Explore the vast range of titles available.

Effective conservation of natural resources demands adaptive and inclusive strategies that balance ecological integrity and local socioeconomic needs. This study integrated Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) into community-based frameworks and spatial planning in Indonesia. It assesses how OECMs complement marine protected areas, enabling sustainable governance without regulatory conflicts, via regulatory reviews and case studies of aligned community initiatives.Findings reveal OECMs' potential to bolster conservation landscapes through subnational spatial planning. Although not explicitly recognized, OECMs fit within categories such as Coastal and Marine Ecosystem Priority Zones (PELP), alongside coastal buffers, mitigation, and spawning areas. Emphasizing the roles of local communities and Indigenous Peoples, this approach enhances OECM effectiveness, biodiversity protection, customary marine tenure, and long-term socioeconomic benefits for equitable, resilient coastal governance.

Protected areas (PAs) are a key strategy for conserving areas of outstanding biodiversity value and promoting sustainable development. Significant efforts have been made toward establishing PAs over the last few decades across the globe. However, an assessment of PAs in mountain regions, including in the biodiversity rich Hindu Kush Himalaya (HKH), is lacking. We assessed the status, trend, and distribution of PAs and the ecological representativeness in the PA network. Our analysis showed the HKH has a total of 575 PAs covering 40.17% of the region, accounting for 8.49% of global PA coverage. The HKH hosts 335 Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs), 348 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs), 12 Global 200 Ecoregions, and 4 Global Biodiversity Hotspots. However, the study showed limited ecological representation in the current PA system as 67% of ecoregions, 39% of hotspots, 69% of KBAs, and 76% of IBAs are still outside of the PA system. About 47% of the PAs are small (<250 sq. km) with no connectivity to other PAs and the majority are distributed in the lower reaches of the HKH. These findings suggest the need to assess and demarcate potential corridors to improve connectivity between PAs and integrate PAs into wider conservation landscapes at national and regional scale beyond country boundaries through regional cooperation. There is also a need to assess and strengthen PA management effectiveness and governance and consider other effective area‐based conservation measures especially in the higher elevations and with a specific focus on ecological representation. The Hindu Kush Himalaya has a total of 575 protected areas (PAs) covering 40.17% of the region, accounting for 8.49% of global PA coverage. The region rich in biodiversity with 335 Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBA), 348 Key Biodiversity Areas (KBA), 12 Global 200 Ecoregions, and 4 Global Biodiversity Hotspots has, however, limited ecological representation in PA system. Findings suggest the need to assess and demarcate potential corridors to improve connectivity between PAs and integrate PAs into wider conservation landscapes at national and regional scale beyond country boundaries through regional cooperation.

Many jurisdictions are currently pursuing renewable sources of energy from the ocean, including offshore wind farms (OWFs). While these could have direct positive effects for global climate change by reducing fossil fuel consumption, there could be unintended consequences for fisheries and conservation. These include the potential loss of fishing grounds (and the consequent spatial displacement of fishing effort) and the potential loss of fishery‐independent survey data in OWF areas. Because fishing and other types of vessel traffic are often limited in the OWF area, OWFs may also serve as other effective area‐based conservation measures (OECMs), an important type of spatial protection in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity 30 × 30 initiative. We used spatially explicit population models of groundfish fisheries on an idealized coastline in a management strategy evaluation to investigate the effects of OWF placement on conservation objectives (increased fish biomass) and fishery objectives (maintaining fishery yield). We simulated the loss of fishing grounds on 10% of the coastline, and the concurrent loss of 10% of fishery‐independent survey data, introducing uncertainty and bias into stock status estimates. This produced two effects in the model: initial loss of fishery yield due to the closure and reductions in fishing effort when the loss of data triggered precautionary measures in the harvest control rule. Additionally, we assessed scenarios with different placements of the OWF relative to high‐quality fish habitat, as OWFs could be placed without fish habitat considerations in mind. As expected (given the sustainable harvest rates we simulated), we found that placing the OWF on high‐quality habitat produced the greatest negative effects of fishing grounds and fishery‐independent data on fishery yields, but placing the OWF on low‐quality habitat caused it to be ineffective as an OECM (in terms of increasing fish population biomass). Additionally, the loss of survey data had a greater effect for less mobile fish species. Our findings highlight the expected trade‐offs between the fishery and conservation (i.e., OECM) consequences of OWF expansion and the need to compensate for the loss of fishery‐independent data by accounting for species distributions relative to habitat in survey indices.

