Comment
The fatal flaws of compassionate conservation
Meera Anna Oommen,1 Rosie Cooney,2,3 Madhuri Ramesh,1 Michael Archer,4 Daniel Brockington,5
Bram Buscher,6,7,8 Robert Fletcher,6 Daniel J.D. Natusch,9 Abi T. Vanak,10,11,12
Grahame Webb,13,14,15 and Kartik Shanker 1,16 ∗
1
Dakshin Foundation, 1818, 5th Main, 9th Cross, Sahakar Nagar C Block, Bengaluru 560092, India
IUCN CEESP/SSC Sustainable Use and Livelihoods Specialist Group, c/ Rue Mauverney 28, 1196, Gland, Switzerland
3
Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, 0200 ACT, Australia
4
PANGEA Research Center, School of Biological, Earth & Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales Sydney, NSW,
2052, Australia
5
Sheffield Institute for International Development, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, South Yorkshire S10 2TN, U.K.
6
Sociology of Development and Change, Wageningen University, De Leeuwenborch, Hollandseweg 1, 6707 Wageningen, KN, The
Netherlands
7
Department of Geography, Environmental Management and Energy Studies, University of Johannesburg, South Africa
8
Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa
9
Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia
10
Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation, ATREE Royal Enclave, Sriramapura, Jakkur Post, Bengaluru 560064, India
11
School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa
12
DBT/Wellcome Trust India Alliance Fellow, Hyderabad, India
13
Wildlife Management International Pty. Limited, P.O. Box 530 Karama, NT, 0813 Australia
14
Research Institute for the Environment and Livelihoods, Charles Darwin University, Darwin, NT, 0909, Australia
15
IUCN-SSC Crocodile Specialist Group, c/ Rue Mauverney 28, 1196, Gland, Switzerland
16
Centre for Ecological Sciences Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, 560012, India
2
Introduction
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. 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
resources.
Instead, Wallach et al. (2018) champion the cause of
wildlife individuals as the primary focus for action under
the framework of compassionate conservation. According to them, compassionate conservation “aims to safeguard Earth’s biological diversity while retaining a commitment 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
attempt to argue that compassionate conservation is the
ethically most defensible approach to conservation. We
agree that compassion is a laudable attribute, and support efforts to ensure ethical treatment of animals and
to reduce unnecessary suffering. But, Wallach et al. propose 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 conceptualized by Wallach et al. is seriously flawed. Compassion 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
∗ email
kshanker@gmail.com
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.
1
Conservation Biology, Volume 0, No. 0, 1–4
C 2019 Society for Conservation Biology
DOI: 10.1111/cobi.13329
2
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 conservation practice requires that conservation professionals
recognize the outcomes and consequences of their recommendations 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 ecology, anthropology, psychology, and history; ignore and
potentially threaten the lives, livelihoods, and worldviews of indigenous peoples and local communities, especially resource-dependent communities in the developing world; and are simplistic in that they expect that
one moral code can be applied globally without compromising ethical and moral obligations to humans.
Moreover, the evidence Wallach et al. assembled to
support compassionate conservation is far from convincing. To highlight their erroneous assertions, we examine
the limitations of their proposed universal moral code
based on sentience. We also question their portrayal of India, 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 consequentialist 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 conservationists indulging in moral extensionism or humanization 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 process. 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 often 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 conservation from the perspective of virtue ethics, their ideas
contribute to a distinct culture of personalizing and anthropomorphizing animals. Jepson et al. (2011) point out
that transposing such concepts (e.g., elephants as companion species) to species involved in human-wildlife
conflict trivializes the devastating violence people living
Conservation Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2019
Compassionate Conservation Flaws
in shared spaces have to contend with. They call for the
inclusion of more subaltern and local views and specifically 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 involved in significant conflict—is located within networks
of reciprocal relations. Compassion and reverence for animals 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 companionship. Even dangerous species are incorporated
into such frameworks, and individual animals involved in
conflict are treated differently but in accordance with local 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 jurisprudence (the origins of which are highly antisecular), supposed low meat consumption, assumed general 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 described as compassionate and successful only if enduring and widespread brutality, impoverishment, coercion,
and exclusion of marginalized communities by elites are
ignored.
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 comparison 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
3
Oommen et al.
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 considered polluting by the dominant (typically vegetarian)
castes and are subject to public criticism. While the recent 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 lynchings, in which people from minority groups have been
killed for allegedly killing cows. Escalating communal violence 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 socially 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 increasing 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 rabies (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.
Conclusion
There are fundamental flaws with compassionate conservation. 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 environmental 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, regardless 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 conservationists, biologists, and social scientists, we argue that
conservation needs to be responsive to the complexity
of real-world situations. Theoretical platforms for conservation that ignore empirical practice and political contestation 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 independent of regional factors or local politics (Gavin et al.
2018). We therefore argue for a broader, culturally informed 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 http://www.censusindia.gov.
in/vital_statistics/BASELINE%20TABLES07062016.pdf (accessed August 2018).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2015.
The state of food insecurity in the world. FAO, Rome. Available from
http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4646e.pdf. (accessed August 2018).
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). 2018.
Meat market review. FAO, Rome. Available from http://www.
fao.org/3/I9286EN/i9286en.pdf (accessed August 2018).
Fukuda Y, Webb G, Manolis C, Delaney R, Letnic M, Lindner G, Whitehead P. 2011. Recovery of saltwater crocodiles following unregulated 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 dynamic, pluralistic, partnership-based approaches. Sustainability 10
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061846.
Ghosal S, Kjosavik DJ. 2015. Living with leopards: negotiating morality and modernity in western India. Society and Natural Resources
28:1092–1107.
Guha R. 1989. Radical American environmentalism and wilderness
preservation: a Third World critique. Environmental Ethics 11:71–
83.
Hampson K, et al. 2015. Estimating the global burden of endemic canine rabies. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 9 https://doi.org/
10.1371/journal.pntd.0003709.
Jacobson SK, McDuff MD. 1998. Training idiot savants: the lack of
human dimensions in conservation biology. Conservation Biology
12:263–267.
Jepson P, Barua M, Ladle RJ, Buckingham K. 2011. Towards an intradisciplinary biogeography: a response to Lorimer’s ‘lively biogeographies’ 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 representative mortality survey. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases 5
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pntd.0001018.
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
4
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.
Conservation Biology
Volume 0, No. 0, 2019
Compassionate Conservation Flaws
Saberwal V, Kothari A. 1996. The human dimension in conservation
biology curricula in developing countries. Conservation Biology
10:1328–1331.
Wallach AD, Bekoff M, Batavia C, Nelson MP, Ramp D. 2018. Summoning compassion to address the challenges of conservation. Conservation Biology 32:1255–1265.