ArticlePDF Available

The fatal flaws of compassionate conservation



Climate change, overconsumption, land‐use intensification, widespread pollution, and other environmentally damaging factors are threatening Earth's biodiversity and its ability to provide ecosystem services essential for human survival. Article impact statement: Wallach et al.’s framing of compassionate conservation is flawed and impractical and could be dangerous for people, wildlife, and ecosystems. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
The fatal flaws of compassionate conservation
Meera Anna Oommen,1Rosie Cooney,2,3 Madhuri Ramesh,1Michael Archer,4Daniel Brockington,5
Bram Buscher,6,7, 8 Robert Fletcher,6Daniel J.D. Natusch,9Abi T. Vanak,10,11, 12
Grahame Webb,13,14, 15 and Kartik Shanker 1,16
1Dakshin Foundation, 1818, 5th Main, 9th Cross, Sahakar Nagar C Block, Bengaluru 560092, India
2IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group, c/ Rue Mauverney 28, 1196, Gland, Switzerland
3Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, 0200 ACT, Australia
4PANGEA Research Center, School of Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW,
2052, Australia
5Sheffield Institute for International Development, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire S10 2TN, U.K.
6Sociology of Development and Change, Wageningen University, De Leeuwenborch, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 Wageningen, KN, The
7Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
8Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
9Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia
10Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation, ATREE Royal Enclave, Sriramapura, Jakkur Post, Bengaluru 560064, India
11School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
12DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance Fellow, Hyderabad, India
13Wildlife Management International Pty. Limited, P.O. Box 530 Karama, NT, 0813 Australia
14Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, 0909, Australia
15IUCN-SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, c/ Rue Mauverney 28, 1196, Gland, Switzerland
16Centre for Ecological Sciences Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, 560012, India
Climate change, overconsumption, land-use intensifica-
tion, widespread pollution, and other environmentally
damaging factors are threatening Earth’s biodiversity and
its ability to provide ecosystem services essential for hu-
man survival. Efforts to address this systemic degradation
require a species- and ecosystem-based focus and an equal
focus on the well-being of people depending on wild
Instead, Wallach et al. (2018) champion the cause of
wildlife individuals as the primary focus for action under
the framework of compassionate conservation. Accord-
ing to them, compassionate conservation “aims to safe-
guard Earth’s biological diversity while retaining a com-
mitment to treating individuals with respect and concern
for their well-being.” The 4 key tenets of this approach
include: “do no harm; individuals matter; inclusivity; and
peaceful coexistence” (Wallach et al. 2018:1258). They
Article impact statement: Wallach et al.’s framing of compassionate conservation is flawed and impractical and could be dangerous for people,
wildlife, and ecosystems.
Paper submitted November 29, 2018; revised manuscript accepted February 6, 2019.
attempt to argue that compassionate conservation is the
ethically most defensible approach to conservation. We
agree that compassion is a laudable attribute, and sup-
port efforts to ensure ethical treatment of animals and
to reduce unnecessary suffering. But, Wallach et al. pro-
pose an alarmingly simplistic approach based on concern
for the welfare of individual wild animals irrespective of
whether the focus on individuals threatens the survival
of other life forms, including human beings, or actually
delivers on conservation goals.
Our view is that compassionate conservation as con-
ceptualized by Wallach et al. is seriously flawed. Com-
passion need not preclude humanely killing an animal if
that reduces the animal’s suffering, enhances the survival
of the species or its habitat, or safeguards human life or
other more threatened species. But Wallach et al. argue
that to be compassionate, one should not kill animals
for any reason. Furthermore, it is deeply problematic
that proponents of compassionate conservation claim the
Conservation Biology,Volume0,No.0,14
2019 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13329
2Compassionate Conservation Flaws
concept is ethically expansive when it focuses on the
well-being of individual wild animals without adequately
considering the well-being or worldviews of the many
humans who live in proximity to wildlife. Better conser-
vation practice requires that conservation professionals
recognize the outcomes and consequences of their rec-
ommendations and actions (Saberwal & Kothari 1996;
Jacobson & McDuff 1998).
Taken as a whole, Wallach et al.’s assertions: ignore or
misrepresent a range of multidisciplinary insights that
augment long-term conservation, including from ecol-
ogy, anthropology, psychology, and history; ignore and
potentially threaten the lives, livelihoods, and world-
views of indigenous peoples and local communities, es-
pecially resource-dependent communities in the devel-
oping world; and are simplistic in that they expect that
one moral code can be applied globally without compro-
mising ethical and moral obligations to humans.
Moreover, the evidence Wallach et al. assembled to
support compassionate conservation is far from convinc-
ing. To highlight their erroneous assertions, we examine
the limitations of their proposed universal moral code
based on sentience. We also question their portrayal of In-
dia, a country that opposes the killing and use of wildlife,
as a model for compassionate conservation. Through this,
we seek to reveal the links between conservation ideals,
practice, and outcomes in order to advocate for a conse-
quentialist approach.
