Mitigation translocation as a management tool

Abstract

Mitigation translocation is a subgroup of conservation translocation, categorised by a crisis-responsive timeframe and the immediate goal of relocating individuals threatened with destruction. However, the relative successes of conservation translocations with longer timeframes and broader metapopulation and ecosystem level considerations have been used to justify the continued implementation of mitigation translocations, without adequate post-hoc monitoring to confirm their effectiveness as a conservation management tool. Mitigation translocations now outnumber other conservation translocations, and understanding the effectiveness of mitigation translocations is critical given limited global conservation funding - especially if the mitigation translocations undermine biodiversity conservation by failing to save individuals. We assessed the effectiveness of mitigation translocations by conducting a quantitative review of the global literature. We found that mitigation translocations are not yet achieving their potential as an effective applied science, with most translocations focused predominantly on population establishment level questions, as is often seen in translocations more broadly, and less focus placed upon metapopulation and ecosystem outcomes despite these factors being more likely to influence ultimate success. Only a handful of studies included comparison of different management techniques to facilitate practitioners selecting the most effective management actions for the future. To align mitigation translocations with the relative success of other conservation translocations, it is critical that future mitigation translocations conform to an established experimental approach to improve their effectiveness. Effective mitigation translocations will require significantly greater investment of time, expertise and resources in the future. Article Impact Statement: In the absence of high standards of planning and monitoring, mitigation-translocation managers may be second-hand agents of biodiversity loss.