Global Efforts and Initiatives for Biodiversity Conservation

Biodiversity is declining at a rate unprecedented in human history. Around one million species are currently at risk of extinction, and approximately 40 percent of the world’s land is degraded. Confronting this crisis requires coordinated action – from international treaties and national policies to the involvement of local communities who have lived alongside and protected these ecosystems for generations. Here is a look at how the world is responding to the biodiversity emergency, and what the road ahead looks like.

International conservation efforts: the global frameworks driving action
The “30 by 30” target: the headline commitment
Role of national biodiversity strategies
The implementation gap
Community-based conservation: local stewardship as a global solution
Real-world examples of community conservation in action
What makes CBC work – and where it struggles
Future goals for biodiversity: the path beyond 2030

International conservation efforts: the global frameworks driving action

The backbone of global biodiversity conservation is the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), an international treaty adopted at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. With 196 member countries (the United States being a notable non-signatory), the CBD established three core objectives: conserving biological diversity, using its components sustainably, and sharing the benefits from genetic resources fairly and equitably.

To give these goals measurable targets, the CBD’s member countries adopted the Aichi Biodiversity Targets in 2010 – a set of 20 targets to be achieved by 2020, covering everything from reducing habitat loss to increasing protected areas. The results were sobering. None of the 20 Aichi Targets were fully achieved, revealing persistent gaps in both ambition and national commitment.

This failure galvanized a new, more ambitious agreement. In December 2022, at COP15 in Montreal, 196 governments adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) – widely described as a “Paris Agreement for Nature.” The framework sets four long-term goals for 2050 and 23 concrete targets for 2030. Its mission: to halt and reverse biodiversity loss within this decade.

The “30 by 30” target: the headline commitment

Among the GBF’s 23 targets, Target 3 – commonly called the “30 by 30” target – has attracted the most attention. It commits countries to protecting at least 30 percent of terrestrial, inland water, coastal, and marine areas by 2030. This is a significant step up from current levels of protection and requires rapid expansion of protected areas, particularly in biodiversity-rich regions.

Other key targets include restoring at least 30 percent of degraded ecosystems, reducing the rate of invasive alien species introduction by 50 percent, and closing the global biodiversity financing gap – estimated at $700 billion per year. Countries also committed to mobilizing at least $200 billion annually for nature from all sources. Importantly, unlike the CBD itself, the GBF targets are not legally binding – implementation depends on each country’s political will and institutional capacity.

Role of national biodiversity strategies

National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAPs) are the primary mechanism through which countries translate global commitments into domestic action. Each country party to the CBD is required to develop an NBSAP that outlines national priorities, specific conservation actions, and measurable targets aligned with the GBF’s global goals.

NBSAPs are far more than bureaucratic documents. They guide how countries strengthen environmental laws, direct funding, protect ecosystems, and integrate biodiversity into sectors like agriculture, energy, and infrastructure. They also serve as tools for attracting international finance and technical support. In effect, they are each country’s nature roadmap.

The implementation gap

Despite their importance, NBSAPs face serious implementation challenges. Research examining NBSAPs from eight countries – including France, Germany, Honduras, Indonesia, Mexico, Peru, Rwanda, and South Africa – found that while global targets raised awareness and mobilized some action, conflicting interests, weak financial support, and poorly integrated institutional structures remained persistent barriers.

The scale of the compliance problem is stark. As of late 2025, only 66 countries had submitted revised NBSAPs aligned with the GBF, even though the 2030 deadline is fast approaching. According to a joint investigation by Carbon Brief and The Guardian, 85 percent of countries missed the NBSAP submission deadline ahead of COP16 in 2024. This lag between international commitment and national follow-through is one of the most pressing challenges in global conservation governance.

A key part of the solution involves UNDP and UNEP’s joint GBF Early Action Support project, which provides financial and technical assistance to 139 developing countries to update their NBSAPs and develop national monitoring systems. Alongside this, the NBSAP Accelerator Partnership brings governments, organizations, and stakeholders together to share tools and accelerate implementation. These support mechanisms are critical for nations with limited institutional capacity to meet global biodiversity targets.

Community-based conservation: local stewardship as a global solution

International frameworks and national plans can only go so far. On the ground, some of the most effective conservation is driven by the communities who live closest to biodiversity – and who have the most to lose from its decline. Community-based conservation (CBC) is built on a fundamental insight: local people are not obstacles to conservation but its most capable guardians.

