The Half-Earth project: Is it a plausible sustainability strategy?
Biodiversity is the key to life on our planet, providing eco-system services upon which all life depends. For years biodiversity have been declining worldwide due to the loss of habitat and climate change. As a result of human’s activity, we imposed on ourselves great threats and challenges that could lead to our extinction as a species and the extinction of the planet as a whole. To lose so much of earth’s biodiversity is to destroy both our living heritage and the stability of the planet. So what can we do about it?
The Half-Earth Project:
E.O Wilson the great evolutionary biologist came up with the concept of Half-Earth. Wilson proposes that half of the earth should be designated completely as a natural reserve in order to preserve biodiversity. Wilson explains in his book Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life that losses in biodiversity are already beyond the stage of recovery and, therefore, the only solution to prevent mass extinction and destruction of our planet is to protect half of earth from human interference to allow the natural reserve to preserve the biodiversity, while the other half will be shared among humans.
Why half?
But why exactly half? Well, the amount of suitable habitat that is available for species is a crucial factor in their life or death. The Theory of Island which was developed by Wilson himself in the late 1960’s suggests that any change in an area of habitat would result in a change of the sustainable number of species by approximately the fourth root. If the reserve grows in size so does the surviving species and vice versa. So, based on the theory, if we protect half of the global surface, the number of protected species will be 85% or more which would be enough to prevent our extinction.
How?
For the Half-Earth project to be specific about which half they will preserve, they use advanced technologies that allows them to comprehensively map the geospatial locations and distribution of species on the planet, and therefore the decision making would be done based on these data that would show where is the best opportunity to protect the most species.
Currently the project have identified several locations for preservation, most of which locations are in South America
The project relies on deep scientific research and experienced leadership as strategies to map the Earth’s species at a fine scale and require engagement with people everywhere to participate broadly in the movement. Once enlisted, people are normally asked to sign the Half-Earth pledge in which people pledge to do what they can to support the Half-Earth Project in terms of sharing information, participating in local conservation efforts, and supporting protection policies.
Can it be taken seriously as a plausible sustainability strategy?
If we look at Wilson’s proposal, it all sounds great but is it really practical? Are there any negative consequences on human population that would arise from implementing the project?
An article entitled half earth or whole earth? Looked at the other side of the Half-Earth project and the negative impact it would have on humanity, the argument can be summarized in the following points:
1. The Half-Earth proposal most basic problem is that it ignores the main drivers of the losses in biodiversity globally. A plan for future biodiversity that does not address over consumption of resources and industrial activities is unrealistic as even if we divide the earth into half, how humans manage their half in terms of activities and consumption of resource will continue to have major consequences on the entire planet.
2. What about the social impact of the half earth project? Restriction of areas would create challenges of physical and economic displacement and eventually lead to a social conflict. Even, in today’s world, many strictly protected areas are already embroiled in social conflicts.
3. Another issue with the project is the question of who will create and control these protected areas? And how can we share these areas globally and equally? The low income countries suffer from poverty and lack of infrastructure and so removal of land from non-conservation use will impact those countries and communities the most, who are ironically the least responsible for our current environmental predicament.
4. In several studies, it has been proven that protected areas work best if they are supported by the local communities. A recent study found that protected areas which have integrated local people as their stakeholders are more effective in achieving a biological conservation, economic and a social development. The Half-Earth project completely ignores this relationship between biodiversity and the local communities.
5. The final problem is that the Half-Earth project offers no agenda or guidelines on how to manage the biodiversity in the human half of earth. What will the biodiversity look like, what’s the role of humans in its half nature? Will there be any restrictions?
These problems and issues are predictable and expected but the Half-Earth project hardly mentions these negative impacts or how to address them.
In short, the half earth proposal is not plausible and cannot be implemented as a sustainability strategy because of the several elements that it fails to address. Not only that, but if it is implemented it will result in dangerous and counter effective consequences such as conflicts and injustice at a large scale.
A logical solution would be to implement strategies that focus on the main drivers and roots of the biodiversity loss. Much more can be done if we address how the global economy works and specifically address how we extract natural resources.
We need to realize that economic growth in itself is the issue, and that working towards achieving prosperity without growth would be a viable solution.
Additionally, the implemented strategies must support measures that address inequality as well as health and well being. This is a realistic approach and a fairer way of sustaining biodiversity than what the Half-Earth project proposes.
