The ‘science’ does NOT support the target of 30 percent protected areas by 2030. ‘30x30’ could actually have “perverse outcomes”

‘30x30’ could actually have “perverse outcomes” Dear colleague, We are writing to you to express our concern at the misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the ‘science’ used to justify the 30 percent protected areas (PAs) target, the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), draft Target 3. [...] In its April 2021 paper providing ‘scientific and technical information to support updated goals and targets’ of the draft GBF, it was claimed by the CBD Secretariat that “Many recent proposals converge around protecting 30 percent or more of the land and sea surface by 2030, with the possibility of higher targets established subsequently”.2 However, scrutiny of the eight documents referenced to s. [...] ibid 2 In our view, then, the claim that there is “convergence” on the 30 percent protected areas’ target misrepresents the real state of credible and independent science on the subject. [...] The CBD’s ‘science brief’ on the Targets and Goals circulated on June 14th, immediately prior to the OEWG#4 meeting, is similarly misleading in claiming that “The target level “at least 30%” is well supported in the scientific literature as the lower limit for effective biodiversity conservation”11. [...] Better management of existing protected areas should include the restoration of the rights of indigenous peoples and the distinct rights of local communities where these have already been negated or undermined.