In 2021, Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham signed an executive order calling for New Mexico to protect 30% of its land and waters by the year 2030, joining the national 30×30 initiative to combat climate change and improve the long-term resiliency of our ecosystems and natural landscapes.
The executive order set two goals to be reached by 2030: (1) “conserved lands” totaling 30% of New Mexico; and (2) “climate stabilization areas” totaling an additional 20% of New Mexico. To flesh out what this means, the State’s 30 by 30 Committee issued two previous Requests for Information (surveys), asking the public to weigh in on draft definitions for “conserved lands” and “climate stabilization areas.”
The State’s 30 by 30 Committee is now requesting input on the resulting and updated definitions, which are inappropriately broad, promote impermanent protections, and emphasize values beyond climate resiliency that may conflict with 30×30 goals. As a result, these definitions do not meet the spirit of the Governor’s 2021 executive order and will not meaningfully contribute to addressing the climate and mass extinction crises that the 30×30 campaign seeks to avert.
To address these issues, New Mexico Wild suggests the following responses to the latest survey:
1. The above definition [for Conserved Lands] is:
Very bad
2. Has the above definition of Conserved Lands improved from the original definition presented in RFI 2?
No
3. How would you improve the definition of Conserved Lands?
The definition of “Conserved Lands” must emphasize robust and permanent protections, maintaining the natural condition of the land, and a primary purpose of promoting climate resiliency. An improved, suggested definition is:
“Conserved lands” are lands and source water areas in a primarily natural condition that have permanent protection from the loss of natural land cover and are managed, restored, and monitored to provide ecosystem services, climate resiliency, and/or cultural values. These services and values include supporting New Mexico’s economy, protecting traditional ways of life, providing drinking water, ensuring food security, enhancing biodiversity and wildlife habitat and corridors, and providing equitable and inclusive recreational opportunities to promote the health and well-being of all people.
4. Are there other land management designations you would identify as fitting within the draft definition of conserved lands? Please include your rationale for including these designations.
No. The proposed land management designations are too broad and should not include impermanent designations, lands in less than a primarily natural condition, or lands that allow for conflicting uses, such as multiple-use management. Allowing for impermanent protections, the inclusion of lands in less than a natural state, or conflicting uses undermines the goal of the 30×30 campaign to meaningfully address the climate and mass extinction crises.
5. The above definition [for Climate Stabilization Areas] is:
Very bad
6. Has the above definition of Climate Stabilization Areas improved from the original definition presented in RFI 2?
No
7. How would you improve the revised definition of Climate Stabilization Areas?
“Climate Stabilization Areas” must have robust protections against the loss of land cover in the area. An improved, suggested definition is:
“Climate Stabilization Areas (CSAs)” means any land or source water area in a natural or semi-natural condition that has protection from loss of natural land cover for most of the area. CSAs may be open to some extractive uses but nevertheless provide ecosystem services, carbon sequestration, climate resiliency, and/or cultural values. CSAs include public lands that meet this definition and private or sovereign lands that meet this definition and have been voluntarily nominated to be counted as CSAs.
8. What types of land management activities do you think would be good candidates for recognition as CSAs under the revised definition? Please include your rationale for including these activities.
Land management activities that merit recognition as CSAs must include lands in either a natural or semi-natural state and must include robust protections against the loss of land cover. Allowing for impermanent protections will create ongoing monitoring requirements that are infeasible to achieve and the inclusion of lands in less than a natural or semi-natural state will promote insignificant ecosystem service, carbon sequestration, and climate resiliency, thereby, undermining the goal of the 30×30 campaign to meaningfully address the climate and mass extinction crises.
To contribute your ideas, please fill out the 30 by 30 survey by clicking here.
The deadline to complete the survey is May 18, 2023.
