In December 2022, world leaders at the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a proposal to conserve 30% of the Earth by 2030. This proposal was highly controversial and has met with varied reactions from Indigenous Peoples. In this episode, hosts Claudia Deeg and Devin Domeyer discuss the history of conservation’s violence towards Indigenous Peoples, Indigenous Peoples’ perspectives on the 30 by 30 proposal, and what happened during the negotiations. This episode features an interview with Jennifer (Jing) Corpuz, lead negotiator on conservation targets for the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity.
Listen Now
Host
Claudia Deeg (she/her) is a Master of Environmental Management program at Duke University. She works as a policy associate on small-scale fisheries policy and management. Her thesis research is focused on the vulnerability of small-scale fishers to climate change with a focus on subsistence fishers and women.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/claudia-deeg/
Devin Domeyer (she/her) is a Master of Environmental Management student at Duke University. She is experienced as an ecologist, community organizer and communications professional. Her research interests are in oyster ecology and seagrass farm management.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/devin-domeyer/
Featured Interview
Jennifer (Jing) Tauli Corpuz, from the Kankana-ey Igorot People of Mountain Province in the Philippines, and a lawyer by profession, is the Global Policy and Advocacy Lead for Nia Tero. She is a negotiator and expert for the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity (IIFB), representing indigenous peoples, at the Convention on Biological Diversity, including at negotiations on conservation-related targets, including the 30 by 30 proposal.
Series Host
Dr. Lisa Campbell hosts the Conservation and Development series. The series showcases the work of students who produce podcasts as a course project. Lisa introduced a podcast assignment after 16 years of teaching, in an effort to direct student energy and effort to a project that would enjoy a wider audience.
INTRO
<<PROTEST – fade in audio – begin at 0:00, build to 0:10>>
<<fade under next clip>>
[Duration: 0:17, from 0:00–0:17]
<<ANCHOR: A major United Nations conference on preserving biodiversity has opened in the Canadian city of Montreal. More than 10,000 delegates including scientists, government officials and activists are taking part in COP15. Over the next two weeks they will try to agree on how to protect sensitive ecosystems.>>
<<protest continues for 2 seconds>>
[Duration: 0:22, from 0:42-1:04]
<<BLANEY: At the opening of COP15, I stood alongside Indigenous youth as we interrupted Justin Trudeau’s statement by drumming, singing and walking out. We made our point peacefully and I am proud of how we stood in our strength and culturally demonstrated that he is breaking our laws.>>
<<end protest audio (1:08 total), fade in intro music>>
HOST 1: We just heard Ta’Kaiya Blaney, Tla’Amin First Nation activist, speaking after a public protest at the opening of the 15th meeting of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, known as COP… 15. This meeting in December of 2022 brought world leaders to Montreal to negotiate the next decade’s strategy for biodiversity protection. One of the most controversial topics: the proposal to conserve 30% of the Earth by 2030. That ambitious goal is known as “30 by 30”. Reactions from Indigenous groups… were mixed.
[Duration: 0:09, 1:20-1:29]
<<BURNS TUKI: We have formally decided to support and endorse the marine 30-percent target>>
[Duration: 0:03, 7:27-7:30]
<<BENALLY: A proposal for a new model of colonialism>>
[Duration: 0:01, 1:57-1:58]
<<REDIES: opportunity to protect our land>>
[Duration: 0:11, 1:25-1:36]
<<SOLTANI: we don’t just need to protect 30 percent of the Earth, we need to actually protect 80 percent>>
[Duration: 0:03, 2:27-2:30]
<<SENE: Many fear that this plan will lead to further violence>>
[Duration: 0:03, splice 2:04-2:05, 2:09-2:10]
<<KIMAIYO: It is a land grab [force pause] people’s rights are being violated>>
HOST 1: So 30 by 30 was ultimately adopted by parties at COP15. But WHY was the 30 by 30 proposal so… polarizing? And now that it’s been adopted, where do Indigenous peoples stand?
HOST 1: My name is Devin Domeyer.
