This decade marks the make-or-break moment for the health of the planet. In December 2022, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity reached a historic agreement to halt and reverse the unprecedented loss of biodiversity through the adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It calls upon governments, businesses and society to take urgent action by 2030 to end the biodiversity crisis. 

Two years on, the Protected Planet Report 2024 provides the first official global evaluation of progress towards one of the Framework’s 23 targets – Target 3. This target is best known for the global commitment to protect and conserve 30 per cent of the Earth’s lands and waters by 2030. Importantly, Target 3 goes well beyond coverage. It requires that protected and conserved areas are effectively managed, equitably governed and recognized with respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It also commits governments to conserve the most important natural spaces and to ensure that these areas are connected to each other. In short, the elements of the target call for in situ conservation to be scaled up in ways that benefit both nature and people. 

Around the world, we are seeing progress. From our vantage point as the directors of IUCN and UNEP-WCMC, it is clear that coverage of protected and conserved areas has increased in all regions in recent years. These results are promising. Indeed, a third of countries and territories have expanded their networks since 2020. While 30% is a global target, there are 51 countries and territories that already have networks of protected and conserved areas that exceed this level of coverage on land and 31 that exceed it at sea. Reassuringly, more than two-thirds of the areas that have been identified as the most important places on Earth for biodiversity are either partially or fully covered by protected and conserved areas. These are positive signs that countries are making headway with identifying and strategically protecting priority areas. 

However, we are still seeing many gaps that are holding the world back from turning the tide. Global coverage has only just passed 17% on land and 8% in the marine realm. More work is needed to scale up coverage and to place protected and conserved areas where they are most needed. This must be done while ensuring that human rights, particularly for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, are respected and upheld.

Simultaneously, there is a pressing need to improve and better track the quality of management, governance and conservation outcomes in protected and conserved areas. Data on these core components of Target 3 are currently minimal, profoundly limiting our ability to discern progress. There are still many ecosystems that are not well represented by conservation networks and a third of the areas most important for biodiversity are not yet protected. 

If we are to succeed in halting and reversing biodiversity loss, the speed of progress must be accelerated. Global ambitions will need to translate into urgent national and local action. All countries around the world will need to contribute in every way that they can.  

It is a huge challenge, but it is not an insurmountable one. The path that we must take is clearly laid out in the Global Biodiversity Framework, and the Protected Planet Report 2024 functions as a status report that candidly tells us where we are on our journey. It is essential reading for all of us striving to support the world to deliver on Target 3. With six years remaining until 2030, the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16) provides a crucial opportunity for governments to strengthen their actions. Doing so will be essential to meeting the commitments of the Global Biodiversity Framework, including on all aspects of Target 3. We know what is needed. Let us rise to the challenge together and act for nature.  

Urgent action is needed at all scales to halt the biodiversity and climate crises. Despite ongoing efforts to protect and restore biodiversity, competing human activities and resulting alterations to the Earth’s natural landscapes and seascapes continue to drive biodiversity loss at rates unprecedented in human history (IPBES 2019; WWF 2024). This poses an enormous threat to both nature and the well-being of people. Humans are dependent on biodiversity for food, materials, and the regulation of all natural systems (Mace, Norris and Fitter 2012; IPBES 2019). Nature can also be a source of significant cultural and spiritual inspiration (e.g., Verschuuren et al. 2021). A transformation is now needed to protect and recognize the value of biodiversity and the vital services it provides.  

In recognition of this, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted an ambitious plan at the 15^th Conference of the Parties: the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF; CBD 2022a). Contained within a package of actions agreed by the Parties, the KMGBF presents four long-term goals and 23 targets for 2030 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. The Framework emphasizes the need to uphold human rights across all aspects of implementation, including protecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. It builds on the former Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, complements the UN Sustainable Development Goals and has important links to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and other multilateral environmental agreements. 

The Protected Planet Report 2024 provides the first review of global progress towards one commitment of the KMGBF: Target 3. This Target aims to safeguard the world’s biodiversity in situ through protected and conserved areas. If met, this Target will have determined the ways in which 30% of the world’s surface is managed by 2030.  

In full, Target 3 urges Parties and other governments, with the support of intergovernmental and other organizations, to: 

‘Ensure and enable that by 2030 at least 30 per cent of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services, are effectively conserved and managed through ecologically representative, well-connected and equitably governed systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing Indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable, and integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean, while ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories’
(CBD 2022b).

In comparison to Target 3’s predecessor, Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, Parties to the CBD have greatly scaled up their ambitions for global coverage. On land, the goal has increased from 17% to 30% coverage by protected and conserved areas. In the marine realm, it has increased from 10% to 30%. While this 30% coverage aspect of the target often receives the most attention, all the elements of Target 3 must be achieved for its implementation to be truly successful in delivering conservation outcomes (Figure 1).

Most of these elements focus on the quality of protected and conserved area networks. They include the effectiveness of their management, the prioritization of places where conservation measures are most needed, and the integration of protected and conserved areas into wider landscapes and seascapes.  

Crucially, Target 3 also introduces several new elements that were not present in the wording of Aichi Biodiversity Target 11. Their focus on effective conservation and on providing additional safeguards for people may prove integral to the target’s success. These elements are interpreted in the following ways for this report:

• Effective conservation: Target 3 supplements Aichi Biodiversity Target 11’s call for effective management by specifying that protected and conserved areas must be “effectively conserved and managed”. While the need for effective management is retained, this shifts the emphasis to also include measurable outcomes for biodiversity.    

• Equitable governance: Protected and conserved areas must be governed in an equitable manner for local people, meaning the processes underlying management decisions must be just and fair for Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including women and girls. While Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 referred to equitable management, Target 3 explicitly acknowledges that governance (decision-making processes) must be equitable.   

• Sustainable use consistent with conservation outcomes: Permitted sustainable use of natural resources will often occur in some types of protected and conserved areas. Where such activities do occur, they need to be aligned with conservation outcomes. The explicit acknowledgement that uses of resources, where truly sustainable, will occur within some protected and conserved areas is particularly important for areas that are home to Indigenous Peoples and local communities.  

• The rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities¹: Acknowledges that Indigenous and traditional territories should be recognized, and that the Target should be implemented with respect for the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities. From a human rights perspective, this is an essential aspect of Target 3.

These evolutions from the wording of Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 reflect shifts in perceptions of area-based conservation that have occurred since 2010. While equitable governance, sustainable use and recognition of Indigenous Peoples and local communities have long been included in global standards and guidelines, this has not always translated into practice. Target 3 enshrines them into global policy.  

The Protected Planet Report 2024 presents the first official assessment of the global status of protected and conserved areas in the context of Target 3. Each chapter covers a specific element of the Target (Figure 1) and outlines global progress towards that element based on indicators included in the monitoring framework (CBD 2022b; see Box 1.1 and Methodology). National-level results are also displayed in the report’s figures and in the downloadable results. This breakdown of data, alongside regional findings presented in the Protected Planet 2024 Digital Report, is provided to aid implementation over the next six years. However, it is important to note that Target 3 provides a global ambition that depends on the collective efforts of all countries, and that Parties will define their own national targets as individual contributions towards the global ambition.      

With only six years remaining for the successful implementation of Target 3, this report reveals the extent of progress made to date. It also identifies gaps where renewed and accelerated efforts are needed.  

¹ Indigenous Peoples and local communities are considered together within the context of the CBD, under Article 8(j) (Decision V/16, COP 5, 2023) and in the preamble to the Convention (www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cbd-en.pdf), "recognizing the close and traditional dependence of many Indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles on biological resources, and the desirability of sharing equitably benefits arising from the use of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the conservation of biological diversity and the sustainable use of its components". However, it is acknowledged that Indigenous Peoples and local communities have distinct and differentiated rights under international law.

