Transboundary Conservation – Does it Work?

Posted byalfiehighlandPosted inAlfie's Articles

Transboundary conservation provides a global opportunity to tackle our climate change and biodiversity loss issues on a worldwide scale. However, exploring its effectiveness and viability is essential to deem whether this is just an idea or a concrete course of action. Therefore, written below is an extensive literature review that aims to answer the question, does transboundary conservation work?

Our world’s landscape is fluid. Millennia of human activity has drastically reshaped the Earth’s surface, leading to an uncoupled mosaic of biomes and ecosystems, artificially fractured by geopolitical borders. These international boundaries are reflective of a political division rather than an ecological one, and nature doesn’t adhere to man-made boundaries. 53.8% of terrestrial birds, mammals, and amphibians have ranges that span international borders, including 76% of African elephant populations. The areas near to or bordering international political boundaries, known as transboundary frontiers, support high levels of rare species and are biodiversity hotspots. Approximately one-third of all terrestrial biodiversity straddles international borders, which frequently correspond with complex geological landscapes such as mountains; these areas are often remote and consequently provide critical refuge for a significant number of endangered fauna. Various endemic species of birds, reptiles, and plants have been discovered at these frontiers, so protecting them should be a top priority.

Currently, 1 million animal and plant species are threatened with extinction and those at transboundary frontiers are particularly under threat. International borders have been subjected to a rapid increase in physical barriers, particularly within Eurasia, where border fences already exceed 30,000km in length. In addition, many transboundary ecosystems are also divided by political borders– exposing them to different environmental policies, legal governance, and management regimes – culminating in extreme habitat fragmentation. As populations become confined to smaller habitat patches, their numbers decline and they suffer from a loss of genetic diversity. But these fragmented wildlife populations are further at risk of extinction due to the prevalence of illegal wildlife trading and poaching around and across borders. As climate change drives shifts in species distribution, increasing amounts of wildlife may be pushed across international borders, exposing them to these threats. Therefore, transboundary conservation could be the solution to maintaining ecological connectivity and integrity – strengthening biodiversity at our borders.

Defining transboundary conservation

There are more than 220 transboundary conservation initiatives worldwide and by definition, each one involves some form of cooperative management and protection of nature across international boundaries. In practice though, these initiatives come in various forms; from the active involvement of local communities in the conservation of an area to the establishment of transnational parks supported by government-to-government treaties. Consequently, there has been different terminology employed to refer to various transboundary conservation practices. The World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has defined 3 types of transboundary conservation areas (TBCAs), with a special category that can be applied to any of the 3. In this review, for simplicity, we will define transboundary conservation as a clearly defined geographical space that includes protected areas that are ecologically connected across one or more international boundaries and involves some form of cooperation.

Transboundary conservation initiatives and the establishment of TBCAs now exist across all continents. Yet considerable progress still needs to be made in understanding their potential to maintain biodiversity, and recognizing their costs and benefits will help guide key parties in the management of TBCAs in the future. Transboundary conservation has consequences beyond the scope of biology, particularly within the sphere of politics and economics. While these factors should and will be considered, this review principally explores existing research and case studies to determine if breaking down borders and physical barriers, promoting conservation and collaboration between countries, is a viable way to conserve biodiversity.

Breaking down border barriers

As of 2012, just under 19% of the world’s terrestrial borders contained some form of physical barrier. Both the 4053km India–Bangladesh and the 4710-km China–Mongolia border are extensively fenced with barbed wire and for a brief moment, we could have seen another sizable barrier constructed between the US and Mexico. While many of these barriers are constructed for pragmatic reasons such as managing conflict, influxes of human migrants, controlling the advancement of large carnivores and zoonotic diseases, they exacerbate a direct pressure on surrounding wildlife. For example, a 178km stretch of razor wire on the Slovenia-Croatia border reportedly killed 21 wild ungulates over 10 months. This extends to wide-ranging megafauna like giraffes and African elephants, who have also been found dead along fence lines. Additionally, walls and barriers directly hamper the movement of wildlife, fragmenting essential habitats that may be relied upon for food, water, and mating opportunities. The construction of a 500km fence along the India-Pakistan border, which divided a crucial migratory corridor, directly caused the decline of a population of Kashmir markhors by 60%. It should be noted that while these border barriers have been documented to have negative effects on amphibians, birds, and insects, existing literature mainly focuses on the declines of large mammal species. By taking an isolated single-species approach, it becomes difficult to fully grasp the effects these barriers have on an ecosystem as a whole.

