In the climate space, the world has adopted a clear red line based on the scientific consensus: 1.5 Degrees Celsius. Meaning that humanity acknowledges that if we exceed 1.5 Degrees warming globally then we will likely face catastrophic consequences. This target was chosen based on the conclusions of thousands of climate scientists around the world. Regardless of whether it is feasible for humanity to avoid it or not, it is important that the global population understands, in objective terms, the limits of our climate and atmosphere.

There is a corresponding target in the biodiversity sector: it is at least Half or 50%. According to approximately 70% of conservation scientists we need to keep at least Half of all ecosystems intact to maintain the ecological services derived from these landscapes and marine areas. Some ecosystems, like rainforests, require a lot more. The Amazon, for example, needs at least 80% intact or else it will lose the ability to maintain itself as a rainforest and will collapse. Still others, like grasslands, require less, or around 40%. But on average it all works out to at least Half of Earth’s lands and seas.

Conservation scientists have been talking about Half for a long time. The Odums first observed in the early 1970s that if more than 50% of a wetland was degraded then the wetland began to collapse. In the 1990s, Reed Noss was the first to conclude that the principles that operate at a landscape level also apply to the entire biosphere. Which is why he called for the protection of Half of Earth nearly 3 decades ago. The first conservation group to call for the protection of Half of an entire country was the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWs) in the mid-2000s. In 2009, WILD.org was the first NGO to call for Half of the entire planet at the 9th World Wilderness Congress in Merída, Mexico. About 8 years later, E.O. Wilson would do the same in his book, Half Earth. 

Despite all of these efforts, getting Half on the national and international agenda has not been easy. It wasn’t easy for 1.5 Degrees either although climate advocates largely succeeded in Paris where 2 Degrees was adopted as the political target but 1.5 Degrees was loudly proclaimed to be the actual scientific target. The biodiversity sector has, unfortunately, lagged behind.

Many fear that Half is not feasible. Planetarily, we are sitting on the Half threshold now, and with the world anticipating adding 25 million km of roads in the next 20 years (enough to encircle Earth 600x) and double the amount of urban square footage, a lot of people don’t want to talk about the scientific consensus because they don’t think it is politically achievable. They believe that if we gradually increase targets from 17% to 30% and eventually to Half that this will be an easier political pathway. But we at WILD disagree!

When is it more ecologically and politically feasible to achieve this target? When we have approximately Half left (as we do now) or when we have to restore at a nearly unimaginable scale 25 years from now, removing millions of homes and kilometers of roads, reconstructing fragile landscapes, and even reviving extinct species?

Calling for and designating Half now is by far the easier route, even if it is difficult and nigh impossible! And besides, the global population deserves to know the truth about Earth’s ecological limits.

The other concern is that a 50% spatial target could be used in many places to displace Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities. WILD.org takes this fear far more seriously than the concern about political feasibility as we know Indigenous Peoples have been displaced and continue to be displaced in the name of conservation. This does not mean the ecological limits of our planets change, but it does mean we must approach this spatial target with caution as well as inclusive oversight and decision-making.

Fortunately, a growing recognition within conservation that we cannot achieve Half without including Indigenous Peoples is bringing much needed attention to the opportunities presented by Indigenous land stewardship. Not only have Indigenous Peoples in general done a better job of preserving natural ecology than has mainstream society, but they also are best positioned to continue to do so if given the right training, opportunities, and incentives.

For this reason, WILD.org prioritizes partnerships with Indigenous communities for our on-the-ground conservation projects (traditional protected areas are also an important tool for reaching the Half target, but WILD.org feels best positioned to maximize our impact for people and nature in partnership with Indigenous Peoples), and resourcing new conservation instruments, including Other Effective Area-Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) to empower Indigenous-led conservation and to improve our chances of achieving Half NOW!

That is why our first motion submitted for the IUCN World Conservation Congress in October calls for the IUCN to adopt the Half spatial target and to do so by including and prioritizing the capacitation of Indigenous-led conservation, and strengthening and expansion of Indigenous territories to achieve conservation values.

We are pleased to acknowledge our co-sponsors on this motion, including Natural Resources Defense Council, Center for Large Landscape Conservation, Sociedad Peruana de Derecho Ambiental, Kua`aina Ulu `Auamo, The Rainforest Trust, Wilderness Foundation Africa, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, and Earth Law Center. This motion could not come to the floor without their fearless support. 

And we also want to thank the many delegates of the 12th World Wilderness Congress who voted in near unanimous agreement on a total of 4 resolutions that included both an emphasis on expanding Indigenous territories to achieve conservation values and the urgent need to do so in order to protect at least Half of Earth’s lands and seas.

You can read Setting area-based targets on scientific evidence and reversing historic injustices here. We look forward to announcing later this month the outcome of the IUCN’s initial review of this motion and whether or not it was accepted for debate on the floor of the World Conservation Congress.