Meeting the complex demands of conservation requires a multi-skilled workforce operating in a sector that is respected and supported. Although professionalization of conservation is widely seen as desirable, there is no consistent understanding of what that entails. Here, we review whether and how eight elements of professionalization observed in other sectors are applicable to conservation: (1) a defined and respected occupation; (2) official recognition; (3) knowledge, learning, competences and standards; (4) paid employment; (5) codes of conduct and ethics; (6) individual commitment; (7) organizational capacity; and (8) professional associations. Despite significant achievements in many of these areas, overall progress is patchy, and conventional concepts of professionalization are not always a good fit for conservation. Reasons for this include the multidisciplinary nature of conservation work, the disproportionate influence of elite groups on the development and direction of the profession, and under-representation of field practitioners and of Indigenous peoples and local communities with professional-equivalent skills. We propose a more inclusive approach to professionalization that reflects the full range of practitioners in the sector and the need for increased recognition in countries and regions of high biodiversity. We offer a new definition that characterizes conservation professionals as practitioners who act as essential links between conservation action and conservation knowledge and policy, and provide seven recommendations for building a more effective, inclusive and representative profession.

Conservation challenges occur in complex social-ecological systems that require scientists and practitioners to recognize and embrace that humans are active agents within these systems. This interdependence of the social and ecological components of systems necessitates effective leadership to address and solve conservation problems successfully. Although conservation practitioners increasingly recognize leadership as critical to achieve conservation goals, clarity about the term leadership remains elusive in terms of specific strategies and behaviours. Our objective in this review of conservation leadership scholarship was to build on prior literature to conceptualize and define the behavioural leadership strategies that lead to successful conservation outcomes. Following an initial review of more than 1,200 peer-reviewed publications, we conducted a systematic review of 59 articles utilizing an inductive analysis approach and identified a set of five leadership domains that contribute to positive conservation outcomes: (1) stakeholder engagement, (2) trust, (3) vision, (4) individual champion, and (5) excellence in internal attributes. Each domain is defined by 2–4 behaviours that we consider leadership practices. To sustain meaningful progress toward global conservation of biodiversity, conservation scientists and practitioners must embrace and invest in leadership as an integral component of solving our collective conservation challenges.

Capacity development is increasingly recognized as central to conservation goals. Efforts to develop individual, organizational and societal capacity underpin direct investments in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management, and sustain their impact over time. In the face of urgent needs and increasingly complex contexts for conservation the sector not only needs more capacity development, it needs new approaches to capacity development. The sector is embracing the dynamic relationships between the ecological, political, social and economic dimensions of conservation. Capacity development practitioners should ensure that individuals, organizations and communities are prepared to work effectively in these complex environments of constant change to transform the systems that drive biodiversity loss and unsustainable, unequitable resource use. Here we advocate for a systems view of capacity development. We propose a conceptual framework that aligns capacity development components with all stages of conservation efforts, fosters attention to context, and coordinates with parallel efforts to engage across practitioners and sectors for more systemic impact. Furthermore, we highlight a need for practitioners to target, measure and support vital elements of capacity that have traditionally received less attention, such as values and motivation, leadership and organizational culture, and governance and participation by using approaches from psychology, the social sciences and systems thinking. Drawing from conservation and other sectors, we highlight examples of approaches that can support reflective practice, so capacity development practitioners can better understand the factors that favour or hinder effectiveness of interventions and influence system-wide change.

Conservation professionals face cognitively and emotionally demanding tasks and a wide range of working conditions, including high levels of uncertainty (e.g. the socio-political contexts in which they must function, possible long hours and isolation from friends and family). Resilience (i.e. positive adaptation to professional challenges) can help individuals thrive in their roles. We interviewed 22 conservationists with professional experience working in low-income countries with high biodiversity and explored what helped and what hindered them in their work. We used thematic analysis to identify factors related to positive and negative psychological states and strategies to promote resilience at work. The results revealed factors that were associated with positive psychological states, including achievements and recognition for work. Organizational policies and administration, especially perceived unfairness regarding salaries, recruitment policies and promotion, were associated with negative psychological states, as were other factors related to the job context. Respondents shared their professional resilience strategies such as aligning work with one's values, and personal reflection and goal setting. We recommend that organizations support their employees in the process of building resilience by addressing basic needs and motivational factors.

Contemporary conservation professionals are part of a workforce focused on overcoming complex challenges under great time pressure. The characteristics of conservation work, and in particular the evolving demands placed on the workforce, mean that to remain effective these professionals need to enhance their skills and abilities continually. Currently, there are no sector-wide guidelines to promote systematic professional development that addresses both individual and organizational learning. This study builds upon existing knowledge from other sectors by examining professional development in conservation through an in-depth qualitative thematic analysis of interviews with 22 conservation professionals, resulting in an effectiveness framework for professional development in the conservation sector. Our findings indicate how individuals’ motivation to learn, proactivity, open-mindedness towards alternative information and views were considered preconditions for effective professional development. A balance between organizational goals and career ambitions was found essential to maintain this motivation to learn and vital for staff retention and preservation of institutional knowledge. Professional development plans may help distinguish between individual career aspirations and organizational objectives and aid a discussion between staff and management on how to balance the two. Leaders have the opportunity to remove barriers to effective professional development. We discuss solutions to overcome specific barriers, to promote an inclusive approach for diverse learners through provision of opportunities, effective learning design, and resource distribution for professional development. This effectiveness framework can be used by conservationists and conservation organizations to plan and decide on professional development.

Biodiversity loss is one of the greatest global challenges and requires substantial investment in building the capacity of conservation professionals to design and implement robust conservation plans. In this study, we surveyed 155 past participants of training in facilitating species conservation planning processes given by the Conservation Planning Specialist Group of the IUCN Species Survival Commission. Based on a recently developed theory of change for the training, we examined how and to what extent the training contributed to the desired outcome of increasing trainees’ capacity for leading the design and facilitation of species conservation planning processes. Our results indicate that recall of training content, self-efficacy (an individual's belief they can complete a specific task or behaviour successfully) and peer network participation had significant impacts on the outcome of applying training content in the workplace. Furthermore, our results suggest that self-efficacy played a highly influential role in trainees' participation in species conservation planning post-training. The implications of this research point to designing conservation training that considers not only the skills and knowledge to be gained by learners but also the strategies that enhance trainees' self-efficacy in applying new skills and knowledge and in establishing peer networks to support trainees in turning training objectives into realities.

Conservation lacks sufficient well-trained leaders who are empowered to catalyse positive change for the natural world. Addressing this need, the University of Cambridge launched a Masters in Conservation Leadership in 2010. The degree includes several features designed to enhance its impact. Firstly, it recruits international, gender-balanced cohorts of mid-career professionals, building leadership capacity in the Global South and providing a rich environment for peer learning. Secondly, teaching includes applied leadership training in topics such as fundraising, leading people and networking, as well as interdisciplinary academic topics. Thirdly, the degree is delivered through the Cambridge Conservation Initiative, a partnership of international NGOs and networks, facilitating extensive practitioner-led and experiential learning. We present details of programme design and evaluate the impact of the Masters after 10 years, using data from course records, student and alumni perspectives, and interviews with key stakeholders. The course has broadly succeeded in its design and recruitment objectives. Self-assessed leadership capabilities, career responsibilities and the overall impact of alumni increased significantly 5 years after graduation. However, specific impacts of alumni in certain areas, such as on their professional colleagues, have been less clear. We conclude by outlining future plans for the Masters in light of growing demands on conservation leaders and the changing landscape of leadership capacity development. These include reforms to course structure and assessment, long-term support to the alumni network and developing a conservation leadership community of practice.

Training plays a central role in the pursuit of conservation goals, and it is vital to know if it is having the desired effect. However, evaluating the difference it makes is notoriously challenging. Here, we present a practitioner's perspective on overcoming these challenges and developing a framework for ongoing evaluation of a conservation training programme. To do this, we first created a theory of change, describing the pathway of change we expect from training delivery to conservation impact. This provided the clarity and structure needed to identify indicators of change in the short, medium and long term. For data collection, we utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods to provide a more complete understanding of the change expected and capture any that might be unexpected. However, the more time that passes since a training event, the more difficult it becomes to attribute results; in response, we shifted predominantly to the use of qualitative methods to understand the long-term results achieved. After 3 years of implementation, this framework has enabled us to measure the difference our training makes to individuals and their work, and to provide evidence for the contribution it makes to achieving conservation impact. We believe that the lessons learnt can be used to improve the evaluation of training activities across the conservation sector and maximize the impact they achieve.

Capacity development is critical to long-term conservation success, yet we lack a robust and rigorous understanding of how well its effects are being evaluated. A comprehensive summary of who is monitoring and evaluating capacity development interventions, what is being evaluated and how, would help in the development of evidence-based guidance to inform design and implementation decisions for future capacity development interventions and evaluations of their effectiveness. We built an evidence map by reviewing peer-reviewed and grey literature published since 2000, to identify case studies evaluating capacity development interventions in biodiversity conservation and natural resource management. We used inductive and deductive approaches to develop a coding strategy for studies that met our criteria, extracting data on the type of capacity development intervention, evaluation methods, data and analysis types, categories of outputs and outcomes assessed, and whether the study had a clear causal model and/or used a systems approach. We found that almost all studies assessed multiple outcome types: most frequent was change in knowledge, followed by behaviour, then attitude. Few studies evaluated conservation outcomes. Less than half included an explicit causal model linking interventions to expected outcomes. Half of the studies considered external factors that could influence the efficacy of the capacity development intervention, and few used an explicit systems approach. We used framework synthesis to situate our evidence map within the broader literature on capacity development evaluation. Our evidence map (including a visual heat map) highlights areas of low and high representation in investment in research on the evaluation of capacity development.

Global perspectives on the pathways for developing capacity for conservation remain limited. Hindering the robustness of solutions is a dearth of opportunities to foster discussion and dialogue among capacity development practitioners, academics, partners, beneficiaries and donors. Additionally, little is known about donor perspectives on capacity development, and about pathways to developing a more sustainable investment in capacity development for conservation. The 2019 Capacity Building for Conservation Conference in London, UK, provided a unique opportunity to convene more than 150 capacity development practitioners from the global conservation community. The Conference included structured opportunities to hear donor perspectives on strengthening capacity development. Session leaders took detailed notes to document donor perspectives and the discussions around them. A thematic analysis of this empirical evidence resulted in the identification of four key themes with corresponding recommendations, consisting of (1) collaborative design of capacity development initiatives, (2) monitoring and evaluation, (3) longer-term and flexible investments, and (4) building strong relationships between donors and grantees. Given the Convention on Biological Diversity is currently drafting the long-term strategic framework for capacity development post-2020, and global calls to protect significant portions of our land- and seascapes, our recommendations are timely and may inform a way forward.