Intended consequences statement

Ryan Phelan, Bridget Baumgartner, Stewart Brand, Evelyn Brister, Stanley

W. Burgiel, R. Alta Charo, Isabelle Coche, Al Cofrancesco, Jason A.

Delborne, Owain Edwards, et al.

► To cite this version:

Ryan Phelan, Bridget Baumgartner, Stewart Brand, Evelyn Brister, Stanley W. Burgiel, et al. Intended consequences statement. Conservation Science and Practice, 2021, 3 (4), pp.e371. 10.1111/csp.2.371. hal-05180939

HAL Id: hal-05180939

https://hal.science/hal-05180939v1

Submitted on 23 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>
LETTERS AND COMMENTS

Intended consequences statement

Ryan Phelan<fnref n="1" />

Bridget Baumgartner<fnref n="1" />

Stewart Brand<fnref n="1" />

Evelyn Brister<fnref n="2" />

Open Access

Stanley W. Burgiel<fnref n="3" />

Open Access

R. Alta Charo<fnref n="4" />

Isabelle Coche<fnref n="5" />

Al Cofrancesco<fnref n="6" />

Jason A. Delborne<fnref n="7" />

Owain Edwards<fnref n="8" />

Joshua P. Fisher<fnref n="9" />

Martin Gaywood<fnref n="10" />

Doria R. Gordon<fnref n="11" />

Gregg Howald<fnref n="12" />

Margaret E. Hunter<fnref n="13" />

Peter Kareiva<fnref n="14" />

Aditi Mankad<fnref n="8" />

Michelle Marvier<fnref n="15" />

Katherine Moseby<fnref n="16" />

Andrew E. Newhouse<fnref n="17" />

Open Access

Ben J. Novak<fnref n="1" />

Open Access

Gerry Ohrstrom<fnref n="18" />

Steven Olson<fnref n="19" />

Megan J. Palmer<fnref n="20" />

Stephen Palumbi<fnref n="21" />

Neil Patterson Jr.<fnref n="22" />

Miguel Pedrono²³

Francisco Pelegri²⁴

Yasha Rohwer²⁵

Open Access

Oliver A. Ryder²⁶

J. Royden Saah²⁷

Robert M. Scheller²⁸

Philip J. Seddon²⁹

H. Bradley Shaffer³⁰

Beth Shapiro³¹

Mike Sweeney³²

Mark R. Tercek³³

Delphine Thizy³⁴

Whitney Tilt³⁵

Michele Weber<fnref n="1" />

Renee D. Wegrzyn³⁶

Bruce Whitelaw³⁷

Matthew Winkler³⁸

Josh Wodak³⁹

Mark Zimring³²

Paul Robbins⁴⁰

<footnote n="1">¹Revive & Restore, Sausalito, California</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, New York</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³National Invasive Species Council, Washington, District of Columbia</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵Emerging Ag, Brussels, Belgium</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi</footnote>

<footnote n="7">⁷Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina</footnote>

<footnote n="8">⁸Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Floreat, Western Australia, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, Hawaii</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰NatureScot, Inverness, UK</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, District of Columbia</footnote>

<footnote n="12">¹²Advanced Conservation Strategies, Williamsburg, Virginia</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³U.S. Geological Survey, Wetland and Aquatic Research Center, Gainesville, Florida</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴University of California, Los Angeles, California</footnote>

<footnote n="15">¹⁵Department of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, California</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, New York</footnote>

<footnote n="18">¹⁸Epicurus Fund, New York, New York</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Silver Spring, Maryland</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰Stanford University, Stanford, California</footnote>

<footnote n="21">²¹Hopkins Marine Station, Stanford University, Pacific Grove, California</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²²State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry Center for Native Peoples & the Environment, Syracuse, New York</footnote>

<footnote>This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.</footnote>

<footnote>© 2021 The Authors. Conservation Science and Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology</footnote>
<sup>23</sup>French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD, UMR ASTRE), Montpellier, France

<sup>24</sup>Laboratory of Genetics, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

<sup>25</sup>Oregon Institute of Technology, Klamath Falls, Oregon

<sup>26</sup>San Diego Zoo Global, Escondido, California

<sup>27</sup>Island Conservation, Santa Cruz, California

<sup>28</sup>Department of Forestry and Environmental Resources, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina

<sup>29</sup>University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand

<sup>30</sup>Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and La Kretz Center for California Conservation Science, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles, California

<sup>31</sup>Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of California, Santa Cruz, California

<sup>32</sup>The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco, California

<sup>33</sup>Environmentalist, Washington, District of Columbia

<sup>34</sup>Imperial College London, London, UK

<sup>35</sup>Conservation Benchmarks, Bozeman, Montana

<sup>36</sup>Ginkgo Bioworks, Boston, Massachusetts

<sup>37</sup>The Roslin Institute, University of Edinburgh, Midlothian, UK

<sup>38</sup>Asuragen, Austin, Texas

<sup>39</sup>Institute for Culture and Society, Western Sydney University, Parramatta, New South Wales, Australia

<sup>40</sup>Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin

**Correspondence**

Michele Weber, Revive & Restore, Sausalito, CA, USA.

