š° Full Story
An op-ed published in early February 2026 urges conservation practitioners to make causal evaluation standard practice rather than the exception.
Citing seminal work by Paul Ferraro and Subhrendu Pattanayak (2006) and a 2008 study by Kwaw Andam and colleagues, the piece argues that many evaluations have confused correlation with causation ā for example, protected areas often appear effective simply because they are located in remote places less prone to deforestation.
The author calls for routine use of counterfactual thinking, explicit causal mechanisms and rigorous impact evaluation methods to determine what interventions actually reduce biodiversity loss.
While research-led impact evaluations have increased over the past two decades, most conservation projects remain unevaluated or produce results that are too technical for on-the-ground practitioners.
With biodiversity declining and key tipping points approaching, the op-ed warns that continued reliance on weak evidence risks wasting scarce conservation funding and undermining efforts to halt ecosystem collapse.
š Based On
Pioneering primatologist in Madagascar shares decades of conservation wisdomConservation programs must embrace causal evidence when evaluating impact (commentary)Tanya OāGarra3 Feb 2026





















š¬ Commentary