Enhancing the value of horizon scanning through collaborative review W ILLIAM J. S UTHERLAND ,H ILARY A LLISON ,R OSALIND A VELING I AN P. B AINBRIDGE ,L EON B ENNUN ,D AVID J. B ULLOCK ,A NDY C LEMENTS H UMPHREY Q. P. C RICK ,D AVID W. G IBBONS ,S ARAH S MITH ,M ICHAEL R. W. R ANDS P AUL R OSE ,J ÖRN P. W. S CHARLEMANN and M ARTIN S. W ARREN Abstract There is an increased appreciation of the need for horizon scanning: the identification and assessment of issues that could be serious in the future but have currently attracted little attention. However, a process is lacking to identify appropriate responses by policy makers and practitioners. We thus suggest a process and trial its applicability. Twelve environmental conservation organiza- tions assessed each of 15 previously identified horizon scanning issues for their impact upon their organization and the urgency with which they should consider the issue. They also identified triggers that would result in changes in their scoring of the likely urgency and impact of the issues. This process enables organizations to identify priority issues, identify issues they can ignore until there are further developments, benchmark priorities across organizations and identify cross-organizational priorities that warrant further attention, so providing an agenda for collation of evidence, research and policy development. In this trial the review of responses by other organizations resulted in the upgrading of response by a substantial proportion of organizations for eight of the 15 issues examined. We suggest this approach, with the novel components of collaborative assessment and identification of triggers, could be adopted widely, both within conservation organizations and across a wider range of policy issues. Keywords Collaboration, conservation, future, horizon scanning, policy, practice, priority setting Introduction O rganizations currently face a range of well-known issues of varying degrees of urgency and impact. However, there is also a need to reduce the likelihood of being surprised by novel issues. Hence workers in some areas, such as medicine and the arms industry, routinely review emerging technologies and issues (Quiggin, 2007). Governments also undertake routine horizon scanning (van Rij, 2010) and may supplement this by analysing specific areas in more detail (e.g. King & Thomas, 2007). In view of the problems resulting from past failings to foresee issues and impacts (European Environment Agency, 2001) there have been calls for scanning of future environmental issues (e.g. Holmes & Clark, 2008; Sutherland et al., 2008; Sutherland & Woodroof, 2009), including looking at legislative issues (Sutherland et al., 2011a). Horizon scanning has not been developed with the aim of predicting the future but of examining possible develop- ments, with the objective of considering the likely con- sequences and the possible responses required (King & Thomas, 2007; Lawton, 2007). Horizon scanning has been defined as the systematic search for potential threats and opportunities that are currently poorly recognized (Suther- land & Woodroof, 2009). For example, Sutherland et al. (2010) brought together professional horizon scanners, experts in specific animal and plant groups and represent- atives of organizations with wide environmental interests to undertake a formal process to identify 15 issues with potential impact on biological diversity that they suggested warranted further consideration (see Sutherland et al., 2011b, for a detailed account of the methods). Organizations routinely face the challenge of balancing the conflicting demands of current, often well-documented issues, which may require immediate attention, against the consideration of future issues, which may never materialize or may develop slowly, allowing time for appropriate responses in the future. Experience has shown that although WILLIAM J. SUTHERLAND (Corresponding author) Conservation Science Group, Department of Zoology, Cambridge University, Downing Street, Cambridge, CB2 3EJ, UK. E-mail w.sutherland@zoo.cam.ac.uk HILARY ALLISON Woodland Trust, Grantham, UK ROSALIND AVELING Fauna & Flora International, Cambridge, UK IAN P. BAINBRIDGE Scottish Natural Heritage, Edinburgh, UK LEON BENNUN BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK DAVID J. BULLOCK The National Trust, Swindon, UK ANDY CLEMENTS British Trust for Ornithology, Thetford, UK HUMPHREY Q.P. CRICK Natural England, Cambridge, UK DAVID W. GIBBONS Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, Sandy, UK SARAH SMITH and MICHAEL R.W. RANDS Cambridge Conservation Initiative, Cambridge, UK PAUL ROSE Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Peterborough, UK JÖRN P. W. SCHARLEMANN UN Environment Programme—World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge, UK MARTIN S. WARREN Butterfly Conservation, Wareham, UK Received 3 October 2011. Revision requested 21 November 2011. Accepted 24 November 2011. © 2012 Fauna & Flora International, Oryx, 46(3), 368–374 doi:10.1017/S0030605311001724 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605311001724 Published online by Cambridge University Press