New framework reveals that much protected nature exists only on paper

On paper, Denmark appears to be well on the way to achieving one of the world’s most important biodiversity targets: protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030. According to official figures, 15% of Denmark’s land area and 29% of its marine area are already protected.

But the figures depend on a far more fundamental question: when is biodiversity actually protected?

Today, countries often define and report protected nature in very different ways.

“The figures have largely been known from the Biodiversity Council’s previous reports. What is new is that we have now developed a framework that other countries could, in principle, replicate step by step,” says lead author Pil Birkefeldt Møller Pedersen from the Department of Biology – Ecoinformatics and Biodiversity, Aarhus University, Denmark.

When they applied the framework to Denmark, the gap between the official figures and actual protection became striking.

“The most noticeable thing is the difference between what we report as protected and what actually appears to be effectively protected. On land, we go from 15% to 1.7% – and at sea from 29% to 1.9%.”

For example, the analysis examines whether areas have legal protection, clear conservation objectives and effective safeguards against activities such as agriculture, forestry and bottom trawling.

“The question is not just how many square kilometres are coloured in as protected on a map. The question is whether ecosystems are genuinely being given the chance to function — because that is the foundation of biodiversity.”

The study therefore raises a broader question: has nature conservation in some places become more of an administrative exercise than an assessment of what biodiversity actually needs?

When protected nature is still being farmed and trawled

The problem is especially evident in the Natura 2000 system. This forms the backbone of European nature conservation and is automatically included in the European Union’s official accounting of protected areas.

“Natura 2000 is absolutely central to European nature conservation. But an area may well be protected on paper without the entire ecosystem actually being protected.”

According to the analysis, more than one third of Natura 2000 areas in Denmark have activities that continue to harm biodiversity. On land, this includes intensive agriculture and forestry. At sea, it mainly involves bottom-towed fisheries such as bottom trawling.

“So the question becomes: should areas count towards the 30 x 30 target as protected if the activities within them continue to harm biodiversity?”

For example, the researchers point to marine bird protection areas, in which birds on the sea surface are protected while the seabed below can still be damaged by bottom trawling.

“An area may well be protected for birds on the sea surface without the water column and seabed below actually being protected. If Natura 2000 is to remain the backbone of European nature conservation, we need to have an honest discussion about where the system works – and where it does not. The European Union’s biodiversity strategy talks about robust ecosystems – not just isolated parts of them.”

According to the researchers, if European Union countries do not all mean the same thing by protected nature, the official European figures may paint an overly optimistic picture of the state of biodiversity.

A global biodiversity target built on an ambiguous concept

When the world’s countries adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework under the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity in 2022, the 30 × 30 target quickly became a global symbol of the ambition to halt the biodiversity crisis: 30% of land and sea must be protected by 2030.

The target also appears in the European Union’s own Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, which additionally states that one third of these areas — equivalent to 10% of land and sea — should be strictly protected.

But behind this simple figure lies a far more complicated question: what does protected actually mean?

“We have been very focused on how much area has been designated but far less on whether the areas actually protect biodiversity effectively.”

According to the researchers, biodiversity policy in many places has come to focus more on percentages of land and sea than on whether ecosystems actually function.

The European Commission’s guidelines broadly describe which areas can count towards the target, but according to the researchers, many of the formulations are open to interpretation.

“Some parts of those texts are vague and highly flexible. For example, what does it mean in concrete terms that management should be effective? Or that a strictly protected area should be large enough for ecological processes to occur ‘essentially undisturbed’? How large must an area be? Which processes are we talking about?”

Biodiversity is far harder to measure than climate change

According to the analysis, this reflects a wider gap in the biodiversity crisis: the targets are becoming increasingly ambitious, while nature protection often lags behind. In addition, the biodiversity crisis differs from the climate crisis in that it is far more difficult to measure and communicate.

“In the climate sphere, we have CO₂ equivalents as a common yardstick. Biodiversity, on the other hand, spans everything from genes and species to entire ecosystems. That is why it is much harder to measure the state of biodiversity with a single metric.”

The study also touches on a politically sensitive debate. If only areas with genuine biodiversity protection are counted, the official figures become significantly lower.

“There is, of course, enormous political pressure to demonstrate progress towards the ambitious 30 × 30 target. But if you overestimate the level of protection, you also risk underestimating the need for action.”

The ambitious area targets can therefore create pressure to count existing areas towards the target even when protection is limited in practice. At the same time, nature conservation competes with many other interests on both land and sea.

The researchers turned broad European Union guidelines into concrete criteria

To investigate how much of Denmark’s nature can genuinely count towards the 30 × 30 target, the researchers took the European Commission’s own guidelines as their starting point.

