Collaboration across environmental agreements is key for migratory species conservation

Collaboration across environmental agreements is key for migratory species conservation | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF comment Collaboration across environmental agreements is key for migratory species conservation Angela Liu, Lily K. Bentley, Andrea Pauly, Sara Kophamel, Andrew Szopa-Comley, and 3 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8868377/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 6 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) are the main instrument for Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to develop and report on their implementation of the Convention. They promote the synergies between various other multilateral environmental agreements, including the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). Strengthening synergies between different Conventions can enhance collaboration, knowledge sharing, and implementation - ultimately accelerate progress towards global biodiversity goals. Here, we present a systematic review of revised NBSAPs submitted since the 15th CBD Conference of Parties to assess the integration of migratory species and the alignment between the CMS within the NBSAPs. We find an emerging direction towards establishing ecological corridors and integrating spatial planning for migratory species conservation, as well as increased actions towards reducing bycatch for marine migrants. Overall, while we find that explicit attention to migratory species in these documents remains limited, NBSAPs represent a tool for countries to incorporate relevant conservation actions that benefit these species. These findings underscore the need for stronger, cross-target integration of migratory species within NBSAPs to enhance policy coherence and complement CMS commitments. Biological sciences/Ecology Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences Earth and environmental sciences/Ocean sciences Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Main The complex, transboundary movements of migratory species have captivated humanity for millennia, but in the Anthropocene, these journeys across jurisdictions increase species’ exposure to a multitude of threats. In recent decades, the conservation status of migratory species has declined, underscoring the growing impact of these threats and a fundamental challenge of migratory species conservation – the necessity of international cooperation (Bentley et al., 2025 ; Harrison et al., 2018 ; Runge et al., 2014 , 2017 ). Multiple bodies are involved in facilitating the required cooperation for migratory species conservation. The Convention on Biological Diversity is the primary convening body that monitors and coordinates biodiversity conservation efforts worldwide (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2011 ). The latest iteration of goals and targets for biodiversity developed under the CBD – the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) – is the most ambitious to date. At a more targeted level, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) was established to facilitate international collaboration on the conservation of species that cyclically and predictably cross international borders. To strengthen collaboration between the CBD and multilateral environmental agreements like the CMS, the Bern Process was established to identify and harness synergies among conventions in implementing the GBF (CBD Decisions 14/34, 15/13) (Convention on Biological Diversity, 2018 , 2020 ). CMS Resolution 14.3 implemented the Bern Process and urged CMS Parties to represent their commitments for migratory species conservation within their National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) (Convention on Migratory Species, 2024a ). NBSAPs – a compulsory reporting mechanism under the CBD – are nationally endorsed guidelines, and as such, what is included within them presents a snapshot of national priorities for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Reviewing NBSAPs can provide an indicator for how well different targets are being addressed or how certain ecological features are considered in the design of conservation measures (Bell-James & Watson, 2025 ). Although CMS explicitly encourages the integration of migratory species conservation within NBSAPs, there has been no systematic assessment of this integration. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of all revised NBSAPs in alignment with the GBF, to evaluate how, and to what extent, migration and migratory species have been considered in national biodiversity commitments. While general biodiversity actions included in the NBSAPs can benefit migratory species, their transboundary movements and reliance on important sites across different countries call for articulated actions that address these unique conservation needs. We therefore examine how countries leverage their NBSAPs to advance specific migratory species conservation priorities, assuming that there is no difference among countries in the implicit and incidental integration of migratory species in biodiversity reporting. We do not assess the effectiveness or comprehensiveness of migratory species protection, but rather, we identify and quantify national actions to better understand how countries are strategically addressing migratory species conservation. All NBSAPs reported general actions that mentioned ecological connectivity, species threat abatement, and/or area-based management, and just over two-thirds (68%, 34 out of 50 NBSAPs) contained actions that explicitly mentioned migratory species. Given the Bern process, we expected that CMS Parties would include more explicit actions related to migratory species; but contrarily, we found that the three countries with the most action plans or targets explicitly linked to migratory species (henceforth “migratory species actions”) were all non-CMS Parties (Canada, Japan, Malaysia) (Fig. 1). In general, non-CMS parties had a slightly higher rate of including migratory species actions (81% of non-CMS parties (13/16) vs 71% of CMS parties (24/34)). This demonstrates that NBSAPs are an important tool to capture actions related to migratory species conservation and provides a potential mechanism through which non-CMS Parties could identify synergies and potential collaborative actions. However, it also means that these countries are not leveraging the CMS instruments, which have been specifically designed to enhance international collaboration for migratory species conservation. Both conventions actively encourage the alignment of targets and goals, and as such, this finding represents both an opportunity for greater integration between the conventions and a current gap in maximizing conservation impact for migratory species. Figure 1: Geographic distribution of the number of explicit actions dedicated for migratory species, distinguished by CMS membership. Total of 124 actions found across NBSAPs, with an average of 3.35 per country. We also examined the types of migratory species “actions” and assessed their alignment with national targets in the NBSAPs. We define “actions” as a specific strategy, effort, or commitment towards preventing or reducing threats to migratory species (see Methods). An important target for both the CBD and the CMS is increasing area-based protection measures – Target 3 in the GBF and Target 2.2 in the latest CMS Samarkand Strategic Plan (2024–2032) (Convention on Migratory Species, 2024b ). The most frequently noted (by number of mentions) migratory species action in NBSAPs is the delineation and protection of ecological corridors. Importantly, most of these actions were identified as “new” national commitments - actions that have not been in practice or legislation previously. We find a growing focus on corridor conservation in the “new” actions across