Thanks to Rebecca Watson for investigating the history and current status of 30 x 30. As a scientist, I just have to say that even if you write a scientific paper and make a series of assumptions, that does not make something “science.” For example, if you have x protections where x is unknown (in practice, as opposed to on paper) to determine you need y acres to protect z creatures may fall into “the current thinking of some scientists” but the scientific basis for the claim is, in fact, questionable. There’s also a substantial social science literature on biodiversity conservation that looks specifically at politics, power and privilege associated with “protected” areas.
Anyway, here’s the link to her blog post. an excerpt is below.
What is the status of the 30% target in the U.S.?
According to the congressional 30×30 resolution (relying on data from the U.S. Geological Survey[7]):
“(1) only 12 percent of the land area in the United States [is] permanently protected, mostly in Alaska and the West; and
(2) only 26 percent of Federal ocean territory [is] permanently protected, the vast majority of which is in the remote western Pacific Ocean or northwestern Hawaii . . . .”
The National Geographic Society maintains the U.S. will need to conserve an additional 440 million acres, within the next 10 years.
Given the significant amount of protected federal lands, the 12% protected land percentage seems low. We know the federal government owns 650 million acres, approximately 28% of the U.S., and that almost 40% of those lands, excluding Alaska, are in a protected status.[8] The simple answer is that federal protections do not measure up to the international biodiversity standards used by the USGS. Only those lands that meet the requirements of GAP 1 (permanent protection, mandated management plan to maintain a natural state with little to no management) or GAP 2 (permanent protection, mandated management plan to maintain a primarily natural state, with some uses/management allowed) count.
Conservation of which lands and what will “count”?
Candidate Biden’s Climate Plan included a commitment to 30×30 to protect “biodiversity,” slow the “extinction rate” and leverage “natural climate solutions.” President Biden stated that he would focus on the “most ecologically important lands and waters.” The 30×30 initiative is to include “all lands” — federal, fee, Tribal, state and local. Is it feasible to apply the GAP 1 and GAP 2 criteria to all these types of lands to reach the goal or can it be met with a variety of conservation standards? The Center for American Progress argues, “[m]easuring progress toward a 30X30 goal should account for a wide range of enduring conservation solutions.” Who decides what those “enduring solutions” are? In announcing the EO, President Biden said it, “launches a process for stakeholder engagement from agricultural and forest landowners, fishermen, Tribes, States, Territories, local officials, and others to identify strategies that will result in broad participation.”
In the U.S., ecologically important habitat is on private land—about 2/3 of listed endangered species are found on fee lands. More than half of U.S. forests — important as carbon sinks— are private. Conservation easements and Farm Bill incentives have been used successfully to conserve habitat on fee land that is also used for farming, ranching or limited residential use. Will the administration “count” conservation on “working lands”? If so, what are the conservation standards for fee lands and who will promulgate them? A recent op-ed in The New York Times by two wildlife ecologists urged the administration to move thoughtfully and inclusively on these critical lands. “Top-down declarations and land-use restrictions from Washington risk alienating rural Americans who otherwise support healthy lands, waters and wildlife . . . .”
Reading her description, I wonder why (and who) chose to cut off the protected areas as Gap 1 and Gap 2 (not lining up with IUCN here). Seems like that’s a pretty important decision (now that this is federal policy) and should be open to say, rulemaking and public comment?