By Nse Louis
The target is dominating at the biodiversity summit, but the problem of finding a balance between Indigenous peoples’ rights and conservation remains unresolved
Just as the climate conference focuses on 1.5C, the UN biodiversity conference appears to have found its north star – protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030. From the moment delegates landed at Montréal-Trudeau airport, adverts at the baggage carousel were frank about Canada’s aims for Cop15: achieving 30x30, the tagline for the proposal. The perceived success of the overall conference hangs on this single target, say those who support it.
The science is clear that humanity must better protect key parts of the planet. The destruction of forests and other vital ecosystems must stop by 2030 if the world is to meet 1.5C, according to the IPCC. But 30x30 is actually just one of more than 20 targets being agreed at the Cop15 biodiversity conference in Montreal, and it also happens to be one of the most divisive issues on the agenda. Everyone at the summit has an opinion about the most high-profile target and what it should mean: for some it is not ambitious enough, for others it is impossible to enforce, but the main criticism is that area-based conservation violates human rights.
This is because of associations of “fortress conservationâ€, where people who had been stewards of natural spaces for thousands of years were removed from protected areas. Since the 19th century, this has resulted in human rights abuses and millions of people being displaced from their homelands.
There are very, very painful stories of how Indigenous peoples’ rights have been violated
The language around Indigenous peoples at Cop15 is positive, with a focus on “rights-based conservationâ€, which means Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs) are seen as protectors of land. This is supported by science – so even if someone disregarded human rights, it is the most effective way of protecting the planet. Indigenous peoples make up around 5% of the world’s population but they protect 80% of its remaining biodiversity.
In the current draft of the text, which will be completed at the end of the conference, the exact role of IPLCs when it comes to 30x30 is still being contested. Many are cautious and these are the people who have the most to lose.
“There are very, very painful stories of how Indigenous peoples’ rights have been violated, how they have been killed, taken out of their territory and caused to become extinct because of the expansion or the establishment of protected areas,†says Jennifer Corpuz, who is part of the Kankana-ey Igorot people in the northern part of the Philippines. She represents the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity.
Corpuz is keen to start a new chapter, and supports the 30x30 target. “We are here as Indigenous peoples to send the message that we cannot achieve ambitious conservation targets without fully reflecting and respecting and protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples. We cannot achieve 30x30 without Indigenous peoples, I cannot overstress it,†she said.
But others question the mentality of those trying to enforce it even if it looks good on paper. Lakpa Nuri Sherpa, who is from Nepal, and represents the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact, questioned whether the “top-down†approach associated with 30x30 would work unless those implementing it radically changed their approach to Indigenous peoples. “That’s where the problem lies because the solution comes from the top, and they don’t really know the realities on the ground, and the ‘solution’ doesn’t become a solution,†he says, adding that it is crucial IPLCs are treated with trust and respect, with a “spirit of true partnershipâ€.
However, Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, 30x30 is a crucial part of a successful agreement for protecting key ecosystems and propelling Indigenous-based conservation models, especially in large countries, such as Brazil, Russia and China. He said his country was starting a “story of reconciliation†with Indigenous peoples.