NBSAPs, suggesting a future direction for migratory species conservation in the coming years (Fig. 2 ). The majority of corridor initiatives are terrestrial, as they are meant to restore or protect the physical connectivity between habitat patches (also known as "structural connectivity"), which is more relevant for landscapes than for seascapes. Nevertheless, several countries, notably Malaysia and Spain, have dedicated new action plans in their NBSAPs toward protecting marine migratory corridors. As marine migrations are predominantly impeded by anthropogenic activities rather than physical habitat fragmentation or structural barriers, recent research has supported the establishment of marine corridors coupled with targeted management interventions to reduce anthropogenic threats (Johnson et al., 2022 ; Morten et al., 2025 ; Podda & Porporato, 2023 ). Targets 1 and 3 (“30 x 30”), which focus on increasing spatial planning and protected area coverage respectively, both contained a greater number of "new" migratory species actions. New actions under Target 1 likely reflect both the novelty of the target within the CBD framework, as well as a recent wave of development in the field of systematic conservation planning (Giakoumi et al., 2025 ). Yet it is important to consider that Target 1 and 3 are interconnected, as increased focus on expanding protected area coverage naturally drives greater attention to spatial planning approaches. The remainder of migratory species actions were mostly species-focused, such as population recovery or threat abatement measures. These actions primarily align with GBF Target 4 (halting extinctions) but also across Targets 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 (targets to address overexploitation, invasive species, pollution, climate change, and cultivation systems, respectively), corresponding to the major threats faced by migratory species (Lascelles et al., 2014 ; Shuter et al., 2011 ; UNEP-WCMC, 2024 ). While several countries identified broad species action plans that covered multiple strategies towards population recovery, a few recurring commitments emerged from our analysis. For example, actions to increase wildlife crossings or remove barriers appeared 15 times across 10 NBSAPs, and reducing bycatch risk appeared 12 times across 9 NBSAPs. We also found that there were more migratory species actions in the marine realm than expected. However, 49% of actions (94/194) did not refer to a specific realm (Supplementary Fig. 2). Given the general terrestrial bias in biodiversity observations and literature around migratory species (Caldwell et al., 2024 ), we expect that these are likely heavily weighted toward consideration of terrestrial migrants, and the number of terrestrial actions are likely underestimated in the NBSAPs (Hughes et al., 2021 ; UNEP-WCMC & IUCN, 2024). The fundamental differences in connectivity between terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems highlight a well-established need for improved guidance on multi-realm migratory species conservation. Beyond developing better guidance, nations must precisely define the spatial and methodological parameters of their conservation actions to enhance implementation effectiveness. Based on what we see in NBSAPs, national priorities in the next few years for migratory species conservation will be the delineation and protection of migratory corridors, joining up existing protected areas into networks, and integrating species into strategic spatial planning. Research advancements in response to these directions will be particularly helpful in supporting the achievement of these targets, such as recent efforts towards delineating corridors (da Costa Dias et al., 2024 ; Morten et al., 2025 ; Sequeira et al., 2025 ). Recent advancements in spatial planning have also increased capacity to prioritize for multiple objectives for fulfilling GBF targets, including complex attributes such as connectivity and migration (Beger et al., 2022 ; Neubert et al., 2025 ). Despite new research tools and collaborations, the fundamental challenge remains in bridging these advancements with policy integration. While each nation's ability to implement migratory species priorities depends on its technical, financial, and social circumstances, we argue that integrating priorities across multilateral agreements like the CMS and GBF can reduce duplicated efforts and better align conservation strategies for multiple biodiversity outcomes. Migratory species connect our world – both ecologically and politically. Benefiting from not only the CMS but also the GBF framework, migratory species conservation is gaining attention across a wider range of countries. What is needed now is to increase the integration of CMS initiatives and outcomes into the NBSAPs to bolster alignment with the GBF and encourage non-Party states to consider CMS accession and contribute to collective action for migratory species conservation. Methods We downloaded the revised and updated NBSAPs submitted to the Convention on Biological Diversity’s Online Reporting Tool after the adoption of the GBF in December 2022 (n = 49) on 15 April 2025, and translated the ones necessary to English using DeepL Translator. We then systematically extracted information using the data extraction template in Supplementary Table 1. For each party to the CBD, we primarily aimed to identify whether migratory species, movements, and space use (“migratory ecology”) were explicitly addressed within an action plan, national target, or policy (“actions”) as a part of their NBSAP. The two main criteria for an NBSAP to have explicitly addressed migratory ecology are: 1) if the keyword “migrat*” (or its relevant translation) is included as a part of an action, and 2) if there is mention of a migratory species as a part of an action. To consider actions that may have implicitly considered migratory ecology, we included the search terms: “corridor*”, “connect*”, “move*”, “travers*”, “passage*”, “transboundary”, “network”, "flyway", "breed*", "wintering", "dispers*", "permea*", and "barrier*". Appearances of these search terms were then closely evaluated to determine relevance to migratory ecology. For actions that were more general and did not include explicit mention of migratory species or migratory behavior but are still relevant to migratory species conservation needs, such as corridor conservation, they were indicated as “Implicit” actions. For example, an implicit action is, for Germany, “By 2030, existing and new transport routes (road, rail, waterway) will have sufficient ecological permeability for all animal species affected by fragmentation across and along the transport mode.” While most potentially relevant actions were included, highly general actions, such as “increase protected area coverage” were not counted. While potentially relevant for migratory species, were not included in order to highlight more explicit mentions of migratory ecology. Using qualitative inductive coding methods, three assessors iteratively developed 19 1 codes to capture the range of actions addressing migratory species. The codes were developed during the initial read of the documents, and if a new code emerges, the documents were re-read to include the new code. Each of the identified actions were attributed to one or more of the relevant codes. Some of the codes were also grouped into broader categories, specifically “species-based actions” referring to threat abatement efforts and “area-based actions”, specifically focusing on delineating and managing protected areas, corridors, recovery sites, or establishing networks of these site-based responses. We also attributed each action to its relevant ecological realm (“Terrestrial”, “Freshwater”, “Marine”, “Not mentioned”), whether it is a new or existing action plan/target, and what species or taxonomic group, if any, have been mentioned. For multi-ecosystem