Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install culverts or tunnels as road crossings Thirty-two studies investigated the effectiveness of installing culverts or tunnels as road crossings for amphibians. Six of seven studies (including three replicated studies) in Canada, Germany, Italy, Hungary and the USA found that installing culverts or tunnels significantly decreased amphibian road deaths; in one study this was the case only when barrier fencing was also installed. One found no effect on road deaths. Fifteen of 24 studies (including one review and 17 replicated studies) in Australia, Canada, Europe and the USA found that culverts/tunnels were used by amphibians, by 15–85% of amphibians or 3–15 species, or that 23–100% of culverts or tunnels were used by amphibians or used in 12 of 14 studies reviewed. The majority of culverts/tunnels had barrier fencing to guide amphibians to entrances. Four found mixed effects depending on species, or for toads depending on the site or culvert type. Five found that culverts were used by less than 10% of amphibians or were not used. The use of culverts/tunnels was affected by diameter in three of six studies, with wider culverts used more, length in one of two studies, with long culverts avoided, lighting in all three studies, with mixed effects, substrate in three of six studies, with natural substrates used more, presence of water in two of three studies, with mixed effects, entrance location in one and tunnel climate in one study. Six studies (including one replicated, controlled study) in Canada, Spain, the Netherlands and USA investigated the use of culverts with flowing water and found that they were used by amphibians, or rarely used by salamanders or not used, and were used more or the same amount as dry culverts. Certain culvert designs were not suitable for amphibians; one-way tunnels with vertical entry chutes resulted in high mortality of common toads and condensation deposits from steel culverts had very high metal concentrations. One study found that thousands of amphibians were still killed on the road.  Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F884https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F884Mon, 16 Sep 2013 12:20:30 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install bat gantries or bat bridges as road/railway crossing structures for bats Three studies evaluated the effects of installing bat gantries as road crossing structures for bats. Two studies were in the UK and one in France. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES)      Use (3 studies): Two replicated studies (including one site comparison) in the UK found that fewer bats used bat gantries than crossed the road below at traffic height, and one bat gantry was not used at all. One replicated study in France found that a temporary bat gantry was used by three bat species/species groups, but almost half of crossing bats flew over the road at other locations. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F978https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F978Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:12:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install green bridges as road/railway crossing structures for bats One study evaluated the effects of installing green bridges as road crossing structures for bats. The study was in the UK. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY)      Use (1 study): One study in the UK found that a green bridge was used by 97% of bats crossing a road. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F979https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F979Fri, 20 Dec 2013 14:13:21 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install green bridges (overpasses) We found no evidence for the effects of installing green bridges on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1456https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1456Tue, 17 Oct 2017 13:15:40 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install billboards to raise primate conservation awareness We found no evidence for the effects of installing billboards to raise primate conservation awareness on primate populations. 'No evidence' for an action means we have not yet found any studies that directly and quantitatively tested this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1566https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1566Fri, 20 Oct 2017 10:28:12 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install boardwalks/paths to prevent trampling We found no studies that evaluated the effects, on peatland vegetation, of installing boardwalks to prevent trampling. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1753https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1753Mon, 27 Nov 2017 21:32:35 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install fencing around cave entrances to restrict public access Two studies evaluated the effects of installing fencing around cave entrances on bat populations. One study was in the USA and one study was in Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Abundance (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the population growth rates of bats roosting in caves with and without fencing or gates installed. BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES)   Use (1 study): One replicated, site comparison study in Spain found no difference in the occupancy rates of bats roosting in caves with and without fencing or gates installed. Behaviour change (1 study): One controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that significantly more southeastern myotis bats and gray myotis bats emerged from a cave after a steel gate was replaced with a fence. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1991https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F1991Wed, 05 Dec 2018 12:39:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing electric fencing to reduce predation of livestock by mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Six studies were in the USA (and a further one was presumed to be in the USA) and one each was in Canada, South Africa, Brazil and Spain. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 STUDIES) Human-wildlife conflict (11 studies): Six out of 10 randomized and/or controlled or before-and-after studies (including eight replicated studies), in the USA (and a further one presumed to be in the USA), Canada, Brazil and Spain, found that electric fences reduced or prevented entry to livestock enclosures or predation of livestock by carnivores. Two studies found that some designs of electric fencing prevented coyotes from entering enclosures and killing or wounding lambs. The other two studies found electric fencing did not reduce livestock predation or prevent fence crossings by carnivores. A before-and-after study in South Africa found that electrifying a fence reduced digging of burrows under the fence that black-backed jackals could pass through. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2417https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2417Mon, 01 Jun 2020 10:09:18 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install electric fencing to protect crops from mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict Eleven studies evaluated the effects of installing electric fencing to protect crops from mammals to reduce human-wildlife conflict. Three studies were in Japan, three were in the USA, two were in the UK and one each was in Namibia, India and Guinea-Bissau. KEY COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (11 studies) Human-wildlife conflict (11 studies): Nine of 11 studies (including three before-and-after studies and three controlled studies), in the USA, the UK, Japan, Namibia, India and Guinea-Bissau, found that electric fences deterred crossings by mammals, ranging in size from European rabbits to elephants. Two studies had mixed results, with some fence designs deterring elephants and black bears. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2439https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2439Tue, 02 Jun 2020 09:46:58 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install fences around existing culverts or underpasses under roads/railways Four studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing fences around existing culverts under roads/railways. Two studies were in the USA one was in Portugal and one was in South Africa. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (3 STUDIES) Survival (3 studies): Two out of three before-and-after studies (including a controlled and a site comparison study), in the USA, Portugal and South Africa, found that installing or enhancing roadside fencing alongside existing culverts reduced mammal road mortality whilst one study found that such fences did not alter mammal road mortality. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): A replicated, randomized, controlled, before-and-after study in the USA found that fences installed to funnel animals to existing culverts did not increase culvert use by bobcats. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2525https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2525Mon, 08 Jun 2020 11:56:51 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install crossings over/under pipelines Three studies evaluated the effects on mammals of installing crossings over/under pipelines. Two studies were in the USA and one was in Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (3 STUDIES) Use (3 studies): A study in USA found that buried pipeline sections were used more frequently than their availability as crossing points by caribou. A study in USA found that pipeline sections elevated specifically to permit mammal crossings underneath were not used by moose or caribou more than were other elevated sections. A controlled study in Canada found that a range of large mammal species used wildlife crossings over pipelines. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2627https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2627Fri, 12 Jun 2020 11:14:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install diversion or return systems on cooling water intake structures We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing diversion or return systems on cooling water intake structures on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2750https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2750Tue, 02 Feb 2021 16:50:44 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion and/or escape devices for mammals on fishing nets Seven studies evaluated the effects on marine mammals of installing exclusion and/or escape devices on fishing nets. Four studies were in the Indian Ocean (Australia, Tasmania) and/or Tasman Sea (Tasmania) and three studies were in the South Atlantic Ocean (South Georgia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (2 STUDIES) Survival (2 studies): One study in the Indian Ocean found that less than one third of common bottlenose dolphins exited escape hatches on trawl nets alive. One replicated study in the Tasman Sea and Indian Ocean found that fewer fur seals died in exclusion devices with large escape openings than in those with small openings. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (5 STUDIES) Reduction in entanglements/unwanted catch (5 studies): Three studies (including two controlled studies) in the South Atlantic Ocean and Indian Ocean found that installing exclusion and/or escape devices on trawl nets reduced the number of trapped or entangled Antarctic fur seals and common bottlenose dolphins. One before-and-after study in the Indian Ocean found that installing exclusion and escape devices on trawl nets reduced common bottlenose dolphin entanglements for three of four fishing vessels. One study in the South Atlantic Ocean found that modifying an exclusion and escape device by enlarging and relocating the escape panel resulted in fewer Antarctic fur seal entanglements. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2823https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2823Fri, 05 Feb 2021 15:39:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install bypass channels in dams We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing bypass channels in dams on marine and freshwater mammal populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2848https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F2848Fri, 05 Feb 2021 16:37:32 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install boardwalks/paths to prevent tramplingWe found no studies that evaluated the effects, on vegetation, of installing boardwalks or paths to prevent trampling in marshes or swamps.   ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3024https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3024Wed, 31 Mar 2021 14:43:45 +0100Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install crossings over/under pipelines We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing crossings over/under pipelines on reptile populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3528https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3528Tue, 07 Dec 2021 15:34:14 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion devices on fishing gear: Sea turtles Three studies evaluated the effects of installing exclusion devices on fishing gear on sea turtle populations. One study was in the Gulf of Mexico (USA), one was in the Mid-Atlantic (USA) and one was off the coast of Western Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, before-and-after study in the Gulf of Mexico found that when exclusion grids with escape holes were used in a shrimp trawl fishery there were fewer lethal strandings of loggerhead turtles compared to when grids were not used. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One controlled study in the Mid-Atlantic found that when exclusion devices were used on scallop dredges there were fewer interactions with sea turtles than when no devices were used. OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated study off the coast of Western Australia found that exclusion grids with escape hatches prevented sea turtles entering trawl nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3584https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3584Wed, 08 Dec 2021 15:30:20 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion devices on fishing gear: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Thirteen studies evaluated the effects of installing exclusion devices on fishing gear on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked & softshell turtle populations. Ten studies were in the USA, two were in Canada and one was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that fewer turtles died in hoop nets with an exclusion device than in unmodified traps. BEHAVIOUR (1 STUDY) Use (1 study): One randomized, controlled trial in the USA found mixed effects of crab pot exclusion devices on use of pots by diamondback terrapins depending on the device design. OTHER (13 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (13 studies): Eight of 13 controlled studies (including seven replicated, paired studies) in the USA, Australia and Canada found that crab pots, fyke nets, hoop nets and eel traps with exclusion devices caught fewer turtles, diamond back terrapins and short-necked turtles than unmodified gear. Two studies also found that modified gear caught smaller short-necked turtles and diamondback terrapins than unmodified gear. Three studies found mixed effects of exclusion devices on unwanted catch of turtles and diamondback terrapins depending on the device design. The other two studies found that that crab pots with wire exclusion devices or magnetized exclusion devices caught a similar number of diamondback terrapins compared to unmodified pots. One study also found that crab pots with wire exclusion devices caught larger diamondback terrapins than pots with plastic exclusion devices. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3590https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3590Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:11:04 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion devices on fishing gear: Snakes & lizards One study evaluated the effects of installing exclusion devices on fishing gear on snake and lizard populations. This study was in Australia. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 study): One replicated study off the coast of Western Australia found that exclusion grids did not prevent sea snakes from entering trawl nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3599https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3599Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:47:50 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion devices on fishing gear: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing exclusion devices on fishing gear on crocodilian populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3600https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3600Wed, 08 Dec 2021 16:50:30 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Sea turtles One study evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on sea turtle populations. This study was in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (1 STUDY) Unwanted catch (1 Study): One randomized, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets with escape devices caught a similar number of sea turtles compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3601https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3601Wed, 08 Dec 2021 17:09:33 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Tortoises, terrapins, side-necked & softshell turtles Three studies evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on tortoise, terrapin, side-necked & softshell turtle populations. One study was in each of Australia, the USA and Canada. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (1 STUDY) Survival (1 study): One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in the USA found that a lower percentage of turtles died in hoop nets with escape devices than in unmodified nets. BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (3 Studies): One replicated, controlled study in Australia found that most short-necked turtles escaped from a carp trap with an escape ring. One replicated, randomized, controlled, paired study in the USA found that hoop nets with escape devices caught fewer turtles than unmodified nets. One replicated, randomized, paired, controlled study in Canada found that more painted turtles escaped from fyke nets with an escape device than from unmodified nets after being placed in the net. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3602https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3602Thu, 09 Dec 2021 09:55:00 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Snakes & lizards Three studies evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on snake and lizard populations. All three studies were in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia). COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (0 STUDIES) OTHER (3 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (3 Studies): One of two paired, controlled studies (including one randomized and one replicated study) in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that trawl nets with escape devices caught a similar number of sea snakes compared to unmodified nets. The other study found that trawl nets with an escape device caught fewer sea snakes compared to unmodified nets. One replicated, paired, controlled study in the Gulf of Carpentaria found that the placement of escape devices trawl nets affected the number of sea snakes caught compared to unmodified nets. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3603https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3603Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:08:51 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install escape devices on fishing gear: Crocodilians We found no studies that evaluated the effects of installing escape devices on fishing gear on crocodilian populations. ‘We found no studies’ means that we have not yet found any studies that have directly evaluated this action during our systematic journal and report searches. Therefore we have been unable to assess whether or not the action is effective or has any harmful impacts. Please get in touch if you know of such a study for this action.Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3604https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3604Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:16:43 +0000Collected Evidence: Collected Evidence: Install exclusion and escape devices on fishing gear Six studies evaluated the effects of installing exclusion and escape devices on fishing gear on reptile populations. Two studies each were off the coast of Australia, in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) and in the Adriatic Sea. COMMUNITY RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) POPULATION RESPONSE (0 STUDIES) BEHAVIOUR (2 STUDIES) Use (2 studies): Two replicated studies (including one controlled study) in the Adriatic Sea found that one or two loggerhead turtles were able to escape from a trawl net with an exclusion and escape device. OTHER (5 STUDIES) Unwanted catch (5 studies): Four studies (including two replicated, paired, controlled studies) off the coast of Australia and in the Gulf of Carpentaria (Australia) found that that trawl nets with an exclusion and escape device caught fewer loggerhead turtles or sea turtles and sea snakes compared to unmodified nets. One replicated study in the Adriatic Sea found that no loggerhead turtles were caught by a trawl net with an exclusion and escape device. Collected Evidencehttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3605https%3A%2F%2Fwww.conservationevidence.com%2Factions%2F3605Thu, 09 Dec 2021 10:22:38 +0000
What Works 2021 cover

