Here I examine how conservation organizations responded to a crisis environment in Zimbabwe. Since c. 2000 Zimbabwe has gone through a political, social and economic crisis that has led to reduced support for, and in some cases disengagement by, international and regional conservation organizations. I explore five response types on a continuum of disengagement and propose lessons for wider conservation practice. The lessons include the need to recognize that political discourse often excludes biodiversity conservation and therefore any conservation decisions based on political expediency run the risk of impeding conservation progress. Progress in conserving biodiversity requires sustained investment regardless of changing political circumstances. Such investment should include support for institutional development, local engagement, and accountability that engenders ownership of local conservation initiatives. I conclude that conservation organizations must take a long-term view of conservation and commitment to enhance conservation outcomes. This kind of engagement must be adaptive instead of based on a wait-and-see attitude or other forms of disengagement, as has been seen in Zimbabwe. Conservation organizations that disengage do so at the risk of further loss of biodiversity in some of the most biodiverse but unstable places.

In a case study of conservation planning by a conservation organization working at a continental scale we examine how WWF identified and prioritized its African elephant Loxodonta africana conservation activities. We (1) review lessons learnt from previous work, (2) identify priority landscapes using biological criteria (e.g. population size and viability) and institutional criteria (e.g. feasibility, sustainability and cost-effectiveness of WWF interventions), and (3) conduct a threat analysis and review of national and subregional action plans. We suggest that species action plans should use priority-setting criteria that focus on conserving the largest and most viable populations at the subspecies level. Clear definition of geographical priorities helps an organization focus its resources and assists monitoring. Species action plans should also take account of plans developed by governments and other stakeholders. Conservation agencies wishing to select which landscapes to invest in for a given species or subspecies could then consider institutional prioritization criteria, such as those used by WWF for the African elephant. This would allow them to invest pragmatically in conservation that has a higher chance of success than work planned solely through scientific analysis. Ultimately, however, no species action plan will succeed unless it has the resources necessary for implementation and the key stakeholders work together in partnership.