Introducing a common taxonomy to support learning from failure in conservation.

Although some sectors have made significant progress in learning from failure, there is currently limited consensus on how a similar transition could best be achieved in conservation and what is required to facilitate this. One of the key enabling conditions for other sectors is a widely accepted and standardized classification system for identifying and analyzing root causes of failure. We devised a comprehensive taxonomy of root causes of failure affecting conservation projects. To develop this, we solicited examples of real-life conservation efforts that were deemed to have failed in some way, identified their underlying root causes of failure, and used these to develop a generic, 3-tier taxonomy of the ways in which projects fail, at the top of which are 6 overarching cause categories that are further divided into midlevel cause categories and specific root causes. We tested the taxonomy by asking conservation practitioners to use it to classify the causes of failure for conservation efforts they had been involved in. No significant gaps or redundancies were identified during this testing phase. We then analyzed the frequency that particular root causes were encountered by projects within this test sample, which suggested that some root causes were more likely to be encountered than others and that a small number of root causes were more likely to be encountered by projects implementing particular types of conservation action. Our taxonomy could be used to improve identification, analysis, and subsequent learning from failed conservation efforts, address some of the barriers that currently limit the ability of conservation practitioners to learn from failure, and contribute to establishing an effective culture of learning from failure within conservation.

Introducción de una taxonomía común como apoyo al aprendizaje a partir del fracaso en la conservación Resumen Mientras que algunos sectores han progresado significativamente en el aprendizaje a partir del fracaso, actualmente hay un consenso limitado sobre cómo podría lograrse una transición similar en la conservación y qué se requiere para facilitarla. Una de las condiciones habilitantes más importantes en otros sectores es un sistema de clasificación estandarizado y aceptado por la mayoría para la identificación y análisis de las causas fundamentales del fracaso. Diseñamos una taxonomía completa de las causas fundamentales del fracaso que afecta a los proyectos de conservación. Para desarrollarla, solicitamos ejemplos de esfuerzos de conservación reales que de alguna manera se consideraron como fracasos, identificamos las causas fundamentales no aparentes de su fracaso y luego las usamos para desarrollar una taxonomía genérica de tres niveles de las maneras en las que fracasan los proyectos, en cuyo nivel superior están seis categorías de causas generales que después se dividen en categorías de nivel medio de categorías de causas y causas fundamentales específicas. Pusimos a prueba la taxonomía al pedirle a los practicantes de la conservación que la usaran para clasificar las causas del fracaso de los esfuerzos de conservación en los que han participado. No identificamos vacíos o redundancias importantes durante esta fase de prueba. Después, analizamos la frecuencia con la que los proyectos de esta muestra se enfrentaron a causas fundamentales particulares, lo que sugirió que algunas causas fundamentales tienen mayor probabilidad de ocurrir y que un número reducido de causas fundamentales tiene mayor probabilidad de ocurrir en proyectos que implementan ciertos tipos de acciones de conservación. Nuestra taxonomía podría usarse para mejorar el análisis, identificación y aprendizaje subsecuente a partir del fracaso de los esfuerzos de conservación; tratar algunas de las barreras que en la actualidad limitan a los practicantes de la conservación a aprender del fracaso; y contribuir al establecimiento de una cultura efectiva del aprendizaje a partir del fracaso dentro de la conservación.

Using structured eradication feasibility assessment to prioritize the management of new and emerging invasive alien species in Europe.

Prioritizing the management of invasive alien species (IAS) is of global importance and within Europe integral to the EU IAS regulation. To prioritize management effectively, the risks posed by IAS need to be assessed, but so too does the feasibility of their management. While the risk of IAS to the EU has been assessed, the feasibility of management has not. We assessed the feasibility of eradicating 60 new (not yet established) and 35 emerging (established with limited distribution) species that pose a threat to the EU, as identified by horizon scanning. The assessment was carried out by 34 experts in invasion management from across Europe, applying the Non-Native Risk Management scheme to defined invasion scenarios and eradication strategies for each species, assessing the feasibility of eradication using seven key risk management criteria. Management priorities were identified by combining scores for risk (derived from horizon scanning) and feasibility of eradication. The results show eradication feasibility score and risk score were not correlated, indicating that risk management criteria evaluate different information than risk assessment. In all, 17 new species were identified as particularly high priorities for eradication should they establish in the future, whereas 14 emerging species were identified as priorities for eradication now. A number of species considered highest priority for eradication were terrestrial vertebrates, a group that has been the focus of a number of eradication attempts in Europe. However, eradication priorities also included a diverse range of other taxa (plants, invertebrates and fish) suggesting there is scope to broaden the taxonomic range of attempted eradication in Europe. We demonstrate that broad scale structured assessments of management feasibility can help prioritize IAS for management. Such frameworks are needed to support evidence-based decision-making.

