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”]
- Kentucky land conservation fund gets ‘new lease on life’ from lawmakerson April 25, 2024 at 1:30 pm
Over the past three decades, a state-managed fund has been a financial force behind the creation and expansion of parks, nature preserves and hunting grounds across Kentucky. The Kentucky Heritage ...
- Nature conservation works, and we’re getting better at it – new studyon April 25, 2024 at 12:00 pm
We found that conservation actions improved the state of biodiversity or slowed its decline in the majority of cases (66%) compared with no action. But more importantly, when conservation ...
- First-of-its-kind study definitively shows that conservation actions are effective at halting and reversing biodiversity losson April 25, 2024 at 11:32 am
A new study published online today, April 25, in the scientific journal Science provides the strongest evidence to date that not only is nature conservation successful, but that scaling conservation ...
- First-of-its-kind study shows that conservation actions are effective at halting and reversing biodiversity losson April 25, 2024 at 11:00 am
A study published April 25, in the journal Science provides the strongest evidence to date that not only is nature conservation successful, but that scaling conservation interventions up would be ...
- Ky. land conservation fund gets ‘new lease on life’ from lawmakerson April 25, 2024 at 8:15 am
A driving force behind many state parks, the Kentucky Heritage Land Conservation Fund’s financial resources dwindled recent years ...
- Commentary: Farm bill could take food from Florida’s poor and money from conservationon April 25, 2024 at 8:02 am
Two proposed changes to the Farm Bill pose real threats to our health and well-being, in Florida and across the U.S. They would take money from the SNAP program and a conservation investment fund.
- Tom Croner: Conservation funding helps keep family farms viableon April 25, 2024 at 8:00 am
I’m an 81-year-old, seventh-generation farmer working with my son T. Richard on a multigenerational grain and hay farm in Somerset County. We grow corn, soybeans, wheat, rye and hay. I’m proud to see ...
- OPINION: A New Era for Conservation in Colorado?on April 25, 2024 at 6:35 am
The rule creates two kinds of new leases, for restoration and mitigation. A restoration lease could be used to return public land that has been degraded to a natural state. A mitigation lease could be ...
- Biden Unveils $7 Billion “Solar for All” Investment for Earth Dayon April 22, 2024 at 2:59 pm
The centerpiece was the announcement of $7 billion in grants through the Environmental Protection Agency’s “solar for all” program, funded by last year’s $369 billion Inflation Reduction Act, and ...
- There Is No Earth Day Without Private Conservationon April 22, 2024 at 10:26 am
The presumption that capitalism pollutes and destroys should be replaced by recognition that it is essential to sustainable development and the expansion of environmental amenities.
via Google News and Bing News