Putting money into recovery efforts for endangered and threatened species can lead to successful recovery, but not all the time. In fact, a large amount of government funding for these efforts falls short of what is necessary for the species recovery, leaving them no better off than they were before.
A new study by Arizona State University researcher Leah Gerber examined this issue by analyzing government spending on endangered and threatened species with the goal of finding out how the process can be made more efficient. The results revealed that despite receiving more funding than requested, some species continue to decline. These species are "costly yet futile" according to Gerber, and funding for these types of species should be funneled elsewhere to save more species.
Gerber also revealed that only 12 percent of the 1,500 species on the endangered and threatened list are receiving the full amount of funding that was requested for their recovery plans, whereas a number of others actually receive more than was requested. Increases in funding can help, but in many situations some species still decline even with adequate help.
In order to examine the issue closer, Gerber divided each of the recovery efforts into four categories based on their funding and recovery progress: cost-effective, costly success, costly failure and injurious neglect.
Gerber claimed that the "cost-effective" group, which consists of adequate funding and evidence of recovery, is ideal for every endangered species. However, those in the "costly success" group receive more funding than they need, despite their success, and likely could have recovered even with cuts to their funding. In addition, those in the "costly failure" group are just as costly and show no signs of recovery.
"The declining species within the top 50 spending surpluses command a [surplus] budget of more than $17 million/year," Gerber said. To put things into perspective, the full budget divided by the 1,500 endangered and threatened species leaves $800,000 for each species.
The final group, the "injurious neglect" group, not only does not receive enough funding, but is also showing no signs of recovery. More than 100 of the species in this group are receiving less than 10 percent of the investment they require.
Gerber believes that we should begin cutting the surplus funding from some species, such as the ones that are in recovery, and moving the money into the "injurious neglect" group, a move she believes could lead to a funding increase for 182 of the species that are currently not getting the support that they need.
The findings were published in the March 14 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
