Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
201,642 studies31 sourcesUpdated 12 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYNature Communications

Potential of different area-based governance mechanisms for achieving Global Biodiversity Framework goals

  • Pablo José Negret1,2,3,4
  • Víctor J. Rincón-Parra5
  • Kendall R. Jones6,7
  • Vanessa Rathbone7
  • Sidney Novoa8
  • Marvin Pablo Quispe-Huanca8
  • Armando Valdés‐Velásquez9,10
  • Germán Forero‐Medina11
  • Judith Schleicher12
  • Tatsuya Amano13,14
  • Miguel Saravia10
  • Julie Gwendolin Zaehringer15,16,10
16 affiliations
  1. 1Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. [email protected]
  2. 2Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, University of Western Sydney, Richmond, Australia. [email protected]
  3. 3Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. [email protected]
  4. 4Wyss Academy for Nature, Bern, Switzerland. [email protected]
  5. 5Département de biologie, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, Canada
  6. 6School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Science, The University of Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Melbourne, Australia
  7. 7Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY, 10460, USA
  8. 8Asociación para la Conservación de la Cuenca Amazónica, Lima, Perú
  9. 9Grupo de Investigación en Sistemas Socio-Ecológicos, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Perú
  10. 10Wyss Academy for Nature, Bern, Switzerland
  11. 11Wildlife Conservation Society, Cali, Colombia
  12. 12Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH, Eschborn, Germany
  13. 13Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
  14. 14School of The Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
  15. 15Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
  16. 16Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
Open at sourcePDFDOICite

Abstract

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework includes a target of 30% of land protected by 2030 and refers to other effective area based conservation measures (OECMs) as complementary to PAs, but robust evaluations of the effectiveness of governance mechanisms that could act as OECMs in preventing forest loss and carbon emissions remain sparse. Here we assessed the impact of PAs and two potential OECMS: Indigenous Lands (ILs), and Non-Timber Forest products Concessions (NTCs) on forest loss and its associated carbon emissions in the Peruvian Amazon from 2000 to 2021. We also assessed two governance mechanisms with a commercial extractive use, Logging (LCs) and Mining Concessions (MCs). We used a robust before–after control intervention study design, with statistical matching, to account for the non-random spatial distribution of deforestation pressure and the governance mechanisms analysed. PAs were the most effective, having avoided 88% of the expected forest loss, followed by NTCs (64%) and ILs (44%). LCs also reduced expected forest loss by 29%, while MCs increased expected forest loss by 24%, showing that extractive governance mechanisms can have marked differences in their impact to forest cover. Our study provides evidence of long-term positive impacts of potential OECMs and other mechanisms at preventing forest loss and reducing carbon emission. This information is key to more effectively achieve targets from the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Related

  1. Ensuring sustainability and equity within the global wild meat sector is key to achieving the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework targets
    Daniel J. Ingram, Muriel Figuié, Lauren Coad +3
    People and NaturePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textClimate scienceHAL
  2. Trait-based functional indices reveal contrasting carbon-storage and biodiversity-support potential across urban tree species and parks in Bogotá
    Kristian Rubiano
    EcoEvoRxivPreprintPublisher termsFull textEnvironmental science & pollutionEcoEvoRxiv
  3. Biodiversity credits hold promise, yet credit-generating protocols require safeguards to realize potential
    Katherine Culbertson, Sarah Federman, Lucia Catherine Camp +1
    Environmental Research LettersPeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEnvironmental science & pollutionCrossref
  4. Collaborative Governance Mechanisms for Digital Technology Adoption in the Shipping Industry Under ESG Constraint
    Xinyi Qi, Guangnian Xiao, Lang Xu
    SustainabilityPeer-reviewedCC BY9 citedEnvironmental science & pollutionOpenAlex
  5. Synergistic Wetting Mechanisms of Mixed Surfactants at Different Mixing Ratios on Anthracite: Insights from Molecular Dynamics Simulations
    Qilong Zhou, Yibo Li, Lixia Dou
    ACS OmegaPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-ND 4.0Full textHydrology & soilsCrossrefEurope PMCEurope PMCPMC

Cite

BibTeXRIS
BibTeX
@article{negret2026potential,
  title = {{Potential of different area-based governance mechanisms for achieving Global Biodiversity Framework goals}},
  author = {Pablo José Negret and Víctor J. Rincón-Parra and Kendall R. Jones and Vanessa Rathbone and Sidney Novoa and Marvin Pablo Quispe-Huanca and Armando Valdés‐Velásquez and Germán Forero‐Medina and Judith Schleicher and Tatsuya Amano and Miguel Saravia and Julie Gwendolin Zaehringer},
  journal = {Nature Communications},
  year = {2026},
  month = aug,
  doi = {10.1038/s41467-026-76225-9},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-76225-9},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Potential of different area-based governance mechanisms for achieving Global Biodiversity Framework goals
AU  - Pablo José Negret
AU  - Víctor J. Rincón-Parra
AU  - Kendall R. Jones
AU  - Vanessa Rathbone
AU  - Sidney Novoa
AU  - Marvin Pablo Quispe-Huanca
AU  - Armando Valdés‐Velásquez
AU  - Germán Forero‐Medina
AU  - Judith Schleicher
AU  - Tatsuya Amano
AU  - Miguel Saravia
AU  - Julie Gwendolin Zaehringer
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/08/03
JO  - Nature Communications
DO  - 10.1038/s41467-026-76225-9
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-76225-9
AB  - The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework includes a target of 30% of land protected by 2030 and refers to other effective area based conservation measures (OECMs) as complementary to PAs, but robust evaluations of the effectiveness of governance mechanisms that could act as OECMs in preventing forest loss and carbon emissions remain sparse. Here we assessed the impact of PAs and two potential OECMS: Indigenous Lands (ILs), and Non-Timber Forest products Concessions (NTCs) on forest loss and its associated carbon emissions in the Peruvian Amazon from 2000 to 2021. We also assessed two governance mechanisms with a commercial extractive use, Logging (LCs) and Mining Concessions (MCs). We used a robust before–after control intervention study design, with statistical matching, to account for the non-random spatial distribution of deforestation pressure and the governance mechanisms analysed. PAs were the most effective, having avoided 88% of the expected forest loss, followed by NTCs (64%) and ILs (44%). LCs also reduced expected forest loss by 29%, while MCs increased expected forest loss by 24%, showing that extractive governance mechanisms can have marked differences in their impact to forest cover. Our study provides evidence of long-term positive impacts of potential OECMs and other mechanisms at preventing forest loss and reducing carbon emission. This information is key to more effectively achieve targets from the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.
SN  - 2041-1723
ER  -