Leadership Survey

In order to gain a better understanding of the traits and skill sets required for career growth and to achieve leadership roles in the wildlife conservation profession, several Emerging Wildlife Conservation Leaders Board Members and alumni conducted a survey of 27 established environmental leaders.  We focused on questions such as how leaders sustain themselves and how they continue their career progressions, particularly as related to perceived barriers for women, and how these leaders maintained their enthusiasm in what is arguably a demanding and oftentimes discouraging discipline.  Some of the common themes cited by these leaders included the need for cross-disciplinary training, early childhood connections with nature, focusing on one’s passion for the profession as a key way to cultivate personal strength, and maintaining positive relationships with others. We also solicited advice from these established professionals for our emerging leaders. Please see the below article for the full survey and responses.  We would like to thank the established leaders who gave us time for the interviews.

Defining Leadership in Conservation:
Overcoming barriers, sustaining the passion

Nina Fascione1, Natalie Bailey2, Nikole Kadel3, Jackie Ogden, Ph.D4

(1) Defenders of Wildlife, 1130 17th St. NW, Washington, DC 20036; (2) Africa Biodiversity Collaborative Group, c/o The Nature Conservancy, 4245 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203; (3) Alexsa Consulting, Center for World Leadership 680 Mission Street, Suite 21E San Francisco, CA 94105 (4) Walt Disney World Resort, P.O. Box 10000, Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830


While much has been written about leadership in the business world, little exists that focuses specifically on leadership in the environmental or wildlife conservation profession.  We examined leadership in the conservation field, with specific interest in how leaders sustain themselves and how they continue their career progressions, particularly as related to perceived barriers for women, and how these leaders maintained their enthusiasm in what is arguably a demanding and oftentimes discouraging discipline. In 2006 and 2007, we conducted a survey of 27 environmental leaders, including professionals in executive positions in non-profit organizations and government agencies, as well as established academics.  We content coded and quantified the survey results.  Some of the common themes cited by these leaders included the need for cross-disciplinary training, early childhood connections with nature, focusing on one’s passion for the profession as a key way to cultivate personal strength, and maintaining positive relationships with others. We also solicited information on what advice these current professionals would give to emerging leaders.

Download the Leadership Survey as a PDF.

Keywords: leadership, barriers, career growth, environmental leaders, conservation professionals.



A copious amount of information has been written about leadership in the business world. Bookstores are lined with volumes and entire industries and academic programs have focused on leadership and management training. However, little of the existing literature focuses specifically on leadership in the environmental or wildlife conservation professions, and until recently there were few university curricula focused on conservation leadership (Snow 1992). The study of leadership in the field of conservation biology is sorely lacking, particularly given the probable role of successful leadership skills in advancing the role of conservation science in policy and practice (Manolis et al. 2008). This paucity of information leaves a dearth of knowledge about one of the most important aspects of any discipline.

To address this shortfall, Dietz and his colleagues (2004) investigated leadership styles and the professional backgrounds of ten current conservation leaders.  Defining Leadership in Conservation: a View from the Top (Dietz et al., 2004) shed light on what it means to be a conservation leader, identifying key attributes necessary to become a high ranking professional in the conservation field. They also examined why conservation leaders pursued the career tracks they chose and what barriers to entry and advancement they faced.  However, the sample size of the Dietz research was relatively small (ten subjects interviewed), and of these only one was female, providing a potentially biased or limited perspective on conservation leadership.

Our research enlarged the Dietz survey in both scope and size. Our goal was to revisit the question of leadership in the conservation field through an expanded sample size, as well as address the question of gender equality within our profession. We also were interested in how leaders sustain themselves and how they continue their career progression, particularly as related to perceived barriers for women or underrepresented groups, and how these leaders maintained their enthusiasm in what is arguably a demanding and oftentimes discouraging discipline. We were unable to obtain a large enough sample size within racial/ethnic groups to adequately measure differences among these groups.



Between June 2006 and March 2007, the authors conducted a total of 27 interviews with leaders in the conservation field. Subjects were selected on the basis of the following leadership criteria: 1) Individuals in a top leadership position within a conservation organization (preferably the CEO, but also including individuals within the top two to three tiers of an organization, such as vice presidents and senior directors).  Conservation organizations include not-for-profit groups, corporate entities that conduct conservation work (e.g., Disney’s Animal Kingdom), and government agencies that oversee environmental or wildlife programs; or 2) Individuals within academia who are tenured faculty and well published in the conservation arena.  In all cases, participants are individuals who are recognized as leaders in their particular conservation discipline.  As some of our research questions related to gender, we attempted to include an equal amount of male and female respondents.

Nominees were solicited via informal surveying of conservation professionals, resulting in a list of 120 potential interviewees.  After ranking the potential participants according our criteria, we attempted to contact those leaders who fit into the top third of the list. Ultimately, 27 individuals – 15 women and 12 men – were interviewed. Each participant was assured of anonymity in their specific responses, although all consented to be acknowledged in a list of interviewees (see Acknowledgements).

