Using biodiversity features to promote an Ecosystem-Based Conservation framework in terrestrial ecosystems

PLOS One | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0336705 November 21, 2025 11 / 18 forests hosting over 60% of global terrestrial vertebrates and comprising a substantial portion of global biodiversity) [59]. The majority of the biodiversity taxa in Tanzania, in non-protected areas of these species-rich, diverse ecosystems, have received little conservation attention. This suggests many species are inadequately protected, given that the proportion of unprotected areas within these ecosystems ranges from 11% in the most protected to 92% in the least protected. These results should be useful not only to national and international decision-makers, but to everyone with a stake in Tanzania’s diverse ecosys- tems [60]. In order to address the current gaps in awareness, conservation protection and formal designation, it is crucial to adopt the EBC framework that encompasses whole ecosystems, thus broadening the current but fragmented protected area approach to biodiversity conservation. This EBC framework is particularly timely as conservation efforts intensify in response to biodiversity loss, alongside recognition of the need for conservation actions to incorporate multiple knowledge types and stakeholder groups, to achieve balanced environmental as well as socio-economic and cultural outcomes. Level of protection versus biodiversity conservation In common with Brazil and Venezuela, Tanzania has successfully designated more than 39% of its terrestrial land [61,62] as PAs [40], exceeding conservation targets [63]. This includes PAs, such as National Parks, Conservation

Areas, Nature Reserves, Forest Reserves, Forest Nature Reserves, Game Reserves, Marine Parks and Reserves, Game-Controlled Areas, Open Game Areas, and Wildlife Management Areas [40,63]. Despite the proportion of des- ignated PAs in Tanzania exceeding the Global Biodiversity Framework Target 3 [6], our findings show that more than 50% of the majority of terrestrial ecosystems in Tanzania lack formal protection. Most conservation efforts currently tend to focus on the protection of biodiversity found within PAs, even though significant biodiversity is known to occur beyond these areas [64]. For example, 56% of Wildebeest movements occurred outside of the protection of Taran- gire, Manyara, and Lake Natron National Parks [65]; and 10–20% of Tanzania tree species are found outside PAs [66]. Whilst the PA-oriented conservation approach is long recognized as a cornerstone in safeguarding biodiversity [67], its effectiveness in halting ongoing biodiversity loss is limited [7]. Amongst the reasons for this is a prevalent misconception surrounding conservation frameworks, where the term “conservation” is often erroneously equated with “protection”. This misinterpretation implies that conservation efforts should mostly focused on PAs. To address this gap, an ecosystem-based conservation framework is urgently needed to ensure biodiversity conservation is properly integrated into broader social-ecological landscapes management, processes that extend well beyond PAs [68,69]. Distribution and abundance estimates of biodiversity features and levels of protection

Our results show indicative estimates of the distribution of biodiversity features in Tanzanian ecosystems. Montane forest ecosys- tem had the highest sum total of reported biodiversity features, reflecting its important role as a biodiversity hotspot and a refuge for many endemic species, particularly closed-forest specialists [70]. In contrast, other ecosystems including miombo woodland and savannas, had a lower sum total of biodiversity features, suggesting spatial heterogeneity in biodiversity distribution. Tanzania has 677 PAs, with over 90% classified as PPAs. However, the distribution of PAs is uneven, and a high number of PAs does not necessarily align with areas of high biodiversity richness, or the presence of key endemics. Many ecosystems with important biodiversity features remain underrepresented within the PA network. For instance, montane forests harbour endemic species that are increasingly threatened by forest loss and fragmentation, reducing habitat qual- ity and connectivity, and posing further challenges for their long-term survival, yet 70% of this ecosystem remains outside of formal protection designations in Tanzania. These patterns highlight the limitations of relying solely on PA coverage for effective biodiversity conservation. The EBC framework, by contrast, can complement the PA network by addressing gaps in conservation, promoting landscape-scale connectivity, and facilitating participatory restoration and conservation efforts. Adopting EBC strategies in underrepre-

sented ecosystems provides important opportunities to enhance the resilience and sustainability of biodiversity conserva- tion efforts across terrestrial ecosystems.