Each summer, ELI's interns complete an independent research project (IRP) where they choose a topic to explore deeper. This blog offers an insight into the chosen focus and the research outcome.
During the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP15) in 2022, 190 countries signed on to the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. This framework included a goal to protect 30% of the Earth’s land and ocean area by 2030 (30x30) through Target 3. However, 30x30 was not universally accepted. In fact, even before COP15, 250 Indigenous activists, NGOs, and academics had signed a letter to the Convention on Biological Diversity, arguing that 30x30 “could further entrench an outmoded and unsustainable model of conservation that could dispossess the people least responsible for these crises of their lands and livelihoods.”
This letter proposed a four-step approach to reform 30x30: (1) recognize and protect the rights and land tenure of Indigenous peoples; (2) recognize other land users and consult them; (3) adequately protect areas rather than expanding areas; and (4) address other underlying drivers of biodiversity loss. As part of my independent research project this summer, I decided to apply this framework to evaluate California’s 30x30 Initiative, as the state has been one of the leading pioneers of 30x30 in the United States.
Gov. Gavin Newsom first signed Executive Order N-82-20 in 2020, which led to its codification into law in 2022. With this order, the California Biodiversity Network was established to oversee 30x30’s progress, and a strategy report was published with goals to promote equitable outdoor access and extensive partnerships with tribes and local communities. But have resulting actions aligned with this vision? The answer seems to be mixed. One success has been the creation of the Tribal Nature-Based Solutions program, which has distributed over $100 million dollars across 33 tribes and returned 49,000 acres of land. California’s 30x30 Initiative has also succeeded in engaging with stakeholders, providing regular workshops and webinars open to everyone This is a historic win for tribal communities and sets a positive example for other states to follow.
As California strives to reach its 30x30 goal, it may want to reevaluate criteria for “conserved” lands and how expanding protected areas may affect poor and minority residents. Currently, 30x30 only counts lands classified as code 1 and 2 by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Gap Analysis Project (GAP), which are the strictest codes for biodiversity protections. GAP 3 lands include lands used for recreational purposes, such as hiking, camping, hunting, and off-roading, while GAP 4 lands encompass urban and developed areas. When counting just GAP 1 and 2 lands, California has roughly 24% of protected areas. However, when counting GAP 3 lands that are also protected areas, the state already has well over 30%. If considering expanding criteria to include GAP 3 lands, California may want to consider how recreational activities can co-exist with biodiversity goals.
Further, land protected for conservation purposes can detract from land that could be used for affordable housing. California has the highest population of homeless people and the highest rate of homelessness in the United Sates, but only 5% of California’s land has been developed for urban use. This percentage further emphasizes how California must balance the race for 30x30 with pushes for affordable and permanent supportive housing.
Conservation is not always a clear-cut, black-and-white answer to protecting biodiversity. At the global scale, there is evidence that protected areas do not always lead to better biodiversity outcomes than unprotected areas. How entities site and manage protected areas is just as important as how much area is covered. Additionally, 80% of the world’s biodiversity can be found on Indigenous lands, despite these lands making up only 20% of Earth’s lands. This distribution suggests that Indigenous land management can be a powerful force for protecting biodiversity.
In California’s case, while they are making strides in engaging Indigenous populations and other local communities, they may benefit from reconsidering 30x30’s narrow definition of protected areas and evaluating conservation efforts in the context of other pressing issues, such as the State’s affordable housing and homelessness crisis. Nonetheless, California has set a good example for other states and countries to follow; the next step is to ensure that 30x30 protects both nature and human beings as one and the same goal.