Dr. Cristiana Pașca Palmer has a big job ahead of her: planning the 2020 UN Biodiversity Convention in Beijing. As the Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Pașca Palmer is in charge of forming new goals with governments for the natural world post-2020. At the same time, a growing group of scientists are calling for a serious consideration of the Half Earth idea – where half the planet would be placed under various types of protection in a bid to prevent mass extinction.
Do you support the Half Earth model? What tweaks would you make to it?
“Half Earth”, a concept coined by the distinguished professor E.O Wilson advocates that we need to conserve half of the Earth’s lands and seas, in order to avoid species extinction. This idea sparked a vivid debate. Questions that I see surfacing frequently in these discussions ask – “What about humans? And what do we do with the ‘other Half? Could we continue to use the planet unsustainably, as long as half of it is conserved?”
In my view, we need to ensure that the entire planet is used sustainably. That is, 100% of the Earth, the “Whole Earth”, has to be managed in a way that will allow continuous healthy functioning of the ecological systems that support life on Earth, including human life.
We can think of biological diversity as the “infrastructure” that supports all life on the planet. When we lose species through extinction the web of life is destroyed and this in turn affects the resilience of the ecosystems and nature’s capacity to provide the services that humans benefit from – ensuring our food, the air we breath, the water we drink, or the moments of peace and serenity we enjoy in nature.
Conservation and protection of nature, ecosystems, and species is one essential pillar of any strategy to ensure fully functional natural systems in the long term. Ecological restoration of degraded lands through natural means should be another key component. Ultimately, the paradigm shift that perhaps is necessary is the wide-understanding that the Earth is one system of interconnected elements, and that humans’ social and economic systems are embedded in the larger nature’s system, and not the other way around.
A transformation of the way we produce, consume, and generally, interact with nature should therefore be another pillar of a long-term sustainable approach to ensure nature’s health, which is an essential condition for our survival and well-being on the planet. Ambitious, science-based targets are needed to guide the way in conserving and restoring the Earth.
A couple of recent papers have suggested that the CBD push for a new agreement in 2020 that would be similar to the Paris Climate Agreement to ratchet up conservation targets and funding. Is this something that the CBD is actively considering?
All 196 parties that are signatories of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity adopted the 2050 vision of “Living in harmony with nature.” We have made progress towards this goal but a lot more remains to be done. This ‘road to 2050’ has several important milestones – the design of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework is one of them, along with the implementation of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which have 2030 as deadline.
Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo
The current 20 global biodiversity targets (Aichi targets) are embedded and reflected in most of the 17 SDGs; thus, it is expected that achieving the SDGs will also benefit biodiversity. There is also an increasing global recognition of the urgency of action needed to protect biodiversity – to shift to new ways of production and consumption and reorient economic development pathways towards an “economy within ecological boundaries.”
Governments are already starting their work to develop an ambitious post-2020 architecture for biodiversity that is transformative but also achievable. We hope this framework, that will be adopted by the global community at the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) of the UN Biodiversity Convention hosted by China in Beijing in 2020, will provide new impetus to the way we conserve and manage Earth’s natural capital.
We expect both the governments and other relevant stakeholders from the business sector and civil society to make their specific and strong commitments towards implementing the post-2020 agenda and achieving the 2050 vision of living in harmony with nature.
What are the political roadblocks to taking much more ambitious action to save life on Earth? How do you propose to overcome these?
The first major structural roadblock is the current global economic and development model which does not account for natural capital and does not consider the ecosystem services provided by biodiversity as a fundamental part of the economic system. We need to fundamentally change this paradigm and shift to an economic model that accounts for the fact that we operate within a closed system – planet Earth – and that our economic growth is limited by the ecological limits of the planet, also known as “planetary boundaries.”
The second roadblock is the ‘short-termism’ structurally embedded in the current political decision-making processes. Many environmental considerations and conservation actions are of a long-term nature, going beyond the usual political and election cycles of few years. We need thus long-term planning for the way we use nature’s capital, rooted in the fundamental planetary and human needs and informed by the science on ‘planetary boundaries’.
Building a bridge between science and policy-making is crucial. Long-term vision grounded in solid science and short-term, practical, implementation action needs to be at the heart of our decision-making.
And the third major roadblock, ticking at the intersection of the political reality and culture, is the dominant concept of human separation from and supremacy over nature. This misconception underpinning in large measure the modern views and attitudes towards nature is at the root of people’s disconnect from nature and the fragmentation we see in environmental governance and policy-making. Significant changes are required in our mentalities – as decision makers, producers, and consumers. Awareness and education are essential for building a common, widely internalised understanding that our planet’s resources for supporting life are finite.
How do we significantly increase funding worldwide for conservation protection?
Current funding resources for conservation are disproportionally low and fragmented compared to the needs. Creative and more innovative means of finance and resource mobilisation have to be explored to unlock the necessary resources to implement the Convention’s objectives post-2020. Blending public and private finance, innovative green finance, and biodiversity insurance facilities are just few examples.
On the other hand, the impact of economic activity on nature and environment could be mitigated by making conservation an integral part of every industrial or other type of projects that may have potential adverse impacts on the environment. This process, called ‘internalisation of externalities,’ follows the principle of sustainable use of resources and allows for a ecosystems, holistic, approach to managing Earth’s natural capital.
The cheapest way of doing conservation is investing in the prevention of harmful effects and in building safeguards against major adverse impacts. Switching to sustainable consumption and production, applying the principles of circular economy, eco-design and zero waste are modern approaches in this regard. The money could flow from simply redirecting the funding from ‘nature-ignorant’ decisions to ‘nature-savvy’ decisions and mainstreaming biodiversity in key economic sectors, such as agriculture, fisheries, tourism, forestry, infrastructure, health and manufacturing, as already proposed under the provisions of the Biodiversity Convention.
Additionally, investing in biodiversity conservation is a cost-effective way to maintain ecosystems resilience and mitigate the impacts to climate change. Ultimately, investing in biodiversity is beneficial for social and economic development. Or, as some say, “green is the new gold.”
For the protection of very specific, sensitive, or in crisis ecosystems or species, the funds should be provided through a comprehensive, holistic mix of sources from public and private finance, philanthropy and even crowdsourcing.
Finally, the quality and efficiency of the way financial resources are used is just as important as the quantity. Partnerships with civil society, local communities and indigenous people are effective ways to maximise investments and deliver good results for conservation in the long run.