Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How the Return of Salmon to the Klamath River Shows Us What’s Possible in Wildlife Conservation

News Feed
Tuesday, November 26, 2024

November 26, 20244 min readHow the Return of Salmon to the Klamath River Shows Us What’s Possible in Wildlife ConservationOnce a tragic example of degraded wildlife habitat, the Klamath River’s dam removal demonstrates how people can halt the decline of, and even restore, wildlifeBy Jeff OppermanThe removal of the earthen Iron Gate Dam at the Klamath River in its final phase on August 14, 2024 in Hornbrook, California. Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesImagine standing on a riverbank as thousands of dead salmon float past, belly-up and rotting in the hot California air. That's the sight—and smell—that greeted people along the Klamath River in September 2002, when 35,000 fish perished there in the span of a few days. They were victims of warm water temperatures and low river levels, both caused by dams and diversions that altered the river’s flow.This dramatic loss isn’t unique: according to October’s 2024 Living Planet Report, of which I was a co-author, wildlife populations monitored around the world have declined on average by 73 percent in just the last half century. Freshwater species like salmon have suffered even greater losses. Farming and development, like dams, in natural habitats have driven these declines.But the Klamath story continues to be written. Just a little over two decades on from the massive fish kill, the Klamath became the site of the largest dam removal project in history. Since removal of the lower four dams on the river was completed last month, salmon have surged upstream to parts of the river where they haven’t been seen for more than a century. On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.No longer is the Klamath River a tragic example of the global nature crisis; instead, its restoration serves as an inspiring story of how people can work together to repair wildlife habitats. This huge turnaround was made possible through collaboration and unwavering commitment—especially by the region’s Indigenous people. It is an example we can learn from and start replicating across the world.The scale of that global need for restoration is daunting. The alarming results in the Living Planet Report are derived from the Living Planet Index (LPI), a set of statistics developed by the Zoological Society of London. The LPI provides a broad view of wildlife health across the planet, drawing on data from nearly 35,000 populations of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians, across more than 5,000 species. It can also be used to track specific groups, such as migratory fish—from tiny gobies to giant catfish—which have experienced a staggering 81 percent decline since 1970.Halting—and then reversing—the alarming downward trends in fish and other wildlife populations will require major shifts in how we produce energy and food, and how we implement conservation. The Klamath shows that those shifts are within reach.Biologists capture juvenile Coho salmon, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout in Wooley Creek, a tributary to the Salmon River which is one of the largest tributaries to the Klamath River on August 15, 2024. The Coho and Chinook are tagged with a monitoring device and also fin clipped for a genetic study.Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesThe Klamath was once the third most productive river for salmon on the west coast of the United States. Its migratory fish were the primary food—and central to the culture—of the Karuk, Yurok, Klamath and other tribes. But, beginning in the 1920s, four hydropower dams were built on the river, blocking salmon from swimming upstream to spawn and limiting them to a reduced stretch of the river. The expansion of irrigated farming further stressed the salmon through reduced flows and high water temperatures—the factors that caused the 2002 fish kill—and the runoff of chemicals and nutrients.But from that low point, the opening for recovery emerged. At the heart of the Klamath’s stunning turnaround was the unwavering dedication of the tribes to restore their salmon. Their long-neglected legal rights, cultural commitment, and steadfast efforts made river restoration possible. Collectively, their breakthroughs demonstrate that implementing conservation at the scale necessary to restore wildlife will require a diversity of both leadership and strategy.A man rides past an "Undam the Klamath" mural on the Orleans Market on Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2023 in Orleans, CA.Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesFirst, regulators, conservation groups and tribes negotiated agreements with farmers to reduce agricultural runoff, improve water quality, and balance irrigation demands with water levels in the basin’s lakes and wetlands. That led to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, signed in 2010. That agreement also set the stage for removal of the four hydropower dams, an outcome the tribes had been pursuing for decades.Another catalyst for removal was the legal requirement that the owner of the dams, PacifiCorp, renew the dams’ licenses, which were set to expire in 2006. In the U.S., hydropower project owners must periodically apply for new licenses through a process that considers options for reducing the projects’ social and environmental impacts. For the Klamath dams, regulatory agencies recommended that license renewal would require the addition of fish ladders to allow salmon to swim above the dams— construction projects that would have been prohibitively expensive. Ultimately PacifiCorp signed a settlement agreement with the tribes, agencies and conservation groups to remove the four dams, which started late last year.The removal of four hydroelectric dams may seem like a major loss of renewable energy. Thanks to California’s rapid expansion of wind and solar energy generation projects, however, the loss of the Klamath dams—which provided just 2 percent of PacifiCorp’s generation capacity—will be offset many times over. In fact, California’s new renewable capacity added during the dam removal process will be nearly 20 times greater than that of the Klamath dams.Restoration of the Klamath clearly demonstrates the potential for leadership and resource management by Indigenous people—whose lands encompass 40 percent of the world’s remaining natural areas—and whose efforts will be central to effective conservation in the 21st century.Further, restoration was only possible through a diverse set of strategies. For centuries, nature conservation has been synonymous with setting aside large tracts of land in national parks or wildlife refuges. The Klamath Basin encompasses six national wildlife refuges, two national parks, and wilderness areas—and approximately two thirds of the basin is in public land, mostly national forests. And yet the salmon—one of the basin’s most important environmental and cultural resources—still found themselves on the ropes. Restoring that resource required agreements on water use, agricultural management and dam removal to restore river connectivity.Just such examples are sorely needed. In November representatives from 196 countries wrapped up the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Colombia and, while some important agreements were reached, much of the work of setting targets and designing strategies for conserving and restoring nature remains to be done. Reversing the losses of wildlife worldwide will require a diverse set of strategies. Protected areas will remain important, but so will transformations in how we produce energy and food and implement conservation. And while “transformation” may sound daunting, the Klamath’s remarkable turnaround demonstrates that the recovery of nature remains in reach.This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Once a tragic example of degraded wildlife habitat, the Klamath River’s dam removal demonstrates how people can halt the decline of, and even restore, wildlife

