The Push to Conserve 30 Percent of the Planet: What’s at Stake?

The Push to Conserve 30 Percent of the Planet: What’s at Stake?

Forests cover Bhutan, which has protected 50 percent of its land. Sergi Reboredo/VW Pics/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

See how six countries are faring amid efforts to protect 30 percent of the planet’s land and waters by 2030, and what will be saved if they succeed. 

Last updated May 8, 2024 9:35 am (EST)

Forests cover Bhutan, which has protected 50 percent of its land. Sergi Reboredo/VW Pics/Universal Images Group/Getty Images
Article
Current political and economic issues succinctly explained.

During the 2022 UN biodiversity conference, COP15, countries reached a landmark agreement that aims to reverse the unprecedented destruction of nature. One of the agreement’s twenty-three targets, known as 30x30, aims to protect at least 30 percent of the planet’s land and water by 2030. That goal, which almost doubles the target for 2020 that was set through the UN process more than a decade ago, was the inspiration behind a 2023 UN agreement to protect biodiversity in the high seas, the international waters that comprise more than half the world’s oceans. So far, roughly 17 percent of all land and inland waters have been protected, as have 8 percent of marine areas. 

More From Our Experts

Protected areas are those that are designated and managed in order to achieve conservation goals, according to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Human activities, such as farming, resource extraction, and settlement, are generally allowed in these areas as long as they are done sustainably. But there are no formal mechanisms to monitor these activities, and countries report their own progress with limited oversight.

More on:

Energy and Environment

Climate Change

Gabon

Bhutan

Indonesia

One of the main motivations for the goal is to protect biodiversity, which refers to the variety of all living things on Earth and the natural systems they form. In recent decades, animal populations have plummeted and more species have gone extinct than ever before. This loss has sweeping consequences for livelihoods, economic growth, medicine, food systems, and climate resilience. To put a price on it, the world lost $4–20 trillion per year [PDF] from 1997 to 2011 because of changes in how humans use land, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Conservation is also critical to achieving climate goals. Forests, peatlands, and oceans are carbon sinks, meaning they absorb massive amounts of planet-warming carbon dioxide. When they’re destroyed, all that carbon goes back into the atmosphere. Some ecosystems can also guard against climate disasters. Coral reefs and mangroves, for example, form natural barriers against extreme storms.

 

The 30x30 goal is a global target. More than one hundred countries have voiced support, but that doesn’t mean they’ve pledged to protect 30 percent of their own land and waters. Experts say that’s not necessarily a bad thing. “The hope is that each nation will set the most ambitious goal that it can,” says the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Masha Kalinina.

More From Our Experts

Some countries have already surpassed 30 percent, while others won’t be able to because most of their land is already developed. Landlocked countries can’t contribute to the goal for oceans. Experts say it’s essential for countries to focus on areas with high levels of biodiversity, areas that function as carbon sinks, and areas that are culturally significant. 

In the year since the agreement passed, there has been some notable progress. The Global Environment Facility—a multilateral environmental fund—has begun to raise the $200 billion for nature conservation agreed upon in the COP15 deal. Countries are also updating their National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans to align with the global targets, which are expected to be made public for the first time at the COP16 biodiversity conference in Colombia in November 2024. 

More on:

Energy and Environment

Climate Change

Gabon

Bhutan

Indonesia

Even so, scientists, Indigenous leaders, and activists continue to urge for more action. Some experts call for protecting 50 percent of the planet, an initiative known as the Half-Earth Project, while some Indigenous communities call for 80 percent. Others note that the 30 percent goal will depend on implementing all of the twenty-three broader UN biodiversity targets  [PDF].

Land conservation efforts in six countries—Gabon, Bhutan, Indonesia, Canada, Russia, and the United States—illustrate both the promise and problems in achieving the global 30x30 goal.

Protecting Biodiversity: Gabon

Two elephants are seen in a forested area.
Elephants graze in Loango National Park, one of thirteen national parks Gabon created in 2002.  Steeve Jordan/AFP/Getty Images

The world’s tropical rain forests hold much of its biodiversity. The Congo Basin in central Africa is one of those areas. It is home to ten thousand tropical plant species, many of which are only found there, and to endangered animals such as African forest elephants.

Of the countries in the basin, Gabon is leading the way on conservation. It has protected about 20 percent of its land and has the basin’s lowest rate of deforestation [PDF]. Lions and other large mammals have recently made a comeback in areas where they had vanished. That’s thanks to a conservation approach that sees intact forests as essential for jobs and economic growth. “We are convinced that investment in biodiversity conservation and natural capital is critical for human wellbeing,” said Gabon’s environment minister Lee White in 2021. 

More than a decade ago, the government banned raw timber exports and embraced sustainable forestry. To support its management of protected lands, Gabon has received more than $100 million from other governments and foreign organizations.

Combating Climate Change: Bhutan

A person walks with a red umbrella through a lush, mountainous forest.
Bhutan, which has a population of eight hundred thousand people, prioritizes the conservation of its forests in its constitution. Sergi Reboredo/VW Pics/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

Sparsely populated Bhutan offers an example of how protecting nature can significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions. “Nature is our only proven technology that can remove carbon from the atmosphere at scale,” says Steven Nitah of the international nonprofit Nature For Justice. 