To assess global progress towards Target 3, it is essential to understand which area-based conservation measures need to be counted. Target 3 calls for “systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures” (OECMs) while also “recognizing Indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable” (ITTs; see Chapter 9 for further details). Protected areas and OECMs are referred to collectively as ‘protected and conserved’ areas throughout this report.    

While Target 3 has brought renewed attention to protected areas, they are already a well-established conservation tool that often provides the core of national biodiversity management strategies and policies. Taking many forms, these areas have enabled the conservation of species and habitats for centuries (Brodie et al. 2023; Nowakowski et al. 2023), enhanced ecosystem services (Zeng et al. 2022) and improved the resilience of land and seascapes to climate change (Duncanson et al. 2022; Cannizzo et al. 2023).  

Countries often also have national definitions, policies or legislation that determine what is considered protected. Most formally protected areas are designated legally at the national level. However, the global definitions also encompass areas established through effective, non-legislative means, such as customary law or the policies of non-governmental organizations (NGOs). In addition, areas with characteristics of regional or international importance can also be recognized as protected under multilateral environmental agreements and other intergovernmental processes. These include UNESCO World Heritage sites (areas of cultural and natural heritage considered to be of outstanding value to humanity), Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance and UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Reserves.

 
As a result, what counts as a protected area can be extremely diverse. This diversity is reflected in the names used to describe types of protected area at the national level, which number in the hundreds. However, based on the series of principles that accompany the IUCN definition, “only those areas where the main objective is conserving nature can be considered protected areas; this can include many areas with other goals as well, at the same level, but in the case of conflict, nature conservation will be the priority”. This qualifier helps set these areas aside from other area-based conservation measures.   

 
While protected areas are the main area-based conservation tool formally recognized by governments, other areas can provide important contributions to conservation when effectively managed. In recognition of this, Parties to the CBD introduced a new term in the text of Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 in 2010 – “other effective area-based conservation measures”, or OECMs. 

Unlike protected areas, where biodiversity conservation must be a primary objective, OECMs might not have biodiversity as their primary objective, but they must have identified ecological values (biodiversity and/or ecosystem functions and services) and deliver long-term, sustained conservation of those values, regardless of their primary focus. To date, OECMs have only been recognized by a handful of countries (e.g., Box 2.1), but they are already making substantial contributions to Target 3 (e.g., see Chapter 3). As OECMs are still a relatively new concept, the recognition of these areas by Parties is an evolving process. Several countries are working to develop or adapt processes and criteria for identification of OECMs. In some cases, these include legal and policy frameworks for the recognition of such sites. However, many countries have not yet started this process. 

Both protected areas and OECMs can vary enormously in the characteristics of their governance and management (Figure 2). The IUCN management category and governance type frameworks, and OECM categories based on objectives, provide a way to group and understand protected and conserved areas across different contexts. A protected area’s management category describes, in broad terms, the approach taken to setting conservation objectives and managing its biodiversity. The governance type (see Chapter 8) indicates who is responsible and accountable for how an area is managed.  

The governance framework includes four governance types for protected areas and OECMs: government, private, Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and shared governance. Many protected areas, and some OECMs, have been reported under the governance of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, albeit in a limited number of countries (see Chapter 8). However, in cases where such an approach may not be appropriate, consideration could be given to recognizing the contribution of Indigenous and traditional territories (ITTs) outside of protected areas and OECMs. The role that Indigenous and traditional territories could play in the implementation of Target 3 is discussed further in Chapter 9.  

To monitor progress towards Target 3, and guide successful implementation by 2030, it is essential to have an accurate and comprehensive picture of the global network of protected areas and OECMs. The World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA) and World Database on Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (WD-OECM), collectively made available via the Protected Planet website, are the largest repositories of information on protected areas and OECMs and provide the official data used to track progress towards various aspects of Target 3. Both databases are components of the Protected Planet Initiative and are managed by the UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) as joint products of UNEP and IUCN. 

The data in the WDPA are compiled directly from governments, regional entities, secretariats of intergovernmental agreements and processes, and other stakeholders. Data providers are asked to adhere to the IUCN or the CBD definition of a protected area, or CBD definition of an OECM, and to meet a set of additional data standards. To ensure that the Protected Planet Report 2024 is based on the most up to date information, all CBD Parties were invited to update or contribute new data in 2024. In response, 14,386 records have been added or updated since January 2024. In August alone, 89 countries updated their records (or verified their data to be correct) – representing the largest ever monthly update of the databases. Readers should nevertheless note that very recent designations may not yet be reflected in Protected Planet, and bear this in mind when interpreting the time series results shared here. The findings in this report are based on data provided to the WDPA and WD-OECM as of August 2024 in conjunction with other biodiversity datasets. 

This chapter presents a summary of the Target 3 headline indicator, “coverage of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures”. This relates to the quantitative element of the Target “at least 30 per cent [coverage] of terrestrial and inland waters, and of marine and coastal areas”  by 2030.    

Since 2020, there has been a global increase of 629,262 km² coverage by protected and conserved areas in the terrestrial and inland waters realm and a 1.77 million km² increase in the marine and coastal realm. With six years remaining, global progress towards the 30% coverage element of Target 3 is 17.58% of terrestrial and inland waters and 8.44% of marine and coastal areas (Figure 3). 

Globally, 302,934 protected areas and 6,464 OECMs have been reported to the Protected Planet Initiative in total, covering 54.29 million km² of the Earth’s surface (Figure 4). Most are found in the terrestrial and inland water realms, where 284,242 protected areas cover a total of 22.06 million km² and 6,253 OECMs cover an additional 1.59 million km². In the marine realm, there are fewer protected areas (18,692 sites) and OECMs (211 sites) by number, but these sites collectively cover a greater surface area of 30.24 million km² and 403,605 km², respectively. This reflects the tendency for larger protected areas to be established in the marine environment, while also highlighting the slower progress towards identifying marine OECMs. At present, 1.12% of marine sites are OECMs compared to 2.15% of terrestrial sites. Although coverage of inland waters is combined with terrestrial areas in these figures, Box 3.1 describes an innovative approach towards understanding inland water coverage specifically. 

To meet the 30% coverage target, a further 16.71 million km² (12.42%) of terrestrial and inland waters, and 78.26 million km² (21.56%) of marine and coastal areas need to be established and/or recognized. Importantly, new protected and conserved areas must also be reported to Protected Planet to ensure that they are counted in official assessments of progress. 

Importantly, Target 3 is a global target. To meet it, countries will need to contribute in different ways. Ambitions for increasing coverage will vary based on countries’ national priorities, biodiversity values and their status, and the available space for protected and conserved areas. The ability of all countries to make meaningful contributions will also be impacted by progress on other KMGBF targets, for example relating to the mobilization of financial resources. While not all countries will be aiming for 30% domestic coverage, many will need to meet or exceed it for the global target to be achieved. Based on data reported to Protected Planet, 35% of countries and territories have expanded their networks of protected and conserved areas since 2020. This means that approximately 65% of countries and territories have either not expanded their networks since 2020 or have not reported updates.

Currently, 51 countries and territories have over 30% coverage by protected and conserved areas in the terrestrial realm, and 31 countries and territories have over 30% coverage in the marine realm (Figure 5). To follow progress after the publication of the Protected Planet Report, readers should consult the national and global coverage statistics that are available and updated monthly at Protected Planet.

While the number and extent of protected and conserved areas constantly fluctuates as areas are created and expanded or, more rarely, degazetted (stripped of their legal protection) or downsized (see Chapter 7), the overall trend over the past two decades has been one of growth (Figure 6). The previous area target of 17% has now been met, with the time series calculated for this report confirming that this milestone was reached by 2020 (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021). While terrestrial percentage coverage is higher, marine coverage has increased more rapidly, by 650% since 2000. This rate is over 10 times greater than the 62% increase observed in the terrestrial realm during the same time period.

