Let's Drink Less And Protect The Species
By Countercurrents.org
12 October 2012
Countercurrents.org
Investment to protect threatened species is much less than bankers’ bonus, costs for soft drinks, arms and wars, experts say
Annual spending to protect species and habitats is less than half the amount spent on bankers' bonuses last year. It’s “just a fraction of what we as consumers spend on soft drinks each year which is almost half a trillion dollars”. The costs of wars are much higher. Arms cost much more. To protect threatened species will cost the world over $76bn annually.
A report [1] said:
Reducing the risk of extinction for threatened species and establishing protected areas for nature will cost the world over $76bn annually. Researchers say it is needed to meet globally agreed conservation targets by 2020. It amounts to just 1% of the value of ecosystems being lost every year, they report in the journal Science.
The scientists say the number is just a fifth of what the world spends on soft drinks annually.
Governments agreed in 2002 that they would achieve a significant reduction in biodiversity loss by 2010. But the deadline passed away and the rate of loss increased.
At a meeting of the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya that year, governments re-committed to targets to be achieved by 2020.
There is a marked lack of data on how much it would cost to protect species and landed areas. Some experts assume that uncertainty about financial information helps governments who are reluctant to commit to funding the targets.
Now researchers from a number of conservation organisations and universities have set out in detail the likely costs of preserving all threatened species. They've also worked out the cost of establishing and expanding protected areas to cover seventeen percent of land and inland water areas.
Environmental economist Donal McCarthy from the RSPB led the study. He told BBC News that the amounts involved are significant.
"Reducing the extinction threat for all species would cost $5bn a year, but establishing and maintaining a comprehensive global network of protected areas would cost substantially more," said McCarthy. "It could be up to $76bn annually to meet both targets."
The researchers used the threat to birds as a model for working out the costs of extinction to all species. They asked experts around the world to estimate the costs of conservation actions required to move them down the IUCN list of those at greatest threat.
"A key finding of our analysis was that the most highly threatened species tend to relatively cheap to save on account of their small range sizes, such as the Razo lark, which lives on the island of Razo in the Cape Verde islands," said McCarthy.
The costs for protecting land areas were worked out by including estimates of what would be needed to protect sites from threats including deforestation, poaching and over harvesting and improving existing conservation zones.
McCarthy says that when compared to some global expenditure the $76bn price tag is a small price to pay.
"These are just a fraction of what we as consumers spend on soft drinks each year which is almost half a trillion dollars - the total required for species and sites is less than half of what is paid out in bonuses to bankers on Wall street's biggest investment banks," he explained.
Another report [2] added:
The assessment reveals the enormous shortfall in funds required to save species, and warns that costs are likely to increase, the longer action is delayed.
To reduce the risk of extinction for all threatened species would cost up to $4.76bn every year, they say, with a further $76.1bn required annually to establish and manage protected areas for species known to be at risk from habitat loss, hunting and other human activities.
"These seem enormous figures to us as individuals, but in terms of government budgets they are trivial," said Stuart Butchart, the global research coordinator at BirdLife International in Cambridge.
"The $3-5bn to improve the status of threatened species and prevent extinctions is less than the amount that the Royal Navy's new aircraft carrier is over budget. And the cost for both species and site targets is less than half the amount spent on bankers' bonuses last year."
Writing in the journal Science, the authors warn that resolving the conservation funding crisis is urgent. One challenge is the disparity in resources available for conservation in richer countries and the greater potential for conserving species in poorer, but more biodiverse countries.
"These aren't bills, they are investments in natural capital, because they are dwarfed by the benefits we get back from nature, the ecosystem services, such as pollination of crops, regulation of climate, and the provision of clean water," said Butchart.
"Governments have found vast sums to prop up the financial infrastructure of the world. It's even more vital to keep our natural infrastructure from failing," he added.
Leo Hickman informed [3]:
WWF has explained that "investing in nature makes economic sense".
Source:
[1] BBC World, Matt McGrath, Science reporter, “Scientists say billions required to meet conservation targets”, Oct. 12, 2012,
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-19912266
[2] The Guardian, Ian Sample, science correspondent, “Cost of saving endangered species £50bn a year, say experts”, Oct. 12, 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/11/cost-save-threatened-species
[3] guardian.co.uk, “Can we afford to save species from extinction?”, Oct. 12, 2012,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2012/oct/12/extinction-species-save-cost-biodiversity
Comments are moderated
