Conservation International (CI) is an American nonprofit environmental organization headquartered in Crystal City, Arlington, Virginia.CI's work focuses on science, policy and partnership with businesses, governments and communities. The organization employs nearly 1,000 people and works with more than 2,000 partners in 29 countries. CI has helped support 1,200 protected areas and interventions across 77 countries, protecting more than 6 million square kilometers (2.3 million square miles) of land and sea.
Surf breaks are increasingly recognized as valuable coastal resources that support recreation, culture, local economies, and human wellbeing. Over the past two decades, research and practice on surf conservation have expanded considerably across disciplines such as coastal and environmental management, tourism and oceanography. While formal mechanisms for surf break management have evolved in some jurisdictions, they are often absent or weakly integrated into formal coastal governance. There is a need for both surf-specific legal instruments and stronger alignment with existing environmental laws and planning frameworks. This Short Communication reflects on key perspectives from the 2026 World Surfing Conservation Conference, held on the Gold Coast, Australia, February 13th-19th 2026. The event convened a diverse international community including researchers, policymakers, practitioners, Indigenous representatives, advocates, athletes and industry stakeholders. In lieu of formal proceedings this article offers a thematic analysis of the 131 conference presentations and recommendations for further embedding a focus on surf resources within mainstream coastal management. The analysis identifies surf protection initiatives and governance gaps as dominant themes alongside opportunities to better connect surf conservation with biodiversity protection. Four priorities are identified: (1) Mainstream surf management within formal coastal governance frameworks, recognizing the spatial and socio-cultural dimensions of surf breaks as natural resources; (2) Leverage existing governance instruments that are already in place for the protection and sustainable management of other natural resources; (3) Apply community values and economic valuation frameworks to support decision-making on surf break management; (4) Ensure that responsibility and accountability for the long-term protection of surf resources is provided and maintained by the relevant governmental authorities.
A global standard for the identification of Key Biodiversity Areas (KBAs) was published 10 years ago to provide a unified set of criteria for identifying 'sites of significance for the global persistence of biodiversity'. We review the initiative's origins, the KBA identification process, characteristics of the current network, threats, policy uptake, private sector applications and future priorities. KBAs are identified using criteria with quantitative thresholds relating to threatened or geographically restricted species or ecosystems, ecological integrity, biological processes, or irreplaceability. These criteria can be applied in terrestrial, inland water, marine and subterranean environments, and to all taxonomic groups. A total of 16,596 KBAs covering 22.1 million km2 has been identified, with 29% of these sites in marine and 26% in freshwater ecosystems. KBAs range from 0.001 km2 to 712,457 km2 in extent, with a median size of 141 km2 and a mean of 1,364 km2. Most (63%) qualify due to the globally threatened species they support, with 48% being important for biological processes and 39% for geographically restricted species. KBAs have been identified for 18,365 qualifying species in total, of which 37% are plants and 32% are birds. The most prevalent threats are biological resource use (hunting, logging, fishing, etc., impacting 40.8% of sites with available data), unsustainable agriculture (40.7%), human intrusions and disturbance (38.4%) and natural systems modifications (water management and fire; 33.4%). KBAs are important for delivering ecosystem services to people, both locally and globally. KBAs have had widespread impact in informing protected area designation in all regions. In total, 10,054 sites (62%) are covered completely or partially by protected areas. Hence, KBAs are highly relevant to Target 3 (and other targets) in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, and to Sustainable Development Goals 14.5, 15.1, and 15.4. Indicators based on KBA data are therefore being used by the Convention on Biological Diversity and United Nations to track progress towards these targets. Many companies and financial institutions use KBAs to assess their exposure to nature-related risks and to identify opportunities for site-level, nature-positive actions. Future priorities include expanding and updating KBA assessments, and strengthening efforts to protect, conserve and safeguard these sites effectively.
Freshwater ecosystems regulate the water cycle, support biodiversity and enhance resilience, yet they remain largely overlooked in global climate policies, and most national commitments lack clear, spatially defined targets for their protection and restoration. Here our global map-derived from 30-m land-cover classification, hydrological networks and floodplain models-reveals around 51 million km2 of rivers, wetlands, headwaters, riparian buffers and floodplains that are critical for water security and disaster risk reduction. Overlaying this map on country members of the Freshwater Challenge, we discuss pathways for integrating freshwater ecosystems into nature-based solutions for climate adaptation and mitigation. Furthermore, by analysing areas where forest would naturally occur within our mapped categories, we show that reforesting degraded croplands and short vegetation could sequester 1.07 and 3.41 gigatonnes of CO2 per year, across 355-484 million hectares. These results provide a practical foundation for aligning global climate goals with regional freshwater targets.
Growing demand for food coupled with climate commitments to reduce emissions will result in more land development for agriculture and renewable energy. Simultaneously, conserving land for biodiversity and nature's contributions to people (NCP) is imperative for achieving international climate, sustainable development, and biodiversity goals. Meeting these interconnected objectives requires efficient land allocation across sectors. Here, we present a flexible, multiple-objective framework for strategically allocating land to mitigate threats to biodiversity and NCP under climate change while supporting development. Application of this framework at a global scale through country-level targets shows that if future development is planned without consideration of nature, demands for land could impact nearly 1 million km2 of high-priority conservation areas. Multi-sector planning can mitigate potential conflict, reducing carbon loss and species exposure. Our findings underscore the need to conserve critical areas for nature, reduce land demand for food and energy, and intentionally coordinate land use across sectors.
Rangers are widely recognised as essential actors in conserving biodiversity, cultural heritage and the rights and well-being of present and future generations. Yet global ranger discourse and policy frameworks have largely focused on state-employed personnel operating within formally designated protected areas. Across Indigenous territories, community conserved areas, other effective area-based conservation measures (OECMs), privately protected areas, etc., many individuals and groups perform comparable functions but remain poorly recognised and supported. Building on the International Ranger Federation’s definition of rangers, we introduce the concept of ‘non-state rangers’: individuals or groups who fulfil ranger functions but are not primarily employed or mandated by state authorities or subnational governments. We note that non-state rangers would include Indigenous rangers working for sovereign governments such as federally-recognised tribes in the United States. Drawing on typologies and examples, the paper analyses relationships between state and non-state rangers and examines associated responsibilities, risks and opportunities. It proposes practical approaches to identifying, engaging with and supporting non-state rangers and offers recommendations for ranger associations, conservation organisations and governments to strengthen inclusive and effective conservation governance.