Transboundary conservation aims to remove border barriers and maintain habitat connectivity across international boundaries. Numerous case studies have shown that it can initiate the recovery of formerly extirpated species. Amur tigers, that once roamed the Eurasian continent, had become confined to the Sikhote-Alin Mountains in Russia due to habitat loss and man-made fragmentation. However, the establishment of a transboundary ecological corridor has enabled them to recolonize the forests along the China-Russia border and stabilise their population. Habitat corridors have strengthened India’s wild tiger numbers as they begin to establish populations in neighbouring countries, and a transboundary national park linking Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda has led to a population recovery of mountain gorillas and elephants. It should be recognized that for some species, the removal of these barriers has little to no effect. The legacies of physical barriers can affect biodiversity on an evolutionary timescale, reducing genetic diversity and causing population differentiation. For instance, 25 years after the demolishment of electrified fences along the iron curtain, red deer still do not cross the former boundary line. Therefore, the standing duration of these border barriers needs to be considered in transboundary conservation efforts.

Fully understanding the effects that border barriers have on wildlife is challenging. International boundaries are often politically sensitive and are frequently located in remote roadless areas, which makes them extremely difficult to investigate and access. The Korean Demilitarized Zone is a border barrier that divides the Korean Peninsula roughly in half. Dangerous and inaccessible to humans, it has resulted in this area becoming a biodiversity hotspot and safe haven for endangered species. The positive effect of this physical barrier makes us question whether breaking them down always conserves biodiversity. An interesting case study comes from the Kavango-Zambezi Transfrontier Conservation Area (KAZA TFCA) in Africa, which spans Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. Their removal of border barriers opened up areas for congested wildlife populations, enlarging their effective distribution range, supporting meta-population management, and thus, increasing ecological stability. But when the government of Botswana removed sections of the Setata (210km) and Nxai Pan Buffalo (66km) fences, the re-establishment of previous migration routes of wildebeest, zebras, and elephants led to some areas becoming ‘transit-routes’. As the populations recovered, animals began to funnel into these ecological corridors, moving freely into neighbouring communities that had not experienced such a huge wildlife presence for centuries. Consequently, these expanded transboundary ranges accelerated human-wildlife conflict; poor rural communities with established agricultural settlements now faced the risk of losing livestock and crops to predators and disease, and thus, poaching directly increased. This case here illustrates the complexity of border barriers and highlights their potential in reducing human-wildlife conflict.

Tackling poaching and the illegal wildlife trade

Biodiversity is increasingly threatened by humans. Border walls and fences can prevent animals from crossing over to countries with high poaching pressures, as well as impede poachers from entering countries with high target species. For example, border fences on the Mongolian border have effectively protected the Asiatic wild ass from Chinese poachers. However, research for this concept is minimal and the more accepted paradigm postulates that distinguished borders are enabling illegal wildlife trade. Remote and often suffering from limited government enforcement, international boundaries are a hub for the illegal trade of ivory, large cats, primates, and others. It is particularly prevalent between China and its neighbouring countries. It was reported that from 1993 to 1996, around 2.3-29.3 tons of wildlife per day were imported into China’s Guangxi province from Vietnam. This extends to vegetation, as the illegal timber and wild plant trade has threatened their biodiversity in transboundary regions. The species richness nature of transboundary frontiers naturally makes them a target for poachers, decreasing the biodiversity of these areas as rampant hunting occurs on both sides of a border. Transboundary conservation aims to encourage international cooperation and policy coordination across countries, pooling together expertise and resources to create a more cohesive response when tackling illegal wildlife trafficking and poaching.