November 26, 2024

4 min read

How the Return of Salmon to the Klamath River Shows Us What’s Possible in Wildlife Conservation

Once a tragic example of degraded wildlife habitat, the Klamath River’s dam removal demonstrates how people can halt the decline of, and even restore, wildlife

By Jeff Opperman

A view of the partially dismantled Iron Gate Dam on the Klamath River as a group of people on a hillside above watch.

The removal of the earthen Iron Gate Dam at the Klamath River in its final phase on August 14, 2024 in Hornbrook, California.

Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Imagine standing on a riverbank as thousands of dead salmon float past, belly-up and rotting in the hot California air. That's the sight—and smell—that greeted people along the Klamath River in September 2002, when 35,000 fish perished there in the span of a few days. They were victims of warm water temperatures and low river levels, both caused by dams and diversions that altered the river’s flow.

This dramatic loss isn’t unique: according to October’s 2024 Living Planet Report, of which I was a co-author, wildlife populations monitored around the world have declined on average by 73 percent in just the last half century. Freshwater species like salmon have suffered even greater losses. Farming and development, like dams, in natural habitats have driven these declines.

But the Klamath story continues to be written. Just a little over two decades on from the massive fish kill, the Klamath became the site of the largest dam removal project in history. Since removal of the lower four dams on the river was completed last month, salmon have surged upstream to parts of the river where they haven’t been seen for more than a century.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


No longer is the Klamath River a tragic example of the global nature crisis; instead, its restoration serves as an inspiring story of how people can work together to repair wildlife habitats. This huge turnaround was made possible through collaboration and unwavering commitment—especially by the region’s Indigenous people. It is an example we can learn from and start replicating across the world.

The scale of that global need for restoration is daunting. The alarming results in the Living Planet Report are derived from the Living Planet Index (LPI), a set of statistics developed by the Zoological Society of London. The LPI provides a broad view of wildlife health across the planet, drawing on data from nearly 35,000 populations of birds, mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians, across more than 5,000 species. It can also be used to track specific groups, such as migratory fish—from tiny gobies to giant catfish—which have experienced a staggering 81 percent decline since 1970.

Halting—and then reversing—the alarming downward trends in fish and other wildlife populations will require major shifts in how we produce energy and food, and how we implement conservation. The Klamath shows that those shifts are within reach.

Biologists in wetsuits standing in Wooley Creek hold juvenile Coho salmon, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout up above a net in the water for the camera

Biologists capture juvenile Coho salmon, Chinook salmon and steelhead trout in Wooley Creek, a tributary to the Salmon River which is one of the largest tributaries to the Klamath River on August 15, 2024. The Coho and Chinook are tagged with a monitoring device and also fin clipped for a genetic study.

Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

The Klamath was once the third most productive river for salmon on the west coast of the United States. Its migratory fish were the primary food—and central to the culture—of the Karuk, Yurok, Klamath and other tribes. But, beginning in the 1920s, four hydropower dams were built on the river, blocking salmon from swimming upstream to spawn and limiting them to a reduced stretch of the river. The expansion of irrigated farming further stressed the salmon through reduced flows and high water temperatures—the factors that caused the 2002 fish kill—and the runoff of chemicals and nutrients.

But from that low point, the opening for recovery emerged. At the heart of the Klamath’s stunning turnaround was the unwavering dedication of the tribes to restore their salmon. Their long-neglected legal rights, cultural commitment, and steadfast efforts made river restoration possible. Collectively, their breakthroughs demonstrate that implementing conservation at the scale necessary to restore wildlife will require a diversity of both leadership and strategy.

A man rides a motor bike past a mural that reads, "Undam the Klamath," advocating for the removal of the dams on the Klamath River with imagery depicting the past industry along the river, the restoration, and the future history of the river after removal. In the center Northern California Native people people perform a stomp dance to bring balance to the world

A man rides past an "Undam the Klamath" mural on the Orleans Market on Wednesday, Aug. 16, 2023 in Orleans, CA.

Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

First, regulators, conservation groups and tribes negotiated agreements with farmers to reduce agricultural runoff, improve water quality, and balance irrigation demands with water levels in the basin’s lakes and wetlands. That led to the Klamath Basin Restoration Agreement, signed in 2010. That agreement also set the stage for removal of the four hydropower dams, an outcome the tribes had been pursuing for decades.

Another catalyst for removal was the legal requirement that the owner of the dams, PacifiCorp, renew the dams’ licenses, which were set to expire in 2006. In the U.S., hydropower project owners must periodically apply for new licenses through a process that considers options for reducing the projects’ social and environmental impacts. For the Klamath dams, regulatory agencies recommended that license renewal would require the addition of fish ladders to allow salmon to swim above the dams— construction projects that would have been prohibitively expensive. Ultimately PacifiCorp signed a settlement agreement with the tribes, agencies and conservation groups to remove the four dams, which started late last year.

The removal of four hydroelectric dams may seem like a major loss of renewable energy. Thanks to California’s rapid expansion of wind and solar energy generation projects, however, the loss of the Klamath dams—which provided just 2 percent of PacifiCorp’s generation capacity—will be offset many times over. In fact, California’s new renewable capacity added during the dam removal process will be nearly 20 times greater than that of the Klamath dams.

Restoration of the Klamath clearly demonstrates the potential for leadership and resource management by Indigenous people—whose lands encompass 40 percent of the world’s remaining natural areas—and whose efforts will be central to effective conservation in the 21st century.

Further, restoration was only possible through a diverse set of strategies. For centuries, nature conservation has been synonymous with setting aside large tracts of land in national parks or wildlife refuges. The Klamath Basin encompasses six national wildlife refuges, two national parks, and wilderness areas—and approximately two thirds of the basin is in public land, mostly national forests. And yet the salmon—one of the basin’s most important environmental and cultural resources—still found themselves on the ropes. Restoring that resource required agreements on water use, agricultural management and dam removal to restore river connectivity.

Just such examples are sorely needed. In November representatives from 196 countries wrapped up the United Nations Biodiversity Conference (COP16) in Colombia and, while some important agreements were reached, much of the work of setting targets and designing strategies for conserving and restoring nature remains to be done. Reversing the losses of wildlife worldwide will require a diverse set of strategies. Protected areas will remain important, but so will transformations in how we produce energy and food and implement conservation. And while “transformation” may sound daunting, the Klamath’s remarkable turnaround demonstrates that the recovery of nature remains in reach.

This is an opinion and analysis article, and the views expressed by the author or authors are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Reform of NZ’s protected lands is overdue – but the public should decide about economic activities

Changes to New Zealand’s conservation laws could delist up to 60% of protected areas. There are better ways to balance ecological values with economic gains.

