Global S&T Development Trend Analysis Platform of Resources and Environment
| DOI | 10.1126/science.abg0532 |
| Global policy for assisted colonization of species | |
| Jedediah F. Brodie; Susan Lieberman; Axel Moehrenschlager; Kent H. Redford; Jon Paul Rodríguez; Mark Schwartz; Philip J. Seddon; James E. M. Watson | |
| 2021-04-30 | |
| 发表期刊 | Science
 |
| 出版年 | 2021 |
| 英文摘要 | Negotiations in advance of the 15th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) ([ 1 ][1]) in October 2021 will set the course of international conservation for the next several decades, providing a critical opportunity to harmonize policy and set priorities for species conservation and climate change adaptation. The CBD is the foundational intergovernmental agreement on biodiversity conservation and drives both government actions and donor priorities. However, the treaty itself and its existing strategic framework (the “Aichi targets”) were agreed on some time ago (1992 and 2010, respectively) and so need to match advances in knowledge and evidence on the immediate and devastating impacts of climate change. Over just the past few years, the frequency and severity of extreme weather events have accelerated. By one recent estimate, one-third of species may now have an increased risk of extinction from climate change ([ 2 ][2]).
To keep pace with changing conditions, many organisms that cannot adapt will either need to move poleward in latitude, upward in elevation, downward in water depth, or to refugial areas that might lie outside their current or historical indigenous [as defined by ([ 3 ][3])] ranges. For many species, these movements are stymied by human infrastructure and disturbance. Assisted colonization—the translocation and establishment, for conservation purposes, of populations of organisms outside their historical range ([ 3 ][3])—could facilitate species conservation by moving individuals of species that cannot disperse around these barriers, allowing them to escape from shrinking climate refugia and to establish populations in new locations that have the conditions needed for population persistence. But despite having been discussed by conservation scientists for decades, assisted colonization has been deployed for climate adaptation only rarely ([ 4 ][4]) and often remains precluded by contradictory global policies. Private citizens in several countries, however, have been acting on their own to implement assisted colonization without guidance, oversight, or reporting ([ 5 ][5]). There is therefore a need for processes by which potential assisted-colonization projects could be planned, evaluated, implemented, regulated, and monitored within the framework of international treaties, intergovernmental organizations, and statutory bodies. The CBD has an opportunity to set global standards that countries can create policy on, implement, and report back on. We recommend that the CBD empower a technical committee toward creation of an assisted-colonization protocol that all countries could implement based on structured benefit-risk assessment.
Some scientists argue that assisted colonization should never be used because of the risk of the translocated species becoming invasive; this is a major concern, because invasive species are a strong driver of global biodiversity decline ([ 6 ][6]). Others contend that the failure to embrace assisted colonization has already led to preventable extinctions ([ 7 ][7]). The debate largely hinges on differences in underlying values (e.g., about what defines “natural”), conservation objectives, assessments and perceptions of risk, and considerations of species ranges as being inherently static versus dynamic. The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar Convention), for example, recognizes that climate change will lead to new species entering listed wetland sites but classifies such species as alien ([ 8 ][8]). By contrast, the European Union would consider species moving on their own in response to climate change to be native ([ 9 ][9]). Indeed, “natural” and human-assisted range shifts may be critical to maintaining biodiversity and ecosystem function in our rapidly changing world ([ 10 ][10]).
Assisted colonization carries risks, but so, too, does neglecting its use. Some introduced species have catastrophic impacts on biodiversity ([ 6 ][6]). Most, though, do not decrease local diversity ([ 11 ][11]), and no documented cases of species that had undergone conservation translocation [sensu ([ 3 ][3])] and had then become invasive are known. Whether the risks of performing assisted colonization exceed those of not performing it will vary on a case-by-case basis, meaning that assisted colonization will be warranted in some, but not all, instances. The underlying values, goals, risks, and potential benefits must be evaluated in a transparent decision framework in any assisted-colonization project ([ 3 ][3], [ 12 ][12]). The records from such a framework will also allow practitioners to learn from other projects, improving the efficacy of assisted colonization over time, thereby increasing the probability of success.
Development of clear policy guidance by a CBD-commissioned technical committee [ideally involving other organizations such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)] would provide governments, scientists, and conservationists with the tools to make informed decisions. In many cases, assisted-colonization translocations may cross international borders, increasing the need for a global body to establish guidelines for best practices in decision-making. Target 3 of the current draft of the CBD Global Biodiversity Framework mandates that, “By 2030, [signatories] ensure active management actions to enable wild species of fauna and flora recovery and conservation….” Given this target, and the focus on species recovery and conservation through active management, addressing assisted colonization by the CBD is vital. Such policy development and execution can be achieved without weakening policies that aim to prevent the spread of invasive species. Although the focus here is on assisted colonization through the movement of individuals, assisted colonization could also include the movement of genetic material from one species to another beyond its historical range. Rapid advances in genome editing are increasing the feasibility of such targeted movement of genes across species boundaries as well as the ability to rewrite existing genetic sequences ([ 13 ][13]). Indeed, “assisted evolution” is already being considered for a variety of species, including corals and trees; such actions may prove critical to achieve species persistence but raise complicated questions about the identity of species and the limits humans should take to conserve them ([ 13 ][13]).