The Greater Virunga Landscape has fostered transboundary collaboration between Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda. Combining resources, they have increased populations of mountain gorillas, by raising the number of rangers in the park. Transboundary conservation efforts between Southeast Asian countries have also resulted in a regional agreement to share information on wildlife crime, a move that has reduced the cross-border smuggling of wild tigers. We must recognize that there is some economic element to successfully reducing human-wildlife conflict on a transboundary scale. Creating a broader landscape makes it more challenging to manage incidences of poaching, and it requires sufficient funding to police it. This is especially problematic in lower socio-economic countries where local communities struggle with poverty and a lack of opportunities, so are compelled to kill or trade wildlife for food or income. Thus, it appears that cross-boundary partnerships are key, but to entirely halt biodiversity loss requires education and engagement with local communities – especially in a limited economic environment.

Aligning conservation efforts

The principle aim of transboundary conservation is to break down geopolitical borders, promoting communication and collaboration with neighbouring countries to protect biodiversity. Transnational monitoring of animals across political borders has been shown to result in a better understanding of population estimates and dynamics, a vital step in formulating effective conservation policies. It has been demonstrated that greater communication has a direct correlation with improved cooperative management of TBCAs. However, this study is based on the subjective answers of conservation professionals and various other contributing factors like conflicting legislation, financial incentives, and willingness to engage, are not considered – making this correlation contentious. It can be concluded, however, that collaborative transboundary conservation provides more opportunities to avert biodiversity loss. A proposed coordinated conservation plan among 20 countries in the Mediterranean basin was predicted to save 45% of the total cost, compared to an uncoordinated plan. Similarly, 34% of the total costs would be saved if transboundary conservation efforts included all 11 countries that traverse the Nile River. By collaborating on the preservation of shared ecosystems and species, transboundary initiatives allow for additional money to be directly funnelled into conservation efforts, facilitating the survival of the inhabiting wildlife.

These large transboundary landscapes can be undermined if governance and collaboration are not sufficient. This is most obvious in the case of a transboundary forest landscape in the Heart of Borneo (HoB), straddling Brunei, Indonesia, and Malaysia. Signed in 2007, the HoB initiative was formed to facilitate transboundary cooperation between all 3 countries, with an aim to restore ecological connectivity to Borneo’s remaining forests. But throughout the last decade, to accelerate economic growth and strengthen border security, member states of the HoB have begun to push unilateral infrastructure development schemes along international boundaries. For example, 1,920km of new roads have been planned in Kalimantan, a region flanking the Indonesian-Malaysian border. Such developments are estimated to reduce landscape connectivity from 89% to 55%, consequently endangering this regions wildlife. Different national priorities have resulted in weak environmental governance, so a strong, credible, and binding partnership between neighbouring countries is required if transboundary conservation is to be successful in protecting biodiversity.

This level of cooperation isn’t always feasible. There are sometimes differences in land tenure and ownerships, as well as frontiers that are politically and militarily sensitive, making collaboration that much more challenging. Politically unstable countries do not protect biodiversity as well as those with strong governance structures, and given the negative impacts of armed conflicts on wildlife, political stability should be considered as a pre-requisite for transboundary conservation. Paradoxically, some studies suggest that international cooperation through nature can promote peace and reconcile conflicts. However, we must be careful with trusting this research. Neighbouring countries that have previously experienced military disputes are more likely to set up TBCAs than other countries that border each other; particularly when the conflict has not been intense. Furthermore, indirect impacts may be incorrectly reported as a direct consequence of transboundary conservation. Mountain gorilla numbers increased after the establishment of the Greater Virunga Landscape, despite civil wars between member states. But this is because the transboundary nature of the park allowed large mammals to move between countries and escape conflict, not because it decreased the conflict itself. Thus, international collaboration and communication – fostered by transboundary conservation – can facilitate the protection of biodiversity, but its effectiveness is dependent on the political ecology of the landscape and the compatibility of neighboring nations’ conservation priorities.

