AU 2025: Expert cross-jurisdictional conservation

Why This Trend Analysis Matters Now

Three signals have truly caught my attention in the past six months regarding how stakeholders can build effective cross-jurisdictional conservation partnerships, and they’re pointing toward a significant shift that, frankly, most professionals aren’t yet fully preparing for. First, Australia’s national environmental law reforms are moving from concept to legislation, bringing with them a much clearer federal–state coordination mandate that will fundamentally reshape how we approach conservation governance. Second, climate-driven species shifts and extreme events are forcing land and sea managers to think in terms of “problemsheds” (think basins, bioregions, and flyways) that inherently ignore political borders—a paradigm shift that’s accelerating faster than many anticipated. Third, and this is crucial, funders are demanding traceable, investor-grade outcomes—pushing partnerships to standardize data, governance, and reporting across jurisdictions in ways that would have seemed impossible just five years ago.

Here’s what most people don’t realize: the convergence of these three forces isn’t just creating opportunities—it’s creating an entirely new operating environment where traditional, single-jurisdiction approaches are becoming not just inefficient, but genuinely obsolete. The partnerships that recognize this shift early and adapt their structures accordingly will capture the lion’s share of available funding and achieve disproportionate conservation impact.

For Australian practitioners, cross-border collaboration has decidedly moved from a ‘nice-to-have’ to an absolute non-negotiable. Whether you’re stitching together the Great Eastern Ranges, aligning water recovery in the Murray–Darling Basin, or coordinating sea-country outcomes for migratory shorebirds across the East Asian–Australasian Flyway, effectiveness now hinges on how well we share authority, data, and financing mechanisms across multiple governments and Traditional Owners. The old model of parallel, loosely coordinated efforts simply cannot deliver the scale and speed of response that our current environmental challenges demand. For a practical companion on tangible corridor design options, see our evidence-based habitat connectivity measures for Australia.

What’s particularly striking is how rapidly the policy landscape is crystallizing around this need. The Nature Positive Plan, announced in December 2022, explicitly calls for “landscape-scale conservation” and “coordinated action across all levels of government.” This isn’t aspirational language—it’s a clear signal that future funding will be tied to demonstrable cross-jurisdictional coordination. The partnerships that position themselves ahead of this curve will find themselves with significant competitive advantages in the emerging funding landscape.

Current State: Where Australia Is Today

What’s interesting is, I’ve genuinely noticed a shift from purely project-led collaborations to more enduring bioregional partnerships, often formalized with agreements and shared performance indicators. This evolution represents a maturation of the conservation sector’s understanding of what actually works at scale. Australia’s 2021 State of the Environment report (released 2022 by the Department of Climate Change, Energy, the Environment and Water) starkly concluded that ecosystems are in poor and deteriorating condition, and it explicitly called out the urgent need for coordinated, cross-jurisdictional responses. The report’s findings weren’t just sobering—they were a wake-up call that business-as-usual approaches have fundamentally failed to arrest environmental decline.

Australia has, of course, endorsed the global 30x30 target under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, committing to protect 30% of land and seas by 2030. CAPAD (Collaborative Australian Protected Areas Database) 2022 data show more than 22% of land and a large share of our marine jurisdiction are protected—yet, those protected areas don’t automatically function as connected systems without robust cross-border cooperation. The gap between coverage and connectivity represents one of the most significant opportunities in Australian conservation today.

We already have working models, which is encouraging and instructive. The Australian Alps National Parks Co-operative Management Program is a long-standing cross-border partnership among the ACT, NSW, and Victoria, operating under a memorandum of understanding with joint planning and operations. What makes this partnership particularly effective is its operational integration—shared fire management protocols, coordinated pest control strategies, and unified visitor management approaches that treat the Alps as a single ecological unit rather than three separate administrative territories.

The Reef 2050 Long-Term Sustainability Plan—co-governed by the Australian and Queensland governments—received a substantial federal injection in 2022 (announced as AUD$1 billion over nine years) to drive outcomes that fundamentally rely on coordinated land-to-reef actions across multiple catchments. This investment represents more than just funding; it’s a practical demonstration of how federal resources can be leveraged to drive coordinated action across jurisdictional boundaries. The plan’s governance structure, featuring joint steering committees and shared performance indicators, provides a template that other cross-jurisdictional initiatives are increasingly adopting.

The Murray–Darling Basin Plan remains Australia’s most complex cross-jurisdictional arrangement, involving the Commonwealth and four states in managing water resources across 14% of the continent. The Water Amendment (Restoring Our Rivers) Act 2023 extended timeframes and broadened tools to recover environmental water, a practical acknowledgement that river systems simply don’t respect borders. The Basin Plan’s evolution over more than a decade offers crucial lessons about the importance of adaptive governance, the challenges of balancing competing interests, and the critical role of independent oversight in maintaining partnership integrity.

Indigenous co-governance is, thankfully, increasingly central to these arrangements. Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) now cover more than 80 million hectares and make up a substantial share of the National Reserve System. The AIATSIS Code of Ethics (2020) and the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance are setting a much-needed bar for data sharing and decision-making with Traditional Owners across jurisdictions. This shift toward genuine co-governance represents not just ethical progress, but practical recognition that Traditional Owners possess irreplaceable knowledge systems and governance approaches that are essential for effective landscape-scale conservation.