species like shorebirds, multiple realms for selected. Whether an action is considered “new” was determined based on the context of the action - the action is considered “new” if the action referred to plans to develop/implement the action. If the action already existed as an national strategy or action plan, it was considered “existing”. The selected actions were then attributed to one or more of the GBF targets. The relevant GBF target was either directly stated in the NBSAP, or we inferred its relevance to one of the targets based on the content. For instance, Argentina’s action program which “aims to reduce the interaction between sea turtles and marine debris found in areas used for their feeding and as migratory corridors” was deduced to be applicable to Target 7 on reducing pollution. Declarations Data availability The analysed during this study are available in the Convention on Biological Diversity Online Reporting Tool repository, https://www.cbd.int/nbsap. Author contributions A.L., D.C.D., and L.K.B. conceptualized the manuscript idea; A.L. conducted the main analysis, prepared the figures, and wrote the main text; A.P., S.K., A.W.S., F.D., M.V. provided extensive input to the editing of the manuscript; all authors contributed significantly to the final revisions of the manuscript. Funding Funding provided under an Australian Research Council Discovery Project (DP240101026: DCD, AL, LKB). Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge Narelle Montgomery for her time with providing valuable edits to our manuscript. Competing interests The authors declare no conflict of interest. References Beger, M., Metaxas, A., Balbar, A. C., McGowan, J. A., Daigle, R., Kuempel, C. D., Treml, E. A., & Possingham, H. P. (2022). Demystifying ecological connectivity for actionable spatial conservation planning. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 37(12), 1079–1091. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.09.002 Bell-James, J., & Watson, J. E. M. (2025). Ambitions in national plans do not yet match bold international protection and restoration commitments. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 9(3), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02636-4 Bentley, L. K., Nisthar, D., Fujioka, E., Curtice, C., DeLand, S. E., Donnelly, B., Harrison, A.-L., Heywood, E. I., Kot, C. Y., Ortuño Crespo, G., Poulin, S., Halpin, P. N., & Dunn, D. C. (2025). Marine megavertebrate migrations connect the global ocean. Nature Communications, 16(1), 4089. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59271-7 Caldwell, I. R., Hobbs, J.-P. A., Bowen, B. W., Cowman, P. F., DiBattista, J. D., Whitney, J. L., Ahti, P. A., Belderok, R., Canfield, S., Coleman, R. R., Iacchei, M., Johnston, E. C., Knapp, I., Nalley, E. M., Staeudle, T. M., & Láruson, Á. J. (2024). Global trends and biases in biodiversity conservation research. Cell Reports Sustainability, 1(5), 100082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsus.2024.100082 Convention on Biological Diversity. (2018). Decision COP 14/34 Comprehensive and participatory process for the preparation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (Decision No. 14/34). Convention on Biological Diversity. Convention on Biological Diversity. (2020). Decision 15/13 Cooperation with other conventions and international organizations (Decision No. 15/13). Convention on Biological Diversity. Convention on Migratory Species. (2024a). CMS Engagement in CBD Processes Including the Global Biodiversity Framework (Resolution No. 14.3; p. 3). Convention on Migratory Species. (2024b). Samarkand Strategic Plan for Migratory Species 2024–2032 (Resolution No. 14.1; p. 19). United Nations Environment Programme. da Costa Dias, T., Silveira, L. F., & Francisco, M. R. (2024). Endemic and threatened birds as surrogates for identifying conservation priority areas and ecological corridors in the America’s most endangered habitat. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 21923. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-72948-1 Giakoumi, S., Richardson, A. J., Doxa, A., Moro, S., Andrello, M., Hanson, J. O., Hermoso, V., Mazor, T., McGowan, J., Kujala, H., Law, E., Álvarez-Romero, J. G., Magris, R. A., Gissi, E., Arafeh-Dalmau, N., Metaxas, A., Virtanen, E. A., Ban, N. C., Runya, R. M., … Katsanevakis, S. (2025). Advances in systematic conservation planning to meet global biodiversity goals. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 40(4), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2024.12.002 Harrison, A.-L., Costa, D. P., Winship, A. J., Benson, S. R., Bograd, S. J., Antolos, M., Carlisle, A. B., Dewar, H., Dutton, P. H., Jorgensen, S. J., Kohin, S., Mate, B. R., Robinson, P. W., Schaefer, K. M., Shaffer, S. A., Shillinger, G. L., Simmons, S. E., Weng, K. C., Gjerde, K. M., & Block, B. A. (2018). The political biogeography of migratory marine predators. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 2(10), 1571–1578. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0646-8 Hughes, A. C., Orr, M. C., Ma, K., Costello, M. J., Waller, J., Provoost, P., Yang, Q., Zhu, C., & Qiao, H. (2021). Sampling biases shape our view of the natural world. Ecography, 44(9), 1259–1269. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05926 Johnson, C. M., Reisinger, R. R., Palacios, D. M., Friedlaender, A. S., Zerbini, A. N., Willson, A., Lancaster, M., Battle, J., Graham, A., Cosandey-Godin, A., Jacob, T., Felix, F., Grilly, E., Shahid, U., Houtman, N., Alberini, A., Montecinos, Y., Najera, E., & Kelez, S. (2022). Protecting Blue Corridors—Challenges and solutions for migratory whales navigating national and international seas. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6196131 Lascelles, B., Notarbartolo Di Sciara, G., Agardy, T., Cuttelod, A., Eckert, S., Glowka, L., Hoyt, E., Llewellyn, F., Louzao, M., Ridoux, V., & Tetley, M. J. (2014). Migratory marine species: Their status, threats and conservation management needs. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 24(S2), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2512 Morten, J. M., Carneiro, A. P. B., Beal, M., Bonnet-Lebrun, A.-S., Dias, M. P., Rouyer, M.-M., Harrison, A.-L., González-Solís, J., Jones, V. R., Garcia Alonso, V. A., Antolos, M., Arata, J. A., Barbraud, C., Bell, E. A., Bell, M., Bose, S., Broni, S., de L Brooke, M., Butchart, S. H. M., … Davies, T. E. (2025). Global Marine Flyways Identified for Long-Distance Migrating Seabirds From Tracking Data. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 34(2), e70004. https://doi.org/10.1111/geb.70004 Neubert, S., McGowan, J., Metcalfe, K., Hanson, J. O., Buenafe, K. C. V., Dabalà, A., Dunn, D. C., Everett, J. D., Possingham, H. P., Stelzenmüller, V., Estep, A., Ervin, J., & Richardson, A. J. (2025). Multiple-use spatial planning for sustainable development and conservation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 40(11), 1126–1142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2025.09.007 Podda, C., & Porporato, E. M. D. (2023). Marine spatial planning for connectivity and conservation through ecological corridors between marine protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Frontiers in Marine Science, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1271397 Runge, C. A., Gallo-Cajiao, E., Carey, M. J., Garnett, S. T., Fuller, R. A., & McCormack, P. C. (2017). Coordinating Domestic Legislation and International Agreements to Conserve Migratory Species: A Case Study from Australia. Conservation Letters, 10(6), 765–772. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12345 Runge, C. A., Martin, T. G., Possingham, H. P., Willis, S. G., & Fuller, R. A. (2014). Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(7), 395–402. https://doi.org/10.1890/130237 Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2011). Convention on Biological Diversity (p. 36). United Nations Environment Programme. Sequeira, A. M. M., Rodríguez, J. P., Marley, S. A., Calich, H. J., van der Mheen, M., VanCompernolle, M., Arrowsmith, L. M., Peel, L. R., Queiroz, N., Vedor, M., da Costa, I., Mucientes, G., Couto, A., Humphries, N. E., Abalo-Morla, S., Abascal, F. J., Abercrombie, D. L., Abrantes, K., Abreu-Grobois, F. A., … Eguíluz, V. M. (2025). Global tracking of marine megafauna space use reveals how to achieve conservation targets. Science, 388(6751), 1086–1097. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adl0239 Shuter, J. L., Broderick, A. C., Agnew, D. J., Jonzén, N., Godley, B. J., Milner-Gulland, E. J., & Thirgood, S. (2011). Conservation and management of migratory species. In E. J. Milner-Gulland, J. M. Fryxell, & A. R. E. Sinclair (Eds.), Animal Migration: A Synthesis (p. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568994.003.0011 UNEP-WCMC. (2024). State of the World’s Migratory Species. UNEP-WCMC. UNEP-WCMC, & IUCN. (2024). Protected Planet Report 2024. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files SupplementaryData.xlsx SupplementaryMaterialsNBSAP.pdf NBSAPExtractionMethodology.xlsx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 27 Apr, 2026 Reviewers agreed at journal 19 Mar, 2026 Reviewers invited by journal 16 Mar, 2026 Editor assigned by journal 18 Feb, 2026 Submission checks completed at journal 17 Feb, 2026 First submitted to journal 13 Feb, 2026 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8868377","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"comment","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":593100370,"identity":"1e0d79e4-45a0-4878-a523-248063d512b7","order_by":0,"name":"Angela Liu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Queensland","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Angela","middleName":"","lastName":"Liu","suffix":""},{"id":593100371,"identity":"f9cdba7f-2a9a-40f5-81da-94637c821116","order_by":1,"name":"Lily K. Bentley","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Queensland","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lily","middleName":"K.","lastName":"Bentley","suffix":""},{"id":593100373,"identity":"a6188ad4-2a7c-44e9-aa71-9c15653c3517","order_by":2,"name":"Andrea Pauly","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andrea","middleName":"","lastName":"Pauly","suffix":""},{"id":593100374,"identity":"155c2505-5dd3-4bf3-a27c-0cab95f7e1a5","order_by":3,"name":"Sara Kophamel","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Blue Nomad Environmental Consulting","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sara","middleName":"","lastName":"Kophamel","suffix":""},{"id":593100376,"identity":"5e53cebb-de26-44da-8673-87f267099dc0","order_by":4,"name":"Andrew Szopa-Comley","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Andrew","middleName":"","lastName":"Szopa-Comley","suffix":""},{"id":593100378,"identity":"ce8065d9-f804-464d-b2a3-5a7f21640f88","order_by":5,"name":"Frances Davis","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Frances","middleName":"","lastName":"Davis","suffix":""},{"id":593100379,"identity":"061c755a-38d2-4eec-a7ea-7033042a09f6","order_by":6,"name":"Matea Vukelic","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Matea","middleName":"","lastName":"Vukelic","suffix":""},{"id":593100381,"identity":"670e3a31-5add-40db-a236-c52a400c049a","order_by":7,"name":"Daniel C. Dunn","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The University of Queensland","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Daniel","middleName":"C.","lastName":"Dunn","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-13 06:55:41","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8868377/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8868377/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":104405851,"identity":"bb83bc6d-0078-4cd6-abb9-99ae85a7eff9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-11 12:23:59","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":327902,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeographic distribution of the number of explicit actions dedicated for migratory species, distinguished by CMS membership. Total of 124 actions found across NBSAPs, with an average of 3.35 per country.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8868377/v1/76d15a7215d6bb00deae522c.png"},{"id":104312539,"identity":"44766723-cd61-4cc8-bcc8-bb42a6328649","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-10 11:16:31","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":188328,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNumber of NBSAP actions for new and existing migratory species by ecosystem realm and action category. Actions applying to multiple categories are counted in each relevant category.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8868377/v1/f9642287e9bbfa6b09a5c349.png"},{"id":104779659,"identity":"cad016f3-4e5a-40ed-804f-5ea5746862ed","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-17 07:44:07","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":822307,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8868377/v1/8f975d31-4eb1-422e-8e95-4addcb8e3bd7.pdf"},{"id":104312540,"identity":"3edb6c64-5a21-45a2-a4c9-1bd80b60b25e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-10 11:16:31","extension":"xlsx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":61894,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryData.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8868377/v1/8f53282249fb39e274e4d5ce.xlsx"},{"id":104312542,"identity":"b36c3b8d-a6f7-4099-8819-55c962a6f115","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-10 11:16:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":201655,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterialsNBSAP.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8868377/v1/e2c1bc387e486a18b38ce81b.pdf"},{"id":104312541,"identity":"1bf92f9b-e932-427f-b4dd-69ee39e5c2e6","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-03-10 11:16:31","extension":"xlsx","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":14349,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"NBSAPExtractionMethodology.xlsx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8868377/v1/da93fa662b04ad27421edee8.xlsx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Collaboration across environmental agreements is key for migratory species conservation","fulltext":[{"header":"Main","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe complex, transboundary movements of migratory species have captivated humanity for millennia, but in the Anthropocene, these journeys across jurisdictions increase species\u0026rsquo; exposure to a multitude of threats. In recent decades, the conservation status of migratory species has declined, underscoring the growing impact of these threats and a fundamental challenge of migratory species conservation \u0026ndash; the necessity of international cooperation (Bentley et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Harrison et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Runge et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMultiple bodies are involved in facilitating the required cooperation for migratory species conservation. The Convention on Biological Diversity is the primary convening body that monitors and coordinates biodiversity conservation efforts worldwide (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The latest iteration of goals and targets for biodiversity developed under the CBD \u0026ndash; the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) \u0026ndash; is the most ambitious to date. At a more targeted level, the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) was established to facilitate international collaboration on the conservation of species that cyclically and predictably cross international borders. To