Equality exists at many levels. At its smallest size, it is between two people and this can be deeply personal as well as in a professional manner. At its largest, equality between nations is not just about sovereignty and the freedom and power to govern without foreign interference, but also about the weight one carries in the world and how balanced that power is compared to others. Given the various conflicts worldwide, the imbalance is apparent.
Equality is also relevant when it comes to interaction between groups of people and entities, whether governmental, non-governmental, political or commercial. The influence and control one side exerts can unfairly affect any decision-making process. An example is how the natural landscape or the lay of the land is governed and how equally its resources are distributed. Whether this be large territories or small, private plots, the natural world concerns all those who inhabit it. The fairness of the decision over its use, maintenance, modification or restoration is occasionally a delicate balance between conflicting parties and their different needs, then an obvious partiality towards one side or finally a blatant favouritism for one and ultimate disregard for the other party. On a local level, councils and/or justices of the peace mostly decide what citizens can and cannot do. Rules and regulations are enshrined in national laws. On an international level, conventions and agreements attempt to protect rights across borders. The biggest flaw is the fact that governments voluntarily sign up to such treaties. Enforcing compliance and addressing violations are additional causes for concern.
How significant is the butterfly effect when it comes to the felling of a mature tree in a town already marked as environmentally susceptible to excessive heat? If that same tree is commissioned to be cut down for the privilege of one person’s desire to build a pool house, does this outweigh the disadvantages of the loss of that one tree for the neighbouring area? If a government decides to lower the electricity rate for high-volume users, leading to the price of electricity going up for ordinary people, does the economic benefit equalise the higher cost of living for a larger group than those employed by said privileged companies? A similar question arises regarding the various data centres being constructed in quick succession to allow for the ever-increasing use of artificial intelligence. Notorious for their extreme thirst for energy (both electricity and water) with few if any benefits for the local community or even the country as a whole, governments sanction their construction while equality seems to be on a slippery slope towards extinction.
The Council of Europe Landscape Convention of 2000 (also dubbed the Florence Convention) was established to encourage public authorities to adopt policies and measures at local, regional, national and international level for protecting, managing and planning landscapes throughout Europe. It covers landscapes, both outstanding and ordinary, that determine the quality of people’s living environment. It also aims to promote interaction between local and central authorities. Forty-two countries are State Parties to this convention. Of the following examples, one is located in a Convention Member country, the other is not. In a small Austrian village close to the Alps, arable land was converted to allow for a hyperscale data centre, which – if fully functional – could consume the equivalent of seven per cent of the country’s present power demand. That is more than what the requirements of the entire city of Vienna, home to over two million people. One data centre supposedly equals more than two million individuals. The current Finnish government is a firm believer in its country as a hub of Europe’s data centres. Finland’s cooler climate is naturally attractive for artificial intelligence providers. In Muhos, one such provider illegally chopped down 250,000 trees in 330 hectares of forest, even taking the entire soil top with it. Wildlife was robbed of its habitat and wolves entered the neighbouring village. Another Finnish data centre agreed to buy up to half the electricity produced by one nuclear power plant, currently producing ten per cent of the country’s electricity. Austria is not a Member State to the Landscape Convention; Finland is. Neither landscape was deemed valuable enough.
Restoration of landscapes can also give rise to inequality, which is why a new guide was introduced in the margins of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (COP17) last month. It was produced by various entities, including a number of NGOs such as Synchronicity Earth, IUCN and re:wild, all organizations actively working towards healthy ecosystems. The publication aims to provide guidance to ecosystem restoration project practitioners to better integrate the needs, priorities, knowledge, wellbeing and rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities in restoration initiatives. The Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention of 1989, which was ratified by mostly Latin-American countries, already created the framework, but too often a misguided sense of superior expertise combined with international funding would ignore local knowledge and traditional ways, which more than once led to restoration projects collapsing. In a shift in decision-making power, the guide advises giving a louder voice to the very people living on the land, especially those who have been custodians since time immemorial. In other words, it wants to correct the imbalance.
Obtaining and guaranteeing equality is a wonderful yet difficult ambition. Sometimes it requires bold steps in uncharted territory; at other times it necessitates a step back to see the other party’s perspective and needs. In a world dominated by singular corporate greed and self-centred, short-sighted policies, it is up to civil society to balance things out and give a bigger weight to those at risk of losing out on equality. Or to remain with the current theme: on a quest towards equality, humanity is not quite out of the woods yet.
Issue #27 – November 2026