Background
This position statement seeks to promote a structured and considered approach to the movement and release of living organisms for conservation objectives. It acknowledges the Commonwealth's Endangered Species Advisory Committee's draft Policy for Translocations of Vertebrate Animals in Australia and the 1987 IUCN statement on translocation of living organisms. However, the AMS has recognised the need to modify these statements to accommodate the principles of adaptive management. You can comment on this draft position statement on the AMS Forum.

Definitions:
Translocation is defined here as the movement of an organism from one place with free release in another and refers collectively to: (1) introduction, (2) re-introduction and (3) re-stocking.

Introduction refers to the movement of species into an area where they did not formerly exist. Introductions are made for a variety of reasons: hunting, fishing, economic development, and as biological control agents. In the past introductions of many exotic species have been disastrous and it is important to recognise that the translocation of Australian native species may also lead to similarly undesirable outcomes. Therefore caution should be exhibited when translocating native as well as exotic species.

Re-introduction refers to the release of a species of plant or animal into an area where it was indigenous before it was exterminated naturally or by humans. The latter could result from human persecution, over-harvesting, from habitat modification, and the deliberate or accidental introductions of exotic species.

Re-stocking refers to the release of a plant or animal species where it is already present in order to increase the population.

It is recognised that translocations can be valuable conservation tools, both to restore plant and animal communities and to assess the extent of ecosystem dysfunction. For example, successful translocation programmes include those for the woylie (Bettongia penicillata) and the Chatham Island black robin (Petroica traversi). Nevertheless there are risks with translocation conservation strategies. For example, novel diseases may be transmitted that severely impact on other endemic populations.

The Australian Mammal Society acknowledges that:

The long term aim should be self sustaining populations under natural conditions with minimal human intervention.

There should be a net conservation gain to the translocated species and other native species should not be threatened.

A species should not be translocated into an area until the current threats have been controlled to an appropriate or acceptable level, unless the programme is part of a project designed to identify or measure these threats.

Taxa involved in re-introduction programmes must be as close as possible to those occurring in the area previously, and should preferably be the same taxa.

(I disagree with this as a blanket statement. When remaining populations have become genetically depauperate I assume the aim is to recreate the level of genetic diversity that existed before the populations were artificially reduced. This will often only be possible if genomes from a number or remnant populations are mixed as usually adjacent populations are equally poor genetically. As this argument is essentially about genetics, it mystifies me that many other biologists support this attitude passionately without considering the genetic implications. Also, I have yet to have the adverse effects of introducing con-specifics from other localities explained convincingly. As far as I am aware I share this opinion with an overwhelming majority of geneticists. Derrick Spielman)

Introduction of non-endemic species should be condoned only if clear benefits to natural communities can be foreseen, and it can be predicted reliably that there are no significant disadvantages. For example, translocating threatened species to offshore islands.

The entire programme should be fully documented so information about successful and unsuccessful translocations can be disseminated.

An introduction programme should be monitored and countermeasures established to restrict, control or eradicate the translocated species if it becomes a threat to other native species.

As far as possible translocated individuals should not contain diseases or parasites that could jeopardise other native species. As little is known about the range of potential pathogens carried by wild species, this will necessitate measures to prevent the transmission of new pathogens while the animals are in captivity and an effective period of quarantine before the animals to be translocated can be released. There are a few tests that can be conducted for a very small number of known pathogens, but such tests should not be considered as effective disease control.

Agencies that manage natural resources should develop policies and procedures for translocations.

Copyright AWMS 1999