NEWS
land controlled by settlers. Although in-
digenous people make up less than five
percent of the global population, they
own or manage about 25 percent of the
Earth’s land—much of it far more diverse
and sustainably managed than the re-
maining three quarters. And despite
the challenges of poverty and insecure
land rights, indigenous people and local
communities spend around four billion
dollars a year on conservation—a signifi-
cant chunk of the total global spend of
about 21 billion.
But Tauli-Corpuz, who is indigenous her-
self, says ideologies change slowly, and
for many the full-time presence of peo-
ple making a living seems incompatible
with conservation. “I think they are still
trapped in the idea that people should
not be intervening in nature,” she says.
“I came from a meeting in Nairobi a few
days ago, and almost all the speakers
were still speaking about this issue.”
She has called for a grievance mecha-
nism to be set up, so that indigenous
people can formally complain to the
United Nations if they are harmed by
conservation projects, but this has not
yet been done. Restitution of land and
resources taken by earlier conservation
projects has by and large not happened
yet either, she adds. “Calling for an in-
crease without dealing with the issues
raised by indigenous people is going to
be problematic,” she says.
Those behind the 2030 call say that land
managed and inhabited by indigenous
people and other local communities will
count toward the target. “Protecting bi-
odiversity means protecting indigenous
rights,” says O’Donnell. “That is going
to be at the center of 30 percent for the
planet, rather than in conflict with it.”
Innovative new approaches
Some areas are managed by local peo-
ple for both conservation and sustaina-
ble use. O’Donnell and Baillie both gave
the example of the Northern Rangelands
Trust, a consortium of conservancies in
Kenya in which local pastoralists from
18 different ethnic groups manage their
land for both livestock grazing and wild
animal conservation, with the financial
and logistical support of NGOs and gov-
ernmental institutions.
The project makes clear that not all of the
“protected areas” in the 30 percent tar-
get will look like the kind of parks and re-
serves many Americans are familiar with.
The International Union for the Conser-
vation of Nature has created a typology
of categories of protected areas, ranging
from Type Ia, “Strict Nature Reserves,”
with limited access for people, to Type
IV, “Protected area with sustainable use
of natural resources”—which more or
less describes many places where indig-
enous people live today.
Grassroots
Vol 19
No 1
This, coupled with the superior track
record of indigenous people in protect-
ing biodiversity, is why Erle Ellis, an en-
vironmental scientist at the University of
Maryland, Baltimore County says that as
far as he is concerned, “enforcement of
indigenous sovereignty should be auto-
matically part of that 30 percent.”
Beyond the many flavors of “protected
area,” the call includes room for “Oth-
er Effective Area Based Conservation
Measures.” As the capitalization hints,
this is not just a vague phrase, but an
increasingly codified category of land
management, first sketched out in the
2011 Aichi targets. One report defines it
as “a geographically defined space, not
recognized as a protected area, which is
governed and managed over the long-
term in ways that deliver the effective in-
situ conservation of biodiversity, with as-
sociated ecosystem services and cultural
and spiritual values.”
Potential examples include traditional
hunting and gathering grounds; natural
areas on military bases; areas set aside
for scientific research; sacred sites and
cemeteries; pastures of native grass-
lands; or even diverse city parks.
Avoiding “paper parks”
According to the groups’ vision state-
ment, the 30 percent that is protected
won’t just be the part that is cheapest
and easiest to protect but should be
fully representative of the diversity of the
planet’s ecosystems. Yet that may be dif-
ficult to achieve by 2030, says Ellis.
“The big question about getting to 30
percent in a little over ten years is wheth-
er the speed is going to sacrifice qual-
ity,” he says. “It would be a shame if peo-
ple tried to get there fast by conserving
the land that isn’t really under pressure.”
Likewise, he says, conserving land with-
out making sure there is long-term fund-
ing to manage it and plans to ensure
the stability and prosperity of surround-
ing communities risks creating “paper
parks” that are routinely plundered of re-
sources by those who don’t have a stake
in the area or are driven by necessity. “By
trying to move too past it is possible that
they will create a huge realm of failed
conservation,” he warns.
So the emerging vision is more complex
than the “30 percent by 2030” slogan
may suggest. By 2030, leading conser-
vationists say, Earth should dedicate 30
percent of its land and sea to a robustly
financed, locally supported, ecologically
representative mix of areas managed for
the benefit of nature.
This story was produced in partnership
with the National Geographic Society.
March 2019
12