A critical discussion

We can no longer manage environments based on ecologically defined borders alone, as these landscapes are now divided by physical and socio-political boundaries. In the face of climate and land-use changes on a global scale, transboundary conservations’ inherent potential to strengthen ecological connectivity across international boundaries may be a crucial tool in protecting our planets biodiversity. But while in theory, transboundary conservation is hopeful, in practice numerous factors make it challenging to accurately state the effect transboundary conservation has on maintaining biodiversity. Many of the studies discussed in this review claim populations have directly recovered as a result of these initiatives, but they omit their overall impact on the ecosystem. This can likely be attributed to the difficulty of monitoring a large-scale transboundary park, especially as human impacts outside the conservation areas can still impact the wildlife within. The complexity of studying transboundary areas, means the majority of research in this field focuses on tangible environments and species – such as terrestrial landscapes and large mammals. Noticeably, marine habitats suffer from a lack of transboundary research for this very reason; the ownership of these environments is often ambiguous and contested, so accurately monitoring them is significantly more challenging. It is also evident that transboundary conservation is only applicable to a selected number of species, raising the question of whether it serves to conserve biodiversity as a whole. Multiple avian species travel across entire continents and transoceanic migrations are the rule of many pelagic fish, whales, and turtles. For these species, such widespread ranges make it impractical to establish comprehensive TBCAs and yet they are still under threat from many of the same factors.

Thus, our review illustrates that while breaking down borders can assist in protecting biodiversity, transboundary conservation can and should be refined to improve its future viability. A lack of comprehensive knowledge about a country’s inhabiting wildlife’s movements often discredits transboundary conservation efforts. With increased funding and research, wide-ranging monitoring of the wildlife would give researchers access to movement patterns and population dynamics, allowing a more accurate investigation of transboundary conservations’ effect on regions’ biodiversity. The success of these initiatives further seems to be dependent on the ecological, political and economic factors of the countries in question. Hence, we suggest that future initiatives should be tackled and implemented on a case by case basis, as a general framework is not applicable. Very few transboundary proposals consolidate external organizations, so incorporating a neutral governing body, such as an international NGO, would be beneficial. For example an environmental management body – synonomous with the UN – would better target time, resources and management to each plan, free of national priorities and bias, which would improve the success of transboundary conservation and its preservation of biodiversity.

