Ethics requirements for environmental research

ABSTRACT

Research into the best forms of conservation management or climate intervention is critically important, but carries its own risks of impacts. Unless research requires a legal permit, evaluation of whether the benefits of such research outweigh risks is left to research ethics processes. We ask whether the ethics processes governing outdoor research in Australia ensure that potential environmental impacts are addressed adequately. We examine how environmental considerations are incorporated into Australia’s research ethics governance framework 25 years after the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council issued national guidelines for the ethical conduct of environmental research. These guidelines have not been incorporated into national research ethics frameworks or institutional processes. Current ethics codes apply only partially to environmental research and no research institution has developed its own processes or body for considering the environmental impacts of research. The national guidelines are partially reflected in protected area permitting requirements, but these lack explicit mechanisms for ethical deliberation. We conclude that the national guidelines remain relevant today. We stop short of recommending new formal ethics requirements, but encourage researchers and research institutions to consider how the deliberative procedures and substantive principles reflected in the ASTEC Guidelines might be relevant to their work.

KEYWORDS:

• Research ethics
• research permits
• outdoor research
• active management

Introduction

A quarter of a century ago, this journal published the Australian Science, Technology and Engineering Council Principles and Guidelines for Environmental Research (ASTEC Guidelines) (ASTEC 1998a). The Guidelines were the product of deep engagement with protected area managers, Indigenous representatives, scientists, ethicists, animal welfare advocates, and conservationists (ASTEC 1998b). They aimed to fill a gap in Australia’s research ethics processes that had been highlighted by a proposal to assess the effects of line fishing on the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) by opening protected reefs to fishing (Mapstone, Campbell, and Smith 1996; Marsh and Kenchington 2004). Research proposals on human subjects and sentient animals were strictly regulated by national frameworks and overseen by institutional ethics committees, while field research targeting non-sentient species, habitats and ecosystems (Curzer, Wallace, and Perry 2013) was virtually unregulated.

This is a problem because, as environmental crises worsen (Cresswell, Janke, and Johnston 2022), the need for, and thus the scope of, interventions for conservation, environmental restoration, greenhouse gas removal and climate protection is growing (Aronson et al. 2020; Fischer et al. 2021; Waltham et al. 2020). Interventions, and the research needed to inform them, may occur at multiple spatial and ecological scales. At the species level, they include physical habitat modifications to improve habitat, food supplementation, translocation and assisted evolution. For example, the Tasmanian Wilderness World Heritage Areas Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy foreshadows the need for species translocations (DPIPWE 2021). Ecosystem-scale interventions include fire management, predator-proofing conservation areas, and ocean alkalinisation to combat acidification. For example, in Canada, researchers deposited iron sulphate into international waters off the West Coast of Canada with no environmental assessment, approval or ethics oversight, to stimulate phytoplankton production and hence boost salmon stocks (Brent, Burns, and McGee 2019, 11).¹ At a planetary-scale, interventions to address climate impacts are the most controversial. The most high-profile are proposals to modify incoming solar radiation through the injection of reflective particles into the stratosphere (Preston 2013; Pamplany, Gordijn, and Brereton 2020). In Australia, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) is responding to climate change threats by investigating a range of interventions at differing spatial scales to enhance the long-term resilience of the Reef. These interventions include research into marine cloud brightening to increase ocean albedo (GBRMPA 2020; McDonald et al. 2019).

Writing in 2004, Marsh and Kenchington (2004) saw the ongoing absence of ethical oversight for environmental field work as a critical gap. They concluded that ‘[m]ost experimental marine biologists and ecologists operate without ethical guidelines or scrutiny, despite intermittent community concern about their activities’ and that ‘no-one has defined “appropriate” behaviour for much of what we do, outside of experimenting on sentient animals’ (Marsh and Kenchington 2004, 6–7). This apparent gap in research codes of practice or other requirements is especially problematic when conducted in highly sensitive, vulnerable, or valuable ecosystems, such as alpine areas or coral reefs.

Research aimed at protecting places of high ecological value is critical, but the increasing vulnerability of these places makes robust oversight of research more important than ever. Field experiments conducted in the location of the intended intervention provide critical knowledge about baseline conditions and how local factors influence the success of an intervention (Farnsworth and Rosovsky 1993). Yet, manipulation or alteration of ecosystems (Macdonald and Hill 1998, 5) as part of research into active management options has the potential to damage the ecosystem or species they seek to protect (Beale 1998, 46–47). Field experiments potentially affect a wider range of species and stakeholders than targeted experiments on animal research subjects (Farmer 2013; Curzer, Wallace, and Perry 2013). They are also more dynamic and harder to control than laboratory experiments (Cooke et al. 2016). This requires greater collaboration between field researchers, and stakeholders, and more flexibility in potential ethics requirements (Palmer and Greenhough 2021).

The 2018 Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (the Code for Responsible Research) suggests that research should be conducted so as to minimise adverse impacts on the environment (ARC, NHMRC & Universities Australia 2018, 2), but does not clarify the processes needed to ensure that researchers give consideration to these risks. Research that uses specific technologies (e.g. gene technologies) or with known risks (e.g. biosecurity) is also subject to some form of oversight. However, there are no guidelines or mechanisms for researchers to consider the environmental impacts of outdoor research, to ensure that the proposed benefits of environmental research outweighs the risks.

