Footprint Magazine 2 - Conservation | Page 11

11

These requirements included:

Must have the status of NONE (or LIMITED) conservation attention as stated on the EDGE list of endangered species.

I researched this by comparing both the IUCN status of the species and the EDGE conservation status of the species. The IUCN Red list has put all species into one of the following categories: Least concern, near threatened, vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered, extinct in the wild, extinct. I decided to focus of species that fall into the vulnerable, endangered, and critically endangered categories. The EDGE project states for each species how much conservation attention they are receiving – either Active, Limited or None.

If awareness of this species was increased – then a simple but effective conservation projects can be set up (even if donations are limited).

Once the general public and different conservation organisations pay more attention to a particular species, donation schemes, symbolic ‘adopt an animal’ campaigns and ecological projects can be set up. One of the issues faced by the smaller charities is the sustained maintenance of the conservation projects and equipment supply. With this in mind, I contacted the EDGE team to ask for some of their current projects. After receiving a list of 26 ongoing initiatives, I chose one species [the secretary bird] from the list which fitted the other requirements I came up with. The awareness created though the artwork of this species will help to generate donations to support the projects for research materials and data analysis. The reason I did not chose more species from the list was because I wanted to create awareness for some completely overlooked species which have no support system in place.

Animals that are not known to the general public/have no media representation/underfunded – likely due to their less charismatic/cute features e.g. fluffy pandas vs the purple frog.

The spending of the conservation budget is highly disproportionate among groups of species due to their perceived ‘benefit’ and due to aesthetic reasons. In the USA, the ‘Overfunded’ species are defined as those with a budget at least two-fold greater than what was initially proposed, and the ‘underfunded’ species are defined as those with a budget of 90% or less of that proposed. It is no surprise that the majority of the animals that fall in the ‘overfunded’ category are the poster and flagship species such as the bald eagle and the grizzly bear, whereas about half of the ‘underfunded’ species are plants, and the rest are invertebrates and lower vertebrates (fishes, reptiles and amphibians). This shows the bias, unconscious or otherwise, that goes into choosing which animals to conserve, and the majority of the ‘underfunded’ species are completely unknown to the general public.

Genetically very unique – if the species was lost the genetic diversity of the ecosystem would decrease drastically – no similar genetically related species.

The EDGE project scores every species based on its unique evolutionary history and its conservation status according to the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. A ‘Globally Endangered’ (GE) score is then calculated for each species based on the 2006 IUCN Red List. Each species is then given an ‘Evolutionary Distinctiveness’ (ED) score, which is calculated from a family tree or phylogeny. It calculates the genetic biodiversity that would be lost if the species were to go extinct. A high ED score shows that if that species were to go extinct, there would be no similar species left on the planet and a disproportionate amount of unique evolutionary history would be lost forever. The two scores are then combined to produce an EDGE score. For my project I aimed to choose species from the top 85 EDGE scores and the list of focal species. As well as this I looked into species that are keystone species, meaning if they went extinct a large part of the ecosystem would be affected and other food chains disrupted, putting other species in critical danger.