The Policy Forum “Assisted colonizaion and rapid climate change” (O. Hoegh-Guldberg et al. , 18 July, p. [345][1]) proposes moving species outside their historic range to mitigate biodiversity loss induced by climate change. However, this approach will be successful only if legal policies, especially the implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), change as well. Establishing a new population requires both availability of adequate habitat and strong legal protection. Policy-makers should recognize that areas predicted by bioclimatic models to be the most suitable for a species in the long term should now be considered “essential for conservation” under ESA section 3 and therefore designated as critical habitat. This should occur even if these areas are not currently suitable for the species. Designation of new populations established by assisted colonization as “experimental” under ESA section 10(j) should be avoided; this provides weaker protection than exists for naturally occurring populations and will ultimately jeopardize the populations most critical to a species' long-term survival ([1][2]). 1. 1.[↵][3] 1. J. Kostyack, 2. D. Rohlf , Environ. Law Report. 38, 10203 (2008). [OpenUrl][4] # Response {#article-title-2} The letters in response to our Policy Forum highlight many of the risks and consequences of making bad decisions, the logical consideration of which is the focus of our decision framework. The robust risk assessment framework we propose includes assisted colonization as one option among the full array of other strategies available to ecosystem managers. Davidson and Simkanin correctly note that there are serious risks associated with ill-conceived assisted colonization, including the effects on source populations and the impact of translocated organisms at their destinations, which we mentioned in our Policy Forum. It is true that some short-distance translocations will be ill advised for recipient ecosystems and human communities, but the literature indicates that this risk escalates as organisms and ecosystems become more divergent. Evidently, there is no single strategy that will work across the board for all taxa, ecosystems, and regions. This is why we presented a decision framework rather than a prescription. The decision framework allows risks and benefits to be reviewed systematically, prior to any attempt to move species, communities, or ecosystems in response to climate change. Neither Davidson and Simkanin nor Huang acknowledge that the risks of action must be balanced against the risks of inaction, which have frequently been high. During past periods of major climate shifts (changes of 6° to 10°C), the Earth experienced massive changes to the distribution and abundance of its biological systems. Recent temperature increases in many parts of the world exceed those seen during previous shifts ([1][5]). Redistribution in the modern world is also curtailed by human-dominated landscapes, which severely limit the total area of suitable natural habitats and create barriers to dispersal and migration. Even though the risks of translocation may be prohibitive in most situations, to ignore this option as species, communities, or ecosystems dwindle to extinction is not an option. Our framework systematically examines the advantages and risks of assisted colonization along with the full suite of other conservation options. We agree with Chapron and Samelius that policy must be developed to recognize the importance of future habitats for organisms in a world that is changing from decade to decade. Equally important is the necessity for developing new policies that provide protection for newly transferred colonies, especially given that these are intended to be long-term as opposed to experimental translocations. Without the rapid evolution of policy in concert with innovative biological solutions, attempts to move species and communities to new locations ahead of climate change will be doomed to failure. 1. 1.[↵][6] 1. O. Hoegh-Guldberg 2. et al. , Science 318, 1737 (2007). [OpenUrl][7][Abstract/FREE Full Text][8] [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.1157897 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1. in text [4]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DEnviron.%2BLaw%2BReport.%26rft.volume%253D38%26rft.spage%253D10203%26rft.atitle%253DENVIRON%2BLAW%2BREPORT%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [5]: #ref-2 [6]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 1. in text [7]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.issn%253D0036-8075%26rft.aulast%253DHoegh-Guldberg%26rft.auinit1%253DO.%26rft.volume%253D318%26rft.issue%253D5857%26rft.spage%253D1737%26rft.epage%253D1742%26rft.atitle%253DCoral%2BReefs%2BUnder%2BRapid%2BClimate%2BChange%2Band%2BOcean%2BAcidification%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1152509%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F18079392%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [8]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzMTgvNTg1Ny8xNzM3IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjU6Ii9zY2kvMzIyLzU5MDQvMTA0OS4yLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==
Read full abstract