Lots of debate in recent days about the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) operation to restock national parks devastated by the drought of 2009.  In a world of increasingly fragmented habitat, I happen to think that the science behind the translocation of up to 2000 zebras from overstocked private lands to Amboseli National Park is actually quite sound.  Some mortality is to be expected, as long as it does not exceed 10% that is acceptable.  And I hope that a plan is in place to ensure comprehensive post-translocation monitoring, as a means to learn lessons and improve the way projects like this are undertaken in future

But what of the "cost effectiveness" (or ROI (being " return on investment") as one friend of mine has put it) of such programs?  

Of course translocation is common practice in places such as South Africa where wildlife is owned and traded as part of a huge national industry, a necessity where landscapes have been fragmented by the construction of game fences.   Contrastingly, here in Kenya we don't yet "farm" our wildlife, preferring instead to try and provide sufficient contiguous habitat to preserve significant wildlife populations.  Our approach is one where we try to conserve biodiversity by setting aside habitat and allowing nature to take care of itself. In my mind ours is conservation in the most genuine sense of the word. Consequently we don't translocate much and it hits the news when we do!   

If measured as it would be in the game industry of South Africa, this probably means that the ROI of a translocation project in Kenya is pretty low, in turn meaning that many would argue for the money to be used more effectively elsewhere.  But I am not sure I agree.  Amboseli National Park is a massive national investment that supports Kenya's most significant industry, providing employment and multiplier effects.  There is every chance that herbivore populations in the park have fallen beyond their " tipping point", a point from which they will be unlikely to recover for many years.  In that context then surely it is worth spending USD 1.5m to provide the new wildlife populations that will form the basis for the survival of the park into the long term future?  

I think so, and I continually thank my lucky stars that I am able to practice conservation in a country that has not yet reached the stage where the preservation of our wild places is measured purely in terms of how much profit they make!