The survey instrument was developed in part based on the Dietz survey, with additional questions probing gender issues and career sustainability, in order to help answer questions about longevity in the profession and whether career paths differ markedly between women and men. The survey instrument is available from N.F. Pilot testing was conducted among the authors to ensure inter-observer reliability.  All interviews were conducted by telephone between June and October, 2006, and ranged from 30-60 minutes in length.

The survey instrument included a standard introduction and closing. Full narrative responses were transcribed by each interviewer via typing. Each subject’s responses were then assigned numbers which were recorded in a spreadsheet. The subject names were removed from the narrative prior to review and analysis.

All responses to open-ended questions were content coded by the four authors. Two of the questions were content coded by all four authors together, reaching agreement on the categories, with the remainder then coded by at least two authors reaching agreement.  Coded responses were then quantified, with more than one response possible from each participant for each question (for example, participants could cite more than one significant life experience as influencing their career choice) (Tull & Hawkins 1987; Patton 1990).

To answer the question related to gender differences in perceived barriers, the participants’ identification number was assigned a gender code, and the effect of gender on the number of perceived barriers was tested by chi squared analysis (Tull & Hawkins 1987).



Academic and professional backgrounds

Our respondents had a range of academic and professional backgrounds, although the vast majority, 23 individuals (85%), had some type of advanced degree. Forty-four percent had a Ph.D.; 33% had some type of Master’s degree (including three MBAs) and 7% had JD degrees.

While the professional backgrounds among respondents ranged widely, there were a few key experiences that were commonly shared. Thirteen participants (48%) had spent some time “in the field” doing research or study, including Peace Corps work mentioned by one participant. Twelve respondents (44%) had worked in a non-profit conservation or environmental advocacy organization, seven (26%) in zoos and six (22%) had taught at the university or other level. Less frequently cited backgrounds included time in fields other than conservation such as media, governmental positions, charitable foundations, consulting and time in the military.

Significant life experiences

In response to the questions, “What significant life experiences led you to this profession? Did you know from a young age that you wanted to work in this field?,” the majority of respondents (N=15) reported that spending time in nature as a youth, especially doing outdoor hobbies such as canoeing, fishing and butterfly collecting, inspired them to pursue a career in conservation; Five additional respondents credited an early connection with animals as a motivating factor, with four responding that visiting or working in a zoo was an important factor for giving them a love of animals.  Many referred to a close connection to pets and farm animals as children, as well as raising or caring for injured wildlife. One respondent, in talking about overcoming a stuttering challenge as a youth, said “I had a strong emotional connection with animals because we were the same – animals had feelings and emotions but had no human voice…As I went through therapies so that I was able to speak, I told animals that if I could ever have a voice again, I would use it to speak for animals.”  Along these lines, several respondents referenced the fact that they felt more comfortable with animals than with people, with two individuals mentioning that an actual dislike of people contributed to their desire to pursue a career with wildlife.

Ten respondents (37%) credited key individuals as guiding their career paths, including parents, mentors and role models, as well as community clubs (e.g., 4-H) and community events (e.g., community efforts to clean up the environment) as contributing factors.  Eleven percent of respondents identified reading books on nature as influential, and, not surprisingly, the majority referenced academic training in related disciplines as essential to their career trajectories.  Four people identified critical events as contributing to their career choices, including three who had personal “revelations” about working for the environment or wildlife, and one who was moved to work in conservation following a death in the family.

Seventeen respondents (63%) said that they were aware as a child that they wanted to work with wildlife or in a conservation-related field, even if they did not know what their specific career path would be, and several pointed out that the discipline of Conservation Biology as such did not exist when they were young.  One stated that “I was clear from the day I was born I wanted to be a biologist,” which reflected a common sentiment among our participants. Three more respondents indicated that while they did not identify a career in conservation at an early age, they watched television shows about wildlife, painted animals in art class or otherwise had an affinity towards nature.  One respondent said that, when they were young, they wanted to be Jane Goodall, although they had not taken the dream seriously. Only six respondents said that they had no idea when they were young that they were interested in pursuing a wildlife or environmental career.

Key leadership qualities

Following on the work of Dietz and his colleagues (2004), we assessed the leadership qualities the respondents felt were most critical to this profession.  Possessing people skills was a general category that was by far the most commonly cited, and included traits such as listening and other communication skills (n=11), being able to inspire and help others in their development (n=9) general management ability/people skills (n=5) and having empathy (n=4).

The second most critical leadership attribute cited (n=11) was passion for the profession, with vision (n=6) and lack of ego (n=5) following.  Although arguably not a leadership competency, technical skills were considered critical to 30% of respondents (n=8), including maintaining a critical knowledge base.