In this article, we examine how well the current framework for research approval and oversight addresses the need to avoid or minimise environmental impacts of fieldwork and outdoor research (which we refer to as ‘environmental research’). In the next section, we defend our normative premise that outdoor research which poses potential environmental risks should be subject to some form of ethical oversight, but that this oversight should not erect barriers to important research. We then revisit the ASTEC Guidelines and identify their key substantive and procedural expectations, and examine how they have been adopted in national codes of research ethics and research institution practice. The ethical dimensions of protected area permitting practice are then examined. This analysis shows that most protected areas with high IUCN conservation levels incorporate some aspects of the ASTEC Guidelines, although key features like referral to an environmental research ethics committee are absent. It also shows that the Guidelines have not been incorporated into national research ethics codes or the policies and procedures of universities and other research institutions. The following part therefore briefly examines options for improving the consideration of environmental impacts in research approvals processes and identifies some of the barriers to their implementation. We conclude that the ASTEC Guidelines remain an excellent basis for considering the ethical dimensions of environmental research and invite Australian research institutions and researchers to consider some internal process by which to ensure that the benefits of fieldwork in environmentally sensitive places are rigorously evaluated against the risks.

Does environmental research require (stronger) oversight?

Despite the growth of environmental ethics (Curzer, Wallace, and Perry 2013; Farmer 2013), there is surprisingly little scholarship on how these principles apply to field research intended to advance environmental outcomes. Bioethics is a well-established field of philosophy that addresses the moral and ethical questions arising in biomedical research, and animal rights have long been the concern of ethicists. Yet there is no theoretical equivalent to bioethics for ecological research and biodiversity management (Minteer and Collins 2005), where ethical considerations may differ. Many environmental researchers are likely to suggest that the current system of research oversight adequately addresses potential risks and, in the absence of compelling need, further requirements would present unjustified barriers to much-needed research. It is not our purpose to add to scientists’ administrative burden, but there are four reasons for ensuring that fieldwork receives a level of scrutiny proportionate to potential risks.

First, research is needed to build confidence in the efficacy and durability of conservation and climate interventions and to ensure that risks are minimal (Wiersma 2022, 85). The research design must itself engender this confidence. This is especially the case as research investigates active manipulations of natural conditions, with or without the use of novel technologies, with the expectation that proven interventions will be upscaled. Public confidence in the interventions, based on research design, is not possible where this risk assessment is largely self-regulated by individual researchers (Marsh and Kenchinton 2004; Hockings et al. 2013). While there have been few known cases of environmental impacts from research, with declining environmental conditions it might be argued that any additional stress on vulnerable systems should be examined closely. Research on sites having high ecological integrity or critical habitat is likely to concentrate in a dwindling number of highly conserved areas, pointing to particular oversight of these areas.

Second, the research ethics framework currently in place for outdoor research has evolved in response to past concern and thus it could be argued that it does not reflect a precautionary approach. Prominent examples of past experiments that have caused community concern or environmental harm include the line fishing experiment that prompted the development of the ASTEC Guidelines and the introduction of species or pathogens that have become invasive or posed potential risks to non-target species. These incidents have led to calls for new ethics codes or laws, or the refinement of existing requirements only after environmental problems occurred or public confidence was eroded. Mainstreaming the assessment of environmental risks and benefits in the face of growing environmental crises is also consistent with calls for medical research ethics processes to incorporate sustainability issues (Samuel and Richie 2022).

Third, an early assessment of the ethical implications of deployment can minimise the risks of lock-in, whereby pursuit of one course of action may constrain future options. This is especially important where early research involves the preferencing of technological solutions, or of one form of technology over others. One prominent example of this is the argument that research into climate intervention technologies such as stratospheric aerosol injection may normalise the use of these technologies, thereby reducing research into potentially-preferable ‘nature-based’ solutions. Attention to the ethical implications of environmental research at an early stage can consider both direct impacts as well as these socially- or economically-mediated indirect impacts (Diamond et al. 2022).

Finally, evaluating the environmental risks and benefits of field work also has the potential to improve the design and implementation of experiments and increase early input from diverse stakeholders. Since ‘[e]cological problems are social problems, not scientific problems’ (John Passmore, quoted in ASTEC 1998b, 5), this ensures that research investigates the right questions. Deliberation and stakeholder engagement in environmental research also enhances public confidence in eventual outcomes, including the deployment or upscaling of novel interventions. These benefits suggest a valuable role for some form of risk assessment or ethical oversight that is commensurate to the risks posed.

Despite these benefits, there are valid reasons why researchers may resist calls for greater oversight of their fieldwork, or institutions may not want to invest in evaluation or oversight committees. It could be argued that a focus on research impacts is misplaced because most researchers already adopt high standards in research design and implementation, and because fieldwork has far less impact than natural disturbances or other human activities in environmentally-sensitive areas (ASTEC 1998b, 8). Many will be concerned about how much productive research time such processes consume without clear benefits, and the potential to delay research project commencement unreasonably. Demonstrating compliance with ethical principles may also impose additional costs at a time when research funding is increasingly constrained.

These are legitimate concerns, but characterisation of ethics processes as a barrier to scientific advances overlooks the opportunities for improved research outcomes resulting from scrutiny of project design (Van Rooyen 2021; A. Palmer and Greenhough 2021). With a nuanced, risk-weighted approach to research oversight, the burden on researchers would be relatively low (Marsh and Kenchington 2004).

The ethics framework for environmental research in Australia

Having suggested a potentially valuable role for some form of assessment, we now turn to map and evaluate the coverage of the current framework governing ethical review of outdoor research in Australia.

