By: Maria Triviño

One problem in conservation biology is that policymakers and practitioners have to make decisions based on insufficient information and evidence. To overcome this information gap between the recent findings in research and the decisions being made Sutherland & Woodroof (2009) proposed a routine horizon scanning, which they described as “the systematic search for potential threat and opportunities that are currently poorly recognized”. They recommended its use in policy, practice and research.

In this weekly Journal Club we decided to read the new article regarding this issue “Horizon scan of global conservation issues for 2011” Sutherland et al., compile new 15 emerging threats to biodiversity on which they consider that we should focus for future research. This exercise has been carried out as well in 2010 and it is planned to be carried out every year.

We found that the methodology was a bit obscure and it would have been better to see a complete list with the outputs from the entire selection process and workshop carried out. Nevertheless, they have published another article with the complete methodological part (reference 15: Sutherland et al (in press) Methods for collaboratively identifying research priorities and emerging issues in science and policy. Methods Ecol. Evol.). It would also be important to know the people that were consulted in the questionnaires because although they claim that this is a global review all the authors were coming from Anglo-Saxon countries: UK, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand; with the only exception of one author coming from the Netherlands. A last complaint regards the time scale used for this scanning process. We thought that a 5-6 years time scale could be a better comprise than an annually one. We believed that that the field of conservation biology is not moving so fast to need an annual horizon scanning and a longer period could give more time to find and evaluate the most urgent threats and opportunities for conservation.

They made a very good job raising emerging issues which covered a wide range of topics. Most of us were unaware of many of the issues such as the problem with earthworms in North America or the hydraulic fracturing. So we believed that this was a very useful and necessary exercise. Moreover, the new issues were presented in a concise and easy format which was very enjoyable to read.

In conclusion, this paper was a very useful exercise and is worth reading it!