An Interview With Lee Durrell MBE - 40 Years In Conservation
Updated: May 18, 2020
- Anya Ermakova
How did you come to work in conservation?
I’d done my PhD in zoology in Madagascar. Being in Madagascar, which is such a conservation needy place, really opened my eyes to what the world needed most, which I felt was not theoretical zoologists or ecologists, but people who could undertake action, based on very good science, as always. But undertake action on behalf of the animal kingdom and try to save species. Then I met Gerry after I was in Madagascar, and there was the whole personal side, but also in a sense, the professional side, which enabled me to fulfil my dream of being a conservationist.
You’ve been working in this field for many years, how do you see the evolution of the field? What do you see changed over the years?
I started when I married Gerry which was in 1979. So that was 40 years ago. I’ve certainly seen a lot more scientific rigour brought to conservation. As I’ve said it’s more of an action field, but it’s got to be based on good science, and therefore you’ve got to be able to evaluate the results of your actions, and I think conservation in the early days probably didn’t do that very well. And certainly, as time has gone on, people have seen the results of their actions. Questions now being asked include; Are you actually saving a species or are you taking too long a time to do it? Or, are you on the wrong track? Have you identified the correct problem? So, I’ve seen a development of a scientific approach come out of that.
There is also a lot more knowledge about the situation or the species or the habitat you want to help; the theoretical scientists and ecologists are finding out so much more these days. So, you’ve got a strong science foundation to base your decisions on. Whereas way back then, 40 years ago, quite often there was very little knowledge to work with. Now, because there is a big body of knowledge, easier access to that knowledge, better technology and a wider spectrum of thinking in conservation, we can make educated decisions.
Another thing I’ve seen is people acknowledging that conservation can only be done in partnership with other organisations because the issues are usually too big, too broad, too expensive, to just be done by one institution. So that has certainly happened to our institution, we started conservation work back in the seventies and it just became clear that you had to work with other people. This is often not easy at all, back in those days, everybody wanted to be in control and be the top dog in the partnership, but it can’t work like that. It has improved a lot and now we’re involved with three or four partners, and you spread the load, the worry and the effort, and that seems to be working well.
What sort of organisations or individuals would you recommend to partner with? A very big and famous NGO? A small NGO? A local community group or government?
I think some sorts are better than others but all of those are possible. I think it probably depends on what the project is. If it’s a big undertaking like our project in Madagascar to restore ecological function in one of the big lakes, it will require the involvement of the local community and society as a whole as well as a partnership with the local government.
For projects that require some technical expertise that you yourself don’t have, then probably go to another NGO who has got experience in that field. We are experienced now in rat and mice eradication, but I know that the Floreana Island restoration work that we’re starting is in partnership with an NGO called Island Conservation as well as the Galapagos Conservation Trust. In Floreana there are cats and we have less experience with controlling feral cats than we have with controlling other invasive species, so I think that Island Conservation knows much more about that. You need to partner with somebody who can complement your expertise.
But always be wary. I personally think it’s important to really know a person in whatever organisation you want to partner with. Sometimes that can’t always happen, but usually that is the way partnerships develop. If you’re partnering with a large conservation organisation like WWF, or Conservation International, you really need to have a way into the people who matter, and the people who count. You can’t just work with a faceless WWF but somebody there who really understands the whole project and the programme and can get to the bosses if needs be.
So, what would be your advice for building partnerships? Where do you meet the key people in other organisations? Is it more conferences or some other events?
Usually when you’re doing a project, you’re in correspondence with relevant people anyway because some individuals will have worked in that field or a similar field, so you’ll have corresponded previously. I certainly think conferences are vitally important, but there’s always so much going on and people can promise things they haven’t checked back with their bosses. So of course, conferences, but I would say face to face very specific meetings are really important.
One thing we do is building a workshop that all the key players are invited to, which can be expensive but worthwhile. That’s been a technique that we have used in the past. But then to identify the partner in the first place, I think that happens naturally because you’ve been in contact with people and you know who you would like to work with. Be sure to do your homework and understand about other organisations; do some research on the people, see what they’ve done in the past, find out if there have been any problems; how those have been solved. You’ve got to choose your partners really carefully.
Are there some organisations that you would never partner with? And what would be the reasons for it?
