Mainstream eco-protection is corrupted by weak performance measure & reporting standards
The field of biodiversity conservation is hampered by weak performance
measurement and reporting standards. In other areas, such as the
corporate world, weak reporting of performance is considered bad
practice, if not illegal.
Although various evaluation frameworks for
conservation programs have been suggested, few simple measures for
unbiased reporting have been developed. Credible performance measures
should connect conservation outcomes to goals for public investment
in conservation.
Gains and losses must both be presented as an
auditable conservation balance sheet, revealing the net benefit
of conservation actions and policies reported against losses. A major
conservation performance metric in government state of the environment
reports is the size of the physical area protected, or the change in
area protected.
For example, South Africa reported that 6% of
terrestrial habitat was contained within protected areas in; in 2001,
North America reported an increase in land within reserves over time.
However, these numbers provide no information on loss of habitat
outside (or inside) reserved areas, or conservation opportunity costs
of securing areas for conservation. Even when habitat loss is reported
(11, 12), it is rarely possible to evaluate net conservation outcomes.
— Posted to http://forestpolicyresearch.com via gmail to posterous and
also to forestpolicyresearch@yahoogroups.com
See and download the full gallery on posterous
Posted via email from Deane’s posterous