Area of focus 1: Landscape…

Area of focus 1: Landscape Approaches.
While it is true that focusing on single species is more time-consuming and may overlap with other species conservation or protection plans, I do not believe the solution would be to solely implement landscape approaches. This is because focusing on a landscape scale would gloss over important details that conservationists must focus on that are specific to that species. Each species is different, and while they may face similar issues within the same geographic region, that does not mean that they have the same protection measures. Rather, it would be the most effective to keep the species-based approach, but to make sure that there is another section within the species reports that focuses on how the specific protection measures for that species will overlap or interact with other species in the region/landscape, and work from there. This way, you are implementing a case-by-case approach to define and address the specific needs of each species at risk, while also additionally looking at the case through a landscape lens to ensure that this plan does not overlap with other plans, and to find areas where the protection measures between species may benefit each other.

Area of focus 2: Listing Process.
I think it would be helpful to notify farmers or owners of large areas of land first, whenever there is a change in the listing of a species. Since the listing of the species automatically protects the species, it is important for landowners with large pieces of land to be aware of this, especially if they are in the agricultural field. I do not think that anyone would benefit from a longer timeline before a species as listed - if the species needs to be listed at all, it means that it is endangered or on the way to becoming endangered, and there is no time to lose. On the topic of the length of the COSSARO listing process, I believe that releasing statements (either on the site or even through social media) in order to keep the public updated would help with increasing transparency.

Area of focus 3: Species Recovery Policies.
As stated earlier, when a species is considered for listing or is in the process of being listed, it means that the species is already at high risk, and at this point, there is no time to lose. While 9 months may be a short amount of time to prepare a report, it is possible to cut this time shorter by consulting other scientists and professionals (such as professors, researchers, etc) in order to gain the most perspectives and start to narrow them down. It would also help to increase interdisciplinary approaches and ensure that everything related to the policy (such as the possible repercussions for the rest of the habitat) is taken into account. I also think that there would be few circumstances where extending the timeline of the review of progress would be beneficial - I believe that even if the review happens earlier than is needed, even if the review is a shorter and less in-depth review, it would still be helpful in collecting as much data as possible and to gain more insights into the future steps to be taken into protecting the species. In many cases, species recovery may be slow until it hits a point where rapid change occurs, in which case, it is very important to keep monitoring and reviewing the policies on a regular basis. Lastly, the development of habitat regulation is absolutely needed - no species can survive if the habitat it lives in is constantly being burdened by business affairs and other human activities, especially those that are listed.

Area of focus 4: Authorization Process.
In order to streamline the administrative process, I think that it would be helpful to minimize the amount of forms needed to be filled out, and to make sure that there are clear, accessible instructions using layman terms on how to fill in the forms. I do agree that the process is tedious and onerous, however I think that simplifying requirements or simplifying any portion of the policy/process should be treated with high attention to detail. If enforcement powers are limited, it would be helpful for each of the enforcement powers to have a better communication system between them so that they are on the same page and know the general species protection measures that need to be taken. Ideally, there should be unified enforcement because species habitats do not follow geopolitical borders, however this would be difficult.

Overall, I do not believe that it is wise to lessen efforts in species recovery and conservation to offer spots for businesses. It is important for species protection to be carried out and managed by knowledgeable people such as conservation authorities.