How Much Are Wild Animals Worth? Let’s Work It Out!

4.2K

A farmer in Australia was recently jailed for 14 days and fined $2,500 for killing 406 Wedge-tailed Eagles. In the absence of dingoes, they are the country’s top predator. It got me wondering. Is there evidence for a better equation to answer the question, how much are wild animals worth?

We still treat animals as an after thought. Where most of society is concerned, they are nice to look at. But, do we really value them for what they do for us? Wildlife is the only mechanism to create, sustain or rebuild stable and habitable ecosystemsHow ecosystems function An ecosystem is a community of lifeforms that interact in such an optimal way that how ecosystems function best, is when all components (including humans and other animals) can persist and live alongside each other for the longest time possible. Ecosystems are fuelled by the energy created by plants (primary producers) that convert the Sun's heat energy More. But is it wise to put a dollar value on that? I am going to step through the process I might build, if I was asked to put a value on the life of a wild animal killed.

Putting a dollar value on the worth of wild animals

I am not a big fan of using economics to value wildlife. First, nature is priceless. Second, we are already consuming more of Earth’s resources than we can sustain. Earth Overshoot Day, the date that we use up the annual limit to our planet’s resources, occurred on 29 July 2021. Our species is falling off the cliff and the time for compromise has long passed. There is no situation on Earth today, that justifies reducing the amount of wildlife. Avoiding killing wildlife has to become the first principle of all environmental decisions.

But decisions are still made every day that clearly and grossly undervalue animals … like the $6.15 per eagle the farmer was fined in Victoria. What about whales that are struck by ships, birds that are shot by hunters, or caught in fishing nets? What about the Hen Harriers persecuted by grouse shooters in Scotland or the rhinos poached in Africa. Where is the incentive to do better? Where is the realisation of how much wild animals are worth?

We have all the components to put at least a minimum value on the cost of killing wildlife. While the calculations I am about to present can be debated, it serves its purpose to reveal the limitation to our current approaches. There is a big the gap is, between what society thinks animals are worth and how valuable they are.

How much do we know about the worth of wild animals?

We know that if we remove animals from an ecosystem we alter its stability and productivityThe power of an ecosystem to process energy. The most productive ecosystems have reached a steady stable-state with maximum entropy production. That’s to say, the number of species has reached an optimum and the functions they fulfil, have translated free surplus energy into nutrients that is either stored inside plants and animals, or is entrained within the biological cycles that More. This creates a whirlwind of changes that stir the environment and lead to many problems. Soils lose their nutrientA substance that contains the raw materials for life. At a chemical level, these are contained inside compounds that are absorbed into the body and essential energy-containing molecules are extracted, so that energy can be transformed into other chemical processes that use the energy for living. More, pest numbers increase, water becomes polluted, the climate changes and the flow-on effect leads to some of the worst existential crises our species has ever faced.

To calculate the cost of killing animals, we need to understand the scale, intensity and magnitude of animal impactWhat is Animal Impact? Without wildlife, Earth would not be habitable for humans, because it's animals that stabilise ecosystems. It’s a fundamental law of nature that animals (and humans) exist because we are the most likely lifeforms to minimise environmental chaos. Animal impact, therefore, is a measure of how much all wildlife is collectively responsible for creating a habitable Earth. The More. Then we have to translate that into a number that relates to ecosystem loss. Finally, we need to estimate how long it will take, and how much it will cost, to restore the population. There are five key factors.

---

Method: key factors in calculating how much wild animals are worth

#1 The scale of animal impact

If we know how heavy an animal is, we know what area of ecosystem it is likely to impact. It’s not the territory size that matters so much, as where the animal forages. This is where the greatest impact occurs. Territory size can change but foraging area roughly varies in size, with the weight of the animal. See more evidence here and here. Bigger animals have larger territories.

#2 The intensity of animal impact

Larger animals, or those that form ‘units’ that act together (e.g. pairs of birds, packs of wolves, shoals of fish etc), tend to have a more intense impact on ecosystems. Their process is the transfer, amplification and concentration of nutrients and this is highest among migratory or colony-forming animals. Abundance and biomassThe weight of living organisms. Biomass can be measured in relation to the amount of carbon, the dry weight (with all moisture removed) or living weight. In general it can be used to describe the volume of energy that is contained inside systems, as the size of animals relates to their metabolism and therefore, how much energy they contain and More are roughly proportional, which means we can relate the number of animals of certain sizes, to the intensity of the impact they have.

#3 The magnitude of animal impact

If you combine scale and intensity, you get a sense of magnitude. Then comes the need to translate this into a dollar value. The UN estimates that land degradation costs us 9% of Gross Domestic Product globally each year. That gives us a dollar per km², the assumption being that a permanent loss of animals will result in the eventual collapse of the system.

We would assume that in the most undisturbed habitatsWhat is habitat for animals and people? Habitat, hence the word "habitable" describes the natural surroundings in which any animal (or human) lives, that houses basic needs, such as food and shelter. Vegetation, for example, is habitat for animals. On its own, habitat is not necessarily stable or sustainable, which is why it differs from an ecosystem. Habitat in disrepair More e.g. parks and reserves, animals are still largely driving the structure and function(Of an ecosystem). A subset of ecosystem processes and structures, where the ecosystem does something that provides an ecosystem service of value to people. More of the system. Less so in modified landscapes such as farmland. So, if we know the area and how significant animals are across the affected landscape, we can apportion the impact of killing animals to the landscape in question.

