Rapid biodiversity loss has prompted global action to prevent further declines, yet coordinated conservation action among nations remains elusive. As a result, species with ranges that span international borders—which include 53.8% of terrestrial birds, mammals and amphibians—are in increasing peril through uncoordinated management and artificial barriers to human movement, such as border fences. Transboundary conservation initiatives represent a unique opportunity to better protect species through coordinated management across national borders. Using metrics of governance, collaboration and human pressure, we provide an index of transboundary conservation feasibility to assess global opportunities and challenges for different nations. While the transboundary conservation potential of securing multinational threatened species varied substantially, there are distinct opportunities in South-East Asia, Northern Europe, North America and South America. But to successfully avert the loss of transboundary species, the global community must be prepared to invest in some regions facing greater implementation challenges, including the nations of Central Africa, where efforts may necessitate establishing rapid conservation interventions postconflict that align with local socio-cultural opportunities and constraints. Sanctioned and coordinated approaches towards managing transboundary species are now essential to prevent further declines of many endangered species, and global policy efforts must do more to produce and enact legitimate mechanisms for collaborative action in conservation.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Open Access articles citing this article.
Spatial variation in red deer density in a transboundary forest ecosystem
Scientific Reports Open Access 20 March 2023
Current trends suggest most Asian countries are unlikely to meet future biodiversity targets on protected areas
Communications Biology Open Access 29 November 2022
A global reptile assessment highlights shared conservation needs of tetrapods
Nature Open Access 27 April 2022
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 per month
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Get just this article for as long as you need it
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
The datasets analysed in this paper are available via the UQ eSpace digital repository at https://doi.org/10.14264/uql.2020.156 (ref. 68).
Ceballos, G. et al. Accelerated modern human-induced species losses: entering the sixth mass extinction. Sci. Adv. 1, e1400253 (2015).
Kark, S. et al. Cross-boundary collaboration: key to the conservation puzzle. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 12, 12–24 (2015).
Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS, 1979); https://go.nature.com/33bnjgr
Rands, M. R. W. et al. Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329, 1298–1303 (2010).
Trouwborst, A. Transboundary wildlife conservation in a changing climate: adaptation of the Bonn Convention on migratory species and its daughter instruments to climate change. Diversity 4, 258–300 (2012).
Ecological Connectivity in the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (CMS, 2019); https://go.nature.com/38GB6Nf
Runge, C. A., Martin, T. G., Possingham, H. P., Willis, S. G. & Fuller, R. A. Conserving mobile species. Front. Ecol. Environ. 12, 395–402 (2014).
Hannah, L. A global conservation system for climate-change adaptation: special section. Conserv. Biol. 24, 70–77 (2010).
Lambertucci, S. A. et al. Apex scavenger movements call for transboundary conservation policies. Biol. Conserv. 170, 145–150 (2014).
Thornton, D. H. et al. Asymmetric cross-border protection of peripheral transboundary species. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12430 (2018).
Trouwborst, A., Krofel, M. & Linnell, J. D. C. Legal implications of range expansions in a terrestrial carnivore: the case of the golden jackal (Canis aureus) in Europe. Biodivers. Conserv. 24, 2593–2610 (2015).
Flesch, A. D. et al. Potential effects of the United States–Mexico border fence on wildlife: contributed paper. Conserv. Biol. 24, 171–181 (2010).
Linnell, J. D. C. et al. Border security fencing and wildlife: the end of the transboundary paradigm in Eurasia? PLoS Biol. 14, e1002483 (2016).
Caddell, R. International law and the protection of migratory wildlife: an appraisal of twenty-five years of the Bonn Convention. Colo. J. Int. Environ. Law Policy 16, 113–156 (2005).
Trouwborst, A. et al. International law and lions (Panthera leo): understanding and improving the contribution of wildlife treaties to the conservation and sustainable use of an iconic carnivore. Nat. Conserv. 21, 83–128 (2017).
Barquet, K. ‘Yes to peace’? Environmental peacemaking and transboundary conservation in Central America. Geoforum 63, 14–24 (2015).
Beyers, R. L. et al. Resource wars and conflict ivory: the impact of civil conflict on elephants in the Democratic Republic of Congo—the case of the okapi reserve. PLoS ONE 6, e27129 (2011).
Gaynor, K. M. et al. War and wildlife: linking armed conflict to conservation. Front. Ecol. Environ. 14, 533–542 (2016).
Kark, S., Levin, N., Grantham, H. S. & Possingham, H. P. Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 15368–15373 (2009).
Mazor, T., Possingham, H. P. & Kark, S. Collaboration among countries in marine conservation can achieve substantial efficiencies. Divers. Distrib. 19, 1380–1393 (2013).