Sentience and Morality
The practical human costs of overplaying the moral
salience of sentience and sapience in nonhuman animals
are non-trivial. Neumann (2004) cautions against conser-
vationists indulging in moral extensionism or humaniza-
tion of wild animals and the artificial attribution of moral
standing to nonhuman agents. He points to the influence
of these new moral and discursive geographies in African
parks, where violence has become normalized through
the execution of suspected human villains (poachers),
effectively imposing capital punishment without due pro-
cess. This radical reordering of the moral standing of
African poachers (and resource users) in relation to wild
animals does not recognize the fact that the former are of-
ten the product of difficult social, economic, and political
circumstances well beyond their control or are assuming
traditional roles relative to wildlife that have suddenly
been deemed unacceptable by conservationists.
Although Wallach et al. arrive at compassionate conser-
vation from the perspective of virtue ethics, their ideas
contribute to a distinct culture of personalizing and an-
thropomorphizing animals. Jepson et al. (2011) point out
that transposing such concepts (e.g., elephants as com-
panion species) to species involved in human-wildlife
conflict trivializes the devastating violence people living
in shared spaces have to contend with. They call for the
inclusion of more subaltern and local views and specif-
ically for the incorporation of “non-European ways of
speaking for the elephant” (p. 172).
Local views can be remarkably compassionate. In many
rural and traditional societies, wildlife—even that in-
volved in significant conflict—is located within networks
of reciprocal relations. Compassion and reverence for an-
imals often go hand in hand with a multifaceted range of
relationships that include eliminating problem animals,
hunting for meat and sport, and deriving benefits from
them, including religious and spiritual succor and com-
panionship. Even dangerous species are incorporated
into such frameworks, and individual animals involved in
conflict are treated differently but in accordance with lo-
cal worldviews (e.g., crocodiles [Pooley 2016]; elephants
[Bird-David 1999]; leopards [Ghosal & Kjosavik 2015]).
The problem with simplifying these relationships is (as,
ironically, Wallach et al. themselves say) that it ends up
“estranging conservation from prevailing social values”
(p. 1261).
The Poor Man’s India
Wallach et al. frame India as a model country through
assertions that are at best uninformed. Stringing together
arguments based on constitutional animal protection ju-
risprudence (the origins of which are highly antisec-
ular), supposed low meat consumption, assumed gen-
eral opposition to hunting, and poor characterization
of conservation performance, the authors present India
as an example that brings together the best principles
of compassion to animals and conservation. Not only is
this representation of India based on fallacious assertions
about meat eating, its model of conservation can be de-
scribed as compassionate and successful only if endur-
ing and widespread brutality, impoverishment, coercion,
and exclusion of marginalized communities by elites are
Wallach et al. portray India as a country with low
meat consumption and production. But both historical
and contemporary work on food habits in India reveal
otherwise. An overwhelming majority of the population
are not vegetarians, including nearly 80% of Indians over
15 years old (Census of India 2014). India is the second
largest bovine meat exporter globally (FAO 2018). Many
traditional societies in India also have long histories of
hunting and harvesting animals. It is correct that per
capita meat consumption is relatively low in compari-
son with Western levels. But this reflects the fact that
India has the largest number of food-insecure people
(FAO 2015); their limited access to animal protein is often
linked to poverty and malnutrition.
The authors also overlook the critical fact that the food
hierarchy in India is a function of an oppressive social
Conservation Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2019
Oommenetal. 3
structure and heavily tied to power differentials between
groups. The meat-eating habits of poor and marginalized
sections of society, such as dalit groups, are often con-
sidered polluting by the dominant (typically vegetarian)
castes and are subject to public criticism. While the re-
cent ban on cow slaughter is couched by its proponents
in terms of agricultural efficiency, ahimsa (nonviolence),
and compassion, it has resulted in a spate of beef lynch-
ings, in which people from minority groups have been
killed for allegedly killing cows. Escalating communal vio-
lence across the country demonstrates the not-so-benign
(and highly uncompassionate) consequences of pursuing
compassion for animals but not people (Ramdas 2018).
The compassionate conservation Wallach et al. advocate
is in fact aligned with fundamentalist, divisive ideologies
that perpetrate violence. Can conservation that is so so-
cially oppressive truly be considered compassionate?
Wallach et al. also fail to acknowledge that a primary
orientation toward a preservationist agenda combined
with the so-called compassionate animal rights laws in
India can be deeply problematic in the context of increas-
ing human–wildlife conflict. Each year, several hundred
human and many elephant deaths are reported due to
encounters with each other. More dramatically, there
are an estimated 20,000 deaths caused annually by ra-
bies (Hampson et al. 2015) and 40,000 human fatalities
from snakebite (Mohapatra et al. 2011). However, animal
rights agendas and general prohibitions on culling and
lethal control prevent targeted control or the elimination
of problematic groups, such as stray dogs, even when the
victims of attacks are often small children. Wallach et al.
do not address the fact that, in such situations, failure
to eliminate dangerous animals due to misguided and
excessively narrow ethics can have lethal consequences
for people and other animals.
