Skip to main content

Assisted Migration, Risks and Scientific Uncertainty, and Ethics: A Comment on Albrecht et al.’s Review Paper

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics volume 27, pages 471–477 (2014)Cite this article

Abstract

In response to Albrecht et al.’s (J Agric Environ Ethics 26(4):827–845, 2013) discussion on the ethics of assisted migration, we emphasize the issues of risk and scientific uncertainty as an inextricable part of a comprehensive ethical evaluation. Insisting on a separation of risk and ethical considerations, although arguably common in many policy contexts, is at best misguided and at worst damaging.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. Two issues plague the debate on assisted migration: terminological plurality and definitional varieties. Terminological plurality means that besides ‘assisted migration’, many other terms have been employed. The most common ones are ‘assisted colonization’ (the term employed, for example, by Albrecht et al. and the IUCN) and ‘managed relocation’, but a quick literature review reveals ‘facilitated migration’, ‘assisted range expansion’ and a plethora of other phrases. Many authors employ the terms, especially the three first-mentioned, interchangeably and prefer the use of one to the others for terminological reasons. Definitional varieties refer to the abundance of proposed definitions that differ from each other. In the recently introduced IUCN Guidelines for Reintroductions and Other Conservation Translocations (2012, 3), assisted colonisation is defined as “the intentional movement and release of an organism outside its indigenous range to avoid extinction of populations of the focal species”. For terminological and conceptual analyses, see Hällfors et al. whose review of 868 scientific publications included 40 terms and 75 “definitions” for assisted migration. They show that there are good reasons to adopt the term ‘assisted migration’ and a more refined definition than the one provided by the IUCN. We follow the use of ‘assisted migration’ in this response.

  2. Although the main point of this brief comment lies elsewhere, we would like to note that it is not obvious that one should not try to save a species even if this would require repeating assisted migration in the case that the climate keeps changing in the future, if there were no other way to prevent the extinction of the species. Indeed, a stepwise procedure for moving species may be recommendable in the face of continuous change (see e.g. McDonald-Madden et al. 2011; Sáenz-Romero et al. 2011).

  3. Natural scientific knowledge provides information necessary to be taken into account in responsible environmental decision-making. It does not, however, dictate any policy decision in the absence of values. The values underlying a science-based decision-making framework or policy may often remain hidden, but they can be made explicit by means of an ethical analysis.

  4. The debate has been analyzed from different perspectives (e.g. Hewitt et al. 2011; Klenk & Larson 2013; Haskins and Keel 2012; Schwartz et al. 2012), and analytic/decision frameworks and (best practice) guidelines to facilitate the implementation of assisted migration have been put forth (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2008; Rout et al. 2013; Shoo et al. 2013; McDonald-Madden et al. 2011; Richardson et al. 2009; Schwartz and Martin 2013; Vitt et al. 2010; Maschinski et al. 2012; IUCN 2012).

  5. But what if the responses to risk and scientific uncertainty reflected purely subjective preferences? Even then they cannot be discounted simply on those grounds. Expert and lay people’s views about risks in themselves, whatever their bases, are relevant and need be taken into account in ethically sound risk decision-making. This is because of democratic reasons. Legitimate risk decisions cannot be wholly independent of the people’s will–irrespective of whether it operates with the same analytic rationality as do risk professionals (for discussion on technical and democratic values in risk analysis, see Fiorino 1989).

  6. The kind of risks one is willing to take reveals what one values. Furthermore, risk by (a non-technical) definition is something unwanted or harmful that may but is not certain to happen. Who is to decide, and on what criteria, what counts as a harm and what is to be avoided are questions of (dis)values and norms, the bases of which axiology and deontology, respectively, study.

  7. The precautionary principle calls for early measures of avoiding and mitigating serious and/or irreversible environmental and health effects in the face of scientific uncertainty. See EEA 2001; Wiener 2007; for a review of the academic debate, see Ahteensuu and Sandin 2012. It should be noted that the question is not only whether to apply the precautionary principle, but also to which risks it should be applied. The principle may be invoked to argue both for undertaking assisted migration (on the basis of possible extinction which forms an irreversible loss of biodiversity) and not undertaking assisted migration (on the basis of unforeseeable and possibly irrevocable damage to the recipient ecosystem).