There was less agreement on other leadership qualities mentioned, with no other quality receiving more than two mentions.  Additional qualities mentioned included diplomacy (n=2), self-confidence (n=2), integrity (n=2), patience (n=2), results orientation (n=2), maintaining a positive attitude (n=2), risk-taking (n=2), with only one respondent referencing each of the following: critical thinking skills, resourcefulness, decisiveness, common sense, self-knowledge about strengths and weaknesses, understanding the big picture, pro-activeness, and a sense of humor.

Critical steps in career progression

In answering the open-ended question, “What steps in your career were most important for developing your skills as a conservation leader?,” twelve respondents (44%) cited formal study and training as the most essential steps to their career development and an additional  four (15%) said that time abroad, particularly in developing countries, was important to their career growth.  Sixteen respondents (60%) cited specific people as being important to their career path. These included mentors (n=7), parents (n=1), and networking and other people who provided professional or learning opportunities (n=8).  Some volunteered specific areas of learning that they felt were critical, including leadership training (n=2), fundraising skills (n=2) and general business skills (n=3).

More than half the respondents spoke about personal traits and skill sets they possessed that were instrumental to their career growth.  One important trait cited was the willingness to step forward and take on projects and create a niche for oneself (n=8). As one respondent said: “I was always willing to try new things: running heavy equipment to restore marshes. I was the anomaly of a young woman in conservation working for the government. It was unheard of that a woman would be this involved.”  Other key traits included being creative (n=2), working hard (n=2), following your heart (n=2), asking for help (n=1), and having a good attitude (n=1).  Fourteen people (52%) cited specific work tasks, including writing and publication, as well as general project and work experience, as vital to the career path of a conservation leader.

Obstacles to career initiation and growth 

We asked each participant, “What obstacles or barriers did you find as you began your career in conservation and as you rose through the ranks?” and “Were any of those barriers particular to women?”

There were several respondents who referenced some form of diversity issue as a barrier, including cultural barriers (n=6), gender (n=6), ageism (3), and racial discrimination (1).  Those respondents who cited some form of sexism as a barrier to their career growth included gender discrimination against women (n=5), a lack of female role models (n=2) and a societal assumption that husbands and children should come before a career (n=1).  However, a number of female respondents experienced either no gender-based discrimination (n=9), or even noted an upside to gender roles, including one respondent that indicated that sexism pushed them to work harder and therefore made them stronger in order to prove themselves. Another respondent said that the lack of pressure to be the family bread-winner enabled her to pursue a career in conservation.

Analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference between males and females regarding the presence of some form of discrimination as an obstacle or barrier, both in terms of gender discrimination (χ2=9.58, p<.01), or more general discrimination (gender, age, ethnic discrimination combined) (χ2=7.31, p<.05).  It is worth noting that there were no significant differences based on gender found for other categories examined, including significant life experiences (χ2=4.31 , p=.12), what sustains them (x2=.08, p=.96), and what constitutes leadership qualities (x2=.89, p=.64).

More general barriers included the competition for scarce funding in the non-profit sector (n=6), a lack of access to networks and jobs (n=3), the fact that the United States is not a popular country currently (n=1), the fact that conservation is often seen as an amenity rather than a core value (n=1), and the challenges of promoting unpopular causes or species (n=1). Two people cited a lack of having a Ph.D. as a limiting factor, and one mentioned a lack of technical skills.  Several respondents (n=6) said they had experienced no barriers in their career path.

Many respondents noted various personal and developmental issues that were a barrier to leadership for them.  These included challenges influencing change in an institutional setting (n=3), the fact that rising to leadership positions tends to move individuals away from the core work that they love (n=2), finding balance in life and dealing with guilt over work and family responsibilities (n=3), and the  need to learn to be a good leader (n=2).  Other respondents noted traits such as shyness (n=1), impatience (n=1) and loneliness doing field work (n=1) as barriers.

Overcoming barriers

Almost two-thirds of respondents (n=17) said that some trait related to personal strength was key to “how they overcame barriers,” with the majority of these citing traits of being persistent and not giving up (n=8), or having courage (n=5). Other personal traits that were identified as useful included letting go of your ego (n=3) and having a sense of humor (n=1). More than half the respondents (n=14) said that support from others was important to moving past challenges. Networking with colleagues was the primary form of support cited (n=6), with several female respondents noting that they felt it was particularly important for women in conservation to network with other women in the field.  Family was another important support system (n=5), as were mentors (n=4).  Five respondents said that maintaining a passion for the work they do is how they overcame barriers.

Career sustainability

Perhaps not surprisingly, a passion for the cause was what the majority cited as helping sustain them (n=18), the strongest, most consistent response to any question in the survey. Thirteen respondents said that the overwhelming importance and need for the profession is what keeps them motivated.  According to one respondent: “My feeling about it goes beyond avocation. It’s my life driver if you will.  I get up in the morning and I’m never confused about what I’m getting up to do.”

