This review examines how global conservation targets can be made more useful, measurable and accountable. Published in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the paper looks at the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and asks a practical question: are current biodiversity targets clear enough to show what is working, what is failing and where action should go next?

The authors do not deny the scale of biodiversity loss. Species are still disappearing faster than natural background rates, habitats continue to be converted, and many populations remain under pressure. But the paper pushes back against vague or alarmist claims that are not backed by solid metrics. Its central point is sharper: conservation can work, but only when progress is tracked through clear evidence.

The review highlights several areas where conservation has already made a measurable difference. Conservation actions have prevented some extinctions, helped declining populations recover, expanded protected areas on land and at sea, and supported targeted interventions such as invasive species eradication, genetic rescue and species reintroductions. At the same time, the authors point to major gaps, especially in monitoring restoration outcomes, dryland and marine habitat change, and the real conservation impact of community-led approaches.

For policy and practice, the message is direct. Global biodiversity targets need stronger, more transparent indicators. Protecting 30 percent of land and sea is not enough if those areas are not well chosen, well managed and linked to species recovery. The paper calls for conservation actors, including governments and NGOs, to report success and failure more openly, using measurable results rather than broad claims. In this sense, the article is less a warning than a demand for discipline: if conservation is to scale, it needs numbers that mean something.

Pimm et al., 2026. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2025.2626