Article about problems about young people working in conservation. (1 Viewer)

[IAN JAMES THOMPSON]

There's an interesting article in the enviromental section of the Guardian newspaper online, saying that many young people with degrees in conservation never get jobs and eventually give up looking for work in that subject despite doing years of voluntary work for different conservation charity's as it's very difficult to get a job in conservation as they are far and few available. It's quite a depressing article but well worth a read. I'm not sure how to post a link maybe someone can do that for me.
Ian.

 

[etudiant]

Conservation is much like priesthood without the celibacy requirement, you are expected to work with minimal compensation for the good of 'the cause'.
If the conservation movement had a brain, they would worry about the backlash.

 

[Andrew Whitehouse]

I think this is probably the article Ian's referring to:
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...k-no-pay-the-plight-of-young-conservationists
For future reference, to post a link you just need to copy and past the URL in your post and it will automatically be turned into a link.

 

[jurek]

It is sad but true. Job situation in conservation mirrors also horrible job situation in biological sciences.

I seriously advise anybody who plans a job in conservation to get a second education which brings safe money. Treat conservation as a hobby. Don't expect to find a job and earn a living off it.

I think that both conservation and biomedical research need to go back to offering people fair compensation and fair work security. And perhaps shame a little. The human situation is not right, despite that underpaid people under various names (volunteers, trainees, Ph.D. students, postdocs, interns, assistants, temporary or short-term positions) make possible conducting additional projects.

For the time being, I hope young people interested in conservation and biology will be made aware that it is not a viable career. Much like little girls attending dancing lessons generally know they will not become professional ballerinas.

 

[Mysticete]

That is pretty much, as Jurek states, the trend for pretty much all non-industry sciences. Slog through a ton of schooling where you have a high workload with little pay (and in the states, often large amounts of student loans), so that when you graduate you can compete for the handful of positions available each year which may get upwards of 200 applicants.

 

[mjh73]

This is nothing new - it was like that 25 years ago which is why I stuck with civil engineering, and just volunteer in conservation when I can.

 

[Jos Stratford]

This is nothing new - it was like that 25 years ago which is why I stuck with civil engineering, and just volunteer in conservation when I can.

Yep, after a few seasons with the RSPB/county wildlife trusts, I decided it was better for me to not work in wildlife and conservation, but pursue them as interests.

I'd recommend any young person thinking about a career in wildlife/conservation to consider for a moment:

1. at the personal level, is an interest in wildlife/conservation better being exactly that - an interest, rather than a job? If the job becomes dissatisfying for any reason (conditions, salary, same mundane work [some conservation work is], lack of long-term security, etc), is this going to impact on your real pleasure in wildlife/conservation?
2. can you really see a long-term path of existence on mostly low-salary jobs, short-term contracts, etc?
3. can you make an equal/greater contribution as a volunteer while also having a real life? Volunteering is often not only productive in terms of conservation, but can be hugely satisfying, and gives the option to being more interesting as you are free to volunteer for whatever you want, rather than needing to take whatever you have to.
4. could you potentially achieve more by getting a normal job, earning a decent amount of money, then ploughing some of this back into conservation?

This said, full credit for those that do decide to stick at it and work for the conservation bodies.

 

[IAN JAMES THOMPSON]

I know of at least one young person from my RSPB Local Group who's aged about 18 or 19 years old who's done loads of volunteering for different conservation wildlife charity's and he's now studying conservation and wildlife conservation at university. I really fear for him when and if he gets his degree in his chosen subject in wildlife conservation after reading that article in Thursdays online edition of the Guardian.
Ian.

 

[lewis20126]

Yep, after a few seasons with the RSPB/county wildlife trusts, I decided it was better for me to not work in wildlife and conservation, but pursue them as interests.

