Comparing Conservation Approaches
A new international study led by the University of Helsinki has revealed sharp contrasts between two widely used strategies for protecting biodiversity. The target-based approach requires each species to meet a set protection threshold, such as safeguarding 30% of its habitat. By contrast, the flexible or average-coverage method focuses on maximizing overall habitat protection without strict guarantees for individual species.
Gains and Losses in Coverage
The research found that the flexible approach often results in higher overall coverage across species groups like mammals, trees, butterflies, corals, and birds. However, this comes at the risk of leaving some species with little to no protection. The target-based method, while ensuring that rare and narrowly distributed species receive minimum coverage, delivers lower average protection when considering all species together.
Policy Implications for Global Goals
The findings carry important implications for frameworks such as the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Agreement, which calls for 30% of land and seas to be conserved. Researchers argue that conservation planners must carefully weigh the trade-offs between these strategies and be transparent about which method is applied. They recommend that future reporting track not only the number of species meeting targets but also the extent of protection achieved for those falling short.
