Taking stock of the assisted migration debate

• Published in: Biological conservation 2011-11, Vol.144 (11), p.2560-2572
• Main Authors: Hewitt, N., Klenk, N., Smith, A.L., Bazely, D.R., Yan, N., Wood, S., MacLellan, J.I., Lipsig-Mumme, C., Henriques, I.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Animal, plant and microbial ecology; Applied ecology; Assisted colonization; Assisted migration; Biological and medical sciences; Climate change; Climate change adaptation; Climatology. Bioclimatology. Climate change; Conservation, protection and management of environment and wildlife; Debate; Earth, ocean, space; ecosystems; Exact sciences and technology; External geophysics; Feasibility; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; issues and policy; Managed relocation; Meteorology; Migration; Parks, reserves, wildlife conservation. Endangered species: population survey and restocking; Policies; Raw materials; Risk; risk assessment; society; stakeholders; Strategy; Tradeoffs
• ISSN: 0006-3207; 1873-2917
• DOI: 10.1016/j.biocon.2011.04.031

► We review the literature on assisted migration (AM) as a climate change adaptation strategy. ► A majority of articles generally endorse AM, but opposition is intensifying. ► We present a conceptual framework for analyzing the debate. ► More original research is needed into processes and effects of assisted range extension. ► There are no simple solutions to the often value-based challenges in the debate. Assisted migration was proposed several decades ago as a means of addressing the impacts of climate change on species populations. While its risks and benefits have been debated, and suggestions for planning and management given, there is little consensus within the academic literature over whether to adopt it as a policy. We evaluated the main features of the assisted migration literature including the study methods, taxonomic groups, geographic regions and disciplines involved. We further assessed the debate about the use of assisted migration, the main barriers to consensus, and the range of recommendations put forth in the literature for policy, planning or implementation. Commentaries and secondary literature reviews were as prevalent as first-hand scientific research and attention focussed on a global rather than regional level. There was little evidence of knowledge transfer outside of the natural sciences, despite the obvious policy relevance. Scholarly debate on this topic has intensified during the last 3 years. We present a conceptual framework for evaluating arguments in the debate, distinguishing among the direct risks and benefits to species, ecosystems and society on the one hand, and other arguments regarding scientific justification, evidence-base and feasibility on the other. We also identify recommendations with potential to advance the debate, including careful evaluation of risks, benefits and trade-offs, involvement of relevant stakeholders and consideration of the complementarity among assisted migration and less risk-tolerant strategies. We conclude, however, that none of these will solve the fundamental, often values-based, challenges in the debate. Solutions are likely to be complex, context-dependent and multi-faceted, emerging from further research, discussion and experience.