped incorporate nature-based solutions (NbS), including EbA, into plans to sustainably manage water, energy and food production in the face of climate change. We helped decision makers and stakeholders across the five pilot river basins to identify practical options to manage their resources. Improving the knowledge base on NbS led to a huge shift in the options that were considered when developing action plans in the pilot basins, with all ultimately including NbS. 

This work resulted in a decision support framework to help other stakeholders in similar situations evaluate and select appropriate and holistic solutions to nexus challenges. The implementation of resulting action plans will improve resilience and performance across the water-energy-food-ecosystem nexus in the Pinios, Lower Danube, Isonzo/Soča and Nima river basins, and throughout Peninsula Spain.

Supporting coastal communities with climate resilience 

Coastal communities in the Caribbean region experience multiple stressors caused by climate change, such as sea level rise, elevated water temperatures and an increasing frequency and severity of hurricanes. These events also impact natural ecosystems like coral reefs, which are already suffering from anthropogenic pressures, including unsustainable fishing practices. 

UNEP-WCMC is currently coordinating a project that aims to strengthen the climate resilience of coastal communities by working closely with local partners in the Dominican Republic, Antigua and Barbuda and Jamaica. 

Funded by the Caribbean Biodiversity Fund, the project will restore habitats that are vital both to adaptation and to local livelihoods, such as coral reefs and mangroves. Many of the Caribbean ecosystems that communities rely on for income are increasingly being impacted by climate change. The project is therefore also supporting work with local communities to develop alternative sustainable and resilient livelihoods, including beekeeping, ecotourism and the cultivation of sea moss. Local partners have already provided livelihood support and training to over 200 community members.  

We are also supporting partners with the assessment of climate risks and the development of methods for tracking the ecological and social impact of their activities. These monitoring, evaluation and learning protocols help partners to measure the impact of restoration activities over time, and identify where adaptive measures might be needed for them to reach their full potential.  

With climate impacts already being felt within ecosystems and communities across the globe, adaptation is vital to safeguard nature and people from the worst of these effects. Our work on EbA will continue to explore and strengthen the links between climate, nature and people’s well-being, including their social and economic security.

Please reach out to communications@unep-wcmc.org with any questions or opportunities regarding this blog.

Main image: Debbie Ann Powell, Adobe Stock #269882984

The post Ecosystem-based adaptation for climate resilience  appeared first on UNEP-WCMC.

A sacred forest in India. A community-managed fishery in the Philippines. A military training ground in Europe. What do these places have in common? 

They could all be sites where nature is thriving and is being conserved. But they are not protected areas.

These places have potential to be recognized as ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECMs): areas that are not necessarily managed primarily for conservation, but that result in effective, long-lasting benefits for nature.

OECMs are already playing an important role in meeting the global pledge to protect and conserve 30 per cent of Earth’s land and seas by 2030. These areas offer an opportunity to achieve all elements of the pledge by recognizing the conservation efforts and rights of diverse groups, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, who often have a deep history of conserving their lands and waters.

But the concept of OECMs is still relatively new, having been formally defined in the past decade. Greater understanding, awareness and recognition of OECMs is still needed.

What are OECMs? How are they different to protected areas?

Identifying which areas qualify as OECMs is a topic of huge interest, currently being explored by people across the world, from youth groups to governments and non-governmental organizations.

Through the Convention on Biological Diversity, governments have agreed on four criteria that an area must fulfil to be an OECM:

• Not be currently recognized as a protected area.
• Be governed and managed.
• Achieve sustained and effective contribution to the conservation of biodiversity.
• Support ecosystem functions and services and respect cultural, spiritual, socio-economic and other locally relevant values.

Beyond these broad criteria there is enormous variation in OECMs, in terms of their size, geography and the biodiversity they conserve, and in terms of how they are managed and who they are governed by. For instance, they might be sacred natural sites or forests governed by Indigenous Peoples or local communities; areas of the high seas managed by intergovernmental organizations; or whole watersheds managed by local or national governments.

While protected areas are primarily managed to conserve biodiversity, OECMs are often managed for other reasons – but crucially, they must result in effective, long-lasting conservation of nature. Protected areas are often created from scratch, requiring the development of management plans and the installation of new management authorities. In contrast, OECMs will usually be areas with pre-existing management objectives and structures. They are already effective in conserving biodiversity; often all that changes is that they are recognized as ‘OECMs’, acknowledging the conservation benefits they provide.

Where are most OECMs found?

OECMs have so far been formally recognized in 17 countries and territories, with nearly 7,500 reported. Sweden, Ukraine and Canada have recognized the highest number of OECMs so far. In the ocean, beyond national jurisdiction, there are multiple large OECMs in the North Atlantic.

Although most countries have not yet recognized OECMs and reported on them, OECMs are likely to exist in every country. Across Europe for example a recent study found that areas suitable for OECMs could cover up to 10 per cent of land.

