Skip to main content

30 by 30 Must Mean Better Conservation, Not Just More Lines on a Map

Written by Amaterra
Leave a Comment

Protected-area targets can help nature. They can also hide weak governance unless quality and consent are counted alongside coverage.

The global goal to conserve 30 percent of land, inland waters, and seas by 2030 is often shortened to “30 by 30.” It was adopted in the KMGBF during COP 15 just a few weeks ago. It is a useful rallying point, but the shorthand can mislead.

A large protected area on paper is not automatically a safe habitat, a well-supported community, or a successful conservation effort.

Documented protection and conservation cover only about 17.6 percent of land and inland waters and 8.4 percent of marine and coastal areas. Just as important, it found major gaps in information about whether areas are effectively managed, fairly governed and respectful of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

This should change the public conversation. We need maps, but we also need to ask who chose the boundary, who governs it, who benefits from it and what happens to people whose homes and livelihoods are already there. Indigenous and traditional territories, when recognized with consent, make an enormous contribution to area-based conservation. The work ahead is not a race to colour more territory green. It is a commitment to repair governance, recognize existing stewardship and invest in the people who make conservation endure.

For readers, 30 by 30 can become a useful prompt rather than a distant slogan. Ask how local conservation areas are governed. Support organizations that strengthen land rights, restoration skills and community decision-making. Look for monitoring that reports on social as well as ecological outcomes. And when an announcement celebrates a new protected area, ask whether the people already caring for the place were involved from the beginning. The path to 2030 should lead to healthier ecosystems and stronger local stewardship, not simply to a more impressive global percentage.

There is no single model for answering those questions. In some places, Indigenous governance or community conserved territories may already be doing much of the work and need legal recognition, secure tenure and direct support. In others, shared governance may be appropriate, provided the partnership has real authority rather than symbolic participation. Elsewhere, protected areas need honest reforms to address past harms. What should be avoided is the assumption that new targets justify a fast, top-down land rush. Conservation works at the pace of trust, and trust cannot be declared on a map.

That distinction matters because a boundary can conceal as much as it reveals. A park may be large but placed where land is least contested, while crucial wetlands, migration corridors or spawning grounds remain unprotected. A reserve may be formally designated but lack staff, financing or local legitimacy. It may even create new pressures outside its boundary if nearby communities lose access to land without alternatives. The most revealing questions are therefore practical ones: Is the area ecologically connected? Is it resourced for the long term? Are local people able to participate in decisions and raise concerns? Are women, youth and customary institutions included, rather than represented only in a consultation list?

Biodiversity,

From Glasgow to Kunming: Why Environmental Promises Need Local Accountability

Written by Amaterra
Leave a Comment

By the end of 2021, climate, biodiversity and restoration had become one connected agenda. The challenge was no longer only ambition. It was who would define, finance and monitor implementation.

By late 2021, a pattern had become hard to ignore. Climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation and pollution were not separate environmental files to be managed by separate institutions. They were overlapping pressures with shared causes and shared consequences. UNEP’s Making Peace With Nature report described this as a triple planetary crisis and argued that the three emergencies must be addressed together. The language was significant because it challenged the habit of treating a forest as a climate issue in one room, a biodiversity issue in another and a livelihood issue somewhere else.

International meetings reflected that convergence. The Glasgow Climate Pact, adopted at COP26, aimed to make the 2020s a decade of climate action and support with the objective of keeping the 1.5 degree goal in reach. In October, the first part of the UN Biodiversity Conference in Kunming adopted the Kunming Declaration and built political momentum for an ambitious post-2020 biodiversity framework.

The risk with global attention is that it can become a substitute for implementation. A declaration may set direction, but it does not automatically secure a community’s water source, prevent a harmful project, protect customary tenure or fund local restoration. The practical test begins afterward. Are commitments translated into policies that communities can understand? Do funds reach organizations doing work on the ground? Are the people most affected able to shape plans before decisions are finalized? Is there public information about results, and a way to raise concerns when projects cause harm?

Data is part of this accountability, but it must be handled with care. National inventories, satellite monitoring and global indicators are valuable tools. They can show broad trends, reveal gaps and help compare progress. Yet the information most useful to a community may be very specific: a seasonal stream, a grazing route, a seed exchange, a sacred site, a place where flooding has worsened. Some of that information is sensitive. Indigenous data governance reminds us that better access to data should not mean automatic access to all data. Communities should have authority over how information about their territories and knowledge is collected, shared and used.

Finance is equally important. Environmental commitments often depend on those with the least resources proving that they are ready for support, while large institutions have greater capacity to write proposals and manage complex reporting. A more equitable approach funds local coordination, translation, learning, equipment, maintenance and the time people need to participate. It supports community organizations directly where possible and asks intermediaries to be accountable for how benefits are shared. It also recognizes that adaptation and conservation cannot be sustained if people are denied secure livelihoods, land rights and a meaningful voice in public decisions.

The most valuable legacy of 2018 through 2021 may be this widening of the frame. Environmental protection is not only about setting aside places or counting carbon. It is about the quality of the relationship between people, institutions and the living systems that make life possible. Amaterra’s role can be to keep that relationship visible. Connect global commitments to local questions. Support community-led monitoring and mapping. Resist fortress conservation. Treat Indigenous and local knowledge as living expertise, with consent and authority. And measure success not only by what is announced, but by whether ecosystems recover and communities gain the power and resources to care for them over time.

The next chapter of earthcare depends on this local accountability. It will be written in watersheds, farms, rangelands, forests, coasts and urban neighbourhoods, as well as in conference rooms. The work calls for people who can connect scales without losing sight of place. That is the opportunity for Amaterra: to turn international updates into practical questions, support the organizations closest to the work and insist that conservation be measured by both ecological recovery and the strength of the communities entrusted with its care.

This is why the 2021 convergence should be remembered as a governance moment as much as an environmental one. It exposed the gap between setting goals and building the institutions that can deliver them. Strong commitments need safeguards, accessible finance, transparent monitoring and democratic participation. They also need the humility to recognize that a community may define a problem differently from a national plan or global model. Making space for that difference is not an obstacle to action. It is how broad commitments become legitimate in the places where they are implemented.

Biodiversity