Lees, CMRutschmann, ASanture, AWBeggs, JR2021-09-032021-09-032021-8-10006-3207https://hdl.handle.net/2292/56374Reversing the decline of threatened species is a target for the Convention on Biological Diversity but current efforts are failing. An integrative, multi-stakeholder approach to species conservation planning, which includes population viability analyses and both in situ and ex situ management consideration, could improve outcomes for some of the most challenging cases. The IUCN Species Survival Commission (SSC) uses such a planning approach, however, evidence of improved outcomes for species has to date been anecdotal. To assess the impact of planning, we accessed 35 species conservation plans completed in 23 countries over 13 years from the IUCN SSC database and matched them with independently generated Red List assessments of extinction risk. We used the Red List Index and a counterfactual approach, comparing the overall predicted extinction trend without planning with the observed trend after planning. Post-planning, threatened species declines continued, but gradually slowed, and then reversed, with an upward trend of recovery within 15 years. No species became extinct. Simulated counterfactual projections indicated outcomes would have been worse without the planning intervention; around eight species would have become extinct over that timeframe. To date, this planning approach has been applied to relatively high-profile species facing multiple threats, and where conflicting views, uncertainty, or lack of coordination among stakeholders constrain action. Opportunities to broaden application to other taxa are discussed. Our study provides evidence that science-based, participatory approaches to planning can create a turning point for threatened species by supporting stakeholders to transition quickly to more effective ways of working together.Items in ResearchSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated. Previously published items are made available in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.https://researchspace.auckland.ac.nz/docs/uoa-docs/rights.htm05 Environmental Sciences06 Biological Sciences07 Agricultural and Veterinary SciencesJournal Article10.1016/j.biocon.2021.1091942021-08-17Copyright: The authorhttp://purl.org/eprint/accessRights/RestrictedAccess