Is Conservation Really Worth It?

       I have recently been focusing on, and will for much of this blog, the current state of biodiversity and what we can do to improve it. However, other opinions and impacts on this subject need to be assessed and considered to cultivate an unbiased view on conservation.

       To this aim I thought I would take a look at a report recently published (6 days ago) on the projected costs associated with protecting species. The report, by McCarthy et al., 2012, is titled Financial Costs of Meeting Global Biodiversity Conservation Targets: Current Spending and Unmet Needs.


       The report estimates the costs of meeting the new strategic plan on biodiversity by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), which includes 20 targets to be met by 2020, and can be viewed here. It's worth scanning if you're interested, as it includes such targets as:

"By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced." (CBD, 2011, Target 5).

McCarthy et al., 2012, used data on birds to determine the costs relating to preventing threatened species becoming extinct, maintaining their conservation status, and managing and expanding protected areas (to 17% of terrestrial areas etc.). Again, it is worth scanning the report to look at the estimated costs for different groups, the information being too in depth to record here. They did find, however, a combined cost for achieving species and site CBD targets in the region of $78.1 billion US dollars annually! The report therefore clearly suggests a much increased global biodiversity conservation budget is required.
      


Can we really afford to protect and conserve the Earth's ecosystems?
Photo from greenpeace.org

      Without getting too much into critique, there are a few inaccuracies/areas that don't seem quite right:

• When calculating the cost for protecting and managing all global sites for avian conservation the total came to $65.1 billion annually. However adding sites for whatever 'other taxa' only increases the cost by $11 billion?
• Experts on each species advised current and required costs, but on only 211 globally threatened bird species, and estimated costs for other species based on this. This seems innaccurate, but may have been the easiest method.
• As the report notes, these huge figures do not guarantee success, and investment past 2020 will almost certainly be needed to maintain any results.
• The reality of required conservation is not a price-tag for saving all species, but a great deal of local knowledge, projects and work into preserving our ecosystems.

The question many will ask is; can we afford to spend this much? Despite the area needing more research and definitive figures, perhaps we should be asking, as Leo Hickman of the Guardian says on this topic, "can we afford not to?".

Now I'm not trying to influence, but as McCarthy et al., 2012, point out "the total required is less than 20% of annual global consumer spending on soft drinks."



For more in depth reading on this topic, see the actual report here, or read Leo Hickmans 'Eco Audit' here. The Eco Audit page seeks to answer some questions brought up by the report through correspondence with the authors and experts, and discusses the implications.