strengthen collaboration between the CBD and multilateral environmental agreements like the CMS, the Bern Process was established to identify and harness synergies among conventions in implementing the GBF (CBD Decisions 14/34, 15/13) (Convention on Biological Diversity, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eCMS Resolution 14.3 implemented the Bern Process and urged CMS Parties to represent their commitments for migratory species conservation within their National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) (Convention on Migratory Species, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024a\u003c/span\u003e). NBSAPs \u0026ndash; a compulsory reporting mechanism under the CBD \u0026ndash; are nationally endorsed guidelines, and as such, what is included within them presents a snapshot of national priorities for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity. Reviewing NBSAPs can provide an indicator for how well different targets are being addressed or how certain ecological features are considered in the design of conservation measures (Bell-James \u0026amp; Watson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Although CMS explicitly encourages the integration of migratory species conservation within NBSAPs, there has been no systematic assessment of this integration. To address this, we conducted a systematic review of all revised NBSAPs in alignment with the GBF, to evaluate how, and to what extent, migration and migratory species have been considered in national biodiversity commitments.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhile general biodiversity actions included in the NBSAPs can benefit migratory species, their transboundary movements and reliance on important sites across different countries call for articulated actions that address these unique conservation needs. We therefore examine how countries leverage their NBSAPs to advance specific migratory species conservation priorities, assuming that there is no difference among countries in the implicit and incidental integration of migratory species in biodiversity reporting. We do not assess the effectiveness or comprehensiveness of migratory species protection, but rather, we identify and quantify national actions to better understand how countries are strategically addressing migratory species conservation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll NBSAPs reported general actions that mentioned ecological connectivity, species threat abatement, and/or area-based management, and just over two-thirds (68%, 34 out of 50 NBSAPs) contained actions that explicitly mentioned migratory species. Given the Bern process, we expected that CMS Parties would include more explicit actions related to migratory species; but contrarily, we found that the three countries with the most action plans or targets explicitly linked to migratory species (henceforth \u0026ldquo;migratory species actions\u0026rdquo;) were all non-CMS Parties (Canada, Japan, Malaysia) (Fig.\u0026nbsp;1). In general, non-CMS parties had a slightly higher rate of including migratory species actions (81% of non-CMS parties (13/16) vs 71% of CMS parties (24/34)). This demonstrates that NBSAPs are an important tool to capture actions related to migratory species conservation and provides a potential mechanism through which non-CMS Parties could identify synergies and potential collaborative actions. However, it also means that these countries are not leveraging the CMS instruments, which have been specifically designed to enhance international collaboration for migratory species conservation. Both conventions actively encourage the alignment of targets and goals, and as such, this finding represents both an opportunity for greater integration between the conventions and a current gap in maximizing conservation impact for migratory species.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cem\u003eFigure 1: Geographic distribution of the number of explicit actions dedicated for migratory species, distinguished by CMS membership. Total of 124 actions found across NBSAPs, with an average of 3.35 per country.\u003c/em\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe also examined the types of migratory species \u0026ldquo;actions\u0026rdquo; and assessed their alignment with national targets in the NBSAPs. We define \u0026ldquo;actions\u0026rdquo; as a specific strategy, effort, or commitment towards preventing or reducing threats to migratory species (see Methods). An important target for both the CBD and the CMS is increasing area-based protection measures \u0026ndash; Target 3 in the GBF and Target 2.2 in the latest CMS Samarkand Strategic Plan (2024\u0026ndash;2032) (Convention on Migratory Species, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024b\u003c/span\u003e). The most frequently noted (by number of mentions) migratory species action in NBSAPs is the delineation and protection of ecological corridors. Importantly, most of these actions were identified as \u0026ldquo;new\u0026rdquo; national commitments - actions that have not been in practice or legislation previously. We find a growing focus on corridor conservation in the \u0026ldquo;new\u0026rdquo; actions across NBSAPs, suggesting a future direction for migratory species conservation in the coming years (Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). The majority of corridor initiatives are terrestrial, as they are meant to restore or protect the physical connectivity between habitat patches (also known as \"structural connectivity\"), which is more relevant for landscapes than for seascapes. Nevertheless, several countries, notably Malaysia and Spain, have dedicated new action plans in their NBSAPs toward protecting marine migratory corridors. As marine migrations are predominantly impeded by anthropogenic activities rather than physical habitat fragmentation or structural barriers, recent research has supported the establishment of marine corridors coupled with targeted management interventions to reduce anthropogenic threats (Johnson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Morten et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Podda \u0026amp; Porporato, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTargets 1 and 3 (\u0026ldquo;30 x 30\u0026rdquo;), which focus on increasing spatial planning and protected area coverage respectively, both contained a greater number of \"new\" migratory species actions. New actions under Target 1 likely reflect both the novelty of the target within the CBD framework, as well as a recent wave of development in the field of systematic conservation planning (Giakoumi et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Yet it is important to consider that Target 1 and 3 are interconnected, as increased focus on expanding protected area coverage naturally drives greater attention to spatial planning approaches.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe remainder of migratory species actions were mostly species-focused, such as population recovery or threat abatement measures. These actions primarily align with GBF Target 4 (halting extinctions) but also across Targets 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 (targets to address overexploitation, invasive species, pollution, climate change, and cultivation systems, respectively), corresponding to the major threats faced by migratory species (Lascelles et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2014\u003c/span\u003e; Shuter et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; UNEP-WCMC, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). While several countries identified broad species action plans that covered multiple strategies towards population recovery, a few recurring commitments emerged from our analysis. For example, actions to increase wildlife crossings or remove barriers appeared 15 times across 10 NBSAPs, and reducing bycatch risk appeared 12 times across 9 NBSAPs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe also found that there were more migratory species actions in the marine realm than expected. However, 49% of actions (94/194) did not refer to a specific realm (Supplementary Fig.