Survival Worldwide condemns marketing campaign to “defend half the planet”

Survival has written to Avaaz to sentence its new marketing campaign to guard half the planet. If enacted, the plan will trigger catastrophic hurt to thousands and thousands of individuals:

– It poses a critical risk to Tribal and Indigenous peoples. Creating Protected Areas on land inhabited by Indigenous Peoples and native communities repeatedly results in their expulsion and persecution. The overwhelming majority of Protected Areas in Africa and Asia, for instance, have resulted within the eviction of Indigenous Peoples or different native communities. Pushing for extra Protected Areas will imply extra land theft, killings, torture and abuse.

– It should result in an enormous land seize. The present marketing campaign to “defend” 30% of Earth by 2030 (“30×30”) will already be the most important land seize in historical past. Indigenous Peoples affected by Protected Areas are strenuously objecting to it.

– It should endanger the lives of thousands and thousands of individuals. Avaaz’s marketing campaign proposes a harmful and diversionary ‘resolution’ to biodiversity loss with no safeguards for Indigenous rights. The conservation trade has been promising to acknowledge Indigenous rights for many years (for instance within the Durban Accord in 2003, in CBD Article 8j, and within the insurance policies of conservation organisations like WWF) however has completely failed to take action. There is no such thing as a purpose to count on issues to be totally different now. Avaaz’s push to guard half the earth will instantly endanger the lands, livelihoods and security of thousands and thousands of Indigenous and Native Folks. 

– It reinforces the false concept that individuals and nature are separate. Requires ‘safety’ of fifty% of the Earth reinforce the false narrative that individuals and nature are separate, and that nature have to be shielded from individuals: the assumption on the very coronary heart of fortress conservation. Tribal and Indigenous Peoples know the alternative is true: their lands usually are not “wildernesses” however landscapes they’ve formed and managed.

– It should intensify outsiders’ management of Indigenous lands. The overwhelming majority of Protected Areas in Asia and Africa are government-run – virtually none are run by Indigenous Peoples and native communities. They’ve been the reason for numerous human rights abuses. The Avaaz marketing campaign is prone to make this worse. 

– It’s an assault on Indigenous autonomy. Choice-making about, and funding of, Protected Areas has all the time been within the palms of these with energy – governments and massively rich conservation organizations who’re closely funded and influenced by enterprise pursuits. Calling for extra such areas will increase their energy on the expense of the homeowners of the land.

– It undercuts Indigenous calls to scrap “30×30.” The marketing campaign undermines the demand from many Indigenous Peoples, together with these talking on the Our Land Our Nature Congress, for the prevailing “30×30” goal to be deserted. The issues about 30×30 are supported by the virtually 250 organisations which have signed the joint assertion to this impact. Avaaz’s marketing campaign is a betrayal of the numerous Indigenous Individuals who have misplaced their lives, lands and technique of survival within the identify of conservation.

– It diverts consideration from one of the best ways to save lots of biodiversity – to acknowledge Indigenous land possession rights. By far the simplest and simply strategy to combat biodiversity loss and local weather change is to respect the rights of Indigenous Peoples to their lands. This reality is acknowledged in lots of scientific papers, insurance policies and declarations together with the current Coverage Temporary by the UN Particular Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Atmosphere.

In addition to these direct and disastrous penalties for Indigenous Peoples and native communities, the marketing campaign to “defend” 30% or 50% of Earth won’t assist the combat in opposition to local weather change:

– It should fail to halt environmental destruction and biodiversity loss. The mannequin of making Protected Areas has fully did not halt environmental destruction and biodiversity loss. Of the 20 targets within the earlier world motion plan on biodiversity, (overlaying 2010-2020), the one one achieved was to extend the world of Earth designated as protected to 17%. But the conservation trade itself states that biodiversity has declined ever quicker throughout this similar interval, elevating critical questions on any scientific foundation for the 30% or 50% demand.

– It diverts consideration from the true trigger of worldwide warming. Calls to guard 30% or 50% of the planet are a diversion from strain for concrete motion to cease burning of fossil fuels, over-exploitation of pure sources and over-consumption, notably within the World North. Many governments will signal as much as these pledges as a approach of showing to take motion with out really having to do something to deal with the true causes of the local weather crises and biodiversity loss – on the expense of Indigenous Peoples.