Three new multilateral cooperation alliances for promoting a global land-use transformation 4.5
4.5.3 Global conservation alliances for ecologically valuable landscapes Certain large-scale components of the biosphere – such as tropical rainforests – are, first, of particular importance for the function and stability of the Earth system and, second, vulnerable to relatively small changes in their growth conditions (e.g. temperature, precipitation) and structural parameters (e.g. connectivity). They have therefore been classified as tipping elements in the global environment (Lenton et al., 2019). Boreal coniferous forests and almost all coral reefs worldwide are also threatened by disruptive changes caused by anthropogenic climate change. Important drivers of environmental crises in general, and of land degradation in particular, can be attributed to the high demand for resources by industrialized countries and emerging economies (Section 2.1.2). The joint, cooperative conservation of these particularly valuable ecosystems from largely irreversible destruction is therefore a matter of urgency, but it is also a particular challenge (Drenckhahn et al., 2020:18). Against this background, the WBGU proposes setting up global conservation alliances in which states – supported where appropriate by financially strong private actors – join forces to protect and restore such ecosystems of global importance. In the WBGU’s view, a conservation alliance should assume responsibility for the protection or restoration of these ecosystems not only in terms of (project-related and time-limited) financing, but also by assuming proactive, creative responsibility for large areas and landscapes with valuable ecosystems in order to preserve their biological diversity and ecosystem services for the global community. In particular, the aim should be to ensure the urgently needed permanent basic funding for conservation and restoration areas (Drenckhahn et al., 2020:17) as well as the active involvement of local stakeholders (e.g. local decision-makers, resident farmers, indigenous peoples and nature conservationists) in order to implement ecosystem conservation on the ground in an integrative and context-related manner. Precisely because of their global importance, these ecosystems bear the characteristics of global commons whose conservation requires and deserves global cooperation (Buchholz and Sandler, 2020). Not only does the global, long-term value of these ecosystems exceed the short-term value of their destruction for local people; seen geographically, the capacity and the (historical) responsibility for the protection or the sustainable restoration and use of ecosystems also lie with the industrialized countries, whose resource-intensive production methods and lifestyles are at least partly
responsible for the degradation of valuable ecosystems. By contrast, the ecosystems themselves are often located in countries which, due to economic (development) constraints, have little chance of providing for ecosystem conservation and, overall, bear far less responsibility for climate change and ecosystem degradation. To some extent, however, institutional deficits in these countries also stand in the way of effective ecosystem protection. In line with the above-mentioned challenges of protecting these globally valuable ecosystems, a global conservation alliance should be underpinned by a broad concept of reciprocity. For example, the motivation of the industrialized countries and emerging economies in the alliance should be based on the understanding that (1) they share responsibility for the destruction of – or threats to – ecosystems that are relevant to the Earth system, and (2) the well-being of the population in their own national territory also depends on the longterm protection of these areas. They therefore act out of a duty of care for their own population and not as ‘selfless givers’. In this sense, support for a global conservation alliance should not be seen as an alternative to their own decarbonization and conservation efforts but rather as complementary to them. Conversely, the states on whose territory the valuable ecosystems and available land are located can consider it part of their common but differentiated responsibility and capability within the meaning of Article 3 of the UNFCCC to contribute to the stabilization of the global Earth system by making terrestrial ecosystems and land suitable for restoration projects available within the framework of such initiatives. Initiatives and funds that strengthen partnerships to conserve important ecosystems already exist and have existed in the past, e.g. the REDD+ climate-change-mitigation programme (Box 3.1-6), the failed Yasuní/ITT initiative (Box 4.5-2), or the BMZ’s Legacy Landscapes Fund (BMZ, 2019). So far, these approaches have not been successful enough. This conclusion can be attributed, for example, to the observation that land-based climate change approaches, with only 3% of climate-change funding, are currently underfunded (CIFOR, 2018). New types of initiatives for the protection of globally valuable ecosystems are therefore needed precisely in order to prevent ecosystem tipping points from being reached. The form in which protection and cooperation are implemented with the local policy-makers, businesspeople and population is not constitutive for a conservation alliance. The local conditions and the respective resources of both sides are decisive here. In principle, the activities of conservation alliances should meet the requirements of scalability, speed, and long-term
283