There are fundamental flaws with compassionate conser-
vation. It is the product of blinkered thinking—a failure to
understand the interconnected nature of living creatures
and a heedless disregard for the current scale of environ-
mental and social problems. Human dimensions apart,
this philosophical agenda is counterproductive in the
long run because it is predicated on the presumption that
the welfare of individual animals should be inviolate, re-
gardless of practical conservation outcomes. Within this
framework, programs that manage entire populations,
species, or habitats based on consumptive sustainable
use (e.g., Fukuda et al. 2011; Naidoo et al. 2016) cannot
be supported, regardless of conservation success.
Ignoring the consequences of conservation action on
human well-being, especially if the goal is to be “ethically
expansive,” is problematic. As Guha (1989) argues in his
critique of deep ecology, the social consequences of uni-
versalizing ideas such as compassionate conservation in
places with different sociocultural moorings can result in
significant problems, typically with the worst outcomes
for already marginalized humans. As practicing conser-
vationists, biologists, and social scientists, we argue that
conservation needs to be responsive to the complexity
of real-world situations. Theoretical platforms for conser-
vation that ignore empirical practice and political contes-
tation are unlikely to be just, effective, or sustainable.
The ethical and moral foundations of all societies are
strongly context dependent. Conservationists should not
presume that one set of anthropomorphized, culturally
specific values is universally applicable to all and inde-
pendent of regional factors or local politics (Gavin et al.
2018). We therefore argue for a broader, culturally in-
formed approach to conservation that fully considers and
utilizes the diversity of values and uses of nature.
Literature Cited
Bird-David N. 1999. “Animism revisited”: personhood, environment and
relational epistemology. Current Anthropology 40(S1):S67–S91.
Census of India. 2014. Sample registration system baseline survey.
Census of India, Delhi. Available from
in/vital_statistics/BASELINE%20TABLES07062016.pdf (accessed Au-
gust 2018).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2015.
The state of food insecurity in the world. FAO, Rome. Available from (accessed August 2018).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2018.
Meat market review. FAO, Rome. Available from http://www. (accessed August 2018).
Fukuda Y, Webb G, Manolis C, Delaney R, Letnic M, Lindner G, White-
head P. 2011. Recovery of saltwater crocodiles following unreg-
ulated hunting in tidal rivers of the Northern Territory, Australia.
Journal of Wildlife Management 75:1253–1266.
Gavin MC, McCarter J, Berkes F, Mead ATP, Sterling EJ, Tang R,
Turner NJ. 2018. Effective biodiversity conservation requires dy-
namic, pluralistic, partnership-based approaches. Sustainability 10
Ghosal S, Kjosavik DJ. 2015. Living with leopards: negotiating moral-
ity and modernity in western India. Society and Natural Resources
Guha R. 1989. Radical American environmentalism and wilderness
preservation: a Third World critique. Environmental Ethics 11:71–
Hampson K, et al. 2015. Estimating the global burden of endemic ca-
nine rabies. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 9
Jacobson SK, McDuff MD. 1998. Training idiot savants: the lack of
human dimensions in conservation biology. Conservation Biology
Jepson P, Barua M, Ladle RJ, Buckingham K. 2011. Towards an intra-
disciplinary biogeography: a response to Lorimer’s ‘lively biogeogra-
phies’ of Asian elephant conservation. Transactions of the Institute
of British Geographers 36:170–174.
Mohapatra B, et al. 2011. Snakebite mortality in India: a nationally rep-
resentative mortality survey. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 5
Naidoo R, Weaver LC, Diggle RW, Matongo G, Stuart-Hill G, Thouless C.
2016. Complementary benefits of tourism and hunting to communal
conservancies in Namibia. Conservation Biology 30:628–638.
Conservation Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2019
4Compassionate Conservation Flaws
Neumann RP. 2004. Moral and discursive geographies in the war for
biodiversity in Africa. Political Ecology 23:813–837.
Pooley S. 2016. A cultural herpetology of Nile crocodiles in Africa.
Conservation and Society 14:391–405.
Ramdas S. 2018. Bovine politics and climate justice. Economic and
Political Weekly 53:92–98.
Saberwal V, Kothari A. 1996. The human dimension in conservation
biology curricula in developing countries. Conservation Biology
Wallach AD, Bekoff M, Batavia C, Nelson MP, Ramp D. 2018. Summon-
ing compassion to address the challenges of conservation. Conser-
vation Biology 32:1255–1265.
Conservation Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2019
... We then examine published conversations surrounding a recently established virtue ethic (Compassionate Conservation) that has sparked much contestation. Using these exchanges, we comment on the ways in which this ethical framework frustrates conservationists, as it currently does not meet a desired minimum level of ethical prescription for action (Brittain et al., 2020;Callen et al., 2020aCallen et al., , 2020bHayward et al., 2019;Oommen et al., 2019). While the challenge of creating adequate prescriptive guidelines is quite a significant task, we suggest ways forward. ...
