There are more than 70,000 species of animals and plants on our planet. Unfortunately, three out of every ten are under threat.
The release last month of the updated Red List, compiled by the International Union for Conservation in Nature, indicated that more than 21,000 species are at risk of being wiped out.
One animal on the brink is the okapi, a giraffe-like mammal whose numbers are dwindling in its native Democratic Republic of Congo because of years of conflict in the region where it lives.
Animals are dying out and man is often to blame for their demise, but another recent report has pointed the finger of blame at the humans who monitor the creatures under threat.
A team of environmentalists in Australia has called for a rethink of the way in which we respond to wildlife which is threatened with extinction.
Professor David Lindenmayer, Dr Maxine Piggott and Dr Brendan Wintle, from the Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions (CEED) at the Australian Research Council, claim many wildlife programmes are merely ‘monitoring species to the point of extinction’ without stepping in to save them.
Their paper on the issue, entitled Counting the Books while the Library Burns, says a new plan is needed if we are to save some of the 21,000 species under threat.
‘Since the start of the 21st century alone, at least ten species of vertebrates are known to have gone extinct, although this is likely to be a substantial underestimate,’ the researchers said.
‘We have drawn attention to some cases where a species was monitored passively until it suffered local, regional or global extinction due to the absence of a pre-panned intervention programme.’
The study cited 34 cases around the world in which a species became extinct locally or globally while under observation.
This included the Christmas Island pipistrelle bat, which is now thought to be extinct, but was once found in the Australian territory. The report also mentions the western black rhino of Africa, which was declared extinct two years ago. Another animal which CEED said was monitored while dying out is the California Channel Island Fox, whose numbers were dwindling around the 1,500 mark 20 years ago. However, the fox is actually one of the few animals to bounce back, according to the latest Red List – its numbers have more than tripled after a campaign to remove predatory eagles from its habitat and a new breeding programme.
Despite this rare success, the Australian scientists called for new conservation guidelines – crucially, this includes intervention when it becomes clear that a monitored species is in decline. They say it’s not good enough to simply sit back, watch and record while animals are disappearing.
‘This is not meant as a criticism of ecological or conservation monitoring, since these are critical for understanding the ecology of a species, determining its threat status and evaluating conservation options,’ the report said. ‘However, our analysis indicates that many existing conservation monitoring programmes are not as effective as they could be at collecting information and prompting relevant actions.’
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) has more than 3,000 conservation projects in 100 countries. Its UK director of programmes, Glyn Davies, said box-ticking exercises are ‘pointless’ – it seeks to make a difference and increase the populations of endangered animals.
However, he pointed out that some conservation groups may be tasked with monitoring endangered animals just to record information, before passing it on to others who have the resources to make a difference. Despite this, he said the Australian report had good intentions.
‘It has identified a critical risk and people should be challenged to say what change they can bring about,’ he said. ‘But you must just acknowledge that many of the groups don’t have a lot of resources to bring it about.’
The WWF is one of those who is placed to change things – Davies said it restores animal numbers by stopping poachers, supporting local government and law enforcement and working with communities. He said numbers of the Amur leopard and the Javan rhino are particularly precarious.
He added: ‘We need to be able to show that what we’re doing is bringing about change. Donors that we get money from – including government sources and big foundations – want measurement of what we’ve done and what impact we’ve had.
‘We are very strong on determining and being clear what change we want to bring about. We need to be accountable so we do need to make measurements. We have, for example, a target to work with governments to double the number of tigers in the wild from around 3,200 to 7,000 over a 12-year period, between the two Chinese years of the Tiger [2010 to 2022].’
Davies said that in conservation, it is rare that one group does everything – a number of parties are involved.
‘The government in Nepal has shown a fantastic increase in tiger numbers since 2009 and we can show that. We didn’t do all the work and it was the Nepal government who was in charge of tigers as a whole, but we worked alongside them and supported them.’
Sign Up for News Updates
Get your need-to-know latest news, feel-good stories, analysis and more
Not convinced? Find out more »