\u0026nbsp;2). Given the general terrestrial bias in biodiversity observations and literature around migratory species (Caldwell et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), we expect that these are likely heavily weighted toward consideration of terrestrial migrants, and the number of terrestrial actions are likely underestimated in the NBSAPs (Hughes et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; UNEP-WCMC \u0026amp; IUCN, 2024). The fundamental differences in connectivity between terrestrial, freshwater, and marine ecosystems highlight a well-established need for improved guidance on multi-realm migratory species conservation. Beyond developing better guidance, nations must precisely define the spatial and methodological parameters of their conservation actions to enhance implementation effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBased on what we see in NBSAPs, national priorities in the next few years for migratory species conservation will be the delineation and protection of migratory corridors, joining up existing protected areas into networks, and integrating species into strategic spatial planning. Research advancements in response to these directions will be particularly helpful in supporting the achievement of these targets, such as recent efforts towards delineating corridors (da Costa Dias et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e; Morten et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e; Sequeira et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Recent advancements in spatial planning have also increased capacity to prioritize for multiple objectives for fulfilling GBF targets, including complex attributes such as connectivity and migration (Beger et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Neubert et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2025\u003c/span\u003e). Despite new research tools and collaborations, the fundamental challenge remains in bridging these advancements with policy integration. While each nation's ability to implement migratory species priorities depends on its technical, financial, and social circumstances, we argue that integrating priorities across multilateral agreements like the CMS and GBF can reduce duplicated efforts and better align conservation strategies for multiple biodiversity outcomes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMigratory species connect our world \u0026ndash; both ecologically and politically. Benefiting from not only the CMS but also the GBF framework, migratory species conservation is gaining attention across a wider range of countries. What is needed now is to increase the integration of CMS initiatives and outcomes into the NBSAPs to bolster alignment with the GBF and encourage non-Party states to consider CMS accession and contribute to collective action for migratory species conservation.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe downloaded the revised and updated NBSAPs submitted to the Convention on Biological Diversity\u0026rsquo;s Online Reporting Tool after the adoption of the GBF in December 2022 (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;49) on 15 April 2025, and translated the ones necessary to English using DeepL Translator. We then systematically extracted information using the data extraction template in Supplementary Table\u0026nbsp;1. For each party to the CBD, we primarily aimed to identify whether migratory species, movements, and space use (\u0026ldquo;migratory ecology\u0026rdquo;) were explicitly addressed within an action plan, national target, or policy (\u0026ldquo;actions\u0026rdquo;) as a part of their NBSAP. The two main criteria for an NBSAP to have explicitly addressed migratory ecology are: 1) if the keyword \u0026ldquo;migrat*\u0026rdquo; (or its relevant translation) is included as a part of an action, and 2) if there is mention of a migratory species as a part of an action. To consider actions that may have implicitly considered migratory ecology, we included the search terms: \u0026ldquo;corridor*\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;connect*\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;move*\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;travers*\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;passage*\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;transboundary\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;network\u0026rdquo;, \"flyway\", \"breed*\", \"wintering\", \"dispers*\", \"permea*\", and \"barrier*\". Appearances of these search terms were then closely evaluated to determine relevance to migratory ecology. For actions that were more general and did not include explicit mention of migratory species or migratory behavior but are still relevant to migratory species conservation needs, such as corridor conservation, they were indicated as \u0026ldquo;Implicit\u0026rdquo; actions. For example, an implicit action is, for Germany, \u0026ldquo;By 2030, existing and new transport routes (road, rail, waterway) will have sufficient ecological permeability for all animal species affected by fragmentation across and along the transport mode.\u0026rdquo; While most potentially relevant actions were included, highly general actions, such as \u0026ldquo;increase protected area coverage\u0026rdquo; were not counted. While potentially relevant for migratory species, were not included in order to highlight more explicit mentions of migratory ecology.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing qualitative inductive coding methods, three assessors iteratively developed 19\u003csup\u003e1\u003c/sup\u003e codes to capture the range of actions addressing migratory species. The codes were developed during the initial read of the documents, and if a new code emerges, the documents were re-read to include the new code. Each of the identified actions were attributed to one or more of the relevant codes. Some of the codes were also grouped into broader categories, specifically \u0026ldquo;species-based actions\u0026rdquo; referring to threat abatement efforts and \u0026ldquo;area-based actions\u0026rdquo;, specifically focusing on delineating and managing protected areas, corridors, recovery sites, or establishing networks of these site-based responses. We also attributed each action to its relevant ecological realm (\u0026ldquo;Terrestrial\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Freshwater\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Marine\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Not mentioned\u0026rdquo;), whether it is a new or existing action plan/target, and what species or taxonomic group, if any, have been mentioned. For multi-ecosystem species like shorebirds, multiple realms for selected. Whether an action is considered \u0026ldquo;new\u0026rdquo; was determined based on the context of the action - the action is considered \u0026ldquo;new\u0026rdquo; if the action referred to plans to develop/implement the action. If the action already existed as an national strategy or action plan, it was considered \u0026ldquo;existing\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe selected actions were then attributed to one or more of the GBF targets. The relevant GBF target was either directly stated in the NBSAP, or we inferred its relevance to one of the targets based on the content. For instance, Argentina\u0026rsquo;s action program which \u0026ldquo;aims to reduce the interaction between sea turtles and marine debris found in areas used for their feeding and as migratory corridors\u0026rdquo; was deduced to be applicable to Target 7 on reducing pollution.