Much of the increase in the marine realm occurred between 2010 and 2020, as countries worked to meet the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. This progress was heavily impacted by the establishment of several large marine protected areas (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021). While growth has remained faster in the marine realm, it has substantially slowed since 2020, likely due in part to delayed reporting. Coverage also remains unevenly distributed, with most marine protected and conserved areas (18,903 sites covering 27.42 million km²) established and reported in areas under national jurisdiction (i.e., territorial seas and Exclusive Economic Zones). In comparison, there are just 10 protected areas (covering 3.22 million km²) in “areas beyond national jurisdiction” (ABNJ, >200 nautical miles from the coast), otherwise known as the high seas. This is despite the latter covering 61% of the ocean. The adoption of the new Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) Agreement provides an opportunity to address this through the establishment and expansion of the marine protected area network in the high seas (Box 3.2).  

In both terrestrial and marine areas, global increases in coverage are partly due to continued efforts to designate new protected areas. However, the current coverage statistics are also influenced by recent efforts to recognize pre-existing conservation measures that were not previously counted within formal conservation networks (e.g., as OECMs). Although OECMs have only been reported at the global scale since 2019, recognition of these areas is increasing and is already accelerating global progress towards Target 3. OECMs currently contribute 1.18 percentage points of terrestrial coverage. These contributions are significant considering that only 15 countries and territories have reported OECMs to the WD-OECM. As efforts to recognize and report on OECMs proliferate across countries and territories worldwide, it is highly likely that the contribution of OECMs to Target 3 progress will become increasingly significant (see also Jonas et al. 2024).

While the headline indicator captures the core quantitative element of Target 3, increases in coverage alone will not be sufficient for protected and conserved areas to play their part in addressing the biodiversity crisis. Success in achieving Target 3 will also depend on where protected and conserved areas are located and ensuring their quality. The disaggregation of the headline indicator, as proposed for negotiation at COP16 (CBD 2024b; see Chapter 1, Box 1.1), can provide insights into global progress towards several of these quality elements (see Chapters 4, 5, 7, 8). Using additional biodiversity datasets, component indicators and complementary indicators, global progress towards each quality element of Target 3 is addressed in the following chapters. 

Protected and conserved areas will only be fully effective in addressing biodiversity loss globally if established in the right places. Target 3 emphasizes that protected and conserved areas should especially include “areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services” (CBD 2022b). Historically, protected areas have often been established in places where there is no immediate conflict with other human needs (Pressey et al. 2015). Target 3 commits governments to focusing more attention on strategically protecting and conserving the most optimal places for biodiversity and ecosystem functions (CBD 2022b). 

Areas of particular importance for biodiversity can be considered in the context of the KMGBF to be “sites that contain significant populations/extents of threatened or geographically restricted species or ecosystems, or that have significant ecological integrity or irreplaceability, are significant for the maintenance of biological processes, or provide significant ecological connectivity to maintain populations of species” (Plumptre et al. 2024). 

Categories of “areas of importance” include Ecologically and Biologically Sensitive Areas (EBSAs), Important Marine Mammal Areas, and Important Shark and Ray Areas (IUCN WCPA 2024), among others (Jones et al. 2024). Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) represent the most comprehensive dataset of areas of importance. KBAs have been identified in all countries worldwide and in terrestrial, freshwater and marine realms. They are “sites contributing significantly to the global persistence of biodiversity” and are identified nationally using globally standardized scientific criteria (described in the Global KBA Standard; IUCN 2016). KBAs aim to bring together the various site-scale approaches to comprehensively identify areas of particular importance for biodiversity, including sites of significance for threatened or geographically restricted species or ecosystems, ecological integrity, biological processes or irreplaceability. These include sites critical for the conservation of the world’s birds, known as Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs), the last remaining refuges for Endangered or Critically Endangered species, known as Alliance for Zero Extinction (AZE) sites, and other sites of international significance for the conservation of one or more taxonomic groups in terrestrial, marine, or freshwater systems (IUCN 2016). Data on national KBA networks are brought together in the World Database of KBAs.

The mean percentage coverage of KBAs by protected and conserved areas has been adopted as a component indicator for Target 3 (CBD 2022b) and is a proposed  disaggregation of the headline indicator (CBD 2024a). This aligns with official indicators adopted by the UN for assessing progress towards Sustainable Development Goals 14 (Life Below Water) and 15 (Life on Land), which assess coverage of marine, terrestrial and mountain KBAs by protected and conserved areas (UNGA 2017; UN 2024). 

Globally, over 16,500 KBAs have been identified, covering more than 22 million km² and representing 4.3% of the world’s surface. Among the 16,227 KBAs with boundaries recorded in the World Database of KBAs, the mean percentage of each individual KBA within protected and conserved areas is 47.72% (including 0.54% by OECMs), an increase of 18.64 per cent since 2000. This means that, on average, approximately half of each KBA is covered by one or more protected area or OECM. The mean percentage of each KBA covered by protected and conserved areas is 48.50% for terrestrial KBAs, 48.16% for freshwater KBAs, and 46.11% for marine KBAs within national waters. While mean coverage of KBAs by protected and conserved areas has substantially improved since 2000, progress has slowed over the past decade (Figure 9). 

In total, approximately two thirds of global KBAs (67.97%) are either fully or partially covered by protected and conserved areas (Figure 10). Just over one fifth (22.02%) of all KBAs are fully covered by protected and conserved areas. The proportion of sites that are completely covered is comparable across the three realms, with 23.29%, 21.88% and 20.16% of freshwater, terrestrial and marine KBAs fully covered by protected and conserved areas, respectively. Across all realms combined, a further 45.95% of KBAs are partially covered. Of these areas, 74 terrestrial, 44 marine, and three freshwater KBAs have partial or full coverage from OECMs, but no coverage from protected areas. Meanwhile, almost one third (32.03%) of KBAs lack protection entirely, with 33.36% of all freshwater KBAs, 30.35% of marine KBAs and 30.04% of terrestrial KBAs remaining fully unprotected.

Information on areas of particular importance for biodiversity in each country can readily be accessed using the KBA website. The identification of unprotected sites that are important for the global persistence of biodiversity supports countries to plan, prioritize and make decisions on these sites. Prioritizing locations in this way can bolster progress toward Target 3 and the goals of the KMGBF more broadly. In addition, further work is necessary to ensure that national networks of KBAs are as up to date and comprehensive as possible, to ensure that all areas of importance for biodiversity are included and appropriately documented and monitored. Priorities include the further identification of sites important for invertebrates, plants, and less charismatic vertebrate groups, as well as for threatened or geographically restricted ecosystems, and sites of high ecological integrity.

The Species Protection Index (SPI; Map of Life - Indicators; Jetz et al. 2022) is a component indicator for Target 3 that directly and quantitatively addresses the extent to which protected and conserved areas conserve species. The SPI measures the relative importance of all locations worldwide in safeguarding species and delivers detailed global maps of biodiversity importance. For any region, the index measures how well existing protected and conserved areas cover these areas and contribute to species survival. For full SPI results see Chapter 5 in the context of the "ecologically representative" component of the target.

In the case of ecosystem functions and services, important areas are interpreted for this report as referring to sites critical to human well-being, such as those sequestering and storing carbon, or containing important freshwater sources (Watson et al. 2023).

