Doing more good than harm - Building an evidence-base for conservation and environmental management

The problems of environmental change and biodiversity loss have entered the mainstream political agenda. Given the call from an increasingly influential environmental lobby for government and wider society to make both financial and personal sacrifices to address these problems, it seems likely that conservation biologists and environmental managers will be asked tough questions of the general form 'are conservation interventions effective?' and, 'are they doing more good than harm?' Science constantly advances and must remain open to challenge, but managers and policy formers require an interim product (an evidence-base) to underpin their current decision-making. The health services have been using the objective and transparent methodology of systematic review to summarise the evidence-base relating to the effectiveness of interventions. Environmental management has, up until now, had no formal shared evidence-base of this kind. Reviewing recent developments in evidence-based practice, this paper introduces a 'systematic review' section for this journal and argues that constructing an evidence-based framework for environment management is possible, the challenge is scaling it up to engage the global scientific community. We draw on the history of evidence-based healthcare, but also on the differences between healthcare and conservation, to set out the challenges in creating a Collaboration for Environmental Evidence that develops a library of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of conservation and environmental interventions.