If You Need To Ask How Much, You Probably Can't Afford The Cost Of Conservation

Introducing Googleicthes ambulatus. Doesn't work for you? How about Comcasticus spottus. Or maybe Microsoftia aquatica? And if you still don't like any of these options, you can cough-up the hefty opening bid on this "walking shark" from Raja Ampat, Indonesia, and name this critter anything you damn well please.

Such is the latest conservation and marketing brainchild from US-based mega-NGO Conversation Conservation International. Jason over at Cephalopodcast has commented on this already, but thought I'd throw in my two cents. The right to name the shark and nine other newly discovered creatures is being opened up to businesses at auction this month by famed auction house Christie’s. It is the first big sell-off of the right to create a name for creatures new to science, and will be hosted by Prince Albert II of Monaco. Businesses and individuals will be allowed to name the creatures after anyone or anything, even a product.

The ten species at the auction were discovered by Conservation International during a survey of Indonesian wildlife in the Bird's Head region of Papua, Indonesia. Among them are the Epaulette shark (above)—-which has uniquely arranged pectoral fins for moving on coral reefs-—a pipefish, and a lionfish. If the suggested starting bids are achieved, the sale will raise more than $1.85 million.

Peter Seligmann, chairman of Conservation International, said: “Protecting the Bird’s Head Seascape and its amazing marine life is a top priority. This is the first time naming rights to multiple species have been auctioned to raise urgently needed marine conservation funding.”

Charity Navigator lists the fiscal year 2005-2006 annual salary for Seligmann at $370,000. Russell Mittermeier, CI President brings in a close $350,000 a year. And most of CI's senior directors are commanding six-figure salaries as well. At compensation packages like this, you can sort of understand the drive behind auctioning-off the ecological tenants in their work sites. My work in coral reef conservation in Raja Ampat comes in part from Conservation International, so I don't wish to bite the hand that partially feeds me. But it's truly amazing how much money can be spent for conservation to happen. The question that perhaps needs to be asked is does that much money need to be spent? Or at least spent in this manner?

CI's work in the Bird's Head Seascape of Indonesia has been principally funded by a grant from The Walton Family Foundation. The Walton Family is arguably the richest family in the world, their wealth inherited from Bud and Sam Walton, founders of the world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart. Between 2003-2005, The Walton Family Foundation funded CI's conservation in the Bird's Head for a total of $4,904,778. Raja Ampat's network of marine protected areas alone is a total expanse of 5 million hectares. This doesn't include the rest (mostly Papuan mainland portion) of the Bird's Head Seascape.

Attempting to adequately characterize the ecological landscape and manage that much area takes a considerable investment, and the combined resources of the big international NGOs (BINGOs). So in addition to CI, World Wildlife Fund and The Nature Conservancy are also dedicating significant dollars and assets to this biodiverse region. All said, conservation investments might easily surpass $12 million to the region thus far. With that much spending, big NGOs must also be thinking about ongoing success. And that means thinking about profit.

A recent report by Rodríguez et al. in the August 10 issue of Science explored the necessary competition and high-stakes marketing at play among the BINGOs,

These INGOs [International NGOs] have developed a range of tools, e.g., Biodiversity Hot Spots, Global 200 Ecoregions, and others to set priorities and to compete with each other. They often use a corporate "branding" strategy to help raise funds and to define and communicate their niches in a crowded and competitive market. This corporate model has been very successful for fundraising: Conservation International's "Hot Spots" strategy accompanied an increase in overall annual expenditures from U.S.$27.8 million in 1998 to U.S.$89.3 million by 2004, and World Wildlife Fund U.S.A.'s "Ecoregions" program accompanied a rise in expenditures from U.S.$80 million to U.S.$121.7 million between 1997 and 2005.

Certainly, the auctioning of scientific names for new species is a brilliant idea and affords CI a very visible edge over competitors.

But the authors of the Science report also point to the fact that investments of foreign conservationists can be seen as a threat to sovereignty and an imposition on local peoples. Despite best intentions, foreign organizations can be seen by some as usurping control of national territory and as disempowering grassroots efforts. Finally, if BINGOs focus on importing conservationists and scientists into work sites, their conservation efforts can fail if local conservationists have not been trained, or local institutions have not been developed with their own programs and funding. Once the NGOs leave, the conservation activity can rapidly unravel.

But all is not necessarily red in tooth and claw when it comes to funding conservation and investing in local infrastructure building. As I mentioned, there but for CI goes my work in Raja Ampat. I am grateful to the largess of this BINGO, and I would be dishonest to say I don't enjoy and benefit (professionally and personally) from friendships with terrific colleagues such as Conservation International Indonesian Seascape Director Mark Erdmann. Indeed, Rodríguez et al. recognize that conservation alliances hold significant value, even for the conservation giants,

Some INGOs have fostered collaboration by setting up egalitarian networks of local conservation organizations that are mutually supporting, around the world. In these cases, developed country NGOs help raise funds for agendas set by local partners. We recognize that INGOs have efficiencies of scale and operation, as well as an important role in influencing global policy. However, we argue that leadership in conservation has to be decentralized and better integrated into local conditions. Locally produced strategies and agendas, implemented by strong local institutions and individuals are key to success.

Here I couldn't agree more. Mega-funded organizations will certainly play a critical role in raising global attention and driving much of the science. But small, locally focused, community-based conservation organizations and projects are often the most effective. Rodríguez et al. draw conclusions that don't seem all that difficult to fathom,

...biodiversity will only be conserved if local people and interests want to save it for ethical and broadly utilitarian purposes. This level of support has to be large enough to resist a minority that may seek alternative land uses for narrowly selfish utilitarian reasons.