Just as the climate conference focuses on 1.5 degrees Celsius, the UN biodiversity conference appears to have found its north star—protecting 30 percent of land and sea by 2030. From the moment delegates landed at Montréal-Trudeau airport, adverts at the baggage carousel were frank about Canada’s aims for COP15: achieving 30x30, the tagline for the proposal. The perceived success of the overall conference hangs on this single target, say those who support it. The science is clear that humanity must better protect key parts of the planet. The destruction of forests and other vital ecosystems must stop by 2030 if the world is to meet the 1.5-degree Celsius target, according to the IPCC. But 30x30 is actually just one of more than 20 targets being agreed upon at the COP15 biodiversity conference in Montreal, and it also happens to be one of the most divisive issues on the agenda. Everyone at the summit has an opinion about the most high-profile target and what it should mean: For some it is not ambitious enough, for others it is impossible to enforce, but the main criticism is that area-based conservation violates human rights. This is because of associations of “fortress conservation,” where people who had been stewards of natural spaces for thousands of years were removed from protected areas. Since the 19th century, this has resulted in human rights abuses and millions of people being displaced from their homelands. The language around Indigenous peoples at COP15 is positive, with a focus on “rights-based conservation,” which means Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) are seen as protectors of land. This is supported by science—so even if someone disregarded human rights, it is the most effective way of protecting the planet. Indigenous peoples make up around 5 percent of the world’s population, but they protect 80 percent of its remaining biodiversity. In the current draft of the text, which will be completed at the end of the conference over the weekend of December 17, the exact role of IPLCs when it comes to 30x30 is still being contested. Many are cautious—and these are the people who have the most to lose. “There are very, very painful stories of how Indigenous peoples’ rights have been violated, how they have been killed, taken out of their territory, and caused to become extinct because of the expansion or the establishment of protected areas,” says Jennifer Corpuz, who is part of the Kankana-ey Igorot people in the northern part of the Philippines. She represents the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. Corpuz is keen to start a new chapter, and supports the 30x30 target. “We are here as Indigenous peoples to send the message that we cannot achieve ambitious conservation targets without fully reflecting and respecting and protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples … We cannot achieve 30x30 without Indigenous peoples, I cannot overstress it,” she said. To the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, 30x30 is a crucial part of a successful agreement for protecting key ecosystems and propelling Indigenous-based conservation models, especially in large countries, such as Brazil, Russia, and China. He said his country was starting a “story of reconciliation” with Indigenous peoples. Campaign for Nature is pushing for conserving at least 30 percent of land and sea by 2030, seeing it as a milestone, with its director Brian O’Donnell describing it as a “floor not a ceiling.” O’Donnell says the world should be pushing toward 50 percent, an important step to achieving Harvard biologist EO Wilson’s vision of protecting half the planet for the long-term survival of humanity. When talking about the areas that need to be preserved, it has to include the most biodiverse-rich areas, with connections between them to avoid island conservation, he says. But another point of contention within the target is whether every country has to protect 30x30, or whether it is a global target (ie the Netherlands couldn’t make it, but countries like Brazil could do much more). In this case, richer countries with less biodiversity should be paying poorer, more biodiverse countries to not destroy their nature, as they are international—as well as national—assets. Some countries are asking developed nations how they can be expected not to chop down their forests just as rich countries did in the past. In their opening statement at COP15, the group of megadiverse countries, which includes Brazil, India, and South Africa, said the 30 percent target would require significant financial and technical support. Representatives of IPLCs say that even if this money is agreed upon, it could not reach the people stewarding the land. “It’s not for building theme parks,” one representative said at the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity press conference. They have reason to be worried—at COP27, $1.7 billion was pledged to Indigenous peoples in recognition of their role in protecting biodiversity, but the first-year progress report found only 7 percent of total funding went to IPLC organizations. Another issue is whether sustainable use of resources should be allowed within these protected areas and, therefore, what it actually means for something to be protected. In England, for example, the government says it is protecting around 28 percent of land for nature, but in reality it is closer to 3 percent, one report found. The EU—which is championing 30x30—was accused of trying to water down the target by arguing that extractive industries, such as mining and drilling, should be allowed in protected areas, provided they do not negatively affect biodiversity. Some argue that 30x30 is a distraction from the rampant overconsumption that drives biodiversity loss—and it is actually the endless extraction of the planet’s resources that needs to be tackled. If achieved in isolation, 30x30 would just result in more rapid destruction of the remaining 70 percent of the planet, not under official state protection. This is where other targets—such as businesses taking into account their impacts on nature, rewilding subsidies, cutting down pollution and pesticides—all become important. Achieving an agreement on 30x30 will be a milestone, but COP15 will only have any hope of stemming biodiversity loss if all parts of the agreement work.
