Hopping mad about money
For some things, half a billion dollars might be a hefty sum to pay.
But for the survival of the world's threatened amphibian species?
Cheap at the price, you might think; but almost no-one, as yet, is paying.
It was almost exactly four years ago that the Amphibian Conservation Summit, held in a boutique hotel in Washington DC, came up with the half-a-billion price tag (well, just over $400m to be precise), and initiated the Amphibian Conservation Action Plan [667Kb pdf] aimed at keeping the remaining species alive.
That was their estimate of how much it would cost to protect the 120 most vital pieces of habitat, re-introduce 20 captive-reared species to the wild, restrain unsustainable hunting, establish emergency response teams that could intervene quickly when sudden extinction threatened - and everything else that needed doing.
This week, many of the scientists and conservationists who attended that meeting convened in a somewhat scholarly pavilion at the Zoological Society of London (with a cracking view of the wallaby enclosure) to look at how far things have come since then, what's worked and what hasn't, and to home in on two or three priorities for research and conservation in the years ahead.
Conserving amphibians is no academic exercise. The threat to many species' very existence is alarmingly real, most pressingly because of the fungal disease chytridiomycosis that was identified just a decade ago.
In a book published just before the London "mini-summit", two of the field's leading lights, Martha Crump and James Collins, point out that diseases aren't supposed to cause extinctions. The pathogen's path through a vulnerable population should slow and stop as new victims become scarcer and scarcer, like a fire running out of fuel.
Chytridiomycosis doesn't appear to play by this rule. Somehow - and there is still much debate about precisely how and why - it is removing entire species from the realm of existence, sometimes in just one or two years, in regions as far apart as Central America and Australia.
At the London meeting, Professor Collins (from Arizona State University) unsurprisingly nailed the chytrid fungus as one of the two causes of extinction that merited urgent attention - the other being land use change.
Everyone agreed that these should be the priorities for action and funding; but what funding?
Last year was supposed to be the Year of the Frog.
Zoos, aquaria and conservation groups ran special awareness-raising events. Schoolchildren raised money through raffles, collecting coins and selling ceramic frogs they had made. Luminaries such as Sir David Attenborough and Jean-Michel Cousteau called for action; Kermit the Frog from The Muppets went to Capitol Hill.
It may have raised awareness in some quarters; but money appears to be another thing entirely.
Kevin Zippel, programme director at Amphibian Ark, the organisation that co-ordinates captive breeding programmes in zoos and other institutions, reckoned that those zoos and other institutions had raised at most 1% of the half a billion dollars.
Claude Gascon, who co-chairs the Amphibian Specialist Group, said that perhaps 2% of the desired sum had been gathered and disbursed for on-site conservation projects, core staffing, and so on.
This is not to say that nothing has happened in the last four years.
The number of species in captive breeding programmes has more than doubled, to 95, though only a minority meet international best practice standards. Eleven key sites have been protected in key countries such as Sri Lanka and Colombia.
But these are drops in the pond compared to what is needed.
And although many of the scientists involved in the various amphibian initiatives work on other types of animal too, jealous eyes were occasionally levelled at the comparatively huge resources that bird groups can command, such as Britain's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which was able to disburse £78m ($129m) in 2007 alone.
From the perspective of logic, this is crazy. Globally, birds are are much less threatened than amphibians; the latest Red List assessments put one eighth of bird species in the threatened categories, compared to one third of amphibians.
And whereas just 0.5% of amphibian species are increasing in number, 6% of bird species are growing [4.05Mb pdf]. If the conclusions of a 2004 report from BirdLife International still hold true, that's at least in part due to the money and resources that have been made available to help them - money that is not flowing to the frogs.
But of course it's not about logic, it's about emotion; and currently, in richer nations, emotion holds that birds are more compelling than the delicate "glass frogs" of Central and South America, the squat purple burrowing frog of India and the extravagantly decorated Mantella of Madagascar.