HOST 2: And I’m Claudia Deeg. We are students at the Duke University Marine Lab in Beaufort, North Carolina, and are recording this episode from the stolen traditional lands of the Lumbee and Neusiok peoples.
HOST 1: We are not Indigenous people and acknowledge that we are settlers on this land.
HOST 2: In this episode, we try to center Indigenous voices as we discuss biodiversity conservation under the 30 by 30 target.
<<fade out intro music>>
ACT 1
HOST 1: Our story begins… in Yellowstone National Park.
<<plucky music starts>>
In 1872, the US government creates a 2.2 million acre protected area spanning Wyoming, Montana and Idaho. The Crow, Nez Perce, Shoshone, and Bannock First Nations, are barred from their ancestral territory and hunting grounds. According to Smithsonian reporting, armed conflict between park rangers and banished natives engulfs the park for 14 years.
U.S. Cavalry patrol park borders until 1918 to ensure no Indigenous tribes can return.
Yellowstone was the world’s first national park. A 2023 article by Banerjee and Dunaway calls it… the beginning of a colonial model of conservation, called “fortress conservation,” which soon swept the globe. Fortress conservation meant excluding humans from [quote unquote] pristine wilderness in the name of protecting NATURE.
To learn more about this topic, we interviewed Jing Corpuz, lead on conservation related targets for the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity. This forum is an official advisory body to the Convention on Biological Diversity and represents Indigenous peoples and local communities from around the world. You’ll hear her voice throughout this podcast. When we spoke, Jing reminded us there’s another layer to those images of pristine nature we’re used to seeing from David Attenborough and National Geographic.
[Duration: 0:19, 15:15-15:34]
<<CORPUZ: Actually, there are people there when we see National Geographic videos [force cut] it’s always just these beautiful videos and it shows the animals, the very charismatic animals and you say, [force cut] Where are the people? [force cut] Where are the indigenous people? They’re actually there. [force cut] They’ve been coexisting with the animals and with the trees and with the plants in those places.>>
The UN Special Rappateur on Human Rights and the Environment calls fortress conservation “a mistaken belief” in a separation of humans and nature, which led to forcible evictions, food insecurity, threats to cultural rights, as well as murder… rape… and torture.
<<SÈNE: Conservation has a long history of human rights violations where indigenous communities are tortured and forcibly evicted from those lands to create protected or conservation areas like national parks and nature reserves.>>
HOST 1: That was Dr. Aby Sène-Harper, African conservationist and professor at Clemson University, during an interview for the open news channel France 24 just after COP15. The violent history of fortress conservation she highlights is not relegated to the past.
In 2019, investigative reporting by Buzzfeed news exposed the World Wildlife Fund for financing park rangers accused of torturing, raping and killing dozens of people at six national parks in Cameroon, Congo, Nepal and India. In 2021, the Kaeng Krachan Forest in Thailand was made a UNESCO World Heritage site, forcibly relocating the Indigenous (Kah-REN) community to nearby towns.
So why is conservation violence still happening to this day?
<<SÈNE: It’s not coincidental that much of the lands targeted for conservation are on indigenous territories. Land, especially in the congo river basin in africa, for example, are some of the most biodiverse because indigenous and local people have stewarded those landscapes for [sic] millennials. And so there’s ample evidence that indigenous natural resource management systems protect and enrich biodiversity in those lands. >>
HOST 1: According to a 2008 World Bank report, 80% of the world’s remaining biodiversity is protected by Indigenous peoples. In fact, the total land area Indigenous peoples manage… is TWICE that under management by protected areas, this is according to a 2020 report on rights-based approaches to conservation titled “Cornered by protected areas.”
Indigenous peoples are now universally recognized as guardians of global resources. That also makes them targets. As Jing tells it:
[Duration: 0:54, 12:41-13:35]
<<00:12:46 CORPUZ: Many laws were adopted across the world, you know, just implementing that concept of fortress conservation. So many indigenous peoples ended up evicted because, you know when you’re doing conservation, you’re supposed to target the areas that are most important for biodiversity, biodiversity, the so-called key biodiversity areas, and many of those areas are in remote places [force pause] and sometimes the mainstream population thinks that these remote places are uninhabited and that the the people coming into those territories are invaders, no?.
And and [pause] there’s some some sort of blindness around the careful, You know, management actions that indigenous peoples have been carrying out for for 10s of thousands of years.>>
HOST 1: So… if fortress conservation can’t seem to move beyond its violent history… WHY have world leaders agreed to DOUBLE the coverage of protected areas by 2030?
<<fade in transition music>>
ACT 2
<<fade out transition music>>
HOST 2: Since its inception in 1992, the Convention on Biological Diversity has called protected areas “the cornerstones for biodiversity conservation.” But what even is a “protected area”? According to Article Two of the Convention text, they are “geographically defined areas, designated, or regulated and managed, to achieve specific conservation objectives.” Just to be clear, that definition has EVOLVED overtime. It’s been at the center of DECADES of debate on what it means to protect… nature…
Protected areas are not the only way to conserve nature. In 2010, the Convention introduced the concept of other effective conservation measures, recognized as delivering conservation outcomes without being a formal protected area. We’ll call them OECM’s from here on out… and they’re defined by OUTCOMES not OBJECTIVES. OECM’s were a new opportunity for Indigenous stewardship to be recognized as contributing to conservation. A 2017 article in the International Journal of Protected Areas and Conservation, writes that by adopting OECMs, the Convention acknowledged that effective biodiversity conservation can be achieved even if it’s not the primary objective.
THAT SAID, recognition as an OECM does not mean recognition of Indigenous governance or self-determination. As an OECM, Indigenous Peoples would still need to PROVE conservation outcomes to some outside regulator. Many Indigenous advocates remain adamant that Indigenous territory AS IT STANDS must be recognized as contributing to conservation targets under self-determined governance, no questions asked. Here’s what Jing has to say:
[Duration: 0:58, 25:09-26:07]
<<CORPUZ: So now we have three basically. Indigenous peoples have engaged with the protected area system and there are many indigenous peoples who have willingly designated their land as part of the protected area system and based on the right to self-determination they should be able to do that. There are some also who have started the process to include what they call indigenous peoples and community conserved territories and areas as part of the OECM system, and they’re, you know, they don’t want to restart the process and so they’re comfortable with being an OECM. However, for the vast majority, a lot of indigenous territories, they they really would prefer, uhm, national legal systems to recognize the self-determined declaration of Indigenous peoples, that parts of their territory are going to be devoted for biodiversity conservation or as a sacred site, a taboo area, and so forth.>>
That idea of self-determined Indigenous territory as INDEPENDENTLY contributing to conservation objectives is called “the third pathway”. But as it stands today… protected areas — ideas of separating humans from nature — remains the FIRST pathway, the gold standard. According to a 2014 article in Conservation & Society on the CENTURIES-long legacy of protected areas… their appeal is just… difficult to supplant. The authors describe protected areas as a “discursive hegemony” — that by defining and redefining them for 200 years, we’ve just further entrenched protected areas at the center of the conservation debate. Also… they’re just… kinda easy… Governments can draw lines on a map and call it day. Conservation target achieved. This has led to a global phenomenon of underfunded, unmanaged protected areas, according to the article “Corned by protected areas” that we referenced earlier.
THAT SAID we cant ignore that protected areas just remain… appealing! And support for the target to protect 30 by 30 is staggering. Take, for example, the following statements from more than 50 world leaders calling themselves the High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People. They announced their support for 30 by 30 by signing onto what they call the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature.
<<VARIOUS: The interests of our peoples and our planet have never been more strongly aligned. We want a real common movement for change. Now is the time to act. [Overlapping] I endorse the leader’s pledge for nature and commit to take urgent actions so that united we can reverse biodiversity laws by 2030 for sustainable development [Overlapping “I endorse…for sustainable development]>>
HOST 2: That video, produced by the UN, features statements from leaders of the Seychelles, the European Commission, Colombia, Sweden, and many more. WHY was the expansion of protected areas seen as the best path forward? Well, as we said earlier, from its origins of colonial dispossession, protected areas [as an idea] had 200 years to be debated, redefined, denounced, re-imagined — and as we opened COP15 in 2022, they were couched in a rhetoric villainizing the relationship between humans and nature.
