Wildlife resources
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) World Conservation Congress opens October 9 in Abu Dhabi, bringing together governments, civil society, Indigenous Peoples groups, and scientists to shape global conservation policy. Among the contentious issues facing delegates: whether emerging genetic technologies should be embraced as conservation tools or banned outright.
The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), which has attended every IUCN Congress since 1949, is urging delegates to support Motion 87, which would establish what the organization describes as a responsible, science based policy framework on synthetic biology. At the same time, WCS opposes Motion 133, which calls for a sweeping moratorium on using such technologies in conservation work.
The battle centers on Motion 133, which proposes stopping all research using synthetic biology to save animals and plants, a debate that has divided scientists, environmentalists and Indigenous communities worldwide. The disagreement reveals fundamental tensions about how aggressively conservation should adopt tools that can make targeted changes to organisms’ genetic makeup.
Synthetic biology already operates widely in medicine and agriculture. The question before the Congress is whether and how these approaches should be applied to protect biodiversity, enhance public health, and support human wellbeing. WCS frames the choice starkly: will IUCN lead with science and ethics, or retreat from innovation when the world needs it most?
But that framing itself is contested. Motion 133 references IUCN’s 2004 resolution establishing a moratorium on releasing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), arguing that synthetic biology has since led to new genetic engineering technologies posing great risks to biodiversity and the web of life, especially as these technologies converge with generative artificial intelligence.
The debate isn’t purely scientific. It touches on questions about who controls conservation technologies, what risks are acceptable when ecosystems are poorly understood, and whether the precautionary principle should govern decisions about releasing genetically modified organisms into complex natural systems.
WCS is also pushing Motion 108, which addresses the escalating global pet trade in wildlife. The organization warns that both legal and illegal wildlife trade for pets is growing, with devastating consequences for animals, ecosystems, and human health. The motion calls for developing IUCN guidelines to strengthen national laws and curb commercial pet trade in terrestrial wildlife.
Another WCS priority already has strong support. A motion recognizing the interconnected health of people, animals, and ecosystems, known as One Health, passed through online voting before the Congress with 86% support from government members and 91% from non governmental members. The motion reinforces One Health as a pillar of IUCN’s next four year program and comes as climate change, biodiversity loss, and zoonotic disease create escalating risks.
Nature crime represents another focus area where WCS is co leading efforts. The organization describes nature crime, including wildlife trafficking, illegal fisheries, illegal deforestation and timber trade, as one of the fastest growing global threats. These activities intensify habitat loss, fuel corruption, destabilize communities, and weaken climate resilience. The issue features prominently in IUCN’s four year program and 20 year strategic vision.
The Congress published 124 motions in June 2025, inviting IUCN members to discuss issues that will trigger action on nature loss and other global challenges. Once adopted, these motions become resolutions and recommendations that form IUCN’s general policy, carrying weight because the organization uniquely brings governments, civil society, and Indigenous Peoples to the same decision making table.
The synthetic biology dispute illustrates broader tensions in conservation about technological solutions. Supporters argue these tools could help save species from extinction, combat invasive species, or restore damaged ecosystems. Critics worry about unintended consequences in complex natural systems, about technologies being deployed before risks are fully understood, and about who benefits from and controls these innovations.
WCS emphasizes that synthetic biology already operates widely outside conservation contexts. The organization’s position is that developing responsible frameworks for its conservation applications makes more sense than imposing blanket bans while the technology advances elsewhere. But Motion 133’s proponents argue that conservation contexts are different precisely because interventions affect ecosystems whose dynamics scientists often don’t fully understand.
The pet trade motion addresses a more straightforward problem, though solutions remain complex. Wildlife capture for pets, whether legal or illegal, removes animals from wild populations, can spread disease, and often involves significant suffering. But regulating this trade effectively requires international coordination, enforcement capacity, and addressing consumer demand across different countries with varying legal frameworks.
Through its 128 previous winners, WCS programs have reached over 400 million lives globally. The organization operates in more than 60 countries and manages four zoos and an aquarium in New York City that welcome 3.5 million visitors annually. Its presence at the Congress reflects decades of engagement with IUCN processes.
The Congress takes place against urgent deadlines. Just five years remain until 2030 targets set by the Paris Agreement, Sustainable Development Goals, and Global Biodiversity Framework. That timeline creates pressure to accelerate action, but also raises stakes for decisions about which tools and approaches should guide conservation efforts.
Whether delegates find common ground on synthetic biology or other contentious issues will shape conservation policy for the next four years. The IUCN Congress meets only once every four years, making these gatherings pivotal moments for establishing priorities and frameworks that guide action between sessions.
For WCS, the synthetic biology debate represents a test of whether conservation can embrace innovation while managing risks. For Motion 133’s supporters, it’s about preventing potentially irreversible damage to ecosystems through technologies whose full implications remain unknown. Both sides frame their positions as serving conservation’s ultimate goals, even as they propose radically different paths forward.