Law can influence conservation translocations in two basic ways: it can play a supportive and/or a restrictive role. Regarding the first role, legislation can provide support, a mandate, and/or an obligation to consider or perform a translocation. This may involve both general obligations to conserve or restore certain species or ecosystems, as well as specific obligations concerning species reintroductions or other types of translocation. Regarding the second role, legislation can impose limitations on translocation possibilities and/or make translocations conditional on meeting certain requirements. Such limitations and conditions may follow from legislation on native species protection, area protection, invasive non-native species, disease, trade, animal welfare, and several other areas of law. Requirements of both types may flow from international and national law. The legal requirements that will apply to any projected conservation translocation will depend on the countries, areas, and species involved, and there may be significant differences between one project and the next. The applicable requirements may be easy to meet for some projects, and be prohibitive for others. It is crucial that a careful analysis of applicable domestic legislation is carried out in the early stages of any contemplated conservation translocation. Practitioners should also make themselves aware of the relevant international legislation to provide them with the wider legal context of their work, and to help them influence the development of future legislation.

Although conservation translocations always aim to result in ‘conservation benefit’ for a species or ecosystem, there are many motivations and contexts in which people undertake conservation translocations. Establishing a need for translocations involves considering other ways to deliver the ‘conservation benefit’ to a species or ecosystem. Typically, translocations are initiated alongside other conservation measures. Destination sites must be carefully selected based on more than just vegetation type; attention must be paid to climate, biotic interactions, and other species’ requirements for survival. Socio-economic risks and benefits and legislative constraints should also be considered when evaluating destination sites. Translocated plants, animals, or fungi may be sourced from in situ or ex situ populations, or a combination of the two. Ideally, source populations are those that can support the removal of individuals for translocation without negative consequences for individuals that remain in the wild. It also helps to have ecological similarity between source and destination sites when using wild individuals. Releases should only occur where the original cause of extirpation/decline has been minimised. The choice of one or several sites, and the possibility of several releases over multiple timepoints should be considered, perhaps using pilot releases to evaluate suitability. Monitoring is crucial to being able to report the outcome of the conservation translocation but, perhaps more importantly, allows the translocation team to adapt to changes in status and may prompt the implementation of an exit strategy. Sharing monitoring results is important for others to benefit from lessons learnt. Seek as much advice as you can in the planning phases and build a team that can deliver the various components of the project.

The radiated tortoise and Aldabra giant tortoise were used as ecological replacements for the extinct Mauritian tortoise Cylindraspis inepta. Aldabra giant tortoises were better adapted as seed dispersers and grazers, and have become the species of choice. It is intended to remove the radiated tortoises from Round Island. It is suggested there was an open grazing climax plant community maintained by tortoises with heliophilous native plants that have adaptations to avoid being grazed or browsed and respond to grazing with prostrate growth form. The Aldabra giant tortoises fed on fallen fruits and spread the seeds of hardwood trees, screw-pines and palms in their droppings that subsequently demonstrated enhanced germination and growth rates. Preliminary work was done on Ile aux Aigrettes before the release on Round Island. The tortoises have established grazed areas colonised by the native tussock grass Chrysopogon argutus that the tortoises do not graze and is benefiting from reduced competition from the fast-growing non-native grasses.

The rewilding concept was born only about 20 years ago as large-scale conservation based on core protected areas linked by corridors, within which top-order predators have been restored. The original vision of rewilding has become somewhat blurred amongst a plethora of projects branding themselves as rewilding. Broadly two types of rewilding can be recognised: trophic rewilding, entailing the active restoration of key species, and passive rewilding, the spontaneous and undirected return of vegetation and ecological processes. Conservation translocations, in the form of reintroduction and ecological replacement, are a key component of trophic rewilding, with the prevalence of reintroductions in rewilding projects increasing in recent years. Trophic rewilding is therefore the intersection between rewilding, conservation translocations, and ecological restoration, where reintroduction or ecological replacement of key species is used to restore lost ecological functions.