SNAPP TEAM:The Social Implications of 30×30
What are the implications for resident people of plans to greatly increase global protected and conserved area coverage, and how might these be addressed to maximize positive outcomes for nature and society?

The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) appears set to adopt the target to increase protected and conserved area coverage to 30% by 2030 (30×30). Implementing this target will inevitably affect a very large number of people. However, minimal research has been conducted into the social impacts 30×30 might have, and on what kinds of people, at both the global and national scale. Progress in addressing this issue has been hampered by the lack of effective exchange and constructive dialogue between those with different perspectives on area-based conservation.


OUR APPROACH: Our project will bring together a wide range of scholars and practitioners from multiple backgrounds (e.g., land systems science, political ecology, conservation science, indigenous rights) for a series of carefully facilitated workshops. We will foster constructive dialogue between those with different perspectives, enabling us to conduct an interdisciplinary investigation of the social implications of 30×30, and how they might be addressed. We will conduct analysis at the global scale, and in more detail in at least one case study country. Our results will influence nations and NGOs as they seek to implement the CBD Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework.

Team Status: NEW
Team Critical Challenges: Food and Freshwater, Social Innovations
  1. New analysis of the potential social impacts of 30×30 at global level, under various scenarios for implementation. This will include analysis of affected populations disaggregated as far as possible by wealth, ethnicity, voice in decision making and other important social variables.
  2. A more detailed analysis of one case study country (likely to be in Central Africa).
  3. Feasible proposals for how 30×30 could be implemented at the country level in a way that maximises social benefits while minimising social harms, co-developed with implementation partners.
  4. Improved dialogue and a strong foundation for future inter-disciplinary and cross-sectoral research collaboration between people with different perspectives on area-based conservation.
Chris Sandbrook
University of Cambridge
Shenique Albury-Smith
The Nature Conservancy
James Allan
McKinsey and Company
Dan Brockington
University of Sheffield
Neil Burgess
UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre
Achilles Byaruhanga
Q”apaj Conde
UN Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat
James Fitzsimons
The Nature Conservancy
Forrest Fleischmann
University of Minnesota
Phil Franks
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)
Alain Frechette
Rights and Resources Initiative
Rachael Garrett
ETH Zurich
Carolina Hazin
The Nature Conservancy
Pippa Heylings
Talking Transformation
Julia Jones
Bangor University
Bob Kakuyo
Uganda Wildlife Authority
Edna Kaptoyo
Pawanka Fund
Tobias Kuemmerle
Humboldt University of Berlin
Pauline Nantongo
Milagre Nuvunga
Micaia Foundation
Brian O’Donnell
Campaign for Nature
Fred Onyai
National Environmental Management Authority of Uganda
Neema Pathak Broome
Piero Visconti
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Rose Pritchard
University of Manchester
Ameyali Ramos
ICCA Consortium & IUCN Commission on Environment, Economic and Social Policy
Madhu Rao
IUCN WCPA & Wildlife Conservation Society
Casey Ryan
University of Edinburgh
Priya Shyamsundar
The Nature Conservancy
Josefa Tauli
Global Youth Biodiversity Network
Mônica Vilaça da Silva
The Nature Conservancy
Gary Watmough
University of Edinburgh
Thomas Worsdell
Amazon Frontlines
Explore More Teams Like This