The emergence of Indigenous-led initiatives like the Firesticks Alliance, which now operates across multiple states and territories, demonstrates how Traditional Owner networks can transcend colonial boundaries to restore ancient land management practices at bioregional scales. Cultural burning programs are increasingly being integrated into state fire management strategies, creating opportunities for cross-jurisdictional coordination that simultaneously addresses ecological restoration, fire risk reduction, and cultural revitalization.

Methodologically, my trend assessment synthesizes: Commonwealth and state policy updates (EPBC reforms and the Nature Repair Market Act 2023), federal and state budget measures since 2021, program evaluations (Reef 2050, Basin Plan), national datasets (CAPAD, Atlas of Living Australia, TERN), and cross-jurisdiction case studies. The analysis also draws on emerging practice from international jurisdictions, particularly the United States’ experience with landscape conservation cooperatives and Canada’s approach to transboundary conservation areas. Notably, direct Australian literature explicitly labelled “cross-jurisdictional conservation partnerships” is surprisingly sparse; most relevant evidence sits within water, reef, corridor, and Indigenous land/sea management evaluations. This highlights a fascinating gap in how we frame and research these critical collaborations, suggesting significant opportunities for academic and policy research that could inform best practice development.

Emerging Patterns: Four Signals to Watch for Collaborative Conservation

Here’s the thing though: the landscape of Australian conservation is shifting rapidly, and these shifts are creating both unprecedented opportunities and significant risks for organizations that fail to adapt. These four emerging patterns aren’t just minor adjustments; they represent fundamental changes in how effective partnerships will operate, how funding will flow, and how conservation impact will be measured and verified. Pay close attention to these, as they’re shaping the future of environmental management in ways that will determine which organizations thrive and which struggle to remain relevant.

1. From Projects to Platforms: Why Enduring Governance is Now Non-Negotiable

Key Insight: Sustainable conservation demands formal, long-term governance structures, not just ad-hoc project collaborations.

Here’s what most people don’t realize about successful conservation partnerships: the ones that deliver lasting impact aren’t built around projects—they’re built around platforms. Effective partnerships are consolidating around enduring governance platforms—think joint secretariats, shared risk registers, and annual public reporting—rather than being limited to single funding rounds. The Alps program, Reef 2050 governance, and the evolving Basin arrangements clearly show what’s possible when accountability and longevity are truly embedded in partnership DNA.

What’s genuinely interesting is that I expect future mooted reforms under the Nature Positive Plan to institutionalise “region-scale outcome compacts,” explicitly linking federal investment to multi-state delivery plans. This represents a fundamental shift from the traditional grant-based funding model toward something more akin to infrastructure investment, where long-term outcomes are contractually specified and performance is continuously monitored. This move towards formal platforms isn’t just about efficiency; it’s about building trust and resilience for the long haul, especially when facing complex, multi-decadal challenges like climate change.

The most successful platforms share several characteristics: they establish clear decision-making protocols that prevent paralysis when urgent action is needed; they create shared risk registers that allow partners to anticipate and prepare for challenges before they become crises; and they implement transparent reporting mechanisms that build public confidence and political support. Try this approach and see the difference: instead of starting with project ideas, start with governance architecture. The projects will follow, but the platform will endure.

2. Outcome Transparency & Shared Baselines: The Data-Driven Revolution

Key Insight: Standardized, verifiable data and transparent outcomes are becoming the currency of conservation investment.

I’m seeing procurement templates increasingly shift to outcome-based contracts that use common indicators—metrics like habitat hectares, functional connectivity scores, waterbird abundance, or water quality loads—all anchored in national data assets such as the Atlas of Living Australia (ALA), TERN, and Digital Earth Australia. This shift represents more than just improved reporting; it’s a fundamental transformation in how conservation value is defined, measured, and traded.

The Nature Repair Market Act 2023, a significant piece of legislation, opens the door to biodiversity certificates under standard methods; expect these to demand auditable, cross-jurisdiction baselines and consistent monitoring. The Act’s emphasis on “additional” and “measurable” biodiversity outcomes is driving unprecedented standardization in monitoring protocols and baseline establishment. For the technology stack enabling this consistent monitoring—from AI detection to satellite analytics and acoustic sensing—see our take on AI and remote sensing for Australian conservation.

What’s particularly exciting is how digital platforms are enabling real-time data sharing and collaborative analysis. The Atlas of Living Australia now processes over 100 million species occurrence records, providing an unprecedented baseline for measuring conservation outcomes. TERN’s ecosystem surveillance plots offer standardized monitoring protocols that can be applied consistently across jurisdictions. Digital Earth Australia’s satellite-derived products enable landscape-scale monitoring at temporal and spatial scales that were unimaginable just a decade ago.

This isn’t just about reporting; it’s about building a robust, evidence-based foundation that can attract and justify significant investment from both public and private sources. The partnerships that master this data-driven approach will find themselves with compelling stories to tell investors, clear evidence of impact to share with the public, and robust baselines from which to demonstrate additionality in carbon and biodiversity markets.

3. Indigenous Co-Governance & Cultural Fire: Connecting Systems and Cultures

Key Insight: Embedding Indigenous decision rights and practices like cultural burning is critical for holistic, cross-border ecological success.

Cross-border partnerships are increasingly anchoring decision rights with Traditional Owners, diligently applying Free, Prior and Informed Consent and respecting Indigenous data sovereignty. This is a monumental and incredibly positive shift that represents far more than ethical progress—it’s a practical recognition that Traditional Owner knowledge systems and governance approaches are essential for effective landscape-scale conservation.