Historically, the ability to assess coverage of areas important for ecosystem services has been impeded by limited data and methodologies designed to capture and map the benefits people derive from nature (CBD 2024a). As a result, there is currently no agreed indicator in the monitoring framework to assess coverage of these vital areas by protected and conserved areas. However, recent progress has been made to map key ecosystem services, or Nature’s Contributions to People (NCPs), and to identify the areas most important for providing these services – areas that can also be referred to as critical natural assets³ (Chaplin-Kramer et al. 2022). Progress on mapping NCPs and critical natural assets provides an opportunity to further develop a suitable indicator for this element of Target 3 (Dudley and Stolton 2022).

For this Report, four locally relevant NCPs were considered, relating to water quality regulation (two NCPs: sediment retention and nitrogen retention), flood regulation and coastal risk reduction. In addition, vulnerable carbon was included as a global NCP. The analysis looked at both potential NCPs (services that are supplied but not currently used by beneficiaries) and realized NCPs (services that are actively used). “Areas of particular importance for... ecosystem functions and services”, or critical natural assets, were defined for this analysis as those that collectively provide 90% of the NCPs that were assessed. These important areas were found to cover a significant portion of the world’s land. The critical natural assets needed for potential NCPs cover 62.69% of the world’s land surface. For realized NCPs, the figure is 53.38%.

Overlaying these areas with data on protected and conserved areas suggests that just under one fifth of critical natural assets are protected or conserved (19.07% of the total area for potential NCPs and 17.88% for realized NCPs; Figure 11). Since 2020, these figures have increased by 0.41 and 0.28 percentage points, respectively. These findings indicate that most areas important for ecosystem functions and services (critical natural assets) are unprotected and have seen limited improvement since 2020. Covering all critical natural assets through the establishment of protected and conserved areas is clearly unrealistic, but their vast extent highlights the importance of considering Target 3 within the context of the broader Global Biodiversity Framework. Protected and conserved areas will not always be the most suitable tools for maintaining NCPs, particularly those being actively used by local people. Sustainable management is therefore needed across wider landscapes and seascapes if these areas are to continue to support human life and wellbeing. The fact that all critical natural assets cannot be protected within the scope of the 30% target also makes clear the need to prioritize areas that will support the implementation of multiple elements of the target simultaneously. Critical natural assets for which protected and conserved areas are appropriate management tools might often be those with other values that would benefit from conservation, such as areas that also have high biodiversity value or promote connectivity. 

Global studies suggest prioritizing areas that can contribute to several Target 3 elements is a viable approach, as they demonstrate that many areas of the world are important for both ecosystem services and biodiversity. This suggests that progress on Target 3 could be bolstered by the prioritization of these locations for new protected and conserved areas (Neugarten et al. 2020). Given the intrinsic benefits of such areas to local people, the types of protected and conserved areas needed in these locations will often be those that support sustainable use. In many cases, these will be those with governance led by, or effectively engaging, Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Diverse data, methodologies, and tools are readily available to assist countries in identifying and prioritizing these areas (Dudley and Stolton 2022; Watson et al. 2023). Of equal importance will be the full implementation of KMGBF Target 1 on spatial planning, and Target 10 on sustainability of production systems, ensuring that critical natural assets falling outside protected and conserved areas are still sustainably managed. 

³ Following Chaplin Kramer et al. (2022), Critical Natural Assets were defined in this report as the areas underpinning the supply of 90% of values of either the potential or realized nature’s contributions to people considered in this study.

To protect the diversity of life on Earth, it is necessary to establish systems of protected and conserved areas that cover representative areas for the world’s species, ecosystems, and biogeographic regions. Doing so is important because each biogeographic region⁴ (ranging from tropical rainforests to arid deserts to freshwater environments and marine regions) differs in the biodiversity it supports and the benefits it provides to people. This is reflected in the wording of Target 3, which calls for systems of protected and conserved areas to be “ecologically representative”. 

To assess this element of Target 3, the coverage of biogeographic regions by protected and conserved areas is proposed as a disaggregation of the headline indicator (CBD 2024a). Here, biogeographic regions are assessed, following the approach proposed in CBD 2024a, at the ecoregion⁵ level (data sources: Spalding et al. 2007; Abell et al., 2008; Dinerstein et al. 2017) and at the biome⁶ level using the newly developed IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology⁷ (Keith et al. 2020). Further insights are provided in Boxes 5.1 and 5.2. 

In total, coverage of 1,528 ecoregions and 23 biomes was assessed across terrestrial, marine, inland water and transitional (overlapping) realms. This approach assumes a 30% coverage target across all biogeographic regions. In reality, the extent of coverage needed for each biogeographic region will depend on many factors, including its relative importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Importantly, however, a system of protected and conserved areas with extreme variation in coverage of biogeographic regions (i.e., where some have only low levels of coverage) is unlikely to be fully delivering on the “ecologically representative” aspect of Target 3. Methods that look at both total coverage and how equally biogeographic regions are covered (Chauvenet et al. 2017) may provide useful additional insights on improving ecological representation. 

At present, biogeographic regions are globally unevenly protected. However, a substantial number have already reached 30% coverage. In the terrestrial realm, 233 out of 847 (27.51%) ecoregions are more than 30% covered by protected areas. This number rises by 14 ecoregions with the inclusion of OECMs (taking the proportion of terrestrial ecoregions with 30% coverage to 29.16%). The figures are lower for marine and freshwater ecoregions, where approximately one quarter (57 out of 232, or 25.57%) of marine and one fifth (97 out of 449, or 21.60%) of freshwater ecoregions are 30% covered by protected and conserved areas (Figure 12; Figure 13).

Since 2020, a further six terrestrial ecoregions, two marine ecoregions (Cocos-Keeling/Christmas Island and Western Arabian Sea) and three freshwater ecoregions have met the 30% coverage target. While this is an encouraging finding, 46 (5.43%) terrestrial ecoregions and 42 (18.10%) marine ecoregions still lack any protection (i.e., they have coverage of less than 1%). The picture is, however, slightly more positive in the freshwater realm where most ecoregions are at least partially protected or conserved, with only 13 (2.90%) entirely lacking protection.

Marine provinces have reached 30% coverage in 14 of 62 (22.58%) cases, and pelagic provinces in only one out of 37 (2.70%). While this is not unexpected given that pelagic provinces are typically very large, the results also highlight the lack of protection in areas beyond national jurisdiction, where pelagic provinces largely occur. There has been no significant improvement in coverage of these provinces since 2020. One notable exception is the Somali Current, a large province of 2.60 million km², which is now 1.42% covered. 

In terms of biomes, only one of the seven terrestrial biomes meets the 30% coverage target (the tropical-subtropical forests biome). While this is an encouraging finding, the tropical-subtropical forests biome is one where greater than 30% coverage may be warranted given its very high importance for biodiversity and climate regulation (Ometto et al. 2022). The other terrestrial biomes have an average of 15.17% coverage. None of the four marine, three freshwater or nine transitional biomes meets the 30% coverage target, with average coverage of 11.20%, 16.16% and 18.90% respectively.

While progress has been made in some realms, many ecoregions and biomes still lack sufficient (or any) protection. More focus is needed on increasing the representativeness of different biogeographic regions, especially in the open ocean.

In addition to assessing representation of biogeographic regions, it is also important to consider the representation of species diversity. Representing this species diversity within systems of protected and conserved areas is central to several targets of the KMGBF. The Species Protection Index (SPI) is the only component indicator for Target 3 to directly and quantitatively measure how well species are represented within networks of protected and conserved areas (Map of Life - Indicators; Jetz et al. 2022; Powers and Jetz 2019). It can be used to assess both coverage of areas of importance for biodiversity (see Chapter 4) and ecological representativeness. For tens of thousands of species worldwide, the indicator measures the portion of protected or conserved habitat that is suitable in comparison to the total area needed for that species to survive (providing a Species Protection Score, SPS, for each species). The aggregate average of these scores for a region is the SPI. This indicates how well systems of protected and conserved areas capture the total area of suitable habitat required for all assessed species found in a country, region or worldwide.