The IUCN translocation guidelines ([ 3 ][3]) do address assisted colonization but in general terms that are not operational, prescriptive, or detailed. These guidelines mention the elements that would go into risk assessments, for example, and the IUCN Conservation Translocation Specialist Group provides international training in pertinent structured decision-making, but no guidelines, protocols, or policy currently mandate such approaches in general or for assisted colonization in particular. Moreover, although there has been headway in developing assisted-colonization guidelines within some countries ([ 12 ][12]), there are no policies providing guidance regarding translocating species for assisted colonization across international borders. Cooperation between countries on assisted colonization is essential because many species will need to shift their distributions across political boundaries, necessitating cross-boundary management and monitoring through shared governance. Regulations, guidelines, and risk tolerance in regard to conservation translocations in general, and assisted colonization in particular, vary substantially across countries and taxa ([ 12 ][12]). Policy clarification is needed to support coordination among the multiple agencies in different countries that have overlapping jurisdictions over (and management objectives for) species in need of conservation action.
The ongoing process of negotiating the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework and associated goals and targets through the CBD ([ 1 ][1]) provides an opportunity to harmonize international goals and targets for species conservation and climate adaptation (see the box). Furthermore, revision of the CBD's strategic plan allows the clear distinguishing of three interacting outcomes of species movement across international boundaries: ensuring the fair and equitable sharing of biodiversity benefits, biosecurity, and movement of species to protect biodiversity values. The United Nations General Assembly is likely to adopt the CBD Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework into updates of its Sustainable Development Goals. The language of the CBD Global Biodiversity Framework or monitoring framework should be updated to include explicit, a priori evaluations and comparisons of the potential biodiversity benefits of conservation translocations in general and of assisted colonization in particular with the potential biodiversity costs (detriments to the species of not translocating it, along with potential impacts on other species in the recipient site; see the box). Rigorous, quantitative decision support and risk assessment tools are available to support decision-making about where and under what circumstances assisted colonization would be justified, accounting for biological and social considerations ([ 3 ][3]). The need for policy harmonization is especially acute for species that are “extinct in the wild,” which have increased extinction risk but often cannot be returned to their historic ranges because conditions there are no longer suitable. Proof of this urgency was shown in November 2020, when members of the IUCN adopted a motion to improve the recovery of “extinct in the wild” species, with the support of 95% of government members voting and 99% of nongovernmental organizations voting. This included a call to “…recognize the role of populations outside historic ranges resulting from assisted colonization” (IUCN motion 119/2020).
The CBD currently mandates maintaining “viable populations of species in natural surroundings…,” “…safeguarding ecosystems, [and] species…,” and preventing “…the extinction and decline of known threatened species….” These will be enhanced in some cases by assisted colonization. Conversely, the CBD also mandates signatories to “…prevent the introduction of, control or eradicate those alien species which threaten ecosystems, habitats or species,” which could be seen as opposing assisted colonization. This contradiction is driven by the strict use of the term “alien.” The CBD should consider expanding application of the term “neonative,” which was originally proposed for species colonizing new areas on their own in response to climate change ([ 10 ][10]), to species translocated through assisted colonization (see the box).
#### Policy recommendations for assisted colonization of species
Focal topics on assisted colonization that we recommend for a technical committee commissioned by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to address biodiversity threats and how these topics link to specific existing concerns (nexus) of the CBD are presented.
Biodiversity threat: Climate change threatens species with increased extinction risk
CBD nexus: Zero draft goal A.2 ([ 1 ][1]) focuses on reducing extinction threat
Biodiversity threat: Moving species beyond their historic range creates an invasion risk
CBD nexus: Aichi target 9 focuses on reducing alien species and pathways to invasion
Biodiversity threat: International translocation includes transferring potential human benefits of biodiversity across countries and cultures
CBD nexus: Zero draft goal C.1 ([ 1 ][1]) and the Nagoya Protocol ([ 14 ][14]) address sharing the benefits of genetic resource utilization equitably across countries
Biodiversity threat: Climate change adaptation to sustain biodiversity may include movement of genetic material among populations or species
CBD nexus: The Cartagena Protocol ([ 15 ][15]) addresses the biosecurity aspects of genetic technologies
Biodiversity threat: Stakeholder opinion can vary strongly about the benefits and risks of moving species to reduce extinction risk; introducing species into new habitats could be viewed as degrading the natural legacy of a habitat or region
CBD nexus: The CBD emphasizes mainstreaming biodiversity in socially engaged processes. The Zero draft ([ 1 ][1]) focuses on living in harmony with nature; this should include confronting issues surrounding the societal acceptability of active management tools such as assisted colonization
Many assisted-colonization projects are likely to involve multiple countries. Any movement of organisms across borders is regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora if the species are included on the Convention's appendices. In such cases, permits are required from designated government authorities. Discussions could be undertaken to streamline permitting for assisted-colonization projects that are legally, scientifically, and socially justified. It would be up to each importing country to establish regulations and guidelines for assisted-colonization programs, just as they now do for any reintroduction programs. Transnational assisted-colonization projects would also need to consider potential harm in recipient countries. Again, the cross-national natures of conservation and climate change necessitate comprehensive reviews of policy and the development of policy instruments facilitating communication and shared governance.