I'd recommend any young person thinking about a career in wildlife/conservation to consider for a moment:

1. at the personal level, is an interest in wildlife/conservation better being exactly that - an interest, rather than a job? If the job becomes dissatisfying for any reason (conditions, salary, same mundane work [some conservation work is], lack of long-term security, etc), is this going to impact on your real pleasure in wildlife/conservation?
2. can you really see a long-term path of existence on mostly low-salary jobs, short-term contracts, etc?
3. can you make an equal/greater contribution as a volunteer while also having a real life? Volunteering is often not only productive in terms of conservation, but can be hugely satisfying, and gives the option to being more interesting as you are free to volunteer for whatever you want, rather than needing to take whatever you have to?
4. could you potentially achieve more by getting a normal job, earning a decent amount of money, then ploughing some of this back into conservation?

This said, full credit for those that do decide to stick at it and work for the conservation bodies.

Good advice I think - unless you have got substantial family wealth behind you and / or a wealthy partner and unless you are very lucky, a career in conservation in the UK is unlikely to enable you to secure a mortgage, or save for a pension.

cheers, alan

 

[James Eaton]

Good advice I think - unless you have got substantial family wealth behind you and / or a wealthy partner and unless you are very lucky, a career in conservation in the UK is unlikely to enable you to secure a mortgage, or save for a pension.

cheers, alan

Exactly, I think the point worth noting here is that it would apply if it were conservation and living in the UK.

I don't see it being all doom and gloom if one broadens their horizons. Working abroad (ie, Neotropics, Africa and Asia) in conservation is a very manageable form of employment and depending on your skills (which can be incredibly specialised) can lead to a well paid job inside conservation, and would be far more rewarding and broaden the mind. I have many friends who have lived abroad for most of their working lives in conservation and lead very enjoyable lives and really make a difference.
On top of that, it would also be more beneficial on a global scale given the habitat destruction and precarious state of many species from all forms of the Animal Kingdom.

Cheers,

James

 

[simmojunior]

I think this is a really important piece. For me there are two key issues:

- Are the employment practices of the large conservation charities in the best interests of conservation long term? Do things like unpaid internships and zero hours contracts contribute to conservation having as socially and ethnically diverse workforce? This is essential as it means they will share the conservation message with their families and friends, thus potentially increasing the number of people clamouring politicians and businesses for real change.

- Would we stand for these employment practices if they were practiced by Uber or Sports Direct? If not, why do we stand for them from conservation charities that we are members of, despite the other good work they do. We have a minimum wage in the UK for a reason and charities should not exploit a loophole by calling full time hours a "voluntary internship".

 

[Egrets Ivadafew]

Yep, that's the sad but true of it Simmojunior, as the boss of a company and counting every penny, would you pay a salary to a post gra, or would you take on a volunteer willing to graft for nothing.

 

[Mysticete]

I think this is a really important piece. For me there are two key issues:

- Are the employment practices of the large conservation charities in the best interests of conservation long term? Do things like unpaid internships and zero hours contracts contribute to conservation having as socially and ethnically diverse workforce? This is essential as it means they will share the conservation message with their families and friends, thus potentially increasing the number of people clamouring politicians and businesses for real change.

- Would we stand for these employment practices if they were practiced by Uber or Sports Direct? If not, why do we stand for them from conservation charities that we are members of, despite the other good work they do. We have a minimum wage in the UK for a reason and charities should not exploit a loophole by calling full time hours a "voluntary internship".

Part of this issue is in fact due to the fact that most conservation jobs ARE NOT for profit, but rather rely on sometimes unreliable public funding and donations. So it's not a case of "We could pay these people more but get a reduced profit" so much as it is "We could try to get volunteers for this position, or we scale back/cut off this area of conservation interest". I think in this case, boycotting conservation-related agencies isn't exactly going to help the situation, versus say, refusing to shop or buy products from a company whose hiring practices you disagree with.

 

[Mysticete]

This is nothing new - it was like that 25 years ago which is why I stuck with civil engineering, and just volunteer in conservation when I can.

