The headlines tell us of planetary catastrophes, irreversible tipping points, ecological doom. Species numbers are declining, some destined to never be seen again. Is there no reprieve from a dystopian environmental future? Is this true, and are these apocalyptic claims helpful?
Each year, approximately $140 billion is spent globally on conservation—a sum comparable to the annual resources of the U.S. Energy Department. Yet, for all that money, the public messaging around saving animal species and habitats is almost entirely dire. The sky is only ever falling, species declining, and the world spiraling into disaster.
Both of us are experienced scientists who have long worked in conservation. Although biodiversity loss is real and serious, the data do not support alarmist claims of global, catastrophic wildlife collapse and imminent ecological tipping points. Worse, they distract from practical, evidence-based conservation action.
In response to the largest meeting of conservation scientists in Cali, Colombia, in late 2024, under the auspices of the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity, we reviewed scientists’ understanding of global efforts to stem biodiversity loss. Our work, published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society, recognizes that, while there are gaps in our knowledge of biodiversity loss, conservation has prevented many extinctions and allowed some once-declining species to flourish. Moreover, international efforts are protecting ever-larger swathes of the planet—and doing so in sensibly chosen and important locations.
Based on this and our recent work, we find a disconnect between unsupported claims of planetary doom and carefully documented evidence of conservation’s successes and failures.
We do not arrive at this perspective lightly or naively. Our collective decades-long work for NGOs, governmental agencies, and research universities has and remains focused intently on successful animal and plant conservation science, policy, and global public support.
There are good news stories to tell: In critically surveying progress over the last 25 years, we see that conservation efforts have prevented extinctions, enabled some once-declining species to recover and flourish, and protected ever-greater areas of the planet, both on land and in the ocean. These are measurable, successful actions that should be applauded, whilst also recognizing that new conservation approaches and problems must be addressed.
These successes are often lost in a public narrative dominated by claims of planetary collapse and tipping points. That can demoralize audiences who might wonder why we’re spending all this money if it’s doing nothing. You get what you pay for. Conservation spending has significantly reduced biodiversity decline on a global scale, as measured by the improvements in “critically endangered” species (that is, those on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Red List) status of birds and mammals from 1996 to 2008, and the reduction of biodiversity loss in 109 countries by a median of 29 percent per country.
Success stories such as the green sea turtle, the bald eagle, and the sea otter in the United States—and many other species worldwide—have provided definitive, well-documented examples of effective conservation science. In 1963, there were just 417 breeding pairs of bald eagles in the contiguous 48 states; as of 2016, there were 71,400, and the iconic species has once again become a common sight—a success unimaginable just a few decades ago. Whales, once hunted to the brink of extinction, now thrill ecotourists from along both U.S. coasts. Some countries are putting elephants on contraception to limit their numbers.
Protecting animals is built on a foundation of hard-gathered field knowledge about habitat loss, disease, food availability, and healthy population numbers. Financial investments do work but, like human health, it is the continual monitoring, observing, testing, and treatment that are critical. Money matters, but proper implementation makes the difference.
Our new research shows that conservation could benefit from a more nuanced, transparent approach. In our recent paper, we consider the most influential global biodiversity metrics: the Living Planet Index. As the gold standard, the index is calculated using population time series gathered from over 30,000 measures published in a variety of sources, such as journals, online databases, and government reports. The index is an indicator of overall global species and population changes, consistently monitoring and reflecting planetary biodiversity, like a stock market tracking the value of shares.
Drawing on the index, the 2024 Living Planet Report (from the World Wide Fund for Nature) finds an average of 73 percent decline in monitored populations globally over the past 50 years, a figure often cited as evidence that Earth has exceeded a “safe operating space” for biodiversity.
This statistic has become an influential driver of international policy mandates, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. It is used worldwide by dozens of conservation organizations, which collectively play key roles in setting current conservation priorities.
This index is significantly flawed. Its widespread use in examining the extent to which animal species are threatened undermines the credibility of effective conservation science.
Our research selects sub-Saharan Africa, an area that has experienced the most rapid human population growth, extensive land-use change, and strong pressures from globalization. It is a region where the supposed biodiversity collapse should be most evident if planetary boundaries have indeed been crossed. Moreover, Africa is home to many species such as lions and elephants that are relatively well monitored, providing unusually good population data.
A herd of elephants are seen from a helicopter during an elephant-collaring operation in Kenya’s Tsavo East National Park on Fev. 3, 2018.Andrew Renneisen/Getty Images