... The implementation of Compassionate Conservation, however, has been met with resistance. Conservationists contend that the guidelines cannot be successfully integrated with existing ecological theory (Hayward et al., 2019), focus too singularly on the right-to-life for charismatic megafauna (Oommen et al., 2019), do not consider how to integrate human needs (Brittain et al., 2020), and focus entirely on sentient animals (Callen et al., 2020a) which may draw taxonomic lines incompatible with ecological realities. Additionally, a common critique of virtue ethics frameworks writ large, and echoed by conservationists here, is the lack of universally agreed-upon understandings of what it is to embody a given virtue (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2018)-there is an ambiguity in what constitutes compassion, which can leave practicing conservationists without a command of how to realize compassionate action. ...
... Ultimately, even if practicing conservationists find fault with Compassionate Conservation, it has reignited discussion between the fields of ethics and conservation, engaging through papers in major conservation science journals Hayward et al., 2019;Nelson et al., 2021;Oommen et al., 2019;Rohwer & Marris, 2019;Wallach et al., 2018Wallach et al., , 2020. With productive communication, collaboration could result in a robust crossdisciplinary effort to navigate pertinent ecological and ethical problems of our time, such as the challenges presented by species decline, "invasive species," climate change, and human-induced change to ecosystems. ...
Full-text available
The enterprise of conservation is inherently ethical, requiring conservationists to navigate morally challenging problems. Working together, conservationists and ethicists have developed the field of conservation ethics. Yet, due to the deeply interdisciplinary nature of the field, conservation ethics faces a unique set of challenges. We first comment on the harm caused by reciprocal ignorance between some practicing conservationists and ethicists. We then explore the difficulties of creating a widely applied ethic, examining conversations surrounding the recently emerged virtue ethic, Compassionate Conservation. By bringing attention to these challenges, and highlighting medical bioethics as a touchstone of productive applied ethical theory, we can help the field avoid unproductive pitfalls, as well as facilitate positive and productive communication and collaboration between the various members of the different disciplines involved.
... Yet virtually no one in the fields of invasion biology or conservation more generally has attempted to provide solid foundations for the human supremacism that underlies their position. On the contrary, some conservationists (Callen et al., 2020;Driscoll and Watson, 2019;Oommen et al., 2019) have tended to respond to ethical criticisms of the treatment of introduced animals by simply ignoring or avoiding the challenge or by begging the question about the correctness of human supremacy and its implications for animals (Coghlan and Cardilini, 2020). The relative lack of reasoned argument is a key reason why it is often reasonable to refer to the assumption of (rather than just the belief in) human supremacy in the context of invasion biology. ...
Full-text available
Invasion biology is increasingly facing criticism for its moral attitude towards and treatment of “invasive alien species.” In this paper, we argue that invasion biology relies upon dubious assumptions of human supremacy. We also argue that the language and official classification of introduced animals is intertwined with their ethically problematic treatment. Our focus is on several factors that help to shape the meaning of terms such as “invasive,” “alien,” “pest” and “feral.” These factors are the differential treatment of “invasives” versus humans and other ecologically damaging animals (especially animals in agriculture); and the stock or normalized treatment and the performative treatment of animals who are demonized as invasive aliens. The resulting language and classifications in turn tend to promote the wrongful treatment of these animals. We propose that such language should be essentially removed from biological and conservation sciences. Indeed, invasion biologists should come together to find a new name for their discipline—or rather, for the discipline “invasion biology” might become when it jettisons its problematic allegiance to human supremacy and embraces a more progressive moral attitude towards nonhuman sentient beings.
... Using the example of African Parks, he points to the influence of such moral and discursive narratives in normalising violence against poachers. Similarly, as has been shown elsewhere, injunctions against hunting, meat eating, animal sacrifices and similar practises situated outside modern Western ethical frameworks could align with intolerance related to race, ethnicity or religion (Boaz, 2019;Oommen et al., 2019). ...
Full-text available
) Understanding Human–Canid Conflict and Coexistence: Socioeconomic Correlates Underlying Local Attitude and Support Toward the Endangered Dhole (Cuon alpinus) in Bhutan.
... Despite the near-universal support of conservation practitioners and scientists for compassion towards wildlife and ensuring animal welfare (Russell et al. 2016;Hayward et al. 2019;Oommen et al. 2019), compassionate conservation has sparked vigorous responses Driscoll and of compassionate conservation is that the absence of action can result in (often well understood and predictable) detrimental effects and increased suffering for individuals of other or the same species (including humans), as a result of altered biotic interactions across multiple trophic levels, i.e. "not doing anything" is an active choice that has consequences (Table 3). However, since compassionate conservation is not based on consequentialism, it uses different criteria to assess the appropriateness of conservations actions (but see (Wallach et al. 2020) for responses to some criticisms). ...