Here in the US, things have gotten worse for science over the last 25 years. But then the USA has a far larger University system than most countries, so as long as you were willing to relocate to another state or city, you would eventually get a job. But the number of folks graduating is increasing while overall funding is on the decline, and various other practices (increased use of graduate students/adjuncts for teaching, shuttering of departments, etc) are also reducing the number of jobs.

 

[jurek]

I don't see it being all doom and gloom if one broadens their horizons. Working abroad (ie, Neotropics, Africa and Asia) in conservation is a very manageable form of employment and depending on your skills (which can be incredibly specialised) can lead to a well paid job inside conservation, and would be far more rewarding and broaden the mind. I have many friends who have lived abroad for most of their working lives in conservation and lead very enjoyable lives and really make a difference.

Hi James,

I and perhaps many others would be glad to hear more details about it.

 

[jurek]

- Are the employment practices of the large conservation charities in the best interests of conservation long term?

No, I am afraid not.

Would we stand for these employment practices if they were practiced by Uber or Sports Direct? If not, why do we stand for them from conservation charities that we are members of, despite the other good work they do.

No, I would not. However I would not blame individual charities much, because I think there is a wrong system which developed on which individual charities have little influence.

It should be corrected but needs more broad scale. For example government and sponsors need to understand there is a cost in maintaining pool of resources (eg. field equipment) and skilled people. One hears stories that e.g. a major museum with centuries old, irreplacable collection of specimens was given no money to maintain it. The same in a smaller scale happens with conservation charities.

 

[Mono]

The "problem" is that people want to volunteer for conservation charities. The baker, the banker and the candlestick maker are interested in and want to go out there and do their bit. If the unemployed recent Environmental Science graduate who wants to gain some practical skills wants to join in, should the conservation charity say no? "Sorry only people doing this for a hobby are allowed to volunteer!"

 

[Nutcracker]

The "problem" is that people want to volunteer for conservation charities. The baker, the banker and the candlestick maker are interested ...

I guess there won't be very many candlestick makers, though o

 

[jurek]

people want to volunteer for conservation charities.

Not a good argument by itself, I am afraid. Uber, too, claimed that people want to drive without job security. However, courts in several countries forced Uber to pay job security and insurance for its drivers.

Charities and science institutions might start by taking list of criteria used by courts in such cases for voluntary ethical check whether they treat people right.

In my opinion, if we are talking about an occasional work which requires limited skills and commitment, say old people planting trees in weekends for a charity, then it is clearly volunteering. In other cases it is clearly dodging definition of a regular work: 'internships' or 'volunteering' which require skills of a professional, or when universities offer 3 times more postdoctoral positions than tenures.

Going back to that grant givers, especially the government, are partially responsible and the whole system is wrong. There should be an understanding that work requiring long-time commitment, like much of science and conservation, will collapse when forced to subsist on a string of short-term grants. Funding institutions (e.g. governments giving grants for research or contracts for conservation) should demand and verify that recipients don't overuse postdocs, internships, pseudo-volunteers etc.

BTW, maybe there is an area of economy dealing with that.

 

[Digbert Doobrey]

I think this is a really important piece. For me there are two key issues:

- Are the employment practices of the large conservation charities in the best interests of conservation long term? Do things like unpaid internships and zero hours contracts contribute to conservation having as socially and ethnically diverse workforce? This is essential as it means they will share the conservation message with their families and friends, thus potentially increasing the number of people clamouring politicians and businesses for real change.

- Would we stand for these employment practices if they were practiced by Uber or Sports Direct? If not, why do we stand for them from conservation charities that we are members of, despite the other good work they do. We have a minimum wage in the UK for a reason and charities should not exploit a loophole by calling full time hours a "voluntary internship".

Can't speak for Sports Direct but believe me you'd rather work for a conservation charity than be an Uber driver. The amount of carrot dangling lies and exploitation they are fed is off the scale. And the Government certainly stands for their employment practices.