Lessons lost: Lack of requirements for post-project evaluation and reporting is hindering evidence-based conservation

1 minute read

Published:

In our recent paper in Conservation Science and Practice we looked at how how much evidence the EUs LIFE Programme and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) are contributing towards the conservation evidence-base. Overall found that while the EU’s LIFE performed well, ERDF had significant shortcomings, with barely any publicly available documentation, let alone impact evaluations. It’s unclear why these ERDF projects aren’t being publicly documented. Our blog earlier this year in Ecological Solutions and Evidence highlighted how projects, such as those funded by ERDF, can provide valuable insight to the conservation evidence-base. In our paper we highlight the barriers these conservation projects face, namely; (i) the challenge in carrying out robust impact evaluations; (ii) lack of expertise; and (iii) the unwillingness to admit ‘failure’. There is also additional risk involved when making certain information publicly available.

How do we move forward? The main scope of our paper was to highlight the critical role conservation funders have in not only utilizing evidence-based conservation actions but also in generating such evidence. Conservation funders can offer longer-term funding and support research-practise partnerships between academic researchers and conservation practitioners in the field. Additionally, funders can promote transformative change by creating safe environments that facilitate learning from failure, such as Wildlife Conservation Society’s ‘Failure Factors’ and Cambridge Conservation Initiative’s ‘Embracing Failure in Conservation’ program.

I’ll conclude by stating that all of us authors in this paper support the EU’s endeavour in funding conservation projects across Europe through the Life Programme, ERDF and any other funding mechanism available. Ultimately our goal is to improve the synergy between funders, researchers and practitioners in the field. To maximize the impact of conservation projects, we must use evidence-based conservation actions, however to do so we equally need case studies of said actions to be documented and accessible.