ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Extinction Countdown

Extinction Countdown


News and research about endangered species from around the world
Extinction Countdown Home

Cost to Prevent All Future Extinctions: $11 per Person?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



forest owletA global effort to prevent all future species extinctions would cost about $80 billion a year, or $11.42 annually from every person on the planet, according to a study published last week in Science.

The study, released in conjunction with eleventh meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) currently underway in Hyderabad, India, is intended to support goals and commitments to halting extinctions and preserving nature by the year 2020 that the world’s governments have agreed to under the convention.

More specifically, the study finds that lowering the extinction risk for all of the species that are currently known to be threatened would cost the first $4 billion per year. Protecting and managing key habitats would cost an additional $76.1 billion.

How did the study come to these conclusions? Well, it’s important to note that the two lead authors come from BirdLife International and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), and they used birds as their key to unlocking some answers about protecting all species. (Other authors come from the United Nations Environment Programme, Princeton University, the World Wildlife Fund, the University of Cambridge and half a dozen additional organizations.)

According to the researchers, reducing the risk for all currently threatened bird species would cost between $880 million and $1.23 billion per year over the next decade. “Reducing the risk” refers to improving the status of all birds listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species, meaning birds that are currently listed as “Critically Endangered” would recover enough to be listed as “Endangered,” while “Endangered” species would move toward the “Vulnerable” category. Using this as their base, along with other data on the costs to protect other species of animals and plants, the researchers estimated that improving the status of all currently known threatened species would cost between $3.41 billion and $4.76 billion annually.

For protecting habitats, the researchers looked at what BirdLife calls Important Bird Areas: 11,731 land and marine sites identified as important to the preservation of biodiversity around the world. They say that effectively managing the 28 percent of those sites that are currently protected would cost $7.2 billion a year, and protecting the additional sites would cost $50.6 billion. The next task was to extrapolate this to protect all important sites for maintaining biodiversity. But according to BirdLife, 71 percent of the sites necessary to protect all other species are already Important Bird Areas. Using this as their model, the researchers came up with their final $76.1-billion per annum total to protect all of the world’s important nature sites and the species that depend on them.

In a prepared release, Donal McCarthy, an environmental economist at both BirdLife and the RSPB, says getting this money wouldn’t exactly be a sacrifice to the world economy. “The total required is less than 20 percent of annual global consumer spending on soft drinks.” He told the BBC that bankers earned twice this amount in bonuses just last year.

In support of this paper, BirdLife released a new report (pdf) on October 12 that argues birds can be used to create strategic action plans to achieve 18 of the CBD’s 20 “Aichi Biodiversity Targets” (so called because they were established at the CBD’s last meeting, in Aichi, Japan), which must be met by 2010. According to the report, birds “are better known than any other comparable group of organisms. There is unparalleled information on which species are the closest to extinction, the threats they face, actions needed, and critical sites that need safeguarding. These data can help to focus and target actions to tackle biodiversity loss.” BirdLife says birds can be used by nations around the world to track progress in public awareness of biodiversity, habitat loss, sustainable fishing, pollution, climate change and a host of other goals under the Aichi targets.

Of course, times are tough around the world. Governments are strapped for cash, bankers aren’t going to give up their bonuses and most consumers won’t skip a couple of six-packs of soft drinks every year to prevent extinctions, but these are definitely numbers that will help people to think about the costs and benefits of preserving nature. Let’s just hope that they don’t spend too much time thinking: Another paper co-authored by BirdLife researchers and published October 8 in PLoS One concludes that the rate of bird extinctions is rising at an “alarming” rate. For many species on the edge, time is of the essence.

Photo: India’s critically endangered forest owlet (Heteroglaux blewitti) by Tarique Sani via Flickr. Used under Creative Commons license

John R. Platt About the Author: Twice a week, John Platt shines a light on endangered species from all over the globe, exploring not just why they are dying out but also what's being done to rescue them from oblivion. Follow on Twitter @johnrplatt.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 2 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Quinn the Eskimo 2:29 am 10/21/2012

    I’d pay my $11 to *all* endangered species! But first, tell us, in detail, how you’re going to spend all that money. Be specific. What (the verb) are you planning? Or, you gonna empower some Universities to study the plan? Cuz’ I gotta tell you, a committee ain’t the answer. So my $11 stays put.

    Link to this
  2. 2. leojaywilde 3:54 am 01/15/2013

    The solution to deciding what do to is, I think, very simple. It’s the same as how we decide which foods to produce or which soft drinks to sell – let the market decide. Let the suppliers be existing, trusted names in conservation, such as WWF, and let the “buyers” be the people of the world, each giving a small monthly donation to _whichever_ “supplier” they choose.

    It is ridiculous for anyone’s $11 to “stay put” simply because there’s not a global master plan of how the money will be spent. There will never be such a plan! Humans have never succeeded in making such a plan for anything else. And we won’t succeed for conservation either. BUT WE DON’T NEED TO. As long as we raise approx $100 billion, and let people make their own choices about which charities spend it, the problem will be solved.

    See http://www.billions4animals.org which is designed on exactly these principles.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Back To School

Back to School Sale!

12 Digital Issues + 4 Years of Archive Access just $19.99

Order Now >

X

Email this Article



This function is currently unavailable

X