Chris Packham and giant pandas

[Picidae]

have just posted a long response to this elsewhere 'nightranger' (to which you have responded) - so won't reiterate all the same points but will add a few more though!

Suffice to say we need a paradigm shift in how we perceive and present 'conservation' on a number of levels, not least in relation to long term environmental and economic sustainability. More importantly, how fundraising and conservation is presented to the fund-supplying public/corporate sponsors who at present are largely being led by the nose with a specie focused rather than habitat focused approach in appeals for funding. Your second point of issue, reflects a common and vital flaw in the approach to understanding 'conservation' (particularly amongst the general public) and how we should go about it ie. viewing 'habitat' and 'species' as two potentially separate recipients of funding allocation when even a very basic understanding of ecology demands any worthwhile conservation effort requires an holistic approach - as you know, the RSPB have this as a central ethos but are not particularly good about presenting this aspect to the general public - until that PR focus changes, over reliance on flagship fluffiness by large conservation organisations/charities, will continue to distort the wider efforts that are being made (by those very same groups usually!) and more importantly the reasons for them. Thus, funding will continue to be more forthcoming for 'rescuing' single species than overall habitat protection/restoration - until that message is well and truly got across, the public will not find contributing funds to save a piece of rainforest or save a piece of bogland particularly sexy. From what I have read and my support of the WWF over the years, IMO the Giant Panda projects funded by the WWF/Chinese Gvt is actually taking a pretty good holistic approach and with some success I might add) (contrary to what you might think Wildlifeo!).

Chris Packham obviously understands the vital importance of 'habitat' in species conservation but does not seem to understand that his comments are actually more specie focused than habitat focused in their implication - despite his efforts to present otherwise! Withdrawal of project funding for a particular species because that species might not survive is no different to supporting that species because it is fluffy. It's still using a single species approach as a criteria for conservation funding and inadvertently, in relation to the Giant Panda's habitat, risks pushing a further number of endangered species, including the Crested Ibis, Golden Eagle, Clouded Leopard and Takin another crucial step towards the edge of distinction. Is that what he wants? Is that a good conservation approach?

In reality, the WWF, the RSPB and other conservation groups are directing their money in an holistic way most of the time but need to go much further in terms of closing the gap between what they understand about conservation and what the public understand by it. Chris Packham's comments have merely widened that gap and have simply confirmed in the publics eye that they should continue to support (or not support!) particular species that are flagged up by the conservation organisations, rather than donate their money to land acquisition/habitat protection for the sake of it and for the sake of ecological biodiversity and survival of ecosystems .

HABITAT AND SINGLE SPECIES PROTECTION ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
- Nor should they be presented/marketed as such

A more 'responsible' and proactive approach by Chris would have been to have said, while efforts to save the Giant Panda in the long run may not be successful for this particular species, it's a single species occupying a very vulnerable habitat which supports other other endangered species from extinction - which also need to be presented/PR'd btw! Continuing to support the WWF's Panda efforts/China will certainly do no harm to the Panda, but more importantly will, by continuing to channel funds into this area, help other endangered species sharing it's habitat, help local communities with the infrastructure being set up for eco tourism, help local economies find ways to log sustainably etc etc. There's no reason why flagship species can't be used to save other species nor any reason why the Panda project can't be presented as a 'flagship' project that is taking an holistic approach in it's implementation. It's already making inroads and millions have already been spent already with sustainable projects working in local communties, they shouldn't be withdrawn because one flag is too close to flying at half mast. It's time for some honesty.

[Monkey Orchid]

Originally Posted by Picidae

HABITAT AND SINGLE SPECIES PROTECTION ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE - Nor should they be presented/marketed as such.

A more 'responsible' and proactive approach by Chris would have been to have said, while efforts to save the Giant Panda in the long run may not be successful for this particular species, it's a single species occupying a very vulnerable habitat which supports other other endangered species from extinction. There's no reason why flagship species can't be used to save other species nor any reason why the Panda project can't be presented as a 'flagship' project that is taking an holistic approach in it's implementation. It's already making inroads and millions have already been spent already with sustainable projects working in local communties, they shouldn't be withdrawn because one flag is too close to flying at half mast.

I echo your point, Picidae. Attracting money and support to conservation projects is often done via flagship species, because that's what the majority of non-ecologists can identify and connect with. When I worked for a local wildlife trust we initiated a dormouse conservation project: this funded recording schemes and providing nest boxes for dormice (thereby providing opportunities for people to get involved in feel-good activities such as nut hunts, nest box building and dormice dawdles)... But the project also focused on habitat management, i.e. promoting good conservation management of woodland, which benefited hosts of other wildlife species.

Where this approach becomes problematic is where the efficacy of a conservation project is judged purely on whether or not the flagship species benefits. Obviously that's the most desirable outcome, but in some cases it just may not happen... But lots of other good outcomes, as you describe with the giant panda project, do result.

It's tricky, because people do like to feel good about giving their money/support to things, by identifying with a particular animal they like (dolphins, orang utans, giant pandas et al). If folk are encouraged to connect simply with cute fluffy pandas or red squirrels instead of with the wider ecology to which these animals belong, then I agree it is an unhelpful approach to conservation in general. I wonder how programmes such as Last Chance To See and Lost Land Of The Volcano affect people's thinking in this respect?

From my experience working in conservation, particularly the education/interpretation side of things, connecting the general public to wildlife at all is the first step, which is usually achieved through experiencing a particular species or group of species, whether that happens from watching a TV programme or going pond dipping. Once that's in place, it becomes easier to connect people to the habitat and wider ecology on which their chosen species depends. Finally, giving people an understanding of their own human place in the environment (and hence impacts on ecology and wildlife) is the third piece of the puzzle, which will hopefully lead to a conscious choice to not only support conservation projects but also live day-to-day in a way which supports biodiversity rather than harming it. All that is a big ask, but it's do-able.

Oh and BTW - if people think it's difficult raising money for animal conservation, try raising it for plants, fungi, or some of the less 'attractive' invertebrate species...