Politicians are generally showing little interest, meeting delegates reported.
Members of the US Congress are being lobbied to develop a conservation act for amphibians, as they have for great apes, elephants and tigers - mandating federal funds for conservation inside and outside the country - but there's little appetite, it seems.
There would doubtless be more if constituents were interested enough to lobby.
Even with resources, though, keeping the number of amphibian extinctions down is a tall order.
Despite promising laboratory results, field treatments for chytrid exist as yet only in the imagination of scientists. The burgeoning cities, roads and industries of east Asia will not stop burgeoning just because a few amphibians are hopping across their path.
In one of the very early pieces in our Green Room series, Tim Halliday, who then headed the Declining Amphibian Populations Task Force, argued that the chances of stopping these extinctions were little more than nil - and conservationists should admit it and stop trying to delude the public (and themselves) into thinking otherwise.
Debate at this week's London meeting focused for a while on whether setting a goal of preventing 100% of extinctions was feasible or desirable; so clearly Professor Halliday's pessimistic assessment isn't shared across the board.
But, as we've discussed several times on these pages, setting a target isn't the same as meeting it, which requires commitment, expertise and resources.
Two of these things the amphibian conservation community has in spades. It's the third that worries me; and I fear that the missing half billion will be translated with increasing surety into the number of amphibian species that now populate only the history books.
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~41~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Unfortunately, it seems that creatures need to be either patently useful to humans (e.g. the missing ingredient for the cure for cancer) or charismatic in their own right (soulful eyes, playful behaviour) to be worthy of significant conservation resources these days. Reading Matt Walker's story today about the newt which pierces its skin with its own ribs laced with poison to ward off attackers, suggests that they have a ways to go to meet the latter criteria. Cancer cures anyone?
Complain about this comment
Stewardship of the earth, as man has claimed this role, is the building of inanimate things while destroying animate things. Human beings are still at the process of killing large numbers of other human beings and that is a distraction when discussing the fate of other species. It was good to note that only when a species may provide some benefit to man do we consider worth. The failed economic systems will gear up once again and try to make the case that the previous failure was because the global economy was not big enough. The tentacles of progress will reach further into untouched environments and more species will disappear in the name of prosperity. Governments are organized around the idea of expansion and growth. There is no sustainability model and therefore other species will only be considered as important if they provide some direct benefit (profit)to man.
Complain about this comment
the difference between birds and ammphibians is of course that the latter are largely "under the radar" when it comes to public visibility; generally small, not that exciting looking unless you are realy interested in them and highly localized - no chance "fly-by's" for them. You have to go looking for them ad know what you are looking for. This also means that in many cases we don't really have an accurate idea of what numbers there really still are, let alone were in existence. And we don't have to go far to encounter that particular problem; believe it or not,vast stretches of even the first and second world are still extremely poorly surveyed. In a couple of short, two-day expeditions in an area not far from a city of millions,as I describe in one of my little stories I write under the name paul_gibsons,by chance I managed to almost double the number of estimated adults of the endangered Pacific population of Western Painted Turtles... and that kind of thing happens around here time and time again. Which doesn't do the credibility of the conservation case in the public mind much good at all.
Complain about this comment
Richard,
I have an interesting project at the moment connected with my practice, although we shall see if it comes to fruition.
Basically I have a building site, which is within 250m of a known breeding pond for the Great Crested Newt and is good terrestrial habitat. As you will be aware is a European wide protected species, although, in my neck of the woods, they are fairly common. I'm spending a small fortune to employ ecologists etc to move the little darlings, but I am also trying to persuade my client, that he needs to have a 10 year strategy that allows for his proposed plans, but also ensures the newts have a home in the future.
Luckily he sees the sense in this and I am hoping that he is going to allow me to create a lagoon, foraging areas and hibernaculas that will effectively give these creatures a secure home now and in the future.
I'm actually quite excited about the project. The problem will be money, moving newts is not for the cheapskates amongst us - i just hope it happens.
