When Indigenous Peoples in Indonesia and in other parts of the world are still struggling to get recognition and protection of their rights…
When Indigenous Peoples in Indonesia and in other parts of the world are still struggling to get recognition and protection of their rights while actively taking action to prevent the climate crisis from worsening, another disaster is just lurking.
This catastrophe is rooted in ideas proposed by giant non-governmental organizations in the conservation sector such as the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Conservation International (CI). They encourage the countries’ leaders to take comprehensive policies related to the climate crisis and the threat of extinction of biodiversity which is widely known as the 30×30 Scheme. The name refers to the proposed action plan targeting the expansion of protected areas worldwide up to 30% of the land and sea area gradually until 2030.
This draft began to be negotiated in Geneva on March 14 and is known as the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. This plan sets out several main objectives of a general nature and about twenty specific targets.
In promoting the 30×30 Scheme, its proponents propagate the illusion that transforming 30% of the earth into protected areas is an effective way of implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and can significantly reverse the loss of biodiversity worldwide.
One of the areas in the spotlight of this proposal is Southeast Asia. While it only covers 3% of the total surface area of the earth, the region is home to three — Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines — out of 17 countries with a high level of biodiversity in the world.
This idea was happily welcomed by business entities that constantly destroyed the environment by submitting a funding commitment. Many mainstream media respond blindly because they judge that this idea is a strategic and comprehensive step that is needed by the world today.
The question is, is this really the radical solution needed by humans to prevent the extinction of biodiversity, or is it a new disaster gate that adds to the list of threats to Indigenous Peoples?
Colonial Illusions of Conservation
Underpinning the 30×30 Scheme is the mistaken belief that this action plan will help prevent biodiversity loss and will tackle the climate crisis.
On various occasions, proponents and supporters of the 30×30 Scheme have argued that taking such drastic measures is scientifically justified. In a document called Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework, they claim that this target is feasible and urgent to implement. This document lists eight references to support that statement.
If we examine carefully the eight references that form the basis of the argument and are claimed to provide scientific evidence from the 30×30 Scheme, you will find the opposite: the action plan is not scientific at all.
Two of the eight papers submitted discussed the diversity of marine life and rationalized the 30×30 Scheme. The other five papers discuss models and practices of land conservation management, which are written with reference to comparative data from affected Indigenous Peoples’ groups. One more document is simply a congress resolution of an international conservation agency called the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).
Eric Dinerstein is the lead author of the two papers that are cited the most to support this action plan. He is the main scientist of WWF and is an important figure behind the half-earth ideology. This is an irrational belief that, in order to prevent biodiversity extinction and a worsening of the climate crisis, half of the earth must be protected areas.
Dinerstein’s attitude hardened when he published his analysis entitled A Global Deal for Nature in 2019.
Dinerstein’s paper continues the glorification whose foundation began in Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life, first published in 2016. The book was written by E.O. Wilson, a biologist from the United States, previously popular through On Human Nature which won the Pulitzer Prize in 1979.
If closely read Half-Earth, we will find a misguided view of conservation that is based on unscientific assumptions. For example, by believing that nature is friendly and has separate dynamics from its relationship with humans. That purity of form can be found in a wilderness considered free from human interference.
This view denies the anthropological fact that nature — be it wilderness or open oceans, is never separated from human interaction.
Denying the fact that the purity of wilderness, actually comes from the conscious choices of humans — in this case, Indigenous Peoples who live around forests, rivers, coastal, and islands. Indigenous Peoples is the one who decides to limit their interactions with certain areas for various reasons: spiritual, ecological, cultural, social, and economic.
For instance, the concept in my tribe known as Eha forbade us to access the forest, farming, and hunting islands or fishing spots for a specific period of time or permanently, have existed long before the idea of the importance of protected areas was “discovered” by conservationists.
Dinerstein and Wilson’s belief is nothing but a reflection of the colonialistic mentality that resides within the minds of conservationists. A colonialistic mentality that cannot be separated from white privileges which are a direct legacy of the dark period of mercantilism: the origin of colonialism and global imperialism.
Dinerstein and Wilson and half-earth beliefs talk about limiting human interaction with nature on the historical basis of the conservation model introduced by white immigrants in North America, which drove Indigenous Peoples out of their territories.
In his book Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples, M. Dowie explains that the conservation model introduced in North America gave birth to purists who are obsessed with the fortress conservation model which carries racism and discrimination. Its replication denies the origin of the destruction of conservation zones that are formed naturally within Indigenous territories.
They openly ignore the fact that the fortress conservation model is a descendant and living reminder of the “discovery of a new world” era. Which for Indigenous Peoples all over the world was the beginning of colonialism and slavery.
This colonialism, according to R.H. Grove in Green Imperialism: Colonial Expansion, Tropical Island Edens and the Origins of Environmentalism, is the main obstacle to research efforts and ecological practices in understanding and formulating a more positive and inclusive relationship between humans and ecosystems. Particularly, in regard to the ecological practices of Indigenous Peoples.
Grove said that, apart from colonialism, ecology as a scientific discipline — and those who call themselves ecologists — was also shaped and imprisoned by an exclusive, anti-historical, western approach. These historical constraints keep the conservation approach far from being inclusive and deny the diversity of spiritual, cultural, and social values that humanity has.