Many respondents (n=12) credit other people with keeping them motivated, including the “good community of people” in the profession, being inspired by young professionals and the next generation of conservationists, and helping others and impacting lives by their actions.  Others cited more personal factors, from spiritual beliefs (n=2), to spending time with family and/or having hobbies (n=4).

Advice to Emerging Leaders

Responses to the question “If you could provide advice to emerging leaders in the conservation field, what would it be?” in many ways mirrored their comments to previous questions, including the need for persistence (n=9) and maintaining passion (n=8).  A similar number of respondents referenced the importance of cross-disciplinary training and education, for example in economics and business, in order to solve our conservation problems (n=8).  Maintaining confidence, being willing to take risks, having good listening and communications skills and being creative and innovative were all mentioned by at least four respondents as important traits to advancement. Three respondents said that technical skills are important to becoming a conservation leader, and three also said that self-reflection is important.  Skills and traits listed by one or two respondents include: getting an advanced degree, taking initiative, asking for help, being open to learning new things, taking care of yourself and finding life balance, being able to move people to care deeply, maintaining good relationships with people, and finally, having a good sense of humor and being able to have fun while doing this important work.



As the pressure on natural resources continues to grow, the need for dedicated conservation leaders is greater than ever.  It is crucial that current leaders in the conservation field examine what attracts people to the work, how they overcome barriers and what helps sustain them in their career, in order to develop the next generation of leaders.  Dietz et.al. (2004) began the process of investigating conservation leadership.  Our interviews had threads of similarity with the Dietz findings, particularly the need for cross-disciplinary training, early childhood connections with nature, and needs for specific skills. Our questions, however, included a specific focus on overcoming barriers in the conservation field and how leaders sustain themselves in their careers. Many of the key points made by our interview subjects are similar to previously-identified leadership principles derived from adaptive leadership literature: recognize the social dimension of the problem; cycle frequently through action and reflection; get and maintain attention; combine strengths of multiple leaders; extend your reach through networks of relationships; strategically time your effort; nurture productive conflict; and cultivate diversity (Manolis et al. 2008). Although our participants might not have used the same language, the first principle, “recognize the social dimension of the problem” clearly references many of the leadership qualities mentioned, including general people skills, communication skills, and being able to inspire and help others. Similarly, influencing skills and networking seem directly relevant to the principles of “get and maintain attention” and “extend influence through networks of relationships.”

Previous papers have addressed significant life experiences that lead people into environmental professions, particularly environmental education (Chawla 1998, 1999, 2001; Tanner 1980). Experiences in natural areas, as well as family influences and education, are very important in the lives of environmentalists (Chawla 1999), as well as a “continual growth from childhood interests to adult conservation activities” (Tanner 1980). An opportunity system composed of outdoor exposure, available information, personal values, job opportunities, societal prejudices and organizational culture were found to influence involvement in environmental education (James 1995). A commitment to “principles of life or caring” and “the enjoyment of a challenge and cooperative effort” are also very important among environmentalists (Chawla 1999). These findings are similar to ours, as we have identified passion for the field and interpersonal relationships to be very important to our respondents.

Focusing on one’s passion is one way to cultivate personal strength, the attribute cited most frequently as the way to overcome career barriers. The interviews suggest many elements are involved in personal strength, including the qualities of courage, motivation and introspection.  One respondent said, “My biggest asset as a leader is I’m fearless in visioning the future for my organization.  I have drive and energy to make it happen.”  Another overcomes barriers by “being very gutsy, even irreverent at the right times…but (also) reverent at the right times.”

Maintaining positive relationships with others, both inside and outside the conservation field, seems to be critically important to success in conservation careers. Family members and mentors influenced respondents to enter the conservation field; networking and role models played roles during critical times in careers; people help professionals overcome barriers and sustain them in their careers; and leaders have strong recommendations for future leaders that they understand and communicate well with peers and coworkers. While some respondents noted that they felt more kinship with animals than with people, most of our interviews revealed that relationships (especially long-term relationships) were critically important in overcoming barriers and sustaining their commitment to the conservation field. In times of crisis or doubt, conservation leaders reach out to others, whether to a former academic advisor, colleagues who have faced similar crises, or family members that offer a different perspective. While some may view conservation as a discipline that cares more for trees and animals than for people, it appears that the field is dependent upon a complex network of interpersonal relationships. One respondent said, “It was people that helped me overcome those barriers; they would stand up for me and [other] people that were different… Other people of color who are in this field, because there are not many of us. There is a camaraderie that is very powerful. We’re friends and we stay in touch and we don’t forget each other.” Those who succeed in conserving wildlife and wild places – as well as in their own career advancement – may have a more finely-tuned internal system for understanding relationships and the importance of relationship-building.