Getty ImagesThe government’s proposed reforms of the rules governing public conservation land aim to dismantle any potential obstacle to “unleashing economic growth” in protected areas. Currently, about a third of New Zealand’s land is under protection. This ranges from national parks (11.6%) to stewardship areas (9.4%) and conservation parks (5.7%). Twelve other designations make up the rest. Some commercial activities are permitted – including guided walks, aircraft-based sightseeing, ski fields and animal grazing – and approved by the Department of Conservation as “concessions”. The proposed changes to the Conservation Act include a review of land designation. The government could delist or swap up to 60% of the current area under protection. Conservation Minister Tama Potaka said he can’t indicate which designations or locations would be delisted. Nor can he say what percentage of conservation lands would be affected – and where – because changes will be driven by demand for land. The minister only committed to leaving untouched the designations that are difficult to change: national parks, wilderness areas, reserves and world heritage sites. The question of whether more economic benefits can be obtained from protected areas is legitimate. New Zealand does need a radical reform of its conservation areas and legislation. There is potential for better social and economic outcomes. But the proposal consolidates ministerial discretion to unprecedented levels and the government follows a misguided fast-track approach to permitting economic activities such as mining. This could take native biodiversity into dangerous territory. Outdated conservation laws New Zealand holds tight to an outdated approach known as “fortress conservation”. This limits commercial opportunities to specific areas, mostly concentrated around established facilities (roads, hotels) and the edges of designated lands. Even when regulating other activities such as energy generation or agriculture, the idea has been to “sacrifice” some spaces and keep as much land as possible “locked up”. A key reason was that people didn’t know enough about the ecological values of the land. As a proxy, lawmakers relied on the subjective concepts of wilderness values and intrinsic values to justify strict protections over most lands. Insufficient scientific input meant authorities have relied on “ecologically blind” zoning frameworks, such as a planning tool known as the recreation opportunity spectrum. This divides lands according to recreational opportunities and visitor needs. But there is a better path forward – one that allows public decision making and honours international commitments, while achieving better ecological and economic benefits. Towards regulations informed by science This alternative approach is grounded in three key principles. First, it uses gap analysis to identify which ecosystems and species are underprotected. Second, it relies on regulations shaped by ecological knowledge and conservation priorities. Third, it applies the principles of proportionality and precaution, meaning that regulatory responses should match the severity, reversibility and likelihood of environmental harm. Currently, New Zealand’s regulatory framework does not reflect this. New Zealand has signed the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. This means at least 30% of conservation lands must be representative of most, if not all, native ecosystems by 2030. At present, coastal, lowland and dryland ecosystems are under-represented. In contrast, alpine and montane environments, are represented way above the recommended threshold (20% of the remaining cover for that ecosystem). If up to 60% of conservation lands were to be swapped or delisted without prioritising representativeness, vulnerability and rarity, the ecological losses may be immense and irreversible. Rethinking protection categories My research develops a broader reform approach. It also reflects growing international consensus on the need for science-informed conservation planning. I argue New Zealand should set up region-specific and nationwide fora, such as citizen assemblies or consensus conferences. Conversations should focus on specific topics, informed by scientists and iwi. Vulnerable or under-represented ecosystems currently require stronger protection. Deliberations should indicate which activities should be limited or excluded to better protect such areas. We must also consider vulnerability to climate change. Scientists expect that ecosystems may migrate outside protected areas. Consensus should be built around what qualifies as a “significantly over-represented” native ecosystem. Where ecosystems are already well protected and resilient, the public should discuss whether re-designation, land exchanges or even disposals may be appropriate. If lands are retained, consensus should be sought on the economic uses that can maintain ecological health. If the public doesn’t support land delisting or swaps, alternative strategies must be developed to improve ecological representativeness. Sustainable funding mechanisms should also be identified to support these efforts. The Department of Conservation should work with independent scientists and iwi to develop a new zoning framework to guide commercial concessions and recreational access. This framework should capture the principles highlighted above. When applied to each area, it should also enable the mapping of the ecological values feasible to protect. This would help select bespoke regulatory options. In turn, it would balance biodiversity and economic outcomes for each context. Guidance for these steps should be incorporated in a new national strategy, aligned with domestic goals such as the biodiversity strategy and international commitments. New Zealand has the expertise for smart reforms. New Zealanders have the passion for nature and patience required to engage in deliberations. But will politicians have the wisdom to avoid a totally unnecessary mutilation of conservation lands, for undefined biodiversity gains? Valentina Dinica does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

EPA to undergo layoffs amid shutdown fight

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is among the agencies where federal workers will be laid off by the Trump administration in the ongoing federal government shutdown. Employees in the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Sustainability Division received an email indicating that the agency would be undertaking a reduction in force (RIF).  That division undertakes recycling initiatives and...

