conference proceedings, parks for peace, 1997

Parks for PeaceInternational Conference on

Transboundary Protected Areas as a Vehicle forInternational Co-operation

16-18 September 1997

Somerset West, near Cape TownSouth Africa

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGSCONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

Draft of 30 January 1998

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings i

Table of Contents

PARKS FOR PEACE - PREFACE ..............................................................V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPORT ....................................................VII

CONFERENCE REPORT........................................................................... 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPORT ........................................................................... 1

OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................... 1

PARTICIPATION .............................................................................................................. 2

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 2

PLENARY PRESENTATIONS.......................................................................................... 2

ISSUES RAISED IN PLENARY DISCUSSIONS ............................................................... 7

WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................... 10

RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 13

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES............................................................ 15

WELCOME ADDRESS BY DR. Z. PALO JORDAN,................................... 19

OPENING REMARKS BY IUCN DIRECTOR GENERAL, .......................... 23

PAPER PRESENTED AT THE CONFERENCE ......................................... 27

GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION: PHILOSOPHYAND BEST PRACTICESBY LARRY HAMILTON, UNITED STATES ............................................................................. 27

LEGAL MECHANISMS TO STRENGTHEN AND SAFEGUARD TRANSBOUNDARYPROTECTED AREASBY CLARE SHINE, FRANCE ............................................................................................... 37

PEACE PARKS IN CENTRAL AMERICA. SUCCESSES & FAILURES INIMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT COOPERATIONBY JOSÉ CASTRO-CHAMERLAIN, COSTA RICA .................................................................. 49

TRANSBOUNDARY COLLABORATION IN THE PROTECTION OF SHARED NATURALRESOURCES ALONG THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDERBY JOSÉ CISNEROS, UNITED STATES AND JULIO CARRERA, MEXICO ................................. 61

ii Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

PARKS WITHOUT PEACEBY YEMI KATERERE, ZIMBABWE........................................................................................67

THE GEOPOLITICS OF TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION: AN OVERVIEWBY GERALD BLAKE, UNITED KINGDOM ..............................................................................75

PARKS AT THE EDGE: THE CASE OF UGANDABY RON SEALE, UGANDA..................................................................................................83

ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE DEAD SEA BASIN AND THEIR SUSTAINABLEUSE: PROBLEMS AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES OF THE BASINBY AYMAN RABI, ISRAEL...................................................................................................89

TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN EUROPE: PROGRESS AND POSSIBILITIESIN SOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND SOCIAL CONFLICTSBY ROBERT BRUNNER, AUSTRIA .......................................................................................93

TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS ALONG THE FORMER "IRON CURTAIN" INEUROPEBY JAN CEROVSKY, CYECH REPUBLIC ............................................................................117

THE DRAKENSBERG-MALOTI TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREA:EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS LEARNEDBY TREVOR SANDWITH, SOUTH AFRICA...........................................................................121

PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICT THE OBJECTIVES ANDACTIVITIES OF THE PEACE PARKS FOUNDATIONBY JOHN HANKS, SOUTH AFRICA ....................................................................................133

THE IMPACT OF WAR ON PROTECTED AREAS IN CENTRAL AFRICA. CASE STUDYOF VIRUNGA VOLCANOES REGIONBY SAMSO WERIKHE, UGANDA .......................................................................................155

POTENTIAL FOR THE CREATION OF A PEACE PARK IN THE VIRUNGA VOLCANOREGIONBY ANNETTE LANJOUW, KENYA AND JOSÉ KALPERS, KENYA...........................................163

LEBANON - THE ROLE OF THE PROTECTED AREAS PROJECT IN PROMOTINGPEACEBY FAISAL ABU-IZZEDIN, LEBANON .................................................................................173

PARKS, PEACE AND PROGRESS: A FORUM FOR TRANSBOUNDARYCONSERVATION IN INDOCHINABY THOMAS DILLON, VIETNAM ........................................................................................179

PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICT NIMULE NATIONAL PARK:A CASE STUDYBY RAGAB YAGOUB ABDULLAH, QUATAR ..........................................................................195

STATUS OF THE WORLD’S TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREASBY DOROTHY ZBICZ, UNITED STATES AND MICHAEL GREEN, UNITED KINGDOM ............... 201

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings iii

A TRANSFRONTIER RESERVE FOR PEACE AND NATURE ON THE KOREANPENINSULABY ARTHUR WESTING, UNITED STATES ........................................................................... 234

THE CENTRAL AFRICAN EXPERIENCE IN TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS.A CASE STUDY OF THE TRI-STATE PROJECT BETWEEN THE CENTRAL AFRICANREPUBLIC, CONGO, CAMEROON; AND THE NATIONAL PARKS BETWEENCAMEROON AND NIGERIABY STEVE GARTLAND, CAMEROON ................................................................................. 242

THE MESO-AMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR: A REGIONAL TOOL FORTRANSBOUNDARY CO-OPERATION AND PEACE KEEPING EFFORTSBY JUAN CARLOS GODOY, PANAMA ............................................................................... 248

ANNEX A: PARTICIPANTS LIST ....................................................................... 254

iv Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings v

PARKS FOR PEACE - PREFACE

Welcoming participants to the Parks for Peace Conference, the South African Minister ofEnvironmental Affairs and Tourism, Dr. Pallo Jordan gave the context to the meeting in some well-chosen words:

"The rivers of Southern Africa are shared by more than one country. Our mountain ranges donot end abruptly because some 19 Century politician drew a line on a map. The winds, theoceans, the rain and atmospheric currents do not recognise political frontiers. The earth'senvironment is the common property of all humanity and creation, and what takes place in onecountry affects not only its neighbours, but many others well beyond its borders".

This broad view of conservation responsibilities has always motivated IUCN’s World Commissionon Protected Areas (WCPA). As a global network, we are uniquely well-placed to bring expertstogether from different countries, globally, regionally and across national boundaries. Indeed,encouraging the development of trans-boundary protected areas has for long been a priority forWCPA.

But the role which trans-boundary protected areas can play in building security and confidencebetween nations has been a neglected topic. So when we were approached by the Parks forPeace Foundation to arrange an international meeting on this theme, the Commission saw aunique opportunity to bring together those with a conservation perspective and those with concernfor international peace and understanding. Experts in protected areas, in international law and inrelated subjects worked together for three intensive days to examine the particular role which trans-boundary protected areas can play in building a better relationship between countries, but at thesame time addressing frankly some of the difficulties which often arise.

There was a wealth of information and case studies. There was a special concentration onSouthern Africa, of course, particularly appropriate given the new climate of co-operation betweenneighbouring States in this region. We heard from other regions where the climate of understandinghas improved markedly in recent years and now favours co-operation: from Central America andparts of Europe for example. But case studies were also presented from regions which continue tosuffer from conflict and tension: the Middle East, South East Asia and the Korean Peninsula. Andwe heard about the tragic case of protected areas in Central Africa, which have suffered from theeffects of mass population movement following appalling ethnic conflict and the breakdown of civilorder.

These case studies highlighted the potential role of trans-boundary protected areas, sometimes indefusing the potential for conflict between states, sometimes in confidence building measures afterperiods of tension and rivalry. But they also showed the vulnerability of such areas (and indeed ofprotected areas in general) during times of war and upheaval.

Our discussions revealed some sharp differences of view from around the world. In SouthernAfrica, for example, the term "protected area" was not particularly welcome. Our colleagues fromthere asked that the term “trans-frontier conservation areas” be incorporated instead in theDeclaration of Principles. Their understandable concern arose from the reputation which protectedareas have had in the past in the region, as places from which local people are excluded andunable to gain any benefit from natural resources to which have had traditional access. If there is amessage here for the protected area constituency, it is the importance of developing the full rangeof protected area types: not only those which require strict protection but also those whoseobjectives recognise scope both for conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.

The conference also identified, as so many discussions on protected areas do these days, thepotential importance of the private sector and the scope for entrepreneurial approaches to

vi Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

protected areas management. At the same time the meeting emphasised the need for theinvolvement of local and indigenous communities in the management of protected areas. Eventhough some protected areas come about through cross-border co-operation between sovereignSates, the involvement of local people is no less essential.

The Declaration of Principles which was adopted at the end, and which is reproduced in this report,summarised the conference conclusions and set forth a collective view about the way forward. Itcontains messages for national governments and for the international community. It placesprotected areas firmly in the context of peacemaking and building international collaborationbetween States. It points towards some considerable success stories but it also identifies the greatneed for further work in this area. There is a particular need for best practice guidelines on theplanning and management of transboundary protected areas, and for a code of conduct on themanagement of such areas, both in peace time and in times of conflict.

Like protected areas everywhere, transboundary protected areas are needed for conservation ofbiodiversity; and they are essential where natural resources requiring protection - such asendangered ecosystems and species - are shared between countries. But when we left SouthAfrica, we also took with us a much clearer understanding of the contribution that such places canplay in building peace and understanding between nations. This is a dimension to conservationwhich deserves more international attention. WCPA will do its part to ensure a really effectivefollow-up to the conclusions and recommendations of the conference.

The notable success of the event was made possible because there were people there from allparts of the world. On behalf of IUCN and WCPA , I would like to extend my thanks to all those whohelped through sponsorship and financial support, and a particular thanks to the Parks for PeaceFoundation and our South African friends who made our short time in their country not onlyproductive but enjoyable.

Adrian PhillipsChairWorld Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA)

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings vii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPORT

This conference has been made possible by the generous support of a number oforganisations and this is gratefully acknowledged here. In particular, IUCN and thePeace Parks Foundation would like to thank the following for their support:

♦ Italian Government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Cooperation andDevelopment

♦ UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme ♦ USAID ♦ US National Park Service ♦ United States State Department ♦ World Bank, Environment Department ♦ World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) ♦ AVIS Car Rental ♦ Nedbank Limited ♦ SANLAM ♦ South African Airways Corporation ♦ Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Limited ♦ Syfrets Limited ♦ The Lord Charles Hotel

viii Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 1

Draft

Parks for PeaceCONFERENCE REPORT

Draft of 7 October 1997

Conference Title International Conference on TransboundaryProtected Areas as a Vehicle for International Co-operation

Convened by IUCN, The World Conservation Union and PeaceParks Foundation (South Africa)

Conference Date 16-18 September 1997

Location Somerset West, near Cape Town,South Africa

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPORT

IUCN and Peace Parks Foundation are pleased to acknowledge the generous supportof numerous sponsors, as listed in the opening section of thei publication.

OBJECTIVES

The conference had the following objectives:

1. To review and confirm the important role of transboundary protected areas in conservingbiodiversity and in fostering regional cooperation and security;

2. To learn from practical experience of existing transboundary protected areas, in particular

how they can foster regional co-operation and hence the avoidance of conflict; 3. To promote awareness of the vulnerability of transboundary protected areas in times of

conflict and examine the potential of international agreements to safeguard them. 4. To promote awareness of the value of transboundary protected areas as a means of

building security and confidence after conflict; and

2 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

5. To examine proposals for the future establishment and management of transboundaryprotected areas, especially those priority areas which can contribute to the conservation ofglobal biodiversity.

PARTICIPATION

Participants who attended this meeting are listed in Annex A (see page 255)

INTRODUCTION

The welcome speech was provided by Dr Pallo Jordan, Minister of Environmental Affairs andTourism for South Africa. Dr Jordan welcomed all delegates to the conference and alsopassed on a message of welcome from the South African President, Mr Nelson Mandela. Inhis speech, Dr Jordan highlighted the significance of the tourism industry, particularly inSouthern Africa, and also noted that the nature tourism component of this industry issignificant, and is likely to increase in the future. The Minister noted that “Peace Parks areparticularly appropriate for our (the Southern African) region which has been racked by warsand other forms of conflict for the past decades. The Parks will be a token of sharedcommitment by the peoples and governments of Southern Africa to strive for peace and topursue the option of peaceful resolution of conflict as an intrinsic condition for the welfare anddevelopment of our region”. The Minister further noted that transfrontier initiatives in southernAfrica are in line with the directions established by the Southern African DevelopmentCommunity (SADC). The Minister noted the changing emphasis of conservation managementin South Africa, with increasing emphasis on the involvement of local communities in themanagement of protected areas. Dr Jordan wished delegates well for the conference andnoted that the South African government is looking forward to receiving the report from theconference, in due course.

David McDowell, IUCN Director General, gave the keynote speech to the conference. MrMcDowell noted the links between transboundary cooperation and conflict resolution andsuggested that environmental factors are likely to be a primary source of insecurity and conflictin the 21st Century, as conflicts will increasingly arise over the control and management ofscarce natural resources. He thus suggested that approaches, such as the establishment oftransboundary protected areas, can provide a useful mechanism for encouraging cooperationbetween countries and communities. He noted that, with some exceptions, such areas justifythe label “Peace Parks” and that they can potentially reduce stress along historically tenseborders by providing governments with an agenda for mutual action on issues of commonconcern. He urged the conference to focus on marine as well as terrestrial protected areas, aswell as the potential for establishing peace parks in the global commons such as Antarctica.