The important next step for governments and other stakeholders is to develop appropriate local and national processes for identifying, recognizing and supporting sites as OECMs.

How can OECMs help us halt and reverse nature loss?

OECMs are often areas in which biodiversity has been conserved effectively for a long time, but are not yet accounted for in the global protected and conserved area network. Recognizing them is therefore an important opportunity to make progress towards protecting and conserving 30 per cent of Earth’s lands and seas. At the same time, recognition can enable those sites to access resources and additional support to ensure their conservation outcomes can be sustained into the future.

While recognizing OECMs is important for halting and reversing nature loss, efforts are also needed to expand and improve existing protected areas, designate new protected areas, and to improve how effective all of these sites are. It is also critical to recognize Indigenous and traditional territories in which biodiversity thrives in many parts of the world. Governments agreed when they adopted the 30 per cent target, that all these actions on protected and conserved areas must be done while recognizing and respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

What difference are OECMs making to biodiversity?

OECMs are already making important contributions to the global network of protected and conserved areas, despite having only been recognized and reported by a few countries. As of April 2026, OECMs cover 1.1 per cent of the world’s land and 0.21 per cent of sea.

OECMs are also making an impact at a country level. In Morocco and Algeria OECMs now surpass the coverage provided by protected areas. In Morocco, this additional coverage increases the amount of land that is both protected and well-connected by 30 times. In the Philippines, OECMs account for over half of the marine area within protected and conserved areas.

The data on OECMs suggests they make a substantial difference to the coverage and connectivity of conservation networks. However, their impact on biodiversity also depends on how well they are governed and managed. This cannot be understood from analyzing spatial data alone. At present, there are limited data on whether OECMs are maintaining their biodiversity values over time, but these data are gradually improving.

Can an OECM also be a protected area or marine protected area?

No. By definition, an OECM is an area outside of protected areas, including marine protected areas. OECMs can however complement protected areas, for example by increasing ecological representation and enhancing connectivity across conserved landscapes.

Do OECMs protect Key Biodiversity Areas?

Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) are sites that contribute significantly to the rich diversity of life on Earth. For an area to qualify as an OECM, it must conserve and support important biodiversity. There are many ways to identify whether an area has important biodiversity, and recognition of the area as a KBA is one of these. There is therefore a lot of potential for countries to identify OECMs that overlap with KBAs. Currently over 120 KBAs that aren’t in protected areas are partially or fully covered by OECMs: 74 on land, 44 at sea and three freshwater KBAs. These OECMs are providing additional protection to these important biodiversity areas.

Can OECMs encourage more inclusive and diverse forms of land governance?

Yes, OECMs can be managed for a range of purposes and under diverse governance regimes. As with protected areas, OECMs can be governed by government entities at national or sub-national scales, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, private individuals and other public or private organizations. Because biodiversity conservation does not need to be a primary management objective for a site to qualify as an OECM, this opens up opportunities to recognize a greater diversity of sites that are managed for other reasons but are making important contributions to biodiversity conservation, such as archaeological sites, agricultural or hunting areas, or sacred religious sites.

OECMs under Indigenous Peoples’ and community governance are already being recognized and reported, so far in Colombia, the Cook Islands, Ecuador, Eswatini, Peru and the Philippines.

Can an ICCA be an OECM?

Territories and areas conserved by Indigenous Peoples and local communities are often called ICCAs or territories of life. ICCAs can indeed be recognized as OECMs, where Indigenous Peoples and local communities choose this form of recognition and following appropriate consent procedures. In some countries Indigenous Peoples and local communities are already engaged with identifying OECMs as a way to gain greater recognition and support for their conservation efforts. In other places, Indigenous Peoples and local communities have opted to seek recognition for their ICCAs as protected areas.

How are OECMs recognized in law? Do they have the same legal standing as protected areas?

How OECMs are recognized legally varies between countries. Some countries are developing national OECM-related laws, policies and other kinds of regulations. However, it is not a requirement for OECMs to be legally recognized. More important is that countries develop mechanisms, whether legal or otherwise, to ensure OECMs can be effectively governed and managed and their conservation outcomes sustained into the future, as complementary approaches to protected areas.

How are OECMs identified, recognized and reported?

Several tools are available to support the identification of sites as OECMs, including tools developed for specific national contexts. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) provides a practical checklist-style framework that allows users to assess whether a site meets the criteria for being recognized as an OECM. The framework follows a three-step process of screening, obtaining consent and conducting a full assessment. Data are needed on the governance and management regime of the area, long-term expectations for the area and other site-specific information. The assessment tool can be used by anyone provided they have the consent of the people or organization that manages the potential OECM, but the process for securing formal recognition of the area as an OECM will vary depending on the policies of the relevant national or subnational government.

