Photojournalism Planet

Humans develop an interest and excitement about the natural world at a very early age. It is our nature to be concerned and fascinated by our surroundings, but, sadly many of us tend to lose touch of that.

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) publishes its ‘Red List’ – arguably the world’s complete inventory of global conservation statuses of plants and animal species. Unfortunately, it makes for a somber read. The annual Red List was updated on November 4, 2009. It shows that one fifth of  mammals, one third of amphibians and reptiles and more than two thirds of plants are threatened with extinction around the globe.

As we become more conscious about the need to protect and conserve the natural world other problems arise. A common issue  is the conservation of a local environment versus the development of communities in the area.

Valid questions, such as “How can you think about saving Tigers in India when people there are starving?”, are brought up to oppose conservation efforts. The problem thus far has been the global approach to conservation. Human population is growing and development is both necessary and inevitable; however, population growth alone is not the greatest threat to wilderness. Economic growth, and the way wealth is used also play vital roles. Harmful development to the environment can be attributed to poor planning where due consideration is not given to environmental concerns.

Solutions for wildlife don’t work unless they’re also solutions to poverty and, similarly, conservation can’t be enforced locally without the help within the communities. If it’s not pertinent to the local communities in affected areas, it’s a lost cause. This is slowly changing. Conservation and development need not be mutually exclusive; they must kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.

By focusing on successful projects that promote development in a sustainable manner, people will realize what the wilderness provides. At this stage, they would be more willing to help preserve it or even pay for its services.

What really matters?

So, when it comes to conservation, how does one decide what species to save first? Clearly priority is given to species that are closest to extinction, but it can be difficult to protect a creature as difficult to see as Snow Leopards.

“We need all species,” says Harvard Professor emeritus Edward Osborn Wilson, an American biologist, theorist, and a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction. “We need a great diversity of species. Most people have a great indifference towards the lesser creatures, but that’s where the bulk of life exists.”

So, what really matters? Well, everything. I watched the BBC’s Planet Earth series a few months ago and something said by writer Richard Mabey stuck with me:

“Our concentration on highly endangered species, especially the very glamorous large endangered species, is a morally tricky one, but is probably politically sound. If we were to let go of the creatures that figure so much in peoples love of nature, that figure so much in the historical imagination, as it were the peoples favourites, then I think that the cause would be lost, because it would be hard to make a case then for the defence of the stinging nettle, which we need just as much.”

Our planet is still full of wonder. As we explore them, so we gain not only understanding, but power. It’s not just the future of a single species that lies in our hands; it’s the survival of the natural world throughout the planet.

We can now destroy it or we can cherish it. The choice is ours.

Text and Photos by Geeshan Bandara