Cultural burning, for instance, is scaling impressively through state agencies and NRM groups, leading to demonstrable ecological outcomes and risk reduction across land tenure boundaries. The Firesticks Alliance now operates across multiple states, training both Indigenous and non-Indigenous practitioners in cultural burning techniques that have been refined over tens of thousands of years. Research is increasingly demonstrating that cultural burning creates mosaic landscapes that support higher biodiversity, reduce catastrophic fire risk, and maintain ecosystem resilience in ways that conventional fire management often cannot achieve.

This isn’t just programmatic implementation; critically, governance arrangements are adapting to genuinely embed Traditional Owner leadership across jurisdictions, moving beyond mere consultation to true co-governance. The development of Indigenous Protected Areas, which now cover more than 80 million hectares, demonstrates how Traditional Owner governance can operate effectively at landscape scales while respecting cultural protocols and maintaining connection to Country.

What’s particularly powerful is how Indigenous governance approaches often transcend colonial boundaries in ways that align naturally with ecological boundaries. Traditional Owner groups whose Country spans multiple states are increasingly asserting governance rights that reflect ecological rather than administrative boundaries, creating opportunities for bioregionally coherent management that colonial governance structures have struggled to achieve.

This approach recognizes that the deepest ecological understanding often comes from those who have stewarded the land for millennia, and that effective conservation requires not just scientific knowledge but also cultural knowledge, spiritual connection, and governance systems that operate on ecological rather than political timescales.

4. Blended Finance & Market Alignment: The Future of Funding

Key Insight: The convergence of public and private finance, through stacking compatible market mechanisms, will unlock new funding streams for conservation.

Reef Credits in Queensland catchments, ACCUs (including the blue carbon method), and the new biodiversity certificates framework are undeniably converging in ways that create unprecedented opportunities for innovative financing. I predicted in 2020 that biodiversity markets would shift from pilots to legislated frameworks within five years; the Nature Repair Market Act 2023 largely confirms that timeline, which is incredibly satisfying to see and validates the trajectory toward market-based conservation financing.

The next logical step is “stacking rules” that allow compatible carbon, water quality, and biodiversity outcomes without double counting—something partnerships will need to skillfully negotiate across disparate state regulatory settings. This technical challenge represents a significant opportunity for partnerships that can navigate the complexity and create standardized approaches that work across jurisdictions.

What’s particularly exciting is how blended finance approaches are enabling conservation projects to access capital markets in ways that were previously impossible. Public funding can be used to de-risk early-stage activities like landholder engagement and baseline establishment, while private capital can then be attracted through market mechanisms like carbon credits and biodiversity certificates to fund long-term management and monitoring.

The Great Barrier Reef Foundation’s Reef Credits program provides an instructive example of how water quality outcomes can be monetized to attract private investment in catchment management. Similar approaches are being developed for biodiversity outcomes, with early pilots demonstrating that private investors are willing to pay premium prices for high-quality, independently verified conservation outcomes.

This blended finance approach represents a powerful mechanism to attract capital at the scale required for truly impactful, cross-border conservation. The partnerships that master these financing mechanisms will find themselves with access to funding streams that dwarf traditional grant-based approaches, enabling conservation action at scales that match the magnitude of environmental challenges.

Driving Forces: Why These Trends Are Accelerating with Urgency

These aren’t just abstract ideas; powerful forces are actively pushing these trends forward, making them essential for anyone involved in Australian conservation. Understanding these driving forces is crucial for anticipating how quickly change will occur and where the greatest opportunities and risks lie.

• Climate and species shifts: Post–Black Summer dynamics and ongoing heatwaves/droughts are pushing species across borders at an alarming rate, making connectivity not just desirable, but a fundamental risk management necessity. The 2019-2020 bushfires burned 18.6 million hectares and killed an estimated 3 billion animals, creating an ecological crisis that transcends all administrative boundaries. Species are responding to these disturbances and ongoing climate pressures by shifting their ranges, often in ways that require coordinated management across multiple jurisdictions.

• Regulatory reforms: EPBC Act reform and a proposed national EPA are moving toward clearer roles for the Commonwealth in standard setting and enforcement, with states leading place-based delivery. This clarifies the playing field, for better or worse, and creates opportunities for partnerships that can operate effectively within this emerging federal-state framework. The proposed reforms emphasize national environmental standards that will require consistent implementation across jurisdictions, creating natural incentives for coordinated approaches.

• 30x30 and global alignment: International commitments require connected, representative, and effectively managed areas—going well beyond simple coverage targets. Australia has a global reputation to uphold here, and international scrutiny of conservation performance is intensifying. The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework includes specific targets for connectivity and ecosystem integrity that cannot be achieved through fragmented, single-jurisdiction approaches.

• Funding scrutiny: Governments and corporates now require highly defensible impact reporting; frustratingly, partnerships that can produce consistent, cross-border datasets will simply win investment. Those that can’t will struggle. The Australian Government’s commitment to evidence-based policy making, combined with increasing corporate focus on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) outcomes, is driving demand for conservation investments that can demonstrate clear, measurable impact.

• Biosecurity imperatives: The national response to red imported fire ants—backed by hundreds of millions since 2023—shows that cross-border biosecurity is now core conservation infrastructure, not an optional extra. The economic and ecological stakes are just too high. Invasive species don’t respect borders, and effective responses require coordinated surveillance, rapid response, and long-term management across jurisdictions.