Once identified, OECMs can be reported to the World Database on Protected and Conserved Areas (WDPCA). The WDPCA is a joint product of UNEP and IUCN that is managed by the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) in collaboration with national governments and other stakeholders.

The Protected Planet team at UNEP-WCMC process data on OECMs as they are received, with new records most often submitted by governments. Each month new data are updated on the publicly available Protected Planet website, which enables tracking of global progress towards conserving 30 per cent of Earth’s lands and seas.

How can local communities get involved in recognizing an OECM?

Action by local communities in individual sites is key to achieving global progress. Raising awareness of the opportunity to identify and recognize areas as OECMs is a first step to exploring whether the land owned, governed or managed by local communities might meet the criteria.

In the Cook Islands, government and community representatives made history by recognizing the first OECM in the Pacific Islands. A national process was undertaken to introduce the OECM concept and criteria, identify potential sites, carry out site-level screening and a full assessment and obtain consent to submit an application. In 2024, the National Environment Service submitted the Takitumu Conservation Area to the WDPCA.

The recognition has created more opportunities for the three governing communities to access funding for managing the Takitumu Conservation Area, and has raised awareness throughout regional forums of the incredible conservation efforts of local communities in the Cook Islands.

If you are beginning the journey of considering areas that might be recognized as OECMs, then the OECM Platform is the best starting point. The Platform provides comprehensive guidance, including a free online introductory course to help identify, report, monitor, and strengthen OECMs.

The Protected Planet team at UNEP-WCMC is also available to provide support if you are starting to explore OECM recognition. Every site recognized helps to sustain the biodiversity of that area into the future and brings us a step closer to conserving 30 per cent of Earth’s lands and waters.

This article was funded by a generous donation from the Global Youth Council on Science, Law & Sustainability

Main image: Caribou in Canada (Adobe_382649449)

The post Explainer: Why OECMs are crucial to conserving 30% of Earth’s lands and waters appeared first on UNEP-WCMC.

The only global treaty focused exclusively on the conservation of migratory species recently brought governments together in Campo Grande, Brazil. A team of experts represented the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) at the Fifteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS COP15).

Over the week in March, we presented the key findings of the interim State of the World’s Migratory Species report at the opening press conference and to the Plenary, engaged in Working Group discussions and supported our key partners.

We were delighted that the COP concluded successfully, with governments agreeing new commitments and measures that will advance conservation efforts for migratory species, including greater protection for 40 animals. Ahead of World Migratory Bird Day we celebrate the decisions that were made for four species in particular:

Barau’s petrel

Barau’s petrel is an iconic seabird of the Indian Ocean flyways, with a beautiful white-and-black underwing pattern that’s visible as it flits rapidly over the waves. It breeds only on the island of Réunion and can travel up to 600 km a day as it migrates seasonally across the Indian Ocean.

We haven’t had long to study this bird; it was only scientifically described in the 1960s and is already Endangered with as few as 30,000 individuals left. Despite this, along with 25 other small migratory seabirds that were added to the CMS Appendices at COP15, Barau’s petrel was previously not protected by any international laws.

Hudsonian godwit

One of the key findings of the interim State of the World’s Migratory Species report was that shorebirds are in trouble. Of the 26 CMS-listed species that have suffered from an increased risk of extinction in the last two years, 18 were migratory shorebirds.

The Hudsonian godwit is an emblem for many of the problems facing our migratory shorebirds. It’s losing its wetland habitat due to human activities such as aquaculture. It is also suffering from the impacts of climate change, as well as by overexploitation at stopover sites.

Ibera seedeater

The Ibera seedeater, which is a type of finch-like songbird, was only scientifically described in 2016. Despite knowing very little about it, researchers believe there are fewer than 10,000 left. It depends on seasonally flooded or wet grasslands, which are being lost throughout its range in South America at an alarming rate as natural grassland is lost to agriculture, or damaged by overgrazing, wildfires and invasive grass species. Globally, grassland habitats are at risk, poorly protected and undervalued, despite their incredible biodiversity.

Snowy owl

The snowy owl is highly nomadic and unpredictable – which makes seeing them in the wild particularly difficult, and makes researchers’ jobs that much harder. They move enormous distances and often nest in different locations year-to-year. This is one of the reasons the Appendix II listing is good news: it should lead to more data being shared across borders, so that we fill in data gaps and gain a better understanding of why snowy owl populations have declined rapidly in recent years.

Important agreement on monitoring conservation efforts

Ensuring that birds like the snowy owl and Ibera seedeater have a future requires us to track the steps that are being taken to conserve migratory species internationally, and whether these measures are having a positive impact at the global level. At CMS COP15, one of our major contributions was to help governments establish a clear process for understanding the extent to which collective commitments for migratory species have been carried out and are leading to positive change. We did this through our work to develop a monitoring framework for the CMS Strategic Plan for Migratory Species, which sets objectives for the Convention until 2032.

