Genetic diversity must underpin area-based conservation and restoration targets

Riina Jalonen , Isabel López Noriega, Stephen Cavers, Marius Ekué, Leonardo Gallo, Rekha R Warrier, Yongqi Zheng, Chris J Kettle

The mid-term review of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework reveals highly uneven progress in halting biodiversity loss, especially for genetic diversity (Target 4) which underpins ecosystem function and species’ adaptive potential in a changing environment (Des Roches et al., 2018). Over 70% of the Parties have set national targets to conserve and restore genetic diversity, yet, so far, only 13% report on the related headline indicator A.4 which measures the proportion of species’ populations that are large enough to maintain genetic diversity and evolutionary potential (CBD, 2026). The mid-term review attributes the low reporting rate to the indicator’s novelty and limited technical capacity to collect and interpret relevant data. This gap between national targets and implementation capacity calls for urgent action: genetic resources cannot be restored once lost.
Beyond Target 4 itself, we see a significant missed opportunity to strengthen genetic conservation through improving synergies with the Framework’s other Targets, especially Target 2 on ecosystem restoration and Target 3 on area-based conservation. Ecosystem, species, and genetic diversity are interdependent, but ecosystem-level action is often erroneously assumed to safeguard species and genetic diversity automatically (Schmidt et al., 2025). The Framework reproduces this misconception by measuring the dimensions of biodiversity through disconnected metrics: Target 2 and 3 indicators track ecosystem extent, representativeness, and connectivity, but do not capture whether the conserved and restored ecosystems actually maintain viable populations or conserve diversity within and among populations across species ranges (CBD, 2022). These gaps are not hypothetical: genetic bottlenecks measurably reduce the growth, survival, and resilience of populations (Frankham, 2015). In a recent global meta-analysis, ecological restoration did not increase genetic diversity, only supplementation (adding individuals to an existing population) did – and that, too, only improved genetic diversity in non-threatened species, not in threatened species or species with unknown threat status (Shaw et al., 2025). Paradoxically, restoration practices associated with genetic bottlenecks are common especially in projects aiming to mitigate climate change or restore species-rich forests at scale (Jalonen et al., 2018). Corridors add little value if they connect genetic deserts.