Half of resources in threatened species conservation plans are allocated to research and monitoring

The rapid loss of biodiversity and limited funding necessitate careful prioritization in threatened species recovery programs. A crucial trade-off exists between immediate conservation actions and information gathering (research and monitoring, or RM). Actions are vital to prevent extinction, but decisions made without sufficient information can be inefficient or even detrimental. This challenge is compounded by severely insufficient resources; for instance, U.S. endangered species spending is only 25% of what's needed for full recovery plan implementation. This creates a resource allocation problem where managers must balance the costs and benefits of actions with the value of gathering more information to enhance management success. RM is crucial for generating information on species ecology, threats, socioeconomic contexts, responses to interventions, and management technique effectiveness, potentially leading to improved decisions through adaptive management. However, unstrategic RM can waste resources, reducing funding for crucial actions. Prioritizing RM may create a false sense of progress, delaying necessary actions. Some monitoring programs track populations without action plans for changes or collect irrelevant information, sometimes leading to species extinction despite monitoring efforts. Previous research has framed threatened species recovery planning as a resource allocation problem, focusing on optimizing the trade-off between management benefits and costs. However, recovery is unlikely if most resources are allocated to RM without a plan for how that information will guide interventions. This study examines the proportion of RM funding in over 2300 threatened species across three countries, explores characteristics of species with high RM spending, investigates the relationship between RM proportion and recovery outcomes, and offers recommendations for enhancing the value of information gathering in recovery plans.

Existing literature highlights the challenge of balancing conservation action and information gathering in the face of limited resources. Studies have shown that spending on endangered species is often insufficient to implement recovery plans effectively. The cost-effectiveness of different management strategies and the value of information (VOI) analyses are recognized as important tools to guide decision-making. However, a comprehensive analysis of the proportion of budgets allocated to research and monitoring across a large number of threatened species and different jurisdictions has been lacking.

The study analyzed recovery plans for 2328 threatened species across three jurisdictions: the United States (U.S.), New Zealand (NZ), and New South Wales, Australia (NSW). Data on planned management tasks and their associated costs were obtained from previously published recovery planning databases. These databases represent a systematic approach to resource allocation, using expert elicitation for NZ and NSW and information from published recovery plans for the U.S. Management tasks were categorized as either research and monitoring (RM) or action based on IUCN classification schemes. Tasks with unclear categorizations were reviewed and consensus was reached. For a subset of U.S. data, RM tasks were further categorized into more specific types. The cost of each task was estimated over a 50-year period. The proportion of the budget allocated to RM was calculated for each species. To examine factors influencing RM allocation, beta regression models were used, considering variables such as jurisdiction, taxon, estimated benefit of actions, total budget, and, for U.S. species, additional factors such as listing status, RM task completion rate, start year of RM, number of species in the plan, and recovery potential. Species recovery outcomes were assessed using a recovery index derived from status reports, which measured changes in population status over time. The relationship between the proportion of the budget allocated to RM and recovery outcomes was then examined.

The study found that on average, 50 ± 27% of proposed budgets for threatened species recovery were allocated to RM. This percentage is significantly higher than R&D spending in other sectors. 4% of species had >95% of their budget allocated to RM. The proportion of the budget allocated to RM varied significantly across jurisdictions, with the U.S. and NZ having significantly higher proportions than NSW. Species with higher estimated benefits from actions had a lower proportion of their budgets allocated to RM. Larger total budgets were also associated with a lower proportion allocated to RM. Among U.S. species, higher priority assigned to RM tasks and an earlier start year for RM were associated with a higher proportion allocated to RM. Older recovery plans had more resources allocated to RM compared to newer ones. Critically, species with poorer recovery outcomes had significantly higher proportions of their budgets allocated to RM. This relationship likely reflects that planning almost exclusively for RM without actions is ineffective and that greater RM allocation for poorly recovering species might stem from fear of negative outcomes from action or high uncertainty about the species and threats. NSW, which prioritizes RM only when needed to inform actions, had the lowest proportion of RM funding. Taxonomically, Bryophytes had the highest proportion of RM budget in NZ, while amphibians had the highest proportion in the U.S. and NSW. Birds consistently showed the lowest proportion across all jurisdictions.

The study's findings highlight the pervasive over-allocation of resources to RM in threatened species recovery, contrasting sharply with R&D investment in other sectors. The negative association between RM allocation and recovery success underscores the need for a more strategic approach, shifting focus toward actions directly informed by RM. The finding that older plans have higher RM proportions suggests that some recovery programs may be trapped in a cycle of information gathering without sufficient action. Tools like cost-effectiveness analysis and VOI analysis can help optimize resource allocation between RM and action. Systematic prioritization tools can also improve decision-making. The results support policies that limit RM allocation to what directly supports effective action. The relatively resource-rich countries studied might not fully reflect the resource allocation challenges in developing countries.

This study reveals a critical imbalance in resource allocation for threatened species recovery, with excessive funding dedicated to research and monitoring often at the expense of crucial conservation actions. The negative correlation between high RM allocation and poor recovery outcomes emphasizes the urgent need for a more strategic and action-oriented approach. Future research should focus on refining methods for determining the optimal balance between RM and action, incorporating VOI analysis and other decision-support tools, and investigating how socio-economic factors influence resource allocation decisions in various contexts.

While this study represents the most comprehensive analysis of its kind, there are limitations. The data may not capture all spending on threatened species, as some activities occur outside of government or at sub-jurisdictional levels. The quality of recovery data and the challenges of accurately categorizing management tasks as either RM or action also affect the analysis. The specific recovery indices used might not capture the full complexity of species recovery trajectories. Finally, the focus on relatively resource-rich countries may limit the generalizability of findings to resource-constrained settings.