Full-text available
Perspectives in conservation are based on a variety of value systems. Such differences in how people value nature and its components lead to different evaluations of the morality of conservation goals and approaches, and often underlie disagreements in the formulation and implementation of environmental management policies. Specifically, whether a conservation action (e.g. killing feral cats to reduce predation on bird species threatened with extinction) is viewed as appropriate or not can vary among people with different value systems. Here, we present a conceptual, mathematical framework intended as a tool to systematically explore and clarify core value statements in conservation approaches. Its purpose is to highlight how fundamental differences between these value systems can lead to different prioritizations of available management options and offer a common ground for discourse. The proposed equations decompose the question underlying many controversies around management decisions in conservation: what or who is valued, how, and to what extent? We compare how management decisions would likely be viewed under three idealised value systems: ecocentric conservation, which aims to preserve biodiversity; new conservation, which considers that biodiversity can only be preserved if it benefits humans; and sentientist conservation, which aims at minimising suffering for sentient beings. We illustrate the utility of the framework by applying it to case studies involving invasive alien species, rewilding, and trophy hunting. By making value systems and their consequences in practice explicit, the framework facilitates debates on contested conservation issues, and complements philosophical discursive approaches about moral reasoning. We believe dissecting the core value statements on which conservation decisions are based will provide an additional tool to understand and address conservation conflicts.
... Compassionate conservation is critiqued for imposing normativity on marginalized groups. 221 However, such arguments rely on incorrect assumptions that are elsewhere negated: compassion for animals is not antagonistic to human rights; animal ethics and law need not be universal and non-contextual; and current conceptualizations of conservation are not immune to reconstruction. Such critiques typically stem from traditional conservationists who fail to acknowledge that such a colonising impact has already been imposed through conservation law. ...
Global animal law has emerged as a new legal subdiscipline and area of study following the widespread proliferation of animal law and animal law studies across the globe. However, there remains confusion as to what exactly global animal law is. Early global animal law studies are also entrenching norms that facilitate coloniality and neglect intersecting oppressions. In response, this article proposes a conception of global animal law based in global law metatheory and second wave animal ethics. This article critically analyses instances of “globabble” within global animal law, where global-speak has masked ethnocentric, western influence, and bias. This article recommends diversifying and decolonizing global animal law, relabelling some such work as western/European perspectives on animals and international law. It also recommends focusing on deep, critical, and radical animal justice in lieu of welfarism or rights-based theory. The article argues this could inspire a more interconnected, post-Westphalian, multilateral global animal lawscape.
... Compassionate Conservation is a virtue ethic in which the morality of actions is determined by the embodiment of a particular virtue, rather than the consequences of the action (Hursthouse & Pettigrove, 2018). The framework has been met with resistance by practicing conservationists and ecologists who find it does not provide specific guidance for the many challenging issues that arise when implementing wildlife management schemes (Brittain et al., 2020;Coghlan & Cardilini, 2021;Rohwer & Marris, 2019) and does not align with the field's primary focus on the outcome of actions (i.e., consequentialist ideals; Ferraro et al., 2021;Hayward et al., 2019;Meyer et al., 2021;Oommen et al., 2019). As such, we offer an alternative approach, which like Compassionate Conservation encourages conservationists to consider individual animals, but is more aligned with consequentialist thinking (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2019) and can provide some prescriptive recommendations for action. ...
Full-text available
The growing field of conservation and wild animal ethics has the potential to guide practitioners facing difficult management decisions. Drawing from previously established rights frameworks, we explore an applied ethic for wildlife managers and conservationists, outlining when there can be ethical justification and moral obligation to intervene with wildlife. To demonstrate the use of this ethical framework, we apply it specifically to the emerging field of behavioral training in wildlife management. We use a series of case studies to illuminate how ecological context is fundamental to ascertain when there is ethical justification for behavioral training under the framework, and conclude with practical considerations for implementation. Our work explains how a rights‐based ethic emerges from both biological principles and fundamental philosophical concepts, and illustrates how it could serve as a useful guideline for wildlife management.
... caste in India) by privileging certain practices (e.g. vegetarianism) without understanding the historical and social inequities associated with them [27]. More broadly, these practices disempower people in the Global South by demanding they change their behaviours, many of which they have been practising for millennia, to suit the preferences of distant interest groups. ...
Full-text available
It is time to acknowledge and overcome conservation's deep-seated systemic racism, which has historically marginalized Black, Indigenous and people of colour (BIPOC) communities and continues to do so. We describe how the mutually reinforcing ‘twin spheres’ of conservation science and conservation practice perpetuate this systemic racism. We trace how institutional structures in conservation science (e.g. degree programmes, support and advancement opportunities, course syllabuses) can systematically produce conservation graduates with partial and problematic conceptions of conservation's history and contemporary purposes. Many of these graduates go on to work in conservation practice, reproducing conservation's colonial history by contributing to programmes based on outmoded conservation models that disproportionately harm rural BIPOC communities and further restrict access and inclusion for BIPOC conservationists. We provide practical, actionable proposals for breaking vicious cycles of racism in the system of conservation we have with virtuous cycles of inclusion, equality, equity and participation in the system of conservation we want.
... It is important to acknowledge that there is not universal agreement on the value of empathy for environmental stewardship and sustainability. Some see conservation that is rooted in compassion as narrowly focused on charismatic species at the expense of, and risk to, other life-forms such as humans (Oommen et al., 2019). Büscher (2016) identifies negative consequences, which he calls the 'politics of hysteria', arising from emotive messaging on conservation issues. ...
