Sir

It is vital to try to conserve biological diversity, but to do this we must know where it is. New databases mapping African biodiversity now offer this information1,2,3.

Quantitative analyses4 of these data reveal geographical priorities for conservation broadly matching those generated at a global level by international conservation organizations5,6,7 ( Fig. 1, overleaf). Although this approximate overlap with coarse-scale priorities is encouraging, we now need to move tropical priority-setting to finer scales that will enable conservation action. We suggest here three strategies for meeting this challenge: improving data; enhancing collaborations; and working closely with local decision-makers.

Figure 1: Conservation priorities for Sub-Saharan Africa.
figure 1

a, Quantitatively derived conservation priorities4 for ∼4,000 species of bird, mammal, snake and amphibian, mapped on a 1° grid. Coloured cells depict the top 200 areas from which 97.5% of species mapped have been recorded. Red squares are irreplaceable because they contain the entire known distribution of one or more species; orange cells are flexible areas for which alternatives (not mapped) are available. b, Conservation International's Hotspots5; the World Wildlife Fund US's Global 200 most biologically important ecoregions6; and BirdLife International's Endemic Bird Areas7. Red, orange and yellow show areas of intersection between three, two and one system(s), respectively.

Full size image

The main constraint on quantitative conservation priority-setting8 is that sufficient data are not available at the fine scale required for conservation implementation. The only long-term solution is to collect new biological data, compile and disseminate point locality information, and conduct basic taxonomy. Such work is chronically under-funded, yet is essential for conservation planning9. In the short term, the problem can be reduced by deductive modelling. Environmental data such as elevation, vegetation, rainfall and temperature have been modelled to fine resolutions — for example, 1-km grids — for the whole continent (see http://edcftp.cr.usgs.gov ). If we compile information on habitat preferences, we can predict fine-scale species distributions by overlaying environmental data onto species-range maps, to identify areas where all of a species' habitat requirements are fulfilled3. Another short cut is to base conservation priorities on well-known taxonomic groups10. The problem with this is lack of knowledge of cross-taxon congruence11 — for example, conserving birds may not be enough to protect biodiversity as a whole.

Attempts to address the lack of data on African biodiversity must go hand-in-hand with improved collaboration at all levels — see the letter from Mace et al. (page 393). Effective collaboration is urgently needed between the biological and social sciences, to incorporate human geography into the quantitative priority-setting process in the tropics12. The development of parallel priority-setting initiatives is another symptom of the lack of effective coordination to date. Furthermore, difficulties have arisen over data dissemination and public access to information. Such tensions between data providers (for example, museums) and users (such as non-governmental organizations) can be eased by considering mutually beneficial collaborations. For instance, conservation groups could increase their funding for the publication of biological data, and groups with mutual interests could collaborate on fund-raising to pay for data collection. Finally, much greater use should be made of existing collaborative networks13.

Effective translation of continental priorities into action depends fundamentally on consensus from local decision-makers. One way of forging this is through expert-based priority-setting workshops14 to assess key regional areas for conservation values in different taxonomic groups and to prioritize these areas across groups. From this synthesis, an integrated set of local priorities can be developed incorporating information on ecology, current and future threats, and landscape-level linkages. Essential components are a commitment to training, empowerment of local specialists, and repatriation of biodiversity information.

Such conservation-prioritization workshops have been held recently for the Upper Guinea region (December 1999) and for the Congo Basin (March 2000). The consensus forged by governmental, non-governmental and academic representatives from the countries in these regions has provided a solid base to translate priorities into action. We believe that our suggestions will considerably increase the chances of further progress while opportunities for effective conservation in Africa remain.