In the lead-up to the meeting we worked closely with CMS Parties, the CMS Scientific Council and the Secretariat to identify which metrics could be used to measure progress against the six goals and 23 targets of the Strategic Plan and develop a monitoring framework. Before the end of the meeting the Parties reached consensus to adopt this framework, supported by our team throughout the discussions and in finalizing the document. The final framework contains a balance between metrics that focus on species, their habitats, the pressures facing them, as well as measures of the degree of progress Parties are making to improve legislation, develop action plans and enhance cooperation.

We continue to work closely with Parties and the Secretariat on the next steps for putting the framework into practice – to track and drive progress on the urgent actions now needed to save the world’s migratory animals.

Main image: Hudsonian godwits (Image: Adobe_750040668)

The post Four migratory birds that now have stronger international protections appeared first on UNEP-WCMC.

Data are never an unbiased representation of the world. Rather, datasets are the result of decisions regarding what can and should be measured and often represent only the priorities of the decision-makers.

As a result, there is a risk that datasets marginalize those who are less visible. True data justice ensures that all people, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, are made visible, represented and treated fairly in the decision-making as to what gets measured and monitored, and in the conservation actions selected based on the data.

Under Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) governments and other stakeholders bring information together from all over the world to monitor and report on their progress towards conserving 30 per cent of the Earth by 2030. As the global platform where knowledge and data on protected and conserved areas are recorded, the Protected Planet Initiative at the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) plays a crucial role in influencing decisions related to area-based conservation worldwide. We therefore recognize our responsibility to strive for fairness in the way people are represented and affected by Protected Planet data and its use.

Since Protected Planet’s inception, we have been working to address justice-related challenges. In January 2023, UNEP-WCMC experts and academics held a two-day workshop that used data justice principles to further examine the data lifecycle and practices of Protected Planet and develop recommendations for achieving a more just Protected Planet. Following renewed attention in a recent paper from experts on the importance of environmental data justice to achieving area-based conservation goals, here are five ways the team has made progress to ensure the data are more representative, transparent and accessible:

1. Addressing geographic bias

Geographic biases in Protected Planet have long been an issue, with some countries better resourced to gather, standardize and submit quality data. To address this, the team work closely with regional partners and national governments to strengthen countries’ capacity to provide accurate and up-to-date data to the World Database on Protected and Conserved Areas (WDPCA). This includes targeted support for countries with out-of-date data and those that have requested additional support.

Starting in 2014, UNEP-WCMC collaborated on a programme that enabled the development of five specialized data centres called regional observatories across Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. These centres provide support to countries on their protected and conserved area data, and are now mandated by the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to support countries in the implementation of the KMGBF.

In partnership with the Bezos Earth Fund, UNEP-WCMC provides tailored country-level support in the Tropical Andes and the Congo Basin to improve national reporting. The Protected Planet team will continue providing targeted support to countries and regions as needed.

2. Strengthening consent and collaboration

Protected Planet’s data reporting process includes a step where data providers are asked to sign an agreement that confirms consent has been given to publish the data, and, where relevant, with the free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

Adhering to FPIC processes is critical, both in how data are reported and how sites are recognized. The Protected Planet team have provided technical support to countries on strengthening their approach to FPIC. Peru and Colombia now provide supplementary documentation related to FPIC for ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECMs). We supported the Colombian NGO Fundación Natura to develop recommendations for adhering to FPIC processes in OECM designation and reporting, which have been shared with the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development.

3. Increasing representation of non-state actors

Protected Planet’s data currently have limited representation of conservation efforts by private actors, Indigenous Peoples and local communities. To better reflect the governance diversity of the world’s protected and conserved areas and encourage more complete reporting toward global conservation targets, we are promoting and including areas under the governance of these groups. One way we do this is supporting the identification and reporting of OECMs, with recent examples in the Cook Islands, Colombia, Ecuador and Peru.

We are also incorporating more diverse data sources by supporting direct reporting from non-state actors. Indigenous Peoples and local communities can contribute to the ICCA Registry, a platform that highlights their leadership in conservation and promotes recognition and support for their self-governance and traditional conservation practices. We do this work as part of the ICCA Global Support Initiative, a broader global effort to provide recognition and support for the vital contributions that these groups have made and continue to make to conservation.

4. Supporting data verification and peer review

To maintain the accuracy of data and ensure adherence to FPIC with data reported to the WDPCA, there is a verification step for all data submitted by non-state actors. National governments can verify data, but we’re also working to support alternative non-state mechanisms. For Indigenous Peoples and local communities, verification can be done through national and regional peer-support and review networks made up of other Indigenous Peoples and local communities. We created a manual to support the development of such networks, compiling the contributions and advice of networks that have already developed these processes.

