Missing the trees for the wood: Why we are failing to see success in pro-poor conservation

Abstract

Pro-poor conservation strategies are touted as a panacea for achieving biodiversity conservation and poverty reduction, yet there remains limited evidence for success in achieving these dual objectives. Is this lack of evidence a sign that the approach is failing or an indicator that we are not capturing appropriate measures of success? In this review, we demonstrate that the lack of evidence for success in pro-poor conservation can be attributed to focusing on the bigger picture and overlooking the details. This has led to two fundamental flaws, (1) an ambiguous use of definitions and (2) inappropriate monitoring, both of which are compounded by limited understanding between traditional scientific disciplines and which render true conclusion of success impossible. Due to the current lack of evidence, pro-poor conservation risks basing decisions on belief rather than evidence, repeating mistakes and missing opportunities to replicate successes. We propose five key recommendations that will facilitate the identification of successful pro-poor conservation interventions and the conditions under which they work. Adoption of these recommendations will ensure pro-poor conservation is built on clear definitions and engages in meaningful participation with rigorous monitoring and reporting of outcomes, aiding replication and scaling up of propoor conservation successes in intelligent and evidence-based ways.

Practitioner and scientist perceptions of successful amphibian conservation

“…Education and engagement can unite conservation with improvements in human welfare and livelihoods (Davies et al. ; Souto et al. ).…”

“…; Davies et al. ). This anthropocentric focus on measuring conservation success has been dubbed the “new conservation” and entails replacing species and habitat interventions with economic development and poverty reduction (Soulé ).…”

Profiling unauthorized natural resource users for better targeting of conservation interventions

“…), and there is limited evidence of success in achieving both (Davies et al. ). This is partly due to poor monitoring and evaluation of projects, meaning success is difficult to measure (Davies et al.…”

Programas de conservación de la vida silvestre: una revisión y análisis.

“…Las diferencias para conservar los recursos entre países desarrollados y en vías de desarrollo de Amé-rica Latina son sus políticas de conservación, sus formas de integrar equipos interdisciplinarios de trabajo, la conformación de áreas naturales protegidas, el involucramiento activo de la población y la conducción de proyectos comunitarios (Miteva et al, 2012;Davies et al, 2013).…”

“…The differences in resource conservation between developed countries and developing countries in Latin America are their conservation policies, their ways of integrating interdisciplinary working teams, the conformation of natural protected areas, the active involvement of the population, and the implementation of community projects (Miteva et al, 2012;Davies et al, 2013).…”