Manipur at the crossroads of South Asia and Southeast Asia is no stranger to this dilemma where State’s interests come in conflict with the interests of the local people, more pronounced when it comes to the protected areas domain. The pursuit of Target 3 of the KM-GBF in its totality has potential to ignite conflicts if and when IPLCs’ interest is overlooked or over-ridded in States’ push for achieving the 30×30 goal without bringing the people into the loop.
By Salam Rajesh
In current global dialogues on ecosystem restoration to achieve different objectives including ecosystem services that would provide food and water security for humans and the wildlife, the more perplexed issue is of meeting climate deadlines.
The United Nations’ push for global campaign to achieve greening of planet Earth by at least 30 percent of its total land surface area within the target year of 2030, is gaining momentum in some measures as the deadline comes closer and closer, barely six years from now.
The concerns on the ever-rising global temperature, resulting in climate and weather-related stress across the world, is top on the priority on each and every global summit in recent years, wherein somewhere or the other the concern crops up, socio-environmentally and socio-politically, and not the least to say economically.
On this very note, the Protected Planet Report 2024 of the UN Environment Program and affiliates IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature), WCPA (World Commission on Protected Areas) and Protected Planet, is the first report to fully assess the global status of the protected and conserved areas in the context of Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF).
Target 3 of the KM-GBF seeks achieving of greening 30 percent of the globe’s total land surface area by the target year 2030. The Protected Planet Report 2024 accumulates the latest official data as was reported by governments and other stakeholders to the Protected Planet Initiative.
While the broad objective of Target 3 of the KM-GBF is to expand the global network of protected and conserved areas to at least 30 percent coverage within the next six years, it seeks a way that is equitable and which respects the rights of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) when seeking the achievement of the targets set.
The objective further seeks in ensuring that the protected areas are effective, well-connected and strategically located in areas that are important for biodiversity and ecosystem services. These could cover natural landscapes undisturbed by undesired anthropogenic activities, and the revival and restoration of pristine biodiversity hotspots threatened by human influences, as well as by the impact of global warming and climate change implications.
The summary executive of the report indicates that the global coverage of protected and conserved areas has now reached 17.6 percent of the global terrestrial and inland waters, and 8.4 percent of the marine and coastal areas.
An important aspect of the thrust area indicated in the report is that the expansion of protected and conserved areas must definitely include the honoring of the Target 3’s commitments to human rights, equitable governance, and recognition of the Indigenous and traditional territories. This later aspect is one that had been central to conflicts of interest between States and local people, more emphatically the traditional custodians of sacred forests, landscapes and water bodies.
The report explains that since the year 2020, an additional 629,000 sq km in the terrestrial and inland waters realm, and 1.77 million sq km in the marine and coastal realm had been officially protected.
While 30 percent coverage is a global target, there are 51 countries and territories that already have networks of protected and conserved areas that exceed 30 percent coverage on land, and 31 countries and territories that exceed 30 percent at sea, the report stated, suggesting individual nations’ efforts at conservation and protection of natural landscapes. It may be emphasized that the United Nations had long acknowledged the proactive role of IPLCs in protecting their traditional territories of life which can be interpreted in terms of the governance of the natural landscapes, forests and water bodies in their traditional systems.
With six years remaining to reach the 30 percent coverage target in each realm, a further 16.7 million sq km (12.4%) of terrestrial and inland waters, and 78.3 million sq km (21.6%) of marine and coastal areas are needed to be secured in networks of protected and conserved areas, the report emphasized. This would require a substantial increase in the rate of expansion of protected and conserved areas seen since 2020, it added.
To date, 177 countries and territories have completed and reported their protected area management effectiveness assessments for at least one protected area, the report stated. Beyond state-protected and conserved areas, Indigenous and traditional territories cover at least 13.6 percent of global terrestrial areas, according to the report.
To ensure the long-term success of biodiversity conservation, protected and conserved areas must be integrated into the wider landscapes, seascapes, and the ocean, while promoting sustainable use that is fully consistent with conservation outcomes, the report emphasized. This requires a commitment to integrated spatial planning, strong governance and collaborative management, ensuring both biodiversity protection and the enhancement of local livelihoods.
At this point of deliberation, it may be recalled that IPLCs have long battled governments and influential parties – mining companies, oil majors, commercial planters, cattle ranchers – in asserting their right to life and governance in what they call their ‘territories of life’. The wide scale destruction of vital rainforests in the pursuit for oil exploration and oil palm plantations as in Indonesia and Malaysia are classic examples of conflicts of interest between governments and the people.
Manipur at the crossroads of South Asia and Southeast Asia is no stranger to this dilemma where State’s interests come in conflict with the interests of the local people, more pronounced when it comes to the protected areas domain. The pursuit of Target 3 of the KM-GBF in its totality has potential to ignite conflicts if and when IPLCs’ interest is overlooked or over-ridded in States’ push for achieving the 30×30 goal without bringing the people into the loop.
Uncontrolled and unmonitored human activities are cited as basic reasons for mass scale depletion of prime forest areas and loss of water bodies, thereby leading to concerns on greenhouse gas emissions which are central to global warming dialogues. It, therefore, becomes essential that IPLCs are considered key to achieving in actuality the goals laid out in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework.