- “We should be proud of the progress that was made over the last years, but conservation priorities have always evolved [to] save the whales, save the rainforest, to today’s focus on climate change and area targets,” and the recent U.S. withdrawal from the global 30×30 conservation initiative won’t change that, a new op-ed argues.
- The U.S.’s 30×30 goal was central to President Biden’s America the Beautiful for All initiative and mobilized federal funding, new protections, and an all-of-government approach to conservation.
- “We should not accept these rollbacks as permanent defeat,” the authors say, but rather as “an opportunity to make our efforts sharper and more effective.” The loss of 30×30 should not be seen as a rejection of conservation values, but as a call to reimagine a conservation strategy that works for more people in more places.
- This post is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the authors, not necessarily Mongabay.
In his first week in office back in 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden signed a historic commitment to conserve 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. Two years later, the world agreed to a similar commitment with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. The initiative, commonly known as 30×30, has since become a rallying cry around the world for more and better conservation.
But among an avalanche of other executive actions in the past month, President Donald Trump overturned the U.S.’s 30% commitment. Given a chaotic first few weeks, this action went largely unreported, but like many of the things happening in the U.S. right now, it will have global implications.
This loss is significant. The U.S.’s 30×30 goal enshrined in the America the Beautiful for All initiative galvanized federal funding, instituted new protections, and created an all-of-government approach to conservation. During his time in office, Biden protected record-breaking swaths of US public lands and waters from drilling and mining. As of this writing, it is not yet clear how much of this will be rolled back. As the conservation community reels, we must ask ourselves: How do we rebuild in a way that effectively cares for nature and people?
There is no denying that 30×30 is effectively over at the federal level in the United States — although it will continue in some way in 13 states and around the world. But even before Trump, some of 30×30’s shortcomings were becoming apparent, and discussions on how to go “Beyond 30×30” were taking place. The current politics have forced a moment of reckoning to come sooner than planned, but if we respond effectively, we could model a different way of achieving success in ocean conservation around the world.
Ironically, the movement’s laser focus on area is also one of its biggest flaws. Approached narrowly, 30×30 could primarily incentivize large, distant, isolated protected areas over areas that are politically difficult to protect. Former secretary of the interior Sally Jewel explained this sentiment last year when she told The Guardian, “30×30 is a catchy phrase but not all acres are created equal — protecting high alpine rocks isn’t as valuable as protecting wetlands that are critical habitat for wildlife.”
Scientists have shown how our most important habitats and animals are not protected within our current system. In 2024, the Lenfest Ocean Program supported a study that assessed biodiversity inside and outside U.S. marine protected areas and found that these areas contained only a fraction of the biodiversity found in U.S. waters.
30×30 has also faced criticism of its effectiveness and equity. The burdens of managing protected areas have fallen mostly on remote overseas territories. 30×30 also focuses on designations and deprioritizes long-term active management of protected areas, which is what the conservation community largely agrees is necessary for proper ecosystem function. Not enough focus has been on improving outcomes for the people who actually interact with the ocean, which led to people feeling excluded from the movement and made 30×30 highly politicized.
But a vision of a post-30×30 conservation framework is already emerging, and this moment provides an opportunity to turn ocean conservation into something that is more inclusive and durable. Last October, our organization, the Center for American Progress, co-hosted along with the Lenfest Ocean Program a symposium to hear 800 scientists and experts’ vision for ocean conservation at the 7th International Marine Conservation Congress, with support from the Packard Foundation.
Scientists and conservation practitioners provided a nuanced argument: protected areas can be very effective tools for preserving biodiversity, but if not designed or implemented well, can have very negative impacts on local communities. Not incorporating the human component into conservation planning can lead to ineffective policy at best, and outright harm at worst. Ocean conservation needs to evolve to find a way of preserving biodiversity without keeping people out and instead figure out how to coexist with local communities and their needs.
Repeatedly, we heard the sentiment that the “who” and the “how” need to be more important than the “what.” Several speakers tackled the tough topic of conservation’s roots in colonialism and violence, or spoke to the current paradigm in which many ocean protection decisions are made largely by a handful of white, wealthy countries and NGOs. Pew fellow and National Geographic explorer Dr. Asha de Vos articulated a path forward when she declared, “the world’s largest ecosystem requires the world’s largest team.”
Conservation initiatives need to increase representation and decision-making power of underrepresented peoples. Local leaders and decision-makers in coastal communities around the world are the most qualified at determining the best course of action for their peoples and environments. Whereas success under 30×30 has been largely defined as the percentage of the ocean under protection, moving forward we need the metrics to define success in terms of people and processes.
We should be proud of the progress that was made over the last years, but conservation priorities have always evolved, from scenic landscapes in the days of Theodore Roosevelt, to wildlife and wilderness inspired by the writings of Aldo Leopold and Rachel Carson, to save the whales, save the rainforest, to today’s focus on climate change and area targets.
This moment is difficult for everyone who cares about the natural world in the United States, and around the world. We should not accept these rollbacks as permanent defeat, but as an opportunity to make our efforts sharper and more effective. The loss of 30×30 should be seen not as a rejection of conservation values, but as a call to reimagine a conservation strategy that works for more people in more places.
Angelo Villagomez is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress (CAP) and ocean co-lead for the America the Beautiful for All coalition. Dr. Alia Hidayat is a senior policy analyst at CAP and recently received her Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology–Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Joint Program.
Banner image: A sea turtle swims over a coral reef off the coast of Australia. Image courtesy of Jordan Robins/Ocean Image Bank.
Related audio from Mongabay’s podcast: Another area of environmental governance under pressure in 2025 is the international response to climate change, but the top U.N. diplomat who helped deliver the Paris Agreement says there’s much space for hope there, as well, listen here:
See related coverage:
January 2025 was warmest on record as climate change ‘overwhelms’ La Niña’s cooling
Study finds population crash for critically endangered European eel in Spain’s Ebro Delta
Two South American scientists win ‘environmental Nobel’ on human-nature divide
Credits
This story first appeared on Mongabay
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
You may republish this article, so long as you credit the authors and Mongabay, and do not change the text. Please include a link back to the original article.
