Gaps and Mismatches between Global Conservation Priorities and Spending

Several international conservation organizations have recently produced global priority maps to guide conservation activities and spending in their own and other conservation organizations. Surprisingly, it is not possible to directly evaluate the relationship between priorities and spending within a given organization because none of the organizations with global priority models tracks how they spend their money relative to their priorities. We were able, however to evaluate the spending patterns of five other large biodiversity conservation organizations without their own published global priority models and investigate the potential influence of priority models on this spending. On average, countries with priority areas received greater conservation investment; global prioritization systems, however explained between only 2 and 32% of the U.S. dollars 1.5 billion spent in 2002, depending on whether the United States was removed from analyses and whether conservation spending was adjusted by the per capita gross domestic product within each country. We also found little overlap in the spending patterns of the five conservation organizations evaluated, suggesting that informal coordination or segregation of effort may be occurring. Our results also highlight a number of potential gaps and mismatches in how limited conservation funds are spent and provide the first audit of global conservation spending patterns. More explicit presentation of conservation priorities by organizations currently withoutpriority models and better tracking of spending by those with published priorities are clearly needed to help make future conservation activities as efficient as possible.

[1]  A. O. Nicholls,et al.  It's time to work together and stop duplicating conservation efforts … , 2000, Nature.

[2]  J. M. Scott,et al.  Noah's Options: Initial Cost Estimates of a National System of Habitat Conservation Areas in the United States , 2002 .

[3]  Jon Christensen,et al.  Auditing Conservation in an Age of Accountability , 2003 .

[4]  K. Gaston,et al.  Can We Afford to Conserve Biodiversity? , 2001 .

[5]  Amy W. Ando,et al.  Species distributions, land values, and efficient conservation , 1998, Science.

[6]  Hugh P. Possingham,et al.  Does conservation planning matter in a dynamic and uncertain world , 2004 .

[7]  D. Olson,et al.  The Global 200: A Representation Approach to Conserving the Earth’s Most Biologically Valuable Ecoregions , 1998 .

[8]  M. Walpole,et al.  Governance and the loss of biodiversity , 2003, Nature.

[9]  J. L. Gittleman,et al.  The Future of Biodiversity , 1995, Science.

[10]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Balancing the Earth's accounts , 1999, Nature.

[11]  Alex James,et al.  Global variation in terrestrial conservation costs, conservation benefits, and unmet conservation needs , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[12]  S. Sarkar,et al.  Systematic conservation planning , 2000, Nature.

[13]  R. Mittermeier,et al.  Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities , 2000, Nature.

[14]  Peter Kareiva,et al.  Conserving Biodiversity Coldspots , 2003, American Scientist.

[15]  P. Ferraro Assigning priority to environmental policy interventions in a heterogeneous world , 2003 .

[16]  K. Gaston,et al.  Integrating Costs of Conservation into InternationalPriority Setting , 2000 .

[17]  P. Kareiva,et al.  Biological vs. social, economic and political priority‐setting in conservation , 2003 .