  8. Noteworthy is also that risks per se change the decision-making situation. They bring about new morally relevant features (such as the distinction between voluntary risk taking and involuntary risk exposure) that need to be included in the full ethical evaluation. Morally relevant features related to voluntariness, consent, intent and fairness appear not to be adequately taken into account in the standard decision-theoretic approaches (see e.g. Hansson 2007).

  9. Scientific uncertainty complicates policy in many ways. Lemons (1996) identified three problems: First, uncertainty is not made explicit in many calculations of risk and advantage so that statements may appear unjustifiably factual. Second, uncertainty means that the standard of proof required by many decisions is not met. Third, uncertainty can impede precautionary action and delay decisions. (See also Ascough et al. 2008; Shrader-Frechette and McCoy 1999; Stirling 2010.).

References

  • Ahteensuu, M., & Sandin, P. (2012). The precautionary principle. In R. Hillerbrand, P. Sandin, S. Roeser, & M. Peterson (Eds.), Handbook of risk theory: epistemology, decision theory, ethics and social implications of risk (pp. 961–978). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Albrecht, G. A., Brooke, C., Bennett, D. H., & Garnett, S. T. (2013). The ethics of assisted colonization in the age of anthropogenic climate change. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), 827–845.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ascough, J. C, I. I., Maier, H. R., Ravalico, J. K., & Strudley, M. W. (2008). Future research challenges for incorporation of uncertainty in environmental and ecological decision-making. Ecological Modelling, 219, 383–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bicca-Marques, J. C., & Calegaro-Marques, C. (2012). Are the risks of conservation introduction worth taking? Zoologia, 29(5), 395–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camacho, A. E. (2010). Assisted migration: Redefining nature and natural resource law under climate change. Yale Journal on Regulation, 27(2), 171–255.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cranor, C. F. (1997). The normative nature of risk assessments: Features and possibilities. 8 Risk: Health, Safety and Environment, 123–136.

  • Davidson, I., & Simkanin, C. (2008). Skeptical of assisted colonization. Science, 322(14 Nov.), 1048–1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Environment Agency (EEA) (2001). Late lessons from early warnings: The precautionary principle 1896–2000. http://reports.eea.eu.int/environmental_issue_report_2001_22/en/Issue_Report_No_22.pdf. Accessed 12 Aug 2013.

  • Fiorino, D. J. (1989). Technical and democratic values in risk analysis. Risk Analysis, 9(3), 293–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansson, S. O. (2007). Risk and ethics: Three approaches. In T. Lewens (Ed.), Risk: Philosophical perspectives (pp. 21–35). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haskins, K. E., & Keel, B. G. (2012). Managed relocation: Panacea or pandemonium? In J. Maschinski & E. Haskins (Eds.), Plant reintroduction in a changing climate: Promises and perils (pp. 229–241). Washington DC: IslandPress.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hewitt, N., Klenk, N., Smith, A. L., Bazely, D. R., Yan, N., Wood, S., et al. (2011). Taking stock of the assisted migration debate. Biological Conservation, 144, 2560–2572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hällfors, M. H., Vaara, E. M., Hyvärinen, M., Oksanen, M., Schulman, L. E., Siipi, H., & Lehvävirta, S. Coming to terms with the concept of moving species threatened by climate change: A systematic review of terminology and definitions. Submitted manuscript.

  • Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Hughes, L., McIntyre, S., Lindenmayer, D. B., Parmesan, C., Possingham, H. P., et al. (2008). Assisted colonization and rapid climate change. Science, 321(18 July), 345–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, D. (2008). Assisted colonization won’t help rare species. Science, 322(5904), 1049.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (2012). Guidelines for reintroductions and other conservation translocations.