The ASTEC Guidelines 1998

The ASTEC Guidelines articulated the essential elements of ‘the assessment and ethical practice of research in protected and environmentally sensitive areas’ (ASTEC 1998b, 8). They provided ethical guidelines for research on ‘plants, ecosystems or cultural landscapes,’ which were not covered by existing guidelines on human and animal research (ASTEC 1998b, xiii). They applied to research in formally protected areas (defined using the IUCN categories) and public or private land that is otherwise environmentally sensitive. Intended for adaptation to each jurisdictional context, the Guidelines were designed ‘to assist researchers, managers and the broader community to decide on reasonable conditions for granting or refusing permission to conduct research’ (ASTEC 1998b, 4).

The scope of the guidelines is narrow – limited to protected and ecologically sensitive areas, rather than all outdoor environments. The ASTEC focus on environmentally sensitive areas assumes that environmental research in less sensitive areas generally carries less risk and therefore, does not require ethical oversight. Yet large-scale interventions in non-protected areas (e.g. fuel load fire management techniques or cloud seeding) can also have significant impacts justifying more stringent ethical standards than passive research in protected areas (Costello et al. 2016, 3). The narrow focus also overlooks the ethical implications of research in socially or culturally sensitive areas, such as urban and agricultural landscapes. Britton and Johnson point to a growing body of ‘place-based’ research investigating environmental and environmental health conditions in various social settings (e.g. urban, rural or Indigenous) that has been conducted with little regard for their impacts on local communities (2023, 122). While our primary concern in this section is to consider their content, the limited scope of the ASTEC Guidelines may suggest the need to extend ethics requirements to environmental research projects beyond those conducted in national or marine parks.

The ASTEC Guidelines outlined procedural and substantive principles for assessment and practice of research, then outlined specific obligations of government, land managers and researchers. The overarching goal was ‘excellent research’ where the ‘benefits outweigh any damage’ (ASTEC 1998b, 11). The key procedural feature of the Guidelines was the expectation that mechanisms are in place to ensure that research ethics issues are addressed fairly and efficiently. The Guidelines assumed that a permit system would be the primary vehicle for achieving this and that the permitting process would include some form of deliberative mechanism to advise approvers on ethical issues (ASTEC 1998b, 18–19). The form of deliberative process should depend on the nature and scale of the proposed project, with significant proposals being referred to an in-house or external Environmental Research Ethics Advisory Committee (EREAC). The ASTEC Guidelines suggest that most projects conducted in national or marine parks, or that involve the habitats of rare, threatened or commercially important species, be reviewed by an EREAC. In practice, observational studies would be unlikely to require the same level of scrutiny as those that meet a condition spelled out in the referral criteria, such as habitat modification or disturbance, or the introduction or release of potentially harmful substances or organisms (ASTEC 1998b, 25–26).

Governments owed other procedural obligations under the Guidelines. Federal, state and local governments were responsible for overseeing the conduct of ethical research (ASTEC 1998b, 14) and expected to adopt a nationally-consistent framework for ethical research practice in legislation. The framework was to define the responsibilities of those approving research permits, and make research grant approval conditional upon ethical considerations being considered.

Transparency and stakeholder engagement in decision-making were recognised as key to engendering public confidence in research. The ASTEC Guidelines required protected area managers to publish the criteria by which research proposals would be evaluated; plain-English information about each research application received and those granted; and progress reports on approved projects.

Researchers were under specific engagement obligations and expected to ‘personally subscribe to a code of ethics that clearly defines their responsibilities, including clauses about Duty of Care, Minimal Impacts/Beneficial Impact, and Duty of Information’ (ASTEC 1998b, 13). Researchers and institutional research managers were expected to comply with relevant national codes of research ethics (ASTEC 1998b, 21–24). They were also expected to identify and contact relevant Indigenous groups or individuals (brokered or otherwise supported by management agencies) and to contact heritage authorities (including those responsible for historical and/or archaeological sites) to ascertain whether there have been surveys of the relevant area. While the Guidelines do not refer to cumulative impacts, they do expect researchers to inform themselves of other research projects in the area.

The Guidelines were one of the earliest documents to recognise the importance of engaging with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in environmental research. They required researchers to negotiate all aspects of their research with Traditional Owners, obtain informed consent before proceeding, and follow a duty of ‘utmost good faith’ when dealing with traditional knowledge (ASTEC 1998b, 14). Management agencies were expected to encourage the flow of benefits from research, build Indigenous research capacity, and support Indigenous Australians to protect their culture and traditional knowledge (ASTEC 1998b, 15). Protected area managers were also expected to raise awareness of ethical researcher practices (ASTEC 1998b, 17) and develop guidelines for ethical research (ASTEC 1998b, 18). Research conducted by the agency itself as part of its management activities should be subject to the same standards as that conducted by external researchers. While the Guidelines related specifically to public sector agencies, they also encouraged private sector organisations to consider how best to oversee research (ASTEC 1998b, 17 and 21).

The Guidelines also stipulated substantive obligations. As well as the need for benefits to outweigh risks, the conservation principles expected researchers to comply with the precautionary principle, be compatible with the management objectives of the area in which it is conducted, avoid harm to organisms – especially rare and endangered species – and ‘not compromise the long-term viability of populations, species and ecosystems’ (ASTEC 1998b, 12). This included preferring measures that may be costlier and more time consuming. In cases of conflict, the welfare of populations, species and ecosystems should take precedence over research activities. The principles also required research to consider cultural values and be consistent with ‘current reasonable perceptions of the social values of the wider community’ (ASTEC 1998b, 12).

Scientific research in environmentally sensitive areas was required to comply with the following maxims:

• movement of research out of ecologically sensitive areas or the use of non-invasive research methods – researchers are expected to justify the need to access the specific location and the selection of study site;

• minimisation of procedures performed, while still retaining statistical robustness;

• modification of activities to reduce their impact – at both the design and implementation stages; and

• maximisation of the use and benefits of research results (ASTEC 1998b, 16).

