There is a lot of evidence that the huge financial resources are spent for conservational purpose without effective or measurable positive outcomes. However, big foundations (such as CEPF, Birdlife international, Fauna & Flora ect) repeatedly financing such projects and then are satisfied by the paper reports only, which is sometimes nothing more then just used papers.
I think that the fact of a part of the financial resources dedicated to the worldwide conservation could be spent without effective or measurable positive outcomes in terms of conservation, is an inevitable collateral risk, that we have to take. Is the same case of the protected areas in the ecological networks policies. Several times, these not contain the real hots-spots of biodiversity. But these areas, can be improved over time.
Maybe add ever more mecanisms of control and monitor the proper performance of the funded projects. And, eventually, introducing changes and corrections.
Although huge financial resources are spent for conservational purpose and 100% results are not achieved. Yet a number of youngsters and researchers at the beginning of their carriers get involved and are benefited through the experiences of the seniors and also get exposure of the conservational practices. Therefore, we cannot say that mega conservation projects and big conservation organizations do not contribute to conservation. Rather, such activities are at least raising the awareness about biodiversity and motivating the youth for nature conservation and this is also an achievement.
Of course you are right. But I must argue that even 60% of results may not be achieved. Of course this resources are also results many positive outcomes, but again, is this cost relevant to this results? I wonder why people (who provides money) do not think much about of measurable results? It seems to me that politics and businesses are playing principal roles, not conservation purposes.
- Badges
- Science method
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Ecology