Celebrity panda

Everybody knows what a panda looks like and everybody, well practically everybody, knows that they are an endangered species. Pandas, and a few other celebrity species, are used by non-government organisations as the poster-species to encourage donations towards conservation efforts. That is fine as far as it goes, but as a researcher from the University of Queensland has pointed out in a newly published paper, the focus on selected celebrity species may mean that many others which need help are being neglected.

The new paper published in the journal Decision Point makes the point that worldwide there are 20,000 endangered species around the planet but only 80 species get all the attention. These celebrity species include pandas, tigers, lions and rhinos. They are charismatic and have marketing appeal because they possess the qualities that make them popular. Generally the celebrity endangered species are large and have forward-facing eyes. At some level, they are probably the ones that allow humans to make anthropomorphic projections onto them. We can perhaps imagine ourselves as a panda, or that the panda will somehow experience life in the way that we do. How dreadful though to be a “lesser stick-nest rat”, a “gulbaru gecko”, a “spotted handfish” or a “Tasmanian freshwater limpet” and face extinction just because you don’t look good on a poster.

The researcher points out that while money is being raised for the 80 lovable endangered species, there are 1000 other endangered mammals and 19,000 threatened plants, birds, reptiles, frogs and insects that are going untended, perhaps to disappear forever.

It’s not the fault of the organisations involved, it is a reflection of the nature of fundraising. As the paper points out, conservation efforts become focused in Europe and America because that is where most of the resources are. However, the widest range of threatened species are in places like Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Madagascar and Mexico.

As the researcher says, we may not be able to save all threatened species but, if we think globally and without false sentiment, then we may for instance be able to use our funds wisely and save a habitat that will preserve many species instead of just focusing on one species.

Extinction rates are increasing. Species loss is part of evolutionary nature, but we are currently losing species at a rate 100-1000 times faster than previously. Estimates are that half of all species will be gone in 200-300 years if action is not taken. Money is the currency of resource allocation and at the moment resources are spent on the species that have the greatest “donor appeal”. That spells trouble for obscure creatures in remote places but those animals are not necessarily any less vital to the ecosystem than their more charismatic cousins.

The point that has been made in this paper is that we need to re-evaluate how spend and allocate our conservation dollar. There is nothing wrong with pandas and tigers, they deserve our care and preservation, but they aren’t the only ones.

“Celebrity Panda” may sound like the title for a new reality television program but the sad reality is that it describes a phenomenon resulting in some species getting voted off the planet. As members of the planet’s ecology, who are in equal part responsible for and reliant on the ecosystem, we need to think beyond sloganistic emblems, without disregarding those iconic treasures, if we are to nurture the diverse health of the living organism that is our planet, our home.