An increasing number of women have entered the conservation profession in the past few decades.  At the University of Maryland’s Conservation Biology Master’s program, 68% of the applicants and 72% of those enrolled are female. This trend has been consistent since the program’s inception in the early 1990s (Dietz, pers. comm.). In Duke University’s Masters of Environmental Management, 60% of enrolled students in 2008 were female (Admissions Department, Duke University, pers. comm.).  Many of the large environmental organizations have a majority of female staff. As of late 2008, Defenders of Wildlife had 62% female employees (McKenzie, pers. comm.), World Wildlife Fund-US had 63% female employees (WWF-US Human Resources Department, pers. comm.) and the International Fund for Animal Welfare had 65% female employees (Morris, pers. comm.). Figures from the Wildlife Conservation Society reflected the gender breakdown for management and leadership positions only, with 49% female (WCS Human Resources Department, pers. comm.). In the Washington DC offices of the US Fish & Wildlife Service, the Division of Endangered Species is 69% female, while the traditionally male-dominated fields in the Divisions of Fisheries & Habitat Conservation and National Wildlife Refuges have lower numbers of female employees, with 46% and 40%, respectively.

However, there is still a dearth of racial/ethnic diversity. Much more work needs to be done to ensure professional opportunities and leadership roles for minorities in the conservation profession (Lanham, 2007). It is important to note that for logistical reasons (time differences, difficulties in making phone calls across continents, language barriers), most, but not all, of the survey participants were Americans based in the U.S.  An expanded study in the future should include more international conservation leaders, as well as more minorities within the United States.

An examination of attrition among men and women in natural science and engineering careers, found that there was a 2:1 ratio of women to men that left their field within an average of 12.5 years (Preston 2004). One of the key findings was that women in the sciences were more likely than men to have a spouse who was also an employed professional, and were thus more likely to “find a solution” to the challenges in finding employment in a dual-career marriage. In addition, he noted a general sense that careers and child rearing were in direct conflict and that the “stars” in the U.S. workplace “are not likely to be men or women who spend a lot of time with children and family. Both issues will become less problematic when men start taking on an increased share of childcare.”  This may be true, but in order to really foster leadership in both men and women it is essential that the wildlife profession allow for balance between work and personal lives.  As one of our respondents said: “Personally, in my own life, the perennial quest is to find the balance between work and home.  I went through a period a few years ago where I was a workaholic and on the verge of burn-out.  I learned the importance of taking breaks. Even long weekends. Recharging and getting away from it.”  Results from our survey support the concept that we cannot afford to let our conservation leaders suffer burn-out and leave the profession.  We must instead find ways of fostering leadership and life balance.

Considering that the majority of conservation leaders we interviewed cited time spent in nature as a child as an important factor in their pursuit of a conservation career, the concept that fewer and fewer children have access to the outdoors is indeed of significant concern (Louv 2008).  Developing future conservation and environmental leaders will require not only nurturing the rising professionals already among our ranks, but creating broad public education and outreach efforts to encourage outdoor programs in schools and other means of keeping children connected to nature.

Perhaps the most striking theme throughout our interviews was the respondents’ emphasis on their passion for their work. Conservation leaders believe in the importance of what they do which, in turn, feeds their drive to continue when faced with challenges.  Not only was passion a sustaining factor in their career, but it was also cited as helpful in overcoming barriers.  If passion is a significant foundation to this field, how do we spark passion in future conservation leaders? This question should be paramount, as organizations work to expand the creative potential of the field.  Emerging leaders should be encouraged to take risks, discover creative solutions, follow-through on “wild” ideas and celebrate successes.  All our respondents mentioned at least one thing in nature that was inspirational to them; perhaps conservation organizations need to make a concerted effort to encourage, and create opportunities for, their employees to stay connected with nature – the source of their passion.



The authors would like to thank J. Dietz for sharing both his survey instrument and thoughts on the subject of conservation leadership, as well as for reviewing a draft manuscript.  We would also like to thank K. Burks for analytical advice, L. Morrison, N. Jayasinghe and S. Harris for research and other assistance, and J. Flocken and A. Styring for reviewing an early draft. Most importantly, we would like to thank the 27 survey participants for generously donating their time to help us investigate this important subject: M. Bean, Counselor of Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior; T. Beattie, Executive Director, Shedd Aquarium; E. Bennett, Vice President of Species Conservation, Wildlife Conservation Society; J. Berry, Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management; D. Boersma, University of Washington;  J.R. Clark, Executive Vice President, Defenders of Wildlife; K. Eckhart, Executive Director, WIDECAST; K. Gallmann, Founder, Gallmann Africa Conservancy; I. Gantt-Wright, Director, Environmental Diversity Working Group; T. Hart, Director, TL2 Project, DRC; G. Hemley, Senior Vice President for Conservation Strategy and Sciences, World Wildlife Fund; M. Hutchins, Executive Director, The Wildlife Society; B. Jenks, President & CEO, RARE; C. Knowles, Executive Director, Wildlife Conservation Network; J. Lukas, Director, White Oak Conservation Center; L. Marker, Executive Director, Cheetah Conservation Fund; C. McMurray, President and CEO, Mainstream Green Solutions, LLC; J. Packard, Executive Director, Monterey Bay Aquarium/Packard Foundation; S. Paul, Director, India Energy Initiative, Climate Works Foundation; M. Pearl, President, Wildlife Trust; H. Raffaele, Chief, Division of International Conservation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; A. Rabinowitz, President and CEO, Panthera; K. Redford, Director of the Wildlife Conservation Society Institute and Vice President, Conservation Strategy, Wildlife Conservation Society; B. Stevens, Senior Vice President, Environmental Affairs, The Walt Disney Company; J. Terborgh, Research Professor and Director, Center for Tropical Conservation, Duke University; M. Tuttle, President [Emeritus] and Founder, Bat Conservation International; and S. Walker, IUCN CBSG India.


