Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Gaps and biases in the protection of transnational lakes: a global assessment

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Landscape Ecology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Context

National borders remain an impediment to efficient preservation of biodiversity and ecosystems. For transboundary water resources, conservation planning becomes more challenging, as competitive interests make these sensitive and productive systems focal points of interstate conflicts.

Objectives

This global study aims to explore the patterns of protection coverage for transnational lakes and their catchments, highlighting gaps and inconsistencies at the protection observed among countries sharing the same lake.

Methods

Identifying 793 transnational lakes globally, we initially investigated protection coverage at their water bodies. Next, we explored protection coverage patterns across each lake’s catchment, in which we also quantified human pressures’ extent and intensity. Socio-economic and political parameters were examined as potential predictors of the observed patterns.

Results

Only half of the world’s transnational lakes are fully or partly covered by existing protected areas. Our analysis demonstrated that in only 37% of the protected transnational lakes, the extent of protection coverage was similar in the neighboring counties sharing the same lake. Protection patterns were not driven by the relative area of the transnational lakes found in the neighboring countries. Moreover, protection cover focuses mainly on lakes’ water surface ignoring the terrestrial surroundings, while more than 75% of the catchments are subjected to intense human pressures.

Conclusions

Providing the first overview of the protection gaps of transnational lakes globally, we highlight a failure of policy responses to cross-border conservation of sensitive freshwater ecosystems. Consequently, such limitations are likely to loom risks for human well‐being and for the initiation of intense conflicts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abell R, Lehner B, Thieme M, Linke S (2017) Looking beyond the fenceline: assessing protection gaps for the world’s rivers. Conserv Lett 10:384–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Akamani K, Wilson PI (2011) Toward the adaptive governance of transboundary water resources. Conserv Lett 4:409–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Amano T, Sutherland WJ (2013) Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: wealth, language, geographical location and security. Proc Royal Soc B: Biol Sci 280:20122649

    Google Scholar 

  • Armitage D, de Loë RC, Morris M, Edwards TWD, Gerlak AK, Hall RI, Huitema D, Ison R, Livingstone D, MacDonald G (2015) Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance. Ambio 44:353–66

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Asah ST (2015) Transboundary hydro-politics and climate change rhetoric: an emerging hydro-security complex in the lake Chad basin. Wiley Interdiscipl Rev: Water 2:37–45

    Google Scholar 

  • Barnes MD, Craigie ID, Harrison LB, Geldmann J, Collen B, Whitmee S, Balmford A, Burgess ND, Brooks T, Hockings M (2016) Wildlife population trends in protected areas predicted by national socio-economic metrics and body size. Nat Commun 7:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastin L, Gorelick N, Saura S, Bertzky B, Dubois G, Fortin MJ, Pekel JF (2019) Inland surface waters in protected areas globally: current coverage and 30-year trends. PloS one 14:e0210496

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Best J (2019) Anthropogenic stresses on the world’s big rivers. Nat Geosci 12:7–21

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Busch J (2008) Gains from configuration: the transboundary protected area as a conservation tool. Ecol Econ 67:394–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Bush A, Hermoso V, Linke S, Nipperess D, Turak E, Hughes L (2014) Freshwater conservation planning under climate change: demonstrating proactive approaches for Australian Odonata. J Appl Ecol 51:1273–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrizo SF, Lengyel S, Kapusi F, Szabolcs M, Kasperidus HD, Scholz M, Markovic D, Freyhof J, Cid N, Cardoso AC (2017) Critical catchments for freshwater biodiversity conservation in Europe: identification, prioritisation and gap analysis. J Appl Ecol 54:1209–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Dallimer M, Strange N (2015) Why socio-political borders and boundaries matter in conservation. Trends Ecol Evol 30:132–39

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • DeFries R, Hansen A, Turner BL, Reid R, Liu J (2007) Land use change around protected areas: management to balance human needs and ecological function. Ecol Appl 17:1031–38

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Di Minin E, Toivonen T (2015) Global protected area expansion: creating more than paper parks. BioScience 65:637–38

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Dolezsai A, Sály P, Takács P, Hermoso V, Erős T (2015) Restricted by borders: trade-offs in transboundary conservation planning for large river systems. Biodiv Conserv 24:1403–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat (2018) Countries, Geographical Information and Maps (GISCO). https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/gisco/geodata/reference-data/administrative-units-statistical-units/countries. Accessed 24 Jan 2019

  • Giordano M, Drieschova A, Duncan JA, Sayama Y, De Stefano L, Wolf AT (2014) A review of the evolution and state of transboundary freshwater treaties. Int Environ Agree: Politics, Law Econ 14:245–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray CL, Hill SLL, Newbold T, Hudson LN, Börger L, Contu S, Hoskins AJ, Ferrier S, Purvis A, Scharlemann JPW (2016) Local biodiversity is higher inside than outside terrestrial protected areas worldwide. Nat Commun 7:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Habersack H, Hein T, Stanica A, Liska I, Mair R, Jäger E, Hauer C, Bradley C (2016) Challenges of river basin management: current status of, and prospects for, the River Danube from a river engineering perspective. Sci Total Environ 543:828–45

