Spending to save: What will it cost to halt Australia's extinction crisis?

Wintle, Brendan A.; Cadenhead, Natasha C. R.; Morgain, Rachel; Legge, Sarah; Bekessy, Sarah A.; Cantele, Matthew; Possingham, Hugh P.; Watson, James; Maron, Martine; Keith, David A.; Garnett, Stephen T.; Woinarski, John C. Z.; Lindenmayer, David B.

doi:10.1111/conl.12682

Cited by 92 publications

(62 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This budget of $550 million/year seems reasonable, considering other research indicates that the budget should be $842 million–2.5 billion/year to recover all Australian species threatened with extinction (Wintle et al. ). Although we used the best available information on costs of possible actions in Australia, detailed costing or feasibility analyses for each action is still required within a local context.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…To date, the U.S. government has spent approximately US1.45 billion/year (USFWS ) and has had 39 species recover, down‐listed from endangered to threatened, or removed entirely from the threatened species list (USFWS 2016; USFWS 2019; Wintle et al. ). This results in a total recovery of 2.4% of all threatened species.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…), management, or monitoring of its most imperiled species (Wintle et al. ). Therefore, prioritization methods that maximize efficiency are necessary because there is generally limited availability or allocation of resources toward conservation (Joseph et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Wintle et al. ), proactive planning for climate change (Jones et al. ), and ensuring representation of all species and ecosystems (Pressey et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Use of surrogate species to cost‐effectively prioritize conservation actions

Ward

Rhodes

Watson

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conservation efforts often focus on umbrella species whose distributions overlap with many other flora and fauna. However, because biodiversity is affected by different threats that are spatially variable, focusing only on the geographic range overlap of species may not be sufficient in allocating the necessary actions needed to efficiently abate threats. We developed a problem-based method for prioritizing conservation actions for umbrella species that maximizes the total number of flora and fauna benefiting from management while considering threats, actions, and costs. We tested our new method by assessing the performance of the Australian federal government's umbrella prioritization list, which identifies 73 umbrella species as priorities for conservation attention. Our results show that the federal government priority list benefits only 6% of all Australia's threatened terrestrial species. This could be increased to benefit nearly half (or 46%) of all threatened terrestrial species for the same budget of AU$550 million/year if more suitable umbrella species were chosen. This results in a 7-fold increase in management efficiency. We believe nations around the world can markedly improve the selection of prioritized umbrella species for conservation action with this transparent, quantitative, and objective prioritization approach.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…; Wintle et al. ), proactive planning for climate change (Jones et al. ), and ensuring representation of all species and ecosystems (Pressey et al.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Use of surrogate species to cost‐effectively prioritize conservation actions

Ward

Rhodes

Watson

et al. 2019

Conservation Biology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Threatened species lists continue to grow, notwithstanding government and philanthropic efforts. Expenditure to address need is ,15% of what is needed to avoid extinctions and recover threatened species (Wintle et al 2019). Current strategies include the generation and maintenance of national parks and philanthropically funded reserves.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Custodianship of wildlife on private land to support conservation – an Australian model

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A large proportion of the world's extinctions have occurred in Australia, and threatened species lists continue to grow, notwithstanding government and philanthropic efforts. Most losses have been on private land, so relying on national parks and reserves is not enough to reverse trends and meet Australia's responsibilities. This paper proposes a model that could increase abundance and distribution of Australia's biodiversity, while providing financial incentives to private landholders to do so. It addresses the question, can landholder management of wildlife, and a form of private ownership, remedy shortfalls in government funding for biodiversity conservation and the resulting consequences of vast biodiversity losses? Landholders currently invest in propagating introduced livestock species, but they are prevented by current regulations from investing in a similar manner in threatened Australian native species. Market-based incentives could increase the distribution and abundance of species on private land and help protect the habitat of other biodiversity. The enabling changes would be contentious to some people but are consistent with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature's Sustainable Use policy. Different versions of wildlife privatisation have been successfully applied internationally: there is urgency for Australia to draw on these experiences and develop its own model to encourage and support wildlife on private freehold land. The model proposed in this paper focuses on: identifying locally overabundant populations or captive-bred populations as sources of supply; finding landholders and philanthropists who would like to have custodianship of species; enabling entrepreneurs to respond to demand; and bringing the two together where there is scope for a market-based sharing economy. Encouraging wildlife custodianship on private freehold land would be mutually beneficial, as it would not only result in an increase in biodiversity, but the economic value of wildlife could provide an income to landholders as well as enhancing Australia's conservation system.

show abstract

Moving beyond the pathology of policies pushing species toward extinction: The case of spectacled flying foxes in Australia

Preece,

McGrath,

Kerr

2024

Integrative Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rate of extinction is increasing with little reversal of negative trends, prompting a need for conservation scientists and practitioners to rethink approaches to aid the recovery of threatened species. Many extinctions could be prevented if impediments to protecting these species were addressed effectively. This article considers how current policies and practices are failing an endangered species and how biodiversity conservation is fraught with barriers such as rhetorical adoption, policy dismantling, circumvention of legislative obligations, and the deliberate disregard of scientific evidence. These issues became evident while researching the endangered Spectacled Flying‐fox (Pteropus conspicillatus Gould 1850), which, despite over a decade of recognized decline, received little attention from authorities who could have acted to stabilize or recover its populations. Recovery plans are often the primary means used by many countries to help threatened species recover and typically fall under government responsibility for implementation. For these plans to be effective, they should be mandatory, well‐funded, and subject to stringent monitoring and reporting requirements. However, the implementation of such plans is often inconsistent, with many not meeting these criteria. The scientific basis for recovery actions is usually well‐researched, although uncertainties around outcomes remain since these actions are experimental and success is not guaranteed. The failure to implement recovery plans can be highly frustrating for conservation scientists and practitioners, often stemming from policy failures. For those involved in conservation research and practice, learning how to identify and overcome policy impediments would help to ensure the successful implementation of recovery plans. Vigilance is required to ensure that recovery teams function effectively, that recovery actions are executed, that decision‐makers are held accountable for endangering species, and that legislation includes merits review provisions to challenge poor decision‐making. Conservation scientists who monitor species of concern are often best placed to track the progress of recovery actions. When they detect insufficient action, they have a responsibility to intervene or to notify the responsible authorities. Ultimately, government policies should prioritize the protection of threatened species over economic and political interests, recognizing that extinction is irreversible and the stakes are high for biodiversity conservation.

show abstract

Spending to save: What will it cost to halt Australia's extinction crisis?

Cited by 92 publications

References 20 publications

Use of surrogate species to cost‐effectively prioritize conservation actions

Use of surrogate species to cost‐effectively prioritize conservation actions

Custodianship of wildlife on private land to support conservation – an Australian model

Moving beyond the pathology of policies pushing species toward extinction: The case of spectacled flying foxes in Australia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About