<<suspenseful music enters>>
<<say this with mirth>> The language is striking. Just listen to what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres had to say
<<GUTERRES: a planetary emergency is upon us, driven by the dual threats of the climate crisis and biodiversity collapse. This emergency is threatening people and planet. We are at war with nature and nature is fighting back.>>
HOST 2: But WHO is at war with nature? This “humans versus nature” narrative not only ignores the long history of Indigenous stewardship, but elevates the idea of EXCLUDING people from nature. Many Indigenous People fear the expansion of protected areas is just a new “green” version of colonial land displacement.
Jing told us…
[Duration: 0:31, 27:59-28:30]
<<CORPUZ: there was a, a substantial grouping of indigenous peoples aligned with [um] some civil society organizations that were really against 30 by 30, right, because of the legacy of fortress conservation, the legacy of evictions, rights violations, and they felt that [to] raising the ambition around establishment of protected protected areas would put immense pressure on indigenous territories moving forward.>>
HOST 2: But while many fear the dangers of increased protected areas, Indigenous perspectives on 30 by 30 are diverse. Others see the target as an opportunity to secure land, tenure and resource rights.
[Duration: 0:56, 28:35-28:54, 29:09-30:05]
<<CORPUZ: There were some who really wanted protection of 50% by 2030. And in fact, [the] our brothers and sisters from the Amazon, they came to Montreal to COP 15 with the advocacy for countries to agree to protect 80% of the Amazon by 2025.>>
<<Many indigenous territories are facing threats from mining and other destructive environmentally destructive activities and they felt that if they could transform the concept of conservation, it would put them in a stronger position to resist all of these activities that, that, degrade biodiversity. So many viewed it as an opportunity. And of course it was conditional on getting good language in there for protection of indigenous rights.>>
HOST 2: So one group says that 30 by 30 is a neocolonial land grab. Another group says 30 by 30 is an opportunity for Indigenous peoples to assert their rights and power. There are many nuances to Indigenous perspectives on this issue, including whether Indigenous territory could be recognized as “protected areas”, OECMS, or whether they should be seen as INDEPENDENTLY contributing to the 30 by 30 target. How could these differences in opinion be resolved at COP15? At this meeting of powerful decision makers from around the world, how could Indigenous people even make their voices heard?
<<fade in transition music>>
ACT 3
<<fade out transition music>>
<<ANCHOR: Critics are expressing doubt about the UN Biodiversity Summit that’s taking place in Montreal and the fact that it won’t really achieve any real results to protect the environment. Indigenous participants say they want greater input into any final agreement and they say it’s simply not enough to just invite them to the summit.>>
HOST 1: When COP15 began on the morning of December 7, 2022, the concerns of Indigenous peoples were far from resolved.
[Duration: 00:35, 15:57-16:32]
<<CORPUZ: there were [Umm] 3 different sets of UM proposals just on target 3. The first one was to ensure that that protected areas are not established over indigenous territories without free, prior and informed consent the 2nd is to recognise the governance mechanisms, indigenous governance of resources and territory. And the third was to recognize that indigenous territories in themselves can actually already be considered as conservation areas>>
HOST 1: But Indigenous peoples don’t have the same level of influence at international negotiations. They, quite literally, don’t have a seat at the table. While all countries that signed the UN Convention on Biological Diversity are considered PARTIES, and have decision-making power, Indigenous peoples are considered OBSERVERS. This means they can be present at most negotiating sessions and can make statements IF INVITED, but have no direct power to decide on the final text. It plays out like it sounds. Countries deciding whether or not to recognize Indigenous rights while they themselves have little say in it.
[Duration: 0:24, 50:13-50:24, 49:41-49:54]
<<CORPUZ: We are like beggars, essentially, always approaching countries with our begging and, you know, trying to trying to convince them that This is a good idea. You should take it on. [JUMP] It’s a really difficult way of doing things, considering that we are self-Governing entities as well. We and we are indigenous nations. We are, We have our own governance structures.
We are peoples, no?>>
HOST 2: Their status as observers doesn’t mean Indigenous peoples are silent. They can make statements, hold side events and press conferences, and, of course, protest. But the UN still gives the ultimate power to governments, many of which are complicit in the oppression of Indigenous peoples, past and present. Okay… so what happened at COP15?
<<suspenseful transition music, 5 seconds>>
HOST 1: It was 3:30 in the morning on December 19 when negotiators from 193 nations finally came to an agreement on a new global biodiversity framework.
<<Huang: [CHINESE] [GAVEL] [APPLAUSE]>>
<<fade under host to end at 0:36>>
HOST 2: The package is adopted. With that, 30 by 30 is no longer a proposal – it’s now officially Target 3 of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, a historic agreement outlining goals, targets, and priorities to guide conservation practice for at least the next decade.
HOST 1: Target 3 now states that the 30% goal should be achieved “recognizing indigenous and traditional territories, where applicable,” and “recognizing and respecting the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, including over their traditional territories.” Like responses to the initial 30 by 30 proposal, reactions from Indigenous people and advocates were varied.
[Duration: 0:37, 5:01-5:38] (or 5:01-5:11, 5:19-5:38)
<<CORPUZ: We are pleased to see that in target 3 we have followed the science and we have addressed the experience indigenous peoples have in relation to fortress conservation. It’s important for the rights of Indigenous peoples to be there, and while it’s not the exact working that we had proposed in the beginning, we feel that it is a good compromise [cut to] and it provides us with enough uhm basis to continue working in full partnership with the parties, with the countries.>>
HOST 2: Did you recognize that voice? That was Jing speaking during the 30 by 30 negotiations.
HOST 1: But some advocates weren’t so pleased. Like Leila Salazar-López, CEO of Amazon Watch, who thought the agreement didn’t go far enough for conservation:
<<SALAZAR-LOPEZ: indigenous peoples together with scientists and academics and activists and NGO organizations like Amazon Watch, we were calling for much beyond 30 by 30 or even 50 by 30. We’re calling for 80 by 2025>>
HOST 2: And some, like Eriel Tchekwie (tseh-eh-kway) Deranger, Executive Director of Indigenous Climate Action and member of the Athabasca Chipewyan (chip-eh-wan) First Nation, thought the agreement didn’t come close to including Indigenous leadership:
[Duration: 0:22, 4:07-4:20 + 4:51-5:00]
<<DERANGER: while we’re seeing massive progress to recognize the rights on paper some of the biggest challenges and risks that have come out of this cop is the fact that there aren’t any real mechanisms with real teeth [jump] there’s a lot of really flowery language but there still lacks any real substantive ways for indigenous peoples to be leaders in this movement>>
[Duration: 0:16, 15:08-15:12 + 15:18-15:30]
<<DERANGER: The concern though with the languages that came out of this is that it’s still up to the states [JUMP] and it still puts our communities our lands and territories at rest at risk for the ongoing Colonial conservation movement that sees us as just someone to be consulted>>
HOST 1: So, what happens now?
<<fade in transition music>>
CLOSER
<<fade out transition music>>
<<CORPUZ: Yeah, there’s a lot of work, so people thought that work would end at COP15, but actually that’s, it’s a starting point.
HOST 2: The 30 by 30 target has been officially adopted. That part is set in stone, but what happens over the next seven years is still in flux. The work of Indigenous people and allies will determine the legacy of 30 by 30 and whether it is a force for good, bad, or somewhere in between.
<< It’s ambiguous.
It’s ambiguous whether there was consensus at the global level on a third pathway. It’s certainly now possible for the countries themselves to say that these are the different ways by which we recognize indigenous territories.
HOST 1: Jing tells us that her priorities, and those of the International Indigenous Forum on Biodiversity, are for funders to directly support Indigenous territories as conservation drivers, and to continue strengthening representation of Indigenous peoples in international negotiation platforms.