Access to scientific literature by the conservation community.

Access to the scientific literature is perceived to be a challenge to the biodiversity conservation community, but actual level of literature access relative to needs has never been assessed globally. We examined this question by surveying the constituency of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) as a proxy for the conservation community, generating 2,285 responses. Of these respondents, ∼97% need to use the scientific literature in order to support their IUCN-related conservation work, with ∼50% needing to do so at least once per week. The crux of the survey revolved around the question, "How easy is it for you currently to obtain the scientific literature you need to carry out your IUCN-related work?" and revealed that roughly half (49%) of the respondents find it not easy or not at all easy to access scientific literature. We fitted a binary logistic regression model to explore factors predicting ease of literature access. Whether the respondent had institutional literature access (55% do) is the strongest predictor, with region (Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and sex (male) also significant predictors. Approximately 60% of respondents from Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand have institutional access compared to ∼50% in Asia and Latin America, and ∼40% in Eastern Europe and in Africa. Nevertheless, accessing free online material is a popular means of accessing literature for both those with and without institutional access. The four journals most frequently mentioned when asked which journal access would deliver the greatest improvements to the respondent's IUCN-related work were Conservation Biology, Biological Conservation, Nature, and Science. The majority prefer to read journal articles on screen but books in hard copy. Overall, it is apparent that access to the literature is a challenge facing roughly half of the conservation community worldwide.

The large-scale removal of mammalian invasive alien species in Northern Europe.

Numerous examples exist of successful mammalian invasive alien species (IAS) eradications from small islands (<10 km2 ), but few from more extensive areas. We review 15 large-scale removals (mean area 2627 km2 ) from Northern Europe since 1900, including edible dormouse, muskrat, coypu, Himalayan porcupine, Pallas' and grey squirrels and American mink, each primarily based on daily checking of static traps. Objectives included true eradication or complete removal to a buffer zone, as distinct from other programmes that involved local control to limit damage or spread. Twelve eradication/removal programmes (80%) were successful. Cost increased with and was best predicted by area, while the cost per unit area decreased; the number of individual animals removed did not add significantly to the model. Doubling the area controlled reduced cost per unit area by 10%, but there was no evidence that cost effectiveness had increased through time. Compared with small islands, larger-scale programmes followed similar patterns of effort in relation to area. However, they brought challenges when defining boundaries and consequent uncertainties around costs, the definition of their objectives, confirmation of success and different considerations for managing recolonisation. Novel technologies or increased use of volunteers may reduce costs. Rapid response to new incursions is recommended as best practice rather than large-scale control to reduce the environmental, financial and welfare costs. © 2016 Crown copyright. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.

Horizon scanning for invasive alien species with the potential to threaten biodiversity in Great Britain.

Invasive alien species (IAS) are considered one of the greatest threats to biodiversity, particularly through their interactions with other drivers of change. Horizon scanning, the systematic examination of future potential threats and opportunities, leading to prioritization of IAS threats is seen as an essential component of IAS management. Our aim was to consider IAS that were likely to impact on native biodiversity but were not yet established in the wild in Great Britain. To achieve this, we developed an approach which coupled consensus methods (which have previously been used for collaboratively identifying priorities in other contexts) with rapid risk assessment. The process involved two distinct phases: Preliminary consultation with experts within five groups (plants, terrestrial invertebrates, freshwater invertebrates, vertebrates and marine species) to derive ranked lists of potential IAS. Consensus-building across expert groups to compile and rank the entire list of potential IAS. Five hundred and ninety-one species not native to Great Britain were considered. Ninety-three of these species were agreed to constitute at least a medium risk (based on score and consensus) with respect to them arriving, establishing and posing a threat to native biodiversity. The quagga mussel, Dreissena rostriformis bugensis, received maximum scores for risk of arrival, establishment and impact; following discussions the unanimous consensus was to rank it in the top position. A further 29 species were considered to constitute a high risk and were grouped according to their ranked risk. The remaining 63 species were considered as medium risk, and included in an unranked long list. The information collated through this novel extension of the consensus method for horizon scanning provides evidence for underpinning and prioritizing management both for the species and, perhaps more importantly, their pathways of arrival. Although our study focused on Great Britain, we suggest that the methods adopted are applicable globally.