A few thoughts on what conservation is

A bit like fresher’s week, a large family get-together seems to have a few standard questions that everyone likes to ask. How’s uni? Any plans for this summer? You have a BOYFRIEND?!

The really adventurous family members battle on. So…what are you studying again? Biological Sciences. My choice of modules next year means I’ll be getting a specialism in Animal Biology. Ah. And where are you hoping that’ll take you? Not sure yet! But hopefully something to do with wildlife. Maybe an MSc in Conservation and Biodiversity.

And that got a number of responses, all of which I found really interesting.

“I thought you would choose a career that would lead you in to a proper profession!” barked Grandad. It’s not worth arguing with him really, so that was the end of that.

“So you’ll have to, like, work in a zoo then?” guessed one of my cousins. After the previous retort I was grateful for any kind of two-way dialogue. I dived into describing the many ways of protecting the Earth’s biodiversity, from working in law to researching ecosystems to actively reducing exploitation to yes, working in a zoo.

Most other people seemed to be under the impression that conservation = banning humans from large areas of Earth.

I tried to explain that while establishing protected areas is often beneficial, seemingly smaller modifications can be really important too — especially if they have a wide-reaching impact. And that much conservation these days involves practical, ongoing solutions to help maintain a species or habitat.

I particularly attempted to stress one thing:

Conservation doesn’t have to be a +/- see-saw.

Wildlife can benefit from changes to help humans. Humans can benefit from changes to help wildlife. Like the good ol’ symbiotic relationship between the bird and the water buffalo, the end result can be +/+.

I found the perfect example of that in National Geographic’s July edition, which dropped through my letterbox yesterday. The infographic titled Precision in the Fields describes a number of technological advances for farmers (watch the awesome 1 minute 45 second animation).

Vary applications was the part that caught my eye.

“Variable-rate technology places proper amounts of fertiliser and pesticide on each part of a field, depending on how much is needed.”

It could have been designed by an agriculturist or an ecologist — and it didn’t say which — but (ideally) everyone wins.

The farmer spends less money on chemicals, increases yield and gains profit. Organisms in the surrounding areas experience less of the harmful effects of chemical run off, as the crop is taking up the correct amount. Obviously this system isn’t perfect in the eyes of conservation, as the damaging chemicals are still there.

However, it is obvious that in this rapidly expanding world the human race can’t suddenly switch to a world free of fertiliser and pesticide. Therefore it is imperative that we are developing — and using — subtle ways that allow us to co-exist more easily with wildlife.