Reef fish communities are widely used as sensitive bioindicators of coral reef ecosystem condition and provide an ecological basis for area- based conservation planning, including Other Effective Area-based Conservation Measures, yet site-specific ecological evidence supporting OECM screening remains limited in many eastern Indonesian reef systems. This study assessed reef fish community structure at nine stations in the Kilwaru-Kiltay waters, East Seram, using a standardized Underwater Visual Census conducted in May-June 2023, with species-level identification based on direct underwater observations and standard identification guides. Community structure was evaluated using abundance metrics, ecological indices, and Principal Component Analysis at family and species levels. A total of 115 reef fish species were recorded, showing high species richness and pronounced spatial variation among stations. Pomacentridae consistently dominated most sites, while diversity, evenness, and dominance indices revealed clear site-specific differences in internal community organization rather than uniform ecological conditions. Multivariate ordination further highlighted distinct spatial differentiation in assemblage composition and functional group structure across stations. These results demonstrate that reef fish community structure provides a robust, site- specific ecological indicator for screening potential OECM areas and supports spatially informed conservation planning beyond formally protected areas in eastern Indonesia.

Trees Outside Forests (TOF) were recognized in the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization’s 2000 Global Forest Resource Assessment as an essential component of sustainable development. Today, however, TOF remain an undervalued resource, with no comprehensive review of the wide spectrum of ecosystem services that are provided by TOF nor of the diversity of tree species that comprises TOF globally. Thus, a global analysis of TOF is vital to quantify their contribution to sustainable development and international climate initiatives. We reviewed the scientific literature to (1) classify and compile a repository of information on TOF resources, including the types of ecosystem services provided by TOF, geographic distribution, land-use type, and spatial pattern; and (2) document the diversity of tree species that comprises TOF globally. After screening the literature, 203 species of TOF were investigated across 20 countries in the 28 articles that we analyzed; another 15 articles across 57 countries did not include taxonomic information. Our results showed that the global distribution of TOF studies was biased toward Europe, revealing data deficiencies across the Global South, despite its contribution to biodiversity and ecosystem services. We also observed a bias in ecosystem service type toward regulating and supporting services, with studies lacking in cultural and provisioning services provided by TOF. Furthermore, studies conducted in urban areas were also lacking. To realize the full potential of TOF for sustainable development and climate initiatives, we conclude that a more holistic understanding of their ecosystem services must be established under national and intergovernmental reporting mechanisms.

Other effective area‐based conservation measures (OECMs) create opportunities for a wide range of area‐based conservation strategies. As countries seek to integrate OECMs into conservation planning, it is useful to consider the types of areas that might meet the formal criteria. To support this goal, I analyzed the different types of measures discussed as possible OECMs in the literature, identifying a wide range of measures, far more diverse than those currently recognized as OECMs. There was a strong emphasis on measures with conservation as a secondary management objective, with most studies being supportive of the potential to balance biodiversity conservation and sustainable resource use. However, many studies have highlighted the need to ensure biodiversity outcomes are achieved and sustained, and that appropriate governance and management structures are in place. Concerns were raised about measures associated with resource extraction, such as fisheries and forestry, which were often considered incompatible with conservation. Very few studies offered a nuanced discussion of specific measures or evaluated whether sites offer conservation outcomes, leaving clear knowledge gaps in translating speculation into evidence. Nevertheless, the current literature offers a strong starting point from which to target potential case studies to build the evidence base necessary to advance OECMs.

