How bad is the funding gap for threatened species?
The gap is severe. A comprehensive 2025 study of ~14,600 conservation projects over 25 years revealed that only about 6% of species identified as threatened on the IUCN Red List receive any conservation funding at all [3]. This means that for every 100 species at risk of extinction, roughly 94 get no dedicated support. Even within well-known groups like mammals and reptiles, funding is concentrated on a narrow selection of charismatic species, leaving the majority of their threatened members without resources [3].
Paradoxically, the same study found that 29% of all conservation funding is allocated to species of 'least concern' — those not currently at risk [3]. This misalignment suggests that funding decisions are driven more by public appeal or political convenience than by conservation need. The result is a system where popular animals like pandas or lions receive repeated support, while countless smaller, less visible species — such as amphibians, insects, and freshwater invertebrates — are left to decline.
Is the overall amount of funding enough, even if it were better targeted?
The evidence suggests the total funding is also insufficient. The same 2025 analysis covering 25 years of projects indicates that even the most well-funded groups receive 'little and ever-decreasing support' — amphibians, for instance, are highly threatened but get shrinking funds over time [3]. This pattern implies that even if funding were perfectly targeted, the overall pool may be too small to address the scale of the crisis.
Compounding this, human pressures on biodiversity are intensifying globally. A 2025 meta-analysis of 2,133 publications found that human activities — habitat change, pollution, climate change — consistently decrease local biodiversity across terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems [5]. As these pressures grow, the funding needed to counteract them must also increase, yet the trend is moving in the opposite direction for many threatened groups.
Are there other barriers besides money that make funding less effective?
Yes — funding is not only inadequate but also unevenly distributed across the globe and across types of conservation work. A 2023 study of citizen science projects for macroinvertebrate conservation found that the number of projects per country is strongly correlated with national GDP and GDP per capita [2]. Wealthier countries have many more projects, while poorer countries — which often harbor high biodiversity — face challenges in establishing and maintaining even basic monitoring efforts [2]. This means that some of the most biodiverse regions are the least equipped to attract or manage conservation funding.
Additionally, a 2024 global mapping study of human-wildlife interactions found that co-occurring regions — where humans and wildlife overlap substantially — cover 35.9% of the Earth's land area [4]. These areas require tailored conservation strategies that balance human needs with wildlife protection, but current funding mechanisms often fail to support such nuanced approaches. Without addressing these geographic and strategic biases, simply increasing total funding may not solve the problem.
Sources used in this answer
Bacterial zoonoses impacts to conservation of wildlife populations: a global synthesis
Bacterial zoonoses are not a major driver of wildlife population declines; species of least concern have higher pathogen richness than threatened species, suggesting disease monitoring should focus on Artiodactyla and Carnivora.
Overcoming biases and identifying opportunities for citizen science to contribute more to global macroinvertebrate conservation
Citizen science projects for macroinvertebrate conservation are biased toward wealthy countries and charismatic taxa like Lepidoptera and Hymenoptera, leaving highly threatened orders like Scorpiones underrepresented.
Limited and biased global conservation funding means most threatened species remain unsupported.
Only ~6% of threatened species receive conservation funding, while 29% of funds go to species of least concern; funding is taxonomically biased and decreasing for highly threatened groups like amphibians.
Global patterns of human-wildlife spatial associations and implications for differentiating conservation strategies.
Co-occurring human-wildlife regions cover 35.9% of land area, requiring customized conservation strategies that integrate human activity and biodiversity for effective protection.
The global human impact on biodiversity
Human pressures consistently decrease local biodiversity across terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems, but do not cause general biotic homogenization; impacts vary by pressure type and organism group.