Bibliography

  • Alamgir, M., Campbell, M.J., Sloan, S., Suhardiman, A., Supriatna, J. and Laurance, W.F. (2019) High-risk infrastructure projects pose imminent threats to forests in Indonesian Borneo. Scientific Reports, 9(1), pp.1-10.
  • Allan, J.R., Levin, N., Jones, K.R., Abdullah, S., Hongoh, J., Hermoso, V. and Kark, S. (2019) Navigating the complexities of coordinated conservation along the river Nile. Science advances, 5(4), p.eaau7668.
  • Aspi, J., Roininen, E., Kiiskilä, J., Ruokonen, M., Kojola, I., Bljudnik, L., Danilov, P., Heikkinen, S. and Pulliainen, E. (2009) Genetic structure of the northwestern Russian wolf populations and gene flow between Russia and Finland. Conservation Genetics, 10(4), pp.815-826.
  • Barquet, K., Lujala, P. and Rød, J.K. (2014) Transboundary conservation and militarized interstate disputes. Political Geography, 42, pp.1-11.
  • Basnet, K. (2003) Transboundary biodiversity conservation initiative: An example from Nepal. Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 17(1-2), pp.205-226.
  • Bhatasara, S., Nyamwanza, A.M. and Kujinga, K. (2013) Transfrontier parks and development in southern Africa: The case of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. Development Southern Africa, 30(4-5), pp.629-639.
  • Brondizio, E.S., Settele, J., Díaz, S. and Ngo, H.T. (2019) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.
  • Bulte, E.H. and Rondeau, D. (2005) Why compensating wildlife damages may be bad for conservation. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 69(1), pp.14-19.
  • Carbone, C., Hayward, M. and Bump, J. (2019) India keeps a close eye on its tigers. Nature, 572(7771), pp.586-587.
  • Corlett, R.T. and Westcott, D.A. (2013) Will plant movements keep up with climate change? Trends in ecology & evolution, 28(8), pp.482-488.
  • Daskin, J.H. and Pringle, R.M. (2018) Warfare and wildlife declines in Africa’s protected areas. Nature, 553(7688), pp.328-332.
  • DeVault, T.L. (2014) Wildlife Damage Management: Prevention, Problem Solving and Conflict Resolution. Human–Wildlife Interactions, 8(2), p.18.
  • Duffy, R. (2016) The illegal wildlife trade in global perspective. In Handbook of Transnational Environmental Crime. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Ehrlich, P.R., Flesch, A.D. and List, R. (2018) Nature divided, scientists united: US–Mexico border wall threatens biodiversity and binational conservation. BioScience, 68(10), pp.740-743.
  • Ellison, A.M. (2014) Political borders should not hamper wildlife. Nature, 508(7494), pp.9-9.
  • Everatt, K.T., Andresen, L., Ripple, W.J. and Kerley, G.I. (2016) Rhino poaching may cause atypical trophic cascades. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(2).
  • Fang, Z. and Aiwu, J. (2008) A new species of babbler (Timaliidae: Stachyris) from the Sino-Vietnamese border region of China. The Auk, 125(2), pp.420-424.
  • Gadd, M.E. (2012) Barriers, the beef industry and unnatural selection: a review of the impact of veterinary fencing on mammals in southern Africa. Fencing for conservation, pp.153-186.
  • Gaynor, K.M., Fiorella, K.J., Gregory, G.H., Kurz, D.J., Seto, K.L., Withey, L.S. and Brashares, J.S. (2016) War and wildlife: linking armed conflict to conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(10), pp.533-542.
  • Haddad, N.M., Brudvig, L.A., Clobert, J., Davies, K.F., Gonzalez, A., Holt, R.D., Lovejoy, T.E., Sexton, J.O., Austin, M.P., Collins, C.D. and Cook, W.M. (2015) Habitat fragmentation and its lasting impact on Earth’s ecosystems. Science advances, 1(2), p.e1500052.
  • Hinsley, A., De Boer, H.J., Fay, M.F., Gale, S.W., Gardiner, L.M., Gunasekara, R.S., Kumar, P., Masters, S., Metusala, D., Roberts, D.L. and Veldman, S. (2018) A review of the trade in orchids and its implications for conservation. Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society, 186(4), pp.435-455.
  • Hirschfeld, A. and Heyd, A (2005) Mortality of migratory birds caused by hunting in Europe: bag statistics and proposals for the conservation of birds and animal welfare. Berichte zum Vogelschutz, 42, pp.47-74.