Biodiversity loss and climate change are two of the greatest environmental challenges of our times and are inextricably interlinked. The most significant drivers of forest and biodiversity loss are habitat loss and fragmentation due to land use changes and overexploitation. These changes will be exacerbated by climate change with increasing land degradation and more conversion of forests to meet increasing demands for agriculture and forest resources. Protected areas are the cornerstones of biodiversity conservation. Currently terrestrial protected areas cover about 15 percent of the world's land surface but this is inadequate to fully represent global biodiversity, with many forest ecosystems poorly represented in protected area networks. Ensuring effective biodiversity conservation post-2020 will require both expansion of formal reserve systems and recognition and support for other effective conservation measures, under a diverse range of governance and management regimes. Expanding forest conservation efforts will not only protect biodiversity but is increasingly recognised as an efficient and cost-effective strategy to help societies to cope with climate change and its impacts.

Sacred natural sites (SNS) have gained recognition from conservationists, and are regarded as the oldest form of habitat protection in human history. Many case studies and literature reviews have been published on the subject. However, an updated and global-level synthesis on the effect of SNS on biodiversity conservation is still lacking. Here, we provide the first systematic review on SNS and biodiversity conservation, aiming to evaluate the effect of SNS across different: (i) continents; (ii) taxa; (iii) metrics. We checked 2750 papers and by applying inclusion criteria we selected 27 relevant papers. From these, we extracted descriptive data and 131 comparisons between SNS and Reference Sites. We applied vote-counting, multinomial and binomial post-hoc tests to the 131 comparisons. We found strong evidence that SNS have a positive effect on biodiversity, but also strong geographical and taxonomical biases, with most research focusing on Asia and Africa and on plants. We found that SNS have mainly positive effects on taxonomical diversity, vegetation structure and cultural uses of biodiversity. Our results strongly support the view that SNS have positive effects on biodiversity across continents and geographical settings, as found in a number of local studies and earlier overviews. These effects should be given official recognition in appropriate conservation frameworks, together with the specific forms of governance and management that characterize SNS. At the same time, further efforts are also required to fill the geographical and taxonomical gaps here highlighted, and to advancing our knowledge of SNS through more systematic research.

Area-based conservation is a widely used approach for maintaining biodiversity, and there are ongoing discussions over what is an appropriate global conservation area coverage target. To inform such debates, it is necessary to know the extent and ecological representativeness of the current conservation area network, but this is hampered by gaps in existing global datasets. In particular, although data on privately and community-governed protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures are often available at the national level, it can take many years to incorporate these into official datasets. This suggests a complementary approach is needed based on selecting a sample of countries and using their national-scale datasets to produce more accurate metrics. However, every country added to the sample increases the costs of data collection, collation and analysis. To address this, here we present a data collection framework underpinned by a spatial prioritization algorithm, which identifies a minimum set of countries that are also representative of 10 factors that influence conservation area establishment and biodiversity patterns. We then illustrate this approach by identifying a representative set of sampling units that cover 10% of the terrestrial realm, which included areas in only 25 countries. In contrast, selecting 10% of the terrestrial realm at random included areas across a mean of 162 countries. These sampling units could be the focus of future data collation on different types of conservation area. Analysing these data could produce more rapid and accurate estimates of global conservation area coverage and ecological representativeness, complementing existing international reporting systems.

Aichi Target 11 of the CBD Strategic Plan for Biodiversity commits countries to the effective conservation of areas of importance for biodiversity, through protected areas and “other effective area‐based conservation measures” (OECMs). However, the prevalence and characteristics of OECMs are poorly known, particularly in sites of importance for biodiversity. We assess the prevalence of potential OECMs in 740 terrestrial Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) outside known or mapped protected areas across ten countries. A majority of unprotected KBAs (76.5%) were at least partly covered by one or more potential OECMs. The conservation of ecosystem services or biodiversity was a stated management aim in 73% of these OECMs. Local or central government bodies managed the highest number of potential OECMs, followed by local and indigenous communities and private landowners. There was no difference between unprotected KBAs with or without OECMs in forest loss or in a number of state‐pressure‐response metrics.