Half of resources in threatened species conservation plans are allocated to research and monitoring.

Funds to combat biodiversity loss are insufficient, requiring conservation managers to make trade-offs between costs for actions to avoid further loss and costs for research and monitoring to guide effective actions. Using species' management plans for 2328 listed species from three countries we show that 50% of species' proposed recovery plan budgets are allocated to research and monitoring. The proportion of budgets allocated to research and monitoring vary among jurisdictions and taxa, but overall, species with higher proportions of budgets allocated to research and monitoring have poorer recovery outcomes. The proportion allocated to research and monitoring is lower for more recent recovery plans, but for some species, plans have allocated the majority of funds to information gathering for decades. We provide recommendations for careful examination of the value of collecting new information in recovery planning to ensure that conservation programs emphasize action or research and monitoring that directly informs action. How to best allocate limited resources for conserving imperilled species is a difficult challenge. Here the authors analyse data on over 2000 threatened species from USA, Australia, and New Zealand, finding that on average half of the budget is allocated to research and monitoring. Species with higher budget allocation to research and monitoring tend to have poorer recovery outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]