More than one-third of the world’s high-biodiversity areas are inhabited by traditional communities that possess deep ecological knowledge developed over centuries. This Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) encompasses sustainable practices for hunting, farming, fishing, and forest management – all finely tuned to local ecosystems. Integrating this knowledge into formal conservation programs doesn’t just improve outcomes; it also preserves cultural heritage and supports local livelihoods.

Real-world examples of community conservation in action

The evidence for CBC’s effectiveness is growing. In Kenya and Tanzania, Maasai communities have established wildlife conservancies that protect biodiversity while generating income through ecotourism. In the Philippines, community-managed marine protected areas have contributed to the restoration of coral reefs and fish populations. In the Amazon, indigenous groups partner with conservation organizations to map and protect rainforest territories using a combination of traditional knowledge and modern mapping technology.

Indigenous land management practices also carry direct conservation value. Aboriginal Australians have long practiced “cultural burning” – the controlled use of low-intensity fires to manage vegetation, reduce wildfire risk, and promote biodiversity. In Tanzania, Maasai communities use ancestral knowledge and native plants to restore degraded rangelands, stabilize watersheds, and combat invasive species.

Sacred groves are another powerful example. In India, small patches of forest preserved by indigenous communities for their spiritual significance act as biodiversity hotspots, safeguarding unique flora and fauna – particularly in states like Odisha and Meghalaya. These groves are protected not by law, but by deep cultural norms.

What makes CBC work – and where it struggles

According to research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, community-based conservation works best when traditional ecological knowledge is formally recognized, governance is inclusive, and conservation goals align with the everyday needs and priorities of communities. Legal recognition of communal land rights is especially critical – without it, communities face risks of marginalization even while performing genuine conservation roles.

CBC is not without challenges. About 20 percent of indigenous peoples’ lands are already within protected areas, making up roughly 40 percent of global protected areas. But unequal benefit-sharing, elite capture of resources, and the absence of formal legal recognition remain obstacles in many settings. Effective CBC requires not just local participation but robust institutional and financial support from national governments and international bodies.

Future goals for biodiversity: the path beyond 2030

The Kunming-Montreal GBF has set 2030 as a critical milestone, but the vision extends further. The framework’s four overarching goals aim for a planet where biodiversity is valued, conserved, and restored – and where the benefits it provides are shared equitably – by 2050. The GBF embraces all three dimensions of biodiversity – ecosystems, species, and genetic diversity – with considerably stronger emphasis on ecosystems and genetic diversity than its predecessor agreements.

A defining feature of the post-2020 biodiversity agenda is its emphasis on mainstreaming – embedding biodiversity considerations into every sector of the economy, from agriculture and finance to energy and infrastructure. GBF Targets 14 and 15 specifically address the integration of biodiversity into government and business decision-making, recognizing that conservation cannot succeed if it remains confined to environment ministries and protected areas alone.

Financing remains a pivotal challenge. The global biodiversity financing gap stands at $700 billion per year, and the GBF calls for a transformation in how nature is valued and funded – including through redirecting harmful subsidies, scaling up private sector investment, and ensuring fair benefit-sharing with indigenous and local communities. UNDP is currently supporting 91 countries in developing National Biodiversity Finance Plans to address these gaps and align financial flows with GBF targets.

Perhaps the most significant shift in the post-2020 framework is its explicit recognition of indigenous peoples and local communities as central actors – not just beneficiaries – of conservation. The GBF acknowledges their rights under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and frames their knowledge systems and land stewardship as indispensable to achieving global biodiversity goals. This marks a genuine evolution from earlier conservation paradigms that often excluded or displaced communities in the name of protection.

The 2030 targets are ambitious, and current trajectories suggest that meeting them will require dramatically accelerated action. Stronger legal frameworks, increased financing, genuine inclusion of indigenous voices, and meaningful national implementation are all essential pieces. The Kunming-Montreal framework has set the direction – what happens next depends on whether governments, communities, and institutions can translate commitments into real change on the ground.

What do you think? Given that none of the 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets were fully achieved by 2020, what would need to change – in terms of governance, funding, or political will – for the Kunming-Montreal GBF targets to succeed by 2030? And how much more effective do you think conservation efforts could be if traditional ecological knowledge were formally integrated into national biodiversity strategies worldwide?

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

International conservation efforts: the global frameworks driving action 🔗

The “30 by 30” target: the headline commitment 🔗

Role of national biodiversity strategies 🔗

The implementation gap 🔗

Community-based conservation: local stewardship as a global solution 🔗

Real-world examples of community conservation in action 🔗

What makes CBC work – and where it struggles 🔗

Future goals for biodiversity: the path beyond 2030 🔗