Literature Cited

Admissions Department, Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. Personal communication. January 2009.

Chawla, Louise. 1998. Significant life experiences revisited: A review of research on sources of environmental sensitivity. Environmental Education Research 4(4): 369-82.

Chawla, Louise. 1999. Life paths into effective environmental action. Journal of Environmental Education 31(1):15-26.

Chawla, Louise. 2001. Significant life experiences revisited once again: Response to Vol. 5(4) “Five Critical Commentaries on Significant Life Experience Research in Environmental Education.” Environmental Education Research 7(4): 451-61.

Dietz, J. M.,R. Aviram, S. Bickford, K. Douthwaite, A. Goodstine, J. Izursa, S. Kavanaugh, K. MacCarthy, M. O’Herron, and K. Parker. 2004. Defining Leadership in Conservation: A View from the Top. Conservation Biology. 18: 274-278.

Dietz, J.M., Sustainable Development and Conservation Biology Program, University of Maryland. Personal communication. September 2008.

James, Katherine. 1995. Creating a Multiculturally diverse profession. NYSOEA Pathways. Spring 1995. pp 14-18.

Lanham, J.D. 2007.  A personal view of diversity. Wildlife Professional. 1(4), 38-39.

Louv, Richard. 2008. Last Child in the Woods. Algonquin Books of Chapel Hill. Chapel Hill, NC.

Manolis, J.C., K.M. Chan, M.E. Finkelstein, S. Stephens, C.R. Nelson, J.B. Grant, and M.P. Dombeck. 2008. Leadership: a New Frontier in Conservation Science. Conservation Biology 23(4): 879-886.

McKenzie, M., Human Resources Director, Defenders of Wildlife. Personal communication. January 2009.

Morris, V., International Fund for Animal Welfare. Personal communication. September 2008.

Patton, M.Q. 1990. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (2nd Ed.). Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.

Preston, A.E. 2004. Plugging the leaks in the scientific workforce. Issues in Science and Technology online.

Snow, Donald. 1992. Inside the Environmental Movement: Meeting the leadership challenge. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Tanner, Thomas. 1980. Significant Life Experiences: A new research area in environmental education. Journal of Environmental Education 11(4):20-24.

Tull, Donald S. and D.I. Hawkins. 1987. Marketing Research. Macmillan Publishing Company. P. 292-295.

Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) Human Resources Department, Wildlife Conservation Society. Personal communication. January 2009.

World Wildlife Fund-US (WWF-US) Human Resources Department, World Wildlife Fund-US. Personal communication. September 2009.

COP18 Doha outcomes challenge business to fill a yawning gap in climate ambition

In my pre-Doha blog I anticipated that we should not expect meaningful gains for the climate nor for business from COP18. That was proved the case. Negotiators from 200+ nations battled with the fragmented, confused, ineffective processes of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and managed, just, to keep the intergovernmental wheels moving on three key aspects: extending the Kyoto Protocol until 2020; albeit with a much reduced number of states representing just 15% of global emissions; planning for a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol; and, securing funding for developing countries’ mitigation and adaptation activities.

The most important achievement of COP18 was the extension of The Kyoto Protocol, due to expire at the end of this year, for another eight years to 2020. Without this, the intergovernmental process would have stalled completely and been unable to achieve a 2020 successor.

But a much reduced set of countries now carry the Kyoto baton that together represents only 15% of global emissions. Canada, Japan and Russia have left it to Australia, the EU and a few other small nations to struggle on valiantly under the much reduced Agreement.

So – in terms of keeping the wheels turning and spanning the gap to 2020 when the successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol is to be put in place – progress was made, although clearly inadequate in its impact on global emissions reductions.

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC summed up the Doha outcomes as “moving steadily in the right direction ….. but alarmingly slow”, and went on to say that “The UN is the venue for global decision-making, but it is not the driver of domestic decisions. Domestic interests in resource sustainability, stability and competitiveness are the powerful drivers of action on climate change.”

What she really means is – it’s time for business to provide the lead.


