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.

Biden administration offers alternatives for Colorado River’s long-term operations

News Feed
Wednesday, November 20, 2024

Biden administration officials on Wednesday announced several potential alternatives for the Colorado River's long-term management, as the expiration date for the current rules approaches. The five alternatives will be considered as possible replacements for the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages, which are valid through the end of 2026. These rules will steer conservation policies for a 1,450-mile river that provides water to about 40 million people in the U.S. and Mexico.  "We're in a moment for solutions and leadership,"  Acting Deputy Interior Secretary Laura Daniel-Davis said on a Wednesday press call. "Today, we're putting forth alternatives that have established a robust and fair framework for a basin-wide agreement." The Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation, which is overseeing the revisions in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), had given Colorado River basin states an early March 2024 cutoff date for submitting a consensus-backed alternative themselves. The U.S. portion of the Colorado River region is split into a Lower and an Upper basin, which, respectively, include California, Arizona and Nevada, and Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico.  Back in March, the two basins were unable to come to a unified agreement and ended up filing competing proposals for the river's long-term management. The Lower Basin states had agreed to reductions of their own while also placing an emphasis on shared cuts across the whole watershed — basing storage capacity totals not just on the massive Lake Powell and Lake Mead, but also on other smaller reservoirs in the Upper Basin. The Upper Basin states, on the other hand, submitted a plan that they felt would better reflect changing hydrological conditions in a region where water supplies come from mountain snowpack. In the absence of a March consensus, the federal government on Wednesday released its own alternatives, which will undergo extensive analysis in a forthcoming draft environmental impact statement (EIS). Those alternatives, according to the Interior Department, reflect elements proposed by basin states, tribes, cooperating agencies and non-governmental organizations. "We have laid the foundation to ensure that future guidelines and strategies will be sufficiently robust and adaptive to withstand the uncertainty of climate change impacts," Daniel-Davis said. The release of the proposed alternatives on Wednesday serves to facilitate a "timely development of final operating guidelines that will need to be in place by August of 2026," explained Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Touton, on the same press call.  Touton stressed that there are no preferred alternatives and that the options "represent a wide range of actions that provide improved predictability of water availability, enhanced opportunities for conservation and respond to a broad spectrum of hydrology." The proposals include four viable alternatives as well as a fifth "no action" alternative, which Touton explained is simply a NEPA requirement but would involve reverting to guidelines in place prior to 2007. Alternative 4, a "Basin Hybrid" plan, attempts to include portions of the plans submitted by the Upper Basin, Lower Basin and tribal nations. That option, according to the Interior Department, could help facilitate collaborative action among stakeholders.  In this proposal, Lake Powell releases would generally be based solely on the lake's elevation, but with some consideration of Lake Mead's levels. New delivery and storage mechanisms would serve both reservoirs, including conservation incentivization for both tribal and non-tribal parties.  This option would also make basin-wide cuts more equitable by spreading the burden, which has long been a priority of the Lower Basin states. Specifically, a portion of the reductions that the Lower Basin must make amid shortages would be based on a seven-reservoir capacity, rather than just that of Lake Powell and Lake Mead. Alternative 3, called "Cooperative Conservation," was informed by proposals from conservation organizations and would predicate Lake Powell releases upon total Upper Basin system storage and recent hydrological conditions, according to the Interior Department. Under this option, a large share of Lower Basin cutbacks would be based on the seven-reservoir storage capacity, recent hydrology and voluntary contributions from the two basins. In Alternative 2, called the "Federal Authorities Hybrid," Lake Powell releases would be based on a combination of Lake Powell and Lake Mead elevations, hydrological records and Lower Basin deliveries. Shortage responsibilities under this plan would be triggered entirely by the combined seven-reservoir storage capacity and distributed proportionally among parties. A "Federal Authorities" option, Alternative 1, would provide "robust protection of critical infrastructure" within the federal government’s current statutory authorities. Lake Powell released would be based on Lake Powell's elevations, with Lower Basin shortages distributed based on the region's century-old water rights priority system. "These alternatives represent a responsible range from which to build the best and most robust path forward for the basin," Touton said. "There certainly are extremely difficult choices and tradeoffs to be made, but we believe that there are ample opportunities to create a fair path to solutions that work for the entire region." In addition to presenting the alternatives, the Biden administration officials also devoted ample time in the Wednesday press call commending the progress made under President Biden on Colorado River issues. Daniel-Davis recalled how "in 2021, impacts of a historic drought in the West brought the Colorado River Basin and the communities it serves to a near crisis," stressing how Lake Mead and Lake Powell plunged to critically low elevations. But she touted the administration's "all-of-government approach" and "really bold and decisive action" for helping solve the crisis.  Touton offered a similar perspective, adding, "We were able to bring the Colorado River into the back in the break of the worst drought in 1,800 years." White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi, credited not only the administration, but also the region's bipartisan partners for bringing "the river back from the brink." He commended U.S. West governors by name, and from both sides of the aisle, for their work on natural resource conservation and for recognizing the strain on the Colorado River system. Zaidi described the alternatives as "a playbook to come together once again, to meet the urgent need of stabilizing situation beyond 2026." In response to the Interior Department's publication of alternatives, JB Hamby, Colorado River commissioner for California, said in a statement that "federal law requires the Colorado River Basin’s reservoirs be managed in accordance with the Colorado River Compact." The most significant components of that 1922 water agreement, Hamby stated, are "mandatory deliveries of water from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin and Mexico." "In order to be valid, any alternative considered must meet this requirement unless the states agree to a compromise otherwise," he said. Becky Mitchell, Colorado River commissioner for the state of Colorado, said in a statement her state did not have specific comments on the alternatives "at this time." "Colorado continues to stand firmly behind the Upper Division States’ Alternative," she said, noting that this proposal is supply-driven and aims to boost Lake Powell and Lake Mead while protecting Colorado's "significant rights and interests" in the river. "Colorado remains committed to working collaboratively with the other Basin States, the federal government and tribal Nations towards a consensus approach and also stands ready to protect our State’s significant interests in the Colorado River," Mitchell added. In a separate press call following the Interior Department's announcement, Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, told reporters that he needed "a lot more time to digest all this." While he noted "some really positive elements to these alternatives," he also said that he was "disappointed that Reclamation chose to create alternatives, rather than to model the Lower Basin state alternative in its entirety." "It didn't start at one extreme or the other, and it showed unequivocally that the Lower Basin was willing to take the first tranche of cuts," Buschatzke added.

