Search

Protected and conserved areas (PCAs) are key ecosystem management tools for conserving biodiversity and sustaining ecosystem services and social cobenefits. As countries adopt a 30% target for protection of land and sea under the Global Biodiversity Framework of the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, a critical question emerging is, which 30%? A risk‐based answer to this question is that the 30% that returns the greatest reductions in risks of species extinction and ecosystem collapse should be protected. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List protocols provide practical methods for assessing these risks. All species, including humans, depend on the integrity of ecosystems for their well‐being and survival. Africa is strategically important for ecosystem management due to convergence of high ecosystem diversity, intense pressures, and high levels of human dependency on nature. We reviewed the outcomes (e.g., applications of ecosystem red‐list assessments to protected‐area design, conservation planning, and management) of a symposium at the inaugural African Protected Areas Congress convened to discuss roles of the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems in the design and management of PCAs. Recent progress was made in ecosystem assessment, with 920 ecosystem types assessed against the IUCN Red List criteria across 21 countries. Although these ecosystems spanned a diversity of environments across the continent, the greatest thematic gaps were for freshwater, marine, and subterranean realms, and large geographic gaps existed in North Africa and parts of West and East Africa. Assessment projects were implemented by a diverse community of government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and researchers. The assessments have influenced policy and management by informing extensions to and management of formal protected area networks supporting decision‐making for sustainable development, and informing ecosystem conservation and threat abatement within boundaries of PCAs and in surrounding landscapes and seascapes. We recommend further integration of risk assessments in environmental policy and enhanced investment in ecosystem red‐list assessment to fill current gaps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conservation science practitioners seek to preempt irreversible impacts on species, ecosystems, and social–ecological systems, requiring efficient and timely action even when data and understanding are unavailable, incomplete, dated, or biased. These challenges are exacerbated by the scientific community's capacity to consistently distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, including the recognition of questionable research practices (QRPs, or "questionable practices"), which may threaten the credibility of research, including harming trust in well‐designed and reliable scientific research. In this paper, we propose a "toolkit" for open and pluralistic conservation science, highlighting common questionable practices and sources of bias and indicating where remedies for these problems may be found. The toolkit provides an accessible resource for anyone conducting, reviewing, or using conservation research, to identify sources of false claims or misleading evidence that arise unintentionally, or through misunderstandings or carelessness in the application of scientific methods and analyses. We aim to influence editorial and review practices and hopefully to remedy problems before they are published or deployed in policy or conservation practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]