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison IJ, Green PA, Farrell TA, Juffe-Bignoli D, Sáenz L, Vörösmarty CJ (2016) Protected areas and freshwater provisioning: a global assessment of freshwater provision, threats and management strategies to support human water security. Aquat Conserv: Marine Freshwater Ecosys 26:103–120

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermoso V, Abell R, Linke S, Boon P (2016) The role of protected areas for freshwater biodiversity conservation: challenges and opportunities in a rapidly changing world. Aquat Conserv: Marine Freshwater Ecosys 26:3–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermoso V, Filipe AF, Segurado P, Beja P (2015) Filling gaps in a large reserve network to address freshwater conservation needs. J Environ Manag 161:358–65

    Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature), UN Environment Programme (UNEP) (2018) World database on protected areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland, UNEP, Paris. www.protectedplanet.net. Accessed 30 Jan 2018

  • Jones KR, Venter O, Fuller RA, AllanJR MSL, Negret PJ, Watson JEM (2018) One-third of global protected land is under intense human pressure. Science 360:788–91

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Juffe-Bignoli D, Burgess ND, Bingham H, Belle EMS, de Lima MG, Deguignet M, Bertzky B, Milam AN, Martinez-Lopez J, Lewis E, Eassom A, Wicander S, Geldmann J, van Soesbergen A, Arnell AP, O’Connor B, Park S, Shi YN, Danks FS, MacSharry B, Kingston N (2014) Protected Planet Report 2014. Cambridge, UK, UNEP-WCMC

    Google Scholar 

  • Karame P, Avalos T, Gashakamba F (2017) Towards wise use of wetlands of special importance in Rwanda - Case Study: Rweru - Mugesera wetland. ARCOS Network. https://www.arcosnetwork.org/uploads/2018/03/Rweru-Mugesera_assessment_Report.pdf. Accessed 28 Dec 2019

  • Kark S, Tulloch A, Gordon A, Mazor T, Bunnefeld N, Levin N (2015) Cross-boundary collaboration: key to the conservation puzzle. Curr Opin Environ Sustain 12:12–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Kati V, Hovardas T, Dieterich M, Ibisch PL, Mihok B, Selva N (2015) The challenge of implementing the European network of protected areas Natura 2000. Conserv Biol 29:260–70

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Katsiapi M, Genitsaris S, Stefanidou N, Tsavdaridou A, Giannopoulou I, Stamou G, Michaloudi E, Mazaris AD, Moustaka-Gouni M (2020) Ecological Connectivity in Two Ancient Lakes: Impact Upon Planktonic Cyanobacteria and Water Quality. Water 12:18

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kostoski G, Albrecht C, Trajanovski S, Wilke T (2010) A freshwater biodiversity hotspot under pressure–assessing threats and identifying conservation needs for ancient Lake Ohrid. Biogeosciences 7:3999–4015

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuempel CD, Adams VM, Possingham HP, Bode M (2018) Bigger or better: the relative benefits of protected area network expansion and enforcement for the conservation of an exploited species. Conserv Lett 11:e12433

    Google Scholar 

  • Lambin EF, Meyfroidt P (2011) Global land use change, economic globalization, and the looming land scarcity. Proc Nation Acad Sci 108:3465–72

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lim M (2014) Is water different from biodiversity? Governance criteria for the effective management of transboundary resources. Rev Eur, Comparat Int Environ Law 23:96–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Linke S, Turak E, Nel J (2011) Freshwater conservation planning: the case for systematic approaches. Freshwater Biol 56:6–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinuzzi S, Januchowski-Hartley SR, Pracheil BM, McIntyre PB, Plantinga AJ, Lewis DJ, Radeloff VC (2014) Threats and opportunities for freshwater conservation under future land use change scenarios in the United States. Global Change Biol 20:113–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Messager ML, Lehner B, Grill G, Nedeva I, Schmitt O (2016) Estimating the volume and age of water stored in global lakes using a geo-statistical approach. Nat Commun 7:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13603.Dataisavailableat:www.hydrosheds.org.Accessed20January2018

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munia H, Guillaume JHA, Mirumachi N, Porkka M, Wada Y, Kummu M (2016) Water stress in global transboundary river basins: significance of upstream water use on downstream stress. Environ Res Lett 11:014002

    Google Scholar 

  • Okpara UT, Stringer LC, Dougill AJ, Bila MD (2015) Conflicts about water in Lake Chad: are environmental, vulnerability and security issues linked? Progress Dev Stud 15:308–25

    Google Scholar 

  • Opermanis O, MacSharry B, Aunins A, Sipkova Z (2012) Connectedness and connectivity of the Natura 2000 network of protected areas across country borders in the European Union. Biol Conserv 153:227–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Orazgaliyev S, Araral E (2019) Conflict and cooperation in global commons: theory and evidence from the caspian sea. Int J Commons 13:962–976

