Global conservation policy continues to be strongly oriented toward the assumption that biodiversity protection can be achieved primarily through the delineation of spatial boundaries. From the proliferation of international targets to the indicators used to evaluate national performance, conservation success is frequently equated with the expansion of protected-area coverage 1-3. In the African context, this emphasis is not only insufficient but also potentially misleading. It obscures the spatial distribution of biodiversity, misallocates limited conservation resources, and perpetuates governance models that are poorly aligned with the continent's ecological dynamics and social realities (e.g., ref. 1). Across Africa, a substantial proportion of biodiversity persists outside formally designated protected areas (see Table 1 for examples). Biodiversity is maintained in sacred forests governed by cultural practices, along riparian corridors embedded within agricultural landscapes, across pastoral rangelands structured by seasonal mobility, and within small, fragmented habitats situated in densely populated and heterogeneous landscapes 17, 18. Despite varying degrees of human modification, secondary forests and plantation-forest mosaics can retain considerable conservation value. For example, African mahogany (Khaya senegalensis) plantations support high levels of understory plant and phylogenetic diversity 19. More broadly, tropical secondary forests and forest-plantation mosaics harbor many taxa characteristic of primary forests 6, 20-22, whereas remnant vegetation corridors within plantation landscapes contribute to functional connectivity for wildlife and other taxa 23. These landscapes are frequently characterized in conservation discourse as “degraded,” “unprotected,” or “at risk.” Such labels, however, obscure a critical reality: these areas do not represent conservation failures. Rather, they are places where biodiversity is already often being sustained informally, locally governed, and largely unrecognized by conventional conservation frameworks. Figure 1 provides a conceptual synthesis of the limitations inherent in spatially focused conservation approaches in Africa and illustrates the shift toward more inclusive, biodiversity-centered frameworks advanced in this paper. Conceptual diagram illustrating the limitations of spatially focused conservation in Africa and the need to redefine conservation success toward inclusive, outcome-based governance across working landscapes. The persistence of biodiversity in these landscapes is not accidental. It reflects long histories of coexistence between people and ecosystems, governed by institutions that may be customary rather than statutory, and by management practices that prioritize flexibility over rigidity 24-26. In many cases, these systems have sustained ecological function for centuries 27, 28. Biodiversity is often highest in landscapes subject to intermediate levels of disturbance—such as mowing, grazing, or fire—which create heterogeneous habitat mosaics that support both disturbance-tolerant and competitive species, a pattern formalized in the Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis 29-31. However, these systems are rendered invisible in global accounting frameworks because they do not align with the prevailing conservation paradigm, which is explicitly bounded, state-administered, and legally codified 32, 33. This invisibility is further reinforced by policy frameworks such as the widely promoted “30 × 30” target, which calls for placing 30% of the planet under protection by 2030 34. Although well intentioned, such targets prioritize spatial extent over ecological outcomes. They incentivize boundary expansion rather than biodiversity persistence, ecological connectivity, or resilience to environmental change. For African governments facing pressure to demonstrate compliance with international commitments, the resulting incentive structure is clear: To designate additional areas as formally protected, irrespective of whether such designations translate into meaningful ecological function on the ground. The cumulative effect of these processes has been the expansion of a network of protected areas that is frequently fragmented, under-resourced, and politically contested. Many protected areas function as ecological islands within heavily modified landscapes, rendering them too small or insufficiently connected to sustain viable populations of wide-ranging species 35-37. Others constitute so-called “paper parks,” which are protected in name but lack the financial, institutional, or social capacity necessary for effective management. In Central and West Africa, numerous protected areas have limited enforcement capacity and inadequate operational budgets, resulting in minimal on-the-ground protection despite formal designation 38, 39. In addition, some protected areas have been established in locations characterized by relatively low economic or logistical cost rather than high biodiversity value, further diminishing their ecological effectiveness. Climate change exacerbates these constraints. As temperature and precipitation regimes shift, species distributions are already responding, often extending beyond the static boundaries of protected areas 40, 41. Conservation strategies reliant on fixed spatial enclosures are therefore poorly equipped to accommodate such ecological dynamism. By contrast, landscapes shaped by long-term human use—particularly those characterized by mobility, heterogeneity, and periodic disturbance—often retain a greater capacity to absorb and adapt to environmental change 41, 42. In many African drylands, for example, pastoral systems