Full-text available
Empathy for nature is considered a prerequisite for sustainable interactions with the biosphere. Yet to date, empirical research on how to stimulate empathy remains scarce. Here, we investigate whether future scenarios can promote greater empathy for the oceans. Using a pre‐post empathy questionnaire, participants (N = 269) were presented with an optimistic or a pessimistic future scenario for the high seas in a virtual reality (VR) or written format. Results showed that post‐test empathy levels were significantly higher than pre‐test levels, indicating that future scenarios fostered ocean empathy. We also find that the pessimistic scenario resulted in greater empathy levels compared to the optimistic scenario. Finally, we found no significant difference between the VR and written conditions and found that empathy scores significantly decreased 3 months after the initial intervention. As one of the first studies to empirically demonstrate the influence of a purposeful intervention to build ocean empathy, this article makes critical contributions to advancing research on future scenarios and offers a novel approach for supporting ocean sustainability. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.
... Using the example of African Parks, he points to the influence of such moral and discursive narratives in normalising violence against poachers. Similarly, as has been shown elsewhere, injunctions against hunting, meat eating, animal sacrifices and similar practises situated outside modern Western ethical frameworks could align with intolerance related to race, ethnicity or religion (Boaz, 2019;Oommen et al., 2019). ...
Full-text available
Human-wildlife encounters are characterized by a diverse array of engagements located on the continuum between the negative and the positive. In India, protracted conflict with wildlife is reflected in violence across a range of rural and urban ecologies, but is only one aspect of the multiple facets of ongoing human-non-human encounter. Within these shared spaces, there are often equally significant elements of acceptance, tolerance and reverence. Together, these are dependent on context, and can be explored via lived experiences and worldviews, and a moral economy of human-wildlife and human-human relationships. Historically, though hardly static, such relationships have been mediated by the ontological positioning of traditional societies and their embedded rules and practises. In recent years, these tenuous equilibria have been disrupted by top-down catalysts, including universalist conservation agendas percolating from the state and the global arena. This study aims to explore the changing nature of coexistence by using several historical and contemporary vignettes in relation to key species that routinely “transgress” from their primary natural habitats into the “garden” spaces of human cultivation and habitation. The study will argue that insights at the intersection of environmental history, political ecology and anthropology can improve our understanding of human-wildlife coexistence in India as well as across the world.
Wildlife conservation and management (WCM) practices have been historically drawn from a wide variety of academic fields, yet practitioners have been slow to engage with emerging conversations about animals as complex beings, whose individuality and sociality influence their relationships with humans. We propose an explicit acknowledgement of wild, nonhuman animals as active participants in WCM. We examined 190 studies of WCM interventions and outcomes to highlight 3 common assumptions that underpin many present approaches to WCM: animal behaviors are rigid and homogeneous; wildlife exhibit idealized wild behavior and prefer pristine habitats; and human–wildlife relationships are of marginal or secondary importance relative to nonhuman interactions. We found that these management interventions insufficiently considered animal learning, decision‐making, individuality, sociality, and relationships with humans and led to unanticipated detrimental outcomes. To address these shortcomings, we synthesized theoretical advances in animal behavioral sciences, animal geographies, and animal legal theory that may help conservation professionals reconceptualize animals and their relationships with humans. Based on advances in these fields, we constructed the concept of animal agency, which we define as the ability of animals to actively influence conservation and management outcomes through their adaptive, context‐specific, and complex behaviors that are predicated on their sentience, individuality, lived experiences, cognition, sociality, and cultures in ways that shape and reshape shared human–wildlife cultures, spaces, and histories. Conservation practices, such as compassionate conservation, convivial conservation, and ecological justice, incorporate facets of animal agency. Animal agency can be incorporated in conservation problem‐solving by assessing the ways in which agency contributes to species’ survival and by encouraging more adaptive and collaborative decision‐making among human and nonhuman stakeholders. Article impact statement: Incorporating animal agency into wildlife conservation and management can lead to more effective, nuanced, and just outcomes. Aunque las prácticas de gestión y conservación de fauna (GCF) han partido históricamente de una gama amplia de áreas académicas, los practicantes se han visto lentos para participar en las conversaciones emergentes sobre los animales como seres complejos, cuya individualidad y sociabilidad influyen sobre sus relaciones con los humanos. Proponemos un reconocimiento explícito de los animales no humanos silvestres como participantes activos en la