5. Enhancing accuracy and accessibility of data

Protected Planet has made its guidance materials and resources more accessible and reflective of diverse governance structures. This includes dedicated guidance for reporting privately governed and Indigenous and community-led protected and conserved areas. Alongside this, we have expanded the Global Database on Protected Area Management Effectiveness (GD-PAME) to better capture information on the effectiveness of sites, covering the quality of governance, management and biodiversity outcomes, with an accompanying new manual to support reporting. The WDPCA database structure has also been updated and now includes a new field that allows data providers to give visibility to the actors involved in shared governance arrangements.

These efforts make it easier for data providers to contribute more accurate and comprehensive information to Protected Planet and provide additional transparency for users on the quality of sites, including whether they are governed equitably.

Next steps for data justice in Protected Planet

There is still much to be done. Future work being considered includes making the database and website available in more languages, providing a stronger mechanism for Indigenous Peoples and local communities to dispute data and a mechanism to support the verification of data from private actors.

These ongoing and future actions will help to ensure that Protected Planet is a reliable, inclusive and accessible platform to monitor progress on all elements of Target 3 in a more just way.

Main image: A riverside village along the Canal des Pangalanes in Madagascar (Elise Belle)

The post Five steps to strengthen data justice as we conserve 30% of the planet appeared first on UNEP-WCMC.

The study published in Communications Earth & Environment involved input from 467 peatland experts across 54 countries to determine which research questions matter most for understanding and protecting peatlands going forwards. The research highlights where knowledge gaps exist and where new information could make the biggest impact for climate change mitigation, biodiversity conservation and sustainable land management. 

Though peatlands only cover about three per cent of the Earth’s land surface, they store more carbon than all of its forests combined. When healthy, they lock away this carbon for thousands of years, but drainage, fire, peat extraction or land-use change can quickly turn them into a large source of greenhouse gas emissions. Despite their importance, we still lack key knowledge about how peatlands respond to climate change, how to restore them effectively and how to protect them while supporting the local and Indigenous communities who often rely on them. 

A global effort to set research priorities 

To address this challenge, the researchers carried out a global survey of peatland scientists, practitioners and policy experts from across the globe to understand what they thought were the most pressing, unanswered questions across peatland research. These questions covered everything from ecology and hydrology to biogeochemistry, climate science and social science, across boreal, temperate and tropical peatlands, including those in Europe, the peat swamp forests of the tropics and the Arctic tundra.  

Key themes for peatland research  

Through this peatlands-community survey, the researchers have identified 50 priority research questions which can guide peatland research over the next 10 years. It is suggested that if these 50 questions are addressed, we will be able to fill critical knowledge gaps and support evidence-based decision making on peatlands management.  

The 50 questions are grouped into five key themes: peatland carbon dynamics and climate regulation; climate change and human impacts on peatland functioning and resilience; peatland management and restoration; technological advances for peatland science and monitoring; and communities, policies and economic frameworks.  

The priority questions include ones such as:  

• What role do peatlands play in regulating global climate and to what extent will protecting peatlands contribute to mitigating climate change? 

• What are the climate change thresholds, such as specific temperature or drought levels, at which peatlands in different regions reach tipping points? 

• Which restoration approaches yield the most effective outcomes to restore ecosystem function in degraded peatlands (e.g., from drainage, agriculture, mining)? 

Other key questions relate to emerging technologies and fair cross-sectoral governance. As new technologies such as artificial intelligence develop, so do questions on how to effectively use them to fill data gaps across different scales, and how to standardise methodologies. Moreover, understanding how peatlands are valued by local communities is vital in ensuring inclusive governance across local and national scales.  

What is clear from the research is that addressing these questions will require collaboration across disciplines, and inputs from local communities, peatlands scientists, as well as economists, social scientists, climate scientists and many others.  

One of the peatland experts surveyed was Dr Lera Miles, UNEP-WCMC’s Principal Specialist in nature-based solutions for climate change mitigation who believes that

This important research and the list of priority questions provides a guide for future research and investment into peatlands, to ensure that efforts remain focused on addressing the most pressing knowledge gaps to support effective action across the globe. 

The post Scientists determine urgent priorities for peatland research  appeared first on UNEP-WCMC.

Ashley brings extensive leadership experience across technology, media and purpose-driven organizations, alongside a strong commitment to nature and conservation. He will work closely as Chair-elect with the current Chair and Board over the coming months before formally taking up the role in September.

Ashley began his career as a management consultant in the technology, media and telecommunications sector before joining the BBC. There, he became the youngest ever member of the Executive Board as Director of New Media & Technology. During his time at the BBC, he played a central role in the development and launch of BBC iPlayer & BBC.co.uk and was responsible for the BBC’s Technology, R&D, and Archives portfolios, helping to shape the organization’s early digital transformation.

