Once threat indices and objectives are defined, companies begin implementing conservation actions tailored to site-specific conditions. Key resources include:

• The IUCN Conservation Actions Classification Scheme for categorising interventions
• The PANORAMA and Conservation Evidence platforms for reviewing effective practices
• The Conservation Planning Specialist Group for tools, training, and project inventories
• Good Practice Guidelines for protected and managed areas

Actions should be tracked using standardised categories to enable cross-site comparisons and inform future planning.

‍

Effective biodiversity outcomes require collaboration across sectors and scales. Companies should:

• Partner with local communities, NGOs, and government agencies
• Identify lead implementation partners with conservation expertise
• Invest in capacity development to ensure long-term sustainability
• Use state-of-nature metrics and KPIs to track progress and foster accountability

Adaptive management — refining actions based on monitoring results — is essential. Guidance is available from IUCN’s evaluation toolkit and related literature.

Leakage of Threats
Reducing threats in one area may unintentionally shift them elsewhere. This “leakage” can undermine conservation gains. Companies should:

• Monitor pressures inside and outside project boundaries
• Use landscape-scale approaches to mitigate leakage
• Refer to carbon market frameworks (e.g., Verified Carbon Standard REDD+) for leakage assessment

Linking Threat Reduction to Species Status
Monitoring species response is critical but varies in complexity:

• Easier for visible, large species (e.g., savanna herbivores)
• Challenging for cryptic, seasonal, or nocturnal species
• More impactful for range-restricted species, where site-level actions affect a larger portion of their habitat

Additional Considerations

• Non-linear threat-species relationships: Some threats (e.g., invasive predators) may have disproportionate impacts even at low levels
• Synergistic threats: Infrastructure development may trigger secondary threats like hunting or invasive species
• Scale effects: Threat reduction may have varying benefits depending on site size and species ecology

The IUCN SSC Species Monitoring Specialist Group offers resources to support species-level monitoring and address these complexities.

Monitoring must go beyond action tracking to assess actual changes in threat levels. Two approaches are recommended:

1. Trend Analysis: Compare threat levels over time at the intervention site
2. Counterfactual Comparison: Use control sites to assess what would happen without intervention

Challenges include finding ecologically and socially comparable control sites. Despite difficulties, studies show that robust experimental frameworks are possible.

Monitoring should also:

• Detect emergent threats and changes in non-targeted threats
• Account for leakage and policy-driven changes across the landscape
• Be designed to support transparency and stakeholder engagement

Resources on biodiversity offsets and counterfactual design are available from the World Bank and Forest Trends.