For now, I’ve limited my assessment to land-based animals. The ocean might contribute about 43 per cent of Earth’s ecosystem services but it’s more three-dimensional than land. Maybe it’s reasonable to assume that the impact is equivalent. Certainly for the purpose of this exercise, we could assume a similarly-sized ocean animal to have equivalent value as a land-animal.

#4 How long will it take for an animal population to recover?

There is huge variation in this answer but I did some assessment recently here. On average, it takes about 10 years for an animal population to double. But remember, if you start by effectively wiping out a population, it can take a long time to get started. If you don’t have the seeds to rebuild from and animals have lost their cultural connection, the process can be near impossible. That’s when the cost becomes practically infinite and avoidance is necessary. This applies to any population which becomes isolated from others, since disconnected animals can’t share knowledge or breed. Sadly, this is the case for most our wild animals today.

Since most wild animals are declining, we can fairly assume that they all warrant some level of recovery.

#5 How much does conservation cost?

Scientists have estimated the amount of money needed to reverse conservation losses of over 37,400 species currently listed as ‘threatened’ and ensure declines turn into recovery. They put this figure at USD 3.41 to 4.76 billion a year, or an average of USD 127,272 per year, per species.

So, with these five factors in mind, let’s apply some calculations.

---

CASE STUDY No 1: Wedge-tailed Eagles in Australia

Let’s take the example of 406 eagles killed (A) and apply our hypothesis about value. I don’t know many of the particulars of the real ecosystem so the figures are just for suggestion and comparison to the original fine.

An average Wedge-tailed Eagle weighs about 3.5 kg (B) and while one pair has a territory of about 30km², they will forage over a proportion of this. Our calculation estimates this area at 3.59 km² per bird, or 1,456 km² in total for the 406 birds (C). Though they occur as pairs, so the ‘unit’ (F) effectively occupies this area, so we divide by two.

Let’s assume 95% of the regional population was killed and take this to mean a 5% chance of recovery in year one (D). Based on an average population doubling rate across numerous threatened species studies, it might take 29 years for those 406 birds to come back (E).

Cost of recovery

The average cost of investing in conservation efforts to restore threatened species populations globally is about USD 127,272 per year. So, to restore 95% of an eagle population back to 406 birds, would take USD 3.7 million over 29 years (E) but we also have to adjust for inflation (as each year, it becomes more costly). I have used a figure of 2.5% per year (J) and that brings the total upfront payment for recovery to USD 7.5 million.

Cost of landscape impact

Nine per cent of Australia’s GDP (G), divided by the country’s area is USD 15,484 per km² (H). In other words, land degradation causes this amount to be lost to the economy every year.

If we are investing in the eagles’ recovery each year, then that ecosystem degradation figure gets smaller each year, until it reaches zero, once the birds are fully recovered. When we depreciate this cost over 29 years at 3.33% per year (I) then multiply by the area affected, it brings the total to a staggering USD 176 million. That might seem a lot but the value per hectare of land in Victoria is about USD 2,271. The fine is only USD 82.76 per ha, per year, or 3.5% of land value.

It can be argued that much of that land was already degraded. So let’s do one final calculation. Let’s assume that our parks and reserves are 90% dependent on intact wild eagle populations and surrounding land is 5% dependent (tree margins, hedgerows, remnant forest etc). National parks make up 18% of the state (K). This gives us a ‘Natural Area Ratio’ (L) of 20%. This reduces the liability by five times.

Final value of Wedge-tailed Eagles

These final figures reduce our total ‘damages’ to the ecosystem to USD 35 million and the total bill, to restore the balance, at $43 million – that’s the cost to the Australian taxpayer and the world, of 29 years of having 406 fewer eagles. And it’s about 0.7% of land value. The justification for this, is that every year that passes without eagles, the ecosystem becomes less stable and less able to function economically.

This gives us a final figure of USD 106,000 per eagle.
The fine for killing a Wedge-tailed Eagle? USD 4.52 per bird.

---

CASE STUDY No.2 Gray Wolves in Wisconsin

The Gray Wolf hunt in Wisconsin just exceeded its quota by double, killing 218 animals in 63 hours. There are about 1,000 wolves in Wisconsin, so to rebuild the 218 animals from a stock reduced by 20%, could take 3 years. Only 0.14% of the state is park and reserve. Nonetheless, my costing approach would estimate wolf hunting to be causing USD 37 million in ecosystem damages each year. This is a cost of $80.71 per hectare, which is only 0.85% the average value of land in Wisconsin.

This gives us a final figure of USD 171,000 per wolf.
The cost of a wolf hunting permit? $10 per wolf.

---

We are massively underestimating how much wild animals are worth

Whether you want to argue these figures or not, it is clear we massively underestimate how much wild animals are worth.

The amount of money it takes to rebuild wildlife can run into millions more than the fines we issue. Where we really fall down though, is in our estimation of ecosystem loss. There is almost no accounting for damage done to land, either for lawful or unlawful purposes.

I’ve only looked at this from the perspective of direct killing. Permits are issued every day for developments to permanently destroy entire ecosystems of animals. These losses are permanent. Because we are well beyond the threshold for resource use, the ‘cost’ is effectively infinite.

So-called ‘offsets’ could only ever be used if irreversible losses were avoided completely. If you have a piece of poor quality habitat without animals, you can theoretically trade that for improving wildlife-rich habitat elsewhere. But so often, there is no avoidance and offsets are instead, used in a way that puts us further into debt.

Wildlife losses are never properly accounted for in the cost-benefit equations that economists and policy-makers use to make environmental decisions. If they were, then we would be debating figures like the ones above, putting a value on the life of individual animals in the order of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or a fraction of a percentage of the value of the ecosystems that have been degraded as a consequence.

---

Spotlight