Envisioning the future with ‘compassionate conservation’: An ominous projection for native wildlife and biodiversity

Abstract

The 'Compassionate Conservation' movement is gaining momentum through its promotion of 'ethical' conservation practices based on self-proclaimed principles of 'first-dono-harm' and 'individuals matter'. We argue that the tenets of 'Compassionate Conservation' are ideological-that is, they are not scientifically proven to improve conservation outcomes, yet are critical of the current methods that do. In this paper we envision a future with 'Compassionate Conservation' and predict how this might affect global biodiversity conservation. Taken literally, 'Compassionate Conservation' will deny current conservation practices such as captive breeding, introduced species control, biocontrol, conservation fencing, translocation, contraception, disease control and genetic introgression. Five mainstream conservation practices are used to illustrate the far-reaching and dire consequences for global biodiversity if governed by 'Compassionate Conservation'. We acknowledge the important role of animal welfare science in conservation practices but argue that 'Compassionate Conservation' aligns more closely with animal liberation principles protecting individuals over populations. Ultimately we fear that a world of 'Compassionate Conservation' could stymie the global conservation efforts required to meet international biodiversity targets derived from evidenced based practice, such as the Aichi targets developed by the Convention on Biological Diversity and adopted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the United Nations.

I Am a Compassionate Conservation Welfare Scientist: Considering the Theoretical and Practical Differences Between Compassionate Conservation and Conservation Welfare

“…While Wallach et al offer suffering alongside those animals that are harmed as the appropriate course of action for Compassionate Conservationists, this does not progress our understanding of, or ability to avoid or reduce, such suffering in the future. This lack of clarity poses a real risk to the advancement of individual wild animal welfare in conservation decision-making [6,27,76,145] and highlights, for me, the value of differentiating the more permissive (though imperfect) Conservation Welfare approach.…”

“…To set the scene, I will first briefly characterize the key features of each discipline, including the commonly referenced ethical bases. This is not a straightforward task, particularly as Compassionate Conservation is an evolving discipline and not fully articulated in the literature [7,25,26] and there appears to be some confusion about the ethical basis of its four tenets and their practical application [6,22,[26][27][28].…”

“…Here, Conservation Welfare proponents take an intermediate position (and have been criticized by both Compassionate Conservationists and 'traditional' conservationists [19,47]), i.e., they acknowledge the desire of many to 'manage' such animals, but advocate doing so in ways that minimize the harm inflicted as well as developing less harmful methods [17,35]. While inadequate for many Compassionate Conservation proponents, this more moderate 'incremental improvement' approach may gain more traction with traditional conservationists [6,27,28,76] and thus generate large scale change more quickly. My own aim, and that of many other conservation welfare scientists, is to contribute to the development of new conservation paradigms that give greater weight to animal welfare alongside factors such as efficacy and cost when making decisions [17,39,41,46,52,77,78].…”

“…These include excluding or deterring wild animals from valued resources or areas using physical and visual barriers or guarding dogs, relocating 'problem' individuals and applying fertility control or encouraging natural predation to keep populations in check [5,31]. But the assumptions that such methods are effective in achieving other conservation goals (e.g., preserving populations or biodiversity) or that they minimize harm to the target animals are not always supported [22,27,[85][86][87][88]. It is currently unclear how complex dilemmas between lethal control of unwanted animals to protect other animals and resources and existing peaceably without causing harm can be resolved following Compassionate Conservation [26].…”

Consequences Matter: Compassion in Conservation Means Caring for Individuals, Populations and Species

“…Direct observation strongly suggests severe suffering for many of the individuals affected [29]. Callen et al [30] provided other vivid examples of where a 'do nothing' policy can lead. Failure to cull feral horses in Australia, for example, has resulted in the starvation of thousands of individual horses (as well as environmental damage).…”