  • Huang, J., Huang, J., Liu, C., Zhang, J., Lu, X. and Ma, K. (2016) Diversity hotspots and conservation gaps for the Chinese endemic seed flora. Biological Conservation, 198, pp.104-112.
  • Ito, T.Y., Lhagvasuren, B., Tsunekawa, A., Shinoda, M., Takatsuki, S., Buuveibaatar, B. and Chimeddorj, B. (2013) Fragmentation of the habitat of wild ungulates by anthropogenic barriers in Mongolia. PloS one, 8(2), p.e56995.
  • IUCN. (2022) Transboundary Conservation. [online] Available at: <https://www.iucn.org/commissions/world-commission-protected-areas/our-work/transboundary-conservation&gt; [Accessed 9 March 2022].
  • Kark, S., Levin, N., Grantham, H.S. and Possingham, H.P. (2009) Between-country collaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(36), pp.15368-15373.
  • Kerley, L.L., Goodrich, J.M., Miquelle, D.G., Smirnov, E.N., Quigley, H.B. and Hornocker, M.G. (2002) Effects of roads and human disturbance on Amur tigers. Conservation biology, 16(1), pp.97-108.
  • Kim, K.C. (1997) Preserving biodiversity in Korea’s demilitarized zone. Science, 278(5336), pp.242-243.
  • Lasky, J.R., Jetz, W. and Keitt, T.H. (2011) Conservation biogeography of the US–Mexico border: a transcontinental risk assessment of barriers to animal dispersal. Diversity and Distributions, 17(4), pp.673-687.
  • Laurance, W.F. (2008) The need to cut China’s illegal timber imports. Science, 319(5867), pp.1184-1185.
  • Lee, S.D. and Miller-Rushing, A.J. (2014) Degradation, urbanization, and restoration: A review of the challenges and future of conservation on the Korean Peninsula. Biological Conservation, 176, pp.262-276.
  • Lindsay, K., Chase, M., Landen, K. and Nowak, K. (2017) The shared nature of Africa’s elephants. Biological Conservation, 215, pp.260-267.
  • Linnell, J.D. (2016) Refugee fences fragment wildlife. Nature, 529(7585), pp.156-156.
  • Linnell, J.D., Trouwborst, A., Boitani, L., Kaczensky, P., Huber, D., Reljic, S., Kusak, J., Majic, A., Skrbinsek, T., Potocnik, H. and Hayward, M.W. (2016) Border security fencing and wildlife: the end of the transboundary paradigm in Eurasia? PLoS biology, 14(6), p.e1002483.
  • Liu, J., Baeten, L. and Verheyen, K. (2019) Biodiversity on international borders requires solid inventories. Bioscience, 69(6), pp.409-409.
  • Lopez-Hoffman, L., Chester, C.C., Semmens, D.J., Thogmartin, W.E., Rodríguez-McGoffin, M.S., Merideth, R. and Diffendorfer, J.E. (2017) Ecosystem services from transborder migratory species: implications for conservation governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 42, pp.509-539.
  • Lynam, A.J. (1999) Transboundary expedition on Thai–Malaysia border reveals elephant and Sumatran rhinoceros populations threatened by poaching. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society, 47, pp.23-35.
  • Lynam, A.J. (2010) Securing a future for wild Indochinese tigers: Transforming tiger vacuums into tiger source sites. Integrative Zoology, 5(4), pp.324-334.
  • Ma, C.Y., Trinh-Dinh, H., Nguyen, V.T., Le, T.D., Le, V.D., Le, H.O., Yang, J., Zhang, Z.J. and Fan, P.F. (2020) Transboundary conservation of the last remaining population of the cao vit gibbon Nomascus nasutus. Oryx, 54(6), pp.776-783.
  • Mace, G.M., Possingham, H.P. and Leader-Williams, N. (2007) Prioritizing choices in conservation. Key topics in conservation biology, pp.17-34.
  • Martín‐Vélez, V. and Abellán, P. (2022) Effects of climate change on the distribution of threatened invertebrates in a Mediterranean hotspot. Insect Conservation and Diversity.
  • Mason, N., Ward, M., Watson, J.E., Venter, O. and Runting, R.K. (2020) Global opportunities and challenges for transboundary conservation. Nature ecology & evolution, 4(5), pp.694-701.
  • McCallum, J.W., Vasilijević, M. and Cuthill, I. (2015) Assessing the benefits of Transboundary Protected Areas: A questionnaire survey in the Americas and the Caribbean. Journal of environmental management, 149, pp.245-252.
  • McNeely, J.A. (2003) Conserving forest biodiversity in times of violent conflict. Oryx, 37(2), pp.142-152.
