Two Decades On: Why Causal Evidence Remains Vital for Conservation Success

Global biodiversity declined sharply over recent decades despite substantial investments in conservation programs worldwide.

A Pivotal Call to Action Emerged in 2006

A Pivotal Call to Action Emerged in 2006 (Image Credits: Imgs.mongabay.com)

Researchers Paul Ferraro and Subhrendu Pattanayak delivered a stark message that year. Their analysis revealed a critical gap in the field: most conservation initiatives lacked empirical proof of their effects. Funds flowed into projects based on intuition and anecdotes rather than tested outcomes. This approach threatened to waste resources at a time when ecosystems faced mounting pressures. The pair urged the adoption of program evaluation methods akin to those in medicine and economics. Such techniques promised to isolate true causal impacts from mere coincidences.

Conservation leaders took note, but implementation lagged. Early efforts focused on descriptive monitoring of activities like hectares protected or species counted. True assessments demanded comparing treated areas to untreated counterparts – what experts term counterfactuals. Without this, successes appeared inflated, and failures went unrecognized.

Correlation’s Deceptive Allure Exposed

A landmark study two years later underscored the risks. Kwaw Andam and colleagues, including Ferraro, examined protected areas’ role in curbing deforestation. Initial observations suggested strong benefits: forests inside boundaries stood while those outside vanished. Closer scrutiny revealed a flaw. Many reserves sat in remote spots naturally less prone to clearing, near roads or settlements. Proper controls adjusted for this bias, revealing modest effects at best.

This case highlighted broader issues. Simple before-and-after snapshots ignored external trends like policy shifts or economic changes. Community programs faced similar pitfalls: behavior shifts might stem from awareness campaigns or unrelated factors. Tracing mechanisms – intermediate steps from action to result – became essential. For instance, did local patrols boost compliance through deterrence or legitimacy?

Progress Mixed with Lingering Hurdles

Since 2006, impact evaluations multiplied, especially in academia. Reviews synthesized findings on forest policies and protected areas. Practitioner-led efforts grew rarer, though collaborations bridged gaps. Groups like the Society for Conservation Biology’s Impact Evaluation Working Group fostered partnerships. Qualitative approaches offered entry points, paving ways to quantitative rigor.

Challenges persisted. Organizations cited tight budgets and skill shortages. Incentive structures favored reports of activities over candid outcome probes. Admitting shortfalls risked funding cuts or reputations. Funders often requested input metrics – rangers hired, workshops held – over evidence of biodiversity gains.

• Limited financial resources for evaluations
• Technical demands beyond typical staff expertise
• Fear of negative findings harming future grants
• Preference for familiar case studies over experiments
• Misaligned rewards prioritizing leadership over learning

Funders Step Up to Drive Change

Some philanthropies recognized their leverage. The Arcus Foundation launched a pilot in its Great Apes and Gibbons Program. Partnering with experts, it equipped grantees with tools for causal thinking. Rather than rigid protocols, the initiative emphasized feasible counterfactuals amid real-world constraints. Grant reports evolved to capture lessons on barriers and adaptations.

This model shifted dynamics. It rewarded transparency over polished successes. Similar efforts could normalize evaluations, enabling adaptive management. Practitioners gained clarity on tweaking interventions – like adjusting patrols or incentives – for better results.

Conservation stands at a crossroads as tipping points loom. Rigorous causal evidence offers the path to efficient, scalable wins. Practitioners and donors alike must embed it routinely. What steps will your organization take next? Share your thoughts in the comments.