Implementing aligned policies across ministries and avoiding vested interests will be a key factor for governments as they hammer out strategies to meet the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF)’s 30×30 target, according to a report led by WWF US released this week.
Signatory governments need to align the activities of their departments around enabling 30×30, while overcoming land and water-specific obstacles and confronting the qualitative side of the goal, the report authors said.
WWF published a guide to “inclusive, equitable, and effective implementation” of 30×30 with input from an advisory group that included the secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the International Union for Conservation of Nature, The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the UK government.
The guide is intended for private owners of areas of land or water that could be conserved, as well as policymakers, the authors said.
30×30 refers to target three of the GBF agreed at biodiversity conference COP15 in Montreal last December, under which signatory nations committed to conserving at least 30% of land and water by 2030.
INCONSISTENT POLICY
Support for 30×30 is needed from all parts of government through aligning their actions around the target, the report authors said. However, a “major obstacle” to successful implementation is “inconsistency” within policies of the state departments, they said.
“Challenges come from ingrained interdepartmental rivalries and vested interests,” said the report.
For example, a national park set up by the ministry of environment might have mining authorised within its boundaries by the department of resources, the authors said.
“Conservation is often hampered by out-of-date laws; many countries still have laws established in the colonial era which can insist that protected areas be empty of human habitation, creating unnecessary conflicts and undermining traditional management and governance even in cases where this supports biodiversity,” they said.
“Policies of companies, local government, and other actors need to be aligned. A meeting of ministries and departments early in the implementation of a national GBF plan can identify points of conflict and maximise integration, including with other GBF targets,” they added.
“A thorough review of existing legislation can identify needed changes, particularly in the marine realm and for aspects of freshwater conservation such as free-flowing rivers.”
Comparing legislation at all levels with international best practice from the IUCN’s World Commission on Environmental Law can help actors align with 30×30, they said. In addition, processes should be strengthened by including local communities.
“Implementation should identify potential conflicts of objectives and interests among policies of various sectors and resolve them as far as possible,” the report said.
“These may include agricultural and water policy, forestry, fisheries, energy, mining, shipping, ports and wider environmental policy to fiscal policy and economic development strategies.”
LAND AND WATER CHALLENGES
Protecting 30% of land and water under 30×30 means governments needing to conserve “terrestrial and inland water, and of coastal and marine areas” under the GBF definition. Each of these areas presents its own set of challenges, the authors of the WWF paper said.
Terrestrial obstacles faced by policymakers include difficulties protecting large areas. With conservation measures outside of these zones, there are fears they would be “recognised in places of little conservation value and will harm human rights”, the authors said.
Success with inland water conservation depends on whether the entire ecosystem is in a protected area, according to the report.
“If a river runs only a short distance through an area it will be harder to manage the influence of threats originating externally such as pollution or overfishing,” it said.
Inland waters “continue to be underrepresented in conservation coverage and management planning”, it added.
Furthermore, “many inland waters also have sacred values for Indigenous Peoples and a variety of faith groups”. Their protection will require “legal imposition, regulation, and enforcement of limitations on external activities”.
Coastal and marine areas also face challenges from working with Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
“Conservation is sometimes compromised with the needs of resident communities or visitors, although this is not always the case. There are many coastal and marine areas governed and managed by, and with, Indigenous Peoples and coastal communities,” the authors stated.
“Nearshore waters within a country’s exclusive economic zone often have a different but overlapping set of stakeholders, including fishing communities but also shipping and offshore energy operations such as wind power and oil drilling.”
At the same time, fishing inside a marine protected area can significantly reduce, or effectively eliminate, its conservation value.
“Agreeing on a global definition of ‘sustainable use’ in a marine context, and how this differs from the rest of the marine environment, is particularly important.”
The report also stressed that financing of marine protection is difficult, although there are a few examples of sustainable financing models for coastal and high seas protected areas.
WORKFORCE ISSUES
The number of people working to conserve land and water will need to ramp up to enable meeting 30×30, including those experienced in tensions between people, the authors said.
“This will require at least five times the current number of people” working in protected conservation areas, they said, citing a Nature Sustainability study published last year.
To achieve target three in its entirety, the report said policymakers need to look beyond the headline figure of conserving 30% of land and water to recognising more qualitative issues such as the needs of local communities.
For example, the wording in the GBF commits signatories to ensuring that “any sustainable use, where appropriate in such areas, is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, recognising and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories”.
“Looking at percentage area alone is insufficient, and poses sociocultural and environmental risks. For example, focusing on coverage alone risks ‘counting’ areas that are not achieving conservation, or are doing so through inequitable approaches,” the report said.
“If not carefully designed and managed, as has occurred sometimes in the past, conservation can be implemented in ways that perpetuate or create inequalities.”
A country could protect 30% of its areas while not significantly improving the conditions and outcomes for biodiversity or investing in management, and measures to implement 30×30 must focus on improving the effectiveness and fairness of protected sites, while meeting all the criteria in the GBF target, the report found.
By Thomas Cox – t.cox@carbon-pulse.com
*** Click here to sign up to our weekly biodiversity newsletter ***