On land, only half (SPI = 50.13%) of the habitat-suitable ranges necessary to sufficiently safeguard assessed species are covered by protected and conserved areas (for 33,131 assessed terrestrial species). In the marine realm, a higher percentage (SPI = 61.65%) of the required ranges of assessed marine species are within protected or conserved areas (for 12,904 assessed species). Most of this protection is provided by protected areas rather than reported OECMs (the figures are 49.45% and 60.72% without OECMs for the terrestrial and marine realms, respectively). In marine areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ), around one quarter (26.90%) of the total area of habitat-suitable species ranges is covered by protected areas (OECMs do not add to this coverage). However, the habitat-suitable ranges of only 3,302 species occurring within ABNJ were assessed. Since the coverage of protected and conserved areas in ABNJ is, in general, very low, these results should be interpreted with caution. National-level results are shown in Figure 14. 

⁴ Area of similar character in terms of the biota (fauna and flora) present in it. Each biogeographic region is based on similarity of composition in terms of the systematics (and hence evolutionary history) of the biota (biogeographical region – European Environment Agency; europa.eu).

⁵ Ecological units of land, freshwater, or ocean that contain similar and geographically-distinct assemblages of biodiversity (Olson et al. 2001; Spalding et al. 2007; Dinerstein et al. 2017).

⁶ Biome as defined in the IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology: A component of a realm (e.g., terrestrial, freshwater, marine) united by broad features of ecosystem structure and one or a few common major ecological drivers that regulate major ecological functions, derived from the top-down subdivision of realms.

⁷ The IUCN Global Ecosystem Typology includes six hierarchical levels: realms, functional biomes, ecosystem functional groups, biogeographic ecotypes, global ecosystem types, and sub-global ecosystem types. Definitions of each can be found here: https://global-ecosystems.org/.

Target 3 calls for “well-connected systems” of protected and conserved areas that are “integrated into the wider landscapes, seascapes, and the ocean” (see Chapter 10). Ecological connectivity can be defined as “the unimpeded movement of species, connection of habitats without hinderance and the flow of natural processes that sustain life on Earth” (CMS 2024). Retaining ecological connectivity is essential to maintaining resilient ecological networks that mitigate drivers of biodiversity loss (Hilty et al. 2019). Individual protected and conserved areas can preserve locations that are important for biodiversity (Chapters 4-5; Watson et al. 2014; Hockings et al. 2019). When linked together in well-connected systems, they can facilitate species movement and migration, while also maintaining overall ecosystem functions. This is increasingly important in the face of climate change. 

Measuring and monitoring connectivity is, however, complex because the ecological processes that underpin it vary enormously across spatial and temporal scales and between environments (Beger et al. 2022). There are two broad approaches to measuring connectivity: structural and functional. Structural connectivity⁸ reflects the spatial arrangement of habitats and other physical features, while functional connectivity⁹ goes further by looking at the ease with which organisms can move through land- or seascapes (Tischendorf and Fahrig 2000; Auffret, Plue and Cousins 2015). A well-connected system of protected and conserved areas will be both functionally and structurally connected. However, functional connectivity is substantially harder to measure, particularly over large spatial scales (Keeley, Beier and Jenness 2021). 

There are several metrics available to measure elements of functional and structural connectivity in the terrestrial realm. This includes four indicators that have been adopted within the monitoring framework for Target 3. There are two component indicators, Protected Connected (ProtConn; Saura et al. 2018) and Protected Area Representativeness and Connectedness (PARC)-connectedness (BIP 2024a), and two complementary indicators, Protected Area Isolation Index (PAI; Brennan et al. 2022) and Protected Areas Network metric (ProNet; Theobald et al. 2022). All four indicators focus on the linkages between terrestrial protected and conserved areas. While ProtConn, PARC-connectedness and ProNet focus on physical habitat links, the PAI also incorporates aspects of functional connectivity. It is important to note that measures of connectivity are not currently available for inland waters or the marine realm. 

While the four indicators presented here use different methods, measure different facets of connectivity, and produce different results, they converge on one key message: The world’s network of protected and conserved areas is not well connected yet. The indicators reveal that the current terrestrial coverage of 17.58% does not equate to 17.58% of the world’s land being within well-connected systems of protected and conserved areas. This is an important reminder that achieving 30% coverage by 2030 alone will not deliver on Target 3. Efforts to expand protection must also address connectivity. An example of practical action being taken is provided in Box 6.2.  

Furthermore, understanding and monitoring connectivity in the marine realm remains problematic. At present, the four indicators are limited to the terrestrial realm, although work is ongoing to adapt some of them to the marine realm. Measuring connectivity becomes increasingly complicated in flowing water systems. The challenge stems from the fact that these systems require additional consideration of vertical linkages in water columns, longitudinal linkages (e.g., between up and downstream waters), lateral linkages (e.g., between river channels and floodplains), and ‘inter-realm’ linkages between freshwater, marine and terrestrial spaces (e.g., O’Leary and Roberts 2018; Grill et al. 2019; Braun et al. 2023). While complex to analyse, all these connections provide important contributions to the maintenance of species, populations, ecological functions and healthy ecosystems.  

⁸ Structural connectivity for species: A measure of habitat permeability based on the physical features and arrangements of patches, disturbances and other land, freshwater or seascape elements presumed to be important for organisms to move through their environment. Structural connectivity is used in efforts to restore or estimate functional connectivity where measures of it are lacking (Hilty et al., 2019).

⁹ Functional connectivity for species: A description of how well genes, gametes, propagules or individuals move through land, freshwater and seascape (Rudnick et al. 2012; Weeks 2017).

The previous sections of this report focused on the important progress made towards expanding systems of protected and conserved areas. However, the impact of protected and conserved areas depends not only on where they are placed, but also how they are conserved and managed (Coad et al. 2019; Arneth et al. 2023). This is clearly reflected in the language of Target 3, which highlights the need to ensure that 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of marine and coastal areas are “effectively conserved and managed”. 

At its most basic level, effectiveness depends upon protected and conserved areas successfully conserving the biodiversity values for which they were recognized. Target 3 also aligns success closely with governance and management that maintains or enhances social values such as equity (see Chapter 8) and human rights. Effective protected areas have progressed beyond the designation stage to having appropriate governance and management processes in place and are appropriately designed in terms of location, size and configuration. Effectiveness also depends upon these areas retaining their protection status over the long-term. Once these conditions are in place, a range of other factors that influence effectiveness come into play. These include sufficient funding (Lessman et al. 2024), sufficient personnel (Appleton et al. 2022), sufficient levels of protection (Grorud-Colvert et al. 2021) and good governance (including equitable engagement of rightsholders and stakeholders; Maxwell et al. 2020; Gurney et al. 2023). Evidence shows that protected areas having positive outcomes for both nature (Maxwell et al. 2020) and people (Gill et al. 2017; Naidoo et al. 2019) depends on them being well-managed, well-designed and well-resourced. Effective protected and conserved areas have clear biodiversity goals and a monitoring system to determine if those goals are being met.

Assessing the effectiveness of protected and conserved areas at the site, system and global level is challenging. This is due to a complex interplay of factors including the design and location of the areas and their place in the wider system of conservation measures. Effectiveness is contingent upon many factors including whether a system is well connected and ecologically representative and whether the processes used to manage the sites within it are appropriate (Rodrigues and Cazalis 2020). Management effectiveness assessments are often used to understand the quality of management at site level. Information on these assessments is compiled in the Global Database on Protected Area Management Effectiveness (GD-PAME), which provides a component indicator (and proposed disaggregation of the headline indicator) for Target 3. The indicator currently assesses the coverage of protected and conserved areas that have been assessed, with a more sophisticated and insightful approach under development (see Box 7.1). 