<<CORPUZ: I think it’s time to build, you know, to work with governments. One of the first things that governments need to do is to revise their biodiversity strategies [JUMP] they have to engage with indigenous peoples in the process of revising the national biodiversity strategies and action plans. [JUMP] Is there a pathway there that allows in the self determined declarations of indigenous peoples?
<<HOST 1: Do you think there’s a world in which Indigenous First Nations become individual parties to the Convention?
CORPUZ: That’s the goal.>>
<<fade to music, continue playing under credits>>
HOST 1: This episode was written and edited by Claudia Deeg and Devin Domeyer. It was produced as part of the Seas the Day podcast series produced by the Duke University Marine Lab.
HOST 2: We are incredibly grateful to Jing Corpuz for taking the time to be interviewed for this podcast. You can follow her @jing_corpuz on Twitter.
HOST 2: In this podcast you heard clips of many Indigenous activists and world leaders on conservation. They are, in order: Ta’Kaiya Blaney, Ludovic Burns Tuki, Suzanne Benally, Derrick Redies, Atossa Soltani, Dr. Aby Sene-Harper, Elias Kimaiyo, Dr. Sene-Harper again, Antonio Guterres, Huang Runqiu, Leila Salazar-López, and Eriel Tchekwie Deranger.
Banerjee, S., & Dunaway, F. (2023). Beyond Fortress Conservation: Postcards of Biodiversity and justice. Environmental History, 28(1). https://doi.org/10.1086/722771
BBC News. (2022). COP15 Un biodiversity summit opens in Canada – Bbc News. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRfkWKlIgu0.
Campbell, L. M., & Gray, N. J. (2019). Area expansion versus effective and equitable management in International Marine Protected Areas goals and targets. Marine Policy, 100, 192–199. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2018.11.030
CBC News. (2022). Indigenous leaders press for more say at COP15 biodiversity summit. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDcHRZajINI.
CBD-Live. (2022). (English) Experts to Comment on the New Text of Global Biodiversity Framework (Gbf) on Key Issues. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLqSlZCN9r0.
CGTN. (2022). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework adopted at COP15. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_3eF_dU5UA.
CityNews. (2022). Calls for Indigenous-led nature protection at COP15. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUzrX2HQGUM&ab_channel=CityNews.
Convention on Biological Diversity. (2018, July 6). Protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. UN Environment Programme, CBD/SBSTTA/22/L.2 https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/9b1f/759a/dfcee171bd46b06cc91f6a0d/sbstta-22-l-02-en.pdf
Convention on Biological Diversity. (2022, December 18). Kunming-Montreal Global biodiversity framework. UN Environment Programme, CBD/COP/15/L.25 https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/e6d3/cd1d/daf663719a03902a9b116c34/cop-15-l-25-en.pdf
Convention on Biological Diversity (2020, Aug. 17). Update of the Zero Draft of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. UN Environment Programme, CBD/POST2020/PREP/2/1 https://www.cbd.int/doc/c/3064/749a/0f65ac7f9def86707f4eaefa/post2020-prep-02-01-en.pdf
Corson, C., Gruby, R., Witter, R., Hagerman, S., Suarez, D., Greenberg, S., Gray, N., Bourque, M., & Campbell, L. M. (2014). Everyone′s solution? defining and redefining protected areas at the Convention on Biological Diversity. Conservation and Society, 12(2), 190. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-4923.138421
Cultural Survival (2021, June 25). Indigenous peoples’ leadership and free, prior and informed consent are fundamental to 30×30 initiative. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/indigenous-peoples-leadership-and-free-prior-and-informed-consent-are-fundamental-30×30
Democracy Now! (2022). Major U.N. Biodiversity Deal Recognizes Indigenous Rights But Lacks Critical Enforcement Measures. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBd4-47CGTw.
FRANCE 24 English. (2022). COP15: Some NGOs warn plan will ‘devastate indigenous lives’. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_BSFvDDB9I.
