Funding evidence‐based conservation
Danni Parks, Nida Al‐Fulaij, Clare Brook, Stuart H. M. Butchart, Jean‐Gaël Collomb, David Cope, Simon D. Dowell, Becky Falkingham, Winifred F. Frick, Douglas Gibbs, Emily E. Gray, Nicolas Heard, Anastasios Leventis, Kate Mastro, Helen Meredith, Simon Mickleburgh, Florence Miller, Matthew J. Muir, Rascha J. M. Nuijten, Nancy Ockendon, Nisha Owen, Jacob R. Owens, Jon Paul Rodrı́guez, Sugoto Roy, Elizabeth Tully, Jean‐Christophe Vié
Abstract
The magnitude of the biodiversity crisis is widely accepted, as is the need for substantive action implementing the most effective interventions in the right locations (IPBES, 2019). Funding is a key driver of conservation work: its availability and funder preferences often determine what can be done. As representatives of 25 organizations that support conservation projects, we take seriously our responsibilities to ensure that funding decisions support evidence-based conservation actions. There is a growing understanding of the importance of considering the evidence for the effectiveness of actions in decision-making and the risks of not doing so (Brest & Harvey, 2018). However, at present, evidence is not routinely considered when planning and designing conservation projects, despite the fact that some actions are more effective than others and some routine or common sense actions have been proved not to be effective at all (Sutherland & Wordley, 2018). For example, a recent comparison of the cost-effectiveness of various actions to conserve orangutans (Pongo spp.) found that some (habitat protection and patrolling) were more than twice as effective as others (rescue and rehabilitation or habitat restoration) (Santika et al., 2022). Therefore, we believe that there is an opportunity for funders to catalyze a step change in evidence use in conservation planning. Asking applicants for funding to assess the evidence for what has worked––and what has not––when designing projects can help identify approaches with a higher likelihood of success, leading to increases in efficacy and improved outcomes. This is supported by a study that showed that asking conservation practitioners to consider the evidence base can change their decisions (Walsh et al., 2015). In addition, both the volume (Appendix S1) and accessibility (Piwowar et al., 2018) of evidence for the effectiveness of a wide range of conservation actions are growing rapidly, enhancing the practicality and likely impact of such a requirement. Our organizations promote consideration of the evidence at a pertinent stage in the proposal-development process, and we compiled 10 practical approaches for doing so (Table 1). Whichever approach is used, it is important that organizations review and incorporate new evidence (whether generated by their own project or others) at appropriate, regular intervals. Appendix S1 contains guidance for funders and applicants to demonstrate that key decisions in proposals are evidence-based. We stress that we encourage continued innovation and the testing of practices to generate new evidence and that reporting unsuccessful interventions is as important as documenting success. We hope others will adopt this approach so that consideration of the relevant evidence becomes a routine part of decision-making in conservation and beyond, resulting in enhanced effective practice on the ground. Please note: The publisher is not responsible for the content or functionality of any supporting information supplied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing content) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article.