He subsequently served as Managing Director of Microsoft’s Consumer and Online business in the UK overseeing products including MSN, Windows, and Hotmail during a period of rapid growth in mobile and online services.

Ashley later moved to the UK’s largest regional press business as Chief Executive, where he led a significant turnaround including overseeing the acquisition and growth of the i newspaper.

Alongside his executive career, Ashley has held a number of non-executive roles. He served for seven years on the board of the British Film Institute and chaired the News Media Association following the Leveson Inquiry. Most recently, he served as Non-executive director and Chair of the Eden Project Ltd., where he gained experience of UK charity governance and helped guide the organization through a period of operational and financial opportunities and challenges. He worked with the team to help extend the Eden model beyond Cornwall, advancing projects such as Eden Project North, and supported the repositioning of Eden as a global sustainability platform, increasing its relevance to major issues such as climate change, the economy and systems thinking.

He has also been a Non-Executive Director of British Marine (Federation) and now advises the organization, supporting its sustainability and training agenda across the marine sector.

Ashley brings particular operational strengths, including in the use of technology, data and analytics to support organizational performance and impact, with a focus on applying artificial intelligence and geospatial technologies to environmental decision-making.

He has developed a strong and sustained focus on biodiversity and conservation through his work with the Eden Project Ltd. & British Marine, as well as through personal advisory roles and investments in sustainable business.

Ashley will take up the role of Chair following a period of transition with the current Chair, Robin Bidwell.

The post Ashley Highfield appointed as Chair of WCMC  appeared first on UNEP-WCMC.

Indigenous Peoples are vital knowledge holders and custodians of many of the world’s most biodiverse landscapes. Respecting and advancing their rights is imperative to achieving the world’s major international commitment on biodiversity, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). 

Indicators related to traditional knowledge (TK) help reveal how Indigenous Peoples’ rights, practices and knowledge systems contribute to biodiversity outcomes. In addition, TK indicators help illuminate national and global progress towards shared biodiversity goals, informing management responses that are relevant across society. 

In March 2024, an expert workshop hosted at the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) informed recommendations for using TK indicators. These indicators are now included in the monitoring framework for the KMGBF to measure progress against its targets and goals.  

In January 2026, a second Expert Workshop on TK Indicators brought together more than 30 experts from Indigenous and local organizations to governments and technical partners. Co-hosted by UNEP-WCMC, Forest Peoples Programme and the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, the workshop provided a space to share experiences of community-based monitoring, methodological developments for TK indicators and identify opportunities for mobilizing local and national data for biodiversity monitoring and reporting. 

The workshop’s key takeaway was that rights-based monitoring, which respects Indigenous Peoples’ rights, knowledge systems and meaningful participation across society, is essential for delivering the KMGBF in line with its vision of living in harmony with nature. 

Monitoring traditional knowledge is vital for inclusive conservation 

Indigenous Peoples’ rights, practices and knowledge systems contribute to positive biodiversity outcomes. Indicators related to TK are vital in ensuring these contributions are understood and accounted for. They enable countries and stakeholders to track progress and ensure that national biodiversity policies reflect a whole-of-society approach to nature conservation. 

Participants emphasized that monitoring is not only about what data is collected, but how that data is collected, and whose knowledge is valued. Data related to TK indicators were also identified as an important tool for Indigenous self-determination and for strengthening evidence and advocacy for Indigenous Peoples land and territorial rights. 

The importance of community-based monitoring and information systems (CBMIS) for both providing data and for showing the inseparability of people and nature was emphasized in community experiences shared by participants. Insights from Colombia, Kenya, Cameroon and the Philippines highlighted experiences of youth engagement in Indigenous-led monitoring as a vital space and mechanism for intergenerational knowledge transfer between elders and youth, helping to sustain traditional knowledge systems while fostering mutual respect across generations. 

Rights-based indicators are ready to use, but awareness and data flows are still limited 

During the workshop, experts reported that the methodologies for the five rights-based indicators are now operational, although further guidance is still needed for some component indicators such as linguistic diversity and participation. 

However, many countries still face challenges in collecting and reporting the data required to apply these indicators at a national level. Among the countries represented at the workshop, validated national data were often unavailable due to limitations in statistical systems, lack of disaggregated data and difficulties linking community-level information with national monitoring frameworks. 

Despite these challenges, participants highlighted encouraging examples of how governments and Indigenous organizations are beginning to integrate community knowledge and data into national monitoring processes.  

Bridging local knowledge with national monitoring and reporting 

A recurring theme across the workshop was the need to create spaces and processes for community-generated knowledge to feed into national monitoring and reporting systems. 

Participants emphasized a range of actions that could help to improve the use and uptake of TK indicators and community-produced data in national monitoring systems, including institutionalizing participatory mechanisms such as multi-stakeholder platforms, improving interoperability between datasets and ensuring that Indigenous and local knowledge is treated as a legitimate source of evidence for policymaking.  

