Download Priceless or worthless?

opinion
Priceless or worthless?
Is it possible to put a value on the world’s wildlife? And if it is, asks Jonathan Baillie, what ethical
What is a horse worth? That’s a difficult
question to answer, because it depends
upon so many variables. A champion
hurdler with a fine stud pedigree may fetch
large sums in the racing market, but it
would be virtually worthless to a farmer
with a cart to transport. A shire horse would
be very valuable for that role, but of no use
to a dressage contestant. Value, rather like
beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder.
So imagine how difficult it is to answer
the even broader question: what is a
species worth? For decades, many
conservationists have largely avoided the
question altogether. Wildlife, after all, has
an intrinsic worth. Don’t animals, plants,
and, indeed, entire habitats and ecosystems
exist on their own terms? Aren’t they
there purely because they happen to be
in the current snapshot of changing life
on this planet? Isn’t their existence just
a happenstance within the ongoing tale
of evolutionary change?
Scientifically, of course, this is true. Yet
science is rarely the sole measurement
that we humans use to make our global
decisions. As humans, we see the world
from our own point of view. Game birds
are protected by gamekeepers not for their
own intrinsic value, but so that they can
be shot. We like to encourage ladybirds
into our gardens not just because they’re
beautiful (a human distinction in its own
right), but because they eat aphids, which
we don’t want. Ask 100 people whether
they’d rather save the snow leopard or a
mosquito species, and the outcome takes
very little prediction.
We make choices based upon values,
even if we don’t actually consider
what the value of those choices might
be. Yet in other spheres of human life,
those values are all too tangible. When a
major sporting event takes place, someone,
somewhere, calculates the loss to British
industry through absenteeism from
32
WILD ABOUT autumn 2012
work. When a supermarket is to be built
on ‘wasteland’, someone calculates the
economic importance of the new build
to the local community.
Consequently, in recent years, there’s
been a move to use similar formulae to help
win the arguments for wildlife. In 2005, an
initiative called the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment was launched, involving more
than 1,000 of the world’s leading biological
scientists. It showed that species and
ecosystems provide humans with benefits,
and provided data on how that works.
From climate regulation to carbon storage,
from water cleaning processes to natural
biological controls, it showed how the
loss of current biodiversity levels would
adversely affect us all. In turn, this initiative
spawned a large body of work, which is still
ongoing, aimed at providing a reasonably
Science is rarely the sole
measurement that we
humans use to make
our global decisions. As
humans, we see the world
from our own point of view
accurate economic value to species,
ecosystems and the ‘services’ they provide.
While the cultural or spiritual services
associated with species and ecosystems
are included in these frameworks, they are
harder to quantify, and so have been largely
overshadowed by the services that provide
more tangible benefits to people.
This people-centric approach has been
eagerly adopted by the conservation
community, and, one by one, the mission
statements of conservation organisations
have been adapted to reflect these
utilitarian values. The stronger focus on
what nature does for people has helped to
make the biodiversity conservation agenda
much more relevant to development
agendas and has resulted in powerful new
partnerships providing access to large-scale
funding that was not previously available.
But there are huge risks. What happens
to the species that is not seen to have any
utilitarian value to humanity? While many
species do provide clear benefits for people,
there are millions where the relationship
is unknown or tangential at best. What
will happen to them, under this growing
agenda? What will their fate be?
This year, we’re examining those
questions. Along with colleagues, I recently
asked thousands of IUCN scientists to
identify 100 of the most threatened
species on this planet. As it turned out,
all the species that were nominated are in
decline due to human impact. The list is
a fascinating one – there are EDGE
species, there are representatives of
many wildlife groups, there are famous
species, there are tiny, virtually unknown
invertebrates – and, between them, the 100
make up a cross-section of current declining
life on Earth.
Crucially, some of those species have
obvious benefits to humanity, whereas
others don’t. In human terms, some are
dilemmas are we opening for ourselves?
priceless, and some are worthless. So does
that mean that, in the case of the latter, we
have the right to drive them to extinction?
The question, of course, is rhetorical.
Yet it’s only by asking it that we can draw
attention to it. Humans categorically do
not have the right to drive anything to
extinction – of course we don’t – but we’re
doing it anyway. By asking people whether
these 100 species are priceless or worthless,
we’re asking them which they’d choose to
actively condemn to extinction. It’s one
thing to ignore the plight of certain species.
It’s another altogether to actually state that
you’re letting them go.
The full list of the 100 appears in the
new book Priceless or Worthless?, and it’ll
be interesting to see how people respond
to it, and important that they do. It’s not
about lions outranking snails, but about
people realising how discomforting it is
having to rank them in the first place.
I fervently hope it’ll add to the debate
on future conservation processes… and
I hope that that debate isn’t too late.
Jonathan Baillie is ZSL’s Conservation
Programmes Director. Priceless or Worthless?
was published in September.
autumn 2012 WILD ABOUT
33