Reflecting on indirect conservation efforts

As I reflect on my journey towards making a meaningful impact in nature conservation, I find myself contemplating the choice between direct and indirect conservation outcomes. In this post, I will discuss the matter of whether to pursue direct conservation outcomes, such as protecting a certain percentage of habitat, or indirect outcomes, such as increasing the application of ecological knowledge among farm managers through beneficial insect management.

The power of direct conservation

Direct conservation outcomes, such as protecting a specific percentage of habitat or saving a charismatic species, have undeniable appeal. The preservation of critical ecosystems and the safeguarding of endangered species contribute directly to biodiversity conservation. These outcomes often involve substantial efforts, such as land acquisition, restoration projects, and policy advocacy. While direct conservation efforts may take time to come to fruition, they offer the advantage of providing visible and measurable results, which can create a sense of immediate impact once the desired outcomes are achieved.

Indirect outcomes: Enhancing ecological knowledge

Indirect conservation efforts are those that address underlying factors contributing to lower conservation outcomes, such as improving ecological literacy to improve societies engagement with nature, influencing individual decision-makers to support sensible conversation policy, or research and development to improve the efficacy or efficiency of conservation. Another, is increasing ecological knowledge among farmers to encourage the adoption of practices that benefit both agricultural productivity and the environment. Having worked in pest management research for the better part of the last decade, I have been wondering whether I would have more impact to leverage this expertise or to more directly address conservation issues. I question the degree to which enhanced knowledge of the intricate interactions between farm pests, predators, chemicals, habitat, and management practices truly empowers farm managers to make decisions that holistically consider ecological linkages.

An ecological approach to farming highlights the interlinkages between farm pests, their predators, chemical use, habitat, and management practices, which can lead to more sustainable and environmentally friendly farming methods. This ecological mindset can have far-reaching consequences, such as a deeper appreciation of humanity's embedded dependence on the natural world, but also just the wonder and beauty of life on earth. In this way, ecological knowledge in regional communities can have a cascading effect on agricultural landscapes and beyond.

Measuring impact

One of the challenges faced with indirect conservation efforts is the measurement of impact. The further removed the cause and effect, the more challenging it becomes to trace the direct relationship between them. Unlike direct outcomes that can be more easily quantified, such as the amount of protected habitat or the number of species saved, indirect outcomes may not have easily measurable metrics. However, there are ways to gauge the impact of indirect efforts and gain meaningful insights.

One can track the number of farmers who adopt sustainable practices as a result of increased ecological knowledge, or metrics of traffic to online resources. As farming practices become more sustainable and ecological engagement extends beyond production areas, improvements in landscape-level biodiversity indicators will eventually serve as a valuable measure of impact, but may be difficult to entangle from other factors influencing outcomes.

Balancing the scales

Choosing between direct and indirect outcomes is not a matter of either/or, but rather finding a balance between the two that ideally plays to your own personal strengths and interests. Direct conservation efforts are essential for preserving crucial habitats and species, and indirect conservation, eventually, leads to more direct conservation activities. Increasing ecological knowledge among farmers, promoting sustainable agricultural practices, and fostering the incorporation of beneficial insects can have far-reaching positive consequences, but it is difficult to estimate the return on investment.

Ultimately, the separation of direct and indirect outcomes is a false dichotomy and to me, at least, is only relevant psychologically. There is a good chance I would have made a larger contribution to conservation if I had pursued a more lucrative career in corporate business or finance and donated the excess to those who could put the money to good use. But I like to spend more of my time in a view more proximate to what I am hoping to protect.