What is Conservation?2024-12-23T13:38:20+00:00

What is Conservation?

Tess Gatan Balbas, Mabuwaya Foundation. Image © Merlijn Van Weerd

Our Chief Scientific Adviser, Dr Simon Stuart, explores what nature conservation really means, trying to keep a balance between, on the one hand, clarity to a non-specialist audience, and on the other hand, not shying away from some of the most difficult and challenging issues.

What is conservation?

It’s obvious isn’t it? It’s all about saving nature; trying to keep all the beautiful places, species and habitats – in short, the wonders of the natural world – on this Earth.

The Cambridge English Dictionary defines conservation as “protection of plants and animals, natural areas”.

One of the earliest attempts within the conservation community to grapple with the meaning of conservation can be found in The World Conservation Strategy published by IUCN in 1980. Here the objectives of conservation are given as follows:

  1. To maintain essential ecological processes and life support systems;
  2. To preserve genetic diversity; and
  3. To ensure the sustainable utilisation of species and ecosystems.

We could go into a long, academic discussion of the different definitions of conservation, but that is not our purpose here. The general, popular understanding of conservation is indeed well understood. And yet there are some problems, particularly in defining what conservation does and does not include.

What’s in and what’s out?

Although the term conservation might seem to be well defined, conservationists have struggled over what it does and does not include. Six issues stand out:

It is possible to use species sustainably over the long term – that is without causing them to disappear or go into a lasting decline. An example of sustainable use would be, for example, a well-managed fishery where the harvest levels are carefully monitored and kept well within sustainable limits so that the fish population remains stable. An example of highly unsustainable use is the current illegal trade in African and Asian pangolin species, all of which are in serious decline.

Some species are much easier to use sustainably than others. As a general rule, it is easier to use fast-breeding species than slow-breeding species. Conservationists differ on whether or not conservation includes sustainable use. The World Conservation Strategy included sustainable use as part of conservation, but the Convention on Biological Diversity (the over-arching treaty between governments on nature and conservation) treats conservation and sustainable use as two separate things.

Conservationists are probably never going to agree on this point. Some find it easier to include, for example, sustainable harvesting of medicinal plants within conservation than, say, sustainable hunting. When actions are taken to reduce the level of use (for example reducing fishing quotas to sustainable levels), it can be easier to consider that as conservation than, for instance, starting a sustainable use programme for a species that is not currently being used (for example introducing large mammals to private land in South Africa for hunting by tourists). On the other hand, if a programme to use a previously unused species sustainably causes that species to spread and recover (as has happened with large mammals across much of southern Africa), is that conservation? There are huge differences of opinion among conservationists on these sorts of issues.

In 1987, the Brundtland Commission, in its report Our Common Future, famously defined sustainable development as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.

It is easy to agree that, were economic development to proceed along such lines (and sadly for the most part it does not), that would be much less damaging for species and natural ecosystems than what usually happens. But is sustainable development a form of conservation? Again, opinion is strongly divided. Some would claim that benefitting the wellbeing of people, while obviously a ‘good thing’, is not conservation. They can point to numerous sustainable development projects around the world that led to no effective conservation of species and ecosystems. However, others would argue that conservation cannot take place outside a social and economic context, and that community engagement and human wellbeing are inextricably linked to effective conservation. These people can also produce evidence to support their case, drawing on many “community-based natural resource management” projects as examples. There is indeed a growing body of evidence that indicates that if a local community benefits from conservation, it is more likely to participate in long-term conservation action.

This is probably another issue that will never be entirely resolved. Some forms of economic development are clearly outside the scope of conservation. On the other hand, conservation does sometimes bring livelihood benefits to local communities, for example providing employment, business opportunities, and the like.

Conservation has often been seen as a desperate attempt to hold the line against rapacious development and economic forces. The notion of reversing declining trends of species and habitats, bringing species back to where they once were (reintroduction), or restoring ecosystems, or even whole landscapes (rewilding) has been around for a long time, but has only become a major focus in the last decade or so.

At its most ambitious, certain forms of rewilding can be controversial, especially if they involve moving species outside their natural ranges or displacing people from their homes. But as a general rule, conservationists have become more ambitious in recent years, seeing their work as fighting back against the tide, and not merely holding the line. And certainly, given the enormous amount of damage that humans have done to the planet, concepts such a rewilding are sure to grow and be seen as more mainstream.

At first sight, it would seem obvious that caring for individual animals is part of conservation. However, most, though not all, conservationists would see animal welfare and conservation as rather different things.

Counter-intuitively, practical conservation often involves the death of animals. Even leaving aside the controversial issue of sustainable hunting, the following conservation activities can lead to the killing of animals: removal of invasive species that are wiping out threatened native species; species reintroductions (which almost always involve high mortality rates of animals); control of wildlife diseases; dealing with human-wildlife conflict; predator control to allow other species to recover; and addressing the over-abundance of certain species (for example controlling gull populations so that terns can breed).

