CORRESPONDENCE Securing nonflagship species from extinction Liana N. Joseph 1 , Richard F. Maloney 2 , James E.M. Watson 1 , & Hugh P. Possingham 3 1 Wildlife Conservation Society, 2300 Southern Boulevard, Bronx, New York 10460, USA 2 Threatened Species Development, Research and Development Group, Department of Conservation, Christchurch, New Zealand 3 ARC Centre of Excellence for Environmental Decisions, The Ecology Centre, University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, Australia Received 17 December 2010 Accepted 6 February 2011 Editor James Blignaut doi: 10.1111/j.1755-263X.2011.00174.x Introduction A recent article in Conservation Letters by Verissimo and colleagues provides clarity with respect to the concept of flagship species. As the authors state, the use of flagship species can offer a powerful tool for environmental organizations to raise money and raise public awareness generally. Regrettably, in many cases, the money that is raised for flagship species is tied to spending solely on that species. Consequently, other non- flagship threatened species are unlikely to benefit. The use of flagship species creates a conundrum for those or- ganizations that aim to secure the greatest number of threatened species from extinction. This goal will not be achievable if the limited conservation budget is con- strained to specific actions that only assist the few flagship species. The authors make a brief reference to this weak- ness of the flagship-species approach and suggest that solutions may include using the funds to pay for over- heads that benefit multiple species or declaring upfront that funding will be spent on other species. We suggest that there is another option: a marketing tool that may be attractive to donors and result in funding that is not tied to a single species. We believe that it is possible to raise funds by focus- ing on the task of securing large numbers of threatened species rather than a single flagship species. We illustrate the potential power of this type of marketing tool with a species prioritization exercise recently undertaken by the New Zealand Department of Conservation. In this plan- ning exercise, priority actions, and costs and feasibility for those actions, were identified for securing each of ∼660 of New Zealand’s most threatened species (Joseph et al. 2009; O’Conner et al. 2009). The New Zealand govern- ment is now in the position to state how much it will cost to secure all or a selection of these species from extinc- tion. With this kind of information, it is possible to cal- culate the exact amount required to secure species and make statements like: “... as little as $x million is needed to secure a given number of the most threatened species and $y million would secure a greater number.” Simi- larly, these data can be used to demonstrate the expected gains of additional funding for threatened species. These figures give the Department of Conservation a powerful tool for seeking wider support for managing threatened species in New Zealand. The concept of saving large numbers of endangered species is commonly used to “sell” priority landscapes or regions for conservation NGOs (e.g., Conservation Inter- national’s Biodiversity Hotspots, Myers et al. 2000; Al- liance for Zero Extinction sites, Ricketts et al. 2005). Yet, the example that we present here illustrates a method for proving clear and fully costed opportunities to raise funds for priority actions that will result in the recovery of threatened species specifically. We suggest that mar- keting the ability to secure from extinction of large num- bers of species is an effective complementary tool to the flagship-species approach that can be particularly useful for securing threatened species that will never be poten- tial flagship species. Conservation Letters 00 (2011) 1–2 Copyright and Photocopying: c  2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 1