Biden administration officials on Wednesday announced several potential alternatives for the Colorado River's long-term management, as the expiration date for the current rules approaches. The five alternatives will be considered as possible replacements for the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages, which are valid through the end of 2026. These rules will steer conservation policies for a...

Biden administration officials on Wednesday announced several potential alternatives for the Colorado River's long-term management, as the expiration date for the current rules approaches.

The five alternatives will be considered as possible replacements for the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages, which are valid through the end of 2026. These rules will steer conservation policies for a 1,450-mile river that provides water to about 40 million people in the U.S. and Mexico. 

"We're in a moment for solutions and leadership,"  Acting Deputy Interior Secretary Laura Daniel-Davis said on a Wednesday press call. "Today, we're putting forth alternatives that have established a robust and fair framework for a basin-wide agreement."

The Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation, which is overseeing the revisions in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), had given Colorado River basin states an early March 2024 cutoff date for submitting a consensus-backed alternative themselves.

The U.S. portion of the Colorado River region is split into a Lower and an Upper basin, which, respectively, include California, Arizona and Nevada, and Colorado, Wyoming, Utah and New Mexico. 

Back in March, the two basins were unable to come to a unified agreement and ended up filing competing proposals for the river's long-term management.

The Lower Basin states had agreed to reductions of their own while also placing an emphasis on shared cuts across the whole watershed — basing storage capacity totals not just on the massive Lake Powell and Lake Mead, but also on other smaller reservoirs in the Upper Basin.

The Upper Basin states, on the other hand, submitted a plan that they felt would better reflect changing hydrological conditions in a region where water supplies come from mountain snowpack.

In the absence of a March consensus, the federal government on Wednesday released its own alternatives, which will undergo extensive analysis in a forthcoming draft environmental impact statement (EIS). Those alternatives, according to the Interior Department, reflect elements proposed by basin states, tribes, cooperating agencies and non-governmental organizations.

"We have laid the foundation to ensure that future guidelines and strategies will be sufficiently robust and adaptive to withstand the uncertainty of climate change impacts," Daniel-Davis said.

The release of the proposed alternatives on Wednesday serves to facilitate a "timely development of final operating guidelines that will need to be in place by August of 2026," explained Bureau of Reclamation Commissioner Camille Touton, on the same press call. 

Touton stressed that there are no preferred alternatives and that the options "represent a wide range of actions that provide improved predictability of water availability, enhanced opportunities for conservation and respond to a broad spectrum of hydrology."

