Search

Abstract Marine migratory species require collaborative decision‐making because individuals move across jurisdictional boundaries within and between countries. However, governance of these species is not always harmonized or truly collaborative. We analyzed the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia 2017 (the Plan) and three of its subsidiary plans for evidence of collaborative governance using a two‐part gap analysis and interviews with environmental managers, scientists, and other stakeholders involved in the development of the Plan and in managing marine migratory species in Australia more generally. We applied existing adaptive and collaborative governance frameworks, which focused mainly on the social components of collaborative governance, and identified a need for a new, interdisciplinary framework for the collaborative governance of marine turtles in Australia. We applied our new framework to the Plan and identified that while the biological components of the Plan were well‐developed, stakeholder analysis and engagement details were largely missing. We recognize that recovery plans are inevitably silent about certain issues but suggest that plans would benefit from including better guidance on stakeholder engagement and analysis. Our framework is directly relevant to harmonizing the management of marine turtles across jurisdictions in Australia but it could also be applied to managing threats towards other migratory species that inhabit large marine jurisdictions.

Marine migratory species require collaborative decision‐making because individuals move across jurisdictional boundaries within and between countries. However, governance of these species is not always harmonized or truly collaborative. We analyzed the Recovery Plan for Marine Turtles in Australia 2017 (the Plan) and three of its subsidiary plans for evidence of collaborative governance using a two‐part gap analysis and interviews with environmental managers, scientists, and other stakeholders involved in the development of the Plan and in managing marine migratory species in Australia more generally. We applied existing adaptive and collaborative governance frameworks, which focused mainly on the social components of collaborative governance, and identified a need for a new, interdisciplinary framework for the collaborative governance of marine turtles in Australia. We applied our new framework to the Plan and identified that while the biological components of the Plan were well‐developed, stakeholder analysis and engagement details were largely missing. We recognize that recovery plans are inevitably silent about certain issues but suggest that plans would benefit from including better guidance on stakeholder engagement and analysis. Our framework is directly relevant to harmonizing the management of marine turtles across jurisdictions in Australia but it could also be applied to managing threats towards other migratory species that inhabit large marine jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]