A study in Nature Communications compares five forms of land governance in the Peruvian Amazon and finds markedly different outcomes for forest loss and associated carbon emissions. As countries work toward the global 30×30 biodiversity target, the findings draw attention to a harder question: under what conditions can different forms of governance sustain conservation over time? 

By 2030, countries have committed to effectively conserving and managing at least 30% of terrestrial and inland water areas, and of coastal and marine areas. But that 30% can encompass different forms of conservation and governance.  

Protected areas are one route. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework also includes other effective area-based conservation measures, or OECMs – places outside protected-area systems that nevertheless deliver positive and sustained biodiversity conservation – and recognizes Indigenous and traditional territories. The target therefore concerns not only how much area is conserved, but whether conservation is effective, sustained, and equitably governed.  

A study led by Dr. Pablo Negret of the Wyss Academy’s Land Systems and Sustainability Transformations Research Team examines what this looks like in practice. The research was co-authored by Wyss Academy colleagues Prof. Dr. Armando Valdés-Velásquez, Dr. Miguel Saravia, and Prof Dr. Julie Zähringer, alongside an international team of researchers and conservation practitioners.  

Published in Nature Communications in August 2026, the study approaches the question at two scales. Globally, the researchers assessed human pressure across OECMs. They then turned to the Peruvian Amazon, where several forms of land governance exist side by side, to compare protected areas, Indigenous Lands, non-timber forest product concessions, logging concessions, and mining concessions in terms of forest loss and associated carbon emissions.  

“The 30×30 target should not only be about how much land we conserve, but about whether conservation actually works,” says Negret. 

Simply comparing forest loss inside a protected or conserved area with forest loss outside it can give a misleading picture. Protected areas, for instance, may be established in places that were less likely to be cleared in the first place. 

The researchers therefore used statistical matching. They compared 30-by-30-meter patches of forest (represented as individual pixels in the satellite data) inside the different governance arrangements with similar patches outside them, taking into account factors associated with deforestation risk – including accessibility, proximity to settlements and roads, elevation, slope, rainfall, and population density. Forest loss was tracked between 2005 and 2021 using satellite-derived data. The results differed markedly between governance arrangements. 

Strictly protected areas (IUCN categories I and II) showed the largest estimated reductions in forest loss: around 60% compared with matched control areas for the ones with strict protection. The ones permitting certain human activities and sustainable resource extraction (IUCN categories III to VI) reduced expected forest loss by about 49%. 

But protected areas were not the only governance mechanism where the researchers found measurable differences. Non-timber forest product concessions were associated with about 26% less forest loss than comparable control areas, while Indigenous Lands were associated with about 21% less. 

The pattern was reversed for the two predominantly extractive governance arrangements studied. Logging concessions were associated with around 13% more forest loss than matched controls, and mining concessions with around 24% more.  

The researchers also estimated the carbon emissions associated with forest loss. Non-timber forest product concessions were associated with about 37% lower emissions than their controls and Indigenous Lands with about 24% lower emissions.  

Looking only at the average for each governance type, however, misses part of the story. 

When the researchers examined individual sites, conservation effectiveness varied substantially within the same category. Some sites performed much better than others. In Indigenous Lands, for example, larger territories tended to perform better in preventing forest loss, although site size alone explained little of the overall variation. 

The variation between sites points to a deeper question: why do some places achieve better conservation outcomes than others, even under the same broad governance arrangement? 

The study points to characteristics such as accessibility, site configuration, size, and governance capacity as areas for further investigation. The authors argue that understanding these differences is key for policy and practice because sites – rather than broad governance categories – are where management decisions are ultimately made. 

The same caution applies beyond Peru. In the global analysis, OECMs generally had much lower human pressure than the global average, but pressure varied widely. Around 69% of the individual OECMs examined had more than half of their area under high human pressure. 

A designation, in other words, does not by itself tell us how conservation is working on the ground. 

Those findings have particular implications for Indigenous territories. The study adds to evidence that Indigenous governance can make substantial contributions to forest conservation, while also arguing for greater recognition and support for those contributions. 

The authors call for greater access to resources for Indigenous communities to monitor biodiversity and protect their territories from damaging and illegal extractive activities. They also emphasize direct Indigenous participation in environmental and forestry policymaking. 

Recognizing the contribution of Indigenous governance for conservation outcomes does not necessarily mean treating them as OECMs. Target 3 of the Global Biodiversity Framework recognizes Indigenous and traditional territories alongside protected areas and OECMs as potential avenues for biodiversity conservation and requires that the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, including rights over traditional territories, be respected. CBD guidance also states that decisions concerning these territories should involve free, prior, and informed consent. 

As Professor Julie Zäringer, Senior author of the publication puts it: “Recognizing these different contributions, while respecting their distinct forms of governance and rights, will be crucial if global biodiversity targets are to translate into real conservation outcomes on the ground.” 

The distinction goes beyond technicalities. It is about recognizing conservation without losing sight of the different rights, histories, and ways of governing land that shape how these places are managed. 

These questions are becoming increasingly relevant as governments move from setting global targets to implementing them. COP17, taking place in Yerevan from 19–30 October 2026, will include the first collective review of progress in implementing the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. 

For the Wyss Academy, the study feeds into ongoing work on how OECMs can contribute to conservation in practice. In 2026, this work focuses on comparing national OECM processes, examining the benefits and limitations of different governance arrangements, and developing assessment approaches together with communities, practitioners, and policymakers. The aim is to build a stronger evidence base for decisions about where OECMs may be appropriate and how their conservation benefits can be monitored over time. 

The findings sharpen the question rather than settle it. The paper calls for more research into the institutional, financial, social, and ecological conditions that shape conservation performance across different contexts. 

For countries working toward 30×30, the findings point to a more demanding task than expanding the area under conservation alone: understanding why different governance arrangements work in some places and not in others, how those outcomes can be sustained, and how conservation goals can be pursued while respecting the rights and governance systems already shaping those landscapes.