Complain about this comment
I am in complete agreement with TVGgirl. The human race is self-centered and well, essentially a selfish species. Given the intelligence we posses i think that this is nothing short of a tragedy And unless we are going to change 'humanity', hoping for more funding for amphibian conservation is a far fetched dream. So why not circumvent the problem?
I believe in order to save a species, we have to first protect it's habitat. It's not rocket science! So in the case of amphibians, let try and save their habitats by protecting those 'cute', furry creatures and majestic birds that have been mentioned in the article. Further, i am sure that there are plenty of birds that are dependent on amphibians for their survival. Never mind the means (as long they stay ethical), after all it's protection of the species that is vital.
Complain about this comment
My question is, who is asking for money? I wonder if the fundraising percentages in this article are somewhat misleading. Obviously zoos, aquariums, research centers, universities, nature centers, conservation groups, etc. have their own individual fundraising efforts and to some extent it is up to them to allocate the funds they receive into amphibian conservation - or not. And it is up to land preservation groups to work on saving the pieces that are most crucial to frog conservation.
I get dozens of requests from various environmental groups every week, but I've never gotten a request for money specifically for frog preservation work. This is something I'd like to support, but obviously I'm not going to send money unless I think it will really be put to good use.
What I will do, and what any concerned person can do, is contact the groups that I send money to already and ask them specifically what they are doing for frog conservation.
I'd love to have a clear place to donate money to for this particular cause - and even more a place where I could volunteer time, but it seems I will have to do quite a bit of searching to find such an organization - and herein lies the problem. Most people will not search for this, they need to have it thrust in their faces! It seems the stumbling block right now is administration and organization among the herpatologist community.
Complain about this comment
A few years ago I was looking at the progress of the implementation of the UK's Biodiversity Action Plans. There were some highlights but to a large extent they were very damp squibs.
Biodiversity really does need to get higher up the agenda. I think our disconnect with the natural world, especially the younger generation, is frightening and I would say the UK culture has, in general, a relatively high regard for nature (e.g. natural world tv programmes have always been very popular).
On a recent trip to northeast China I was struck by the fact that where the rapidly expanding city stopped the very intensive agriculture started. In neither did there seem to be much space for nature. I don;t want to appear to be stereotyping (but clearly I am) however it seems in much of the far east the natural world is perceived as a threat or nutrition. There doesn;t seem to be a place for husbandry of the natural world for its own sake (obviously there are exceptions).
But of course having plans like UKBAPs that you don't implement is no different to having no plans at all.
@4 Cuckootoo
I must congratulate you on your efforts (makes a nice change from our usual exchanges!). Best of luck with the project.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
as timjenvey and others have pointed out, just because some of us don't accept CO2 is the driver of the current warming, doesn't mean we don't care about our environment
i've actually identified land owned by my client that is almost boxed in by woodland. If my 10 year plan to change this piece of land into a sanctuary goes ahead, i reckon, long term, my client will earn a lot of money for a small investment
money talks
fingers crossed
Complain about this comment
@CuckooToo - and I've never made that suggestion. You're right about money. But as Nicholas Stern has shown (I met him at the Hay festival this year, very smart guy) sorting out environmental problems (AGW notwithstanding) makes economic sense!! It really is a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
Complain about this comment
@rossglory
i didn't mean to imply that it was you who says sceptics are anti-environment, but it has happened on several occasions that others imply those of us who are not convinced about the argument want to destroy the earth
I'm not sure about the economic sense, but, without a doubt in my mind, it certainly makes sense to develop affordable alternatives to fossil fuels. What we mustn't do, however, is retire fossil fuels until we have good, reliable systems in place. i'm still not convinced that wind (btw part of my newt scheme is to install an experimental wind turbine) and solar are reliable enough and what happens to the climate if we do have vast arrays of wind turbines littering the countryside and coast? And what happens down wind, when we have taken the energy out of the wind? Will downwind areas change because of the change in wind pattern or intensity? Does that mean the natural habitat that we are protecting for birds, amphibians, bats etc is changed in such a way that they become inhabitable?
