Conservation has traditionally focused on species or landscape extinction or destruction prevention, such as saving an animal from extinction or preventing the destruction of a particular ecosystem (rainforests, coral reefs). However, for chances of added success, conservation action needs to be holistic in its long-term view (Hausdorf, 2021) – this should involve considering how animals fit into their habitats and how humans interact with the biodiversity around them.
Compassionate conservation is an approach to conservation biology that emphasises the welfare of individual animals, human well-being and the conservation of species, habitats and ecosystems
Compassionate conservation is an approach to conservation biology that emphasises the welfare of individual animals, human well-being and the conservation of species, habitats and ecosystems (Bekoff, 2013). It seeks to address ethical concerns associated with traditional conservation practices that may not fully consider harm or suffering that can occur to the animals directly or indirectly involved or that may be dismissive of local human knowledge and experiences (Katz, 2024).
What is compassionate conservation?
Compassionate conservation (Figure 1) can be considered part of the “One Health” or “One Welfare” approach (Pinillos et al., 2016), where the interaction between animals, humans and the environment are all considered and worked with to maximise the success of conservation outputs. Integrating these three core elements should result in a conservation project that saves species from extinction while considering the role of all stakeholders and the wider benefits to the planet by restoring the function of lost or depleted biodiversity.
Building a compassionate approach that links animals, humans and the environment into conservation projects (such as the example presented in Figure 1) is especially significant when conservation takes place with managed populations under human care. Zoo-based conservation can also be compassionate. Compassionate conservation should not be a concept that is solely applied to those working in situ in a species’ native range states.
Managing populations ethically […] is a way of demonstrating conservation needs, being active to complete a conservation project and working with others to ensure the survival of a species
For example, although the idea of captive marine mammals can be controversial, there is no arguing against the greater negative impact on their wild populations from the unchecked effects of global climatic change. Therefore, from a One Health conservation perspective, managing populations ethically – including framing them in the IUCN’s One Plan approach to conservation (Byers et al., 2013) which gives equal weight to zoo and wild populations when evaluating which are going to be included in conservation work – is a way of demonstrating conservation needs, being active to complete a conservation project and working with others to ensure the survival of a species.
A working example
Several organisations have attempted to strategise, with the aim of defining an integrated conservation approach that best caters for the needs of all parties. Figure 2 is an example of this integration in the form of the Polar Bear Research Prospectus, which aims to answer big questions relating to the long-term survival of this species (Bechshoft et al., 2023).
This prospectus guides conservation action to benefit in situ (wild) and ex situ (zoo) individuals by focusing on the following key topics:
- Bear behaviour and physiology
- Biobanking and data management
- Disease and pathology
- Energetics and nutrition
- Field techniques for the monitoring and study of wild bears
Projects listed in the prospectus have different conservation priorities (high/moderate) and feasibility indicators that suggest the effort needed to execute the action. In this way, clear value is given to polar bears (wherever they occur), and the skills of the people involved in their management and stewardship are recognised and included. The environmental benefits are accrued from implementing the projects based on our greater understanding and appreciation of Arctic biodiversity and ecology.
This approach to polar bear conservation, which values all bears and those invested in them, is an example of compassionate conservation. The four key principles of the compassionate conservation approach are (Wallach et al., 2018):
- Do no harm: emphasise the importance of minimising harm to individual animals in conservation actions. For example, where possible and feasible, conservation biologists should encourage non-lethal methods and prioritise interventions that minimise suffering to all living beings influenced by conservation measures
- Respect individual animals: compassionate conservation recognises the intrinsic value of individual animals and respects their welfare and autonomy. Improved animal welfare can be promoted alongside conservation goals by advocating for the interests of the animals considered in decision-making processes
- Ensure inclusivity and collaboration: this approach promotes partnerships between conservation scientists, ethicists, animal welfare experts, indigenous communities and other relevant stakeholders to develop holistic and inclusive conservation strategies. Recognition of the importance of diverse perspectives and values in conservation decision making can ultimately strengthen how a project is implemented and managed
- Work towards peaceful coexistence: recognise that our primary instinct in conflict situations should be to critically examine our own practices and modify them accordingly rather than pursuing acts of aggression against wildlife
Why is compassionate conservation important?
Compassionate conservation] advocates for flexible and context-specific approaches that consider local social, cultural and ecological factors
Compassionate conservation acknowledges that conservation challenges vary across different contexts and ecosystems. It advocates for flexible and context-specific approaches (ie those relevant to a species within a specific habitat area, situation or range state) that consider local social, cultural and ecological factors. Therefore, education, advocacy and awareness are key to its success, so those working on compassionate conservation should emphasise the importance of public awareness in promoting core values and fostering empathy towards animals. Engaging the public in discussions about ethical considerations in conservation work can generate solutions to the ethical and ecological challenges conservation projects face.
Continuous evaluation and improvement are hallmarks of the compassionate conservation approach because reflection on ongoing practices helps to align them with ethical principles. Action can then be taken in the best interests of the ecosystem, focal species and human populations. The evidence-based approach can be further strengthened by adaptive management. This is a management style that supports flexibility in how the project is executed based on the information available, any new data presented, and concerns, suggestions and ideas from local people and other stakeholders.
Incorporating indigenous knowledge and views
For many species, including the polar bear (Miller et al., 2024), considering the viewpoints and experiences of indigenous peoples is essential when designing a conservation programme (Gadgil et al., 1993). Indigenous knowledge and acceptance are especially important for large-scale or complex conservation work, such as species reintroductions or translocations, habitat rewilding or other initiatives that will impact the wider landscape (eg planting trees to recreate forests or flooding grasslands to create wetlands).
Indigenous peoples possess invaluable traditional and ecological knowledge that stems from their living in close proximity to nature and has been accumulated over generations. The biodiversity they encounter holds deep cultural, spiritual and ceremonial significance, so conservation actions should respect and incorporate indigenous cultural values into ongoing work. Recognition of these values is achieved by using both accepted common names and local names for the species-integrated conservation programmes. Examples include recent projects on the Guam kingfisher, known as “sihek” and “Todiramphus cinnamominus” (SNZ, 2024), and the Hawaiian crow, or “‘alalā” and “Corvus hawaiiensis” (Barrett et al., 2024). By including local nomenclature, conservation management plans become more accepted and supported by local communities because they feel their traditional knowledge is appreciated and recognised.
Indigenous peoples also have inherent rights to their traditional lands and resources as recognised in international agreements such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) (UN General Assembly, 2007), which is a further crucial consideration when planning where conservation work can take place. Meaningful engagement with indigenous communities respects their rights to self-determination, land tenure and cultural heritage and this, in turn, creates a more equitable platform for conservation action to be based on.
Conclusion
Although conservation action may focus on animal or habitat survival goals, we must remember that, ultimately, conservation is all about people. Ensuring there is support and investment in the aims and objectives of a project from all stakeholders in the animal, place or project creates a more solid foundation for eventual successful completion (and, thus, a resulting enhancement in biodiversity and planetary health and well-being).
