Cross-boundary collaboration: key to the conservation puzzle

Abstract

Conservation science is advancing rapidly, yet the majority of research overlooks a key factor that can play a major role in shaping the outcomes of conservation initiatives: collaboration. Here, we review the importance, benefits and limitations of incorporating collaboration into conservation and specifically into systematic conservation planning, providing a general framework for considering collaboration in conservation planning. Recent work shows that cross-boundary collaboration can have positive and negative impacts on the outcomes of conservation and management efforts for protected areas, ecosystems, threatened and invasive species. The feasibility of collaboration, its likely effects and associated trade-offs should be explicitly incorporated into conservation science and planning. This will ensure that conservation decisions avoid wasted funding when collaboration is infeasible, promoting collaboration when the benefits outweigh the costs.

Evaluating the potential for transboundary management of marine biodiversity in the Western Indian Ocean

“…While conservation actions are very often planned and undertaken by individual countries independently of their neighbouring countries, cross-boundary collaborations and conflicts can be key in determining conservation outcomes (Kark et al 2009(Kark et al , 2015Mazor et al 2013). This can be the case for both island and continental nations, yet the impact of collaboration on conservation planning and outcomes has not been examined for most areas around the world.…”

“…Effective conservation of ecosystems and species with spatial distributions that cross international boundaries often require coordinated plans and actions at both the regional and national scales (Beger et al 2015;Kark et al 2015;Sandwith et al 2001). Coordinated efforts can potentially reduce costs of protecting biodiversity and improve the efficient allocation of limited conservation resources (Dallimer & Strange 2015;Kark et al 2009;Mazor et al 2013;Pouzols et al 2014;Punt et al 2012).…”

“…Tracked sea turtles, for example, have been shown to migrate in 21 ± 16 days over distances of 1359 ± 832 km from their nesting site to their foraging grounds, going through two to seven exclusive economic zones (Obura 2015), and the tracks of seabirds that cross boundaries have been suggested as a tool for identifying candidate marine protected areas (MPAs) in the WIO (Le Corre et al 2012). Transboundary MPAs are a mechanism by which such species can be protected efficiently and reduces the conservation burden of each country; but this requires coordination of national and regional conservation activities (Grilo et al 2012;Guerreiro et al 2011;Kark et al 2015). It is within this context that we examined the challenges and opportunities for between-country collaboration among the 14 countries/territories composing the WIO.…”

“…In this framework, we hypothesised that countries/territories with stronger existing political, trade and governance ties would have a greater incentive, opportunity and potential to collaborate (Kark et al 2015;Levin et al 2013;Mazor et al 2013). We also hypothesised that given that the region's countries are relatively weak economically, external powers representing strong countries will have an important role to play in marine conservation efforts.…”

Advancing marine conservation in European and contiguous seas with the MarCons Action

“…The European and contiguous seas are becoming ever more crowded, and marine resources previously considered difficult to exploit are now becoming available through the advancement of new technologies (Kark et al 2015b, Mackelworth 2016, Portman 2016. The expansion of human activities into deeper and more distant areas has been actively promoted by the European Commission through its 'Blue Growth' strategy, which champions the concept of 'offshore economy'.…”