A rocky road ahead, but a powerful precedent for business leadership

The ‘Doha Climate Gateway’ (the term given to the collection of agreements struck in Doha) opens to a rocky road of much tougher negotiations required to seal an all-nations post 2020 climate deal by 2015, and we’d need to be highly optimistic to anticipate a positive outcome given past form.

Many of the same issues remain – developing nations demanding technology transfer & climate aid while developed nations dig in for better governance, measurement and payment for results. This suggests that pre-compliance action across the private sector is where progress will be made for the next eight years at least.

However, there is a powerful precedent for successful business leadership within a UN inter-governmental agreement. The UN’s Montreal Protocol of 1989 has been hailed a success in protecting the ozone layer and transforming the $1trillion CFC industry. The Montreal Protocol took shape after 500 producers and users of CFCs, led by Dow and Du Pont, issued a statement supporting international regulation of ozone depleting substances based upon scientific research conducted in laboratories (i.e. without clear evidence from the field).

Hailed as a success, this Treaty has focused on its core task and made quick and steady progress in protecting the ozone layer. It has worked in collaboration with business and other Agencies to progress its objectives. For example, the United Nations Development Agency was recently recognised for the $670m support it has mobilised to 118 countries to destroy ozone depleting substances and at the same time avoid 4Gt of GHG emissions.


What should business do after Doha?

While the UNFCCC process limps along with the tacit support of 200 nations, it has not been able to realise and leverage the potential of the private sector the way the Montreal Protocol did for ozone depleting substances. ;As a result the inter-governmental process is set to fail to deliver a stable climate.

In addition, the failure of the CDM to ensure developed nations raise their mitigation ambitions, despite its success in identifying and funding a multitude of cost-effective reduction opportunities, has made the private sector extremely wary of the UNFCCC’s ability to scale private sector finance effectively.

There are, however, critical lessons that can be learned from the Montreal Protocol about how business can help shape global agreements that work.

  • Business led on the ozone depleting substances issue, and used the UN process to formalise rules which rewarded its leadership. Business has the capital, innovation capacity, and vision to do the same for climate change.
  • Business made its investment decisions on the basis of incomplete but compelling science. The science of climate change is more solid, and so business is again in the position to act on sound intelligence to minimise risks and optimise commercial opportunities in a low-carbon economy.
  • A large part of business’s response to the ozone depletion issue was driven by competition between the US and Europe within a $1trillion industry. The same positive power of corporate and national competitiveness needs to be unleashed to solve this issue.
  • Business was able to influence the shape of the Montreal Protocol through its ability to deliver solutions. Business has the same to deliver for climate, and needs to bring that capacity and ingenuity to the heart of the political process.
  • Business must use the eight years between now and a planned successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol in 2020 wisely to ensure success.  

That means making investment decisions that seek competitive advantage for a low-carbon world as a matter of priority, and not treating this as an issue of compliance for when regulations may finally emerge.


Be a ranger!

Does the thought of a 9-5 day behind a desk make you shudder? Do you long to drive a 4×4 in search of adventure, preferably in a pair of khaki pants? Do you often think you could do a better job of shining the spotlight on night drives? Then the life of a game ranger could be the career for you. The tourism industry is booming in South Africa and this has opened up doors for people with a passion for our diverse wildlife. If you want to be a ranger, here are some basics to get you started:

What you need

A passion for wildlife

The way people experience a safari can depend totally on the guide they have. There’s a big difference between a ranger showing you the bush because it is his/her job and one showing you the bush because it’s their passion. That infectious enthusiasm that only truly passionate rangers have really makes an impression on people.

A way with people


A friendly nature and good communication skills go a long way to creating a memorable safari experience, even when the animals won’t come out to play.

Love outdoor activity

It’s a tough job that requires a lot of physical activity and being exposed to the elements. If you can’t handle waking up at 5AM on winter mornings for a brisk drive in the cold, this is not the job for you.

Confidence under pressure


Anyone who has accidentally driven between an elephant and her baby will know how quickly you can find religion, even though you’re having trouble finding ‘reverse’. Guides need to be able to stay calm under pressure and remember their training at times like these.

An observant eye

Game ranging goes hand-in-hand with conservation and wildlife management, so the ability to work with accurate measurements and recordings comes in handy for facilitating field research projects.


You don’t need a degree, but you do need a wildlife management diploma or similar qualification. Many private academies and game reserves offer introductory and advanced courses for those wanting to pursue a conservation-oriented career. Remember to choose an institution that is accredited with the Tourism Hospitality and Sport, Education and Training Authority (THETA).


Other ways to get involved

If you already have a full-time job you can attend workshops or get involved with a volunteer program such as the SANParks Honorary Rangers, who do great work for the Kruger National Park and always need the time and expertise of any volunteer who wants to be involved.