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is among the agencies where federal workers will be laid off by the Trump administration in the ongoing federal government shutdown. Employees in the EPA’s Resource Conservation and Sustainability Division received an email indicating that the agency would be undertaking a reduction in force (RIF).  That division undertakes recycling initiatives and seeks to reduce food waste and plastic pollution. It’s not immediately clear how many people will be impacted and if any additional offices within EPA will also face layoffs.  “This notice is to inform you that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be conducting a Reduction in Force,” said the email from Steven Cook, principal deputy assistant administrator for the Office of Land and Emergency Management.  “This action is necessary to align our workforce with the Agency’s current and future needs and to ensure the efficient and effective operation of our programs,” Cook wrote.  Asked about layoffs broadly, an EPA spokesperson told The Hill via email, "It’s unfortunate that Democrats have chosen to shut down the government and brought about this outcome. If they want to reopen the government, they can choose to do so at any time.”  The agency did not address questions from The Hill about which offices were facing cuts and how many people would be fired. It did not immediately respond to follow up questions about the resource conservation and sustainability division. Unions representing federal employees have been critical of the Trump administration’s moves.  “This is the latest way that the Trump administration is weaponizing this furlough against federal employees, stopping them from serving the American people to the best of their ability,” Nicole Cantello, president of the AFGE Local 704 union, which represents EPA staffers in the Midwest,  told The Hill. The notice comes after the Trump administration threatened to lay off federal workers if Democrats do not pass a bill to fund the government. Democrats are trying to get Republicans to pass legislation aimed at bringing down healthcare costs before they agree to fund the government. The administration has also more broadly sought to cut the federal workforce, including through earlier rounds of layoffs and buyouts. 

More than half of world’s bird species in decline, as leaders meet on extinction crisis

Biodiversity losses are growing, the IUCN reports as summit opens, but green turtle’s recovery ‘reminds us conservation works’More than half of all bird species are in decline, according to a new global assessment, with deforestation driving sharp falls in populations across the planet.On the eve of a key biodiversity summit in the UAE, scientists have issued a fresh warning about the health of bird populations, with 61% of assessed species now recording declines in their numbers. Continue reading...

More than half of all bird species are in decline, according to a new global assessment, with deforestation driving sharp falls in populations across the planet.On the eve of a key biodiversity summit in the UAE, scientists have issued a fresh warning about the health of bird populations, with 61% of assessed species now recording declines in their numbers.From Schlegel’s asity in Madagascar to the tail-bobbing northern nightingale-wren in Central America, many bird species have lost habitat to expanding agriculture and human development. Just nine years ago, 44% of assessed bird species had declining populations, according to the red list of endangered species from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).Dr Ian Burfield, BirdLife’s global science coordinator, who helped oversee the assessment, said: “That three in five of the world’s bird species have declining populations shows how deep the biodiversity crisis has become and how urgent it is that governments take the actions they have committed to under multiple conventions and agreements.”It comes as hundreds of conservationists gather in Abu Dhabi on Friday for the IUCN’s congress, where the fate of many of the world’s most at-risk wildlife species will be discussed. In the face of global headwinds on environmental action, scientists are urging governments to deliver on recent pledges to better protect nature.Birds play an important role in ecosystems, helping to pollinate flowers, disperse seeds and control pests. Hornbills – which are found across the tropics – can spread up to 12,700 large seeds a day in a square kilometre.Dr Malin Rivers, head of conservation prioritisation at the Botanic Gardens Conservation International, said: “The fates of birds and trees are intertwined: trees depend on birds for regeneration and birds depend on trees for survival.”The green sea turtle’s recovery “reminds us that conservation works”, said the IUCN director general, Dr Grethel Aguilar. Once classified as endangered, it is now viewed as a species of least concern due to conservation efforts. The turtles’s numbers have grown by 28% since the 1970s thanks to greater protection for nest sites in Ascension Island, Brazil, Mexico and Hawaii.A Pacific green sea turtle cruising off Hawaii. The recovery of the species shows what global conservation efforts can achieve, experts say. Photograph: Chris Strickland/AlamyRoderic Mast, co-chair of IUCN’s species survival commission marine turtle specialist group, said the green turtle’s recovery was “a powerful example of what coordinated global conservation over decades can achieve to stabilise and even restore populations of long-lived marine species”.But there was bad news for Arctic seals, which scientists warn are drifting closer to extinction due to global heating. The loss of sea ice has seen population numbers for bearded and harp seals fall sharply. Thinning sea ice means that the Artic seals are finding it more difficult to find areas to rest and breed. They are a critical prey species for polar bears, which researchers fear will also be affected by the loss.Dr Kit Kovacs, Svalbard programme leader at the Norwegian Polar Institute, said: “Each year in Svalbard, the retreating sea ice reveals how threatened Arctic seals have become, making it harder for them to breed, rest and feed.“Their plight is a stark reminder that climate change is not a distant problem – it has been unfolding for decades and is having impacts here and now.”Find more age of extinction coverage here, and follow the biodiversity reporters Phoebe Weston and Patrick Greenfield in the Guardian app for more nature coverage.

