World Conference on Nature: What does the “30×30” goal really achieve?

A major goal of the UN Biodiversity Conference is to place 30 percent of land and sea under nature protection. But experts are arguing what that means for species protection.

By Simon Plentinger, BR

At the UN Biodiversity Conference in Montreal, a new strategy for the international community for the coming decade is being negotiated. The rules are intended to help stop the global extinction of species. The draft currently contains 23 goals that the delegations want to adopt by just before Christmas.

One of the most prominent is to protect 30 percent of the world’s land and sea areas by 2030 – also known as the “30×30” target for short. How exactly that should look like is still open. There are still a large number of square brackets in the draft text, aspects on which the delegations have not yet been able to agree. But while the global community is discussing the details, experts are not at all unanimous about how much the goal actually achieves and whether it is the right means of preserving biodiversity.

Where protected areas should be created

Most experts agree that protected areas can fundamentally make an important contribution to preserving biodiversity. Especially when they are large, interconnected, well managed and controlled. An important question, however, is where protected areas are designated. From an ecological point of view, they should ideally be created in regions rich in biodiversity, says biology professor Katrin Böhning-Gaese. Exactly where depends heavily on how biodiversity is recorded, says the director of the Senckenberg Biodiversity and Climate Research Center.

If you look at regions that are particularly rich in species, then the protected areas should be in the Andes or in the East African rift zone or in the Himalayas, says the biologist, who is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences, Leopoldina. With a focus on particularly rare species, the island ecosystems would be added, for example Madagascar or Oceania. “And if you look at the wilderness, where we really still have huge, untouched habitats, then we also have to look far north to Russia or Canada,” says Böhnig-Gaese.

Indigenous Peoples as Managers of Protected Areas?

Indigenous peoples and local communities play a particularly important role in the negotiations in Montreal on how the areas will be managed. In many places it has proven useful to give them responsibility for such areas with their knowledge of local nature. Many indigenous people see the new protected areas as an opportunity to protect their homeland from the overexploitation of nature. But others also fear losing traditional areas if, for example, hunting or agriculture were no longer permitted in strictly protected areas.

Another important question is: How strictly are the areas really protected? A great fear of some scientists and conservationists is that even more so-called “paper parks” could arise. In other words, protected areas that only exist on paper but are not really well protected. Biologist Böhning-Gaese says that there are also nature reserves in Europe where protection is not the priority. Above all, there are very few strictly protected areas.

Germany: Only 6.3 percent under protection

In Germany, there are only around 0.6 percent of the area in which there is practically no human use. Nature reserves are located across Germany on about 6.3 percent of the area. Overall, however, there are a large number of different types of protected areas in Europe, some of which overlap.

It is not yet clear how the “30×30” goal would have to be implemented in Germany if it were to be decided in Montreal. For example, it has not yet been decided exactly to what extent each nation state must meet the 30 percent, or whether the requirement should only be met on a global average. However, with its Green Deal, the EU has already committed itself to 30 percent protected areas by 2030. A third of these are to be strictly protected. This was also discussed for the global biodiversity strategy – but it is not included in the current draft in Montreal.

Protection only where it hurts least?

Thomas Brey from the Alfred Wegener Institute in Bremerhaven has a lot of experience fighting for protected areas in the sea. He represents Germany on the Antarctic Commission. The “30×30” goal gives him a headache: “We make the measure the goal of our action and that is extremely dangerous.” The scientist sees the danger that in the end it’s all about how much area is protected, no matter how or where.

Then the areas with the least conflicts of interest would be protected, where it hurts the least, for example in the Sahara or in the Antarctic, just to reach 30 percent: “And you lose sight of the actual goal – that I want to protect , where it’s important, because bad things happen there. That really worries me,” said Brey.

Fisheries – a major problem for species protection

So far, about seven percent of the seas are under protection. The scientist is skeptical as to whether the “30×30” target really contributes to species protection. And whether the states can even agree on the goal and a fair and effective distribution of the areas.

In his view, the most important thing would be to get global fisheries under control. That is one of the main problems. “It’s a big, high-tech industry, with really big boats that fish so efficiently that a single modern deep-sea fishing vessel can fish down a stock all by itself,” says Brey. And this intensive deep-sea fishing, far from their own coasts, is currently being expanded, for example by China.

Why “30×30” is still important

The biologist Böhning-Gaese is nevertheless convinced of the “30×30 target”. It is of course not the only important indicator, but a very handy one. This will help draw attention to the topic. Canada’s Environment and Climate Change Minister, Steven Guilbeault, even called the “30×30” target the “1.5 degree target for biodiversity” in the run-up to the biodiversity conference.

For Böhning-Gaese, the success of the entire conference in Montreal depends on the goal: “If we don’t implement the ’30×30′ goal, with the addition that these are well-managed areas that are well connected to other areas – then this world summit on nature would really have failed. That is one of the goals that absolutely must be achieved.”

Even if the “30×30” target is finally adopted, the individual states still have to implement it. And it will also depend on whether they then invest enough money to manage and control the protected areas well.