Email: michele@reviverestore.org

**Funding information**

Amy and Mark Tercek; Gerry Ohrstrom; The Nature Conservancy of California; University of Wisconsin-Madison; Revive & Restore

# 1 | INTENDED CONSEQUENCES STATEMENT

As the biodiversity crisis accelerates, the stakes are higher for threatened plants and animals. Rebuilding the health of our planet will require addressing underlying threats at many scales, including habitat loss and climate change. Conservation interventions such as habitat protection, management, restoration, predator control, translocation, genetic rescue, and biological control have the potential to help threatened or endangered species avert extinction. These existing, well-tested methods can be complemented and augmented by more frequent and faster adoption of new technologies, such as powerful new genetic tools. In addition, synthetic biology might offer solutions to currently intractable conservation problems. We believe that conservation needs to be bold and clear-eyed in this moment of great urgency.

Proposed efforts to mitigate conservation threats often raise concerns about potentially harmful unintended consequences. For some highly documented strategies based on conservation principles, such as biological control, conservation translocations, and restoration of natural fire regimes, evidence to date suggests that careful

planning produces the intended consequences while avoiding adverse unintended consequences. For example, better identification and mitigation of risks has resulted in no severe, negative, unintended consequences for conservation translocations and biological control releases over the last 30 years in the United States (Novak et al., 2021).

This progress, especially after the well-publicized harmful interventions from the early history of the field, has been made by improving conservation intervention techniques, scientific understanding of dynamic interactions in complex ecosystems, and early stakeholder engagement. The substantial history of intervention should encourage us to thoughtfully pursue novel approaches to conservation as the technology advances, focusing on the future we want, rather than being daunted by the future we fear.

In June 2020, Revive & Restore convened a group of 57 conservationists, wildlife biologists, restoration specialists, conservation geneticists, ethicists, and social scientists to propose a new framework for the future of conservation, focused on intended consequences. There was broad consensus that developing and employing what might be considered controversial genetic
technologies will require a commitment to responsible decision-making that respects the diversity of perspectives, interests, and values among different stakeholders. To encourage working confidently with emerging tools and technologies, we propose a framework that increases inclusivity and embraces conservation innovation.

The participants of the Intended Consequences Workshop agree that:

* Conservationists and other stakeholders should codesign conservation interventions to advance biodiversity goals and achieve intended consequences.

* A broader definition of risk and the development of new risk assessment tools will facilitate appropriate risk identification and mitigation during intervention planning and implementation.

* Inaction and delay also incur consequences. The risks of inaction must also be identified and taken into consideration.

* Being transparent about social and cultural values is essential to success because science alone cannot tell us what we should do.

* Inclusive engagement with communities and stakeholders, including indigenous peoples and marginalized groups, allows for a thoughtful exploration of diverse visions for future ecosystems and the path to a vibrant and resilient nature.

* A code of practice for genetic interventions that weighs ecological and social risks, and potential benefits, will help conservationists, funders and the public make informed decisions for responsible and innovative action.

* The code of practice should evolve with new knowledge, additional experience, and further deliberation via an inclusive process.

* Monitoring results, both positive and negative, will help conservationists design successful interventions, manage uncertainty, and codify lessons learned along the way.

These initial points of agreement, along with an evolving code of practice, can help guide future conservation interventions and inspire confidence in our ability to design for and achieve intended consequences.

The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the views of: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, CSIRO, NatureScot,

Imperial College London, San Diego Zoo Global, and National Invasive Species Council.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The workshop that inspired this statement was supported by Revive & Restore, University of Wisconsin-Madison, The Nature Conservancy of California, Gerry Ohrstrom, and Amy and Mark Tercek. We would like to thank the editor and an anonymous reviewer who read early versions and gave constructive feedback that improved this statement.

## CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

## AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS

All authors have contributed and have given final approval of the version to be published.

## DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

No data were collected for this article.

## ETHICS STATEMENT

No data were collected for this article.

## ORCID

Evelyn Brister https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5077-7692

Stanley W. Burgiel https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6027-0577

Andrew E. Newhouse https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9981-8309

Ben J. Novak https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0699-634X

Yasha Rohwer https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6765-770X

Michele Weber https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1583-7367

## REFERENCE

Novak, B. J., Phelan, R., & Weber, M. (2021). U.S. conservation translocations: Over a century of intended consequences. *Conservation Science and Practice*, 3(4), e394. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp.2.394

**How to cite this article:** Phelan R, Baumgartner B, Brand S, et al. Intended consequences statement. *Conservation Science and Practice*. 2021;3:e371. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp.2.371