Fact check on a utopia that could soon become reality.
Fifty-fifty: the motto for peacemaking among siblings and friends. Perhaps "having to share" has not always corresponded to our individual desire to decide freely. Nevertheless, fifty-fifty is seen as an expression of justice and fairness. Recently, however, the idea has also been creeping into other areas: into the relatively messed-up relationship between humans and the environment. And raises the question of how well we can share with our environment?
In world-saving circles, the fifty-fifty idea has been transformed into an ambitious plan to combat the climate crisis, species extinction and the like. The slogan "Half Earth" describes the idea of sharing fairly with the planet. And to protect half of the planet in the process.
Which naturally causes some people to gasp. Especially as only around 10 percent of the planet is currently under protection. Is it realistic to increase this area fivefold in a short space of time? Will it really make a difference? What will happen to the people who live in these areas?
A quick fact check:
Who and what is behind this idea?
The 'Half-Earth' idea developed around the emeritus Harvard professor Edward O. Wilson (book 'Half Earth'). It was subsequently taken up as a campaign by Ricken Patel, the founder of the Avaaz platform for global online activism. In the meantime, international research teams have put tangible and well-founded proposals for implementation and impact on the table ('Global Safety Net'). And last but not least, there are also heated negotiations at UN level about a massive expansion of global protected areas.
Which half are we talking about?
'Half' may sound misleading at first glance. Of course, it is not about the northern or southern hemisphere. Rather, it is about a global network of protected areas. Which brings us straight to the central crux of the idea: which areas are suitable?
The 'global safety network' is a real eye-opener in this respect. We can get a clear and precise picture of where these protected areas should be located.
Fixed starters for the 'safety net' would be the "super spreaders of biodiversity": the last large, intact ecosystems and wilderness areas (tropical forests, coastal zones, deltas, wetlands, etc.).
It continues with areas where particularly rare species live. And then we must not forget the top managers of our ecosystems: large mammals, which play a key role as the top link in the food chain, as grazing landscape gardeners or suppliers of nutrients. And we are not starting from scratch. Of course, the existing 10 percent of protected areas are also part of the game.
What's the point?
If 50 percent of our planet were protected in this way, further species extinction could be halted or reversed. According to E.O. Wilson, this would save 85 percent of species, which would be almost surprisingly positive news in the midst of the 6th mass extinction.
But it would also be a big step forward in terms of climate stabilization. Global protected areas could store a staggering 2,000,000 megatons of carbon.
The effect could be further enhanced if degraded areas were also brought on board and converted into regenerated protected areas. For example, a reforestation project in the ecoregion of Nepal shows that by doubling the forest area in 24 years, the amount of carbon sequestered could be more than doubled(from 213 to 502 megatons).
Against this background, the pathos of Global Safety Net founder Eric Dinerstein, which is unusual for scientists, is understandable: the idea is nothing less than a tangible blueprint for saving life on planet Earth.
Bye, bye mineral resources?
Rescue or not, wouldn't this audacious plan cause us to lose a huge amount of mineral wealth and resources? Of course there is money to be made from unexploited natural resources. However, this one-off profit is offset by a much more enduring economic value that is often overlooked: 'services' that ecosystems provide for us humans.
This 'value' is overlooked above all because plants filter dust and pollutants from the air for free, the biofilm in rivers provides a free sewage treatment plant for nature, insects fertilize our fruit and vegetable plants for free, intact soils store carbon for free, etc.
If nature were to charge us for this service, we would have to shell out $44 trillion. That is more than half of the world's gross domestic product. We are becoming more aware every year that these 'services' are free, but not for nothing. Especially as we have to dig deeper and deeper into our wallets and state coffers to pay for environmental and climate damage.
What happens to the people?
There is no question that the areas to be protected will continue to be a habitat for people living there. There would also be no encroachment on existing agricultural land. The fact that a sustainable way of life is also possible in protected areas is demonstrated by examples in a number of biodiversity hotspots around the world that have long been carefully inhabited and preserved by people.
For example, a third of the proposed protected area network would overlap with areas associated with indigenous peoples' land rights or their habitat. The idea of protection could help them to preserve their habitat and way of life and strengthen their legal position.
Nevertheless: isn't homework unfairly distributed?
The fact is that key ecoregions (e.g. tropical rainforests, taiga and tundra) bear a disproportionate amount of responsibility for solving the problem. They would have to provide comparatively more protected areas than naturally species-poorer ecoregions (such as Central Europe).
However, a study that sheds light on the social and economic effects of protected areas shows that this need not be a disadvantage. The protected areas studied in the global South show that prosperity is demonstrably greater in the vicinity of protected areas. Regardless of whether protected areas are used for tourism or not. Children are demonstrably healthier when they grow up in the immediate vicinity of protected areas.
Can this utopia become reality?
All of these approaches are knocking on our door with a common message: the time for radical generosity has arrived. If we really want to do something about the greatest extinction of species in human history, we need a rethink towards "nature first". And there are justified grounds for hope.
In 2021, a science-based "Global Deal for Nature" could be adopted by the international community at the - possibly historic - Biodiversity Summit in the Chinese city of spring, Kunming. This would mean that over the next nine years, 30 per cent of the Earth would be placed under protection and a further 20 per cent would be designated as "climate stabilization zones".
What can we contribute to this? For example, support the most ambitious plan to date to save diversity with our signature . And then to look hopefully to China.
About the author
Dr. Sybille Chiari is part of the editorial team of "Nachhaltigkeit. Neu denken" and has been working on the topics of sustainability and climate communication for many years - both as a researcher and writer. She is part of the Scientists for Future movement and chairwoman of the Bele Co-Housing association (community housing project with organic, regenerative agriculture www.belehof.at).
