Jump to content

Compassionate conservation

From Tilcayo Cats, the lean encyclopaedia by Tilcayo Knowledge Systems

Compassionate conservation is an approach to wildlife conservation which holds that compassion for individual wild animals should change how conservation is done. It has led to heated debate and strong criticism.[1]

Origins

According to the conservation scientist Matt Hayward and his co-authors, the idea emerged with work by Marc Bekoff in 2010, and later by Arian Wallach, Daniel Ramp and their co-authors.[2]

Principles

Supporters set out four guiding principles: first do no harm, individuals matter, peaceful coexistence, and inclusivity.[3] The researchers Simon Coghlan and Adam Cardilini explain that "first do no harm" is adapted from medical ethics and asks conservationists generally to avoid deliberately harming sentient animals.[4] The principle "individuals matter" recognises that sentient wild animals have moral value in themselves, beyond their value as members of populations, species or ecosystems.[5]

Supporters of compassionate conservation, notably Wallach and colleagues in 2018, criticise three "orientations" in traditional conservation: instrumentalism, collectivism and nativism. In this view, instrumentalism treats sentient individuals as valuable mainly for what they are useful for, and collectivism says that species, landscapes and ecosystems matter more than individuals.[6]

Criticism

In 2019 a group of conservation scientists led by Hayward published a critique in the journal Conservation Biology. They argued that compassionate conservation focuses arbitrarily on charismatic species, especially large predators and large plant-eating animals.[7] They also argued that it is not compassionate to leave invasive predators in place when they harm far more individual native animals.[8] In their view, the approach may threaten public and government support for conservation.[9]

Review of the debate

Coghlan and Cardilini reviewed the debate and identified 52 specific criticisms in 11 articles, looking closely at 33 of them.[10] They concluded that some of the criticisms were question-begging, confused, or overlooked how complex the ideas are.[11]

See also

References

  1. ↑ Coghlan, Simon; Cardilini, Adam P. A. (2022). "A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate" (accepted manuscript, University of Melbourne repository). Conservation Biology. 36: e13760. doi:10.1111/cobi.13760. Retrieved 20 October 2026. Compassionate conservation holds that compassion should transform conservation. It has prompted heated debate and has been criticized strongly.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  2. ↑ Hayward, Matt W.; et al. (2019). "Deconstructing compassionate conservation" (author manuscript, University of Pretoria repository). Conservation Biology. 33. doi:10.1111/cobi.13366. Retrieved 20 October 2026. But beginning with Bekoff (2010) and later Wallach and Ramp and their coauthors
  3. ↑ Coghlan, Simon; Cardilini, Adam P. A. (2022). "A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate" (accepted manuscript, University of Melbourne repository). Conservation Biology. 36: e13760. doi:10.1111/cobi.13760. Retrieved 20 October 2026. first do no harm, individuals matter, peaceful coexistence, and inclusivity (Ramp & Bekoff 2015; Wallach et al. 2018){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  4. ↑ Coghlan, Simon; Cardilini, Adam P. A. (2022). "A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate" (accepted manuscript, University of Melbourne repository). Conservation Biology. 36: e13760. doi:10.1111/cobi.13760. Retrieved 20 October 2026. First do no harm, adapted from medical ethics, enjoins conservationists to generally avoid intentionally harming killing sentient animals{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  5. ↑ Coghlan, Simon; Cardilini, Adam P. A. (2022). "A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate" (accepted manuscript, University of Melbourne repository). Conservation Biology. 36: e13760. doi:10.1111/cobi.13760. Retrieved 20 October 2026. Individuals matter recognizes the intrinsic moral value of sentient wild individuals beyond their instrumental value in collectives or wholes (populations, species, ecosystems, landscapes){{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  6. ↑ Coghlan, Simon; Cardilini, Adam P. A. (2022). "A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate" (accepted manuscript, University of Melbourne repository). Conservation Biology. 36: e13760. doi:10.1111/cobi.13760. Retrieved 20 October 2026. instrumentalism, collectivism, and nativism. Instrumentalism treats sentient individuals as having predominantly instrumental value rather than significant intrinsic moral value. Collectivism says species, landscapes, and ecosystems matter more than individuals{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  7. ↑ Hayward, Matt W.; et al. (2019). "Deconstructing compassionate conservation" (author manuscript, University of Pretoria repository). Conservation Biology. 33. doi:10.1111/cobi.13366. Retrieved 20 October 2026. Compassionate conservation arbitrarily focuses on charismatic species, notably large predators and megaherbivores.
  8. ↑ Hayward, Matt W.; et al. (2019). "Deconstructing compassionate conservation" (author manuscript, University of Pretoria repository). Conservation Biology. 33. doi:10.1111/cobi.13366. Retrieved 20 October 2026. The philosophy is not compassionate when it leaves invasive predators in the environment to cause harm to vastly more individuals of native species
  9. ↑ Hayward, Matt W.; et al. (2019). "Deconstructing compassionate conservation" (author manuscript, University of Pretoria repository). Conservation Biology. 33. doi:10.1111/cobi.13366. Retrieved 20 October 2026. compassionate conservation may threaten public and governmental support for conservation
  10. ↑ Coghlan, Simon; Cardilini, Adam P. A. (2022). "A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate" (accepted manuscript, University of Melbourne repository). Conservation Biology. 36: e13760. doi:10.1111/cobi.13760. Retrieved 20 October 2026. We identified 52 specific criticisms from 11 articles that directly critique compassionate conservation. We closely examined 33 of these{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  11. ↑ Coghlan, Simon; Cardilini, Adam P. A. (2022). "A critical review of the compassionate conservation debate" (accepted manuscript, University of Melbourne repository). Conservation Biology. 36: e13760. doi:10.1111/cobi.13760. Retrieved 20 October 2026. Some criticisms, we found, are question begging, confused, or overlook conceptual complexity.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
Retrieved from "https://tilcayo.cat/w/index.php?title=Compassionate_conservation&oldid=162847"