Efforts to halt biodiversity loss increasingly depend on large-scale conservation planning that connects landscapes across regions and countries. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s “30×30” target reflects this ambition by calling for at least 30% of the planet’s lands and waters to be conserved by 2030 through ecologically representative and well-connected systems.
But expanding conservation networks at this scale will inevitably overlap with farms, grazing lands, Indigenous territories, and rural communities that are closely tied to the land. As governments and organizations work to improve habitat connectivity and protect biodiversity, it’s important to explicitly determine who will be most affected by these new conservation areas, and how conservation can be implemented equitably.
Fajardo, J., Bingham, H.C., Brockington, D., et al. 2026. Social implications of the 30× 30 global conservation target. Nature Communications 17(1): 4067. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-71860-8
A recent global analysis examined the social implications of different pathways for achieving the terrestrial portion of the 30×30 target. Researchers compared three conservation scenarios: one prioritizing biodiversity representation, another focused on nature’s contributions to people such as water regulation and carbon storage, and a third centered on Indigenous and traditional territories with high biodiversity value. Each approach expanded existing protected and conserved areas to reach 30% global coverage, but the social contexts surrounding those landscapes differed dramatically.
Comparisons showed that the biodiversity-focused scenario affected the largest number of people. Nearly 2.2 billion people, about 30% of the global population, would live within protected or conserved areas under this approach, with another 2.7 billion living within 10 kilometers. Many of these areas overlap with densely populated agricultural landscapes, highlighting potential trade-offs between conservation goals, food production, and human-wildlife conflict.
The Indigenous and traditional territories scenario produced a very different pattern. Fewer people would live directly within newly recognized conservation areas, but many communities in these regions have lower Human Development Index scores and stronger dependence on wild harvesting, pastoralism, and smallholder livelihoods. More than 90% of the population affected under this scenario lived in areas classified as having low or medium human development. The authors note that many of these territories already support biodiversity through Indigenous stewardship and local governance systems.
The nature’s contributions to people scenario occupied a middle ground between the other two approaches. This scenario prioritized areas that provide important benefits such as flood regulation, crop pollination, water quality protection, and carbon storage. About one billion people would live within protected or conserved areas under this approach, with 2.3 billion people living nearby within 10 kilometers. Compared to the biodiversity-focused scenario, this approach overlapped less with intensive agriculture and more with ecosystems that support regional and global environmental services, emphasizing the role of connected natural landscapes in sustaining both biodiversity and human societies.
The study underscores that connectivity conservation is not simply about linking habitats on a map. Building well-connected conservation networks often requires working across human-dominated landscapes and supporting the people who live there. The authors argue that successful implementation of the 30×30 target will depend on rights-based governance, free prior and informed consent, long-term funding, and locally led conservation approaches tailored to regional social and ecological conditions. Rather than pursuing a single global blueprint, they advocate integrating social data directly into conservation planning so that connected landscapes can support both biodiversity and human well-being.
Related Posts
Are marine protected areas as effective as they seem?
A global analysis of shallow reef MPAs suggests that less than 2% of global oceans may be protected by ecologically effective MPAs, falling short of the global goal of 30% by 2030.
Balancing biodiversity and carbon conservation in 30×30
A global analysis shows that conservation strategies can simultaneously advance biodiversity and carbon goals, but may come with trade-offs for connectivity.
Butterflies reveal a global connectivity challenge
A global analysis of more than 1,700 butterfly species reveals widespread climate-driven range shifts, highlighting the importance of connected landscapes that allow species to adapt.