• Technology enablers: Advances in remote sensing, environmental DNA, acoustic monitoring, and data analytics are making landscape-scale monitoring both technically feasible and economically viable in ways that weren’t possible even five years ago. These technologies are enabling the kind of consistent, cross-jurisdictional monitoring that effective partnerships require.

• Social license pressures: Public expectations for environmental performance are rising, and communities are increasingly demanding evidence that conservation investments are delivering tangible outcomes. Social media and digital platforms are making it easier for communities to organize around environmental issues that transcend local boundaries, creating political pressure for coordinated responses.

Future Implications: What This Means for Different Stakeholders

The implications of these shifts are profound and will touch every corner of the conservation sector. Understanding your role in this evolving landscape is critical for positioning your organization to thrive rather than merely survive the coming changes.

• State and territory agencies: Expect shared outcome compacts tying federal funds to multi-state delivery plans, complete with joint secretariats and standard indicators. Prepare to harmonise approvals and monitoring protocols—the old ways simply won’t cut it. Agencies that proactively develop cross-jurisdictional capabilities will find themselves in high demand as conveners and delivery partners. Those that remain siloed will increasingly find themselves excluded from major funding opportunities.

• Traditional Owners and Indigenous land/sea managers: Demand for co-governance will grow exponentially, creating unprecedented opportunities for Traditional Owner groups to assert governance rights and access resources for Country-based management. Data agreements aligned to the AIATSIS Code and CARE principles will become non-negotiable prerequisites for funding and data-sharing. This is about genuine partnership, not tokenism, and Traditional Owner groups that develop strong governance capabilities will find themselves with significant leverage in partnership negotiations.

• NRM bodies and NGOs: Competitive advantage will increasingly come from convening robust cross-border coalitions with auditable baselines and embedded dispute resolution. The Great Eastern Ranges model of regional alliances is incredibly instructive here, demonstrating how NGOs can play crucial convening roles in landscape-scale partnerships. Organizations that develop strong partnership facilitation capabilities will find themselves in high demand, while those that remain focused on single-issue or single-jurisdiction approaches will struggle to access funding and achieve impact.

• Private landholders and business: Expect much clearer rules for stacking biodiversity certificates with ACCUs and, in reef catchments, water quality credits. Ten-year-plus stewardship contracts will become far more common, offering long-term certainty for both landholders and investors. Businesses that develop capabilities in environmental markets will find new revenue streams, while those that ignore these opportunities may find themselves at competitive disadvantages as environmental performance becomes increasingly important for market access and social license.

• Researchers and tech providers: Demand will skyrocket for automated, standard-compliant monitoring workflows (e.g., eDNA, acoustics, and satellite-derived indicators) that are validated across jurisdictions and reference sites. This is a huge opportunity for innovation, particularly for providers that can develop monitoring solutions that work consistently across different ecosystems and jurisdictional frameworks. The organizations that can bridge the gap between cutting-edge science and practical implementation will find themselves with significant market opportunities.

• Consultants and service providers: The complexity of cross-jurisdictional partnerships will create demand for specialized services in areas like governance design, data architecture, stakeholder engagement, and performance measurement. Consultants that develop deep expertise in these areas will find themselves with growing market opportunities, while generalist providers may struggle to compete.

Frequently Asked Questions

Question 1: What governance model works best across state and territory borders?

Models that thoughtfully separate strategy from delivery tend to succeed most often, and this separation is crucial for managing the complexity inherent in cross-jurisdictional partnerships. A joint steering committee sets targets and risk appetite, providing strategic direction while remaining small enough to make decisions efficiently; a small, dedicated secretariat coordinates funding, data standards, and performance, serving as the operational backbone that ensures consistency and continuity; and regional delivery partners then execute the on-ground work, bringing local knowledge and implementation capacity.

The Australian Alps co-operative program and Reef 2050 governance powerfully illustrate this separation, demonstrating how strategic oversight can be maintained while allowing operational flexibility. What makes these models particularly effective is their clear delineation of roles and responsibilities, which prevents the confusion and conflict that often plague complex partnerships.

I predict future Commonwealth–state agreements will formalise this design with public, annual outcome reporting and a clear, pre-defined dispute resolution pathway. The key is building governance structures that are robust enough to handle disagreements and adaptive enough to respond to changing circumstances, while maintaining the trust and commitment of all partners.

Question 2: How can we align different state regulations and approvals?

Use an inter-agency Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to establish “no-wrong-door” approvals for cross-border projects, a shared environmental outcomes framework, and mutual recognition of monitoring protocols. This approach recognizes that regulatory alignment doesn’t require identical regulations—it requires compatible processes and mutual recognition of standards.

The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment provides a strong basis for clarifying roles; EPBC reforms are likely to further standardise national environmental standards, creating a more coherent framework for cross-jurisdictional projects. The proposed national environmental standards will establish minimum requirements that all jurisdictions must meet, while allowing flexibility in how those standards are implemented.

Expect pilots where one state bravely leads approvals on behalf of others under agreed national standards. This “lead agency” approach has been successfully used in other sectors and offers a pragmatic way to reduce regulatory burden while maintaining appropriate oversight. It’s a pragmatic approach to a frustratingly complex problem that recognizes the reality of federal systems while creating pathways for efficient project delivery.

Question 3: Can biodiversity credits be stacked with carbon credits in Australia?

