Economics of conserving endangered birds: the case for Gyps vultures in India

The use of diclofenac—a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug—to treat livestock, and the subsequent sharp decline in the population of Gyps species of vultures across South Asia, led to the lack of ecological services like scavenging. This triggered the population of secondary scavengers like feral dogs posing serious implications for human and wildlife health in the region, and a subsequent increase in public expenditure to manage the dead carcass. In the absence of vultures, scavenging services are being provided anthropogenically through the establishment of carcass-rendering plants with government financing. Although the veterinary use of diclofenac has been banned in India with vulture-safe substitutes being made available, the critically low vulture population is unable to self generate and it has been argued that captive-breeding initiatives and safe release of the Gyps species are necessary for these endangered vulture populations to revive in the wild. However, such initiatives are limited and lack strong support, and governments are in need of economic appraisal of such initiatives to validate and reinforce their conservation program. This study does a cost–benefit analysis of India’s vulture captive-breeding programs by using the replacement cost approach to ecosystem service valuation. It assumes the cost of rendering plants as the benefit to society that vultures traditionally provided through scavenging. This benefit is compared to the costs associated with the ex-situ conservation and reintroduction of vultures into the wild which is the cost of captive breeding, release, and the creation and maintenance of Vulture Safe Zones (VSZs). The study finds the lifetime scavenging value of a vulture to vary between USD 4457 to 4047 in urban India and between USD 3825 to 3357 in rural India at 2014–2015 prices. Annually a single vulture is seen to provide scavenging services worth USD 235 to 187 depending on the location and discount rate used in the calculation. These benefit measures are underestimates as many components of the replacement costs are not accounted for due to lack of data. Despite the underestimation, the benefit-cost-ratios overwhelmingly support, irrespective of discount rates used, the captive breeding of vultures and their release in vulture-safe zones to stabilize their population. Results reinforce the efforts of the conservation authorities to invest in VSZs so that society receives a natural solution to carcass disposal.