The GD-PAME contains assessment records for 177 countries conducted using 75 methodologies. In total, 6.8% of protected areas in the WDPA have been assessed (28,969 assessments for 20,603 protected areas). When combined with spatial data from the WDPA, these data show that 4.78% of the world’s terrestrial area is covered by protected areas where management effectiveness has been assessed. The figure is 1.26% for the marine realm. No effectiveness data are currently reported for OECMs, although international guidance recommends the application of PAME tools alongside quantitative information on biodiversity outcomes to monitor these areas, and for this to be reported to the GD-PAME (IUCN-WCPA Task Force on OECMs 2019). These results show that much more focus is needed on management effectiveness, both in terms of conducting assessments and reporting data at the global level. Since many assessments are considerably outdated, there is also a need to ensure that effectiveness is monitored, and reported on, at appropriate time intervals.

Although PAME assessments have been commonly used (Hockings, Stolton and Leverington 2006), they do not always sufficiently capture the links between management inputs and processes and the achievement of conservation outcomes (Maxwell et al. 2020). In part, the IUCN Green List Standard was developed out of a recognition of this shortcoming (Hockings et al. 2019). Widely acknowledged as the most comprehensive standard for effective area-based conservation, it consists of three core components: good governance, sound design and planning and effective management. These components act as stepping-stones towards the fourth component of successful conservation outcomes. The Standard provides a global benchmark for effective area-based conservation (i.e., providing guidance on what should be assessed to understand progress towards effectiveness). It is complemented by a list of protected and conserved areas certified by IUCN against the Standard. The number of Green Listed sites is a complementary indicator for Target 3. There are now 87 such sites across 18 countries.  

Building on both the GD-PAME and Green List Standard, a system is under development to enable reporting of detailed data on all elements of effectiveness. In the run-up to 2030, this system will provide the basis for an evolution of the current indicator based on the GD-PAME. The expected outcome is a more meaningful disaggregation of the headline indicator, showing coverage of protected and conserved areas grouped by levels of effectiveness (Box 7.1; IUCN WCPA 2024). 

In addition to active management and monitoring (Box 7.2), the effectiveness of protected and conserved areas depends upon sustained, long-term commitment to conservation in these areas. Tracking legal changes to protected and conserved areas provides a complementary approach to understanding effectiveness by highlighting socio-political changes that may affect the status of an area and therefore its ability to conserve biodiversity. Protected area downgrading, downsizing and degazettement (PADDD) is a phenomenon describing legal changes that ease a protected area’s restrictions (downgrading), reduce its size (downsizing), or result in its elimination (degazettement; Golden Kroner et al. 2019). Depending on the context, these changes may have a significant impact on the protected area’s capacity to conserve biodiversity (Golden Kroner et al. 2019), for example, by accelerating forest loss and carbon emissions (Forrest et al. 2015). PADDD is a complementary indicator for Target 3, and an analysis of PADDD events is included in this Protected Planet Report for the first time.

Since 2009, civil society organizations and researchers have been tracking PADDD events, including proposed and enacted changes, in state-governed protected areas (privately protected areas; territories and areas governed Indigenous Peoples or local community communities; protected areas recognized by international entities and OECMs are not included in the analysis) (Mascia et al. 2020; Conservation International and WWF 2021). Information on PADDD is compiled using a range of sources including, among others, the WDPA, official legal documents, peer reviewed journal articles and grey literature. 

An analysis of PADDD events tracked by the initiative found a total of 2,173 enacted downgrades (affecting 1,832 protected areas), 604 instances of enacted protected area downsizing (affecting 470 protected areas) and 328 enacted degazettement events (affecting 325 protected areas) to have occurred between 1895-2021 (Figure 22). The absolute total area affected by enacted events (which removes overlapping PADDD events) is 2.68 million km², while the enduring total area affected (removing enacted PADDD events that were subsequently reversed) is 2.14 million km². These figures demonstrate the impermanence of many protected areas, and their susceptibility to broader socio-economic and political changes, despite their intended goal (according to international standards) of conserving biodiversity for perpetuity. This highlights the importance of long-term resourcing and political commitment alongside appropriate management, equitable governance, sound design and planning to ensure that these areas can be effective in achieving their intended purpose to conserve biodiversity. Ongoing monitoring, research, and support are required to continue tracking PADDD events, understand their impacts, and enable interventions to support long-term conservation.

Target 3 emphasizes the importance of fair, just governance, specifying that areas must be “effectively conserved and managed through… equitably governed systems of protected areas and OECMs... recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities”. In the context of protected and conserved areas, governance relates to who is making management decisions and how those decisions are made (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013). How governance involves, recognizes, impacts and benefits Indigenous Peoples, local communities and other relevant actors determines whether it can be considered equitable.

Over the past 20 years, there has been an increased emphasis on equitable governance and rights in area-based conservation. This is reflected by efforts to enhance the quality of governance and address cases of inequity or injustice (Franks, Small and Booker 2018). These efforts are crucial for ensuring that area-based conservation measures uphold the rights of rightsholders and stakeholders, engage Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and support human well-being as well as nature (Franks, Small and Booker 2018). Importantly, measures are needed to champion women’s effective participation and leadership in governance (e.g., Gissi et al. 2018). The role of equitable governance in achieving effective conservation is also increasingly being recognized, with strengthened governance leading to the delivery of more positive ecological and biodiversity outcomes (Oldekop et al. 2016; Fidler et al. 2022; Pinto and Dawson 2023; Zhang et al. 2023; Dawson et al. 2024). 

Equitable governance encapsulates three key dimensions: 

1. Recognition: Acknowledgement and respect for a diversity of actors, as well as their rights, values and knowledge systems.  
2. Procedure: Inclusive, participatory and transparent decision-making and conflict resolution.
3. Distribution: The equitable sharing of all costs and benefits (CBD 2018c). 

The understanding of equitable governance continues to evolve, with increasing focus on understanding the social, political and economic enabling conditions that can advance these three key dimensions of equity in protected and conserved areas. These conditions include national policies and the balance of power between different actors (Figure 24; Franks et al. 2024).

To assess the "equitably governed" element of Target 3, two indicators (Box 8.1) have been adopted by Parties to the CBD: one indicating the quality of governance (component indicator) and the other assessing the diversity of governance types (complementary indicator). Both indicators are also proposed disaggregations of the headline indicator (where quality of governance is captured within the proposed disaggregation by level of effectiveness) (CBD 2024a; see Chapter 1, Box 1.1).

Various tools have been developed to allow stakeholders and/or rightsholders to assess the quality of governance at the site level. The Site-level Assessment for Governance and Equity (SAGE) is a currently applied tool that has been proposed as the component indicator for monitoring progress towards the equitable governance element of Target 3 (CBD 2022b). The indicator looks at the number of protected areas that have completed a SAGE assessment. Developed by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), SAGE facilitates self-assessment of the social impacts and equity of conservation action (Franks 2023). SAGE provides an extensive and detailed assessment of the quality and equity of governance, aligned with the three key dimensions of equity (CBD 2018c). A recent meta-analysis in the results of SAGE assessments found that areas governed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities tended to have higher levels of equity than those governed by government agencies (Dehmel et al. in press). An essential element of SAGE and other assessments of governance quality is the identification of weaknesses, opportunities and actions needed for improving the overall quality of governance. This can result in beneficial conservation and social outcomes at the local, national and global level (Pinto and Dehmel 2023). Therefore, sites that have undertaken such assessments can actively strengthen their governance, moving towards the achievement of this element of Target 3.