Insights from the workshop are being collated by UNEP-WCMC to build an understanding of how and why countries are using the TK indicators, with such country case studies potentially informing the deliberations by CBD Parties, including at COP17.  

Crucially, participants emphasized that Indigenous Peoples and local communities are experts in biodiversity monitoring and countries can benefit from their expertise to fulfil their global commitments. Advances in rights-based monitoring could be accelerated with greater financial support, the institutionalization of mechanisms for broader participation, as well as practical guidance for countries on how to integrate community-generated data into national monitoring and reporting frameworks. 

By continuing to build these partnerships and refine the indicators, the international community can move closer to a monitoring system that recognizes a diversity of knowledge forms and promotes the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities and the essential role they play in protecting the planet’s biodiversity. 

The post Building understanding of the use of Traditional Knowledge Indicators for monitoring biodiversity  appeared first on UNEP-WCMC.

The international community has reached an important global milestone, with 10.01 per cent of the ocean now officially designated within protected and conserved areas.

Whilst this represents considerable progress, an area approximately the size of the Indian Ocean still needs to be designated by 2030 if international ambitions for ocean protection are to be achieved.

In 2024, current records show that 8.6 per cent of ocean and coastal areas globally were within documented protected and conserved areas. Over the past two years the world has protected about 5 million square kilometres of ocean, an area bigger than the European Union.

Governments collectively committed to conserve 30 per cent of Earth’s land and seas by 2030 in December 2022 at the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD). This commitment is referred to as Target 3, and is one of 23 targets agreed as urgent steps to tackle the global nature crisis under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). With this target, CBD Parties committed to conserving nature through protected and conserved areas, including those that allow for the sustainable use of resources, recognising Indigenous and traditional territories.

Increasing coverage of these areas is critical, but insufficient. The KMGBF highlights that protected and conserved areas must be effectively conserved and managed, and equitably governed. The Protected Planet Report 2024, the official progress report from the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), is the most recent comprehensive analysis of global progress towards KMGBF Target 3. It found that data was insufficient to fully measure and understand the effectiveness of systems of protected and conserved areas. Only 1.3 per cent of the ocean was covered by protected areas where management effectiveness had been assessed and reported.

The new areas were included in the latest update this month to the World Database on Protected and Conserved Areas (WDPCA). The WDPCA brings together national datasets, alongside data on protected and conserved areas beyond national jurisdictions, to track global progress towards KMGBF Target 3. The WDPCA is a joint product of UNEP and the IUCN. It is maintained by the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) in collaboration with national governments and other stakeholders.

In the world’s previous biodiversity pledges, the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, countries agreed to protect 10 per cent of the ocean by 2020. Six years after deadline, the world has achieved this important ocean protection target.

Huge gaps in high seas coverage

In assessing the pace at which protected and conserved areas had been designated, the Protected Planet Report 2024 found that the strongest progress since 2020 had been in the ocean, but most of this was in national waters.

An estimated 95 per cent of habitat on Earth by volume is in the high seas. In these areas beyond national jurisdiction however, coverage by protected and conserved areas is only 1.66 per cent. This is despite the high seas comprising over 60 per cent of the surface of the ocean.

The UN ‘High Seas’ Treaty came into force in January 2026, the first international agreement focused on protecting marine biodiversity in international waters. Two-thirds of the ocean is not controlled by any individual country and therefore is largely unprotected and unregulated. A key element of the Treaty is a mechanism to establish protected areas on the high seas.

Beyond coverage: effective conservation is vital

Recent analyses using the MPA Guide have shown that many marine protected areas (MPAs) are not actively managed. Destructive activities may be taking place even in those areas that are actively managed, reducing the effectiveness of these areas for biodiversity conservation. Data on effective management and equitable governance remains sparse.

Governments and other stakeholders are encouraged to report on the effectiveness of protected and conserved areas to the Global Database on Protected Area Management Effectiveness (GD-PAME) under the Protected Planet Initiative to help fill this persistent knowledge gap.

Coordinated action is needed by CBD Parties, international organizations, regional bodies, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, donors and technical partners to ensure that marine protected and conserved areas are sufficiently resourced and supported to be actively and adaptively managed and monitored.

The Protected Planet Report 2027 will provide the next official evaluation of global progress on all elements of Target 3.

For further information please contact: 
UNEP-WCMC Communications Officer, Natalie Taylor via natalie.taylor@unep-wcmc.org 

IUCN Media and Communications Officer, Amy Coles via amy.coles@iucn.org

Main image: Roebuck Bay, a Ramsar Nature Reserve wetland site in western Australia (Joe Gosling) 

The post World reaches milestone for nature: 10% of ocean now officially protected appeared first on UNEP-WCMC.