The famous example in Madagascar, Rio Tinto Zinc - a leading global mining group, which was hated by all the environmentalists for its rape of the landscape and yet, they had loads of money, and they said they wanted to try to make restitution of what they had done to the environment. They offered money for biodiversity studies and the environmental protection of another area to offset what they had done. This is now years ago, we never actually partnered with them but others did which makes for arguably strange bedfellows. To jump into the corporate world and have corporate partners, I think be extra careful and research what they’ve done in the past with their other partners. But then the institution you work with, they will have their own ethical standards and their set of ethical guidelines.
Some corporate partners are better than others, some are more genuine and honest than others. But basically, you must keep your eyes open, do some research, and ask questions of other people and of their other partners. I recommend acting a little bit like a spy as you don’t want to spend all your money working with somebody and they end up just being terrible and destroying your credibility in the future. If you link up with somebody who is not popular you’ve got to think about your own reputation.
Stepping back from the partnerships, what do you think are key challenges in conservation now?
There are so many more now than there were 40 years ago. I would certainly say the effects of climate change on habitats and the animals and plants; you’ve got to be very forward thinking about that. But what can we smaller institutions do to mitigate that? It’s such a huge question. So that’s a challenge.
Exploitation is a clear challenge, specifically focusing on profit making enterprises who will exploit lands because they’ll want to cut down the trees and plant oil palms, or drill for oil, and exploitation of wildlife directly. The wildlife trade has become a huge, huge problem. That is very complex because there are so many different reasons for people to trade animals and plants for that matter.
Certainly, invasive species, so for island conservation, invasive species is a huge issue. Probably has been for a long time, but with globalisation there are so many more connections, so you have a much greater risk of exotics being introduced. So, that’s something that’s really got to be watched.
What do you think in terms of what we as individuals could do or what could be our contribution to resolving some of those challenges?
I think you can find a really good organisation whose work you respect and whose work is making an impact and support them. Do everything you can, whether it’s financially or go to work for them, or write articles about them, just really be engaged with the institutions who are doing good conservation work and show your support.
Certainly of course, individual behaviour, like not using certain palm oil products and you can probably help promote a campaign. But big issues like that, I personally think it’s going to have to come from top down, whether its governments saying, “no you cannot take this land to plant oil palms” or “no, you cannot include palm oil in your products” that’s top down stuff. But of course, it can be argued that will only happen if there’s a big popular support, so it’s a balance.
It is what you as an individual think that you can do best; where are you most effective? Let’s just say you’re a shy timid person, well maybe you would not be so suited to campaigning, for example. But if you’re shy and timid but a good scientist, and you beaver away at this, go and work for some organisation that you respect, and make your contribution that way. Remember, contributions individually, they’re all really pretty tiny; there are a few individuals in the world who’ve done huge wonderful things, but you’ve got to keep chipping away, and all these tiny contributions will add up, eventually.
And my final question, what is your favourite conservation story?
I suppose I could say it’s about a Ploughshare tortoise; it’s been going for so long; it now seems to be in a terrible stage, because wildlife trade seems to be wiping out the species.
It started as a great project and it had all the different elements that I think a complex conservation project would probably need, so it was very species focused, but it also had to do with local people and how they viewed and treated the environment in terms of fire in particular. There was the community conservation element that we learnt so much from, and that was a big success, and there was a whole breeding side, studying the reproduction in this species, and we’ve done really well with that.
It’s not my favourite story but it’s the one I know the best, because that’s the one that I started for Durrell in 1983/84, and then handed it over to other people in 2003. So, I worked on it for nearly 20 years, and I guess I could say I had the good years because we were doing really good breeding, really good community stuff. But during my time we also had our biggest theft at the breeding station in Madagascar; we had 73 tortoises stolen. The year was something like 1993, it had been going for just a few years but that was a large number taken out.
Tortoise breeding takes 15 to 20 years. Some people have said in the wildlife trade, “Well why don’t you just breed a whole bunch and then you can flood the market, and then there won’t be a market for it.” It takes a long time to do that, and by the time you do the wild population is already incredibly depleted, so I’m not a proponent of commercial use of very endangered wildlife. Some people are…
It’s controversial; I just don’t think it works, human beings are too fallible. It also normalises the fact that you’re actually buying wildlife body parts and makes it acceptable. In some eyes, if it’s legal, it’s acceptable. That’s another argument against it. But there are things that are just unacceptable, like the way we treat the natural world.
"But there are things that are just unacceptable, like the way we treat the natural world."
Interview Conducted by Anya Ermakova
Comments