“What is new is not the figures themselves — the Danish Biodiversity Council has published those before. What is new is that the framework allows us to show very clearly where and why protection breaks down — and where it could be improved. The goal has been to develop a framework that other countries can replicate, making the figures easier to compare across the European Union.”

The broad formulations were translated into 10 specific criteria. Five criteria applied to protected areas, and five additional criteria applied to strictly protected areas.

For example, an area had to have long-term legal protection, clear conservation objectives and effective protection against activities that harm biodiversity.

Three steps reveal where and why biodiversity protection fails

The analysis was carried out in three stages.

First, the researchers identified all protection schemes in Denmark and potential areas that could count towards the 30 x 30 target.

They then excluded areas in which human activities continue to harm biodiversity.

On land, this included intensive agriculture, commercial forestry and infrastructure. At sea, the analysis focused particularly on bottom trawling.

“ There is a fairly broad scientific consensus that bottom trawling is harmful.”

For the marine analysis, the researchers used GPS data from Danish fishing vessels to map which parts of the seabed had been trawled over a five-year period and information about where trawling is banned.

On land, they combined geodata on agriculture, forestry, protected areas and land use. Finally, the individual protection schemes were assessed against the 10 criteria for protected and strictly protected areas — with the important addition that the criteria had to apply to the entire ecosystem, not just one element of it.

“With this method, it is possible to pinpoint precisely where and why biodiversity is failing, and what is needed to improve its protection. For example, is it because the seabed is actively being trawled today, or is it not currently being trawled, but could in principle be trawled tomorrow because it is not legally protected through a trawl ban? Or is only part of the ecosystem protected, while other parts have been neglected?”

From nearly 30% protected sea to under 2%

Officially, Denmark reports that 15% of its land area and 29% of its marine area contribute to the 30 × 30 target. But when the areas are assessed against the 10 criteria and from an ecosystem perspective, the figures fall to 1.7% on land and 1.9% at sea.

“The results may look harsh, but where uncertainty exists because of limited knowledge, we do not conclude that an area cannot count. Instead, we conclude that an individual assessment of the area is needed.”

On land, only a few protection schemes met the criteria, including Denmark’s nature national parks. At sea, this mainly applied to protected areas with bans on bottom trawling.

Large parts of the Natura 2000 system were either excluded entirely or required further assessment. This included areas with agriculture, forestry or seabeds exposed to bottom trawling.

“If we include areas where activities continue to harm biodiversity, the 30% target risks becoming more symbolic than real.”

No areas in Denmark met the criteria for strict protection

The analysis also showed that many areas are not legally protected against future activities and interventions. At sea, the analysis identified areas in which bottom trawling is not currently practised intensively but not banned in the future.

On land, the analysis highlighted problems with private Section 3 areas, where nature can effectively “grow out” of protection because active management is not required, allowing open habitats gradually to turn into forest.

The researchers also found that no areas in Denmark currently clearly meet the criteria for “strictly protected areas”.

“We found no areas that clearly met all the criteria for strict protection.”

According to the researchers, this does not mean that the areas lack natural value. But it shows how large the gap still is between the ambitions for “strictly protected nature” and the protection that exists in practice.

Protected nature may be overstated across Europe

The problem likely extends far beyond Denmark. A British analysis from 2021 and studies of marine protected areas in the European Union from 2024 have also found major differences between nature that counts as protected on paper and protection in practice.

“There is a difference between designating nature as protected — and actually protecting biodiversity.”

If the analysis holds true, the study challenges not only conservation figures for Denmark but also how the world measures progress in the biodiversity crisis.

“If we believe nature is better protected than it actually is, we also risk underestimating the need for action. And if the official figures are inflated into something they are not, this could undermine confidence in the entire system in the long run.”

The aim is also to make it clearer what countries actually count as protected nature.

“It would be extremely valuable to repeat this exercise across Europe — and a step towards actually reversing biodiversity loss.”

Biodiversity often loses out to other crises

Nature protection competes with many other agendas on land and sea.

“In Denmark, we are planning activities that, taken together, cover more than 100% of the area. There are so many things we want to do with our land and sea, and biodiversity seems to have a rather low priority.”

The pressure on protected areas does not come solely from traditional activities such as agriculture and fishing.

“The green transition can also create new conflicts. At sea, for example, we have seen how protection has already been weakened in recent years to make room for renewable energy development.”

In addition, the biodiversity crisis is often sidelined by other considerations such as climate, energy supply and food security.

“Other priorities constantly take precedence over biodiversity — despite growing evidence that stronger biodiversity protection could also create major synergies for climate and drinking water.”

Ultimately, the question is whether ecosystems are genuinely being given the chance to function.

“If 30 × 30 is to become a real turning point for biodiversity, it also requires real protection.”