The proposals include four viable alternatives as well as a fifth "no action" alternative, which Touton explained is simply a NEPA requirement but would involve reverting to guidelines in place prior to 2007.

Alternative 4, a "Basin Hybrid" plan, attempts to include portions of the plans submitted by the Upper Basin, Lower Basin and tribal nations. That option, according to the Interior Department, could help facilitate collaborative action among stakeholders. 

In this proposal, Lake Powell releases would generally be based solely on the lake's elevation, but with some consideration of Lake Mead's levels. New delivery and storage mechanisms would serve both reservoirs, including conservation incentivization for both tribal and non-tribal parties. 

This option would also make basin-wide cuts more equitable by spreading the burden, which has long been a priority of the Lower Basin states. Specifically, a portion of the reductions that the Lower Basin must make amid shortages would be based on a seven-reservoir capacity, rather than just that of Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

Alternative 3, called "Cooperative Conservation," was informed by proposals from conservation organizations and would predicate Lake Powell releases upon total Upper Basin system storage and recent hydrological conditions, according to the Interior Department. Under this option, a large share of Lower Basin cutbacks would be based on the seven-reservoir storage capacity, recent hydrology and voluntary contributions from the two basins.

In Alternative 2, called the "Federal Authorities Hybrid," Lake Powell releases would be based on a combination of Lake Powell and Lake Mead elevations, hydrological records and Lower Basin deliveries. Shortage responsibilities under this plan would be triggered entirely by the combined seven-reservoir storage capacity and distributed proportionally among parties.

A "Federal Authorities" option, Alternative 1, would provide "robust protection of critical infrastructure" within the federal government’s current statutory authorities. Lake Powell released would be based on Lake Powell's elevations, with Lower Basin shortages distributed based on the region's century-old water rights priority system.

"These alternatives represent a responsible range from which to build the best and most robust path forward for the basin," Touton said. "There certainly are extremely difficult choices and tradeoffs to be made, but we believe that there are ample opportunities to create a fair path to solutions that work for the entire region."

In addition to presenting the alternatives, the Biden administration officials also devoted ample time in the Wednesday press call commending the progress made under President Biden on Colorado River issues.

Daniel-Davis recalled how "in 2021, impacts of a historic drought in the West brought the Colorado River Basin and the communities it serves to a near crisis," stressing how Lake Mead and Lake Powell plunged to critically low elevations.

But she touted the administration's "all-of-government approach" and "really bold and decisive action" for helping solve the crisis. 

Touton offered a similar perspective, adding, "We were able to bring the Colorado River into the back in the break of the worst drought in 1,800 years."

White House National Climate Advisor Ali Zaidi, credited not only the administration, but also the region's bipartisan partners for bringing "the river back from the brink." He commended U.S. West governors by name, and from both sides of the aisle, for their work on natural resource conservation and for recognizing the strain on the Colorado River system.

Zaidi described the alternatives as "a playbook to come together once again, to meet the urgent need of stabilizing situation beyond 2026."

In response to the Interior Department's publication of alternatives, JB Hamby, Colorado River commissioner for California, said in a statement that "federal law requires the Colorado River Basin’s reservoirs be managed in accordance with the Colorado River Compact."

The most significant components of that 1922 water agreement, Hamby stated, are "mandatory deliveries of water from the Upper Basin to the Lower Basin and Mexico."

"In order to be valid, any alternative considered must meet this requirement unless the states agree to a compromise otherwise," he said.

Becky Mitchell, Colorado River commissioner for the state of Colorado, said in a statement her state did not have specific comments on the alternatives "at this time."

"Colorado continues to stand firmly behind the Upper Division States’ Alternative," she said, noting that this proposal is supply-driven and aims to boost Lake Powell and Lake Mead while protecting Colorado's "significant rights and interests" in the river.

"Colorado remains committed to working collaboratively with the other Basin States, the federal government and tribal Nations towards a consensus approach and also stands ready to protect our State’s significant interests in the Colorado River," Mitchell added.

In a separate press call following the Interior Department's announcement, Tom Buschatzke, director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources, told reporters that he needed "a lot more time to digest all this."

While he noted "some really positive elements to these alternatives," he also said that he was "disappointed that Reclamation chose to create alternatives, rather than to model the Lower Basin state alternative in its entirety."

"It didn't start at one extreme or the other, and it showed unequivocally that the Lower Basin was willing to take the first tranche of cuts," Buschatzke added.

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.