Grant, R. (2021, January 1). The lost history of Yellowstone. Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/lost-history-yellowstone-180976518/
Greengrants. (2022). Unpfii Side Event: Indigenous Voices on the 30×30 Initiative & Philanthropy’s Response. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h4ys846e5U.
HAC for Nature and People. (2021). C0194. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAzth-PGG70&t=112s.
Jaay, C. (2022, August 12). Plans to protect 30% of the planet by 2030 could be ‘devastating’ for Indigenous people. Euronews.green. Retrieved January 23, 2023, from https://www.euronews.com/green/2022/12/08/why-the-plan-to-protect-30-of-the-planet-by-2030-is-terrible-news-for-indigenous-people
Jonas, H. D., Lee, E., Jonas, H. C., Matallana-Tobon, C., Wright, K. S., Nelson, F., & Ens, E. (2017). Will ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ increase recognition and support for iccas? Parks, 23(2), 63–78. https://doi.org/10.2305/iucn.ch.2017.parks-23-2hdj.en
Lang, C. (2021, January 6). Open letter to the lead authors of ‘Protecting 30% of the Planet for Nature’: “This paper reads to us like a proposal for a new model of colonialism.” REDD-Monitor. Retrieved January 23, 2023, from https://redd-monitor.org/2021/01/06/open-letter-to-the-lead-authors-of-protecting-30-of-the-planet-for-nature-this-paper-reads-to-us-like-a-proposal-for-a-new-model-of-colonialism/
Leaders’ Pledge for Nature. (2020). Un Secretary General – He Mr Antonio Guterres – Secretary General of the United Nations. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBfa0FMDQ78&list=PLD5N9jTjOYEo-OPDSv5MVr0YQZjxWrIwp&index=24.
Leaders’ Pledge for Nature. (2020). UNGA75: World leaders endorse the Leaders’ Pledge for Nature. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NITi31LnvU&list=PLD5N9jTjOYEo-OPDSv5MVr0YQZjxWrIwp&index=49.
Montreal Gazette. (2022). Indigenous protesters interrupt Justin Trudeau’s COP15 opening address. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8FUXju6aIw.
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2006, November 2). Article 2. Use of Terms. Convention on Biological Diversity. Retrieved from https://www.cbd.int/convention/articles/?a=cbd-02
Shanahan, M. (2021, October 8). Will 30×30 reboot conservation or entrench old problems? The Third Pole. Retrieved January 23, 2023, from https://www.thethirdpole.net/en/nature/30×30-target-reboot-conservation-or-entrench-old-problems/
Sobrevila, C. (2008). The Role of Indigenous Peoples in Biodiversity Conservation: The Natural but Often Forgotten Partners. World Bank Group, (44300). https://doi.org/https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/995271468177530126/the-role-of-indigenous-peoples-in-biodiversity-conservation-the-natural-but-often-forgotten-partners
Survival International. (2022). “The 30% [plan] is a dispossession of land and a land grab”. YouTube. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkT9ip-xtqg.
Tauli-Corpuz, V, Alcorn, J., Molnar, A. (2018). Cornered by Protected Areas: Replacing ‘Fortress’ Conservation with Rights-based Approaches Helps Bring Justice for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, Reduces Conflict, and Enables Cost-effective Conservation and Climate Action, Rights and REsources Initiative, https://www.corneredbypas.com/brief
Tauli-Corpuz, V., Alcorn, J., Molnar, A., Healy, C., & Barrow, E. (2020). Cornered by PAS: Adopting rights-based approaches to enable cost-effective conservation and climate action. World Development, 130(104923), 104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.104923
Tuck, E., and Yang, K.W. (2012). Decolonization is not a metaphor. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1) 1-40.
Warren, T., & Baker, K. J. M. (2019, March 4). WWF funds guards who have tortured and killed people. BuzzFeed News. Retrieved from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/tomwarren/wwf-world-wide-fund-nature-parks-torture-death
Welcome. Native Land Digital. (2021, October 8). Retrieved from https://native-land.ca/
End of references