maintain ecological connectivity and heterogeneous habitat mosaics across extensive landscapes, where wildlife and livestock move seasonally in response to shifting resource availability. Long-distance pastoral mobility links grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and water sources across broad ecological gradients, helping to sustain ecological function in regions that are often far more fragmented and isolated under strictly protected-area regimes 43, 44. These movement networks are essential both for pastoral livelihoods and for maintaining biodiversity processes in sub-Saharan Africa's arid and semi-arid environments. In addition, it is recommended to expand working landscape corridors to boost climate resilience for mobile species. Despite their ecological importance, working landscapes remain marginal within conservation science and policy. These areas are difficult to map, challenging to standardize, and often resistant to conventional ecological metrics. Moreover, formal biodiversity assessments are constrained by prevailing funding priorities, as donors predominantly support research conducted within formally designated protected areas. As a result, nonprotected rangelands, pastoral mosaics, and other multifunctional landscapes remain under-studied and under-resourced. Their governance arrangements are also complex, negotiated, and highly context specific, further limiting their representation in global datasets and their inclusion in international conservation targets. Consequently, landscapes that cannot be readily quantified are frequently overlooked. The implications of this bias extend beyond conceptual limitations. A persistent emphasis on a parks-first narrative diverts financial resources, research attention, and political capital away from the landscapes where most conservation decisions are made, including farms, rangelands, forests, fisheries, and peri-urban areas where people live and work. This framing prioritizes enforcement-intensive approaches characterized by high transaction costs and diminishing ecological returns while underinvesting in strategies that support local stewardship, maintain landscape connectivity, and enable adaptive management. Moreover, the effectiveness of conservation interventions is closely tied to governance dynamics. Centralized, top-down management by park authorities often entails substantial administrative costs and rigid bureaucratic structures that limit adaptive responses to ecological change. In contrast, stakeholder-based management rooted in long-standing agro-forestry-pastoral systems—frequently supported by locally recognized “wise” knowledge holders—can provide more flexible, context-specific, and cost-effective stewardship. Evidence suggests that command-and-control conservation models are frequently less efficient than decentralized approaches, as bureaucratic hierarchies and limited local engagement constrain implementation and ecological outcomes 45, 46. In order to increase the enthusiasm for community participation, it is recommended to redirect funding toward community management and maintenance to promote long-term landscape resilience. Across much of Africa, the establishment and enforcement of protected areas have historically entailed significant restrictions on local access to land and natural resources, disproportionately affecting communities with limited political power. In many countries, early conservation models were grounded in fortress conservation approaches that sought to separate wildlife and ecosystems from human use. These models frequently resulted in the dispossession of lands traditionally relied upon by local and Indigenous communities for subsistence and cultural practices. In parts of West Africa, for example, colonial-era designations of forest reserves and protected zones were implemented with little or no recognition of customary tenure systems, treating communal lands as “vacant” and removing local rights to cultivation, hunting, and resource use. This legacy has persisted into the post-colonial period, contributing to conflict and social instability when protected-area regulations restrict access to critical livelihood resources 47, 48. Although community-based conservation (CBC) has gained prominence in conservation scholarship and policy discourse as a means of reconciling biodiversity protection with rural development (e.g., 49-51), its implementation often falls short of meaningful local inclusion. Political ecology research across sub-Saharan Africa demonstrates that many CBC initiatives and conservancies continue to restrict access to natural resources without delivering commensurate economic benefits or decision-making authority to local populations 52. In parts of East Africa, including Tanzania and neighboring regions, prevailing conservation policies prioritize strict protection over customary livelihood practices. Tanzania's “fence and fine” approach, for instance, criminalizes activities such as livestock grazing or bushmeat hunting in and around protected areas, even where such practices are integral to local subsistence and cultural life. Enforcement measures, including livestock confiscation and criminal sanctions, have intensified tensions between conservation authorities and pastoralist or farming communities 53. Case studies further illustrate how governance arrangements may perpetuate exclusion despite participatory rhetoric. In South Africa and other parts of southern Africa, conservation regimes shaped by colonial and apartheid legacies historically restricted local access to land and resources, reinforcing long-standing patterns of marginalization. Although legal reforms and co-management frameworks