The Nature Repair Market Act 2023 enables biodiversity certificates; the Emissions Reduction Fund enables ACCUs. Stacking is indeed possible where methods are compatible and, critically, outcomes are clearly separable. The key principle is additionality—each credit type must represent a distinct, additional outcome that wouldn’t have occurred without the specific intervention.

I expect DCCEEW guidance to clarify stacking guardrails (additionality, no double counting, robust baselines) and to prioritise projects that deliver connectivity or climate refugia outcomes across borders. The guidance will likely establish clear protocols for demonstrating that biodiversity and carbon outcomes are genuinely additional and don’t represent double counting of the same environmental benefit.

This is where smart design meets financial innovation, and the partnerships that master these technical requirements will unlock significant funding opportunities. Early movers in developing stacking methodologies will likely influence the development of national standards and gain competitive advantages in emerging markets.

Question 4: How do we share data while respecting Indigenous data sovereignty?

Adopt data-sharing agreements that operationalise the AIATSIS Code and CARE Principles, including explicit consent processes, culturally appropriate metadata, and role-based access. This isn’t just about compliance—it’s about building trust and ensuring that data sharing actually serves Indigenous interests and priorities.

Use federated architectures: keep sensitive data on Country under community control while sharing aggregated indicators for joint reporting. This technical approach allows partnerships to meet reporting requirements while respecting Indigenous data sovereignty. Federated systems enable Traditional Owner groups to maintain control over their data while participating in broader monitoring and reporting frameworks.

Partnerships that genuinely embed Indigenous governance in the data pipeline are far more likely to attract durable funding and build lasting trust. This is a non-negotiable, and organizations that treat Indigenous data sovereignty as an afterthought will find themselves excluded from partnerships and funding opportunities. The most successful approaches involve Traditional Owner groups in designing data governance frameworks from the outset, rather than trying to retrofit Indigenous considerations into existing systems.

Question 5: What metrics should we use to prove cross-border impact?

Prioritise a small, comparable set: functional connectivity (e.g., structural connectivity indices or telemetry evidence), condition of key habitats (using standard habitat hectares), abundance/occupancy for sentinel species, water quality loads in connected catchments, and threat reduction metrics (e.g., invasive control extent). The key is selecting metrics that are meaningful to stakeholders, measurable with available technology, and comparable across jurisdictions.

While CAPAD coverage is useful, it’s simply insufficient without robust evidence of effective management and tangible connectivity improvements. Coverage metrics tell us about inputs, but impact metrics tell us about outcomes. Funders and communities are increasingly demanding evidence of actual conservation outcomes, not just conservation activities.

It’s about impact, not just area, and the partnerships that can demonstrate clear causal links between their activities and measurable environmental outcomes will be the ones that attract sustained funding and support. The most compelling metrics are those that can be understood by non-experts while being rigorous enough to satisfy scientific scrutiny.

Strategic Recommendations: How to Prepare and Adapt for the Future

To truly thrive in this evolving landscape, a proactive and strategic approach is essential. These recommendations aren’t just suggestions; they’re a playbook for building resilient, effective cross-jurisdictional partnerships that can deliver conservation outcomes at the scale and speed that current challenges demand.

1. Formalise a “Problemshed” Partnership: Define Your Ecological Unit

Key Insight: Effective collaboration starts with defining the ecological problem, not administrative boundaries.

Here’s what separates successful partnerships from struggling ones: they start with ecology, not politics. Define the ecological unit that truly matters (e.g., bioregion, basin, flyway), then sign a robust cross-jurisdiction MoU with a joint secretariat, a clear risk register, and an agreed dispute resolution pathway. Crucially, embed Traditional Owner governance from day one; their insights are foundational to understanding the ecological unit and its management needs.

What’s interesting is that research consistently shows partnerships with clear, shared objectives from the outset achieve significantly higher success rates in conservation outcomes. The process of defining the problemshed forces partners to align on what success looks like and how it will be measured, creating the foundation for effective collaboration.

Try this approach and see the difference: instead of starting with what each organization wants to achieve, start with what the ecosystem needs to thrive. This ecological focus naturally leads to more coherent strategies and clearer success metrics.

2. Adopt Shared Outcomes and Indicators: Speak a Common Language of Success

Key Insight: Aligning on a few core, measurable indicators drives accountability and attracts investment.

Align on 5–7 high-impact indicators anchored in national datasets (ALA, TERN, Digital Earth Australia). Require all delivery partners to report to this shared baseline on a common cadence. This isn’t just about data; it’s about creating a unified narrative of progress that resonates with funders, communities, and political leaders.

For instance, the use of a consistent “habitat hectares” metric across the Victorian and NSW Great Eastern Ranges has significantly improved comparative reporting and enabled partners to demonstrate cumulative impact across jurisdictions. When everyone speaks the same measurement language, it becomes much easier to tell compelling stories about collective achievement.

The key is selecting indicators that are meaningful to all partners, measurable with available resources, and sensitive enough to detect change over relevant timeframes. The most effective partnerships invest significant time upfront in indicator selection and baseline establishment, recognizing that this foundation is essential for long-term success.

3. Create a Joint Data Architecture: The Backbone of Collaboration

Key Insight: Interoperable data systems are essential for transparent reporting and robust decision-making across borders.

Use interoperable schemas and open APIs wherever possible. Pair “open-by-default” environmental data with role-based access for culturally sensitive layers. Plan meticulously for method validation and calibration across jurisdictions—this is often where partnerships stumble, and getting it right from the beginning saves enormous time and resources later.

