PATRICK BARKHAM
Time is running out for many species, but conservation resources are more stretched than ever. So which species should we protect – and which can we least afford to lose? Patrick Barkham asks the tough questions.
Patrick is a writer and naturalist: “I wonder whether future generations will mock us for trying so hard to conserve pandas while ignoring life-giving invertebrates.”
WWith its elongated snout, hedgehog-style spines and quirky reproductive system – it’s an egg-laying mammal – Zaglossus attenboroughi might easily be dismissed as an unbelievable alien, an invention from science fiction. Indeed, this species of long-beaked echidna might as well have been a figment of the imagination. Described from just one specimen collected in 1961, it was considered extinct until 2007, when Zoological Society of London (ZSL) researchers on a visit to Papua New Guinea found evidence that it was clinging on.
Unsurprisingly, there was no conservation programme in place to protect it. Today, though, Sir David’s long-beaked echidna is the top mammalian priority for ZSL’s EDGE project, named for its mission to protect “the world’s most Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered species”. But why devote the limited funds that are available to protecting this little-known, isolated creature?
We are the architects of the Anthropocene, the humandominated epoch defined by a sixth great extinction event. Human population growth, over-consumption and climate change are driving many of the planet’s species to extinction before we even realise they exist. Yet the natural world remains a minority concern, shockingly low on the agenda of most mainstream politicians, economists, and business and civic leaders. The result is that our limited resources could force us to adopt the controversial concept of ‘conservation triage’. Unable to save everything, we may have to pragmatically choose to rescue only the most significant or useful species.
THE PANDA PROBLEM
But what are those ‘significant’ organisms? Should we really be talking about habitats and ecosystems? Ask conservationists to nominate the first entrant into their ‘ark’ and you will get as many different answers as there are species. There is, however, a growing murmur of dissent about international conservation’s apparent focus on charismatic or cuddly megafauna.
In 2009 BBC Wildlife contributor Chris Packham (see p25) caused controversy when he memorably argued that the millions poured into rearing giant pandas in captivity could be much better spent elsewhere. Other commentators claim that efforts to save polar bears, rhinos, orangutans, tigers and snow leopards are similarly futile, and neglect more significant species.
“Intensive and expensive efforts for one species at a
time don’t make much sense,” argues Dave Goulson, professor of biology at the University of Sussex and one of our foremost experts on the impact of neonicotinoid pesticides on bees. “There are 1.4 million known species on Earth, maybe 10 million in all,” he observes. “We can’t have a conservation programme for each one.”
Analysis of funding shows big disparities. Between 2010 and 2012, charitable grants awarded to UK conservation organisations totalled £578.50 per global mammal species; invertebrates other than butterflies and moths received just 4p per species, according to figures compiled by Buglife. That group’s modest membership of about 1,000 contrasts with the RSPB, which has more than a million members.
Enormous energy is devoted to reviving rare birds in Britain. “While we’ve been savingng corn buntings and ospreys, the vast majority of bir rds have been quietly disappearing, and we’re completely ignoring the smaller stuff – the insects, the spiders, the crustaceans,” says Goulson. Far better, he argues, to save habitat – and if you get it right for insects, a suite of species farther up the food chain will also benefit.
International conservation charities, though, mount a robust defence of work to save charismatic species. At WWF’s 50th birthday party in 2011, David Attenborough reflected on its first campaign – saving rhinos in East Africa. A concerted effort successfully revived populations until this century, when political and economic changes – chiefly the demand for rhino horn in traditional Asian medicine – triggered a new headlong slide towards extinction.
In the early 20th century there were about 500,000 rhinos of all species in Africa and Asia; today fewer than 29,000 survive, and three of the five living species are classed as Critically Endangered. Is this a failure? “Put it this way: you don’t close the NHS because you’ve failed to stop all diseases,” says Glyn Davies, director of
programmes for WWF-UK. “The need for it is still there.”
CHAMPIONING THE UNLOVED
WWF has identified 200 of the most biologically distinct eco-regions (the Global 200), such as the Andaman Sea, Ethiopian Highlands and Mekong River. “Ideally, between government, business and civil society, we would ensure that representative samples of these eco-regions were saved,” says Davies. “That’s the nirvana. Then there’s the reality – how much money do we have, and in what countries are there suitable conditions for WWF to engage?”
“WHILE WE’RE SAVING CORN BUNTINGS AND OSPREYS, WE’RE COMPLETELY IGNORING THE SMALLER STUFF — THE INSECTS, THE SPIDERS, THE CRUSTACEANS.”
For all the undoubted influence of WWF – which has a global brand, dozens of offices worldwide and a royal patron – it has relatively humble resources. Davies points out that a single high-street bank in Woking (home to WWF-UK’s HQ) holds more cash. “It’s not so much a triage as us saying: ‘Where can we really make a difference with our small investment?’”
Ros Aveling, deputy chief executive of Fauna & Flora International, argues that FFI has “always championed the unloved, the ugly and the invisible”. Her explanation of how the organisation makes conservation choices sounds similar to that of WWF: in both cases, priorities are shaped by people – where there is a will to save something. “It comes down to who wants to save what – and that is driven by what people find a connection to,” adds Aveling.
The internet age, Aveling says, seems to foster connections with weird creatures – or, at least, ones that appear weird to our eyes. When BBC One’s recent series Life Storyy featuredeatured the dance of the peacock spider it became an internet sensation. Similarly, images of the bizarre blobfish, found in deep waters off Australia and New Zealand, went viral when it was voted the world’s ugliest animal in a poll that sought to draw attention to “aesthetically challenged” species.
In defence of charismatic megafauna, Aveling emphasises that such eye-catching animals are often also “the architects of the ecosystems in which they’re living”. Animals such as grey wolves are considered ‘keystone’ species, with a disproportionate impact on their environment. As the reintroduction of wolves to Yellowstone National Park in the USA vividly shows, these animals can literally shape landscapes, their influence also cascading down the food-chain (see ‘Why we need wolves’, January).
Fundamentally, international conservation charities such as FFI and WWF require the support of local people
in relevant regions – conservation can’t work without them. The will of the people is also expressed through fundraising. When I mention Packham’s panda point to Simon Barnes, author of Ten Million Aliens – a celebration of the wondrous character of all species – he replies: “If you could guarantee the same funds for conservation without figurehead species, then Chris may well have a point. But super-sexy megafauna inspire human imagination and persuade us to dig into our pockets.” (Turn to p60 to read Simon Barnes’ feature about the UK’s wetland revival.)
About 50 per cent of WWF-UK’s income comes from fundraising for charismatic species. “We can raise much more money for tigers than for rhinos at the moment,” admits Davies. “So you might ask, since rhinos are in more difficulties, why can’t we do more to help them? Well, we weren’t able to raise the money.”
In most cases, charismatic species serve as ‘ambassadors’ for habitat-based initiatives. WWF uses orangutans to raise money to save pristine rainforest. Barnes, who is also a council member of the World Land Trust, notes the effectiveness of an orangutan image in prompting donations compared with, say, a map of the land that this charity recently protected on the Kinabatangan River in Malaysia.
“Everything I have learned about conservation tells me that it is based on habitat – the oceans, saving land, making these areas work for the communities that are part of them,” says Barnes. He is suspicious of conservation
THE NATURAL WORLD IS LIKE A BALLOON: CHOOSING THE MOST IMPORTANT PART TO SAVE IMPLIES WE CAN GET AWAY WITH MAKING HOLES IN THE REST OF IT.