Most conservationists would see these activities as integral to any definition of conservation, because without them certain species will go extinct; but some in the animal welfare community would disagree. This is another issue on which there will never be 100% agreement.

Unfortunately, it is no longer possible to save all species in the wild. We have no immediate solutions for some of the threats they face (for example, we don’t currently have the means to cure some new wildlife diseases). As a result, increasing numbers of species are being bred in captivity, typically in zoos, aquaria and botanic gardens, in order to buy time until solutions can be found for the threats in the wild. This is often referred to as ex situ conservation.

But some have been opposed to considering captive breeding as part of conservation; some are even opposed to captive breeding itself. This is a minority, but vocal, view in conservation. When all the remaining California Condors were brought into captivity in the 1980s, some activists opposed this and called for the species to be allowed to “go extinct with dignity”. However, since 1987 the population grew from 27 to several hundred birds, most of them now back in the wild. Most conservationists would accept captive breeding as part of conservation, but would never see it as a desirable end-result.

Conservation involves a great deal of research. Topics can include: surveying, developing new practical conservation techniques, understanding what the problems for a species or ecosystem are and how they can be addressed, or assessing the status of a species for inclusion in the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Some conservationists state that such activities are a support to conservation, but are not conservation itself. It is true that research on its own does not save anything. But without research it is often impossible to know what the right thing to do is. As in many disciplines, however, there tends to be a bit of tension between the academic researchers in their ‘ivory towers’ and the practical conservationists who get their hands dirty on the ‘real thing’. But in many respects, the debate as to whether or not research is part of conservation is itself academic. We need research in order to proceed.

But hang on a minute, isn’t this article tediously missing the point with all its discussion of definitions of, and boundaries for, conservation? Surely we are missing the heart and soul of conservation here? Why do we want to conserve anything in the first place?

The Ethics of Conservation

Why do we bother to conserve anything? For most of those actively involved in conservation, our motivation is clear. We conserve nature as an ethical choice. We value the wild species and natural habitats with which we share this planet, not solely for what they give us, but also as having their own right to exist and flourish. We reject any notion that suggests that species should pay their own way in order to have a right to be here on the Earth with us. This intrinsic value of nature has been formally recognised by governments, for example in the Preamble to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) agreed in 1973:

The Contracting States,

Recognising that wild fauna and flora in their many beautiful and varied forms are an irreplaceable part of the natural systems of the earth which must be protected for this and the generations to come;

Conscious of the ever-growing value of wild fauna and flora from aesthetic, scientific, cultural, recreational and economic points of view;

Recognising that peoples and States are and should be the best protectors of their own wild fauna and flora;

Recognising, in addition, that international co-operation is essential for the protection of certain species of wild fauna and flora against over-exploitation through international trade;

Convinced of the urgency of taking appropriate measures to this end, have agreed as follows…

However, the Preamble to CITES also recognises other values of nature beyond the intrinsic. It refers to the aesthetic, scientific, recreational and economic values of nature. All of these are values placed on nature by humans. In recent years, as conservationists have fought harder and harder to convince others of the need for nature conservation, we have appealed more and more to the utilitarian or instrumental values of nature, because we believe, rightly or wrongly, that arguments for conservation based on intrinsic values alone will not be sufficient to persuade, for example, governments or the private sector.

There is no question that nature does provide benefits to people, including economic benefits. For example, forest conserved on water catchments maintains a year-round flow of clean water in streams. Many species produce products that are commercially valuable, for example as medicine, food, or products such as wood. And there are whole industries based on nature, such as ecotourism, fisheries and forestry. Natural ecosystems also play critical roles in sequestering carbon (thus reducing climate change impacts), or preventing soil erosion, or providing coastline defence (for example coral reefs and mangroves), or providing for spiritual enrichment and recreational enjoyment (so-called cultural services). As noted earlier, conservation programmes can bring benefits for local communities, but sometimes the human beneficiaries of ecosystem services are far distant from the site of the conservation programme (as with climate regulation services for example). All these benefits that nature provides to humanity go by the technical term ‘ecosystem services’. More recently conservationists have started to use the term ‘natural capital’ to refer to ‘capital’ needed in terms of species and ecosystems in order to deliver the ‘ecosystem services’ on which people depend.

Discussions along these lines have led to serious debates within the conservation community on our underlying values. Some adherents to so-called ‘new conservation’ have claimed that we should conserve nature only for the human benefits it provides. At the opposite extreme, others have claimed that we should conserve nature only for its intrinsic value. In the middle are those who emphasise that our fundamental conservation ethic is based on intrinsic values, but that in order to advance the conservation agenda and to win others over, we can make tactical use of nature’s instrumental values. This debate is made more complex by the fact that people are inevitably part of nature; we all live in an ecosystem whether we like it or not.