PLENARY PRESENTATIONS

Kathy MacKinnon, from the Environment Division of the World Bank, outlined the experienceof the Bank in supporting transboundary protected area projects. Her presentation noted theincreasing involvement of the World Bank in supporting transboundary initiatives and notedlessons learnt to date, including:

◊ the need to effectively engage local communities and other stakeholders, from an earlystage of project development;

◊ the need to “build in” mechanisms to ensure financial sustainability of projects; ◊ the need to continuously monitor and evaluate projects and to learn from the experience

thus gained; and


◊ the need to mainstream protected area and biodiversity projects with national efforts to

ensure sustainable development.

Other factors of success were noted as: the need to have key people in the right positions;political support; and a long term commitment by the donor and the government.

Larry Hamilton, WCPA Vice Chair for Mountain Protected Areas, outlined guidelines foreffective transboundary cooperation. This presentation highlighted practical “nuts and bolts”aspects relating to transboundary protected area cooperation. The importance of developingclose working relationships between staff on different sides of the border was emphasised,such as through staff exchanges as well as the development of joint managementprogrammes, such as in relation to the management of fire. It was noted that transboundaryprotected areas have many political advantages, and these occur at local, national andregional levels. There are also many environmental benefits, such as enhanced biodiversityconservation and the protection of important landscape features, from the establishment andeffective management of transboundary protected areas.

Clare Shine, from the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law, outlined legal mechanisms tostrengthen and safeguard transboundary protected areas. It was noted that such areas oftenfail to realise their potential benefits, due to reasons such as political and financial constraints.Such failures are also exacerbated by weak legal and institutional frameworks for protectedarea management. The presentation reviewed the international regime applicable to TBPAestablishment and outlined possible legal mechanisms to improve the existing situation. Themain legal rules for the protection of the environment during conflict were outlined and thepossibility of a non-binding code of conduct to reinforce such protection was suggested.

Jose Castro-Chamberlain, environmental consultant from Costa Rica, described theexperience of peace parks in Central America. This paper discussed practical issuesassociated with the establishment of a number of areas in Central America, including the LaAmistad International park, located in the border region between Costa Rica and Panama; theSi-a-Paz initiative relating to protected areas in Nicaragua and Costa Rica and the Trifino Plan,a regional planning exercise build around the biosphere reserve shared by Guatemala,Honduras and El Salvador. In relation to the La Amistad International Park, it was noted thatsuccess had particularly been due to a high level of political committment and support, coupledwith the on-ground efforts of managers to establish joint management regimes. Theimportance of joint strategic planning in this area has been demonstrated. Also the importantrole of international organisations, such as the UNESCO/Man and the Biosphere Programme,in supporting initiatives was noted.

José Cisneros, superintendent of the US Big Bend National Park, presented a joint paper withJulio Carrera of Mexico on transboundary cooperation between United States and Mexico.The paper discussed collaboration between the Big Bend National Park and the Madera delCarmen Protected Area across the border, and noted that collaboration in this area had beenunderway for a significant period of time, dating back to exchanges between the Presidents ofUSA and Mexico in the early 1940s. The importance of both formal and informal agreementsto ensure the success of activities in this area was noted, as was the need to “move beyond”the park boundaries, in relation to transboundary collaborative efforts. The important role ofthis joint initiative in supporting economic development in the region was emphasised. Thedifference in institutional arrangements and budget between the two partners in this co-operative exercise (USA/Mexico) was noted as an issue that needs to be considered in relationto the effective implementation of programmes in this area.


Yemi Katerere, IUCN Regional Director for Southern Africa, outlined a number of issuesrelevant to regional cooperation in the Southern African region. It was suggested that thefocus of transboundary collaboration should be broader than protected areas, in view of thefact that many protected areas are not effectively established and managed in the region, andoften do not provide adequate benefits to local communities. This situation has led to conflictsover resource use. The need for a new vision of protected areas was suggested, which wouldreflect the knowledge and full involvement of local communities, while addressing key issuesof land tenure. It was suggested that any proposals to extend existing protected areas need tobe carefully examined, with examination of questions such as (a) is it affordable?; (b) is theremanagement capacity?; (c) who benefits?; and (d) who owns the land? The need forprotected areas to be viewed within a holistic approach to landuse planning was noted, as wasthe need to develop effective mechanisms for joint management, which effectively involvelocal communities.

Gerald Blake from the International Boundaries Research Unit of the University of Durham,provided an overview of the geopolitics of transboundary cooperation. This paper summarisedsome of the ways in which states cooperate along international boundaries and in regions nearthese boundaries. The motives for such cooperation vary in relation to the specific context ofthe country and may involve: firstly, the need for states to find alternatives to absolute territorialsovereignty in the form of neutral zones, or, secondly, the need to establish shareddevelopment zones in disputed areas, to enable parties to begin resource exploitation, eventhough there may be agreement over the boundary, or, thirdly, the large range of mechanismsfor cooperation between states over resource management. This presentation noted therapidly evolving status of national boundaries and raised the implications of globalisationwhich, in some cases, are diminishing state power and changing the role and function ofboundaries. It is critical that any assessment of transboundary protected areas take intoaccount the geopolitics of international boundaries and borderlands.

Ron Seale, from the IUCN Mount Elgon Conservation Development project in Uganda, raiseda number of issues relating to transboundary cooperation, drawing on the Ugandanexperience. The importance of high profile and international status of some protected areas,such as afforded by World Heritage designation, was suggested as a potential marketing andpromotion tool for transboundary protected areas. However, this should not diminish attentionto other “lesser known” protected areas across boundaries. The need to distinguish between“peace keeping” and “peace making” roles for transboundary protected areas was noted. Itwas suggested that transboundary protected areas are unlikely to be established in areaswhere there is currently a conflict.

Ayman Rabi, Executive Director of Ecopeace in Jerusalem, provided an overview of theecological resources of the Dead Sea basin in the context of regional cooperation. Thisorganisation involves a number of countries from the region and aims to protect sharedresources, particularly water and cultural heritage. It was noted that cooperative efforts toprotect biodiversity in this region are proceeding and that the many threats to areas such asthe Dead Sea provide a focus for the efforts of EcoPeace in the region.

Robert Brunner, WCPA member, outlined transboundary cooperation in Europe andintroduced the “Parks for Life Action Plan for Europe”, which identified the need fortransboundary protected areas in a number of countries in Europe. It was noted that the fall ofthe “Iron Curtain” in 1989 changed the conditions for transboundary cooperation and that thereare now a number of initiatives in this area. Many of these transboundary protected areas areproviding very successful models of how protected areas can both protect biodiversity andbuild cooperation and trust between countries. The importance of involving local people wasemphasised.Jan Cerovsky, of the Ecopoint Foundation from the Czech Republic, discussed transfrontierprotected areas along the former “Iron Curtain” in Europe. This presentation focused on the


50 remaining and 26 projected bilateral parks in Europe, of which approximately 30% aresituated along the former “Iron Curtain” (a line running from the Barents Sea in the North to theMediterranean and Black Sea to the South). This paper outlined experience to date in relationto transboundary protected areas along both sides of the former “Iron Curtain” and noted theirmajor contribution to building peaceful and friendly relations between European nations. Itwas noted that, since the fall of the “Iron Curtain” in 1989-1990, many new opportunities haveopened up relating both to cooperation between countries and also in relation to natureconservation.