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe analysed during this study are available in the Convention on Biological Diversity Online Reporting Tool repository, https://www.cbd.int/nbsap.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor contributions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA.L., D.C.D., and L.K.B. conceptualized the manuscript idea; A.L. conducted the main analysis, prepared the figures, and wrote the main text; A.P., S.K., A.W.S., F.D., M.V. provided extensive input to the editing of the manuscript; all authors contributed significantly to the final revisions of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFunding provided under an Australian Research Council Discovery Project (DP240101026: DCD, AL, LKB).\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcknowledgements \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to acknowledge Narelle Montgomery for her time with providing valuable edits to our manuscript. \u003c/p\u003e\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare no conflict of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBeger, M., Metaxas, A., Balbar, A. C., McGowan, J. A., Daigle, R., Kuempel, C. D., Treml, E. A., \u0026amp; Possingham, H. P. (2022). Demystifying ecological connectivity for actionable spatial conservation planning. Trends in Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution, 37(12), 1079\u0026ndash;1091. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2022.09.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tree.2022.09.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBell-James, J., \u0026amp; Watson, J. E. M. (2025). Ambitions in national plans do not yet match bold international protection and restoration commitments. Nature Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution, 9(3), 417\u0026ndash;424. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02636-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41559-025-02636-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBentley, L. K., Nisthar, D., Fujioka, E., Curtice, C., DeLand, S. E., Donnelly, B., Harrison, A.-L., Heywood, E. I., Kot, C. Y., Ortu\u0026ntilde;o Crespo, G., Poulin, S., Halpin, P. N., \u0026amp; Dunn, D. C. (2025). Marine megavertebrate migrations connect the global ocean. Nature Communications, 16(1), 4089. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59271-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41467-025-59271-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCaldwell, I. R., Hobbs, J.-P. A., Bowen, B. W., Cowman, P. F., DiBattista, J. D., Whitney, J. L., Ahti, P. A., Belderok, R., Canfield, S., Coleman, R. R., Iacchei, M., Johnston, E. C., Knapp, I., Nalley, E. M., Staeudle, T. M., \u0026amp; L\u0026aacute;ruson, \u0026Aacute;. J. (2024). Global trends and biases in biodiversity conservation research. Cell Reports Sustainability, 1(5), 100082. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsus.2024.100082\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.crsus.2024.100082\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConvention on Biological Diversity. (2018). Decision COP 14/34 Comprehensive and participatory process for the preparation of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (Decision No. 14/34). Convention on Biological Diversity.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConvention on Biological Diversity. (2020). Decision 15/13 Cooperation with other conventions and international organizations (Decision No. 15/13). Convention on Biological Diversity.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConvention on Migratory Species. (2024a). CMS Engagement in CBD Processes Including the Global Biodiversity Framework (Resolution No. 14.3; p. 3).\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eConvention on Migratory Species. (2024b). Samarkand Strategic Plan for Migratory Species 2024\u0026ndash;2032 (Resolution No. 14.1; p. 19). United Nations Environment Programme.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eda Costa Dias, T., Silveira, L. F., \u0026amp; Francisco, M. R. (2024). Endemic and threatened birds as surrogates for identifying conservation priority areas and ecological corridors in the America\u0026rsquo;s most endangered habitat. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 21923. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-72948-1\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41598-024-72948-1\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGiakoumi, S., Richardson, A. J., Doxa, A., Moro, S., Andrello, M., Hanson, J. O., Hermoso, V., Mazor, T., McGowan, J., Kujala, H., Law, E., \u0026Aacute;lvarez-Romero, J. G., Magris, R. A., Gissi, E., Arafeh-Dalmau, N., Metaxas, A., Virtanen, E. A., Ban, N. C., Runya, R. M., \u0026hellip; Katsanevakis, S. (2025). Advances in systematic conservation planning to meet global biodiversity goals. Trends in Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution, 40(4), 395\u0026ndash;410. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2024.12.002\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tree.2024.12.002\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHarrison, A.-L., Costa, D. P., Winship, A. J., Benson, S. R., Bograd, S. J., Antolos, M., Carlisle, A. B., Dewar, H., Dutton, P. H., Jorgensen, S. J., Kohin, S., Mate, B. R., Robinson, P. W., Schaefer, K. M., Shaffer, S. A., Shillinger, G. L., Simmons, S. E., Weng, K. C., Gjerde, K. M., \u0026amp; Block, B. A. (2018). The political biogeography of migratory marine predators. Nature Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution, 2(10), 1571\u0026ndash;1578. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0646-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1038/s41559-018-0646-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHughes, A. C., Orr, M. C., Ma, K., Costello, M. J., Waller, J., Provoost, P., Yang, Q., Zhu, C., \u0026amp; Qiao, H. (2021). Sampling biases shape our view of the natural world. Ecography, 44(9), 1259\u0026ndash;1269. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ecog.05926\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/ecog.05926\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eJohnson, C. M., Reisinger, R. R., Palacios, D. M., Friedlaender, A. S., Zerbini, A. N., Willson, A., Lancaster, M., Battle, J., Graham, A., Cosandey-Godin, A., Jacob, T., Felix, F., Grilly, E., Shahid, U., Houtman, N., Alberini, A., Montecinos, Y., Najera, E., \u0026amp; Kelez, S. (2022). Protecting Blue Corridors\u0026mdash;Challenges and solutions for migratory whales navigating national and international seas. Zenodo. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6196131\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5281/zenodo.6196131\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLascelles, B., Notarbartolo Di Sciara, G., Agardy, T., Cuttelod, A., Eckert, S., Glowka, L., Hoyt, E., Llewellyn, F., Louzao, M., Ridoux, V., \u0026amp; Tetley, M. J. (2014). Migratory marine species: Their status, threats and conservation management needs. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 24(S2), 111\u0026ndash;127. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/aqc.2512\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/aqc.2512\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMorten, J. M., Carneiro, A. P. B., Beal, M., Bonnet-Lebrun, A.-S., Dias, M. P., Rouyer, M.-M., Harrison, A.-L., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Sol\u0026iacute;s, J., Jones, V. R., Garcia Alonso, V. A., Antolos, M., Arata, J. A., Barbraud, C., Bell, E. A., Bell, M., Bose, S., Broni, S., de L Brooke, M., Butchart, S. H. M., \u0026hellip; Davies, T. E. (2025). Global Marine Flyways Identified for Long-Distance Migrating Seabirds From Tracking Data. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 34(2), e70004. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/geb.70004\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/geb.70004\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeubert, S., McGowan, J., Metcalfe, K., Hanson, J. O., Buenafe, K. C. V., Dabal\u0026agrave;, A., Dunn, D. C., Everett, J. D., Possingham, H. P., Stelzenm\u0026uuml;ller, V., Estep, A., Ervin, J., \u0026amp; Richardson, A. J. (2025). Multiple-use spatial planning for sustainable development and conservation. Trends in Ecology \u0026amp; Evolution, 40(11), 1126\u0026ndash;1142. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2025.09.007\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.tree.2025.09.007\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePodda, C., \u0026amp; Porporato, E. M. D. (2023). Marine spatial planning for connectivity and conservation through ecological corridors between marine protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures. Frontiers in Marine Science, 10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2023.1271397\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fmars.2023.1271397\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRunge, C. A., Gallo-Cajiao, E., Carey, M. J., Garnett, S. T., Fuller, R. A., \u0026amp; McCormack, P. C. (2017). Coordinating Domestic Legislation and International Agreements to Conserve Migratory Species: A Case Study from Australia. Conservation Letters, 10(6), 765\u0026ndash;772. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12345\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/conl.12345\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRunge, C. A., Martin, T. G., Possingham, H. P., Willis, S. G., \u0026amp; Fuller, R. A. (2014). Conserving mobile species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(7), 395\u0026ndash;402. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1890/130237\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1890/130237\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSecretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2011). Convention on Biological Diversity (p. 36). United Nations Environment Programme.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSequeira, A. M. M., Rodr\u0026iacute;guez, J. P., Marley, S. A., Calich, H. J., van der Mheen, M., VanCompernolle, M., Arrowsmith, L. M., Peel, L. R., Queiroz, N., Vedor, M., da Costa, I., Mucientes, G., Couto, A., Humphries, N. E., Abalo-Morla, S., Abascal, F. J., Abercrombie, D. L., Abrantes, K., Abreu-Grobois, F. A., \u0026hellip; Egu\u0026iacute;luz, V. M. (2025). Global tracking of marine megafauna space use reveals how to achieve conservation targets. Science, 388(6751), 1086\u0026ndash;1097. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1126/science.adl0239\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1126/science.adl0239\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eShuter, J. L., Broderick, A. C., Agnew, D. J., Jonz\u0026eacute;n, N., Godley, B. J., Milner-Gulland, E. J., \u0026amp; Thirgood, S. (2011). Conservation and management of migratory species. In E. J. Milner-Gulland, J. M. Fryxell, \u0026amp; A. R. E. Sinclair (Eds.), Animal Migration: A Synthesis (p. 0). Oxford University Press. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568994.003.0011\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199568994.003.0011\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNEP-WCMC. (2024). State of the World\u0026rsquo;s Migratory Species. UNEP-WCMC.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eUNEP-WCMC, \u0026amp; IUCN. (2024). Protected Planet Report 2024. UNEP-WCMC and IUCN.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-biodiversity","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"npjbiodivers","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Biodiversity](https://www.nature.com/npjbiodivers/)","snPcode":"44185","submissionUrl":"https://mts-npjbiodivers.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"npj Biodiversity","twitterHandle":"@npjbiodiversity","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"npj","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8868377/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8868377/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eNational Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans (NBSAPs) are the main instrument for Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to develop and report on their implementation of the Convention. They promote the synergies between various other multilateral environmental agreements, including the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS). Strengthening synergies between different Conventions can enhance collaboration, knowledge sharing, and implementation - ultimately accelerate progress towards global biodiversity goals. Here, we present a systematic review of revised NBSAPs submitted since the 15th CBD Conference of Parties to assess the integration of migratory species and the alignment between the CMS within the NBSAPs. We find an emerging direction towards establishing ecological corridors and integrating spatial planning for migratory species conservation, as well as increased actions towards reducing bycatch for marine migrants. Overall, while we find that explicit attention to migratory species in these documents remains limited, NBSAPs represent a tool for countries to incorporate relevant conservation actions that benefit these species. These findings underscore the need for stronger, cross-target integration of migratory species within NBSAPs to enhance policy coherence and complement CMS commitments.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Collaboration across environmental agreements is key for migratory species conservation","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-03-10 11:16:26","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8868377/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"258182318214617311935926546508376619724","date":"2026-04-27T10:20:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"161479928716560809436575671239615426761","date":"2026-03-19T04:14:28+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2026-03-16T15:58:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2026-02-18T05:32:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2026-02-18T04:07:09+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"npj Biodiversity","date":"2026-02-13T06:45:58+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"npj-biodiversity","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":false,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"npjbiodivers","sideBox":"Learn more about [npj Biodiversity](https://www.nature.com/npjbiodivers/)","snPcode":"44185","submissionUrl":"https://mts-npjbiodivers.nature.com/cgi-bin/main.plex","title":"npj Biodiversity","twitterHandle":"@npjbiodiversity","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"ejp","reportingPortfolio":"npj","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"2d5a497b-2feb-4320-a8e2-7aa81505de4d","owner":[],"postedDate":"March 10th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[{"id":63109804,"name":"Biological sciences/Ecology"},{"id":63109805,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Ecology"},{"id":63109806,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Environmental social sciences"},{"id":63109807,"name":"Earth and environmental sciences/Ocean sciences"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-03-16T16:13:10+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-03-10 11:16:26","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8868377","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8868377","identity":"rs-8868377","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"XKTyCvWXoU3ODBz1xrDgd","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}