Debates have become particularly heated when some proponents of natural capital have started to put monetary values on nature. Many of those that emphasise intrinsic values believe that this is ethically wrong. The danger of putting a monetary value on, say, a forest, is that it could give justification for destroying that forest if the monetary value of an alternative, destructive land-use is higher. This is not solely an academic debate. At the time of writing, there is a proposal to destroy the Atewa Forest in Ghana because it is sitting on top of a valuable bauxite deposit. But the Atewa Forest includes many species that occur nowhere else in the world. Mining the bauxite will mean extinction for these species.

As a result of such instances, many intrinsic conservationists have become very wary of terms such as ‘ecosystem services’ or ‘natural capital’. But to be fair, by no means all proponents of ecosystem services or natural capital arguments support putting a monetary value on nature; rather they feel that such concepts are a useful way to persuade decision-makers of the multiple reasons for conserving nature.

The fierce debate on nature’s values still rages on. Is it still realistic to expect that we can help to protect nature for nature’s sake, for the intrinsic value of other species? Or is couching conservation in economic terms – natural capital, ecosystem services – the only realistic hope there is for protecting biodiversity? The fact that this debate is even happening is a demonstration of the stark disconnection from nature which has taken place in our society – surely, we shouldn’t need to be convinced of the value of nature, and yet evidence shows that we do. Increasingly in Synchronicity Earth we wonder if this is a productive discussion. We should unashamedly embrace all of nature’s values. But we also seek to change hearts and minds to embrace nature’s intrinsic values, and to insist that nature should never be required to pay its own way.

But does conservation actually work?

If we really care about nature, then surely conservation has to be practical; it needs to work. Everything we hear on the news seems to say the opposite: nature continues to go down the tube; extinction rates are increasing; new threats like climate change are emerging; and beautiful places are being destroyed before our eyes. All this is true; and yet, paradoxically, there is increasing evidence that conservation is working. How so?

Surely, if things are getting worse, it is obvious that conservation is failing. Well, no. For sure, the overall situation is getting worse, but not as fast as would be the case if we were doing no conservation at all. For example, in 2006, scientists at BirdLife International showed that conservation action had prevented 16 bird species from going extinct during the 1994-2004 time period. In 2014, scientists from the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust found that sustained conservation action from 1988 to 2012 resulted in eight species being down-listed to lower categories of threat on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (meaning they are now less at risk of extinction). In a pivotal study in 2015, a group of researchers from the IUCN Species Survival Commission found that without conservation action that took place between 1996 and 2008, the status of the world’s ungulates (deer, antelopes, cattle and their relatives) would have been nearly eight times worse (as measured by the IUCN Red List Index) than was actually observed.

The Synchronicity Earth view

In conclusion, we should say a little about what Synchronicity Earth thinks about some of the issues raised in this article. By design we have a team with diverse expertise and views. But we also stand by some clear values.

We strongly support the intrinsic value of nature as our basic reason for doing conservation. It is our love for the wild species on this Earth, and the beauty of its natural habitats, that keeps us motivated every day to fight on behalf of nature. Conservation action is of course highly context-dependent, but we believe that the intrinsic value of nature should nevertheless underpin all the conservation initiatives that we support. However, we also recognise that ecosystem services and natural capital are not abstract or artificial concepts – they are real! Part of the wonder of nature is the benefits that it brings to people. This is something that we celebrate.

Synchronicity Earth is particularly concerned about the forgotten and overlooked species and places that are falling through the cracks of the worldwide conservation effort. We look for the most important needs that are receiving the least funding and support. This is why we have programmes in the Congo Basin, in the High and Deep Seas, and on amphibian conservation, all of which are urgent needs and which are highly neglected by existing funding programmes. This is also why have programmes focusing on freshwater biodiversity and on threatened Asian species, both of which are in need of a far greater level of conservation attention and funding.

Synchronicity Earth seeks to be collaborative with others. This includes supporting organisations that empower local communities to take their own conservation actions, such as the work being done by many of our partners in the Congo Basin supporting community forestry initiatives; and partnering with other donors and conservation organisations to develop new partnerships, such as one we have developed on the Critically Endangered White-bellied Heron in Bhutan and India. It also means we have partners, rather than grantees – we value the honest and open relationships we develop with our partners, and seek to learn from them about how we can provide the most valuable support.

Although we are driven by a strong conservation ethic, we recognise that there are many different views on how to achieve conservation. We try to learn from and with others and to respect those who have different views to us. Within our over-arching conservation ethic, we need to be a broad family, and to embrace each other, to learn, and develop new ideas together. We try to do this within our organisation, and through our partnership with others.

It’s an exciting journey; we don’t always know where it is leading but we are sure that in the process, we and others will achieve a lot for conservation.

Go to Top