A new global analysis suggests conservation maps are missing a substantial amount of land already managed for nature. But a larger total does not establish that wildlife is recovering—or that the world has met its conservation promises.
The study published in Nature on 14 October 2026 estimates that conservation areas covered 26.81% of the terrestrial realm in 2022. Researchers combined international records with national and subnational datasets, extrapolating from a sample across 25 countries and territories.
That estimate includes 15.79% in internationally recognised protected areas, another 3.64% in nationally recognised protected areas, and 7.38% in places potentially eligible for recognition as other effective area-based conservation measures, or OECMs. The final category is possible coverage, not a list of formally approved sites.
The date matters. This is a new analysis of an earlier conservation landscape, not evidence that protection suddenly expanded to almost 27% this month. Its findings also leave substantial gaps in the representation of different ecosystems.
Why a global map can miss local conservation
The research builds on a sampling framework published in Oryx. That work tackled a practical problem: collecting detailed information from every country would require considerable time and resources, while useful records can already exist nationally without appearing in international databases.
Its approach sought a manageable sample reflecting variation in both biodiversity and the conditions shaping conservation, including geography, income and governance. Sampling can reveal a reporting gap; it cannot substitute for checking and recognising individual sites.
For policymakers, the distinction changes the next question. Before assuming every unrecorded hectare needs a new conservation arrangement, it is worth establishing what already happens there, who is responsible and what support is missing.
Conservation does not require one ownership model
The IUCN’s site-level guidance describes OECMs as places outside protected areas that sustain biodiversity over the long term. Conservation can be their main purpose, a secondary purpose or a consequence of management directed towards another goal.
Such sites can be governed by public authorities, private organisations, Indigenous Peoples or local communities, including shared arrangements. The important test is what management achieves for biodiversity over time, rather than whether the place carries a familiar national-park label.
Recognition is voluntary. IUCN’s guidance requires consent from the governing authority and Indigenous Peoples and local communities whose self-identified territories overlap the site, alongside other relevant rights-holders and stakeholders. Where a site does not meet the criteria, assessment can identify missing evidence or improvements needed in governance and management.
That makes recognition a process with people, not simply an exercise in colouring more land on a map. A promising estimate should not become a shortcut around those decisions.
The 30% promise has conditions attached
The Global Biodiversity Framework’s Target 3 calls for conserving at least 30% of terrestrial and inland-water areas, and coastal and marine areas, by 2030. Its requirements extend beyond size: conservation networks should represent ecological diversity, connect habitats, work effectively and be governed fairly.
These conditions address different problems. Representation asks whether different kinds of nature are included. Connectivity asks whether conserved places function within wider landscapes. Fair governance concerns participation, rights and how costs and benefits are shared. A single percentage cannot answer all three.
In the University of Kent’s account of the findings, researchers highlight remaining protection gaps for grasslands and shrublands. They also emphasise better management and recognition of conservation already recorded nationally. This account comes from the research institution; it is not an independent replication of the study.
Follow the evidence beyond the boundary
For readers assessing a conservation announcement, useful questions follow: Which habitats does it cover? Who makes decisions? What threats are being addressed? What observations will show whether the intervention is working?
SMD’s reporting on how bird counts help identify important habitat illustrates the value—and limitations—of that evidence. Repeated surveys can reveal places important to migratory birds, but uneven observation leaves gaps, and identifying a site does not itself give it legal protection.
Coverage records and ecological monitoring therefore answer different questions. One describes the extent of conservation arrangements; the other helps establish what is happening to the living systems within and around them.
Recognising overlooked stewardship could make conservation policy more realistic and support people already doing valuable work. The opportunity is to connect that recognition with resources, rights and evidence of lasting results. A more complete map is useful when it helps improve what happens on the ground.
Featured photograph: Zebras in NamibRand Nature Reserve, Namibia, photographed on 27 March 2016. Illustrative image; not evidence of the status or outcomes of any site assessed in the study. Photo: Pemba.mpimaji, via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0. Resized for web; adapted versions of the photograph are shared under the same licence.
