The International Union for Conservation of Nature has voted against imposing a moratorium on releasing genetically engineered species into the wild for conservation purposes, despite opposition from Indigenous groups. The decision, made in Abu Dhabi, also supports the use of synthetic biology in research. Critics argue that such technologies pose irreversible risks without proper safeguards and consent.
This week, members of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), one of the world's largest conservation organizations, voted in Abu Dhabi against a proposed moratorium on releasing genetically engineered species into wild ecosystems to aid conservation efforts. Instead, they approved motions favoring the application of synthetic biology, a technology that edits genetic material in living cells. A separate motion greenlighting synthetic biology for research purposes also passed.
The decisions have sparked strong backlash from Indigenous-led organizations, such as the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon River Basin and Wise Ancestors, as well as international groups focused on agriculture, beekeeping, conservation, and biodiversity. These groups had lobbied for the moratorium, emphasizing the need for ethical safeguards. They insist that decisions involving synthetic conservation technologies on Indigenous lands must adhere to free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC)—an international standard for Indigenous rights—along with protocols for consultation, data sovereignty, and risk assessments.
Dana Perls, senior food and technology manager at Friends of the Earth, highlighted the uncertainties: “At this point, the science is new, and we don’t actually have data or evidence to suggest that it could be safe. Instead, we have evidence that suggests this is highly risky. It’s irreversible.” She added, “Unintended consequences can permanently impact ecosystems including people and animals. And so [we must not experiment with nature] until there are precautionary regulations and robust risk assessments, free and prior informed consent for the rights of Indigenous peoples and local communities to decide for themselves about whether or not they want to be engaged in this risk.”
The debate centers on the efficacy and ethics of genetically modified species, which have evolved from 1990s-era GM foods to applications addressing climate-driven challenges, like disease-carrying mosquitoes. For example, in August, a nonprofit released 16,000 genetically modified mosquitoes targeting Anopheles gambiae, the malaria vector, but authorities halted the project after a week.
IUCN member Susan Lieberman defended the votes: “These resolutions adopted by IUCN in Abu Dhabi will steer policy toward evidence-based choices that safeguard both nature and human well-being, and include the rights and leadership of Indigenous peoples, essential partners in any durable conservation agenda.” Proponents see the technology as vital for combating biodiversity loss amid climate change, while opponents warn of potential ecological harm without adequate protections.