The technical architecture should enable seamless data sharing while respecting different partners’ data governance requirements. This often means building federated systems that can accommodate different data standards and access requirements while enabling consistent reporting and analysis.

What’s particularly important is ensuring that data systems are designed for long-term sustainability, not just immediate project needs. The partnerships that invest in robust, scalable data architecture find themselves with significant advantages as they grow and evolve.

4. Design Blended Finance Deliberately: Unlock Diverse Capital

Key Insight: Strategically sequencing public and private funds can de-risk projects and scale impact.

Sequence public funds to de-risk early actions (e.g., landholder agreements), then intelligently crowd in private capital via ACCUs, biodiversity certificates, or water quality credits. This sequencing is crucial—public funding should be used to address market failures and reduce risks that prevent private investment, not to compete with private capital.

For a comprehensive policy-and-funding playbook, see our insights on proven policy levers for Australian conservation. This strategic layering of finance is a game-changer, moving us beyond sole reliance on government grants toward sustainable, diversified funding models.

The most successful blended finance approaches create clear pathways for private investors to understand and price conservation outcomes, while using public funding to address the coordination challenges and market development needs that private capital cannot efficiently address.

5. Institutionalise Indigenous Co-Governance: True Partnership, True Impact

Key Insight: Genuine Indigenous co-governance, with decision rights and resourcing, is the most effective path to lasting conservation outcomes.

Establish a Traditional Owner leadership group with explicit decision rights, a robust cultural heritage protection protocol, and data governance aligned with AIATSIS and CARE principles. Importantly, resource this adequately—it’s an investment, not an overhead. Co-governance requires dedicated funding for Traditional Owner participation, capacity building, and decision-making processes.

The success of many Indigenous Protected Areas, covering over 80 million hectares, powerfully demonstrates the ecological and cultural benefits of this approach. Indigenous-managed lands consistently show better biodiversity outcomes and greater resilience to environmental stressors, while also delivering cultural and social benefits that conventional management approaches cannot achieve.

What’s particularly important is ensuring that co-governance arrangements are designed by Traditional Owners, not imposed by non-Indigenous partners. The most effective partnerships involve Traditional Owner groups in designing governance frameworks from the outset, ensuring that cultural protocols and decision-making processes are properly embedded.

6. Plan for Fire Strategically: Connectivity Through Cultural Land Management

Integrate cross-border cultural burning and fuel management as essential ecological tools for connectivity and threatened species recovery. This isn’t just about hazard reduction; it’s about restoring ancient practices for modern ecological benefit. Cultural burning creates the mosaic landscapes that many native species require while reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfires that can fragment habitats and disrupt connectivity.

The Firesticks Alliance model demonstrates how cultural burning knowledge can be shared across jurisdictions while respecting cultural protocols and Traditional Owner intellectual property. For implementation insights, see our guide on cultural burning for Australian fire management.

Strategic fire management requires coordination across land tenures and jurisdictions, making it a natural focus for cross-jurisdictional partnerships. The partnerships that integrate cultural burning into their connectivity strategies will achieve multiple benefits while building stronger relationships with Traditional Owner communities.

7. Build Evidence Through Pilots: Test, Learn, Then Scale

Launch a focused 12–18 month pilot focused on one corridor or catchment. Critically, predefine clear success metrics and ensure independent evaluation. Only scale after you’ve rigorously de-risked the model and proven its efficacy under real-world conditions. This iterative approach minimizes risk and builds confidence among partners and funders.

The pilot phase should test not just technical approaches but also governance processes, data systems, and stakeholder engagement strategies. Use the pilot to identify and resolve the coordination challenges that could undermine larger-scale implementation.

What’s particularly important is designing pilots that can genuinely test the partnership model, not just the conservation interventions. The most valuable pilots are those that stress-test governance arrangements and reveal the adjustments needed for successful scaling.

8. Communicate Like Infrastructure: Position Conservation as a Public Good

Treat connectivity and biosecurity as essential public goods—like roads or hospitals. Publish annual “state of the partnership” scorecards; crucially, pair them with compelling human stories to maintain public consent and political momentum. This framing helps build the sustained political support that long-term conservation requires.

The most effective communication strategies combine rigorous performance data with stories that help communities understand why cross-jurisdictional conservation matters for their daily lives. Connect conservation outcomes to things people care about: clean water, fire safety, recreational opportunities, and economic benefits.

This frames conservation not as an expense, but as a vital investment in our shared future. The partnerships that master this communication challenge will find themselves with stronger political support and greater community engagement.

Timeline Perspective: What to Watch in the Next 6–18 Months

The next 6–18 months will be pivotal for the future of cross-jurisdictional conservation in Australia. Keep a close eye on these developments, as they will significantly shape the operational landscape and determine which approaches become standard practice versus which remain experimental.

• EPBC reform package: Watch closely for legislated national environmental standards and the final shape of Environmental Protection Australia (especially its compliance focus). These will profoundly influence federal–state roles in cross-border delivery and create new opportunities for partnerships that can operate effectively within the reformed regulatory framework. The timing and scope of these reforms will determine how quickly the regulatory environment shifts toward supporting cross-jurisdictional approaches.

• Nature Repair Market rulemaking: Expect critical method development and clear guidance on stacking with ACCUs. Early biodiversity certificate projects will inevitably set de facto standards for baselines and monitoring, making it crucial to engage with early pilots and method development processes. The organizations that influence these early standards will have significant advantages in the emerging biodiversity markets.

• Murray–Darling implementation milestones: Delivery pathways for environmental water recovery under the Restoring Our Rivers amendments will clarify cross-state governance and accountability—a true test case for how complex cross-jurisdictional arrangements can adapt to changing circumstances. The success or failure of these implementation efforts will influence how future cross-jurisdictional partnerships are designed and funded.

• Reef 2050 reporting: Annual reports will be crucial for showing whether land-to-reef coordination is genuinely accelerating water quality improvements at catchment scales. These reports will provide important evidence about the effectiveness of cross-jurisdictional governance models and may influence the design of future landscape-scale partnerships.

• CAPAD updates and regional strategies: Look for CAPAD updates and state biodiversity strategy refreshes to explicitly address connectivity and effective management, not just area coverage. This is a key indicator of progress toward more sophisticated approaches to conservation planning and performance measurement.

• Biosecurity escalation: National action on red imported fire ants will be a bellwether for how quickly partners can align funding, surveillance, and community mobilisation across borders. It’s a high-stakes, real-time test of cross-jurisdictional coordination capabilities that will provide important lessons for other conservation challenges.

• Climate adaptation funding: Watch for new federal climate adaptation funding that explicitly requires cross-jurisdictional coordination. The design of these funding programs will signal government priorities and create incentives for particular types of partnership arrangements.

Countertrends and Obstacles

It’s important to acknowledge that several friction points could, unfortunately, slow progress and create challenges for even well-designed partnerships. Understanding these obstacles is crucial for developing strategies to overcome them and building resilience into partnership arrangements.

State planning laws and offsets policies still diverge frustratingly, making cross-border projects administratively heavy and expensive. Different jurisdictions have different requirements for environmental impact assessment, offset calculations, and compliance monitoring, creating complexity that can discourage cross-border collaboration. The transaction costs of navigating multiple regulatory systems can be prohibitive for smaller organizations and projects.

Trust, let’s be honest, is fragile where past offset schemes have underperformed or where previous partnerships have failed to deliver promised outcomes. The conservation sector has a mixed track record with large-scale collaborations, and skepticism about new partnership models is often justified by past experience. Building trust requires consistent performance over time, transparent reporting, and genuine accountability for outcomes.

Short budget cycles constantly collide with the inherently long ecological timeframes required for meaningful conservation outcomes. Political cycles and annual budget processes create pressure for short-term results that may not align with the time scales needed for ecosystem restoration and species recovery. This temporal mismatch creates ongoing tension in partnership design and implementation.

Data licensing and privacy constraints can seriously block sharing, especially for culturally sensitive or threatened species data. Different organizations have different data governance requirements, and legal constraints around data sharing can prevent the kind of integrated analysis that effective partnerships require. Indigenous data sovereignty requirements, while essential, add additional complexity to data sharing arrangements.

Capacity constraints in key organizations can limit partnership effectiveness, particularly where partnerships require specialized skills in areas like governance design, data management, or stakeholder engagement. Many conservation organizations are already stretched thin, and taking on additional partnership responsibilities can strain existing capacity.

The antidote, in my experience, is formal governance (with clear roles and dispute resolution), long-term funding envelopes, transparent metrics, and community consent baked in—not bolted on as an afterthought. The partnerships that anticipate these challenges and build resilience into their design are far more likely to succeed than those that assume good intentions will overcome structural obstacles.

Predictions (With Humility)

In 2020, I predicted that corridors would move from boutique projects to “natural infrastructure” status within five years; we now clearly see this in procurement language and budget framing, which is incredibly validating and suggests that the underlying trends driving cross-jurisdictional collaboration are indeed accelerating as anticipated. Looking ahead, here are a few more predictions, offered with the necessary humility given the complexities and uncertainties inherent in predicting policy and market developments:

• By 2026: At least two cross-border Australian partnerships will publish investor-grade impact reports with independently verified connectivity metrics, setting a new benchmark for transparency and accountability in conservation partnerships. These reports will likely influence funding requirements and performance standards for future partnerships, creating pressure for all partnerships to adopt similar reporting standards.

• By 2027: Stacking rules for biodiversity certificates and ACCUs will be clarified, enabling truly blended finance for cross-border projects—especially in coastal blue carbon and hinterland corridors. This will unlock significant new capital and enable conservation projects to access private investment at scales that were previously impossible. The partnerships that position themselves to take advantage of these opportunities will have significant competitive advantages.

• Ongoing: Indigenous data sovereignty will fundamentally reshape data architectures, moving partnerships toward federated, consent-based data models as the gold standard. This shift will require significant investment in new data systems and governance processes, but will ultimately result in more robust and culturally appropriate approaches to conservation monitoring and reporting.

• By 2028: At least one major cross-jurisdictional partnership will demonstrate successful integration of cultural burning across state boundaries, providing a template for landscape-scale fire management that combines Traditional Owner knowledge with contemporary fire science. This will likely influence fire management policies and funding across multiple jurisdictions.

There’s undeniable uncertainty here: political cycles, market conditions, and unforeseen climate shocks can always change trajectories. Economic downturns could reduce funding availability, political changes could shift policy priorities, and major environmental disasters could force rapid changes in conservation approaches. But the underlying direction of travel—toward formal, outcome-focused, cross-jurisdiction platforms—is, in my professional opinion, unequivocally clear and driven by forces that are unlikely to reverse.