Trevor Sandwith from the Natal Parks Board, South Africa, outlined transboundarycooperation initiatives in the Drakenburg’Maloti Mountain region between the Kingdom ofLesotho and the province of Kwa Zulu-Natal in South Africa. It was noted that there is noformal recognition of this region as a peace park but that there is a growing de facto realisationthat the two countries have a shared responsibility to conserve biodiversity, as well as to usethis initiative to support community development on both the two sides of the border. Theprocess of developing this transboundary protected area has brought together a wide range ofpeople and interests in this region and this process has had a number of “spin off” advantages.It was noted that this area, although covering two countries, consists of a single ecologicalcomplex and that there are also strong historical and cultural similarities between the twocountries. This has greatly facilitated the establishment of a transboundary protected area inthis region.

John Hanks, Director of the Peace Parks Foundation in South Africa, presented the objectivesof the Foundation and proposals for future activities. His presentation highlighted theimportance of economic development associated with the tourism industry in the region andthe important role that nature based tourism, particularly focused on protected areas, couldplay in supporting this vital industry. It was noted that the Peace Parks Foundation wasseeking to facilitate support for existing transfrontier initiatives such as those identified throughSADC. A number of specific proposals in the Southern African region were outlined such asthose between South Africa and Mozambique. It was noted that four principles underlie thework of the Peace Parks Foundation:

◊ responsibility to the environment; ◊ effective involvement of local communities; ◊ responsibility to respect, invest and develop local cultures; and ◊ responsibility to visitors (safety, security, and health).

Samson Werikhe, from the Uganda Wildlife Authority presented a joint presentation on behalfof the Governments of Uganda, Rwanda (John Bizimana) and the Democratic Republic ofCongo(Norbert Mushenzi). This presentation discussed the impact of war on protected areasin these three countries and presented a case study of the Virunga Volcano region. Theimpacts of war in this region were noted, as were the issues associated with high populationdensities. It was suggested that there was a need for a common strategy for addressing basichuman needs and conservation in this region and that the establishment of a potential peacepark may provide a useful opportunity to achieve this. The potential for addressing this issuejointly with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was noted and it wassuggested that a dialogue should be established between UNHCR, IUCN and other relevantparties.Annette Lanjouw, of the International Gorilla Conservation Project in Nairobi, presented a jointpaper with José Kalpers, which reinforced the previous presentation in relation to possibilitiesfor the establishment of a peace park in the Virunga Volcano region. The need for a strategy


which both addresses human needs and conservation of species was noted. The constraintsin establishing such a park were outlined, including the security situation and the extremelylimited resources for the establishment and management of such areas. The potential fordeveloping and marketing a peace park concept, based around a high profile species such asthe Mountain Gorilla, was put forward. It was noted that such an initiative could benefiteconomic development in the region and local communities. The role of the InternationalGorilla Conservation Programme was noted, and it was suggested that such an organisationcould, through working with other partners, play an important role in such an area.

Faisal Abu-Izzeddin, Project Manager with the UNDP-IUCN Protected Areas project, outlinedthe role of protected areas in promoting peace and national reconciliation in Lebanon. Thisproject has involved three specific protected areas, each managed by a non-governmentorganisation. An important aim of this project was to promote national reconciliation after thecivil war in Lebanon. This project has been developing very effectively and has demonstratedthe potential benefits of involving different parties in an area such as conservation.

Thomas Dillon from WWF Indochina, outlined transboundary conservation activities in theformer Indochina. It was noted that joint protected area transboundary initiatives had beenestablished between Lao PDR and Vietnam and that this is being developed in accordancewith an official Letter of Understanding between the two countries. This project has shown thebenefits of staff exchanges at the local level as well as building political support. It was notedthat the majority of Indochina’s remaining natural forest habitats are distributed along theinternational borders of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam and thus a transboundary approach toconservation is an important element of biodiversity conservation efforts in the region. Thisproject has established an Indochina Biodiversity Forum which aims to build a dialogue andspirit of cooperation between the countries in the region as a precursor to effectiveconservation.

Ragab Yagoub Abdullah from Sudan outlined experiences in achieving conservationobjectives in areas of conflict, specifically in relation to the Nimule National Park in Sudan. ThisNational Park is subjected to considerable pressures, including from armed poachers, as wellas a lack of basic infrastructure and resources for protected area management. It wassuggested that even during periods of conflict, simple initiatives at a local level can save anarea from catastrophe and that it is important to make use of available resources and to buildsupport at the local community level. The advantage of having an objective set of policydirectives for sensitive conservation areas was noted as having the potential to influence theattitudes of governments, such as Sudan, towards the management of broader ecosystems.

The joint paper by Michael Green and Dorothy Zbicz outlined the status of the world’stransboundary protected areas. This paper indicated the rapid growth over the past decade ofthe number of existing contiguous protected areas on two sides of a national boundary, andalso the growth in the number of agreements covering such areas. It was noted that a surveyof transboundary protected area managers by Dorothy Zbicz is currently underway, under theauspices of IUCN, and this will provide substantial information in relation to the current statusof transboundary protected areas and the key issues associated with the management of suchareas.

Arthur Westing, environmental consultant from the United States of America, introduced thepossibility of establishing a peace park in the demilitarised zone between North and SouthKorea. It was noted that although a war is still technically in progress between the two parties,both Koreas are formally committed to a peace treaty as well as to ultimate peacefulreunification. The demilitarised zone has been left relatively undisturbed since the de factoend of the war in 1953 and has considerable value for biodiversity. This value could potentiallydisappear rapidly following reunification due to enormous social pressures for agricultural,industrial and urban development. The paper thus urgently suggested that North/South


negotiations be initiated to establish, as soon as possible, a Korean Bi-State Reserve forPeace and Nature. Such an endeavour could make a major contribution to biodiversityprotection as well as facilitating the peace processes and ultimate reunification.

Steve Gartlan from WWF Cameroon, outlined the Central African experience intransboundary protected areas in relation to the tri-state project between the Central AfricanRepublic, Congo and Cameroon. This presentation highlighted the importance of domesticstability as a precursor of conservation efforts and note the following lessons:

◊ that military strategic planning plays an important role in determining whether or not atransboundary area can be established;

◊ that there should be homogeneity on both sides of the border and broad similarity in

economic conditions if the establishment of transboundary protected areas is to beeffective; and

◊ that the lack of resources is a considerable constraint to the effective implementation of

transboundary protected areas.