I don't know the answers to these questions
We may not like coal and oil, but they are certainly reliable.
Complain about this comment
Not Amphibians - but related
I just read in the morning paper about a United States Geological Survey report, released just this week past, on mercury contamination in a comprehensive survey over the United States.
Every freshwater fish sampled was contaminated with mercury, over a quarter above the EPA limit for humans, over two-thirds over the EPA limit for mammals who eat fish.
The presumed source - coal-fired power plants, in the main.
The survey was apparently conducted from 1998 - 2005, which raise two questions in my mind:
1) Why so long a time span for the survey?
2) Why four years before the release of this report?
http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/081909.html
------------------------------------------------------
(from the news release)
"In February 2009, the EPA announced that it intends to control air emissions of mercury from coal-fired power plants by issuing a rule under the Clean Air Act."
----------
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
@manysummits - i think we can all guess why it's release was delayed.
i vaguely recall a new scientist article from a few years ago about an american scientist who had found that minute quantities of pollutants in combination were causing harm to amphibians. bizarrely enough, very small quantities were worse than larger (and he was talking about quantities that sounded like homeopathy!).
the thing that really struck me was that he was offered bribes to hold back the research and when he refused had been threatened with court action and then physical violence.
the guy had a lot of courage to carry on publishing but i wonder how much material out there has been censored by vested interests.
unfortunately can't find the article now, wondered if you'd come across anything like this?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Rossglory at #12
Perhaps the following helps, in particular the reference to the articles by Dr Tyrone B. Hayes from the University of California?
Under the headline “Popular pesticide faulted for Frogs’ sexual abnormalities”, a story by Jennifer Lee appeared in the New York Times on 19 June 2003.
The article discusses the different scientific evidence being considered at a 4-day hearing as part of an US Environmental Protection Agency review panel’s examination of whether the pesticide ‘atrazine’ poses unacceptable risks to the environment and to public health. Later in 2003, the panel was to make recommendations to the EPA on how to proceed.
According to the article, atrazine is popular with farmers because it is effective and relatively cheap but the pesticide and its byproducts are widely found at low levels in United States waters, especially after the planting season, when rains wash the chemical out of fields. At the time of the article, atrazine use already had been banned elsewhere, including in some European countries. Apparently, the E.P.A. review had been moving towards renewing the agency's approval to use atrazine.
However, in 2002, Dr Tyrone B. Hayes published two papers suggesting that low levels of exposure to atrazine, as low as one part per 10 billion in the water, could cause tadpoles to develop into frogs with both male and female sexual organs. The papers were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (April 2002) and in Nature (October 2002). The studies ignited a scientific and political debate, and led the environmental agency to convene the panel to examine atrazine and its effects on amphibians.
One of the subsequent controversies arose because Dr. Hayes had originally been hired by a consulting concern, Ecorisk, to conduct studies on atrazine on behalf of a company that is now Syngenta - a major manufacturer of atrazine. Apparently Syngenta, initially at least, said it had been unable to replicate the results of Dr. Hayes's work in company-sponsored studies. The New York Times article goes on to explore the dispute in some more detail, including more general issues such as disclosure and ownership of such research results.
----------
I can add that, at the time the article was written, the investigation into atrazine was part of a relatively new area of scientific investigation into endocrine disruptors and whether these chemicals can significantly affect health at extremely low or ”micropollutant” levels, by interfering with the hormones that regulate biological activity. Since then, there has been considerably more research published.
Complain about this comment
#14 - thanks Simon.
I notice that Prof Hayes has a website ironically, I assume, called 'atrazinelovers'.