Case Studies to Emulate: Proven Models for Success

Why reinvent the wheel when we have excellent examples? These case studies offer tangible models for building effective cross-jurisdictional partnerships, each demonstrating different aspects of successful collaboration that can be adapted to other contexts.

• Australian Alps Co-operative Management: A durable model of joint planning and operations across ACT, NSW, and Victoria, featuring shared fire, pest, and visitor strategies that have stood the test of time. What makes this partnership particularly instructive is its operational integration—partners don’t just coordinate policies, they actually implement joint programs with shared staff and resources. The partnership has survived multiple changes of government and has adapted to new challenges like climate change and increased fire risk while maintaining its core collaborative structure.

• Reef 2050 Plan (GBRMPA and Queensland): Exemplary integrated land–sea governance and performance reporting, crucially backed by sustained Commonwealth funding. The partnership demonstrates how federal investment can be used to drive coordinated action across multiple levels of government and numerous delivery partners. Its governance structure, featuring joint steering committees and integrated reporting, provides a template for managing complex, multi-stakeholder partnerships with clear accountability mechanisms.

• Great Eastern Ranges Initiative: A powerful example of multi-regional alliances linking Queensland, NSW, ACT, and Victoria; its governance continually evolves to balance local autonomy with shared, landscape-scale outcomes. The initiative demonstrates how NGOs can play crucial convening roles in landscape-scale partnerships while respecting the autonomy of local delivery partners. Its flexible, network-based approach has enabled it to adapt to changing circumstances while maintaining momentum over more than a decade.

• Koala Recovery Plan (2022): A national recovery plan spanning QLD, NSW, and ACT, demonstrating how federal listing can effectively align disparate state actions for a wide-ranging, iconic species. The plan shows how species-focused approaches can drive cross-jurisdictional coordination and how national frameworks can provide coherence while allowing for state-specific implementation approaches.

• Murray-Darling Basin Authority: Despite its challenges, the Basin Authority demonstrates how complex water resource management can be coordinated across multiple states with different interests and priorities. Its adaptive governance approach, independent oversight mechanisms, and emphasis on scientific evidence provide important lessons for other cross-jurisdictional partnerships dealing with complex, contested issues.

What Separates Top Performers: The Non-Negotiables for Impact

Having observed numerous initiatives over more than a decade, I’ve distilled what truly separates the high-impact partnerships from the rest. These aren’t optional extras; they are fundamental requirements for success that cannot be compromised without significantly reducing the likelihood of achieving meaningful conservation outcomes.

• Clear ecological scope: Focus on bioregions or basins, not simply administrative convenience. The ecology must drive the boundaries, and partners must share a common understanding of the ecological system they’re trying to conserve. Partnerships that start with administrative convenience rather than ecological coherence consistently struggle to develop effective strategies and measure meaningful outcomes.

• Shared baselines and open methods: Employ repeatable, auditable indicators across all jurisdictions. Transparency and consistency are key to building trust among partners and credibility with funders and communities. The most successful partnerships invest heavily in baseline establishment and method standardization, recognizing that this foundation is essential for demonstrating impact and attracting sustained support.

• Governance with teeth: A joint secretariat, robust risk registers, annual public reporting, and a clear dispute resolution mechanism are non-negotiable. Partnerships without formal governance structures consistently struggle with coordination challenges and often collapse when faced with significant disagreements or external pressures. Effective governance provides the framework for making difficult decisions and maintaining partnership integrity over time.

• Embedded Indigenous governance: This means genuine decision rights, formal data agreements, and adequate resourcing—not merely advisory-only roles. Partnerships that treat Indigenous engagement as consultation rather than co-governance miss opportunities for more effective management approaches and often struggle with social license and cultural heritage issues.

• Finance sequencing: Public funds strategically de-risk early actions; private capital then scales proven methods. This is smart, sustainable financing that recognizes the different roles that public and private capital can play in conservation. Partnerships that understand these financing dynamics can access much larger pools of capital than those that rely solely on traditional grant funding.

• Adaptive management: The ability to learn from experience and adjust strategies based on new information and changing circumstances. The most successful partnerships build learning and adaptation into their governance processes, rather than treating their initial strategies as fixed plans.

Take It Forward

The playbook, when you boil it down, is surprisingly consistent: define the problemshed, build a formal partnership with shared outcomes, rigorously align data and methods, finance in stages, and communicate relentlessly. If you’re setting up a corridor, catchment, or coastal partnership now, start with a focused one-year pilot to test your governance and indicators. Expand only when your monitoring and decision pathways are demonstrably working under real conditions. That iterative approach is your best friend and will save you from the costly mistakes that plague partnerships that try to scale too quickly.

The organizations that master this approach will find themselves at the center of the most impactful conservation work in Australia. Those that continue to operate in single-jurisdiction silos will increasingly find themselves marginalized as funding and policy frameworks shift toward landscape-scale, cross-jurisdictional approaches.

For complementary tactics on public engagement and behaviour change, see our insights on media and storytelling that shift public behaviour.

The future of Australian conservation is collaborative, cross-jurisdictional, and outcome-focused. The partnerships that embrace this reality and build the capabilities to operate effectively in this new environment will be the ones that deliver the conservation outcomes that Australia desperately needs. The time for preparation is now—the trends are clear, the opportunities are significant, and the need is urgent.

Forward-looking tags: #NaturePositiveAU #CrossJurisdictionConservation #BiodiversityFinance #IndigenousGovernance #DataForNature