Governments and donors have spent billions of dollars since the 1992 Rio Earth Summit attempting to slow the pace of species extinctions around the world. Now, a new paper in Nature provides the first clear evidence that those efforts are working.
The study by an international team of researchers found that the $14.4 billion that countries spent on conservation from 1992 to 2003 reduced expected declines in global biodiversity by 29 percent. The findings could be used by policymakers to set conservation budgets that would allow their countries to meet the goals of international species protection agreements.
“This paper sends a clear, positive message: Conservation funding works,” said senior author John Gittleman, dean of the Odum School of Ecology at the University of Georgia.
The study, led by Anthony Waldron of Oxford University, the University of Illinois, and the National University of Singapore, shows that conservation spending by 109 signatories of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity significantly reduced biodiversity loss in those countries.
To accurately explain the impact of conservation funding by country, the researchers incorporated information about changes to each country’s biodiversity from 1996 to 2008 as well as government and nongovernmental organization spending targeted toward protecting biodiversity from 1992 to 2003, which researchers say allowed enough lag time for that spending to have had an impact. The researchers also examined how human development placed stress on species and their habitats.
Among the study’s findings were that 60 percent of the world’s biodiversity loss could be attributed to seven countries: Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, China, India, Australia and, principally driven by species loss in Hawaii, the U.S. Meanwhile, another seven countries-Mauritius, Seychelles, Fiji, Samoa, Tonga, Poland and Ukraine-saw their biodiversity improve.
“The good news is that a lot of biodiversity would be protected for relatively little cost by investments in developing countries with high numbers of species,” said Gittleman. He added that it was important to note that as development pressures increase, conservation spending will have to keep pace. Policymakers could use the model to determine these budgets.
“This model provides a framework we can use to balance human development with maintaining biodiversity,” said Gittleman. “In my view, this is an empirical scientific framework of true sustainability.”
By providing evidence that conservation funding has already had a significant impact on the protection of global biodiversity, the authors hope that more countries will be motivated to invest in meeting international biodiversity commitments.
“For 25 years, we have known that we need to spend more on nature conservation, or face a modern mass extinction as serious as that of the dinosaurs,” said Waldron. “But governments and donors have been unwilling to come up with the necessary budgets, often because there was little hard evidence that the money spent on conservation does any good. This finding should now encourage decision makers to re-engage with the Earth Summit’s positive vision, and adequately bankroll the protection of Earth’s biodiversity today.”
To determine a measurement of biodiversity loss for each country, the authors used data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List of Threatened Species, which has tracked the conservation status of the world’s plant and animal species for more than 50 years. They determined how much of a species’ decline could be attributed to each country chiefly based on what proportion of the species’ range was in that country.
Information about annual conservation spending per country was drawn from an earlier publication by the same authors, which appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2013. That paper covered the period from 1992-when the Rio Earth Summit led to the Convention on Biological Diversity and the first major infusion of global conservation spending-to 2003.
To account for pressure put on species as countries made progress on another of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals-human development-the authors incorporated data about each country’s population growth, economic growth and agricultural expansion from World Bank statistical tables.
The resulting analysis showed that conservation spending reduced species decline and that development pressure increased it, but unevenly. A country’s size, number of species present, and the conservation status of those species at the start of the study period all played a role in determining its biodiversity decline score.
Conservation spending had a greater impact in poorer countries than wealthier ones, for instance, and in countries with greater numbers of threatened species. Agricultural expansion had very little effect in countries that already had a lot of farmland than in those with little, and economic growth had less effect in the poorest countries, although its impacts grew stronger as a country’s population increased.
Learn more: Investing in conservation pays off, study finds
The Latest on: Conservation investment
[google_news title=”” keyword=”conservation investment” num_posts=”10″ blurb_length=”0″ show_thumb=”left”]- Shapiro announces investment in Hempfield site, touts proposed program expansionon May 9, 2024 at 10:51 am
At a former mining and industrial site in the town of Bovard in Hempfield, Gov. Josh Shapiro saw much more than just an faded field. “I see real possibility in this dirt, and in this old slab of ...
- India to Benefit from FedEx's USD 2 Million Investment in Global Urban Conservation Effortson May 9, 2024 at 6:02 am
FedEx will support 40 urban conservation projects worldwide, including India from March through May of 2024. FedEx Cares volunteers, in collaboration with local NGOs, have successfully planted nearly ...
- Undoing important investments in wildfire prevention would place California in harm’s way | Opinionon May 8, 2024 at 10:32 am
If we fail to continue making these investments, the state will not be prepared to implement proactive wildfire prevention measures.” ...
- Tampa’s worthy investment in the Florida Aquarium | Editorialon May 7, 2024 at 8:26 am
The Florida Aquarium is a success story on many fronts — an exciting attraction, a center for conservation and learning and an engine for downtown Tampa’s economic growth. But those community benefits ...
- New Global Study Confirms: Conservation Actually Workson May 4, 2024 at 10:43 am
A comprehensive meta-analysis examines the success of various conservation interventions globally and across different time periods. A recent study recently published in the journal Science presents ...
- Nevada joins 6 Western states demanding more water investmentson May 2, 2024 at 8:23 am
In the letter, lawmakers called for further investments in upstream, watershed-scale projects, water forecasting, water conservation, and watershed restoration. Upper basin “watershed-scale ...
- A win-win outcome: Investments in water quality solutions benefit private businesses, environmenton May 1, 2024 at 4:00 am
There has never been a better time to invest in water quality solutions than right now. As top executives look to strengthen their business models in an ever-evolving, highly competitive global ...
- Effective conservation efforts are key to saving biodiversityon April 30, 2024 at 11:49 am
Study confirms effective global conservation efforts crucial for biodiversity, showing a 66% success rate and significant economic benefits.
- Conservation Almost Always Provides Incredible Results, First-of-its-Kind Report Showson April 30, 2024 at 8:00 am
BBC reports that some of the exceptional successes included reducing deforestation in the Congo Rainforest by 74%.
- Optimism for nature’s recovery is not misplaced: Nature conservation works, researchers sayon April 28, 2024 at 6:00 am
Though biodiversity is declining, we have effective tools to conserve it—and they seem to be getting better over time.
via Google News and Bing News