Abstract
AbstractMany countries have legislation intended to limit or offset the impact of anthropogenic disturbance and development on threatened plants. Translocations are often integral to those mitigation policies. When translocation is used exclusively to mitigate development impacts, it is often termed a ‘mitigation translocation.’ However, both the terminology and processes vary regarding interpretation and application, resulting in inconsistent standards, often leading to poorly planned and implemented projects. These mitigation projects rarely achieve the intended ‘no net loss’ of protected species due to issues with timelines and procedures that result in the mortality of translocated individuals. Instead, such projects are often process driven, focused on meeting legislative requirements which enable the development to proceed, rather than meaningful attempts to minimise the ecological impact of developments and demonstrate conservation outcomes. Here, we propose to reframe mitigation translocations as conservation driven, ensuring best practice implementation and hence, a quantified no net loss for impacted species. These methods include redefining the term mitigation translocation to include conservation objectives and outlining issues associated with the mitigation translocation processes worldwide. We also nominate global standards of practice to which all proposals should adhere, to ensure each project follows a trajectory towards quantified success, with genuine impact mitigation. These proposed standards focus on building efficient translocation plans and improving governance to facilitate a transition from project centred to ecology-driven translocation. Employment of these standards is relevant to development proponents, government regulators, researchers, and translocation practitioners and will increase the likelihood of conservation gains within the mitigation translocation sector.
Funder
University of New South Wales
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference115 articles.
1. Albrecht MA, Guerrant EO Jr, Maschinski J, Kennedy K (2011) A long term view of rare plant reintroduction. A response to Godefroid et al. 2011: how successful are plant reintroductions? Biol Conserv 144:2557–2558
2. Albrecht MA, Osazuwa-Peters OL, Maschinski J, Bell TJ, Bowles ML, Brumback WE et al (2019) Effects of life history and reproduction on recruitment time lags in reintroductions of rare plants. Conserv Biol 33(3):601–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13255
3. Allen WH (1994) Reintroduction of endangered plants. Bioscience 44(2):65–68. https://doi.org/10.2307/1312203
4. Antonelli A, Smith R, Fry C, Simmonds MS, Kersey PJ, Pritchard H, et al (2020) State of the world’s plants and fungi. Royal Botanic Gardens (Kew), Sfumato Foundation
5. Armstrong DP, Seddon PJ, Moehrenschlager A (2019) Reintroduction. In: Fath BD (ed) Encyclopedia of ecology, vol 1, 2nd edn. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 458–466
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献