Juan Carlos Godoy, WCPA Vice Chair for Central America, provided information on theCentral American Biological Corridor. It was noted that this corridor links protected areas in anumber of countries in Central America and that it is proving to be a very effective regional toolfor transboundary cooperation and the conservation of biodiversity. It was noted that thisbiological corridor is making a major contribution to building cooperation and trust betweencountries in the region, many of which have been involved in conflict over recent decades. Itwas noted that this initiative is linked with agreements between Central American countries,such as the 1989 Central American Convention for Environmental Protection. This hasprovided high level “head of state” support for joint conservation efforts in the region. Thisexample provides an excellent model of regional cooperation on transboundary protectedareas, which is linked to a political process.

ISSUES RAISED IN PLENARY DISCUSSIONS

A number of issues were raised in plenary discussions during the conference. These included:

◊ Transboundary protected area cooperation is not a new concept; the example of the BigBend region between Mexico and the United States shows that cooperation has beenunderway since early this century.

◊ However, the issue of transboundary cooperation is “shifting gears”. It was noted that the

opportunities for transboundary cooperation are increasingly opening up, aided by thegrowing acknowledgement of the existence of contiguous Protected Areas divided bynational boundaries. It was suggested by one of the plenary presenters that Peace Parksmay be a “concept whose time has come”.

◊ There was considerable discussion in relation to the term “peace park” and also the term

“protected area”. The conference discussion on this issue indicated division betweenparticipants from the Southern Africa region and most other regions in the world. It wasnoted that, in Southern Africa, the term transfrontier conservation areas is used rather thantransboundary protected areas, and that the use of the terms transfrontier conservationarea denotes broader cooperation beyond the boundaries of formal protected areas. Theconference did not reach agreement on this issue but there was broad agreement that itwas important to focus more on the objectives and outcomes from such areas rather thanconcentrating on names and titles.


◊ It was noted that transboundary protected areas serve many functions, of which regional

cooperation and building “bridges” between countries is only one. It is important to haverealistic expectations in relation to the role of transboundary protected areas in contributingto peace. It is unlikely that they will be the sole determinant in resolving conflicts, forexample. However, it is clear from the examples presented at the conference that they canprovide a useful element of national and regional strategies to foster cooperation betweencountries.

◊ A vision of transboundary protected areas was articulated by a number of speakers at the

conference and this vision was of peace parks as bridges to:

• enhanced environmental security, for example by contributing to the more effectivemanagement of shared natural resources, such as outlined in the example of theDead Sea by Mr Aymam Rabi from Ecopeace;

• more effective conservation of species and ecosystems, such as more effective

conservation of the Ibex, as a consequence of establishing a transboundary protectedarea between France and Italy;

• economic development, such as through the creation of jobs in local communities

through enhanced tourism opportunities such as those prospects outlined in SouthernAfrica; and

• better cooperation between countries such as outlined in Central and Eastern Europe

after the fall of the “Iron Curtain”.

◊ However it was noted that this vision would only be realised if transboundary protectedareas are not viewed in isolation from local communities. It was stressed by many speakersthat such areas must benefit local communities and that traditional “western” conservationconcepts, for example of strict nature reserves which exclude human use, must change formost development countries. It was also noted that protected areas could not beconsidered in isolation from surrounding patterns of land use and the model of the CentralAmerican Biological Corridor which links protected areas with other patterns of land use wasnoted as an appropriate model.

◊ Support at all levels is required if transboundary protected areas are to be effective. This

applies equally at the political level as well as the level of the local community. It isimportant to have high level support such as that through SADC for transfrontier initiativesin Southern Africa, or for the political support for the Central American biological corridor, ifsuch efforts are to succeed;

◊ Appropriate mechanisms for transboundary conservation need to be developed and that

these can be both formal (such as the Memorandum of Understanding between States inAustralia) or informal (such as those between Mexico and the United States in relation toBig Bend). It is important that any mechanisms involve key stakeholders, particularly localcommunities, and where appropriate, address issues of State sovereignty. It wassuggested that there was no one model that can be equally applied to all countries and thatthere is a need to tailor approaches and responses to the unique circumstances of eachcountry. As noted by one speaker (Clare Shine): “there is a need to look at flexibleapproaches, which do not threaten national sovereignty but look at innovative approaches”.

◊ Partnerships are essential if transboundary protected areas are to be effective and these

partnerships need to be developed both at the level of the local community as well as


between relevant national level decision-makers. More effective partnerships with donors,such as the World Bank, and the private sector, are also critical if transboundary protectedareas are to be effective.

◊ It was noted that available financial and staff resources are often a limiting factor in relationto transboundary protected area efforts. As noted by one speaker, “to move from conceptto action requires resources, if these do not exist, action is unlikely”. The need for externalsupport in many parts of the world was noted as a critical factor but it was further noted thatsuch support should address the issue of financial sustainability, beyond the life of theproject itself. It is also critical that such support address the causes of biodiversity loss andnot the symptoms. This thus implies that projects relating to conservation need to be clearlyintegrated with associated sustainable development activities.

◊ The critical role of the private sector was emphasised repeatedly throughout the conferenceand it was agreed that the key issue was not whether the private sector should be engagedbut how to most effectively do this. It was agreed that the involvement of the private sectoris likely to become increasingly important in future years, particularly if current trends ofdecreasing public sector funding continue and also that innovative mechanisms for workingin partnership with the private sector need to be explored. A number of example of privatesector involvement from Southern Africa, such as those from the Natal Parks Board, werenoted as having potential applicability in many other parts of the world.

◊ There is a need for mechanisms to respond quickly and effectively in times of humanitariandisaster situations such as that relating to Virunga. It was agreed that conservation is oneelement of such responses and that this will be most effectively addressed when it isapproached in collaboration with others, for example, UNHCR.

◊ Transboundary protected area efforts lend themselves to regional mechanisms forcooperation, which can be informal, such as those outlined in relation to Indochina, by TomDillon, or formal, such as the regional government agreements between Congo, Ugandaand Rwanda in relation to Central Africa. Where possible, conservation and transboundaryactivities should be linked with existing systems and agreements. The increasing trend toregional programming by donors was also noted and this was a further argument in favourof emphasising regional approaches to transboundary protected area initiatives.

◊ The importance of close and effective working relationships between the managers of

protected areas on both sides of a national boundary was also emphasised. Successfultransboundary protected areas are often built on a base of local level cooperation andactivity on practical management issues, such as fire management. Mechanisms fordialogue are an important pre-cursor of transboundary protected area success and it isimportant to build on such mechanisms, where they exist.

