A recent survey revealed that more than 80% of Wildlife Trust staff believe that evidence is ‘very important’.  We think of ourselves as being (amongst other things) ‘evidence-led and solution-focused’.  Collecting and analysing data, monitoring change, accumulating biological records and generating good evidence by commissioning and carrying out research are in our DNA.  We understand deep down that they will help everyone take meaningful and effective action, so that together we can achieve more for the recovery of nature, a stable climate and the benefit of society. 

And we’re far from alone in that. Twenty years ago, a group of conservation scientists set out to make it easier for the conservation community to access better evidence about what works in nature conservation. This led to the creation of the well-known Conservation Evidence initiative led by Professor Bill Sutherland at the University of Cambridge. 

In its own words, “Conservation Evidence is a free, authoritative information resource designed to support decisions about how to maintain and restore global biodiversity”.  It brings together evidence covering more than 3,700 different conservation actions, from public campaigning and government regulation to captive breeding, digging ponds and feeding birds.  It is constantly updated, currently drawing on evidence from nearly 9,000 studies published in more than 650 journals and a host of ‘grey literature’ reports.  And it assesses, summarises and presents it in various forms that are freely accessible to all.  Even if it isn’t the only source of good evidence, it’s pretty much as comprehensive and well informed as you’ll find. 

Unfortunately, the Conservation Evidence database also provides a very clear indication that even after 20 years of collecting, collating, assessing and communicating scientific evidence the global nature conservation community is still a very long way from being ‘evidence-based’.  Of the 3,000+ conservation actions included in the database, preliminary investigations as part of the systematic Conservation Evidence process found ‘no evidence’ for 45% of them.  After assessment of those for which some evidence has been found, a further 29% were judged by a panel of experts to have ‘unknown effectiveness’, due to limited evidence. 

So: only a little over a quarter of all the conservation actions on the database are supported by sufficient evidence to conclude reliably whether they’re likely to be effective or not.  Currently, there is such limited evidence available for more than half (52%) of the actions for which the Conservation Evidence team has so far found any evidence at all that it isn’t possible to know whether they are effective or not.  Only 7% of them can categorically be declared ‘beneficial’ (including most of the things that probably spring to mind – reducing pesticide use, creating new woodlands, removing predatory mammals from islands to protect seabirds, restricting the hunting of marine mammals, promoting uncultivated field margins in farmed landscapes and the like). 

It is blindingly obvious that the evidence on which we rely is insufficient. It doesn’t adequately answer the questions we need answering;  we still don’t share it freely enough, learn enough from it or integrate it well enough into what we do. There isn’t enough of it and we often don’t make the best use of what little there is. 

The people who do nature conservation need to experiment, test and demonstrate what we’re doing as a central part of our work, and to share what we learn.  The research community needs to become more effective at answering the many questions that nature conservationists are still struggling with.  The people who commission and fund research and project evaluations need constantly to be asking “how does this generate useful evidence that will increase our collective understanding and help nature’s recovery?”.  And we all need to work more effectively together.  

In 2023, The Wildlife Trusts published a collective framework for our federation’s work on data, research and evidence, and we’re starting to work more closely together… trying to become more evidence-led and data-driven.  Looking to explore, test, learn and share more openly and to work more effectively with more partners. 

As part of this, we’ve published our first collective review of the data, research, and evidence work we’ve been doing. Wild Science 2024  features work delivered with many different research partners, right across our three principal strategic goals.  It showcases some of the many occasions when good data and solid analysis have provided the foundation for increased impact. 

We’ve been exploring new ways to restore peatlands, and their potential economic consequences for some lowland livestock farmers.  We’ve been collecting data on marine and coastal habitats, as a contribution to designating and protecting the UK’s marine protected areas. 

In Surrey, we’re looking at how Earth Observation, machine learning and citizen science can combine to create a constantly updating map of heathland and chalk grassland distribution.  In Bedfordshire, we’re investigating how grassland management might need to change to conserve butterflies as the climate changes. 

We’re pushing to get beavers back in the wild across England and Wales, based on increasing understanding of how the beavers already living on the River Otter in Devon are affecting the landscape, its wildlife, people and the economy.  Pine martens are now thriving in the Forest of Dean largely because of the meticulous data collection and analysis that has accompanied their recent reintroduction there. 

With the new government at Westminster looking to rethink the NHS, we have some great evidence that activity in nature can bring significant health and wellbeing benefits to people and also significant cost-savings to the health system.  And we’re starting to better understand the nature-related attitudes and behaviours of the UK population, through the biggest UK-wide public survey, the Great Big Nature Survey. 

We’d like to make the best use possible of the work we’re doing, and to share the task of building a truly effective evidence-base with as many like-minded fellow travellers as possible.  Please do check out our Wild Science 2024 report, below and let us know your thoughts.