Since compliance with these maxims was not limited to cases where a formal permit is required, all research institutions were expected to have some form of internal process for ensuring that researchers consider the ethical dimensions of their research and could justify location and design. These principles provide a strong foundation to guide environmental research, although some may say they lag behind other developments in environmental ethics which promote less anthropocentric approaches (Palmer, McShane, and Sandler 2014), including recognising the ‘moral standing’ (Curzer, Wallace, and Perry 2013;) or legal rights of ecosystems (Takacs 2021).

Adoption of the ASTEC Guidelines into national research ethics frameworks

The 1998 ASTEC Guidelines have never been revised or updated, and have not been reflected in formal research ethics requirements in Australia (Figure 1). The leading statement on research ethics – the 2018 Australian Code for Responsible Research – makes no specific mention of the guidelines, though it does contain some elements relating to environmental protection. The Code for Responsible Research purports to apply to all forms of research, and thus theoretically applies to research carrying potential environmental impacts. It identifies eight principles that are the ‘hallmarks of responsible research conduct’ (ARC, NHMRC & Universities Australia 2018, 2) applicable to all aspects of research design, conduct, and publication. Relevantly, Principle 5 refers to ‘respect for research participants, the wider community, animals and the environment’ (emphasis added), which entails ‘minimising the adverse effects of research on the environment’ (ARC, NHMRC & Universities Australia 2018, 2). This is not elaborated further anywhere in the Code.

Figure 1. Coverage of research ethics and legal requirements applicable to different types of environmental research.

Research institutions are required to develop policies and procedures to comply with these principles (ARC, NHMRC & Universities Australia 2018, 1). In practice, however, while protected area management arrangements may have reflected ASTEC requirements, virtually no Australian research institutions have a body or process by which to consider broader environmental impacts (Table 1). Every institution has formal ethics committees and procedures (or uses those of another institution) to ensure that research directly involving human subjects, Indigenous peoples, or sentient animals are ethically responsible. Research involving human subjects must comply with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National Statement on Human Research) (NHMRC 2018b). Research involving Indigenous peoples must also comply with the Ethical conduct in research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Communities: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders (NHMRC 2018c).

Table 1. Research areas reviewed by institutional ethics committees in Australian universities.

Australian Universities/research organisations	Human subjects	Animal research	Biosafety/Biosecurity	Radiation safety	Chemical safety	Environmental
Australian Catholic University	X		X
Aust Inst of Marine Science			X
Australian National University	X	X	X
Bond University	X	X	X
Charles Darwin University	X	X	X
Charles Sturt University	X	X	X	X
Central Queensland University*	X	X	X			X
CSIRO	X	X	X
Curtin University	X	X	X	X	X
Deakin University	X	X	X	X
Edith Cowan University	X	X	X	X	X
Federation University	X	X	X
Flinders University	X	X	X
Griffith University	X	X	X
Macquarie University	X	X	X	X	X
James Cook University*	X	X	X
La Trobe University	X	X	X
Monash University	X	X	X
Murdoch University	X	X	X	X	X
Qld University of Technology	X	X	X
RMIT University	X	X	X
Southern Cross University	X	X
Swinburne University of Technology	X	X	X
University of Adelaide	X	X	X
University of Canberra	X	X	X	X
University of Melbourne	X	X	X
University of New England	X	X	X
University of NSW	X	X	X	X
University of Newcastle	X	X	X	X	X
University of Notre Dame	X	X	X
University of Queensland*	X	X	X		X
University of South Australia	X	X	X	X	X
University of Southern Queensland	X	X	X
University of Sydney*	X	X	X
University of Tasmania	X	X	X
University of Technology Sydney*	X	X	X
University of the Sunshine Coast	X	X	X
University of Western Australia	X	X	X
University of Wollongong	X	X	X
Victoria University	X	X	X
Western Sydney University	X	X	X	X

Note: asterisks denote accredited institutions under the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority

Source: universities' websites

Research that directly or indirectly affects sentient animals requires approval from animal ethics committees (Monamy and Gott 2001), guided by the Australian Code for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes (the Animal Research Code of Practice) (NHMRC 2013), with relevant amendments made to state animal welfare legislation. The focus of this code is the welfare of individual research subjects, rather than wider environmental or ecosystem health: the guiding principles of the Animal Research Code of Practice provide that ‘respect for animals must underpin all decisions and actions involving the care and use of animals for scientific purposes’ (NHMRC 2013, 9). To demonstrate this requirement, researchers are required to apply the ‘3Rs of animal ethics’ – Replacement (of animal testing with other methods), Reduction (of the number of animals used) and Refinement (of techniques used, to minimise the adverse impact on animals) (NHMRC 2013, 11–12; Russell and Burch 1959). The 3Rs are intended to ensure that, wherever possible, research targeting sentient animals is redesigned to affect non-sentient species ‘that will not be harmed’ (Curzer et al. 2013).

