Mitigation translocation as a management tool

Abstract

In the absence of high standards of planning and monitoring, mitigation-translocation managers may be second-hand agents of biodiversity loss.

Evaluating mitigation translocations for better biodiversity outcomes

“…Determinants of translocation success have been widely debated and requested by translocation reviewers for almost 3 decades (Griffith et al, 1989;Dodd & Seigel, 1991;Fischer & Lindenmayer, 2000;Germano & Bishop, 2009) and are still not clarified today, although progress has been made to identify objective and achievable goals using re-introduction biology literature (Armstrong & Seddon, 2008;Pérez et al, 2012;Miller et al, 2014;Bradley et al, 2020). These include defining objectives with timeframes to determine project success, collection of baseline data, appropriate release circumstances covering aspects of species biology and behaviour, site preparedness, and most importantly management of factors linked to population declines, follow-up monitoring, and publication of results regardless of outcome (Seigel & Dodd, 2002;Germano & Bishop, 2009;Moseby et al, 2011;Miller et al, 2014;Germano et al, 2015;Romijn & Hartley, 2016).…”

“…Recent studies (in New Zealand and globally) continue to experiment with techniques to improve biodiversity outcomes of mitigation translocations (for herpetofauna, particularly). These include, habitat enhancement at receptor sites (Fitzgerald et al, 2015;Nafus et al, 2017;Harper et al, 2018;Lennon, 2019), conducting 'soft -releases' (DeGregorio et al, 2020;Flynn-Plummer & Monks, 2021), evaluating post-release dispersal (Knox & Monks, 2014;Angeli et al, 2018;Nash & Griffiths, 2018), continuing to evaluate determinants of success (Miller et al, 2014;Bradley et al, 2020) and publishing results (even of failed translocations, such as Nash et al, 2020).…”

“…Mitigation translocations are the intentional movement of organisms from a site set for development to another location to mitigate damages caused to organisms (IUCN/ SSC, 2013), and are quickly becoming the most common 'solution' to mitigate wildlife-development conflicts (Miller et al, 2014;Germano et al, 2015). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) recommends mitigation translocations follow the same translocation guidelines and standards as conservation translocations (IUCN/SSC, 2013; Batson et al, 2015); however, recent studies report inconsistencies in the application of these standards (Germano et al, 2015;Sullivan et al, 2015;Bradley et al, 2020), particularly for herpetofauna (Edgar et al, 2005;Harper et al, 2018;Nash & Griffiths, 2018;Nash et al, 2020). Furthermore, mitigation translocations are the most common translocation type to report inconclusive or failure results and do not often prioritize establishment of a viable population (Germano & Bishop, 2009;Germano et al, 2015), the previous determinant of a successful translocation (Griffith et al, 1989;Dodd & Seigel, 1991).…”

“…In contrast to conservation translocations, mitigation translocations may occur in order to comply with country-specific wildlife protection legislation (Wildlife Act, 1953 (NZ); Endangered Species Act of 1973 (USA); Wildlife & Countryside Act, 1981 (UK); Resource Management Act, 1991 (NZ); Animal Welfare Act, 1992 (AUS); Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations, 2010 (UK); IUCN/SSC, 2013; Nature Conservation Act, 2014 (AUS)), and therefore may not use "best practice" protocols. This is concerning given their track record of inconclusive or failed results (Edgar et al, 2005;Germano et al, 2015;Sullivan et al, 2015;Devan-Song et al, 2016;Lennon, 2019;Bradley et al, 2020). Researchers are continuing to question the protocols used in mitigation translocation scenarios and are challenging whether they should occur, since they are often proposed as go-to methodology when wildlife stands in the way of development (Dodd & Seigel, 1991;Germano et al, 2015;Sullivan et al, 2015;Bradley et al, 2020;Nash et al, 2020).…”

“…This is concerning given their track record of inconclusive or failed results (Edgar et al, 2005;Germano et al, 2015;Sullivan et al, 2015;Devan-Song et al, 2016;Lennon, 2019;Bradley et al, 2020). Researchers are continuing to question the protocols used in mitigation translocation scenarios and are challenging whether they should occur, since they are often proposed as go-to methodology when wildlife stands in the way of development (Dodd & Seigel, 1991;Germano et al, 2015;Sullivan et al, 2015;Bradley et al, 2020;Nash et al, 2020).…”