Asymmetric cross‐border protection of peripheral transboundary species

Abstract

International political boundaries challenge species conservation because they can hinder coordinated management. Peripheral transboundary species, those with a large portion of their range in one country and a small, peripheral portion in an adjacent country, may be particularly vulnerable to mismatches in management because peripheral populations are likely in greater conservation need than core populations. However, no systematic assessment of peripheral transboundary species or their status across borders has been attempted. We show that numerous species in three vertebrate taxa qualify as peripheral transboundary species in North America, and that these species are often protected differently across US-Canadian and US-Mexican borders. Asymmetries in cross-border protection may threaten populations through disruption of connectivity between periphery and core regions and are especially relevant given expected impacts of climate change and the US-Mexico border wall. Our results highlight the need for greater international collaboration in management and planning decisions for transboundary species. K E Y W O R D Sclimate change, conservation planning, international border, protection status, range, transboundary, vertebrates This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Ecosystems say good management pays off

“…For managers concerned with the status of iconic species and habitats who do not have control over entire ecosystems, Figures and indicate that there are clear benefits of either simply avoiding impacts on those species and habitats (via gear modifications or spatial zoning) or by recognizing them in management processes (e.g., via including information on their status in the decision‐making process via the inclusion of appropriate ecological indicators). Given that 59% of all the large marine ecosystems and all the high seas FAO areas are under shared management, and there are already concerns over transboundary species (e.g., Thornton et al., ), these kinds of understandings will be important for managers located on one side or another of a jurisdictional divide. This will be particularly important given that it is likely that there will be jurisdictional differences in terms of food security (Blanchard et al., ), trade policy (Watson, Nichols, Lam, & Sumaila, ), research capacity (as captured by UNESCO statistics on the Researchers in R&D per million people; https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.SCIE.RD.P6?view=map), societal valuation of conservation (Balmford et al., ; do Paço, Alves, Shiel, & Filho, ; Schultz et al., ; Snyman, ), etc.…”

Transboundary mammals in the Americas: Asymmetries in protection challenge climate change resilience

“…National‐level listing status varied widely between countries containing the range limits of species nearest the pole versus the equator, especially for globally high‐risk species that are perhaps most in need of integrated range‐wide conservation strategies. Such differences in listing status of species may make coordination in research or management more difficult across borders or ranges (Selier et al, ), which can hinder range‐wide persistence and connectivity (Proctor, McLellan, Strobeck, & Barclay, ; Shackell, Frank, Nye, & den Heyer, ; Thornton et al, ) and ultimately adaptation to climate change. Asymmetries in listing of a species could indicate that populations of the species are less threatened in one country compared to populations in another country, or this asymmetry could reflect differential attention or protection in the two countries although population status actually is similar.…”

“…These types of mismatches may be more problematic in a transboundary context, as a threatened population in one country may be reliant on transboundary connectivity to another country that is not adequately protecting a species or its habitat. However, even in the former case, where country listings reflect real differences in threat, wide‐ranging or migratory species may move across country boundaries from a threatened and listed to unthreatened and unlisted population, which could result in mortality and hinder persistence in the threatened part of the range (e.g., Proctor et al, ; Thornton et al, ). Moreover, asymmetries in listing, regardless of their cause, may result in differing research, management and conservation priorities for the same species in different countries and at different limits of the range, impacting cross‐border or cross‐range coordination and connectivity (Proctor et al, ) that may be fundamental to protecting transboundary species at local and global levels in the face of large‐scale range shifts or other anthropogenic stressors.…”

“…Mismatches in conservation priorities not only occur between individual countries, but also between national and global‐level priorities (e.g., Morais, Braga, Bastos, & Brito, ; Helfman, ), further impeding coordinated response to species conservation. These issues may be of particular concern in the Americas, which are highly biodiverse and contain many countries with potentially divergent conservation priorities and methods for determining species risk (de Grammont & Cuarón, ; Thornton et al, ). Moreover, although transboundary conservation has received considerable attention in Europe and Africa (e.g., Opermanis, MacSharry, Aunins, & Sipkova, ; Bischof, Brøseth, & Gimenez, ; Gervasi et al, ; Selier et al, ), relatively less attention to this topic has occurred in the New World.…”

“…One of the key challenges in transboundary conservation is that varied laws or priorities pertaining to wildlife in different countries, and unequal capacity to manage species and ecosystems across borders, hinder transboundary conservation actions (Arrondo et al, 2018;Proctor, Servheen, Miller, Kasworm, & Wakkinen, 2004;Selier, Slotow, Blackmore, & Trouwborst, 2016). Mismatches of conservation priorities between countries could impact range-wide persistence and connectivity, thereby exacerbating extinction risk, particularly for species that are highly endangered at a global level (Thornton et al, 2018). Mismatches in conservation priorities not only occur between individual countries, but also between national and global-level priorities (e.g., Morais, Braga, Bastos, & Brito, 2012;Helfman, 2013), further impeding coordinated response to species conservation.…”