Ranking the direct threats to biodiversity in sub-Saharan Africa

Craig Leisher,Michelle Wieland,David Wilkie,Matthew Brown,Mauricio Castro Schmitz,Deo Kujirakwinja,Nathaniel Robinson

doi:10.1007/s10531-022-02394-w

Abstract

Sub-Saharan Africa receives large investments in biodiversity conservation, and if these investments can be concentrated on the highest threats to biodiversity, the benefits to conservation from the investments would increase. Yet there is no available prioritization of the many direct threats to biodiversity to inform organizations developing sub-Saharan or sub-regional conservation strategies. Consequently, regional investments by funders of biodiversity conservation such as international conservation organizations, foundations, and bilateral and multilateral donors may be suboptimal. The objective of this study was to determine what are the highest direct threats to biodiversity in sub-Saharan Africa and its sub-regions. To do this, we collected threat data using standardized IUCN threat categories from a Delphi consensus of sub-Saharan Africa biodiversity experts, known threats to IUCN Red-listed sub-Saharan African species, and National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans from 40 sub-Saharan African countries. After averaging the threat ranking from the three sources, the highest threats were: (1) annual and perennial crops (non-timber); (2) fishing and harvesting aquatic resources in marine and freshwater areas; (3) logging and wood harvesting in natural forests; and (4) hunting and collecting terrestrial animals. The highest-ranked sub-regional threats were hunting in Central Africa and agriculture in East Africa, Southern Africa, and West Africa. Aligning biodiversity investments to address these threats and tailoring activities to reflect local socio-ecological contexts would increase the conservation of biodiversity in sub-Saharan Africa.

Highlights

Conservation is funding constrained (Bruner et al 2004; McCarthy et al 2012; Wilkie et al 2001), and suboptimal allocation of limited resources reduces the benefits of conservation investments (McDonald-Madden et al 2010)
These economic dynamics coupled with its high global biodiversity significance are two reasons why sub-Saharan Africa received in recent years more Official Development Assistance (ODA) for biodiversity conservation than any other region globally (Table 1)
Four direct threats to biodiversity in sub-Saharan Africa reached the threshold of 80% or greater expert consensus in the Delphi: crops, annual and perennial

Summary

Introduction

Conservation is funding constrained (Bruner et al 2004; McCarthy et al 2012; Wilkie et al 2001), and suboptimal allocation of limited resources reduces the benefits of conservation investments (McDonald-Madden et al 2010). A number of global conservation prioritization assessments help guide limited resources to areas of high conservation value (Brooks et al 2006; Hoekstra et al 2010; Mittermeier et al 1998; Myers et al 2000; Olson and Dinerstein 1998; Olson et al 2001; Stattersfield et al 1998; UNEP 2019; Venter et al 2016). These assessments highlight priority areas for conservation, but they do not specify the threats to biodiversity within the priority areas. These economic dynamics coupled with its high global biodiversity significance are two reasons why sub-Saharan Africa received in recent years more Official Development Assistance (ODA) for biodiversity conservation than any other region globally (Table 1)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion