Justifications, Problems, and Solutions
The broad goal of conservation biology is, according to experts from the American Museum of Natural History, is “to conserve global biodiversity” (Calcagonotto, Egan, and Lehn 2001). Small population conservation biology is a facet of conservation biology that deals with the more specific issue of trying to preserve endangered species that have extremely low populations, and the efforts to conserve these species can be very expensive. The question of whether or not this type of conservation biology is ethically justifiable is one that can be explored by examining the approach of small population conservation biology, examining a test case from the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) “Red List,” and using these examples to consider justifications, objections, and possible fixes concerning small population conservation biology.
The general approach of small population conservation biology includes several factors. This includes land purchase for reserves, breeding species in captivity, offering subsidies to farmers for land, examining genetic factors in species to determine viability, improving currently existing habitats, encouraging conservationist legislation in areas where endangered species exist, and prioritizing biodiversity protection efforts (Calcagonotto, Egan, and Lehn 2001, Lü and Garshelis 2008, Newbold and Siikamäki 2009, p. 1774). Because conservation biology includes many disciplines, including natural history, reproductive biology, philosophy, genetics, economics, biology, and biogeography, many different groups of people work towards positive outcomes for greater biodiversity (Calcagonotto, Egan, and Lehn 2001). For example, various disciplines of science such as climatologists, biologists, and geneticists may help in selecting ideal sites for new reserves, while activists lobby for the funding to make it happen, and local legislatures consider the policy, expense, and effects of creating the new reserves. The general approach of small population conservation biology is similar to that of more general conservation biology, except the challenges facing it and possible expenses are far greater than average conservation efforts. Small population conservationists must justify not only the overall importance of biodiversity, a question that all general conservationists deal with, but also the added expense it takes to make saving a low population species possible.
An example of small population conservation effort is the IUCN case study of Ailuropoda melanoleuca, commonly known as the giant panda, whose natural habitat is in China (IUCN 2012). The case study includes several important sections, including taxonomy, assessment information, geographic range, population, habitat and ecology, threats, and conservation actions (IUCN 2012). This case study shows the many types of science necessary in attempting to understand a species with a low population and in understanding how to save such a species. Because it is hard to observe the bears themselves, researchers must invent other ways to estimate population size and the average ages of the members of this population. According to the IUCN study concerning giant panda population, “all surveys were based on incidence of sign, but techniques varied, so results are not directly comparable” (2012). In other words, the inconsistent use of information gathering techniques makes it difficult to use a broad range of studies in order to understand population size. Other elements employed by the study include anthropological efforts, which show the historical range and population size of the panda, behavioral biologists who gain an understanding of how pandas spend their time and breeding habits, biogeographers who highlight the threat of bamboo forest land clearing in panda population decline, and so forth (IUCN 2012).
The IUCN case study of Ailuropoda melanoleuca presents information drawn from the most recent studies and reports in a variety of disciplines; however, it does not provide an ethical reason why the species needs to be saved. It assumes an overall understanding concerning why conservation efforts and biodiversity are important. The section in the case study for the panda labeled “Justification” does not justify why this species needs to be saved, but why it is classified as Endangered. This list provides a valuable sketch of the classification, problems, and efforts toward saving the giant panda population, placing little judgment on the research, problems, or efforts except to point out that more research and methods that are more consistent are needed in order to properly assess the classification of the species (IUCN 2012).
Two possible justifications for saving Ailuropoda melanoleuca include the overall idea that biodiversity is important for humanity and that the giant panda is an appealing creature that can spark interest in the general population in conservation efforts. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), “The complex web of inter-dependent ecosystems which constitute life on Earth includes us” (n.d.). Although the web is complex, the general idea behind why it is important is simple enough; biological diversity includes genetic diversity, species diversity, and ecosystem or environmental diversity, and without diversity in all of these areas, many species, including our own, could cease to exist. However, without justification or a bigger-picture view of conservation, it is hard for people to understand what necessitates long-term conservation efforts, especially of low population species. This bigger-picture view of conservation is how chief scientist of the World Wide Fund for Nature, Dr. Mark Wright, justifies the support for saving the giant panda. He says, “the part of China where pandas live should be on the preservation list anyway. The giant panda shares its habitat with the red panda, golden monkeys, and various birds that are found nowhere else in the world” (Beneductus 2009). In other words, conservation efforts are not just about one single species, they are also about habitats for multiple species; therefore, supporting the conservation of a small population species such as the giant panda also supports the conservation of the plants, other animals, geography, and other aspects of its natural habitat.
Another justification for saving Ailuropoda melanoleuca is that it is a very charismatic or appealing species that people emotionally connect with. According to UNEP, “Some people would argue that as the species at the top of the food chain capable of acting on the planet's ecosystems to create profound change, we have a responsibility to act as stewards of the planet, protecting nature for its own sake and ensuring our consumption levels are sustainable” (n.d.). However, rather than feeling responsible as “stewards of the planet,” many people are concerned much more about short-term profits for themselves when it comes to conservation battle grounds like deforestation. They are also concerned with the overall expense of putting programs into place that support saving species that are on the Endangered list. People may find it difficult to feel positive about supporting saving an endangered plan they have never seen or a small, minnow-like fish that looks quite ordinary, even though both have an important part to play in the ecological web. Biodiversity and conservation in general are critical to the health of our own species, and as Dr. Wright says, “There are things you pull out from the picture,” like the giant panda, “because people can relate to them. And it does make a difference” (Beneductus 2009). Therefore, it is a positive thing to place effort and money into saving the giant panda because it helps more people become aware of what is at stake in biological conservation in general.
One of the biggest objections to saving low population species is that it costs a lot of money to attempt to preserve them and there is no guarantee of success. Naturalist and presenter of Autumnwatch, Chris Packham, believes that Ailuropoda melanoleuca is not worth the effort because “maybe if we took all the cash we spend on pandas and just bought rainforest with it, we might be doing a better job” (Beneductus 2009). Many scholars agree with this opinion. For example, in a paper published in the journal Ecological Applications, Stephen Newbold and Juha Siikamäki state that “undertaking all conceivable efforts to protect biodiversity is not feasible . . . it will depend in a large part on which conservation activities are funded and where on the landscape they are implemented” (2009, p. 1774).
A possible fix to this problem, as suggested by Newbold and Juha, is that “methods for prioritizing and targeting such [conservation] activities are critically important” (2009, p. 1774). In other words, because humanity does not have the resources such as time, money, or knowledge to save every species or every inch of habitat, it needs to support the solutions that can do the most to preserve as many as possible, even if that means some species must go extinct. As an example of how prioritization can work, Newbold and Juha found in their study that if it is based on biological benefit-economic expense measurements and accounts for “spatial interdependencies among watersheds,” conservation efforts exhibit much better results than “other more heuristic methods” (2009, p. 1774). Biologist Esteban Fernández-Juricic believes that local groups may “lack the capacity to cope with conservation problems that span multiple spatial and temporal scales,” therefore, efforts must be regional and not just local (2000, p. 164).
Other researchers have come to the conclusion that new methods of prioritization must be created, tested, and employed because they found “the geographical patterns of past human impact on the land cover only poorly predict those of forecasted change” (Lee and Jetz 2008, p. 1261). These answers to the problem of economics and biological conservation do not necessarily mean that the giant panda must be left out of conservation efforts. Rather, it means that if the giant panda is to be saved, it must be part of a more broad-based effort rather than a single-focus issue. From an ethical standpoint, it makes sense to do the most good and attack the problem with the big picture of biological conservation in mind rather than trying to save each species one by one, a method that will probably fail given the rapid change in habitats.
Another problem with the current methods of small-scale biological conservation is that the solution is often, as Chris Packham suggested, to just buy rainforest or whatever habitat appears to be declining dangerously. While plenty of evidence supports the value of rainforest to the world’s ecosystem, just buying it and telling people, “You cannot go here or do anything here now, it’s a nature preserve” will not help. As some researchers have found, conservation investments such as land purchases can sometimes be counterproductive to conservation efforts. The researchers “show how conservation purchases affect land prices and generate feedbacks that can undermine conservation goals, either by displacing development toward biologically valuable areas or by accelerating its pace” (Armsworth, Daily, Kareiva, and Sanchirico 2006, p. 5403). In other words, buying a piece of land may drive up land prices overall in the area, which could eliminate the chance to be able to afford additions to the reserve area or other nearby areas of value. It could also cause people to hurry to clear that land before it can be purchased.
This problem can be solved, according to the researchers, by paying more attention to market forces (Armsworth, Daily, Kareiva, and Sanchirico 2006, p. 5407).. While the need to preserve endangered species is urgent, it is most important to consider all aspects of the problem, including issues that appear to be from non-related disciplines such as economics. The effort by China to preserve the panda shows that well considered long-term goals including awareness of markets and legislation can have effective results, because researchers believe that the panda population is slowly increasing. China began establishing reserves for giant pandas in 1963; later, in the “Grain-to-Green” policy, farmers were offered incentives to replant forests by being given cash subsidies or grain and China’s Natural Forest Conservation Program placed a ban on logging from natural forests (IUCN 2012).
As a result of these efforts, “China has become first in the world in terms of forest area gained per year (IUCN 2012). China took a bigger-picture view of the situation, including market forces, by understanding the needs of the people who were deforesting land for agriculture, and stalled some of the problems such as loggers or farmers hurrying to clear land by compensating them or outlawing certain practices, so they could increase the number and area of panda reserves. From an ethical standpoint, it makes the most sense to consider all aspects and disciplines involved in making a decision about creating reserves, and using this bigger-picture view to make decisions rather than simply buying areas of land without a thought towards the various effects it could have.
An ethical problem to using small population species like the giant panda as a poster-child, so to speak, for conservation efforts, is that as some species inevitably become extinct, the panda could be one of them. People who support the panda conservation effort may become disenchanted with conservation science if this happens. Widespread and international public support is required if conservation efforts worldwide are to succeed.
In order to achieve this goal, the international public should be educated about not only favorite species that are endangered, but also less visible species and environments that are valuable to global ecology. It is not wrong to use animals such as the panda to grab people’s interest as long as it is accompanied by an effort to further educate them about conservation biology and encourage them to support efforts that are less flashy.
Small population conservation biology has a place in global efforts to preserve habitats, species, and ecology and is ethically justifiable as long as the big picture of global status is taken into consideration. There is no question that small population conservation efforts for animals such as the giant panda and tigers spark the interest of the public, which helps lend various resources to conservation in general. Additionally, by preserving the habitat of a large animal such as the panda, which requires larger amounts of land to survive than, for example, an ant colony, many of the smaller plant and animal species that require the same habitat can be preserved by conservation efforts. Continually conducting research from a variety of disciplines and taking a bigger-picture approach allows people to make the best decisions that are most productive as far as small population conservation biology is concerned.
Works Cited
Armsworth, Paul, Daily, Gretchen C., Kareiva, Peter, and Sanchirico, James N. “Land Market Feedbacks Can Undermine Biodiversity Conservation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 103.4 (4 Apr. 2006): pp. 5403-5408.
Benedictus, Leo. “Should Pandas Be Left to Face Extinction?” The Guardian (22 Sep. 2009). Web. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/23/panda-extinction-chris-packham
Calcagonotto, Daniele, Egan, Mary G., and Lehn, Cathi. “Conservation Genetics Session s Guide.” American Museum of Natural History Center for Biodiversity and Conservation (Spring 2001). Web. http://symposia.cbc.amnh.org/conservation-genetics/session.html
Fernández-Juricic, Esteban. “Conservation Education: The Need for Regional Approaches Supporting Local Initiatives.” Wildlife Society Bulletin 28.1 (Spring 2000): pp. 164-167.
Lee, Tien Ming and Jetz, Walter. “Future Battlegrounds for Conservation Under Global Change.” Proceedings: Biological Sciences 275.1640 (7 Jun. 2008): pp. 1261-1270.
Lü, Z, Wang, D. & Garshelis, D.L. “Ailuropoda melanoleuca.” IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.,Web. Accessed 22 Oct. 2010.
Newbold, Stephen C. and Siikamäki, Juha. “Prioritizing Conservation Activities Using Reserve Site Selection Methods and Population Viability Analysis.” Ecological Applications 19.7 (Oct. 2009): pp/ 1774-1790.
“Why is Biodiversity Important?” United Nations Environment Programme, n.d. Web. Accessed 22 Oct 2012. http://www.unep-wcmc.org/why-is-biodiversity-important_51.html
