The animal world is under increasing pressure, given the magnitude of anthropogenic environmental stress, especially from human-caused rapid climate change together with habitat conversion, fragmentation, and destruction. There is a global wave of species extinctions and decline in local species abundance. To stop or even reverse this so-called defaunation process, in situ conservation (in the wild) is no longer effective without ex situ conservation (in captivity). Consequently, zoos could play an ever-greater role in the conservation of endangered species and wildlife—hence the slogan Captivity for Conservation.
However, the integration of zoo-based tools and techniques in species conservation has led to many conflicts between wildlife conservationists and animal protectionists. Many wildlife conservationists agree with Michael Soulé, the widely acclaimed doyen of the relatively new discipline of conservation biology, that conservation and animal welfare are conceptually distinct, and that they should remain politically separate. Animal protectionists, on the other hand, draw support from existing leading accounts of animal ethics that oppose the idea of captivity for conservation, either because infringing an individual’s right to freedom for the preservation of the species is considered as morally wrong, or because the benefits of species conservation are not seen as significant enough to overcome the presumption against depriving an animal of its liberty.
Both sides view animals through different lenses and address different concerns. Whereas animal ethicists focus on individual organisms, and are concerned about the welfare and liberty of animals, wildlife conservationists perceive animals as parts of greater wholes such as species or ecosystems, and consider biodiversity and ecological integrity as key topics. This seemingly intractable controversy can be overcome by transcending both perspectives, and developing a bifocal view in which zoo animals are perceived as individuals in need of specific care and, at the same time, as members of a species in need of protection.
Based on such a bifocal approach that has lately been adopted by a growing international movement of “Compassionate Conservation,” the modern zoo can only achieve its conservation mission if it finds a morally acceptable balance between animal welfare concerns and species conservation commitments. The prospects for the zoo to achieve such a balance are promising. Over the past decade or so, zoos have made serious and sustained efforts to ensure and enhance animal welfare. At the same time, the zoo’s contribution to species conservation has also improved considerably.
This is an advance summary of a forthcoming article in the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Environmental Science. Please check back later for the full article.
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an ecosystem management operational framework to make ecologically and economically sound environmental management decisions in ways that are selective for the pest encountered while minimizing effects not related to the problem at hand. The strength of IPM research and use is to constantly adapt methods and applications of the science behind adaptive decision making to ensure that the most modern and comprehensive problem-solving skills and techniques will be used to manage pest issues. Pests are ubiquitous in every human-managed ecosystem, most commonly encountered in production agriculture and forestry. Pests are also encountered by homeowners and in other environmental management regimes related to ecological restoration, just to name a few IPM use situations. IPM has been practiced by humans throughout the development of human agricultural practices, for major stable food and fiber crops since the advent of agriculture. However, the specific scientific discipline of truly integrating multiple management techniques, from pesticide application, to fertilizer regimes, to resistant plant variety selection, to ecological and cultural management, and finally to cost-benefit analyses to ensure the techniques used are comprehensive for the pest and the rest of the agricultural production system is a relatively new science, first rigorously tested and reviewed in the 1940s. The greatest strengths of the discipline are also its weakness; by being pest-taxon, crop specific, and flexible for a given environmental or management situation, there is a constant need for refinement of IPM decision making processes in very specific situations to be the most efficient and useful in a given pest situation. Given the number of sub-discipline inputs into the robust decision-making framework, many specialists need to be invested in the specific IPM program, or a highly trained and dedicated group must be accountable for wrangling diverse disciplines into a cohesive management regime. Finally, given the vast number of pests and pathogens that affect a production system, it is nearly impossible to have an IPM program for every crop, for every pest, in every system; yet this is what is called upon from the farmers or land managers in nearly every situation. Given the modern push to have answers ready at the push of a button, the discipline of IPM will continue to be refined to remain relevant and at the forefront of safe, efficient, environmentally accountable, and ultimately sustainable sciences in modern ever-changing agricultural production systems.