A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate

International disparities in conservation priorities are more complicated than Global North-Global South divisions

Two enduring ideological divisions in biodiversity conservation concern whether conservation should prioritize (i) the interests of people or wild animals and (ii) the interests of individual animals or groups of animals. Public debates suggest that people living in the Global North more strongly prioritize the interests of wild animals over people and the interests of individual animals over groups of animals. To examine this possibility, we measured and compared conservation priorities across 10 international publics living in rural and urban areas of sub-Saharan Africa, the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK). Overall, distant respondents (i.e. living in the UK, USA and urban sub-Saharan Africa) more strongly prioritized the interests of wild animals over people and the interests of individual animals over groups of animals. Moreover, variation among local publics (i.e. living in high-biodiversity areas of rural sub-Saharan Africa) was greater than among distant publics. Our findings illuminate how ideological divisions may complicate international biodiversity conservation, especially around controversial topics such as culling, hunting, transloaction and protected-areas management. Policies and programmes more acceptable to distant people may be less acceptable to local people, creating difficulties for decision-makers charged with balancing biodiversity conservation alongside the values, needs, interests and concerns of multiple publics.

Mapping the patriarchy in conservation

It is essential to ensure the effectiveness of current conservation efforts to meet the interconnected crises of biodiversity loss, habitat degradation, and climate change. In this article, we discuss one aspect that undermines conservation's effectiveness while at the same time being underexplored in the academic and political discourse on conservation: patriarchal norms and structures. We argue that these norms and structures, which promote male supremacy and inequality, are central to driving environmental destruction. Many conservation programs unintentionally reinforce patriarchal thinking, thereby undermining their effectiveness. We provide examples of how patriarchy influences conservation, such as the precarious position of women (Working Conditions for Women in Conservation), the treatment of animals (Violence against animals), the suppression of particular forms of knowledge (Science and knowledge production), militarization trends in conservation (Securitization and militarization of conservation enforcement), and the financialization of nature (The monetary valuation of nature). We conclude that patriarchal norms and structures within conservation must be questioned and dismantled to make conservation more effective and just.

The use and abuse of moral theories in conservation debate about killing animals

Recent ethical debate about compassionate conservation has invoked moral theories to oppose or support traditional practices of killing animals to protect biodiversity and ecosystems. The debate has featured the mainstream moral theories of consequentialism and utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. We identify problematic applications and critique of these moral theories in conservation discussions. Problems include a lack of clarity when invoking moral theories, misunderstanding and mischaracterizing theories, and overlooking features and circumstances affecting a theory's application. A key omission in the debate is a detailed discussion of the moral significance of animals and nature. We then examine the role of moral theory as such in ethical discussion, contrasting moral theory with ethical outlooks that center, for example, forms of love and care. Our aim is to advance the ethical debate about harming animals in conservation.

Benchmarking Giant Panda Welfare in Tourism: A Co-Design Approach for Animals, Tourists, Managers, and Researchers

This study introduces a co-design benchmarking framework to understand tourists' perceptions of animal welfare, integrating diverse perspectives from tourists, researchers, and animals. By leveraging scientific theories to establish benchmark dimensions, the framework is refined through visitor input, ensuring a robust and adaptable methodological tool for assessing tourists' perceptions and animal informed consent in wildlife tourism. Using the Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding as an example, we analyzed 4839 visitor comments collected from March to August 2023 to benchmark perceptions of giant panda welfare. This approach underscores the importance of effective communication in educational initiatives, aiming to enhance public literacy and knowledge about animal welfare. By addressing the complexity and variability in tourists' perceptions, the proposed framework contributes to more impactful conservation education efforts. The study demonstrates that a collaborative effort results in a benchmarking framework that is firmly grounded in theoretical foundations yet flexible enough to adapt based on visitors' insights and animal participation. Ultimately, this comprehensive approach ensures that educational initiatives resonate with tourists' diverse backgrounds, fostering a deeper understanding and commitment to animal welfare and conservation, which, we argue, should be key components of sustainable tourism.

Mitigating Human Impacts on Wild Animal Welfare

Human activities negatively impact the welfare of wild vertebrates in many different contexts globally, and countless individual animals are affected. Growing concern for wild animal welfare, especially in relation to conservation, is evident. While research on wild animal welfare lags behind that focused on captive animals, minimising human-induced harm to wild animals is a key principle. This study examines examples of negative anthropogenic impacts on wild animal welfare, how these may be mitigated and what further research is required, including examples from wildlife management, biodiversity conservation, wildlife tourism and wildlife trade. Further, it discusses the relationship between animal welfare and biodiversity conservation, and synergies that may be achieved between these. Ultimately, it is discussed how the welfare of wild animals may be balanced with other priorities to ensure that welfare is afforded due consideration in interactions between people and wildlife.

Re-Thinking Felid–Human Entanglements through the Lenses of Compassionate Conservation and Multispecies Studies

Simple Summary

Felids have long and complex historical associations with humans, ranging from fear and persecution to worship and care. With many felid species in widespread decline, re-thinking the messy entanglements of feline predators and human societies is a necessary step for fostering coexistence as current conservation frameworks that rely on the separation of people from nature are failing felids. Here, we explore two distinct but related interdisciplinary fields that, when put into dialogue with one another, offer novel perspectives and insights on felid–human relationships and conservation initiatives more broadly. We identified numerous similarities and emergent properties within compassionate conservation and multispecies studies, despite these fields arising from the sciences and social sciences and humanities respectively. Combined, reorientation of conservation values and practices to be morally inclusive of individual animals and their subjective experiences has the potential to support cohabitation and tolerance for felids, promoting multispecies flourishing.