  • Mysterud, A. and Rolandsen, C.M. (2019) Fencing for wildlife disease control. Journal of Applied Ecology, 56(3), pp.519-525.
  • Myers, N., Mittermeier, R.A., Mittermeier, C.G., Da Fonseca, G.A. and Kent, J. (2000) Biodiversity hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature, 403(6772), pp.853-858.
  • Newth, J.L., Cromie, R.L., Brown, M.J., Delahay, R.J., Meharg, A.A., Deacon, C., Norton, G.J., O’brien, M.F. and Pain, D.J. (2013) Poisoning from lead gunshot: still a threat to wild waterbirds in Britain. European Journal of Wildlife Research, 59(2), pp.195-204.
  • Nijman, V. and Shepherd, C.R. (2014) Emergence of Mong La on the Myanmar–China border as a global hub for the international trade in ivory and elephant parts. Biological Conservation, 179, pp.17-22.
  • Nijman, V. and Shepherd, C.R. (2015) Trade in tigers and other wild cats in Mong La and Tachilek, Myanmar–A tale of two border towns. Biological Conservation, 182, pp.1-7.
  • Nijman, V., Shepherd, C.R. and Nekaris, K.A.I. (2014) Trade in Bengal slow lorises in Mong La, Myanmar, on the China border. Primate Conservation, 2014(28), pp.139-142.
  • Ogden, L.E. (2017) Border Walls and Biodiversity. New barriers, new horizons. BioScience, 67(6), pp.498-505.
  • Oswell, A.H. (2010) The big cat trade in Myanmar and Thailand. Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia: TRAFFIC Southeast Asia.
  • Peters, R., Ripple, W.J., Wolf, C., Moskwik, M., Carreón-Arroyo, G., Ceballos, G., Córdova, A., Dirzo, R., Ehrlich, P.R., Flesch, A.D. and List, R. (2018) Nature divided, scientists united: US–Mexico border wall threatens biodiversity and binational conservation. BioScience, 68(10), pp.740-743.
  • Phelps, J. and Webb, E.L. (2015) “Invisible” wildlife trades: Southeast Asia’s undocumented illegal trade in wild ornamental plants. Biological conservation, 186, pp.296-305.
  • Plumptre, A.J., Kujirakwinja, D., Treves, A., Owiunji, I. and Rainer, H. (2007) Transboundary conservation in the greater Virunga landscape: its importance for landscape species. Biological conservation, 134(2), pp.279-287.
  • Pokorny, B., Flajšman, K., Centore, L., Krope, F.S. and Šprem, N. (2017) Border fence: a new ecological obstacle for wildlife in Southeast Europe. European journal of wildlife research, 63(1), pp.1-6.
  • Prist, P.R., Levin, N., Metzger, J.P., de Mello, K., de Paula Costa, M.D., Castagnino, R., Cortes-Ramirez, J., Lin, D.L., Butt, N., Lloyd, T.J. and López-Cubillos, S. (2019) Collaboration across boundaries in the Amazon. Science, 366(6466), pp.699-700.
  • Quah, E.S. and Shahrul Anuar, M.S. (2018) Herpetofauna of the northern corridor: a review of recent herpetological discoveries around the Malaysian-Thai border regions. Journal of Wildlife and Parks, 33, pp.15-29.
  • Rija, A.A., Kideghesho, J.R., Mwamende, K.A. and Selemani, I. (2013) Emerging issues and challenges in conservation of biodiversity in the rangelands of Tanzania. Nature Conservation, 6, pp.1-29.
  • Rosière, S. and Jones, R. (2012) Teichopolitics: Re-considering globalisation through the role of walls and fences. Geopolitics, 17(1), pp.217-234.
  • Roulin, A., Rashid, M.A., Spiegel, B., Charter, M., Dreiss, A.N. and Leshem, Y. (2017) ‘Nature knows no boundaries’: the role of nature conservation in peacebuilding. Trends in ecology & evolution, 32(5), pp.305-310.
  • Rüter, S., Vos, C.C., van Eupen, M. and Rühmkorf, H. (2014) Transboundary ecological networks as an adaptation strategy to climate change: The example of the Dutch–German border. Basic and Applied Ecology, 15(8), pp.639-650.
  • Sloan, S., Campbell, M.J., Alamgir, M., Lechner, A.M., Engert, J. and Laurance, W.F. (2019) Trans-national conservation and infrastructure development in the Heart of Borneo. PloS one, 14(9), p.e0221947.
  • Smith, R.J., Verissimo, D., Leader-Williams, N., Cowling, R.M. and Knight, A.T. (2009) Let the locals lead. Nature, 462(7271), pp.280-281.
  • Sodhi, N.S., Butler, R., Laurance, W.F. and Gibson, L. (2011) Conservation successes at micro-, meso-and macroscales. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 26(11), pp.585-594.
