The Race to Save Life

We’re running in a race to save life on this planet. Yet several new studies and articles demonstrate that we’re not moving fast enough, don’t have the right shoes, or don’t know the course well enough to reach the finish line—unless we make some serious adjustments, and quickly.

“Rates of extinction are higher than ever before,” says Leah Gerber of Arizona State University. “The cause is human activity. My analysis shows that current funding is insufficient to curb unprecedented rates of extinction.” Gerber published a study last month in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences analyzing the costs and gains from the Endangered Species Act, and the news is not good. She reports that $1.21 billion per year should be allocated to protect the 1,125 species under the act, but Congress actually allocates less than 25 percent of this amount for species’ recovery. In addition, due to politics, some species are overfunded, while others are precariously underfunded.

Her study reveals that redistribution of these funds from the top 50 overfunded species to those that are severely underfunded would eliminate deficits for more than 180 plant and animal species, potentially improving recovery success. “A lot of thought goes into how funds are allocated for endangered species, but when resources are scarce what is needed is more clarity on the process,” she says. “A return-on-investment approach is one way to allocate limited funds to protecting biodiversity.”

And the time to act is now, says Gerber. “Humans rely on nature in many known and unknown ways. When we lose species, we lose these benefits—and the beauty of biodiversity itself.”

Kerrie Wilson of the University of Queensland and her colleagues conducted another study, looking at 10,000 conservation science papers from over 1,000 journals published in 2014. They determined that conservation research is not being done in the countries where it is most needed—a situation which is likely to undermine efforts to preserve global biodiversity. “Our analysis revealed that comparatively less conservation research is undertaken in the world’s most biodiverse countries such as Indonesia and Ecuador,” she says. There seems to be a science bias, her team reports in PLoS Biology. “We won’t change the situation by simply ignoring it,” she says. “Researchers need to examine their own agendas and focus on areas with the greatest need.”

The scientists suggest a range of solutions, including improving representation in international processes, reforming publishing policies, enhancing science communication strategies, and strengthening infrastructure and human capacity for research in countries where it is most needed.

Finally, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) released a surprising report this week on threats to World Heritage sites. These sites cover approximately 0.5 percent of the Earth’s surface but support some of the planet’s most valuable ecosystems and contribute to economies through tourism, recreation, and the export of resources while also providing homes to threatened species and helping counter global climate change.

According to the study, 114 natural and mixed World Heritage sites out of 229 either have oil, gas, or mining concessions overlapping them or are under threat from at least one other harmful industrial activity. “World Heritage sites should receive the highest levels of protection, yet we are often unable to safeguard even this important fraction of the Earth’s surface,” says Marco Lambertini, Director General of WWF International. “We all agree that these are some of the most valuable and unique places on the planet, now we need to work together to let these sites provide for the well-being of people and nature.”

The report recommends that national governments ensure that no harmful industrial activities are permitted in World Heritage sites or in areas that could negatively affect them. In addition, governments should hold multinational enterprises headquartered or operating in their territories to the highest standards of corporate accountability and stewardship.

Want more solutions to winning this race? Check out this opinion piece by E.O. Wilson in the New York Times last month. His suggestion? Set aside half of Earth’s habitats to save 84 percent of all species on the planet.

We now know the many courses we can take to win this race. Ready, set, go. Let’s save the world’s biodiversity!

Image: Christian Ziegler/Wikipedia