Mazor, T., Giakoumi, S., Kark, S. & Possingham, H. P. Large-scale conservation planning in a multinational marine environment: cost matters. Ecol. Appl. 24, 1115–1130 (2014).
Runting, R. K. et al. Alternative futures for Borneo show the value of integrating economic and conservation targets across borders. Nat. Commun. 6, 6819 (2015).
Pouzols, F. M. et al. Global protected area expansion is compromised by projected land-use and parochialism. Nature 516, 383–386 (2014).
Boschee, E. et al. ICEWS Coded Event Data (Harvard Dataverse, 2015); https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/28075
Worldwide Governance Indicators (World Bank Group, 2017); https://go.nature.com/33afIPl
Venter, O. et al. Global terrestrial Human Footprint maps for 1993 and 2009. Sci. Data 3, 160067 (2016).
Sharm El-Sheikh Declaration Investing in Biodiversity for People and Planet (CBD, 2018). https://go.nature.com/2Q0ZWB6
SBSTTA Informing the Scientific and Technical Evidence Base for the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Overview (CBD, 2019); https://go.nature.com/38KpV6p
King, B. & Wilcox, S. Peace Parks and jaguar trails: transboundary conservation in a globalizing world. GeoJournal 71, 221–231 (2008).
Daskin, J. H. & Pringle, R. M. Warfare and wildlife declines in Africa’s protected areas. Nature 553, 328–332 (2018).
Barquet, K., Lujala, P. & Rød, J. K. Transboundary conservation and militarized interstate disputes. Polit. Geogr. 42, 1–11 (2014).
Schoon, M. Governance in transboundary conservation: how institutional structure and path dependence matter. Conserv. Soc. 11, 420–428 (2013).
Lindsey, P. A. et al. Underperformance of African protected area networks and the case for new conservation models: insights from Zambia. PLoS ONE 9, e94109 (2014).
Lim, M. Governance criteria for effective transboundary biodiversity conservation. Int. Environ. Agreements Polit. Law Econ. 16, 797–813 (2016).
Lim, M. Strengthening the legal and institutional effectiveness of transboundary biodiversity conservation in the ‘Heart of Borneo’. Asia Pacific J. Environ. Law 17, 65–89 (2014).
Levin, N., Beger, M., Maina, J., McClanahan, T. & Kark, S. Evaluating the potential for transboundary management of marine biodiversity in the Western Indian Ocean. Australas. J. Environ. Manage. 25, 62–85 (2018).
Chester, C. C. Yellowstone to Yukon: transborder conservation across a vast international landscape. Environ. Sci. Policy 49, 75–84 (2015).
Graumlich, L. & Francis, W. L. (eds) Moving Toward Climate Change Adaptation: The promise of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative for addressing the region’s vulnerabilities (Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, 2010).
Troupin, D. & Carmel, Y. Can agro-ecosystems efficiently complement protected area networks? Biol. Conserv. 169, 158–166 (2014).
Betts, M. G. et al. Global forest loss disproportionately erodes biodiversity in intact landscapes. Nature 547, 441–444 (2017).
Heart of Borneo Initiative (WWF, 2011).
Plumptre, A. J., Kujirakwinja, D., Treves, A., Owiunji, I. & Rainer, H. Transboundary conservation in the greater Virunga landscape: its importance for landscape species. Biol. Conserv. 134, 279–287 (2007).
Martin, A., Rutagarama, E., Casca, A., Gray, M. & Chhotray, V. Understanding the co-existence of conflict and cooperation: transboundary ecosystem management in the Virunga Massif. J. Peace Res. 48, 621–635 (2011).
Rainer, H. et al. Regional conservation in the Virunga-Bwindi region. J. Sustain. For. 17, 189–204 (2003).
Sandwith, T., Shine, C., Hamilton, L. & Sheppard, D. Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation (IUCN, 2001).
Duffy, R. The politics of global environmental governance: the powers and limitations of transfrontier conservation areas in Central America. Rev. Int. Stud. 31, 307–323 (2005).
Rodríguez, J. P. et al. Globalization of conservation: a view from the South. Science 317, 755–756 (2007).
Muboko, N. The role of transfrontier conservation areas and their institutional framework in natural resource-based conflict management: a review. J. Sustain. For. 36, 583–603 (2017).
Amahowé, I. O., Ashanti, L. G. H. S. & Tehou, A. C. Transboundary protected areas management: experiences from W-Arly-Pendjari parks in West Africa. Parks 19, 95–105 (2013).
Muchapondwa, E. & Stage, J. Whereto with institutions and governance challenges in African wildlife conservation? Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 095013 (2015).
Bulte, E. H. & Horan, R. D. Habitat conservation, wildlife extraction and agricultural expansion. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 45, 109–127 (2003).