  • Sreekar, R., Zhang, K., Xu, J. and Harrison, R.D. (2015) Yet another empty forest: considering the conservation value of a recently established tropical nature reserve. PLoS one, 10(2), p.e0117920.
  • Stoldt, M., Göttert, T., Mann, C. and Zeller, U. (2020) Transfrontier conservation areas and human-wildlife conflict: the case of the Namibian component of the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) TFCA. Scientific reports, 10(1), pp.1-16.
  • Su, H., Qu, L.J., He, K., Zhang, Z., Wang, J., Chen, Z. and Gu, H. (2003) The Great Wall of China: a physical barrier to gene flow? Heredity, 90(3), pp.212-219.
  • Thirgood, S. and Redpath, S. (2008) Hen harriers and red grouse: science, politics and human–wildlife conflict. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45(5), pp.1550-1554.
  • Trouwborst, A., Fleurke, F. and Dubrulle, J. (2016) Border fences and their impacts on large carnivores, large herbivores and biodiversity: An international wildlife law perspective. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 25(3), pp.291-306.
  • Uprety, Y., Chettri, N., Dhakal, M., Asselin, H., Chand, R. and Chaudhary, R.P. (2021) Illegal wildlife trade is threatening conservation in the transboundary landscape of Western Himalaya. Journal for Nature Conservation, 59, p.125952.
  • Vasilijević, M. and Pezold, T. eds. (2011) Crossing borders for nature: European examples of transboundary conservation. IUCN.
  • Vasilijević, M., Zunckel, K., McKinney, M., Erg, B., Schoon, M. and Rosen Michel, T. (2015) Transboundary Conservation: A systematic and integrated approach. Best practice protected area guidelines series, (23).
  • Veldhuis, M.P., Ritchie, M.E., Ogutu, J.O., Morrison, T.A., Beale, C.M., Estes, A.B., Mwakilema, W., Ojwang, G.O., Parr, C.L., Probert, J. and Wargute, P.W. (2019) Cross-boundary human impacts compromise the Serengeti-Mara ecosystem. Science, 363(6434), pp.1424-1428.
  • Villarreal, M.L., Haire, S.L., Bravo, J.C. and Norman, L.M. (2019) A mosaic of land tenure and ownership creates challenges and opportunities for transboundary conservation in the US-Mexico borderlands. Case Stud Environ, 3, pp.1-10. 
  • Vitkalova, A.V., Feng, L., Rybin, A.N., Gerber, B.D., Miquelle, D.G., Wang, T., Yang, H., Shevtsova, E.I., Aramilev, V.V. and Ge, J. (2018) Transboundary cooperation improves endangered species monitoring and conservation actions: A case study of the global population of Amur leopards. Conservation Letters, 11(5), p.e12574.
  • Wang, T., Feng, L., Mou, P., Wu, J., Smith, J.L., Xiao, W., Yang, H., Dou, H., Zhao, X., Cheng, Y. and Zhou, B. (2016) Amur tigers and leopards returning to China: direct evidence and a landscape conservation plan. Landscape ecology, 31(3), pp.491-503.
  • Wilkinson, T., Agardy, T., Perry, S., Rojas, L., Hyrenbach, D., Morgan, K., Fraser, D., Janishevski, L., Herrmann, H. and De la Cueva, H. (2004) Marine species of common conservation concern: protecting species at risk across international boundaries. In Proceedings of the Fifth International SAMPAA (Science and Management of Protected Areas) Conference. British Columbia, Vic.
  • Xue, B., Ye, D.P., Shao, Y.Y. and Tan, Y.H. (2017) Polyalthia yingjiangensis sp. nov (Annonaceae) from the China/Myanmar border. Nordic Journal of Botany, 35(4), pp.476-481.
  • Yiming, L. and Dianmo, L. (1998) The dynamics of trade in live wildlife across the Guangxi border between China and Vietnam during 1993–1996 and its control strategies. Biodiversity & Conservation, 7(7), pp.895-914.
  • Young, J.C., Marzano, M., White, R.M., McCracken, D.I., Redpath, S.M., Carss, D.N., Quine, C.P. and Watt, A.D. (2010) The emergence of biodiversity conflicts from biodiversity impacts: characteristics and management strategies. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19(14), pp.3973-3990.
  • Zhang, M., Gouveia, A., Qin, T., Quan, R. and Nijman, V. (2017) Illegal pangolin trade in northernmost Myanmar and its links to India and China. Global Ecology and Conservation, 10, pp.23-31.

Leave a comment