Environmental research that targets or indirectly affects sentient species in the wild is subject to the Animal Research Code of Practice (Monamy and Gott 2001). This includes fitting tags or tracking devices, artificial feeding, parasite treatments or other direct modifications to their habitat. This extended application of the Animal Research Code of Practice goes a long way to implement the ASTEC Guidelines but does not cover all forms of outdoor research with potential environmental impacts. The Animal Research Code of Practice only applies to sentient animals. This means that research on non-sentient entities including plants, invertebrates, sponges, corals, and anemones (including the removal of species for study) does not require ethics approval to proceed, unless the researcher identifies a risk of bycatch of sentient animals (A. Palmer and Greenhough 2021). There is no national guidance on animal sentience, and the animal welfare laws of states and territories differ in their approach to recognising animal sentience (Kotzmann 2020). The Animal Research Code of Practice leaves the question of applicability to the determination of research institutions:

Institutions are responsible for determining when the use of an animal species not covered by the Code requires approval from an AEC, taking into account emerging evidence of sentience and ability to experience pain and distress (NHMRC 2013, 1).

A curious aspect of the Australian Code for Responsible Research is that environmental impacts may give rise to allegations that the Code has been breached (NHMRC 2018a), even where institutions have not formalised a process for considering those impacts. A complaint relating to a research activity that could cause human, animal, or environmental harm requires that ‘immediate action be taken to minimise the risk of harm’ (NHMRC 2018a, 22). However, it is unclear how most research institutions would investigate such a complaint. In any event, relying on breach procedures is a reactive approach to managing threats of imminent environment harm, rather than establishing a proactive framework for conducting ethical research.

This discussion has explained the limited way in which environmental impacts have been incorporated into national research ethics requirements. In the next part, we examine how research institutions across Australia have operationalised these obligations.

Environmental considerations in institutional ethics processes

The Australian Code for Responsible Research and Animal Research Code of Practice may be interpreted to incorporate the ASTEC Guidelines in a limited way, but the provisions relating to environmental impacts have been narrowly implemented by virtually all Australian research organisations. Every Australian university has at least one research ethics committee, and most have both animal and human research ethics committees (Table 1). However, while many institutions acknowledge the Australian Code for Responsible Research, they only give effect to the ‘environmental protection’ part of the ‘respect’ principle in specific circumstances dictated by other frameworks (Table 1). For example, all dealings with genetically modified organisms must be supervised by an Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) (Gene Technology Act 2000 (Cth) s75(2)(c); Gene Technology Regulations 2001 (Cth) clause 13), consistent with the National Framework of Ethical Principles in Gene Technology 2012 (Gene Technology Ethics Committee 2013). Most IBCs are also responsible for providing advice and oversight of research involving other biosecurity-regulated materials and biologically-hazardous materials (e.g. Biosecurity Regulations cl.22; UTAS 2018).

No university has established an EREAC or other deliberative process for environmental research along the lines recommended by the ASTEC Guidelines. One university – Central Queensland University (CQU) – has explicit procedures for dealing with potential environmental impacts of environmental research, but they only relate to research on the Great Barrier Reef, and are focused on legal compliance rather than ethical deliberation (CQU 2021). In some universities, a single committee is charged with overseeing multiple safety risks from research (e.g. Deakin University 2022; Western Sydney University 2022; Edith Cowan University 2022). Murdoch University’s Safety in Research and Teaching Committee comprises four sub-committees, including one governing the safety risks arising from fieldwork (Murdoch University 2018).

In the absence of ethics guidelines or institutional deliberative mechanisms for conducting research with potential environmental impacts, environmental research is subject only to formal laws and regulations, and the discretion of the researcher. The Code for Responsible Research requires all research institutions to comply with applicable laws and ethical guidelines before research commences (ARC, NHMRC & Universities Australia 2018, 2). However, it appears that none have formal processes by which to ensure that such requirements are met. For example, none have a process for deliberating on whether an experiment will meet the threshold of likely to have a ‘significant impact on a matter of national environmental significance’, to trigger the requirements of the national Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Incorporation of ASTEC Guidelines into protected area management arrangements

Without institutional research ethics governance for environmental research, ethical oversight of research proposals is left to formal legal permitting requirements. Statutory permit requirements will often address these considerations, and many around the country reflect the guiding principles of the ASTEC Guidelines. Along with conservation and recreation, scientific research is an important objective of most national parks and protected areas in Australia. The Convention on Biological Diversity and the World Heritage Convention similarly emphasise the importance of scientific research. If research is a key objective, it should therefore be expected that protected area management plans or legislation incorporate the ASTEC principles and establish some process for considering the impacts and benefits of research. The ASTEC Guidelines urged management agencies to implement a permit system for scientific activities within managed areas, guided by an EREAC or similar body to advise on the ethical aspects of research proposals. Yet practice varies widely based on jurisdiction, the status of the protected area, and whether listed protected species may be affected. Virtually no agencies have a formal deliberative mechanism for evaluating the ethical dimensions of research permit proposals in terms of compliance with the ASTEC maxims or demonstrating that benefits outweigh risks, though processes may well do this informally.

The following section briefly examines how the environmental impacts of research are considered in approvals processes for protected areas. We focus first on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, as arguably the national leader in research governance.

Environmental considerations in GBR research permits

The GBRMPA created an Interim Environmental Research Ethics Advisory Committee (EREAC) in 1997 in response to the controversy around the effects of line fishing experiment proposed for Great Barrier Reef Marine Park waters (Mapstone, Campbell, and Smith 1996).² The purpose of the Committee was to advise on ‘ethical aspects arising from research activities in the GBR Marine Park and the GBR World Heritage Area’ (Kenchington 1998, 12). The EREAC was initially intended to review all research permit applications (or about 200 p.a.) (Hutchings and Kenchington 1999), but referral criteria developed in the first year meant the Committee only convened on an ‘as-needed’ basis thereafter (GBRMPA 2010, 8). In practice, the EREAC reviewed 13 permit applications between 1998–2010, representing only 1–2% of permit applications (Marsh and Kenchington 2004) (Table 2). The GBRMPA followed the EREAC’s recommendations in every case.

