Conservationists claim that their aim to place thirty per cent of the planet in protected areas by 2030 is supported by science. It isn’t. What the science does and doesn’t say about 30×30
Conservationists claim that their aim to place thirty per cent of the planet in protected areas by 2030 is supported by science. It isn’t. What the science does and doesn’t say about 30×30
reddmonitor.substack.com
By Simon Counsell Summary The proposed new ten-year action plan to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity includes the controversial target to increase protected areas worldwide to thirty per cent of the area of land and seas by 2030 (‘30×30’). It is claimed that such a drastic measure is justified by scientific research. But inspection of the evidence presented to support this claim finds that the science is much less clear. The relatively limited number in favour of 30×30 are generally very closely associated with the conservation industry. Many scientists point to serious problems with such targets and with the way the existing estate of protected areas is working. But these contrary views – as well as the evidence showing that indigenous and community lands can be at least as effective in saving biodiversity as conservationist-run parks – is largely being ignored.
Conservationists claim that their aim to place thirty per cent of the planet in protected areas by 2030 is supported by science. It isn’t. What the science does and doesn’t say about 30×30
Conservationists claim that their aim to…
Conservationists claim that their aim to place thirty per cent of the planet in protected areas by 2030 is supported by science. It isn’t. What the science does and doesn’t say about 30×30
By Simon Counsell Summary The proposed new ten-year action plan to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity includes the controversial target to increase protected areas worldwide to thirty per cent of the area of land and seas by 2030 (‘30×30’). It is claimed that such a drastic measure is justified by scientific research. But inspection of the evidence presented to support this claim finds that the science is much less clear. The relatively limited number in favour of 30×30 are generally very closely associated with the conservation industry. Many scientists point to serious problems with such targets and with the way the existing estate of protected areas is working. But these contrary views – as well as the evidence showing that indigenous and community lands can be at least as effective in saving biodiversity as conservationist-run parks – is largely being ignored.