Abstract

With many felid species in widespread decline, re-thinking the messy felid–human entanglements is a necessary step for fostering coexistence as current conservation frameworks centered on human exceptionalism and widespread violence toward wild animals are conspicuously failing felids. This paper argues for fostering a critical awareness of how we understand our relationships with nonhuman animals, particularly in the context of conservation. We bring two distinct but related interdisciplinary fields into a dialogue to critically question the values and conceptual assumptions that frame the practices of felid conservation today. Compassionate conservation and multispecies studies share many synergies and conceptual overlaps despite emerging from different academic domains. We identified four key areas for further exploration: (1) A shift in emphasis from practices of killing to the underlying assumptions that make forms of killing permissible and ethically unproblematic. (2) Re-engagement with individuals, not just species, in conservation settings. (3) Unsettling human exceptionalism through an emphasis on the agency of animals and an ethic involving compassion. (4) Acknowledging the ways in which humans co-become with other animals and cultivating relationships of multispecies cohabitation and flourishing.

Compassionate Conservation is indistinguishable from traditional forms of conservation in practice

Animal welfare and ethics are important factors influencing wildlife conservation practice, and critics are increasingly challenging the underlying ethics and motivations supporting common conservation practices. “Compassionate Conservationists” argue that all conservationists should respect the rights of individual sentient animals and approach conservation problems from a position of compassion, and that doing so requires implementing practices that avoid direct harm to individual animals. In this way Compassionate Conservationists seek to contrast themselves with “Traditional Conservationists” who often express consequentialist decision-making processes that ostensibly aim to dispassionately minimize net animal harms, resulting in the common use of practices that directly harm or kill some animals. Conservationists and other observers might therefore conclude that the two sides of this debate are distinct and/or that their policy proscriptions produce different welfare outcomes for animals. To explore the validity of this conclusion we review the ethical philosophies underpinning two types of Compassionate Conservation—deontology and virtue ethics. Deontology focusses on animal rights or the moral duties or obligations of conservationists, whereas virtue ethics focusses on acting in ways that are virtuous or compassionate. We demonstrate that both types permit the intentional harm and killing of animals when faced with common conservation problems where animals will be harmed no matter what the conservationist does or does not do. We then describe the applied decision-making processes exhibited by Compassionate Conservationists (of both types) and Traditional Conservationists to show that they may each lead to the implementation of similar conservation practices (including lethal control) and produce similar outcomes for animals, despite the perceived differences in their ethical motivations. The widespread presence of wildlife conservation problems that cannot be resolved without causing at least some harm to some animals means that conservationists of all persuasions must routinely make trade-offs between the welfare of some animals over others. Compassionate Conservationists do this from an explicit position of animal rights and/or compassion, whereas Traditional Conservationists respect animal rights and exhibit this same compassion implicitly. These observations lead to the conclusion that Compassionate Conservation is indistinguishable from traditional forms of conservation in practice, and that the apparent disagreement among conservationists primarily concerns the effectiveness of various wildlife management practices at minimizing animal harm, and not the underlying ethics, motivations or morality of those practices.

Individuals Matter: Dilemmas and Solutions in Conservation and Animal Welfare Practices in Zoos

Simple Summary

Reaching conservation objectives while upholding individual animal welfare standards presents a significant challenge for zoos, especially if some individual animal interests conflict with their conservation mission. However, the compassionate conservation movement offers a potential solution for facing such challenges by advocating for the consideration of individual animal interests as central to conservation decision making. Our objective is therefore to determine to what extent zoological parks recognize the intrinsic value of zoo animals, beyond being members of species or ecosystems, and how this recognition manifests. Through discourse analysis, interviews, and relevant printed sources, we analyze the discourses, or concepts and categorizations, by which actors—experts in the conservation, animal rights, welfare, and zoo fields—give meaning to zoo practices. We demonstrate ways in which these discourses shape the captivity, breeding, and culling practices of individual zoo animals in the name of conservation. We found that people justifying these practices within zoos fail to recognize the intrinsic value of individual animals beyond being members of species. However, within the zoo, welfare practices and education objectives increasingly focus on fulfilling individual animal interests.

Abstract

Compassionate conservation advocates for minimizing individual suffering in conservation practice and adheres to the principle “individuals matter”—intrinsically, in and of themselves. Our objective is to determine the extent to which, and how, zoos recognize the intrinsic value of wild individuals beyond their status as members of species or ecosystems. We analyzed discourses surrounding the Smithsonian National Zoo in the U.S.A., the zoos of the Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle in France, and the Seoul Grand Park Zoo in South Korea. Using existing literature on zoos, conservation, animal welfare, and rights, we distilled two discourses (justificatory and abolitionist). Through interviews with professionals in the zoo, conservation, welfare, and animal rights communities, we demonstrate how actors frame individual zoo animals as (1) sentient persons, (2) reproductive components, and (3) species ambassadors. Our analysis shows how actors’ views shape three zoo practices related to ex situ conservation: (1) captivity, (2) captive breeding, and (3) culling. This analysis revealed two significant findings. First, actors representing the justificatory discourse fail to frame animals as intrinsically valuable individuals. Second, within the constraints of the zoo, the intrinsic value of individual animals is recognized through welfare practices and education focused on fulfilling animal interests.