Presentation short abstract

Political ecology often critiques area-based conservation and the 30×30 target, but this can flatten contemporary practice into a “fortress” caricature. I argue that this limits engagement and overlooks nuance. I identify common misconceptions and highlight examples of more constructive scholarship.

Presentation long abstract

Political ecology scholarship has tended to adopt a critical stance towards area-based conservation, highlighting various negative issues including displacement, militarised enforcement and uneven power dynamics. It is therefore unsurprising that many political ecologists were highly critical of the campaign to include ‘half earth’ or ‘30x30’ in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. While the latter spatial target was included in the final framework, the text also includes multiple qualitative social elements that highlight issues such as equitable governance, respect for Indigenous lands and territories, and human rights. This raises the question of how political ecologists should respond to the 30x30 target, which can be read as a smoke-screen for underlying protectionist ambitions, an opportunity to re-imagine area-based conservation as a mechanism to support the aspirations of local residents, or both. In this paper, I will argue that rather than giving these questions careful consideration, current political ecology scholarship often presents a somewhat caricatured narrative of area-based conservation as fortress conservation that is not consistent with much contemporary practice. This undermines opportunities for meaningful engagement with practitioners and policy makers. I will identify several common misconceptions, and highlight examples that adopt a more nuanced approach to scholarship on this critically important topic.