Table 2. Research permits reviewed by the GBR EREAC between 1998 and 2010.

Years	Meetings	Permits considered	Permit recommended	Specific permit conditions	Permit not recommended	GBRMPA accepted recommendation?
1998–99	1	Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated
1999–2000	5	Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated
2000–01	3	Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated
2001–02	1	Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated	Not indicated
2002–03	3	2	2	1	0	Yes
2003–04	0	0	0	0	0	Yes
2004–05	2	5	4	2	1	Yes
2005–06	1	2	2	1	0	Yes
2006–07	1	1	1	0	0	Yes
2007–08	2	3	2	0	1	Yes
2008–09	0	0	0	0	0	n/a
2009–10	0	0	0	0	0	n/a

Source: GBRMPA annual reports.

Ethical considerations were absorbed into GBRMPA’s broader permitting processes and the ethics processes of research institutions (Hockings, Leverington, and Gilligan 2013) when the EREAC was dissolved in 2010. Under current arrangements, a permit is required for all research activities undertaken in the GBR Marine Park, with exceptions for accredited institutions³ (GBRMPA 2004). The Managing Research in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Guidelines 2017 (the GBR Research Guidelines) incorporate many key aspects of the ASTEC Guidelines. They establish a permission system for research based on principles of conservation (clause 16), transparency (cl. 15), and engagement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (cl. 51–53).

The GBR Research Guidelines provide that permit assessors will take a ‘conservative approach’ when deciding on permits approvals and conditions (cl. 31), ensuring ‘that research activities do not result in any downgrading of the level of protection afforded by zoning, management plans or legislation’ (cl. 32–33). Together with the detailed application form, the GBR Research Guidelines require researchers to describe the environmental, social and heritage impact of research using various ‘Values Guidelines’ (cl. 74); address the vulnerability of species, habitats, and the ecosystem (cl. 30); and consider alternatives (cl. 85). For research conducted in highly protected areas, they must demonstrate that ‘the research cannot reasonably be conducted elsewhere’ (cl. 85). The GBR Research Guidelines also fill an important gap in the ASTEC Guidelines by requiring that cumulative impacts be considered (cl. 31).

The 2020 Policy on Great Barrier Reef Interventions (the Interventions Policy) (GBRMPA 2020) supplements the GBR Research Guidelines for research on novel interventions being considered as part of the Reef Blueprint for Resilience, and Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan. The Interventions Policy applies to both research into and implementation of interventions, particularly those novel proposals being explored under the Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program (RRAP). It provides useful guidance on how ethical issues should be resolved and the balance struck between the risks of conducting research and of not exploring such options. The GBR Interventions Policy starts from a position of encouraging interventions when conservation benefits outweigh risks (cl. 22). The risk-based evaluation takes into account the ability of natural processes to adapt without the intervention, how negative impacts have been minimised, the likely conservation benefit and the risks of not undertaking the intervention. The Policy rules out some types of intervention upfront owing to their unacceptably high risks (cl. 23). Consistent with ASTEC, the GBR Interventions Policy recognises that effective and meaningful partnerships with Traditional Owners are essential (cl. 33). As the ASTEC Guidelines contemplate, the GBRMPA commits to helping to identify opportunities for co-design, co-management and benefits to Traditional Owners. It strongly encourages researchers ‘to ask first and engage early with relevant Traditional Owners, including seeking free, prior and informed consent regarding proposed reef interventions in their sea country’ (cl. 33–34).

The GBR Interventions Policy and Research Guidelines serve as useful guidance for other protected area management agencies when evaluating research into active conservation interventions. Together, they recognise the risks of not taking action, but force approvers to engage in a process of weighing competing risks and implementing safeguards. In this sense, they reflect the ASTEC Guidelines, which prioritise the importance of precaution, but also emphasise the importance of focusing on overall conservation benefit. The GBR Interventions Policy also reflects GBRMPA’s clear commitment to deep, early engagement with Traditional Owners of GBR Sea Country (GBRMPA 2020).

Despite this extensive policy framework governing research on the GBR, there is no transparent deliberative body or process for expressly considering ethical issues. It is assumed that ethical factors are considered in determining permit applications, but there is no mechanism for referral to an EREAC or equivalent advisory body or process. The transparency of approvals could also be enhanced; while approved permits are contained in a database, the interface is difficult to navigate, and the documents contained there do not necessarily conform to the ASTEC guidelines’ expectations about transparency.

Having described what might be considered best practice, the next section evaluates the extent to which the ASTEC Guidelines have been incorporated in the processes governing other protected areas.

Incorporation of ASTEC Guidelines into other protected area management frameworks

Many protected area management plans and strategies recognise the importance of research. Our review of Commonwealth and state protected area management laws and plans showed that only four specific management plans or strategies made reference to the ASTEC Guidelines, and the process contained in those plans did not actually incorporate ASTEC requirements. Across the country, permits are required for research activities in all national parks and many other protected areas, though in most states and territories research is governed under processes relating to activities generally. Criteria specified in regulation or policy guide the issuance of research permits and typically require consideration of the precautionary principle, evidence of avoidance and minimisation of harm, and evidence that the benefits of research justify potential impacts. All have formal processes for engagement with Traditional Owners and other Indigenous stakeholders, whether as part of the permitting process or as a separate requirement.