Many governments have not established regulations or policy frameworks around assisted colonization, but the need for such efforts is urgent. The accelerating rates of climate and biodiversity change necessitate engagement from many stakeholders and sectors of society. International leadership through the CBD can provide a model for national policies. The ongoing CBD processes provide an opportunity to develop innovative conservation solutions for species that cannot move or adapt fast enough to climate change. It also creates an imperative for clear global policy guidance that facilitates the appropriate use, and inhibits the inappropriate use, of all the tools available for reducing the unacceptable, but mounting, losses of biodiversity.
The time is ripe for the global conservation community to initiate a formal evaluation of regulatory approaches for assisted colonization, along with regulatory guidance on its implementation. Ecological and social vetting and risk assessment in potential assisted-colonization projects are already likely to slow the process. Appropriate screening and analysis are essential but should not delay decision-making to the point where it is too late to achieve desired outcomes. It is essential to develop policies to confront these issues head-on so that existing conservation strategies do not become impediments through lack of forethought and planning.
1. [↵][16]CBD, Post-2020 documents (2020); [www.cbd.int/conferences/post2020/post2020-prep-01/documents][17].
2. [↵][18]1. C. Román-Palacios,
2. J. J. Wiens
, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 117, 4211 (2020).
[OpenUrl][19][Abstract/FREE Full Text][20]
3. [↵][21]IUCN, “Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations, Version 1.0” (IUCN Species Survival Commission, Switzerland, 2013).
4. [↵][22]1. N. Butt et al
., Conserv. Biol. 10.1111/cobi.13643 (2020).
5. [↵][23]1. M. W. Schwartz,
2. T. G. Martin
, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1286, 15 (2013).
[OpenUrl][24][CrossRef][25][PubMed][26][Web of Science][27]
6. [↵][28]1. A. Ricciardi,
2. D. Simberloff
, Trends Ecol. Evol. 24, 248 (2009).
[OpenUrl][29][CrossRef][30][PubMed][31][Web of Science][32]
7. [↵][33]1. P. J. Seddon
, Restor. Ecol. 18, 796 (2010).
[OpenUrl][34]
8. [↵][35]Ramsar, “Wetlands: water, life, and culture,” 8th Meeting of the Conference of the Contracting Parties to the Convention of Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971), Valencia, Spain, 18 to 26 November 2002.
9. [↵][36]E.U Regulation No. 1143/2014 Off, J. Eur. Union 57, 35 (2014).
[OpenUrl][37]
10. [↵][38]1. F. Essl et al
., Bioscience 69, 908 (2019).
[OpenUrl][39]
11. [↵][40]1. D. F. Sax,
2. S. D. Gaines
, Trends Ecol. Evol. 18, 561 (2003).
[OpenUrl][41][CrossRef][42][PubMed][43][Web of Science][44]
12. [↵][45]1. M. W. Schwartz et al
., Bioscience 62, 732 (2012).
[OpenUrl][46][CrossRef][47][Web of Science][48]
13. [↵][49]1. K. H. Redford,
2. W. M. Adams
, Strange Natures: Conservation of Nature in the Age of Synthetic Biology (Yale Univ. Press, 2021).
14. [↵][50]CBD, “Nagoya Protocol” (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, United Nations, 2011); [www.cbd.int/abs/doc/protocol/nagoya-protocol-en.pdf][51] [accessed 8 March 2021].
15. [↵][52]CBD, “Cartagena protocol” (Secretariat of the Convention of Biological Diversity, United Nations, 2000); |
| 领域 | 气候变化 ; 资源环境 |
| URL | 查看原文 |
| 引用统计 | |
| 文献类型 | 期刊论文 |
| 条目标识符 | http://119.78.100.173/C666/handle/2XK7JSWQ/325019 |
| 专题 | 气候变化 资源环境科学 |
| 推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714 | Jedediah F. Brodie,Susan Lieberman,Axel Moehrenschlager,et al. Global policy for assisted colonization of species[J]. Science,2021. |
| APA | Jedediah F. Brodie.,Susan Lieberman.,Axel Moehrenschlager.,Kent H. Redford.,Jon Paul Rodríguez.,...&James E. M. Watson.(2021).Global policy for assisted colonization of species.Science. |
| MLA | Jedediah F. Brodie,et al."Global policy for assisted colonization of species".Science (2021). |
| 条目包含的文件 | 条目无相关文件。 | |||||
除非特别说明，本系统中所有内容都受版权保护，并保留所有权利。
修改评论