People–Animals–Nature (PAN)

People–Animals–Nature (PAN)
Name	People–Animals–Nature (PAN)
Type	Nonprofit / Research Initiative
Established	2000s
Focus	Human–animal–environment relations
Headquarters	Multiple international nodes

People–Animals–Nature (PAN) is an interdisciplinary initiative connecting scholars, advocates, and institutions concerned with interactions among humans, animals, and ecosystems. It engages scholars from conservation, animal welfare, indigenous rights, and public health to inform policy and practice across landscapes, cities, and transboundary regions. PAN collaborates with universities, nongovernmental organizations, and multilateral bodies to translate research into action.

Overview and Principles

PAN emphasizes integrated stewardship that aligns human livelihoods with wildlife protection and habitat restoration, drawing on principles advanced by Rachel Carson, Jane Goodall, Aldo Leopold, E.O. Wilson, and Paul R. Ehrlich. Its normative commitments reflect influences from Convention on Biological Diversity, Ramsar Convention, CITES, World Health Organization, and United Nations Environment Programme frameworks. PAN advocates for rights and responsibilities articulated in instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and regional accords like the European Green Deal and African Union environmental policies. Partner institutions have included Stanford University, University of Oxford, Yale University, University of Cape Town, and Wageningen University & Research.

History and Development

PAN emerged from convergent streams in conservation biology, animal welfare, and ecosystem management, inheriting legacies from the Silent Spring era, debates at the Rio Earth Summit, and initiatives following the SARS and COVID-19 pandemic that highlighted zoonotic risk. Early adopters collaborated with advocacy groups such as World Wildlife Fund, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Animal Welfare Institute, Wildlife Conservation Society, and Conservation International. Funders and conveners included foundations like the MacArthur Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Ford Foundation, and multilateral agencies such as the World Bank and United Nations Development Programme. PAN activities referenced methodologies from Conservation Commons, programs like EDGE of Existence, and campaigns led by figures such as David Attenborough, Greta Thunberg, and Wangari Maathai.

Conceptual Framework and Components

PAN’s model integrates social, ecological, and animal-centric dimensions through frameworks influenced by Ecosystem Services assessments, One Health paradigms, Land-Use Planning practices, and ethical perspectives also debated in forums like World Congress of Bioethics and International Primatological Society. Core components include community engagement exemplified by projects in Maasai territories, co-management arrangements seen in Anangu lands, and scientific monitoring using protocols from IUCN Red List, GBIF, and BirdLife International. PAN synthesizes data streams from satellite programs like Landsat, biodiversity databases curated by Global Biodiversity Information Facility, and conservation finance mechanisms similar to Debt-for-nature swaps used in agreements with countries such as Costa Rica and Madagascar.

Applications in Policy and Conservation

PAN informs protected area design by collaborating with national agencies including United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Parks Canada, SENASA (Peru), and regional bodies like ASEAN environmental fora. It supports legislative and regulatory reforms influenced by cases such as the Endangered Species Act and the EU Birds Directive, and contributes to implementation of programs like Red List assessments, invasive species control modeled after interventions in Galápagos Islands, and community-based conservation initiatives in Borneo, Amazon Rainforest, and Great Barrier Reef management. PAN also intersects with public health responses coordinated by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Agriculture Organization, and World Organisation for Animal Health to address zoonoses and antimicrobial resistance.

Criticisms and Debates

Scholars and stakeholders have debated PAN’s priorities in forums such as IPBES meetings, academic symposia at London School of Economics, and panels at World Conservation Congress. Critiques highlight tensions between conservation goals and indigenous rights voiced by Survival International and Cultural Survival, disagreements over market-based tools like REDD+ promoted in negotiations under United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and disputes over animal personhood advanced in litigation involving organizations such as Nonhuman Rights Project and cases like Cetacean captivity controversies. Debates also reference controversies around large infrastructure projects affecting habitats in Amazonas (Brazilian state), Okavango Delta, and Borneo logging disputes adjudicated in courts including the International Court of Justice and regional tribunals.

Case Studies and Examples

Notable PAN-aligned projects include collaborative landscape initiatives in Nairobi National Park adjacent to Nairobi, community wildlife conservancies in Kenya associated with the Maasai Mara, rewilding and species reintroductions in Yellowstone National Park and Pleistocene rewilding proposals, anti-poaching partnerships in Kruger National Park and Selous Game Reserve, and urban biodiversity programs in New York City, Singapore, and London. Other examples encompass integrated pastoralist programs in Mongolia, coral reef restoration efforts in Palau and Fiji, and transboundary conservation in the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem and the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park spanning Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and South Africa.

Category:Environmental organizations