Would a ban on genetic engineering of wildlife hamper conservation?

Some conservation groups are calling for an effective ban on genetic modification, but others say these technologies are crucial for preserving biodiversity

The idea of genetically modifying wild lions divides opinionAndrewfel/Shutterstock Should we genetically modify wild lions? Of course not, might be your instant response. But what if lions were being wiped out by a devastating disease introduced by people? What if the genetic change was a tiny tweak that makes them immune to this disease, of the sort that might evolve naturally given enough time and enough dead lions? These kinds of questions are dividing conservationists, and matters are about to come to a head. In the coming week, at a meeting of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) – the world’s leading conservation organisation – delegates will vote on a motion that would “pause” any form of genetic engineering of wildlife, including the introduction of modified microbes. “I have no idea how the vote will go,” says Piero Genovesi at the Institute for Environmental Protection and Research in Italy, who helped draft an open letter opposing the proposed motion. An IUCN moratorium on synthetic biology would have no legal force, but it could still have far-reaching effects. For instance, many conservation organisations might stop funding work involving genetic engineering, and some countries could make such a ban part of national laws. “The moratorium would certainly be problematic on many levels,” says Ben Novak at Revive & Restore, a US-based non-profit that aims to use biotechnologies to rescue endangered and extinct species. Why is this happening now? In a word, CRISPR. In 2014, it was shown that CRISPR gene-editing technology can be used to create gene drives – basically, a piece of DNA that gets passed down to all offspring, rather than the usual half. This means a gene drive can spread even if it is harmful and could, in theory, be used to wipe out invasive species. Gene drives could also be used to spread beneficial traits, such as disease resistance. At a conference in Hawaii in 2016, there was talk of using gene drives to get rid of the invasive mosquitoes that have wiped out half of Hawaii’s native bird species, says Genovesi. Some conservationists were enthusiastic; others were horrified. That triggered the events leading to the proposed moratorium. “Gene drives are being pushed quite strongly by some as the panacea for dealing with all sorts of environmental problems,” says Ricarda Steinbrecher at EcoNexus, a research organisation that is among those backing a moratorium. But the broad wording of the proposed motion applies to far more than gene drives. It would rule out most de-extinction efforts, for instance, and could also be seen as banning live vaccines. Steinbrecher says a moratorium is a pause, not a permanent block, and that there could be another vote to end it “when we have more data”. But some of those backing the ban are campaign groups opposed to any genetic engineering, so it is hard to see what would change their minds. “I am afraid it could be a very long ban,” says Genovesi. Take the idea of using gene editing to make wild animals resistant to diseases. Steinbrecher says gene editing could have unintended side effects. But the evidence we have suggests the risks are low – which is why several gene-edited foods are already being eaten, and why the first CRISPR treatment for people got approved last year. The same benefits-versus-risks considerations apply with conservation. Is it really better to stand by and watch coral reefs being wiped out by global warming than to, say, release genetically engineered algal symbionts that give corals more heat tolerance? A key issue is scalability, says Novak. Divers transplanting corals by hand are never going to save reefs. “This is where synthetic biology tools are vital,” he says. “The overall goals of restoring 30 per cent of land to nature, of saving species, etc, will not be attainable without synthetic biology.” Ultimately, this is about competing visions of nature. Some see nature as pristine and sacrosanct, and are appalled by the idea of any genetic meddling. But humans have been transforming nature ever since we wiped out most megafauna. We are already unintentionally meddling genetically by imposing all kinds of selection pressures. Hunting, pollution, pesticides, invasive species and introduced diseases are forcing many plants and animals to change to survive. Some elephant populations are nearly tuskless, for instance. Of course, this doesn’t mean that more meddling will make things better. There are indeed serious risks to releasing gene drives – for instance, gene drives designed to wipe out invasive species might spread to the native range of the target species. But researchers are very aware of the risks. And there are ways to reduce them, for instance by making gene drives self-limiting so they cannot just spread indefinitely. “We are facing a dramatic crisis of biodiversity,” says Genovesi. “We shouldn’t close the door to new tools that could help us combat some of the major threats.” Conservation and rewilding in the Central Apennines: Italy Journey into Italy’s Central Apennines region for a fascinating introduction to the concept and practicalities of rewilding.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.