have been introduced to promote stakeholder engagement, local participation in decision-making and equitable benefit-sharing remains uneven. Institutional structures often continue to prioritize ecological objectives defined by external actors over community-defined priorities 54, 55. The perspectives advanced in this paper may invite several critiques. First, emphasizing biodiversity outside protected areas could be seen as undermining support for formal reserves. I want to be explicit: my paper does not advocate abandoning protected areas as they remain essential for species and ecosystems that cannot persist in human-dominated landscapes, but situates them within a broader conservation portfolio that includes working landscapes sustaining substantial biodiversity. Second, some may question the durability of biodiversity in these landscapes, often assumed fragile or transitional. Empirical evidence indicates that many African systems shaped by long-term human use, particularly those with mobility, heterogeneity, and locally negotiated governance, can sustain ecological function and species persistence over decades. The argument is not that all such areas are conservation successes but that their conservation role is systematically underestimated. Third, my paper avoids idealizing community-based governance. Local institutions vary in effectiveness and equity, and their outcomes depend on tenure security, accountability, and power relations. Finally, although protected areas are easier to map and monitor, privileging measurability risks equating conservation success with spatial extent alone. A pluralistic, outcome-oriented approach, integrating protected areas with inclusive governance in working landscapes, is needed to sustain Africa's biodiversity, ecological function, and social legitimacy. An important extension of this discussion concerns the contribution of the human dimensions of conservation, which emphasizes that biodiversity outcomes are deeply shaped by human values, cultural practices, and social institutions. Research in this field highlights that effective wildlife and ecosystem management depends not only on ecological knowledge but also on understanding how different social groups perceive, use, and manage natural resources 56. In heterogeneous and human-shaped landscapes, biodiversity is often sustained through culturally embedded practices, experiential knowledge, and locally specific capabilities that vary across social categories, including pastoralists, farmers, and forest-dependent communities. Recent work in African contexts further demonstrates that conservation outcomes in disturbed environments are closely linked to these differentiated social values and practices, reinforcing the need to move beyond generalized, technocratic models toward more socially attuned and context-sensitive approaches 57. In conclusion, addressing contemporary conservation challenges requires governance models that move beyond exclusionary approaches and instead recognize local rights, historical claims, and the socioeconomic realities of communities living adjacent to protected areas. Conservation scholars and practitioners increasingly emphasize inclusive strategies, including legally recognized community conservancies, equitable revenue-sharing mechanisms, and co-management frameworks. These approaches offer pathways toward more just and enduring conservation outcomes; however, their effectiveness depends on confronting entrenched power asymmetries, strengthening tenure security, and ensuring that benefit-sharing mechanisms are transparent, accountable, and responsive to local priorities. Effective conservation in Africa therefore necessitates a shift away from exclusionary protected-area models toward inclusive governance systems that recognize local rights, redefine success beyond spatial coverage, and sustain biodiversity through equitable and adaptive management of shared landscapes. This perspective does not imply that protected areas are redundant. Well-designed and effectively managed reserves remain indispensable, particularly for species and ecosystems that cannot persist within intensively used landscapes. The challenge arises when protected areas are elevated to a singular solution and the primary indicator of conservation success. When performance is assessed solely in terms of spatial extent, ecological complexity and social context are obscured. To maintain scientific and policy credibility in Africa, conservation success must be redefined to prioritize outcomes such as species persistence, ecological connectivity, ecosystem service provision, and social legitimacy. As demographic change, development pressures, and climate impacts intensify, conservation will increasingly unfold within shared landscapes rather than isolated reserves. Africa's biodiversity will be sustained not by fences alone, but through negotiated, adaptive stewardship across working landscapes where people and nature coexist under climate change. Luca Luiselli: conceptualization, investigation, writing – original draft, methodology, writing – review and editing, data curation, supervision. I am grateful to several colleagues for insightful discussions on the themes developed in this paper and especially Prof. Julia E. Fa (Manchester Metropolitan University), Prof. Edem A. Eniang (University of Uyo), Prof. Gabriel H. Segniagbeto (University of Lomé), Dr Mathias Behangana (Makerere University), Dr Achilles Byaruhanga (Nature Uganda), and Dr Nic Pacini (University of Calabria). Anonymous referees helpfully commented on the submitted draft. The author has nothing to report. The author has nothing to report.
Luca Luiselli (Sun,) studied this question.