The Himalayan nation says it removes more carbon from the atmosphere than it releases thanks in part to its forests, which cover around 70 percent of the country. Bhutan emphasizes environmental protection in its constitution, requiring that at least 60 percent of the country remain covered by forests. Nearly half the country is protected. 

Demanding Funds: Indonesia

Smoke rises from a hazy forest in Indonesia.
Fires burn in Indonesia’s peatland, many of which were started to clear the way for palm oil production. Afrianto Silalahi/NurPhoto/Getty Images

Indonesia is one of many countries whose economy depends on farming and resource extraction. The Southeast Asian archipelago provides much of the world’s palm oil and is a leading source of nickel, which is used in electric vehicles. 

The environmental toll from producing these products is immense: the country has lost more than 70 percent of its carbon-absorbing forests and peatlands. But there’s also an economic cost for not engaging in these activities. That’s why Indonesia, along with other developing countries, is asking for and receiving compensation for simply leaving its land untouched.

Indonesia has protected 12 percent of its land. In recent years, it has received millions of dollars to expand protection and reduce emissions, with more pledged if it continues its work. For example, Norway will pay the country $56 million to continue its efforts to promote sustainable forest management, improve law enforcement in protected areas, replant mangroves, and create wildlife corridors that allow animals to move between areas. Moreover, Indonesian civil society groups have successfully advocated to channel some funds directly to Indigenous peoples and local communities, who are often de facto stewards of environmental conservation efforts worldwide. Already, Indonesia’s rate of deforestation is declining. Around the world, there are many programs through which countries, development banks, and organizations pay lower-income countries for maintaining their forests. 

Empowering Indigenous Communities: Canada

A person holds a tracking device for caribou in a forest.
A caribou guardian of the Saulteau First Nations locates caribou in western Canada. Jesse Winter/Reuters

Canada is covered by boreal forests that function as carbon sinks. The government has committed to the 30x30 goal, but so far, it’s only halfway there. It sees Indigenous-led conservation, which empowers Indigenous communities to use their value systems to establish and oversee protected areas, as essential for achieving the goal.  

That’s a major shift from the late nineteenth century, when Indigenous people were forcibly removed from their lands to create Canada’s national park system. Today, the Canadian government sees conservation as part of its reconciliation process to address the harms of colonization. 

During COP15, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau committed nearly $600 million over seven years to support Indigenous-led conservation projects. Indigenous communities have proposed the creation of dozens of Indigenous Protected and Conserved Areas, some of which the government has already approved. 

Experts stress that conservation efforts around the world need to give Indigenous communities a leading role, and in particular empower them to oversee the management of the protected areas where many of them live. Indigenous people already manage lands that contain an estimated 80 percent [PDF] of the planet’s biodiversity. “There are no better teachers today than Indigenous peoples,” says Nitah, who is also a former tribal leader of the Łutsel Kʼe Dene First Nation in northwestern Canada. 

Falling Short: Russia

A logging crane loads wood onto a truck.
A machine stacks felled trees in northwestern Russia. Dimitar Dilkoff/AFP/Getty Images

Russia, the largest country by area, has expansive untouched forests and frozen tundra. More than half of the country consists of intact wilderness areas, or areas that haven’t been touched by human activities. Intact wilderness areas are important because they allow animals to move freely.

But Russia protects only 11 percent of its land. It lacks a developed national park system, and over the past two decades, deforestation has crept up due to logging. Experts say Moscow has demonstrated little ambition to change. At the same time, it has joined China in blocking an effort to protect marine areas in the Antarctic. Furthermore, Russia’s war on Ukraine has effectively resulted in a “step backwards” for international conservation cooperation, according to experts. An isolated Russia has led to Moscow deprioritizing preserving biodiversity, and sanctions have forced the European Union to implement farming on land previously given to conservation efforts.

How the U.S. Compares

Moose walk through a prairie next to mountains.
Moose walk through the United States’ Grand Teton National Park. George Rose/Getty Images

The United States is made up of a variety of ecosystems, including tundra, prairies, wetlands, forests, and deserts. It’s home to tens of thousands of native species. About 13 percent of U.S. land is protected, and President Joe Biden has pledged to achieve the 30x30 goal. 

Biden’s plan, the America the Beautiful initiative, relies on state governments, Indigenous communities, and local groups to voluntarily conserve and restore land. It encourages the creation of new parks and wildlife corridors—and offers incentives to do so. To inform decision-making, the plan pushes for more research into areas that have high levels of biodiversity. It also expands the definition of “protected areas” to include sustainably managed farms, ranches, and areas for hunting. In April 2024, the Biden administration released a mapping tool to track U.S. conservation progress. The tool shows some positive outcomes from Biden’s initiative so far, including successfully conserving one-third of U.S. oceans and conserving more than 41 million acres of land and water in the past three years.

Clara Fong contributed to this article. Will Merrow and Michael Bricknell created the graphic. Sabine Baumgartner curated the photos.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Europe

On the eighty-first anniversary of D-Day, CFR President Michael Froman and senior fellows discuss the Trump administration’s diminished appetite for engagement in European security affairs—even as the Russia-Ukraine war drags on.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.