Most require evidence of approval from applicable human, Indigenous or animal research ethics committees. Several contemplate the referral of permit applications to a scientific advisory committee, which presumably undertakes some form of risk-benefit assessment or tests compliance with the ASTEC maxims of movement, minimisation of procedures, modification to reduce impact and maximisation of benefits. But no management agencies have established an Environmental Research Ethics Advisory Committee to review compliance with environmental research ethical standards and none have a published database of applications or approvals of the kind contemplated by the ASTEC Guidelines.

Other formal legal requirements

Beyond permits for activities in protected areas, environmental field work may require other forms of legal authority. Research in Australian waters, on nationally listed species and ecological communities, in Ramsar wetlands, national heritage and world heritage areas may require approval under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth). Assessment of whether the project is likely to have a significant impact is undertaken by the Commonwealth Department of Environment, but the threshold decision on whether to refer a matter to the Department rests with researchers and research organisations. It is not apparent that any institutions have mechanisms governing initial screening. For research on private land, the permission of the land manager and/or owner is obviously a requirement, but this may be a straightforward process. If the research involves some impact on specific listed species or ecological community, endangered species legislation may require approval to disturb or take individuals or interfere with critical habitat. This is additional to institutional animal research ethics approval. Similarly, research that may affect Aboriginal cultural heritage objects and places or other heritage listed places may also require a legal permit. The extent of these obligations depends very much on the state regime and research design, but this ‘permit maze’ contains both gaps and overlaps between requirements (Palmer and Greenhough 2021; Paul and Sikes 2013). Some species may be protected by several pieces of legislation, while other species, ecosystem services or ecological values receive no statutory protection. This suggests that the gap in research ethics coverage identified by ASTEC in 1998 persists, and that research institutions should consider some internal mechanism by which to ensure that the environmental impacts of fieldwork are assessed.

Options for environmental research governance

In practice, there may be very few environmental research projects in environmentally sensitive areas whose risks and benefits have not been evaluated, once the permitting requirements for protected areas, Australian waters, listed species, and cultural heritage places are met. However, on current approaches, it would be difficult for researchers and research institutions to demonstrate how they meet the obligations articulated in the 1998 ASTEC Guidelines. Moreover, environmental research in non-protected or less sensitive areas is not likely to be subject to ethical standards and oversight, as falling outside the scope of the ASTEC Guidelines. Ironically, it is unclear whether any form of permit would be required for outdoor testing of some highly-controversial solar radiation management techniques, if conducted on private land. In this section, we briefly canvas options for implementing an ethics framework that provides for deliberation that is proportionate to risk and which does not impose unjustifiable workload, delay, or cost. This involves consideration of both the principles and the process by which such criteria are assessed.

Some conservation practitioners and scholars advocate extending animal research ethics principles to research on ecosystems (Marsh and Kenchington 2004). Curzer, Wallace, and Perry propose applying the 3Rs of animal research to environmental research, and adding a fourth R: ‘Refusal’, with the effect that ‘[r]esearch which would harm an ecosystem greatly and which would yield only trivial [or small] gains in knowledge should not be pursued’ (2013, 23–24). Curzer et al. (2013, 56) separately propose a new framing for environmental research ethics which encompasses the animal and ecological principles of refusal, replacement, reduction and refinement, and adds the principle of ‘Animal/Ecological Relaxation,’ meaning:

[W]hen one must choose between (1) a plan that moderately sacrifices the welfare of animals to protect the ecosystem and (2) a different plan that moderately sacrifices the welfare of the ecosystem to protect animals … both options are morally acceptable. (Curzer et al. 2013, 56).

However this framework does not specify which interests – of individual animals or ecosystems – should prevail in case of conflict (A. Palmer and Greenhough 2021) or provide assurances of precaution. Another approach would be a ‘subject-neutral’ ethics framework that would include the obligation to ‘[a]nticipate, assess and communicate how the research … might pose risks to or harm biodiversity, the integrity of natural ecosystems, and the welfare of animals’ (Benčin et al. 2017, 11). Considerations should also be given to the welfare of human communities potentially affected by environmental research projects.

Re-engagement with the principles and maxims contained in the 1998 ASTEC Guidelines would obviate the need for new principles, though their application may need to be extended to environmental outdoor research more generally. The maxims and guiding principles contained in the ASTEC Guidelines have the benefit of having already been debated and accepted by the Australian science community. They also contemplate that the Guidelines themselves will be regularly reviewed and updated (though this has never happened). A principles-based code like the ASTEC Guidelines provides flexibility (Higgs et al. 2018) and can evolve to reflect community expectations. As environmental conditions deteriorate and the prospect of irreversible tipping points draw closer, the ‘calculus’ of research risk may change, so the community may be willing to accept higher risk in exchange for innovative solutions. This makes guidelines of this sort preferable to a prescriptive standards-based approach (Farmer 2013, 59).

The next question is what processes and bodies should be entrusted with the task of applying these principles. Several authors advocate more rigorous mechanisms of self-governance, without any formal process (Farnsworth and Rosovsky 1993; Curzer, Wallace, and Perry 2013; Farmer 2013). Self-governance has obvious appeal, especially for researchers. Increased institutional regulation may be too rigid to accommodate the diversity of conditions, research aims, and potential risks encompassed by environmental research (Farnsworth and Rosovsky 1993; Jamrozik 2004). Instituting internal mechanisms for deliberation strikes an appropriate balance between these competing considerations.