Useful contacts

You can get more info from these organisations:

The Field Guides Association of Southern Africa (FGASA) – http://www.fgasa.co.za/

SANParks Honorary Rangers National Training Comittee – jayobee@mweb.co.za

Honorary Rangers home page – http://www.sanparksvolunteers.org/



A game drive on your desktop

We are always in awe of wildlife photographers, especially those whose work features Africa’s amazing landscapes. One such photographer is Chad Cocking, whose stunning animal portraits and bush vistas never fail to take our breath away. Chad works largely from Motswari Private Game Reserve, where he is a professional field guide. He’s won a host of photo competitions (as well as our hearts) with his gorgeous images of the bush and its inhabitants.

Chad has kindly allowed us to share some of his 100 Favourite Images of 2012, so we put them together in a collage for your desktop. Click on the image above for a hi-res version (1024×786) and then save and set as your desktop background. And, voila, a game drive on your lunch-break!

A year in the wild!

easelly_visual (4)

It’s been a busy year for wildlife in South Africa. From the massive floods experienced in the Kruger National Park in January, to the continuing battle against rhino poaching, there was seldom a dull moment for wildlife enthusiasts. Hippos and roan antelope fought off an unexpected anthrax infection that could have devastated their populations. The Park was forced to operate without many of its staff, including rangers, who went on strike early in the year over wage disputes. Nevertheless, tourism boomed in the first half of the year, with almost twice the number of international visitors in South Africa than 2011. Perhaps this was thanks to Table Mountain’s new-found fame as one of the New 7 Wonders of Nature.

What’s your most memorable wildlife moment of 2012? Connect with us socially, or tell us in the comments!

We celebrate in style

The past year has been one of tremendous growth for KrugerPark.com, none of which would have been possible without the sheer dedication of our amazing team who worked hard to improve our service offering every single day. Together, we booked holidays for over 40,000 people in 2012, taking the challenges in our stride and sharing the successes along the way. A big thank you to the whole team for all the work you have contributed; you guys made it happen!

Wishing all of you a wonderful year ahead. May 2013 bring us health, happiness and prosperity!

Gene Sofer Named Executive Director

Gene Sofer, Executive Director, Trees for the Future

SILVER SPRING, MD – December 4, 2012 Trees for the Future, the international agroforestry nonprofit working to “plant trees and change lives,” is pleased to announce the appointment of Gene Sofer to lead the organization effective November 30, 2012.

“Trees for the Future has been helping to create sustainable and productive communities throughout the world since 1989,” said Sofer.  “The value of trees to rural people is incalculable. I am looking forward to advancing Trees for the Future’s mission and increasing the influence of this vital and effective organization.”

Sofer will continue the work of David Tye who functioned as Interim Executive Director.  Tye will become the organization’s new Managing Director.

“Gene brings a breadth of professional experience to bear – experience that will enable Trees for the Future to carry on its vital work of planting trees and improving lives around the world,” said Board Chair John Moore, Ph.D. “We are confident that under his leadership Trees for the Future will continue to grow, enabling more rural communities around the globe to restore their environment, produce more food, and build a sustainable future.”

Sofer is a co-founder of The Susquehanna Group, a Washington, DC-based consulting company. In the Clinton Administration, he served as Director of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations for the Corporation for National Service and as Deputy Director of The President’s Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the United States. He also worked in the House of Representatives, serving as a senior member of the staff of the Committee on Education and Labor, and as a Majority Staff Associate on the House Budget Committee.

Sofer earned his Ph.D. in History from the University of California Los Angeles.


About Trees for the Future, Inc.

Since 1989, Trees for the Future has been improving the lives of poor rural people around the world. By teaching farmers to plant fast-growing trees, and harvest them sustainably, rural families are being provided the basic necessities they need to live – food, firewood, fodder for livestock, construction materials, and more fertile soil. Since its founding, Trees for the Future has planted more than 65 million trees worldwide. Visit www.treesforthefuture.org to learn more.


Training of forest staff

Certificate Distribution to participants after the training_Nagzira Wildlife Sanctuary, Maharashtra_Photo credit- Anish

WCT launches its training programme on “Wildlife Crime Prevention” for frontline forest staff with a three-day training programmes each for Navegaon National Park & Wildlife Sanctuary and Nagzira & New Nagzira Wildlife Sanctuaries between October 31 and November 5, 2012.

A total of 98 staff comprising of Conservatory of Forest, ACFs, RFOs, Foresters and Forest Guards participated in the training.

WCT acknowledges the need to strengthen the protection mechanism of national parks and sanctuaries by building capacity of the field staff. To achieve this, It has introduced a rigorous Wildlife Crime Prevention and Law Enforcement training programme with several classroom and field sessions.

An incident which happened immediately after the training illustrates the importance of such programmes. The forest staff arrested a few people for illegally felling trees. In normal situations they would have booked such an offence under the Forest Conservation Act and the offenders would have managed to procure a bail almost immediately. However in this case, the field staff, fresh from the training, booked a case under the Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 as well for destruction of habitat. This strengthened the case and the offenders were denied bail and were kept in custody for 15 days.Read more