December 2020, ScientificAmerican.com 13FORUM
COMMENTARY ON SCIENCE IN
THE NEWS FROM THE EXPERTSIllustration by Jianan Liu
David Shiffman is a marine conservation biologist, scientific
consultant and science writer based in Washington, D.C.No matter which party wins a presidential election, it’s a good
bet that its formal platform won’t be fully enacted. Platforms are
at least partly aspirational; they include proposals that are too
radical, even in the eyes of some party members, to be enacted
into policy or law any time soon. That could certainly be seen as
the case with a plan called “30 by 30,” which the Democrats put
on their official wish list back in August: it calls for protecting
30 percent of U.S. lands and waters from development by the year
- It would, if implemented, represent the largest shift in bio-
diversity conservation policy since the Endangered Species Act
was passed in 1973.
But the 30 by 30 idea isn’t new, and it isn’t radical eco-extrem-
ism run amok. It has been discussed for years by the science-
based conservation community and has been vetted in peer-
reviewed journals, including Science Advances, and detailed
reports from well-respected nonprofits such as Defenders of
Wild life and the Center for American Progress. A resolution in
support of this goal has been introduced in Congress and in sev-
eral state legislatures, including that of South Carolina—hardly
a hotbed of far-left activism.
The 30 by 30 plan is based on a huge and growing body of sci-
entific evidence that says that the world’s wildlife and wild plac-
es face existential threats—and that a commitment to help save
these places is good not only for the abstract goal of “protecting
the en vironment” but also because it matters for people, too.
According to Lindsay Rosa, a senior conservation scientist at
Defenders of Wildlife’s Center for Conservation Innovation, the
most commonly cited figures suggest that about 12 percent of
U.S. land and 26 percent of U.S. waters are currently protected—
but there is a lot of land that is important for biodiversity con-
servation that is not yet protected but could be.
Experts also emphasized that it matters which 30 percent we
protect. Conserving a giant, undeveloped stretch of land where
little lives and that no one wanted to develop anyway is not espe-
cially helpful to biodiversity conservation or climate resilience.
We need to protect at least some of every major ecosystem, an
ecological concept called representativity, as well as habitats
where species of concern actually live.
When we are dealing with migratory species, for example, cor-
ridor conservation is critical to safeguard their migratory routes
and not just their destination. Not all habitats are equally helpful
in terms of climate resilience. Moreover, human needs are vital
when determining which habitats should be off-limits to large-
scale resource extraction and development. So whereas some top-
down coordination is necessary, local voices would have to have
a say, especially on lands inhabited by Indigenous people. And
because unequal access to wild spaces and the mental and phys-
ical health benefits they provide is a major environmental justice
issue, says Kate Kelly, public lands director at the Center for Amer-
ican Progress, 30 by 30 “is an opportunity to hit the reset button
on who conservation is for and who nature can benefit.”
Does such a bold plan have a chance of happening in our
hyperpolarized government? It really might because conserving
wildlife and wild places often has tremendous bipartisan sup-
port; in fact, 86 percent of voters somewhat or strongly support
the specific goal of 30 by 30, including 76 percent of Republican
voters, according to a poll conducted by the Center for American
Progress. And, points out Justin Kenney, director of the 30x
Ocean Alliance, President George W. Bush created what was at
the time the largest marine protected area in the world.
30 by 30 represents the last best hope for saving many of the
U.S.’s iconic species and wild places and is a key step in fighting
climate change and restoring ecological justice. But although
such a plan is important, there is obviously no guarantee that it
will happen. “We need continued U.S. leadership to reach the
goal of 30 by 30,” Kenney says, which isn’t necessarily wise to
count on. Still, he believes “it’s gaining more and more momen-
tum each day.”JOIN THE CONVERSATION ONLINE
Visit Scientific American on Facebook and Twitter
or send a letter to the editor: [email protected]How to Do
Conservation
the Right Way
The so-called 30 by 30 plan could
make a huge difference—if enacted
By David Shiffman