Post-2020 global biodiversity targets: Why the 30% target misses the mark

Draft Target 2 of the post-2020 global biodiversity target is currently: ‘By 2030, protect and conserve through well connected and effective system of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures at least 30 percent of the planet with the focus on areas particularly important for biodiversity.’

Known more widely as the ‘30 by 30’ target, it is the most well-known and one of the most contentious of the 20 targets under discussion, and it replaces the previous target (intended to be achieved by 2020) of 17% of land area and 10% of marine areas of the planet protected.

As it is currently understood and interpreted, this target is problematic and dangerous, and Forest Peoples Programme does not believe that it should be included in the biodiversity framework as it is. To do so would risk grave human rights impacts and would fail to deliver on the conservation and sustainable use objectives of the Convention it seeks to serve.

15.4% of the world’s land is currently covered by protected areas. To reach 30% would require a near doubling of the area under some form of protection. There is no mention of where these areas would be found, but experience here is a guide. When the target of 17% was set, it was treated as if it was a target for each country – that each nation on earth needed to protect, in one form or another, 17% of their land mass. The target was not intended to be implemented this way, being a global not a national target. Yet it was understood as such, and the 30% target looks set to be understood the same way. That would imply 30% of every country under a protected status by 2030.

What is needed, and argued for by indigenous peoples and local communities, is a vast increase in the area securely titled as managed and owned under indigenous and community tenure. Some argue that the 30% target could be interpreted to enable this, and indeed in certain countries the target may well be reached by recognising indigenous peoples’ tenure rights and conservation contributions. We applaud this where it is possible. However, too many countries in the world do not, or do not sufficiently, recognise, respect or enforce the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities to their traditional lands and territories, particularly in the context of ‘protected areas.’

This target exists in the context of a government-negotiated, voluntary framework for action, and reflects government commitments. In contexts where government recognition of indigenous and community rights is patchy, insufficient or non-existent, this target is dangerous. The history of the expansion of protected areas to date is littered with the expulsion of traditional owners, and a near doubling of the protected area estate without first ensuring that land and territorial rights are fully recognised would ensure that this heavy legacy of rights violations is continued and expanded.

Instead of a 30% target, we seek inclusion of a commitment to secure the tenure of indigenous peoples and local communities. Their tenure rights also have relevance beyond this protected area target, centrally in Target 1 which aims to ‘retain most of the intact and wilderness areas’ and restore degraded ecosystems. Much of what is identified as ‘wilderness’ is instead ecologically rich landscapes sustained and protected by community care. Recognising community land tenure would secure existing positive biodiversity outcomes, and incentivise restoration efforts. Identifying indigenous peoples and local communities as permanent partners throughout the post 2020 biodiversity strategy, and enshrining concrete commitments towards expanding tenure is the key step forward needed for transformative action.

We continue to consult with partners and allies on this target and the broader framework and, in particular, on what is needed in the framework to enable biodiversity conservation, and enable an equitable, just and effective response to our biodiversity crisis.

Photo credit: Justus Menke