◊ Joint international designations, such as World Heritage and Man and the BiosphereReserve, can assist the effective implementation of transboundary protected area efforts.An example of this is provided in relation to the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve in CentralAmerica.

◊ The creation of transboundary protected areas has many advantages but it is not, in itself, a

“passport” to jobs and prosperity. It was specifically noted, in relation to tourism, there mustbe a focus on desired visitor experiences and a provision of quality experiences for tourists,if such areas are to be successful and to realise their potential to contribute to regional andnational economic development. It was further noted that marketing, promotion andeffective management are also essential elements of effective transboundary protectedarea establishment and management.


WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS

A major part of the conference was working group discussions on four specific issues. Keyissues identified by each working group were as follows:

Working Group 1: Identification of the Role which transboundary protected areas can play inencouraging international cooperation and resolving disputes

This group defined the central question as: “How to promote biodiversity conservation,development and sustainable resource management through the creation of transfrontierprotected areas between sovereign states”. It was noted that some members of this workinggroup were concerned about the use of the term protected area, as it was perceived as beingtoo narrow. It was suggested that the definition of protected areas should be better explainedand marketed. This working group also noted that it was unrealistic to have transboundaryprotected areas as a primary mechanism for resolving disputes, although it was acknowledgedthat they can play an important role. The group discussed a number of issues including:

◊ More effective involvement of the private sector. The group recommended that naturebased tourism has high potential for job creation and improving the quality of life and thatthe private sector can play a significant contribution to the success of transboundaryprotected areas, and should be actively encouraged. Such partnership should be based onclear guidelines for involvement, which (a) cater to all levels of entrepreneurship; (b) setlimits and rules for development (protection of the resource base must be the first priority);(c) ensure proper contractual procedures (including EIA, business plans, skill transfer); (d)establish efficient monitoring procedures (such as auditing of environment and finance); (e)establish times for regular reassessment and review, particularly to ensure equitablesharing of benefit; and (f) choose the appropriate level of involvement at national, regionaland local levels. It was suggested that the World Bank, and other donors, could be a usefulsource of support for local entrepreneurs.

◊ It was suggested that better promotion of transboundary protected areas models andconcepts was required which would include:

• development of national frameworks to permit and encourage the creation of such

areas; • endorsement at international and regional levels (e.g. SADC) and local levels; • full engagement of local communities and explanation of the benefits of

transboundary protected areas; and • mobilisation of NGO support for transboundary protected areas.

◊ The notion that successful transboundary protected areas will require application of the“three Cs”: Conservation, Community and Capital.

Working Group 2: Development of best practice guidelines for the establishment andmanagement of transboundary protected areas to enhance international cooperation inbiodiversity conservation efforts.

This working group agreed that the focus of discussion could include areas with a mosaic ofdifferent land-uses, including areas not formerly gazetted as protected areas. It wassuggested that there was not one single correct model but several, which could achieve


desired results. It was agreed that projects will only succeed if there are clear and tangiblebenefits to both sides as a result of the initiative.

The subsequent stage is project preparation which should include a number of elements suchas:

◊ appropriate multi-disciplinary research, leading to relevant information and databases;

◊ identification of common boundaries to establish on-ground status;

◊ identification of stake-holders and effective involvement of these stake holders; and

◊ identification of marketing strategies. The next stage is implementation. To ensure effective implementation, land use planning mustbe coordinated between the transboundary protected area units/ countries. It was consideredimportant, for example, that wilderness trails in one unit did not end in the parking lots in theother unit. There needs to be compatibility in respect to policies and practices in relation toaspects such as:

◊ law enforcement;

◊ tourism; and

◊ fire control.

It is also important that processes are established for the resolution of disputes and conflictsbetween parties; ideally these should be included in an operational agreement between theparties.

The next stage is on-ground management and monitoring and this phase must becharacterised by regular consultation, for example through joint technical meetings andmanagement committees. Joint management and research programmes should be developedand a joint management plan developed.

Other elements that were raised by this working group included the need to share resources,including staff and equipment, between the parties and develop joint professional developmentprogrammes. The importance of establishing good working relations between parties wasemphasised as was the need for accountability and transparency in relation to issues such aspersonnel selection.

Working Group 3: Identification of Priority Areas for the establishment of transboundaryprotected areas in regions recently affected by conflict, and the incorporation of confidencebuilding measures into the management of such transboundary protected areas.

This working group agreed that it did not have the necessary background information to makea judgement in relation to which priority areas around the world should be identified for thefuture establishment of transboundary protected areas.

The working group discussed criteria for identifying priority sites and these were identified as:

• environmental/ecological (the level to which the area satisfied the criteria of ecologicalsignificance);


• political and social climate (the extent to which there is an existing spirit of trans-border cooperation as well as the existence of an enabling political and social climatewhich is conducive to the establishment of transboundary protected areas);

• social and economic circumstances (the extent to which the candidate site can

provide a level of social and economic benefits, particularly to local communities);

The working group noted that transboundary protected areas can make a major contribution toconfidence building measures after conflict. However, it is only one of a number of elementsof confidence building.

Several types of political situations lend themselves to the establishment of transboundaryprotected areas which enhance their role in serving as confidence building measures. Forexample, where two or more states are on good terms, or where a disputed area is already thebasis of an initiative to establish a transboundary protected area.

Although the working group did not identify priority sites around the world, it did urge IUCN totake every possible action to support high priority transboundary protected areas and anumber of candidate sites were mentioned including:

• the potential initiatives identified by the Peace Parks Foundation (seven initiatives inSouthern Africa);

• La Rutamanya, Yucatan Coral Reef, the Darien Gap and other initiatives in Central

America; • the contiguous protected areas in Congo/Rwanda/Uganda that are home to the

Mountain Gorilla; • the Korean Demilitarised Zone; • the Chaco Proposal in South America; • the Emerald Triangle in the tri-border region of Indochina; • the Southern Sudan and adjacent cross borders areas of the Central African

Republic, the Congo and Uganda.

The working group also recommended that IUCN assess the merit of creating an “arm’s length”body whose primary role would be to research, evaluate, monitor and focus attention to thespecial needs of protected areas in times of emergency. IUCN should consider working withsuch agencies as WWF, UNHCR and WCMC in such an exercise. A useful model for such abody might be TRAFFIC.

Working Group 4: Identification of ideas for a draft code of conduct for transboundaryprotected areas in peace time or during conflict.

This working group identified a number of elements of a draft code of conduct and keyconcepts are outlined below.Draft Code of Conduct

Purpose


The key purpose should be to provide a clear framework to secure the many benefits oftransboundary protected areas, namely biodiversity conservation, improved economic andsocial welfare and maintenance or re-establishment of peace.