To date, site level governance assessments have only been completed by a small proportion of the global protected and conserved area network. Records compiled by IIED indicate that a SAGE assessment has been completed in 34 protected areas and 1 OECM recorded in Protected Planet, across 17 countries. These areas cover 331 km² of marine and coastal areas and 50,922 km² of terrestrial and inland waters, equating to just 0.22% of the area covered by protected and conserved areas on land and 0.001% of the area covered in the marine realm. It is likely that relevant assessments have been conducted elsewhere. A system is being developed to compile these assessments within Protected Planet (see Chapter 7, Box 10.1). Nevertheless, considering the small number of protected and conserved areas with SAGE assessments, a dramatic increase in the use of governance assessments is needed to document and make progress on this element of Target 3. It will be essential that such assessments are conducted with the effective engagement of women, considering how they are involved in, and affected by, the protected or conserved area’s governance. 

The diversity of governance types can be used as a very approximate indication of equitable governance, providing an insight into the extent to which non-state governance and shared governance is recognized within countries. This complementary indicator looks at the coverage of protected and conserved areas by governance type. 

Based on the data reported to Protected Planet under each of the four IUCN governance types (Dudley 2008), the vast majority (62.78%) of the area within protected and conserved areas is governed by governments (15.19 million km² or 64.94% in terrestrial and inland waters and 18.67 million km² or 61.14% in marine areas; Figure 25). A further 11.84% of coverage is under shared governance (870,099 km² or 3.72% in terrestrial and inland waters and 5.51 million km² or 18.06% in marine areas), 3.95% under the governance of Indigenous Peoples and/ or local communities (2.11 million km² or 9.02% in terrestrial and inland waters and 22,274 km² or 0.07% in marine areas), and 0.50% under private governance (267,690 km² or 1.14% in terrestrial and inland waters and 1,397 km² or 0.005% in marine areas; Figure 25; Box 8.2). This strong skew towards state governance is likely an underrepresentation of the true diversity of governance approaches worldwide. Some forms of non-state governance are known to be under-reported in Protected Planet, including governance by private actors (Stolton et al. 2014) and Indigenous Peoples and local communities (Bingham et al. 2019). This could be due to a lack of formal mechanisms at national level enabling the recognition and reporting of these areas (Bingham et al. 2017), or a lack of information on governance in national databases. This is reflected in 9.86% (2.90 million km² or 12.41% in terrestrial and inland waters and 2.42 million km² or 7.91% in marine areas) of the total area within protected and conserved areas having no reported governance type and 11.07% (2.05 million km² or 8.78% in terrestrial and inland waters and 3.91 million km² or 12.82% in marine areas) being reported to be covered by two or more designations with differing governance types). 

Since 2020, areas reported under Indigenous Peoples’ or local community governance has increased by 124,827 km². This signifies a slight increase in recognition by some national governments, alongside greater empowerment of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to self-recognize and report their contributions. Despite representing only 0.5% of global protected and conserved areas by number, and being reported by only 41 countries and territories, these areas comprise 3.95% of global protected and conserved area coverage. Of this coverage, only 622 km² can be attributed to OECMs governed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities, highlighting the surprisingly slow uptake of the OECM concept to provide recognition to these groups (Jonas et al. 2024). The complementary indicator on governance provides basic insights into the ‘recognition’ element of equitable governance by illustrating whether different actors are recognized and reported within national systems. With more diverse systems generally being more effective and resilient, (WWF and IUCN WCPA 2023), figures presented throughout this chapter suggest that more work is needed to reflect and fully represent the efforts of non-state conservation actors in Target 3 implementation.

Indigenous Peoples and local communities play a critical role in the conservation of nature and sustainable use of natural resources (Govan 2009; Garnett et al. 2018; Fa et al. 2020; Forest Peoples Programme et al. 2020; WWF et al. 2021; UNEP-WCMC and ICCA Consortium 2021). Through their traditional knowledge, cultures, governance systems and often deep connections to the places they inhabit (Borrini-Feyerabend et al. 2013; CBD 2000), they protect rich biological and cultural heritage and provide essential environmental benefits that extend well beyond their territories (Dinerstein et al. 2020; WWF et al. 2021).

Despite this, Indigenous Peoples and local communities often receive very little formal recognition or support for their conservation efforts (see Chapter 8). While some countries formally recognize Indigenous Peoples’ and community governance within national systems of protected and conserved areas, many do not. Moreover, Indigenous Peoples and local communities often lack formal rights to lands, waters and resources, and face significant threats, sometimes in the name of conservation. These threats create insecurity over their territories and undermine their rights, often with greater negative impacts on women and girls (IPBES 2019; Tauli-Corpuz et al. 2020; WWF et al. 2021; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 2022; James et al. 2023; Kennedy et al. 2023; Rights and Resources Initiative 2023).

 
The successful implementation of Target 3, and more equitable and effective conservation in general, depends upon secure rights for Indigenous Peoples and local communities (including women) over their traditional territories. Appropriate forms of recognition and support are also needed to ensure Indigenous Peoples and local communities can maintain their self-determined governance systems, territories and areas in the long-term (Maxwell et al. 2020; UNEP-WCMC and ICCA Consortium 2021; Reyes-García et al. 2022; Rights and Resources Initiative 2023). Appropriate forms of recognition and support are those that are defined by the relevant Indigenous People or local community and implemented with their consent. 

In this context, the KMGBF presents a historic opportunity to recognize Indigenous Peoples and local communities as custodians of biodiversity and as partners in its conservation, restoration and sustainable use. The KMGBF includes cross-cutting considerations specifying that all aspects of implementation must recognize diverse knowledge systems and values, taking a whole-of-society and human rights-based approach. Specific emphasis is placed on ensuring gender equality and empowerment of women and girls. In addition, several of the Framework’s other targets explicitly recognize the rights and contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (CBD 2022a). Target 3 states that actions undertaken to achieve Target 3 should be carried out "recognizing and respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories”. Crucially, it also calls for 30% of lands, inland waters and oceans to be conserved through “protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable” (CBD 2022b). 

There is currently no agreed definition of “Indigenous and traditional territories” (hereafter referred to as ITTs) in Target 3 (see Box 9.1). However, based on existing terms and concepts, they are interpreted in the context of this report as encompassing territories and areas that are owned, governed and/or used by Indigenous Peoples and local communities and that contribute to biodiversity conservation. Indigenous Peoples and local communities have self-recognized and declared areas they conserve in diverse ways, for example as ICCAs – territories of life (see Box 9.2 and 9.3), Indigenous protected areas and community conserved areas. It is understood that ITTs should represent the diversity of these areas and be grounded in self-determination. Indigenous Peoples, local communities and CBD Parties are working to provide further guidance on ITTs in the context of Target 3. This means that the working interpretation used here is subject to change. As this guidance is still being developed, the monitoring framework currently lacks clear indicators on ITTs in the context of Target 3. For this report, the lack of consistent interpretation – and ongoing work to define detailed indicators for Indigenous and traditional territories across the KMGBF – poses challenges on how to assess this element at this stage.

Acknowledging this, an analysis was run to estimate how including Indigenous and traditional territories would change the overall terrestrial coverage and the coverage of each terrestrial ecoregion when considered alongside protected areas and OECMs. While some areas governed by Indigenous Peoples and local communities are already counted towards Target 3 in the form of protected areas and OECMs (accounting for 3.95% of global coverage; see Chapter 8). This chapter explores how progress on Target 3 would change if additional ITTs were counted towards the target with the consent of their custodians.

