Species Protection
Don Coursey, an economist with the University of
Chicago, evaluated the costs of conserving endangered species. His findings revealed
an enormous variation, with an estimate of $1.17 spent to protect a single painted snake
coil forest snail and an estimate of $4.8 million spent to protect a single Florida
panther (Scarlett 1996). The recovery effort involved in restoring the population
of a species is even more expensive, both in terms of direct and indirect costs.
Direct Costs
- Identification and Listing - Prior to recovery
activity, a species is identified as endangered, and formally listed. (See the
Endangered Species Act section for a detailed account.)
- Monitoring the Species - Once a recovery
effort begins, biologists must monitor the species in the wild for several years.
- Captive Breeding - Captive breeding is an
option for species where the size of wild population may not assure long-term survival.
- Reintroduction - Ideally, species bred in
captivity eventually are released into the wild. This effort requires monitoring, as
well.
- Land Acquisition - The federal and state
governments continue to purchase lands that may provide important habitats for species.
- Enforcement of Statutes
A 1997 Hoover Institution report found that federal
and state agencies spent $171,811,000 to protect 639 endangered species in 1991.
Interestingly, 90% of this amount protected only 54 species (over half of this amount
going toward 7 species); the remaining 10% was divided among the other 585 on the list
(Annett 1998). Such a disproportionate allocation of resources leads to controversy
over the protection of endangered species. Some argue that the government isn't
doing enough to protect the [other] listed species. Others argue that the government
should only concern itself with "important" species and de-list the others.
The figure below illustrates the growing disparity
between the number of species listed and the amount of government funding for actual
protection.
(Source: Environmental Defense
Fund, using U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service data)
Indirect Costs
Direct costs are easily measured
using budget allocations and cash payments as indicators. Valuing indirect costs is
less clear but may impose a higher burden on society.
- Value of Real Estate: If an endangered species
is found on private property, the government may restrict the activity that can occur on
that land. Essentially, this restriction amounts to private citizens paying for the
cost of conservation via lost opportunities.
- Industries: Industries that rely on extraction
from publicly owned lands, such as the logging industry, also face lost opportunity costs
when an endangered species inhabits in the area. Protection of the northern spotted
owl generated serious controversy because of the lost economic earnings.
- Transaction Costs: The legal, political, and
social battles involved in the species protection debate increase the costs of
conservation over time.
Biodiversity Protection
The most common way to protect biodiversity is to protect
habitats. Interestingly, the government is not the only player in habitat
conservation. Several non-governmental organizations (NGO) purchase and acquire land
for the express purpose of preserving biodiversity. The direct and indirect costs
are analogous to species protection.
Direct Costs
- Land Acquisition: Federal and state level
governments acquire lands for the purpose of preservation.
- Monitoring: Public lands require monitoring to
ensure that unauthorized activity does not take place.
- Takings Laws: Governments may find themselves
having to compensate private landowners for "taking" their property.
Courts are interpreting the 4th Amendment to include economic takings, as well as
physical.
Indirect Costs
- Value of Real Estate: As in species
protection, the value of land may decrease as a result of biodiversity protection
initiatives because of loss of development opportunities due to restrictions aimed at
preserving biodiversity.
- Industries: Because biodiversity protection
involves changing current business practices, i.e., making them more sustainable,
industries face potential losses in accommodating the ideology of sustainable development.
The Consequences of No-Action:
The Other Perspective
The costs of conservation may be quite high when the
indirect effects are included in the analysis. However, some argue that the costs of
not conserving biodiversity are far greater. Clark and Downes list several
avoidance costs in their report, "What Price Biodiversity?"
- endangering food supplies through reduced crop
variations and lost spawning grounds for fish and shellfish
- reducing potential for medicinal and pharmaceutical
advances
- reducing quality of critical ecosystem functions,
including
- water supplies,
- air quality, and
- climate
- loss of cultural identity with decline in particular
species, i.e., the bald eagle
- loss of mental and spiritual rejuvenation opportunities
through contact with nature
The World Resources Institute found that "the
estimated economic value of intact natural forests for recreation, production of fish and
wildlife, and other benefits is one third to three times as much as their value for timber
alone" (Clark
and Downes 1998).
Most importantly, the economic (and
aesthetic) value resulting from biodiversity protection accrues to present and
future generations. |
