Hari (Pay respect to all creatures: Let plants and wildlife thrive where they can and move yourself for their survival on this shared planet)

Written by Hari Pandey

I was born in a rural village of Nepal, with a poor family background in terms of wealth, but with important values connected to conserving and sustainably utilising nature- especially with plants and land, as shaped by customary practices, rituals, social norms, and culture.

My parents taught me to respect nature, every plant and animal, and never kill them unless you are growing or investing in them. We used to worship every plant and animal as the living figures of the gods and goddesses within them, and even worship stones that resembled the shape and structures of some plants or animals. By doing so, I learnt to protect and conserve every plant and animal as they grow naturally.

The investment of humanity lies in the domesticated plants and animals for their use, as I had been taught, and that became my mindset till the age of 40. With this background, later I chose my academic subject (Forest Science – Forestry and Biodiversity Conservation) and career in the conservation of all plants and animals (Conservation Officer – public service) based on science, which broadened my enthusiasm, as only one person from my village and school had previously graduated from there. Currently, I am pursuing my PhD in Environmental Justice, including the justice of plants and animals beyond the traditional thought of the social justice sphere abroad. 

I have many stories from my journey as a conservationist, but I would like to share one of the recent ones that I have faced. I was truly a conservationist by action and advocacy, conserving wild plants and animals, and writing very little, if any, in my native tongue (Nepalese). Writing in English, even in formal academic English for a peer-reviewed quartile 1 journal, for the mandatory requirement for my PhD thesis by publication, was beyond my capabilities. As a public servant in the conservation field, after a long gap in my academic journey, I completed my master’s at 24 and started my PhD at 37. Oftentimes, I felt as if assembling a manuscript was like running a marathon blindfolded. 

When I started my PhD, unlike other coursework, I was completely blind in knowing where to start, what to start, or how to start. After a month of scrolling through related videos on how to write a PhD proposal, I came up with some ideas on finalising my proposal. However, upon finishing, my supervisors asked me to go through a systematic literature review; otherwise, I would be left behind in my subject, or others might have already done the research that I am going to pursue in my PhD project. This sounded reasonable, but how do you do a systematic literature review?

By scrolling through online resources and getting support from fellow researchers, I drafted a systematic review manuscript on animal justice in conservation. I spent months, even my entire first year, drafting, revising, and negotiating sometimes contradictory feedback from multiple supervisors. I finally gathered every required element: cover letter, highlights, graphical abstract, ethical statements, and author contributions, the full suite that modern journals demand. I thoroughly checked the targeted journal requirements and suitability, and I clicked the “submit” button through the online system, which felt like crossing an invisible threshold. When the confirmation email arrived, “your manuscript has been successfully submitted”, I felt great relief and thought it was almost published. Then the waiting began.

I already had a bitter experience in scientific publication, especially when I wrote a contest issue focusing on conservation, highlighting the crucial importance of plants and animals for the sake of humanity. Those past manuscripts are still on a waiting list, but keep watching, as an “editor assigned” status lingered for nearly four years in a journal, while another manuscript endured five years of back-and-forth before quietly disappearing into limbo. However, this time, the manuscript went to a review; the online status showed. 

This reviewed manuscript regarding the ecological justice (wild plants, animals, and ecosystem justice) was rejected after 18 months because 26 invited reviewers declined to assess it. The editor explained that the paper’s “contested subject matter” made it too difficult to find willing reviewers. There were no comments to improve the manuscript further, so I chose to submit to another journal. 

After a couple of months of waiting, the dreaded email arrives:

“Despite the scientific rigour of your work, we regret to inform you that your manuscript cannot be considered… The volume of submissions exceeds what we can accommodate.”

Soon after this response, I directly submitted to the third journal in no time. After a month, I received a similar response that reviewers are against your manuscript being considered further. This time, one of the comments from the reviewers was as follows; 

“… Your manuscript is interesting; however, it dealt with plants and wildlife, and focused on ecology conservation against human sentiments, like stopping bush meat consumption and relocating human settlements instead of relocating wildlife … ”

Journals demand originality, rigour, and critical thinking, yet papers that challenge established ideas or explore complex topics often struggle to even find a reviewer. The system is not built for early-career researchers who rely on timely publications. These replies are a polite way of saying: we have rejected your papers not because of quality, but because they were solely focused on conservation, against contemporary human sentiments, most of whom care about plants and animals, and safeguarding our ecosystems, as a whole.

Finally, I tried to submit to the fourth journal without making many changes. However, it is under review; this time, three reviewers provided positive feedback, and one is a bit negative. I had responded to them all in a very positive way and had revised the manuscript without changing the message that I wanted to communicate in favour of wild plants and animals, ecosystems, and the environment, but still firm in relocating or evacuating the human residencies in favour of them. I am still awaiting the final decision from the editors, but the manuscript is still under review. 

I had shared this situation with my colleagues in person, but their suggestion was against what I did, and was in favour of adjusting my content to make a favourable storyline for the reviewers to get it accepted, but I didn’t do that. Humans can adjust and acclimatise in new environments across the world, irrespective of climate or geography, but plants and wildlife can’t do that. That was my grounded thought in the manuscript, which I talked about. Being a lone advocate in favour of in situ conservation of plants and animals, including the ecosystem and environment, got my work rejected multiple times.

In other words, we conservationists, at least, should speak the voices of those innocent plants and animals in which humanity has no investment to grow to live, and survive. Rather than posing harm to those whom we don’t invest our effort to save, we should advocate for and give them a voice in every forum we can, wherever we can, and try to convince people beyond the conservationists group to convey this real message to all. 

In gist, this opinion is not to blame anyone but to raise a voice and to seek a group of people, starting from Lonely Conservationists to vegans to beyond, for the conservation of wild plants and animals, our ecosystem and environment, for the sake of all humanity. Not only to conservationists, but to all. We should pay respect to nature, sustainably utilise whatever we have invested in (domesticated plants and animals), and use them as minimally as we can. Instead of customary practices like hunting, killing, destroying nature, and natural resources, invest your effort to grow your surroundings and utilise them, but not directly from nature.

This is all about the myth of human supremacy over nature. That is why millions of plants and animals have already become extinct from our planet, and millions of the rest are on the verge of extinction and are in vulnerable zones of disappearance forever. I tried to make a long story short, but the key message is that humans are both makers and destroyers of nature, including plants and animals, ecosystems, and the environment.

To connect with Hari, check out @happysbp on X