The threat of land grabbing against Indigenous Peoples
A serious danger from the irrationality of the 30×30 Scheme is its potential for extending and expanding the tenurial conflicts. The scheme will encourage the expropriation of indigenous territories on a large scale in the future.
In their paper published by Science Advances, Dinerstein and eight other authors proposed the idea of a “global safety net”. This “net” is believed to be the solution to save the remaining biodiversity.
Its conclusion is strangely similar to Dinerstein’s other papers, which offer to combine the need for biodiversity conservation with measures to prevent greenhouse gas emissions that concluded the need for “50% of terrestrial areas if conserved will reverse the further loss of biodiversity, prevent CO2 emissions from land conversion, and increase natural carbon removal”.
However, what is rarely discussed is how those paper also implicitly admits that there is significant overlap between Indigenous territories and areas deemed necessary to form this “global safety net”.
Dinerstein and his colleagues admit that the overlap is enormous, and achieving the target of 30% conservation area in 2030 will only be effective by “integrating” Indigenous territories.
Which led us to another problem of how the basis of thoughts and understanding “the integration” is rooted in the fortress conservation model. It’s not surprising, since CBD defines “conservation” and “protected area” as something that, although authorized by the government, must be specifically managed by a special authority to achieve long-term conservation targets.
The reluctance of the CBD and its member countries to recognize the contribution of Indigenous Peoples in conservation is clear due to the fact that these territories are a serious target for the expansion of global companies. Those who are responsible for the climate crisis and increased violence against Indigenous Peoples. These companies are the perpetrators and source of tenurial conflicts against many Indigenous communities.
Environmental polluter companies such as Unilever, Danone, and Amazon, represent an enthusiastic camp regarding the 30×30 Scheme. The excitement is because the plan opens up opportunities to make substitutions through a carbon trading model as direct compensation for their greenhouse gas emissions. The 30×30 plan is a golden ticket for these giant companies to greenwash their environmental crimes through funding compensation that will be awarded to conservation areas where its management is controlled by conservation organizations that support the 30×30 Scheme.
Indigenous Peoples’ rights approach
A Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI) report shows that the proposal to turn 30% of the earth into a protected area with a fortress conservation approach can be a serious threat due to potential human rights violations. The approach shows a clear tendency on supporting fascist conservation forms that exclude Indigenous Peoples as promoted by the 30×30 Scheme.
This ignored the fact that the failure to understand the value of the traditional practices of Indigenous Peoples is one of the serious obstacles that hinder the development of conservation practices. In addition, proposing an expansion of protected areas will only breed more conflict due to the power imbalance that stems from a situation where recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples is still weak or even neglected.
One study estimates that more than 300 million people will become victims of the irrationality of the 30×30 Scheme.
Although it is widely known that Indigenous Peoples are the one that has the closest relationship with nature and has a significant contribution to maintaining forests, coasts, and small islands, in fact, Indigenous territories are the most vulnerable areas. According to the RRI, only 8.7% of the territory is controlled by legally recognized Indigenous Peoples.
Regardless that various reports have shown that deforestation is much lower in customary areas, it has not been enough to encourage legal recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ rights. Despite being at the forefront of guarding 80% of the world’s biodiversity and for generations protecting these areas, Indigenous Peoples are the most vulnerable group that is constantly threatened by forced eviction and displacement out of their territories.
Various success stories from Indigenous communities that succeeded in making their customary territories strategic reservations for huge carbon stocks have not made them free from threats of violence in the name of development. This is why the whole 30×30 Scheme on expanding protected areas is wrong. The fallacy is based on the misunderstanding that views land only as “nature”, rather than a living and managed landscape, in which humans are an integral and inseparable part.
In addition to the question of how the process of determining protected areas is carried out without fair agreements with Indigenous Peoples. Aside from the fact that exclusive management models by conservation organizations proved to always exclude and limit Indigenous Peoples’ activities such as hunting, farming, gathering, and fishing. Important ritual activities such as burials and religious worship within protected areas are also prohibited or restricted in the name of purification.
Rangers funded by conservation NGOs such as WWF, for example, unilaterally strip Indigenous Peoples of their access to their ancestral territories. Conservation also has been the reason for violations against Indigenous who resist the protected areas.
Those cases show how the fortress conservation model is not actually a solution as promoted by the 30×30 Scheme. Instead, it adds more problems for Indigenous Peoples who are still struggling to get recognition and protection of our rights, including our customary territories. The fortress conservation model is also an illusion that we are doing something to protect the earth. A study on 12,000 conservation areas in 152 countries shows that initiatives led by Indigenous Peoples are far more effective than programs run by external players, including local governments, conservation NGOs, and/or business entities.
The 30×30 Scheme also clouds our view of the root cause of the climate crisis: overconsumption. In the last two decades, 100 environmental polluter companies are the most responsible and cause 71% of global climate emissions. In addition, expanding the fortress conservation model is more expensive in comparison to recognizing the Indigenous Peoples’ rights and territories.
The recognition is a fundamental basis for land rights-based conservation as proposed in the RRI report. It will acknowledge the sustainable management model that existed in Indigenous communities and provides space for Indigenous Peoples to lead conservation efforts, and prioritize tenure rights in measuring the success or failure of conservation. It will also give Indigenous peoples more power in managing their customary territories, and not just limited management rights.
Share this content: