By Tracy McNamara
News
Tomorrow, on National Threatened Species Day, much will rightly be said about the species Australia has lost and those that remain at risk. We know the statistics, we know many of the threats, and our ability to document the decline of species has never been better.
But knowing that a species is in trouble is not the same as preventing its extinction. That requires decisions. Often difficult ones. Where should limited conservation resources be invested? Which intervention has the best prospect of changing the outcome? When is the right time to act? Who needs to be involved? And, critically, how do we turn what science tells us into practical action on the ground?
Through FAME's conservation work across Australia, I have come to believe that four elements repeatedly determine whether we have a genuine opportunity to change the prospects of a threatened species: science, partnerships, timing and philanthropy.
Science
Good conservation begins with evidence. We need to understand why a species is declining, the threats it faces and which interventions have a reasonable prospect of success.
But science does more than identify the problem. It allows us to test, adapt and learn. Conservation rarely follows a perfectly predictable path, particularly when working with species about which relatively little is known. Decisions need to be informed by the best available evidence while recognising that waiting for perfect knowledge can sometimes carry risks of its own.
Partnerships
No organisation prevents an extinction alone. Successful conservation brings together people with different expertise and responsibilities: scientists, conservation practitioners, governments, Traditional Owners, land managers, universities, communities and philanthropic organisations.
The strongest partnerships are not simply funding arrangements. They bring together knowledge, capability and resources around a shared conservation objective, with each partner contributing something necessary to achieving it.
Timing
Timing receives far less attention than it deserves. There can be a window in which conservation intervention has a realistic prospect of changing the trajectory of a species. Wait too long and populations may become smaller, genetic diversity may decline, threats may become more difficult to control and the options available to conservationists can narrow considerably.
Acting early does not guarantee success. But acting too late can make success considerably harder. This is why conservation sometimes requires a willingness to act when there is still uncertainty. The decision is not between certainty and risk. It is often between the risk of acting and the risk of waiting.
Philanthropy
This is where philanthropy can play a particularly important role. Philanthropic capital can be flexible, responsive and prepared to support conservation at the point where action is needed. It can help establish a project, test an intervention, build the evidence base or provide the funding required to bring the right partners together.
At its best, philanthropy is not simply paying for conservation activity. It can be catalytic, helping turn scientific knowledge and conservation opportunity into action.
And that matters because threatened species do not operate according to funding cycles.
Putting the four together
The conservation work FAME supports looks very different from one project to another.
For the critically endangered Red Handfish in Tasmania, recovery involves population monitoring, habitat management, research and work to improve breeding and recovery outcomes. For the Nangur Spiny Skink in Queensland, conservation involves habitat protection and restoration, threat reduction and improving our understanding of a species with an extremely restricted range. Numbat recovery in Western Australia requires another combination again, including monitoring, radio tracking, threat management and habitat protection.
There is no universal formula for preventing extinction. But behind these very different interventions are the same fundamental questions: What does the science tell us? Do we have the right partners? Is there an opportunity to act now? And are the resources available to turn that opportunity into practical conservation?
National Threatened Species Day should certainly remind us of what Australia has lost. But it should also prompt a harder conversation about what is required to avoid adding more species to that list.
We cannot guarantee the outcome of every conservation intervention. What we can do is make better decisions, invest where there is a genuine opportunity to change an outcome, work with the right people and act while there is still time to act.
Extinction prevention is not a slogan. It is a series of decisions, made on the best available science, with the right partners, at the right time, and with the resources to act.
Follow our cause in saving Australia's endangered wildlife, and receive newsletter updates on our latest projects and successes.