◊ a hierarchical treatment was suggested, moving from the international to the local level; ◊ international considerations The obligations under various international treaties and

agreements should be related to the development of a code of conduct, including the CBD,Ramsar Convention, World Heritage Convention, Man and the Biosphere Programme.

◊ Inter-State mechanisms Mechanisms for collaboration, including informal agreement and

informal processes, need to be developed; they should also be mutually supportive andgive incentives to parties to cooperate.

◊ Hallmarks of a constructive process. It was agreed that elements of a constructive process

should include effective consultation, a designated focal point in each country, and wherenecessary, involvement of a neutral party such as an international organisation.

◊ Scale of Application. It was agreed that the code of conduct should apply locally but should

be cross referenced to best practises guidelines. ◊ Armed conflict/occupation. It was agreed that a number of elements relating to this should

be included in the code of conduct, such as the need to avoid locating strategic installationsin or near protected areas and the need to where possible, treat protected areas asdemilitarised zones.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations were discussed and agreed by the conference. 1. IUCN should promote and publicise the conference declaration and other outputs of the

conference; 2. IUCN should quickly produce the proceedings from this conference which will include

recommendations from the workshops and distribute them widely; 3. IUCN should prepare guidelines for the establishment and management of

transboundary protected areas, which will build on the existing management guidelinesand also include confidence building and conflict prevention measures;

4. IUCN should coordinate the development of a code of conduct for protected areas in

peacetime as well as during and after conflicts, using the skills of its protected areas andenvironmental law commissions and other relevant expertise;

5. IUCN should examine the potential for the establishment of an “arm’s length” body to

monitor and publicise its protected areas in times of conflict, working closely withorganisations like the UNHCR, WWF, WCMC and ICRC;

6. IUCN should strengthen its relations with the UNHCR particularly in relation to the

proposal from the UNHCR to develop guidelines in relation to environmental aspects ofhumanitarian crises;


7. A Southern African Working Group should be established to promote transfrontierconservation areas within the SADC region. The working group should be convened byIUCN ROSA in consultation with the SADC technical coordination unit. It was noted thatPeace Parks Foundation has offered assistance to facilitate the process; and

8. The Code of Conduct, once prepared, should be widely disseminated and should be

accompanied by appropriate training to ensure that the code of conduct is appropriatelyapplied.


DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES

We, the 72 participants of this Conference from 32 countries, are gathered together fromaround the world, in the common conviction that transfrontier and transboundary conservationareas1 can be a vehicle for international co-operation, biodiversity conservation and economicdevelopment.

We are pleased to note that:

♦ in many regions of the world there is a new climate of co-operation between neighbouringStates; and

♦ principles of transboundary resource management and resource sharing for mutual benefit

are beginning to emerge, although many legal, economic and political constraints remain atboth national and international levels.

Based on the wealth of world-wide experience presented at this Conference, we are convincedthat:

♦ a major contribution can be made to international co-operation, regional peace and stabilityby the creation of transfrontier conservation areas which promote biodiversity conservation,sustainable development and management of natural and cultural resources, noting thatsuch areas can encompass the full range of IUCN protected area management categories;

♦ such areas can be managed co-operatively, across international land or sea boundaries

without compromising national sovereignty; ♦ such areas can bring benefits to local communities and indigenous peoples living in border

areas as well as to national economies through nature-based tourism and co-operativemanagement of shared resources such as watersheds and fisheries;

♦ such areas also have a vital part to play in the conservation of biodiversity, in particular by

enabling natural systems to be managed as functional ecosystem units, for speciesconservation and ecologically sustainable development through bio-regional planning; and

♦ appropriate frameworks for transboundary conservation areas may include a range of

mutually supportive informal and formal mechanisms, from local liaison arrangements toagreements between States.

The planning and management of transfrontier conservation areas should: ♦ incorporate the full range of appropriate management options for biodiversity conservation

from strict protection to sustainable natural resource management (IUCN protected areacategories I - VI);

♦ fully engage local communities and indigenous peoples and ensure that they derive

tangible, long-term benefits from the establishment and management of transfrontierconservation areas;

1The terms Transfrontier and Transboundary Conservation Areas are used interchangeably in differentregions to denote areas which span both international and internal administrative boundaries.Transfrontier Conservation Areas include, but are not necessarily restricted to, protected areas.


♦ build strategic partnerships between government agencies, NGOs, private sector and localcommunities;

♦ be undertaken as part of broader programmes for integrating conservation and sustainable

development; and ♦ further the effective implementation of international and regional instruments for

conservation of biodiversity. We particularly endorse: ♦ the efforts at establishing and strengthening transboundary protected areas in the following

regions, where a detailed case has been presented to the conference: ♦ Southern Africa; ♦ the habitat of the mountain gorilla on the borders of The Democratic Republic of Congo,

Rwanda and Uganda; ♦ strengthening the protected areas in the Meso-American Biological Corridor; ♦ the forests on the borders of Lao PDR, Cambodia and Vietnam; and ♦ the demilitarised zone in the Korean peninsula,

whilst noting that there are many other areas around the world where similar efforts deservesupport and encouragement, such as the Dead Sea and the Okavango Delta.

We therefore call on:

the international community to encourage States to co-operate in the establishment andmanagement of transfrontier conservation areas as a means of strengthening international co-operation, maximising benefits and fostering regional peace and stability through:

♦ encouraging individual governments, including provincial governments where these havejurisdiction over natural resources, to strengthen collaboration with their neighbours in theestablishment and management of transfrontier conservation areas;

♦ developing and widely distributing guidance on best practices and case studies on

transfrontier conservation initiatives on land and at sea; ♦ supporting a code of conduct to provide a clear enabling framework to secure the

interrelated benefits of transfrontier conservation areas, namely biodiversity conservation,improved economic and social welfare of local communities and the maintenance and re-establishment of peaceful conditions;

♦ supporting the development and ultimate adoption of measures to prevent the damaging

impact of military activities on protected areas; ♦ promoting the exchange of expertise, information and other assistance for capacity building

to help establish or strengthen transfrontier conservation areas; ♦ promoting the involvement of the private sector in structured partnerships, which caters for

all levels of entrepreneurship within an appropriate and agreed regulatory framework; and


♦ encouraging international donors and funding agencies to provide additional financial andtechnical assistance to support transfrontier conservation areas that meet agreed criteria.


WELCOME ADDRESS BY DR. Z. PALO JORDAN,MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM

The Chairperson, David Sheppard, The Director General of the World Conservation Union,David McDowell, The Chairperson and Directors of the Peace Parks Foundation, distinguishedguests, ladies and gentlemen.

I would like to extend a warm welcome to all on behalf of President Nelson Mandela and theSouth African Government. I want to extend a particularly warm welcome to the delegatesfrom beyond South Africa’s frontiers. For the few days you will spend with us make ourcountry your home. We wish you a pleasant stay and feel assured that South Africa feels veryhonoured to be hosting this very important international gathering.