  • Klenk, N. L., & Larson, B. M. H. (2013). A rhetorical analysis of the scientific debate over assisted colonization. Environmental Science and Policy, 33, 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemons, J. (Ed.). (1996). Scientific uncertainty and environmental problem solving. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maschinski, J., Albrecht, M. A., Monks, L., & Haskins, K. E. (2012). Appendix 1: Center for plant conservation best reintroduction practice guidelines. In J. Maschinski & E. Haskins (Eds.), Plant reintroduction in a changing climate: Promises and perils (pp. 277–306). Washington DC: IslandPress.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mayo, D. G. (1991). Sociological versus metascientific views of risk assessment. In D. G. Mayo & R. D. Hollander (Eds.), Acceptable evidence: Science and values in risk management (pp. 249–279). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald-Madden, E., Runge, M. C., Possingham, H. P., & Martin, T. G. (2011). Optimal timing for managed relocation of species faced with climate change. Nature Climate Change, 1(August), 261–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minteer, B. A., & Collins, J. P. (2010). Move it or lose it? The ecological ethics of relocating species under climate change. Ecological Applications, 20(7), 1801–1804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ricciardi, A., & Simberloff, D. (2009). Assisted colonization is not a viable conservation strategy. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(5), 248–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richardson, D. M., et al. (2009). Multidimensional evaluation of managed relocation. PNAS, 106(24), 9721–9724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rout, T. M., McDonald-Madden, E., Martin, T. G., Mitchell, N. J., Possingham, H. P., & Armstrong, D. P. (2013). How to decide whether to move species threatened by climate change. PLoS ONE, 8(10), e75814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sáenz-Romero, C., Beaulieu, J., & Rehfeldt, G. E. (2011). Altitudinal genetic variation among Pinus patula populations from Oaxaca, México, in growth chambers simulating global warming temperatures. Agrociencia, 45, 399–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandler, R. L. (2010). The value of species and the ethical foundations of assisted colonization. Conservation Biology, 24(2), 424–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sax, D. F., Smith, K. F., & Thompson, A. R. (2009). Managed relocation: A nuanced evaluation is needed. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(9), 472–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlaepfer, M. A., Helenbrook, W. D., Searing, K. B., & Shoemaker, K. T. (2009). Assisted colonization: Evaluating management actions (and values) in the face of uncertainty. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(9), 471–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. W., & Martin, T. G. (2013). Translocation of imperiled species under changing climates. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1286, 15–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. W., Hellmann, J. J., & McLachlan, J. S. (2009). The precautionary principle in managed relocation is misguided advice. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 24(9), 474.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, M. W., et al. (2012). Managed relocation: Integrating the scientific, regulatory, and ethical challenges. BioScience, 62(8), 732–743.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seddon, P. J., Armstrong, D. P., Soorae, P., Launay, F., Walker, S., Ruiz-Miranda, C. R., et al. (2009). The risks of assisted colonization. Conservation Biology, 23(4), 788–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoo, L. P., Hoffmann, A. A., Garnett, S., Pressey, R. L., Williams, Y. M., Taylor, M., et al. (2013). Making decisions to conserve species under climate change. Climatic Change, 119, 239–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shrader-Frechette, K., & McCoy, E. D. (1999). Molecular systematics, ethics, and biological decision making under uncertainty. Conservation Biology, 13(5), 1008–1012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simberloff, D., et al. (2013). Impacts of biological invasions: What’s what and the way forward. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 28(1), 58–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stirling, A. (2010). Keep it simple. Nature, 468, 1029–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Underwood, A. J., & Chapman, M. G. (2003). Power, precaution, Type II error and sampling design in assessment of environmental impacts. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 296(1), 49–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vitt, P., Havens, K., Kramer, A. T., Sollenberger, D., & Yates, E. (2010). Assisted migration of plants: Changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes. Biological Conservation, 143, 18–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whittemore, A. S. (1983). Facts and values in risk analysis for environmental toxicants. Risk Analysis, 3, 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wiener, J. B. (2007). Precaution. In D. Bodansky, J. Brunnée, & E. Hey (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Environmental Law (pp. 597–612). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work is part of the Academy of Finland research project number 258144 “Constraints and Opportunities of Assisted Dispersal of Plants in Climate Change Adaptation–Biological, Legal and Ethical Analyses (CO-ADAPT)”. Helpful comments by Maria Hällfors, Elina Vaara and Helena Siipi on an earlier version of this response were much appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Assisted Migration Research Program, Botany Unit, Finnish Museum of Natural History, University of Helsinki, Unioninkatu 44, P.O. Box 7, 00014, Helsinki, Finland

    Marko Ahteensuu & Susanna Lehvävirta

Authors
  1. Marko Ahteensuu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Susanna Lehvävirta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marko Ahteensuu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ahteensuu, M., Lehvävirta, S. Assisted Migration, Risks and Scientific Uncertainty, and Ethics: A Comment on Albrecht et al.’s Review Paper. J Agric Environ Ethics 27, 471–477 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9493-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-014-9493-z

Keywords

  • Assisted migration
  • Ethics
  • Risk
  • Scientific uncertainty
  • Precautionary principle