Assessing the Cost of Global Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge

Abstract

Knowledge products comprise assessments of authoritative information supported by standards, governance, quality control, data, tools, and capacity building mechanisms. Considerable resources are dedicated to developing and maintaining knowledge products for biodiversity conservation, and they are widely used to inform policy and advise decision makers and practitioners. However, the financial cost of delivering this information is largely undocumented. We evaluated the costs and funding sources for developing and maintaining four global biodiversity and conservation knowledge products: The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems, Protected Planet, and the World Database of Key Biodiversity Areas. These are secondary data sets, built on primary data collected by extensive networks of expert contributors worldwide. We estimate that US$160 million (range: US$116–204 million), plus 293 person-years of volunteer time (range: 278–308 person-years) valued at US$ 14 million (range US$12–16 million), were invested in these four knowledge products between 1979 and 2013. More than half of this financing was provided through philanthropy, and nearly three-quarters was spent on personnel costs. The estimated annual cost of maintaining data and platforms for three of these knowledge products (excluding the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems for which annual costs were not possible to estimate for 2013) is US$6.5 million in total (range: US$6.2–6.7 million). We estimated that an additional US$114 million will be needed to reach pre-defined baselines of data coverage for all the four knowledge products, and that once achieved, annual maintenance costs will be approximately US$12 million. These costs are much lower than those to maintain many other, similarly important, global knowledge products. Ensuring that biodiversity and conservation knowledge products are sufficiently up to date, comprehensive and accurate is fundamental to inform decision-making for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Thus, the development and implementation of plans for sustainable long-term financing for them is critical.

Blueprints of Effective Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge Products That Support Marine Policy

“…The implications are significant: limited biodiversity data can result in certain regions or taxa being overlooked in policy instruments (Geijzendorffer et al, 2015;Stephenson et al, in press). All of the products reviewed have achieved progress toward full data coverage, yet some taxonomic, geographic and contextual gaps remain (McCarthy et al, 2012;Juffe-Bignoli et al, 2016). These gaps are often clearly identified and communicated, with established targets to fill these gaps, while each product is progressing toward standardized, comprehensive, and transparent methods of data collation, quality assurance, and provision.…”

“…These strategies or business plans should outline their long-term capacity (e.g., financial and human) and infrastructure (e.g., data repositories) requirements, and strategies for fulfilling these requirements. Costello et al, 2014;Juffe-Bignoli et al, 2016 Accessible data that are fit-for-purpose, with value-added products that translate data into useful information (3.6)…”

“…These examples demonstrate the clear direction that can be provided by the support of an intergovernmental organization and the targets or reporting requirements set out by multilateral environment agreements. However, it is important to note that this, in and of itself, is often insufficient to guarantee the funding required to ensure the ongoing sustainability of a product (see Juffe-Bignoli et al, 2016 (Biodiversity Indicators Partnership, 2011). Indicators are important for tracking environmental and biological change, using narratives that offer a policy-relevant interpretation of the meaning of the data upon which the indicators are based (Walpole et al, 2017).…”

Research advances and gaps in marine planning: towards a global database in systematic conservation planning

“…However, tracking progress and impact is often difficult and costly (Juffe-Bignoli et al, 2016;Mascia et al, 2014). Major barriers to tracking progress include difficulties in finding and accessing existing planning exercises (both within the peerreviewed and gray literatures) and high variability in terms of quality, detail, and approaches used to document planning processes and outcomes (Kukkala and Moilanen, 2013), thus hampering impact assessments.…”

“…Collaboration with key international organizations (e.g., UNEP's World Conservation Monitoring Centre, CBD's Subsidiary Body on Scientific Technical and Technological Advice, Society for Conservation Biology, IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas and Species Survival Commission) will be essential to reach the international community for support and to encourage organizations and countries to include and update their plans. These collaborations will also be needed to assemble the expertise and resources required to consolidate the database, including updating and creating new modules, as well as securing hosting and maintenance arrangements (Juffe-Bignoli et al, 2016). Furthermore, journal editors can contribute to this effort by referring authors to the database and encouraging them to enter their case studies as part of the publication process (e.g., similar to existing requirements to make data available online).…”