What Works in Conservation

What Works in Conservation provides expert assessments of the effectiveness of actions, based on summarised evidence, in synopses. Subjects covered so far include amphibians, birds, mammals, forests, peatland and control of freshwater invasive species. More are in progress.

More about What Works in Conservation

Download free PDF or purchase
The Conservation Evidence Journal

The Conservation Evidence Journal

An online, free to publish in, open-access journal publishing results from research and projects that test the effectiveness of conservation actions.

Read the latest volume: Volume 21

Go to the CE Journal

Discover more on our blog

Our blog contains the latest news and updates from the Conservation Evidence team, the Conservation Evidence Journal, and our global partners in evidence-based conservation.

Who uses Conservation Evidence?

Meet some of the evidence champions

Endangered Landscape ProgrammeRed List Champion - Arc Kent Wildlife Trust The Rufford Foundation Save the Frogs - Ghana Mauritian Wildlife Supporting Conservation Leaders
Sustainability Dashboard National Biodiversity Network Frog Life The international journey of Conservation - Oryx Cool Farm Alliance UNEP AWFA Bat Conservation InternationalPeople trust for endangered species Vincet Wildlife Trust
For a full list of, and information about, our champions:
All Evidence Champions
About our champions, why and how to become one:
Become an Evidence Champion

This website uses Cookies

We use limited Cookies to run the site and to analyse our traffic (none for site vendors). By using this site, you will be providing your consent to our use of Cookies.

Accept & continue