In many parts of the world, there is a suggestion to expend more on vulnerable species’ protection. However, some posses skeptical attitude toward this notion by stating that it is absolutely wasteful, as that money can be used more notable in other sectors This essay believes that protecting those organisms is important, but the expenditure needs to be stabilized so that it will not exceed the standard level causing minimum fund for other more important aspects, such as public development.
Conserving endangered species may be beneficial if the management is conducted structurally well. Therefore, there should be an annual plan particularly for this matter so that the implementation will always be under control, causing no harmful effect to the society. Moreover, it needs to be conducted under professional circumstances and discretion in order to organize the mechanism; if the handing process witnesses difficulties, this authorities would be responsible to resolve it. For example, Indonesia has always prepared expenses for its national conservation under the ministry of environment, which result in the stable management for species in vulnerability.
While this program can attract tourists and improve creative economy, focusing the national budget on this project is not significant, as it will abandon other crucial sectors. The sustainability of local lives does not solely rely on tourism; it has a broader scope of development. The national budget on conservation should not exceed any scale of other country’s projects. Furthermore, setting it higher will merely result in social crisis. Citizens are prone to face harsh challenges, coming from all aspects because the government spares enormous amount of money for organisms’ protection which should be allocated to public services, such as medical and food security. As an illustration, a nation which cuts the budget on food supplies for an animal’s preservation will absolutely experience food crisis, leading to population issue and economical downward trend. Factually, it contains a huge possibility of national bankruptcy.
In conclusion, there is a multitude of ongoing arguments about how we should set the whole budget to conserve endangered populations. Nevertheless, I believe that although a nation should have appropriate preservation projects, they must ensure that the number of spending will not surpass the standard of local costs for other scopes of development. Subsequently, it should undergo competent authorities’ evaluation in order to secure any potential that could hinder national progress.