Moving beyond the pathology of policies pushing species toward extinction: The case of spectacled flying foxes in Australia

Abstract

AbstractThe rate of extinction is increasing with little reversal of negative trends, prompting a need for conservation scientists and practitioners to rethink approaches to aid the recovery of threatened species. Many extinctions could be prevented if impediments to protecting these species were addressed effectively. This article considers how current policies and practices are failing an endangered species and how biodiversity conservation is fraught with barriers such as rhetorical adoption, policy dismantling, circumvention of legislative obligations, and the deliberate disregard of scientific evidence. These issues became evident while researching the endangered Spectacled Flying‐fox (Pteropus conspicillatus Gould 1850), which, despite over a decade of recognized decline, received little attention from authorities who could have acted to stabilize or recover its populations. Recovery plans are often the primary means used by many countries to help threatened species recover and typically fall under government responsibility for implementation. For these plans to be effective, they should be mandatory, well‐funded, and subject to stringent monitoring and reporting requirements. However, the implementation of such plans is often inconsistent, with many not meeting these criteria. The scientific basis for recovery actions is usually well‐researched, although uncertainties around outcomes remain since these actions are experimental and success is not guaranteed. The failure to implement recovery plans can be highly frustrating for conservation scientists and practitioners, often stemming from policy failures. For those involved in conservation research and practice, learning how to identify and overcome policy impediments would help to ensure the successful implementation of recovery plans. Vigilance is required to ensure that recovery teams function effectively, that recovery actions are executed, that decision‐makers are held accountable for endangering species, and that legislation includes merits review provisions to challenge poor decision‐making. Conservation scientists who monitor species of concern are often best placed to track the progress of recovery actions. When they detect insufficient action, they have a responsibility to intervene or to notify the responsible authorities. Ultimately, government policies should prioritize the protection of threatened species over economic and political interests, recognizing that extinction is irreversible and the stakes are high for biodiversity conservation.