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersen-Perlman JD, Veilleux JC, Wolf AT (2017) International water conflict and cooperation: challenges and opportunities. Water Int 42:105–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Rands MRW, Adams WM, Bennun L, Butchart SHM, Clements A, Coomes D, Entwistle A, Hodge I, Kapos V, Scharlemann JPW (2010) Biodiversity conservation: challenges beyond 2010. Science 329:1298–303

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues ASL, Akcakaya HR, Andelman SJ, Bakarr MI, Boitani L, Brooks TM, Chanson JS, Fishpool LDC, Da Fonseca GAB, Gaston KJ (2004) Global gap analysis: priority regions for expanding the global protected-area network. BioScience 54:1092–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Schindler DE, Scheuerell MD (2002) Habitat coupling in lake ecosystems. Oikos 98:177–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Servos MR, Munkittrick KR, Constantin G, Mngodo R, Aladin N, Choowaew S, Hap N, Kidd KA, Odada E, Parra O (2013) Science and management of transboundary lakes: Lessons learned from the global environment facility program. Environ Dev 7:17–31

    Google Scholar 

  • Thornton DH, Wirsing AJ, Lopez-Gonzalez C, Squires JR, Fisher S, Larsen KW, Peatt A, Scrafford MA, Moen RA, Scully AE (2018) Asymmetric cross-border protection of peripheral transboundary species. Conserv Lett 11:e12430

    Google Scholar 

  • Trajanovski S, Gjoreska BB, Kenderov L, Trajanovska S, Zdraveski K, Trichkova T (2019) Potential threats to benthic macroinvertebrate fauna in Lake Ohrid watershed: Water pollution and alien species. Acta Zool Bulgar Suppl 13:91–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsavdaridou AI, Moustaka-Gouni M, Katsiapi M, Mazaris AD (2019) Gaps in the protection of European lakes. Aquat Conserv: Marine Freshwater Ecosys 29:1726–34

    Google Scholar 

  • UNEP-WCMC (2019) User Manual for the World Database on Protected Areas and world database on other effective area-based conservation measures: 1.6. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK. https://wcmc.io/WDPA_Manual. Accessed 31 July 2020

  • United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2017) The human development index. https://hdr.undp.org/en/data. Accessed 24 Jan 2019

  • Vasilijević M, Pezold T (2011) Crossing borders for nature. European examples of transboundary conservation, IUCN Programme Office for South-Eastern Europe, Belgrade, Serbia

    Google Scholar 

  • Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, Beher J, Jones KR, Possingham HP, Laurance WF, Wood P, Fekete BM (2018) Last of the Wild Project, Version 3 (LWP-3): 2009 Human Footprint, 2018 Release. Palisades, NY: NASA Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC) 10:H46T0JQ4. https://doi.org/10.7927/H46T0JQ4. Accessed 13 May 2018

  • Venter O, Sanderson EW, Magrach A, Allan JR, Beher J, Jones KR, Possingham HP, Laurance WF, Wood P, Fekete BM (2016) Sixteen years of change in the global terrestrial human footprint and implications for biodiversity conservation. Nat Commun 7:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Verdin KL (2017) Hydrologic Derivatives for Modeling and Analysis—A new global high-resolution database. US Geological Survey. data release, In. https://doi.org/10.5066/F7S180ZP.Accessed15February2018

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Watson JEM, Dudley N, Segan DB, Hockings M (2014) The performance and potential of protected areas. Nature 515:67–73

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson JEM, Jones KR, Fuller RA, Di Marco M, Segan DB, Butchart SHM, Allan JR, McDonald-Madden E, Venter O (2016) Persistent disparities between recent rates of habitat conversion and protection and implications for future global conservation targets. Conserv Lett 9:413–21

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank (2017a) Population growth (annual %), World Development Indicators. The World Bank Group. data.worldbank.org/indicator/. Accessed 24 Jan 2019

  • World Bank (2017b) Political Stability and Absence of Violence/Terrorism (Percentile Rank), World Governance Indicators. The World Bank Group. data.worldbank.org/indicator/. Accessed 30 Jan 2018

  • Zeitoun M, Goulden M, Tickner D (2013) Current and future challenges facing transboundary river basin management. Wiley Interdiscipl Rev: Climate Change 4:331–49

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research is co-financed by Greece and the European Union (European Social Fund- ESF) through the Operational Programme “Human Resources Development, Education and Lifelong Learning” in the context of the project “Strengthening Human Resources Research Potential via Doctorate Research” (MIS-5000432), implemented by the State Scholarships Foundation (ΙΚΥ).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ecology, School of Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, 54636, Thessaloniki, Greece

    Anastasia I. Tsavdaridou & Antonios D. Mazaris

Authors
  1. Anastasia I. Tsavdaridou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Antonios D. Mazaris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anastasia I. Tsavdaridou.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 354 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsavdaridou, A.I., Mazaris, A.D. Gaps and biases in the protection of transnational lakes: a global assessment. Landscape Ecol 36, 297–308 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01145-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-020-01145-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation