Without stronger, genuinely binding 30x30 obligations, the Kunming‑Montreal biodiversity deal is likely to repeat the failure of past voluntary targets and fall far short of what science requires.

Why 30x30 matters so much

The Kunming‑Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) makes 30x30 one of its central 23 targets for 2030, aiming to conserve at least 30% of land, inland waters, and marine areas, especially those most important for biodiversity and ecosystem functions. This is designed to help halt biodiversity loss and restore ecosystems as part of a 2050 “living in harmony with nature” vision, after previous targets (like the Aichi Targets) were largely missed.

Limits of current (mostly non‑binding) pledges

The GBF targets are framed as global commitments and guidance under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), but they are not, themselves, hard, enforceable obligations with penalties; they function more as international policy than strict international law. Past experience with the CBD shows that non‑binding global biodiversity targets tend to produce implementation gaps, weak accountability, and a pattern of “pledge and forget.”

Why making them legally binding is crucial

Research on international environmental agreements shows that binding rules, with monitoring and consequences, generally achieve higher compliance than purely voluntary or soft‑law commitments. Analyses of voluntary environmental agreements find they are often ineffective unless backed by credible regulatory threats or penalties, which is exactly what is missing for most 30x30 pledges today. Legal scholars argue that the 30x30 target can and should be anchored in the CBD as a “subsequent agreement,” clarifying and strengthening Parties’ obligations to create and effectively manage protected and conserved areas under Article 8, and potentially through new protocols.

What “truly binding” should include

• Clear national‑level obligations: Each Party should be required in law to designate and effectively manage ecologically representative, well‑connected, and equitably governed protected and conserved areas covering at least 30% of terrestrial, inland water, and marine areas by 2030, with priority for areas of high biodiversity value and ecological integrity.

• Robust safeguards: Binding rules must protect Indigenous rights and land tenure, prevent “paper parks,” and ensure that conservation does not become a pretext for dispossession, as critics of 30x30 have warned.

• Compliance mechanisms: Regular, standardized reporting, independent review, and the possibility of legal or political consequences (domestically or through CBD‑based procedures) when states fail to meet their obligations.

What is at stake if we don’t

Global biodiversity indicators show steep declines over recent decades, and current trajectories are incompatible with the GBF’s vision; weak, voluntary targets risk locking in further ecosystem degradation, species loss, and erosion of nature’s contributions to people. Because 30x30 is a cornerstone for other GBF goals—supporting climate regulation, water security, food systems, and resilience—failure to make it binding would undermine much of the broader sustainable development and climate agenda.