There is also a worrying trend in the UK where scientific research is being channelled into areas that have targeted results (i.e. with commercial benefit) and private funding is taking a larger role. Apart from the fact that 'pure' research is being starved of funds there is this danger that unwelcome findings (although of possibly enormous scientific interest) will be censored. Very worrying imho.
Complain about this comment
At the risk of beating a dead horse, isn't it time for an International Court of the Environment.
Surely the intimidation and suppression of science is a legal matter, but one which is not well-suited to being handled by the courts in the very locals where the law is being bent or broken by vested interest.
We in Alberta had a doctor literally driven out of the province for his work around the tar sands on carcinogenic pollutants. A fair hearing, if such a thing is still possible, in an international court would seem a path to the future. Even without teeth in the police sense, public airing of the laundry, so to speak, is surely of much use.
Politicians must still bow to public opinion - it is in their nature.
- Manysummits -
Complain about this comment
This is the kind of stuff that the enviros used to do.
Before they got hijacked into the so-called 'war on carbon'.
The WWF, GreenPeace, Oxfam, even Christian Aid are all turning into single-issue pressure groups obsessing about the trace gas CO2.
Complain about this comment
@17 - Talking of hijacking, let's not turn this into another pro/anti AGW debate. Tell you what, I'll summarise the AGW debate here then we can continue with the decline of amphibians which of course is partly due to AGW....did I say that!!
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
....
Yes it is.
No it isn't.
Complain about this comment
Yes the debate about AGW does go round and round in circles.
My concern here is that some concrete and practical measures over the next few years could make a real difference to these amphibians and other species at risk.
But the enviros are so obsessed about what may or may not happen in 30 years time that they neglect issues where they could and should make a real difference.
Complain about this comment
@Skunkamherst - I agree that it is often hard to identify where best to contribute funds. My undestanding is that part of the reason for the mini-summit last week was to provide a focal point for gathering and distributing funds to address the crisis. I'm sure that we will hear more in the coming weeks and months as to what has been done. I hope that the willingness shown by so many organizations at the summit to put aside technical differences for the good of amphibians world wide will carry through in the months and years to come as we address this crisis.
Complain about this comment
@skunkamherst... there is a reason you never get any requests from the frog people. Because there is hardly anyone really working on mitigating threats to amphibians right now. That really is the sub-text of this article. There are some good projects, like www.amphibianark.org and www.amphibianrescue.org but their focus is on mitigating threats, not direct mail campaigns. They desperately need funding. We need the big guns like WWF to start looking into amphibian declines and how to stop them. With groups like RSPB for birds (1500 full time employees) you have to wonder who is saving the frogs? And then think why 40% non-data deficient amphibians are listed vs 12% birds.
Complain about this comment
Our very own Richard Black asks the same question about hijacking:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8223611.stm
"Has climate change hijacked the wider environmental agenda? If so, why? And does it matter?"
Mick Hulme thinks:
"...the climate issue is rather enticing for the modern leader.
...climate change is seductive to politicians because it is a long-term issue - so decisive action is always posited for some time in the future, at a time that can always be made yet more distant - and someone else can always be blamed.
So Europeans used to blame the US, the US would blame China and India, and developing countries would blame the entire developed West.
"It's very easy to pass responsibility for failure somewhere else… and in the process of doing that, one is able to keep one's own credibility and record, with the appearance of being much more progressive and constructive."
He echoes my own views - that politicians can talk about these fantasy targets for the future without doing very much today. It's like a long-term version of Fantasy Football with a sanctimonious smug feeling for the participants.
Complain about this comment
UPDATE
my building project is effectively on hold until the spring, because i have received a refusal due to insufficient mitigation measures. A new application will take at least weeks, newt license takes 4 weeks and mitigation 8 weeks. Newts hibernate in October, unless the weather is mild and wet (i've decided against consulting with the Met Office!), my project will have to wait until spring
clearly disappointing for all involved, especially because in this part of the world, newts are plentiful, although i really wouldn't want to hurt them anyway
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS