Abstract
New agendas for conservation are regularly proposed based on the ground that existing strategies are overly pessimistic, restricted to biodiversity hotspots, and inappropriate to halt biodiversity loss. However, little empirical evidence supports such claims. Here we review the 12 971 papers published in the leading conservation journals during the last 15 years to assess what conservation actually does. Although conservation research is affected by specific bias, conservation is playing a major role in providing empirical evidence of human impacts on biodiversity. Encouraging biodiversity comebacks are also published and a wide range of conservation tools, beyond the development of protected areas in wilderness areas, are promoted. We argue thatfinding new routes to conservation is neither necessary nor sufficient to halt biodiversity loss.