Here is a chart put out by Panthera (not sure if they came up with it or are just reproducing it). It rates countries by their commitment to conservation in regards to mega fauna (which is not the same as their commitment to conservation in general). Seems odd - I don't think I agree, but I know nothing of the study so who I am to say? Still, of the four categories, India gets a top ranking? Knowing what I do about the corruption in their wildlife offices I find this shocking, especially since the United States gets the second lowest of the four rankings. None of our mega fauna has been wiped out, we have reintroduced wolves in key areas, whereas India has wiped out the cheetah and state bickering continues to thwart plans to move lions to a second reserve. Russia also gets a top ranking while Australia gets the worst. Really? World's First Mega-fauna Conservation Rankings | Panthera
This is the link to the scientific article behind it: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989416300804 It basically consists of a matrix consisting of 3 components 1) The relative abundance of all megafauna species per country 2) The percentage of this distribution that is within an officially protected area 3) The amount spent on conservation relative to GDP This means that poorer countries more easily score well on the 3rd category and the study ignores how well these protected areas are actually protected, thus paper parks are given the same weight as the Serengeti National Park. Given their method, the results are not that surprising, though it is not really a useful measure until it's flaws are corrected. An additional thing that would improve the matrix is focusing only on endangered species (as defined by IUCN).
@Arizona Docent: WildCRU previously developed a similar ranking system focused on countries with wild cat species. You might want to look it up
Have a read of the key: the USA is a "Major Performer", which I would suggest is the highest ranking, higher than "Above Average" and definitely higher then "Below Average". Hix
Hmmm - thanks for that. I looked at the way they were listed (in order from top to bottom) and assumed top category was best and bottom was worst. Apparently they listed the categories in no particular order, which is confusing and bizarre.
I agree 100%. I can't imagine why they would have done it that way. Except that it's alphabetical. Hix