Taylor, R. Community based natural resource management in Zimbabwe: the experience of CAMPFIRE. Biodivers. Conserv. 18, 2563–2583 (2009).
Tchakatumba, P. K., Gandiwa, E., Mwakiwa, E., Clegg, B. & Nyasha, S. Does the CAMPFIRE programme ensure economic benefits from wildlife to households in Zimbabwe? Ecosyst. People 15, 119–135 (2019).
Duffy, R. The potential and pitfalls of global environmental governance: the politics of transfrontier conservation areas in Southern Africa. Polit. Geogr. 25, 89–112 (2006).
Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (United Nations General Assembly, 1992).
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species Version 2017.5.2 (IUCN, 2017); http://www.iucnredlist.org
Bird Species Distribution Maps of the World Version 7.0 (BirdLife International and Handbook of the Birds of the World, 2017); http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/requestdis
Butchart, S. H. M. et al. Shortfalls and solutions for meeting national and global conservation area targets. Conserv. Lett. 8, 329–337 (2015).
Runge, C. A. et al. Protected areas and global conservation of migratory birds. Science 350, 1255–1258 (2015).
GADM Database of Global Administrative Areas Version 2.8 (GADM, 2015); https://gadm.org
Jenkins, C. N., Pimm, S. L. & Joppa, L. N. Global patterns of terrestrial vertebrate diversity and conservation. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 2602–2610 (2013).
van Rossum, G. & The Python Community The Python Programming Language (The Python Software Foundation, 2012).
ESRI ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10.5 (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2017).
Frank, M. R. et al. Detecting reciprocity at a global scale. Sci. Adv. 4, eaao5348 (2018).
Kaufmann, D., Kraay, A. & Mastruzzi, M. The worldwide governance indicators: methodology and analytical issues. Hague J. Rule Law 3, 220–246 (2011).
Amano, T. et al. Successful conservation of global waterbird populations depends on effective governance. Nature 553, 199–202 (2018).
ESRI Data and Maps World Continents (Environmental Systems Research Institute, 2018).
Mason, N., Ward, M., Watson, J. E. M., Venter, O. & Runting, R. K. Data from: Global Opportunities and Challenges for Transboundary Conservation (UQ eSpace digital repository, 2020); https://doi.org/10.14264/uql.2020.156
This research was supported by Australian Research Council Discovery Project grant no. DP160101397. The work was also funded by the NASA Biodiversity and Ecological Forecasting Program under the 2016 ECO4CAST solicitation through grant no. NNX17AG51G.
The authors declare no competing interests.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Extended Data Fig. 1 Number of transboundary species with ranges that span national borders.
Number of transboundary species with ranges that span national borders. Figure includes species of any threat status, including least concern.
Extended Data Fig. 2 Raw values used in the feasibility index.
Raw values used in the feasibility index. Shows (a) collaboration (Goldstein) Score calculated for each country pair over the time period 1995-2017, and (b) mean governance score for each country pair over the time period 1996-2016 calculated using the Worldwide Governance Indicators.
Extended Data Fig. 3 Human pressure score sensitivity to changes in human pressure by altering buffer width.
Sensitivity to changes in human pressure by altering buffer width. This shows the mean human footprint and standard deviation calculated using line buffer widths of (a, b) 10km, (c, d) 50km and, (e, f) 100km over the human footprint dataset 2013.
Extended Data Fig. 4 Changes in global feasibility scores under different temporal and spatial analysis.
Changes in global feasibility scores under different temporal and spatial analysis. This shows how global feasibility scores shift when restricting the length of timescale for governance and collaboration data from (a) the 20-year timescale, (b) past 10 years, (c) a 5-year period (2011-2015) around the 2013 human footprint dataset, (d) a 5-year period (1998-2002) around the 2000 human footprint dataset. We showed how feasibility scores shift when using a 100km buffer (e) with the original 20-year timescale. Grey lines indicate borders where there was no calculable feasibility score.
Supplementary discussion and sensitivity analysis.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mason, N., Ward, M., Watson, J.E.M. et al. Global opportunities and challenges for transboundary conservation. Nat Ecol Evol 4, 694–701 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1160-3
This article is cited by
Climate change as a global amplifier of human–wildlife conflict
Nature Climate Change (2023)
Spatial variation in red deer density in a transboundary forest ecosystem
Scientific Reports (2023)
Cool runnings: behavioural plasticity and the realised thermal niche of basking sharks
Environmental Biology of Fishes (2022)
Genetic signature of immigrants and their effect on genetic diversity in the recently established Scandinavian wolf population
Conservation Genetics (2022)
Increasing collaboration between China and India in the environmental sciences to foster global sustainability