GCF. Para esto, examinamos 190 estudios sobre las intervenciones y los resultados de GCF para resaltar tres supuestos comunes que respaldan a muchas estrategias actuales de GCF: el comportamiento animal es rígido y homogéneo, la fauna exhibe un comportamiento silvestre idealizado y prefiere hábitats prístinos, y las relaciones humano‐fauna son de importancia marginal o secundaria en relación con las interacciones no humanas. Descubrimos que estas intervenciones de gestión no consideran lo suficientemente el aprendizaje, toma de decisiones, individualidad, sociabilidad y relaciones con los humanos de los animales, por lo que llevan a resultados imprevistos y perjudiciales. Para lidiar con estas limitaciones, sintetizamos los avances teóricos que han tenido las ciencias dedicadas al comportamiento animal, la geografía animal y la teoría legal animal que pueden ayudar a los profesionales de la conservación a reformular el concepto de animal y sus relaciones con los humanos. Con base en los avances en estas áreas construimos el concepto de agencia animal, el cual definimos como la habilidad que tienen los animales para influir activamente sobre la conservación y los resultados de manejo por medio de su comportamiento adaptativo, complejo y específico al contexto, los cuales están basados en su sensibilidad, individualidad, experiencias vividas, conocimiento, sociabilidad y culturas, de manera que construyen y reconstruyen las culturas, espacios e historias humano‐fauna. Las prácticas de conservación, como la conservación compasiva, la conservación acogedora y la justicia ecológica, incorporan facetas de la agencia animal. La agencia animal puede incorporarse en la solución de los problemas de conservación al evaluar las formas en las que la agencia contribuye a la supervivencia de la especie y al alentar una toma de decisiones más adaptativa y colaborativa entre los actores humanos y los no humanos. 【摘要】野生动物保护和管理的实践历来来自于各种学术领域, 但动物作为复杂生命体, 其个性和社会性影响着它们与人类的关系, 因此实践者很难跟上关于动物不断涌现的讨论。我们建议应明确承认野生非人类动物是野生动物保护和管理的积极参与者。我们调查了关于野生动物保护和管理的干预和结果的190项研究, 并指出目前许多野生动物保护和管理方法的三个常见假设:动物行为是刻板和同质的;野生动物表现出理想化的野生行为, 喜欢原始的栖息地;相比于动物与非人类的互动, 人类与野生动物的关系是边缘或次要的。我们发现这些管理干预措施没有充分考虑到动物的学习、决策、个性、社会性以及与人类的关系, 引起了意想不到的有害结果。为了解决这些缺陷, 我们综合了动物行为科学、动物地理学和动物法律理论方面的理论进展, 这些知识有助于保护专家重新认识动物及其与人类的关系。这些学科深入研究了动物的知觉、适应性、个性、集体决策以及对人类共享环境的参与。基于这些领域的进展, 我们构建了动物能动性的概念, 定义为动物通过其适应性、特定环境和复杂的行为积极影响保护和管理结果的能力, 这些行为是建立在它们的知觉、个性、生活经验、认知、社会性和文化之上的, 其方式塑造和重塑了人类与野生动物共有的文化、空间和历史。保护实践, 如同情心保护、和谐性保护和生态正义, 都包含了动物能动性的各个层面。通过评估动物能动性对物种生存的贡献, 以及鼓励人类和非人类利益相关者之间更多的适应性和合作性决策, 可以将动物能动性纳入到保护问题的解决方案之中。【翻译: 胡怡思; 审校 : 聂永刚】
Full-text available
Biodiversity loss undermines the long-term maintenance of ecosystem functions and the well-being of human populations. Global-scale policy initiatives, including the Convention on Biological Diversity, have failed to curb the loss of biodiversity. This failure has led to contentious debates over alternative solutions that represent opposing visions of value-orientations and policy tools at the heart of conservation action. We review these debates and argue that they impede conservation progress by wasting time and resources, overlooking common goals, failing to recognize the need for diverse solutions, and ignoring the central question of who should be involved in the conservation process. Breaking with the polarizing debates, we argue that biocultural approaches to conservation can guide progress toward just and sustainable conservation solutions. We provide examples of the central principles of biocultural conservation, which emphasize the need for pluralistic, partnership-based, and dynamic approaches to conservation.
Full-text available
Conservation practice is informed by science, but also reflects ethical beliefs about how we ought to value and interact with the Earth's biota. As human activities continue to drive extinctions and diminish critical life‐sustaining ecosystem processes, achieving conservation goals becomes increasingly urgent. In our determination to react decisively, conservation challenges can be handled without due deliberation, particularly when wildlife individuals are sacrificed “for the greater good” of wildlife collectives (populations, species, ecosystems). With growing recognition of the widespread sentience and sapience of many nonhuman animals, standard conservation practices that categorically prioritize collectives without due consideration for the wellbeing of individuals are ethically untenable. Here we highlight three overarching ethical orientations characterizing current and historical practices in conservation that suppress compassion: instrumentalism, collectivism, and nativism. We illustrate how establishing a commitment to compassion could re‐orient conservation in more ethically expansive directions, which incorporate recognition of the intrinsic value of wildlife, the sentience of nonhuman animals, and the values of novel ecosystems, introduced species and their members. A compassionate conservation approach allays practices that intentionally and unnecessarily harm wildlife individuals, while aligning with critical conservation goals. Although the urgency of achieving effective outcomes for solving major conservation problems may enhance the appeal of quick and harsh measures, the costs are too high. Continuing to justify moral indifference when causing the suffering of wildlife individuals, particularly those who possess sophisticated capacities for emotion, consciousness, and sociality, risks estranging conservation practice from prevailing, and appropriate, social values. As conservationists and compassionate beings, we must demonstrate concern for both the long‐term persistence of collectives and the wellbeing of individuals, prioritizing strategies that do both.
Full-text available
Tourism and hunting both generate significant revenues for communities and private operators in Africa, but few studies have quantitatively examined the tradeoffs and synergies that may result from these two activities. Here, we evaluate financial and in-kind benefit streams from tourism and hunting on 77 communal conservancies in Namibia from 1998 to 2013, where community-based wildlife conservation has been promoted as a land-use that complements traditional subsistence agriculture. Across all conservancies, total benefits from hunting and tourism have grown at roughly the same rate, although conservancies typically start generating benefits from hunting within 3 years of formation as opposed to after 6 years for tourism. Disaggregation of data reveals the main benefits from hunting are income for conservancy management and meat to the community at large, while the majority of tourism benefits are salaried jobs at lodges. A simulated ban on trophy hunting significantly reduced the number of conservancies that were able to cover their operating costs, whereas eliminating income from tourism did not have as severe an effect. Given that the benefits generated from hunting and tourism typically begin at different times (earlier versus later, respectively) and flow to different segments of local communities, these two activities together can provide the greatest incentives for conservation. Notably, a singular focus on either hunting or tourism would likely reduce the value of wildlife as a competitive land-use option, and have serious negative implications for the viability of community-based conservation efforts in Namibia, and possibly in other parts of Africa.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved
Full-text available
Rabies is a notoriously underreported and neglected disease of low-income countries. This study aims to estimate the public health and economic burden of rabies circulating in domestic dog populations, globally and on a country-by-country basis, allowing an objective assessment of how much this preventable disease costs endemic countries. We established relationships between rabies mortality and rabies prevention and control measures, which we incorporated into a model framework. We used data derived from extensive literature searches and questionnaires on disease incidence, control interventions and preventative measures within this framework to estimate the disease burden. The burden of rabies impacts on public health sector budgets, local communities and livestock economies, with the highest risk of rabies in the poorest regions of the world. This study estimates that globally canine rabies causes approximately 59,000 (95% Confidence Intervals: 25-159,000) human deaths, over 3.7 million (95% CIs: 1.6-10.4 million) disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and 8.6 billion USD (95% CIs: 2.9-21.5 billion) economic losses annually. The largest component of the economic burden is due to premature death (55%), followed by direct costs of post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP, 20%) and lost income whilst seeking PEP (15.5%), with only limited costs to the veterinary sector due to dog vaccination (1.5%), and additional costs to communities from livestock losses (6%). This study demonstrates that investment in dog vaccination, the single most effective way of reducing the disease burden, has been inadequate and that the availability and affordability of PEP needs improving. Collaborative investments by medical and veterinary sectors could dramatically reduce the current large, and unnecessary, burden of rabies on affected communities. Improved surveillance is needed to reduce uncertainty in burden estimates and to monitor the impacts of control efforts.
Caught between deepening ecological, climate, and economic crises, marginal and small farmers in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh have been systematically pushed out of dairy and other livestock livelihoods. The growing political environment in India, openly supportive of cow-related hate crimes in the name of upholding anti-slaughter laws, is further destroying farmer livelihoods. Smallholder farmers are organising in creative ways, radically opposed to the dominant policy recommendation, in order to counter this situation and build climate and economic resilience that is socially just.
Human-wildlife conflict is a growing problem worldwide wherever humans share landscapes with large predators, and negative encounters with eight species of the crocodilians is particularly widespread. Conservationists’ responses to these adverse encounters have focused on the ecological and behavioural aspects of predators, rather than on the social, political, and cultural contexts which have threatened their existence in the first place. Few studies have thusfar tried to understand the rich, varied, contradictory and complex relations that exist between particular humans and human societies, and particular predators and groups of predators. It is in the spirit of Brian Morris’s explorations of the interactional encounters and co-produced sociabilities that exist between humans and animals in specific places and regions that this paper offers a cultural herpetology (an account of human-crocodile interrelations) of the Nile crocodile (Crocodilus niloticus and C. suchus) in Africa. It draws on extensive historical documentation of the interactions of humans and crocodiles across Africa to examine how diverse and complex human responses to Nile crocodiles have been, and continue to be, and suggests some implications for improving human-crocodile relations.
The relationships between humans and large carnivores are complex and dynamic. In this article, we explore the emergence of two such relations through a case study from India, where humans and leopards share space and resources. These relations between humans and leopards emerge from two distinct ontological practices. One is the “modern” practice of conservation in which the human-leopard relationship is shaped through the creation of dichotomies. The other is a “nonmodern” practice that locates humans and leopards in a constellation of moral and social relations. In this article, we compare these two practices to highlight their inherent power dynamics and argue that both operate simultaneously by co-opting and accommodating each other. Theoretically, we argue that these interactions emerge from a located history of relations negotiated and ordered through the actions of different actors.
“Animism” is projected in the literature as simple religion and a failed epistemology, to a large extent because it has hitherto been viewed from modernist perspectives. In this paper previous theories, from classical to recent, are critiqued. An ethnographic example of a hunter‐gatherer people is given to explore how animistic ideas operate within the context of social practices, with attention to local constructions of a relational personhood and to its relationship with ecological perceptions of the environment. A reformulation of their animism as a relational epistemology is offered.