It Sounds Good But?

The High Ambition Coalition (HAC) for Nature and People claims that 50 countries have already 'committed' to protect at least 33% of our planet by 2030 (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/11/50-countries-commit-to-protection-of-30-of-earths-land-and-oceans). HAC claim that this (likely to be a focus of a 'Paris accord for Biodiversity' at Cop15 in Kunming, China in 2022) will halt the destruction of the natural world (debatable) and slow the extinctions of animals and plants. In the past, many protections (especially those of ocean locations) have proved to be only paper thin. One might also ask why it will take another 9 years to achieve HAC's aim and why the human species needs 67% of the planet, where it can go about its business unchanged? Even at this early stage, some indigenous groups are worried about land grabs of their areas being made to fulfil agreed percentages. Don't get me wrong, I approve of any attempt to mitigate the effects of the Anthropocene (the geological era with human-induced mass extinctions). Saying you will protect an area and actually doing it are, however, two different things. Who is going to 'police' the protections and ensure that the committing nations do not later backslide (with or without changes in political leadership)?