Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to WHEN I'M SIXTY-FOUR

WHAT SHOULD WE DO TO DO CONSERVATION?

by Joel Berger

I attended the 2009 SCB meeting in Beijing and came away with both a sense of hope and images more troubling than normal. Despite the turbid air and crush of humanity, there was intensity in the eyes and hearts of many. Attendees younger than 40 years of age populated the audience; they reflected an eagerness to practice the twin mainstays of SCB -- maintain what we have and restore what we've lost. Presentations were steeped in scientific methodology, findings were impressive, and there was a familiar rush to understand and to conserve both species and processes within the human milieu -- all good so far.

So, why was I troubled? I was troubled in part because we conservation biologists need a few truly inspirational victories and in part because of my own -- perhaps delusional -- perception that we occasionally chase the wrong tail. We could go a long way by asking ourselves the "so what?" question. By this I mean that we need to question why we do what we do. Science is one thing, successful conservation a different beast.

If sites for native biodiversity are gone, can we ever claim victory? If ecological processes vaporize, can we win? Have we rescued a species when we fail to conserve its migration? Can we feel good about doing science in the absence of site-specific conservation? Without inspiration, without education, without attitude change and lacking policy adjudication, victories will be sparse. Even if we have each of the above, neither vigilance nor enforcement must ever wane. Why? The simple answer is that threats will never vanish. After all, how many times and in how many countries have we seen a de-gazetting of protected areas, a weakening of policy, a failure to care because human values change or because precious oil is next door or below the surface?

So, what is the wrong tail we mistakenly chase? I think it's climate change. Despite my apparent bluster on this, I'm thoroughly delighted that climate change is receiving its deserved recognition for its over-arching threat to global society. Yet, I still fret about our path forward. Do we truly need another 5, 10, or 20 more studies to complement the volume already demonstrating its operation with respect to biodiversity? Indubitably, insights are critical at so many levels that they are hard to count, and I myself have support for projects that deal thematically with climate and conservation. Nevertheless, I am reminded of the real difference between academic pursuit and on-the-ground reality.

Some 25 years ago, as our discipline was surging ahead, there was great zest to protect genetic diversity in small populations. How many individuals were needed and over how many future generations? Africa's rhinos were being systematically slaughtered, and much concern focused on how many rhino generations of x and y abundance were needed to retain z levels of diversity. I was in meetings at a remote field site in Namibia in the 1990s when brash poachers hit. Rangers and local biologists were called away from our self-proclaimed assembly of high importance because this poaching incursion was occurring at that moment. They left with armed guards. While we worried about population sizes for future posterity and tactics for long-term conservation, rhinos were actively being slaughtered. We Americans had the luxury to muse about rhinos some 50 generations ahead. At the same time, Africans had lost more than 95% of their black rhinos in three generations. Although the study of genetics is such a no-brainer it needs no defense, if we wish to do conservation we need rhinos around.

What's my point? There are two. First, as most rational people know, it's important we act on climate change. Second, conservation needs are urgent throughout most of the world. I am not suggesting that climate change studies are unnecessary. I only ask when do we hit a point when we say how do we implement conservation actions to address our findings?

As the world changes, so do our tactics. Climate change is here just as is the extinction crisis. While a few pundits still ridicule these points, we still race to document more and more. There are many ways to advance conservation -- research is of course but one. Education is another. There are countless others -- top-down, bottom-up, in situ, ex situ. Site-based conservation may (or may not) be passé because with climate change, species distributions move. But, to those young and eager to become involved, whether in Asia, North America, or beyond, might I suggest lending your expertise to local management agencies. The immediate threats to keeping things on the ground are daunting. Help can come in many forms -- shaping plans to mitigate impacts when a new dam, a new road, a new wind farm is proposed. This may not be the stuff of publication in Conservation Biology or Conservation Letters or Science or Nature, but it is of the sort that might make a difference.

As you read this and if you are less than 40, please ask yourself: when I look back some 20 years from now, what do I want my contribution to have been?

Joel Berger received SCB's 2009 Edward T. LaRoe III Memorial Award. Berger was honored for his extraordinary leadership toward conservation of migration corridors and predator-prey dynamics and for shaping policy with strong science. He is well-known for his work across Africa, Asia, Alaska, and other regions of North America, and for working in close collaboration with numerous institutions and governments.

Up to Table of Contents

Ahead to WHEN I'M SIXTY-FOUR