* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Priceless or worthless?
Survey
Document related concepts
Overexploitation wikipedia , lookup
Occupancy–abundance relationship wikipedia , lookup
Theoretical ecology wikipedia , lookup
Molecular ecology wikipedia , lookup
Holocene extinction wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity wikipedia , lookup
Latitudinal gradients in species diversity wikipedia , lookup
Conservation psychology wikipedia , lookup
Island restoration wikipedia , lookup
Introduced species wikipedia , lookup
Conservation biology wikipedia , lookup
Biodiversity action plan wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
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