Internal mechanisms could take several forms. Some scholars propose expanding existing animal ethics committees’ terms of reference to include environmental research. However, the expertise required to evaluate animal welfare issues differs from that for ecological impacts, so this approach could create significant additional cost and administrative barriers, without necessarily addressing the ethics of environmental research (Crozier and Schulte-Hostedde 2015). As noted, the ASTEC Guidelines recommend the creation of institutional ethics committees specifically designed to assess the environmental implications of research projects. This includes significant impacts of environmental research on human communities, since human research ethics processes oversee impacts of research directly involving individuals, but not indirect impacts on groups and communities (Quigley 2016, 19; Britton and Johnson 2023, 125). For interdisciplinary research projects, however, several ethics committees may be involved, requiring collaboration and coordination between different ethics committees or their merger (Van Rooyen 2021, 108). Combined ‘Environment and Biosafety Research Ethics Committees’ (EBRECs) – of the kind now proposed in South Africa – could be a home for evaluating environmental research (Van Rooyen 2021, 20), or a single comprehensive research committee – like that at the University of Newcastle (UK) – may also be appropriate (Newcastle University 2017). What is appropriate will depend on the institutional research profile. The common requirement is that all institutions should publicly communicate how broader environmental risks – not just those relating to sentient animals – are addressed in ethics processes.

Procedural changes could be driven by forces at both the front and back ends of the research process. Funding bodies like the ARC could limit funding eligibility to institutions with a demonstrated environmental ethics review process. This is done in Europe, where applicants for European Commission research funding must follow the E12 golden rules set down in the Commission’s Ethics for Researchers document (European Commission 2013). One of these rules is to ensure that research ‘Respects biodiversity and does not impose irreversible change that threatens the environment or ecological balance’ (European Commission 2013, 24). Scientific journals could also require authors to conform to a code of ethics for field research conducted in protected areas or Aboriginal lands (Marsh and Eros 1999). However, such approaches have obvious drawbacks (journal standards apply retrospectively rather than establishing a framework for future governance, and funding rules potentially disadvantage researchers based on their institution’s ethics processes (Marsh and Kenchington 2004)). We therefore encourage researchers and research institutions to ensure that environmental research is ethically governed to ensure that its benefits justify potential impacts.

If regulatory requirements already consider ethical trade-offs, there is a strong argument that separate institutional processes should not add to this burden. As we have discussed earlier, many research activities proposed for Australia’s national parks and reserves are subject to permit requirements designed to ensure that benefits outweigh risks. Compliance with additional legal obligations is likely to involve parts of university administration that are disconnected from research activities, which may slow down research processes significantly. However, where agency procedures fall short or are not triggered, there is a community expectation that environmental research will be subject to some form of scrutiny and accountability.

Demanding some ethical scrutiny of the regulator’s own decision-making is equally important. Adaptive management necessarily involves some manipulation to compare outcomes of various management options. As these management approaches become increasingly important, the line between research and management, and between researcher and regulator, is blurred (ASTEC 1998b, 2).

The powers of the guardian and their potential for abuse are great, so there must be public oversight of the guardian role. (ASTEC 1998b, 1).

Conclusions

The goals and guidance of the 1998 ASTEC National Guidelines and Principles for Ethical Conduct of Research in Protected and Environmentally Sensitive Areas remain as important today as when they were adopted 25 years ago. In the intervening quarter century, some protected area managers have introduced clear and transparent criteria for permitting activities, including research, in protected areas. Some have science advisory groups that would evaluate whether benefit outweigh risk, but no ethics advisory committee, as such. More broadly, there are still no consistent procedures to review the implications of research with potential impacts on the wider natural or human environment. Some research in some places will have to obtain formal research permits, and these approval processes may involve some deliberation on the ASTEC principles. But there are gaps in the coverage of statutory regimes, and no management agency formally incorporates the Guidelines.

The ASTEC Guidelines provide principles and criteria to guide deliberations, but also require universities and other research organisations to establish some form of internal institutional evaluation, to ensure that field research meet community expectations (Farnsworth and Rosovsky 1993; Marsh and Kenchington 2004). Yet, institutional research assessment processes are largely silent on environmental impacts, other than those governed by biosafety requirements. We invite researchers and research institutions to (re)engage with the ASTEC Guidelines to design risk-proportionate deliberative mechanisms that ensure consideration of those environmental issues and trade-offs in both design and implementation of environmental research.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by the Australian Research Council under Grant 116005.

Notes

1 The 2012 Haida Gwaii experiment involved the application of iron particles into the waters off British Columbia. The Haida Tribe conducted this experiment to stimulate phytoplankton growth and restore depleted salmon fisheries. The experiment showed that phytoplankton blooms also provided feed for juvenile fish (e.g., salmon), and could be used to maintain traditional food source for local Indigenous communities. While the experiment was considered successful, it was highly controversial because its design was unscientific and carried substantial social and environmental risks, including risks of impact on marine ecosystems (Abate 2016).

2 The line fishing experiment proposed by the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Ecologically Sustainable Development of the GBR was designed to assess the effects of fishing pressures on fish populations and other reef organisms in the Marine Park. It entailed closing fishing on certain reefs, while opening others to line fishing. The experiment provoked strong opposition from conservationists who feared that relaxing closures to fishing on protected reefs, even temporarily, could have serious environmental impacts. Scientists, on the other hand, considered the risk of harm to be relatively small compared to the benefits of acquiring critical scientific information. The Australian Parliament passed the necessary changes to the GBR zoning status by one vote, allowing for the controlled fishing manipulation to proceed (Macdonald and Hill 1998).

3 GBRMPA research permit requirements do not apply to ‘limited impact’ research conducted by ‘accredited institutions’ (cl. 21) (asterisked in Table 1). All eight accredited organisations have Human Research and Animal Ethics Committees but none has established an equivalent process to the EREAC. CQU’s Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Operating Procedure is the only current protocol for research in the GBR (CQU 2021).