Conservation practice must catch up with commitments to local people for 30 × 30 success

Limited evidence for positive local socioeconomic outcomes of protected areas might be an artefact of a weak evidence base or might reflect a real lack of positive effects. Either possibility should undermine the current confidence that protected areas will benefit local people.

Dominant narratives regarding ‘win–win’ solutions for conservation and development emerge from a lack of recognition of unavoidable trade-offs and an inadequate regard for differences between realized versus potential net benefits to people¹⁰. For example, in their conceptual framework, Naidoo et al.⁵ ignore costs and consider only positive effects of protected areas. The flow of actual benefits from ecosystem goods and services through time and space does not always match optimistic assumptions or the near-term costs imposed by stricter protection¹⁰, and conservation restrictions can push households deeper into poverty if benefits lag behind costs. Furthermore, the reliance of local people on natural resources (including agriculture) means that conservation restrictions can impose disproportionate costs on those who are poorest⁷.

Where conservation planning literature considers costs, most attention is given to management costs. Opportunity costs, when considered, might appear low in absolute terms but can be very high relative to local incomes¹¹, and institutional factors that increase transaction costs are largely underestimated in planning for conservation. Low-income areas with low opportunity costs might appear promising as low-cost conservation options; however, considerable institutional complexity (for example, unclear property rights) — which is harder to measure — can greatly increase the true costs of achieving equitable conservation or restoration¹².

The costs of protected areas tend to be highly localized and unequally distributed across households, and are hard to accurately assess in global studies that rely on standardized data that are available across countries⁶ — particularly if outcomes are measured for areas rather than people (who might move towards or away from protected areas).

Existing protected areas are largely underfunded¹¹, which limits their ability to support local communities. Additionally, the proposed expansion of protected areas to meet the Global Biodiversity Framework’s 30 × 30 target lacks a clear mechanism for compensating local costs or any assurance that compensation does not come from the finite funds already committed for poverty reduction. Countries at CBD’s 16th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP16) failed to reach consensus on the financing that needs to be raised. Thus, despite the rhetoric, we are concerned that the 30 × 30 expansion of protected areas might not perform better than previous expansions.

Furthermore, macroeconomic effects could harm poorer households. Protected areas have so far been designated primarily in marginal, low-opportunity-cost areas but as protected areas expand, trade-offs with food supply are likely to become more pronounced and increasing food prices could disproportionately affect urban poor and rural landless groups¹¹.

Still, reasons for optimism exist. Indigenous rights are now better recognized, and Indigenous movements are now more strongly positioned to advance their own agenda with regards to protected areas¹³. However, Indigenous movements are stronger in some regions (such as Latin America) than others, such as Africa (where the social performance of protected areas has been less positive)⁶. Additionally, ongoing efforts to increase financing for protected areas — for instance, through new funding from debt reductions¹⁴ — might also help to support business models that increase local livelihood opportunities. Increased awareness of the colonial legacy of conservation and recognition that fortress conservation will not work have also validated the inclusion of community-managed ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ as part of the 30 × 30 expansion, which broadens the scope to protected and conserved areas¹¹.

A marked cultural shift that recognizes the level of resources and depth of community partnerships required to ensure that the 30 × 30 target delivers resilient and socially just conservation is necessary. The current lack of evidence on the net welfare effects of area-based conservation severely limits the ability to lobby donors for adequate funding to ensure effective and equitable conservation. Rigorous causal inference methods¹⁵ that quantify the welfare effects of conservation and compensatory interventions on people are required to inform realistic funding per household and per hectare.

Real change must also come from empowering local people to defend their own rights. Implementing a socially just and rights-based approach to conservation is a slow and difficult process, and we need to resist the urge to cut corners while chasing global targets¹³. State agencies and their conservation partners must also commit to operationalizing free prior and informed consent and increasing the capacity of local communities to make these decisions and manage their resources.

Finally, solutions outside of the conservation sector must be sought. Poverty reduction depends on changes in enabling conditions and not isolated interventions². A combination of strengthened institutions and local governance, increased economic opportunities, investment in education, and sustainable agricultural intensification are needed, embedded in a culture of impact evaluation to know what works, what does not and why.