For the analysis, a global data layer of lands held by Indigenous Peoples and local communities was created using an adapted version of the methodology of the traditional knowledge indicator on land tenure and use. This methodology has been proposed as a headline indicator for Target 22. The global data layer was overlayed with intact areas from the Human Footprint Index (Mu et al. 2022), to indicate land areas of good ecological condition. This created an estimated layer of “Indigenous and traditional territories” as defined for use in this chapter. This method provides a proxy for good ecological health from a scientific perspective, but an indicator for assessing ecological health in ITTs will need to be co-created with Indigenous Peoples and local communities in the longer term. Combining the estimated layer of ITTs with protected area and OECM data from Protected Planet provides an indication of how much additional coverage could be achieved if Indigenous and traditional territories were to be appropriately recognized in Target 3. 

Based on this analysis ITTs are estimated to cover 13.61% of global land (18.30 million km²) outside of the existing network of protected and conserved areas (Figure 26). If considered alongside protected areas and OECMs (currently at 17.58% terrestrial coverage), this would take global coverage to 31.18% on land. In addition, a further 61 (7.20%) terrestrial ecoregions would be at least 30% covered (Figure 27). This would bring the total per cent of terrestrial ecoregions with 30% coverage to over one third (36.36%).

These figures drop considerably when lands without legal recognition or formally recognized documentation are excluded. When considered alongside protected areas and OECMs, land formally recognized as held by Indigenous Peoples and local communities increases global terrestrial coverage by 2.84% to 20.42%. The additional number of ecoregions with 30% coverage falls to 26 (3.07%). 

The analysis demonstrates that significant gains in coverage and ecological representation could be made by appropriately recognizing Indigenous and traditional territories in Target 3, whether as protected areas, OECMs or through a third pathway under discussion. However, it also highlights the extent of Indigenous and traditional territories that are potentially playing a major role in conservation, but which lack formal recognition and may need greater support. 

These results are not definitive. However, they do provide an estimate of the contributions that Indigenous Peoples and local communities make to area-based conservation and could contribute to Target 3, subject to appropriate procedures of free, prior and informed consent.  

This chapter covers the two remaining elements of Target 3, for which indicators have not yet been defined in the monitoring framework (or proposed since its adoption):

• “integrated into wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean”; and

• “ensuring that any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes”.

The first element on being ‘integrated’ conveys the crucial point that protected and conserved areas cannot reduce or halt biodiversity loss in isolation. Instead, they should be “integrated into the wider landscapes, seascapes and the ocean”. This means that the success and resilience of protected and conserved areas are interlinked with the surrounding landscapes, seascapes and the ocean – and vice versa. This concept is elaborated further in Target 1 of the KMGBF, which calls on Parties to "Ensure that all areas are under participatory, integrated and biodiversity inclusive spatial planning and/or effective management processes addressing land- and sea-use change, to bring the loss of areas of high biodiversity importance, including ecosystems of high ecological integrity, close to zero by 2030, while respecting the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities." It is also encapsulated in Goal A of the KMGBF, a commitment that "The integrity, connectivity and resilience of all ecosystems are maintained, enhanced, or restored, substantially increasing the area of natural ecosystems by 2050...". 

In adopting Goal A, Target 1 and the broader KMGBF, Parties recognized that addressing the biodiversity crisis means sustainably managing nature everywhere. In the context of Target 3, this requires that protected and conserved areas are established and governed in ways that consider external conditions and connections. Importantly, it also requires that other areas are managed with biodiversity in mind, creating an environment that connects systems of protected and conserved areas and maximizes their benefits (see Chapter 6). It is likely that the indicators adopted for Goal A and Target 1 will provide insights into this element of Target 3, once reported upon by Parties. Integrated spatial planning (Box 10.1) will be an important tool in implementing these commitments. 

This element recognizes that many protected areas and OECMs have important, and often traditional practices of sustainable use. It acknowledges the importance of respecting customary sustainable practices (aligning with Target 9) within protected and conserved areas, while ensuring that they contribute to long-term biodiversity conservation (WWF and IUCN-WCPA 2023) in the context of the wider ambitions of the Global Biodiversity Framework. Of particular relevance is Target 4 on halting species extinctions and Target 5 on ensuring that any harvest, trade and use is sustainable, legal and safe. This target again reflects the need to respect traditional practices, with the text, “while respecting and protecting customary sustainable use by Indigenous Peoples and local communities” (CBD 2024a).    

Studies have shown that sustainable use within protected areas in tropical forests can not only enhance local livelihoods but can also prevent deforestation in certain contexts (Campos-Silva et al. 2021), highlighting the important role sustainable use can play in biodiversity conservation. Crucially, the sustainability of use in a given context will need regular review, whether through formal monitoring of its impacts on conservation outcomes or the application of traditional knowledge. This links to the importance of ongoing assessments of effectiveness in protected and conserved areas (Chapter 7). There is a clear need for more data on management interventions (including use of resources) and their impacts on biodiversity values. At the same time, more data is needed on whether the traditional, sustainable management practices of Indigenous Peoples and local communities are respected in the context of protected and conserved area governance (Chapter 8).

Overall, effective implementation of this element of Target 3 requires robust governance, effective management, collaboration and fair benefit sharing with rights-holders and stakeholders. It also demands comprehensive management planning and rigorous monitoring and regulation (whether achieved through legal, customary or other effective means). Together, these factors will support protected and conserved areas in their contributions to long-term biodiversity conservation and improving the well-being of local communities (Dudley and Stolton 2022; WWF and IUCN-WCPA 2023). 

In adopting Target 3 and the wider Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, Parties to the CBD recognized that ambitious, urgent action is needed to address biodiversity loss. Two years into its implementation, the Protected Planet Report 2024 shows that there has been progress on every element of the target that can meaningfully be measured (see also Box 11.1). Indicators for coverage, connectivity, ecological representation and coverage of important areas all show improvements since 2020. Nevertheless, progress must be accelerated if the target is to be reached. The current rate of progress will not be sufficient for 30% coverage to be achieved in the terrestrial or marine realms by 2030, nor for the target’s other important elements to be met. Ensuring that data are made available promptly at the global level, including on aspects of the target that cannot yet be fully assessed, is also essential to support global efforts towards full implementation.   

Notably, there is not yet a clear picture of whether commitments to human rights and equitable governance that are enshrined in Target 3 are being upheld. Data on governance, including whether it is equitable for women, is largely unavailable. While Indigenous Peoples and local communities have the potential to dramatically enhance progress on Target 3, this depends on the provision of appropriate recognition and support. With formal recognition of Indigenous and traditional territories still limited, there is a clear need to secure the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including to maintain the biodiversity values of their lands.  

At the UN Biodiversity Conference (COP16), Parties have the opportunity to reflect on progress in translating global targets into national ambitions. It is also anticipated that the methods for tracking progress on each goal and target will be further refined at COP16, paving the way for a concerted period of implementation.  

As we move rapidly towards 2030, many Parties will need to focus not only on domestic actions, but also on ensuring that their commitments to provide international financing to developing countries are met. The success of the broader Global Biodiversity Framework therefore hinges on a commitment to increase investment in biodiversity to at least USD 200 billion per year by 2030 (Target 19).  

When the previous Protected Planet Report (UNEP-WCMC and IUCN 2021) provided the final assessment of progress on Aichi Biodiversity Target 11, it concluded that progress on coverage had not been matched by adequate improvements in quality. This report reaches a similar conclusion. However, much has changed in recent years to provide reason for optimism. In addition to adopting ambitious targets, Parties have agreed on a consistent approach to tracking progress that may help focus attention on all elements of Target 3. They have also enshrined clear safeguards for human rights within the Global Biodiversity Framework. As a result, there is an opportunity to profoundly strengthen progress on Target 3 through collaboration with Indigenous Peoples and local communities. Together, these shifts in approach could be revolutionary, allowing for systems of protected and conserved areas that truly work for both people and nature.  

Putting this into practice and fully implementing all aspects of Target 3 will be a challenge for all countries. It is one that must be overcome for the sake of all life on Earth.