In the face of current world events, it can be hard to feel optimistic about action on three of the most pressing issues of our time: climate change, nature loss and pollution. But even now the world is still coming together to try to find solutions.

Governments converge in Brazil for migratory species

Hot on the heels of a new warning about the worsening plight of migratory species, our delegation of experts will soon join governments, scientists, conservationists, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, environmental leaders and civil society in the city of Campo Grande, Brazil. Appropriately, Campo Grande is a gateway for accessing the world’s largest tropical wetland: the Pantanal. This vast seasonal floodplain is home to an extraordinary diversity of wildlife, including many highly mobile species such as jaguars, catfish and Jabiru storks.

Ensuring the survival of the amazing animals that depend on places like the Pantanal will be driving us on through back-to-back meetings and the intensive discussions at the Fifteenth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS COP15).

CMS is a global environmental treaty. It provides an international framework for the conservation of migratory species and their habitats. The COP is the Convention’s main decision-making body, bringing together over 130 Parties to the Convention, and typically meets every three years. Over this week-long meeting, Parties will discuss more than 100 agenda items, which range from action plans for individual species to agreeing on the steps that should be collectively taken to tackle cross-cutting issues, such as the impacts of climate change on migratory species. 

The decisions Parties make will be informed by the best scientific information available. Earlier this month CMS launched an important update on the State of the World’s Migratory Species, revealing that the plight of migratory animals has worsened in just two years. We were proud to work with CMS to produce this interim report, putting the best scientific information before governments and others ahead of the meeting.

Throughout COP15, we will be supporting our partners and engaging in discussions on the agenda. But for months in the build-up to Campo Grande, we’ve been working behind the scenes to achieve the best possible outcomes for nature.

Implementing the Strategic Plan for Migratory Species

To make sure policymakers know as much as possible about the progress countries are making to conserve biodiversity, there must be a clear process between commitments being made, carried out and evaluated. Our major priority this COP is to help the world track the steps that are being taken and whether the situation for migratory species is headed in the right direction.

At COP14 in 2024, the Convention on Migratory Species adopted the Samarkand Strategic Plan for Migratory Species (2024-2032). Over the past year, working closely with CMS Parties, the CMS Standing Committee and Scientific Council and the Secretariat, we have identified which metrics could be used to measure progress against the six goals and 23 targets of the Strategic Plan, developing a monitoring framework. These metrics range from the status and pressures facing migratory species to whether CMS Parties have implemented core aspects of the Convention. They also align – where possible and where appropriate – with commitments made across other multilateral environmental agreements, most prominently the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.

The monitoring framework will be discussed at the COP, where Parties will consider its adoption. Our team will support the CMS Secretariat and Parties throughout these discussions and contribute to finalizing the document.

Better information to guide interventions

As specialists in developing the knowledge and insight necessary for a better world, we are heavily involved in improving the availability of data on migratory species.

We will present our analysis of national reports to the COP, where we have reviewed the latest data countries have submitted, reflecting both the successes and challenges experienced by Parties since COP14. We will share a draft template for a revised national report questionnaire with Parties on the margins of the COP, which will be used for recording national-level data contributing to various indicators – crucial for monitoring progress towards the aims of the Convention.

We are also contributing to work to strengthen the data on the distribution of CMS-listed species. Countries need reliable, rigorously checked information on where listed species occur in order to ensure that they are meeting their obligations and to make informed conservation decisions. This information is shared through Species+, a publicly-accessible online database maintained by UNEP-WCMC.

Crucial initiatives for preventing nature loss

The build-up to and duration of a COP is a busy and exciting time for us, and we’re proud to be involved in multiple important initiatives.

A central priority under the CMS Strategic Plan for Migratory Species is maintaining a network of habitats linked by migration routes, on which migratory animals depend. This is known as ecological connectivity. The Global Partnership on Ecological Connectivity (GPEC), which was launched at the last COP in 2024, brings together key actors in connectivity conservation from international organizations, NGOs, government and the private sector to scale up efforts to maintain and restore ecological connectivity worldwide. This year, the work of the partnership will continue to gather momentum, and we are supporting two events for GPEC at COP15.

We’re involved in numerous other areas of work. These range from a new initiative to tackle the illegal and unsustainable taking of migratory species from the wild, to efforts to ensure that the net impact of infrastructure is not detrimental to nature.

Each of us can’t wait to experience Brazil and its iconic wildlife. But more exciting still is the opportunity to support one of the most important global frameworks for wildlife conservation, and contribute our knowledge and expertise to the effort to address the global biodiversity crisis.

Main image: The Ruddy Turnstone is a Near Threatened migratory shorebird that winters along the Brazilian coast (Adobe_1880176901)

The post Building momentum for a more connected world at CMS COP15 appeared first on UNEP-WCMC.