Defining ‘true’ Conservation
Biodiversity conservation is often hampered by weak performance measurement and reporting standards. This is in stark contrast to other areas, such as the corporate world, where weak reporting of performance is considered bad practice, if not illegal.
That is the finding of an international group of researchers – including Dunedin-based Dr Susan Walker of Landcare Research – whose work has been showcased in the prestigious Science magazine and outlines how credible performance measures should connect conservation outcomes to goals for public investment in conservation.
And, in a first, they’ve suggested simple measures for unbiased reporting which, if adopted more widely, could have significant implications for how progress in biodiversity protection is perceived, and how well we are doing. Dr Walker says that as in business, conservation gains and losses should both be presented as an auditable balance sheet, revealing the net benefit of conservation actions and policies after losses are taken into account. This is not common practice in conservation reporting, which usually presents only gains. ‘It’s like reporting revenue without expenses and calling it net profit,’ she says. This means the public gets a falsely positive impression of what is happening to biodiversity.
Their Science paper uses the example of government State of the Environment reports, which often show the size of the physical area protected or the change in size over time. But information is rarely shown on the loss of habitat outside (or indeed inside) reserved areas, or on the opportunity costs of securing new area (e.g. which other important areas were cleared or not reserved). Even when habitat loss is reported, it is rarely possible to evaluate net conservation outcomes.
‘The balance sheet approach can also be applied beyond reservation and habitat loss, to report on net progress from other forms of conservation activity,’ Dr Walker says.
‘For example, instead of reporting only areas under sustained pest control, we need to know what area isn’t managed, and how much difference pest control investment is making to what we care about, such as key species, or forest regeneration.
‘Without knowing if we’re going forward or backward, how can the public decide how much to spend on conservation?’ she asks.
Dr Walker says the group doesn’t claim to have developed the best or only possible honest reporting metrics, but simply aims to demonstrate that honest reporting is possible, can be simple and informative, and that the current global practice of reporting gains but not losses is potentially misleading.
The work originated from Dr Walker’s research into land reform in the South Island high country (‘Tenure Review’). By drawing attention to losses as well as gains, her work helped to change perceptions of the net benefit of land reform for biodiversity conservation.
‘We hope this new paper will help make a difference here in New Zealand – because it’s been published in such a prominent journal, we’re already getting lots of responses from people around the world,’ she says.