Search

Many 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.

Extinct in the Wild (EW) species are placed at the highest risk of extinction under the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, but the extent and variation in this risk have never been evaluated. Harnessing global databases of ex situ animal and plant holdings, we report on the perilous state of EW species. Most EW animal species—already compromised by their small number of founders—are maintained at population sizes far below the thresholds necessary to ensure demographic security. Most EW plant species depend on live propagation by a small number of botanic gardens, with a minority secured at seed bank institutions. Both extinctions and recoveries are possible fates for EW species. We urgently call for international effort to enable the latter.

The increased demand of food produced through sustainable agriculture has resulted in localised amelioration of intensive management imposed by agroecosystems. However, these newly available niches are often isolated and plant species may not be able to recolonise fragmented agroecosystems from where they have been extirpated. Plant reintroduction can overcome dispersal limitation in agroecosystems but may also generate conflicts that jeopardise conservation efforts. Conflicts arise when reintroductions are perceived to place constraints on the management and productivity of agroecosystems: the translocated plants may require space sharing with crops, may have negative effects on crop yields, and come with the expectation that farmers must modify their farming practices and accommodate legal obligations deriving from protected species status. Benefits include economic incentives that pay farmers through CAP, the conservation of nature, ecosystem services, an effective marketing strategy and increased aesthetic value that might generate ecotourism.\ud \ud We discuss the practical implications of the abovementioned issues by reference to two cases of European species in which different approaches to reintroduction resulted in opposite outcomes (i.e., consensus vs. opposition). Coexistence of threatened plants and crops is possible if farmers and local stakeholders are involved in a conservation project from an early stage and if farmers conservation efforts turn into benefits for their income. Based on these considerations, we propose a strategic framework to promote reintroduction of threatened plants in agroecosystems (land sharing) and policy advancement aimed at recognising the role of farmers in maintaining biodiversity on their lands.