World market trend indicate that tourism is the world’s fastest growing industry, with eco-tourism or nature-based tourism at the fore-front of this expansion. At the present tourismaccounts for 4.5% of South Africa’s GDP. If we could increase that figure to 10%, the industrycould generate R40 billion annually and create two million jobs. No other industry has such apotential. The Southern African region has one of the densest biological diversity in the world.Here in the Western Cape, we have two bio-diversity hot spots, the Hottentots Holland NatureReserve and the Table Mountain range, both of which are home to an amazing array of plantand animal species. Southern Africa, with its untouched natural beauty, has the potential tobecome a highly sought after eco-tourism destination with tourism as a significant generator ofthe economic development that the whole region so desperately needs.

The Peace Parks are particularly appropriate for our region which has been racked by warsand other forms of conflict for the past decades. These Parks will be a token of sharedcommitment by the peoples and governments of Southern Africa to strive for peace and topursue the option of peaceful resolution of conflict as an intrinsic condition for the welfare anddevelopment of our region.

Regional cooperation in transboundary protected areas will be one further step along the pathset by the Southern African Development Community (SADC). South Africa is itselfspearheading exciting new initiatives of transfrontier cooperation such as the MaputoDevelopment Corridor and the trilateral Lubombo Development Initiative involving cooperationwith Swaziland and Mozambique.

These projects are grounded in the mutual dependence of the countries of this region and therecognition that the development of one’s neighbours is a condition for one’s own. Theseprojects will enhance and greatly expand the area of regional cooperation and hopefully willward off the threat of violent conflict. Their joint management will provide new arenas ofcollaboration which must necessarily help to minimise conflict itself.

Your meeting on our soil at this time affords us the opportunity of obtaining pointers from othercountries’ experience in the fostering of regional cooperation. Our government is thereforekeenly interested in the outcome of your deliberations over the next three days.

As Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, I could not have recommended a bettervenue to make the best impression on international visitors. As a CapeTonian I am certainthat you will agree that I am being completely objective in concurring with Drake that this is thefairest Cape. After you have had a chance to taste of the delights the Western Cape has tooffer, I am certain you will be persuaded to come back here on holiday.

As Dr. John Hanks will explain to you later South Africa, through the Peace Parks Foundation,is already firmly committed to the development of seven Transfrontier Conservation Areas on


our borders. We regard these initiatives, which will be undertaken with our colleagues inBotswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe, as one of the mostinteresting developments unfolding on the sub-continent. These conservation areas willcompliment our other measures to promote regional peace and stability by creating hundredsof new job opportunities as well as providing a better context for the conservation of some ofAfrica’s bio-diversity hot spots.

As you travel through our countryside and take time out to see and experience our beautifulbeaches, I am certain that you will also be struck by the glaring contrasts that reflect the legacyof our recent past. The Western Cape is but a microcosm of the fundamental problems facingnot only South Africa, but also the other countries in the region. Widespread poverty, in urbanand rural areas, poses a very immediate and palpable threat to the ethic of sustainable use ofour natural resources. Environmental management, conservation and the protection of thedelicate ecological systems to be found in the region becomes that much more difficult whenlarge numbers of people live on the edge of existence, uncertain of survival into the followingday. These broader issues will have to inform your discussions while not detracting from thevery laudable aim of creating Peace Parks.

In elaborating the concept of Peace Parks it would not be out of place to consider how best weprotect and manage our natural resources as a region. The rivers of Southern Africa areshared by more than one country. Our mountain ranges do not end abruptly because some19th Century politician drew a line on a map. The winds, the oceans, the rain and atmosphericcurrents do not recognise political frontiers. The earth’s environment is the common propertyof all humanity and creation, and what takes place in one country affects not only itsneighbours, but many others well beyond its borders.

Southern Africa is regularly reminded of the fragility of our little green planet by the cruel tricksthat mother nature periodically plays on us. Even as we speak the region is bracing itself foryet another El Niño phenomenon. Because we have had forewarning the region will be betterprepared for the prospect. It goes without saying that the worst affected will be the poorestamong our people. Addressing the economic plight of our marginalised and poor communitiesgoes beyond mere charity, but is increasingly a prerequisite for the survival of our biosphere.

South Africa is executing a paradigm shift in our conservation policy which entails drawinglocal communities into the management and protection of the conservation estate. We arepromoting a cooperative arrangement between communities in the vicinity of protected areasand game parks so as to address their needs for land, various resources, employment andincome. In a few pilot projects, in various parts of the country, we are finding ways of restoringthe pride of communities in their natural heritage by giving them access to the substantialbenefits of tourism.

Some elements of these projects are:

♦ paying a percentage of entrance revenues to local communities;

♦ where profits from protected areas are small of non-existent, channelling funds earmarkedfor development into needy neighbouring areas;

♦ allowing communities to harvest resources such as fish, grass, thatch, wood and traditionalmedicine inside the conservation area;

♦ establishing community reserves;

♦ establishing a range of eco-development projects and attractions, such as cultural villages,in areas close to conservation areas;

♦ allowing local pastoralists to remain in a conservation area under “contract”;


♦ forming joint management committees between local communities, conservation authoritiesand private operators;

♦ channelling funds generated by tourism into development programmes, such as clinics andschools;

♦ in many cases, conservationists, private operators and NGO’s have made their expertiseand other resources (such as veterinary services, telephones, faxes, photocopying facilities)available to neighbouring villages.

We are confident that these measures will not only enhance job creation but will also have asalutory effect on the environment by giving the poor an active interest in its conservation andsustainable management. Our National Parks Board has already initiated a programme toimpart indigenous lore about conservation and environmental management to the youngergeneration. The preservation of such local traditions dovetails well with the National BotanicalInstitutes taxonomic work on medicinal plants and herbs.

We trust that the outcome of your conference will be the creation of yet another window ofopportunity for economic development and the empowerment of our historically disadvantagedcommunities. The Peace Parks can catalise job creation, the improvement of infrastructureand education. They must, of course, also provide a haven from the rat race and thepressures of urban life by being wide open spaces where we can commune with nature, assimple, uncomplicated human beings.

Ladies and gentlemen, the issues you will be weighing touch some of the most challengingaspects of my Ministry. The South African government looks forward to receiving a report onyour conference. We know it will offer us much to think about. Let me therefore wish you wellin your deliberations and leave with our best wishes for a very successful conference.

Thank you.


OPENING REMARKS BY IUCN DIRECTOR GENERAL,DAVID MCDOWELL

May I add to the Minister’s words of welcome a welcome also on behalf of IUCN - The WorldConservation Union. We have a serious issue before us. Let’s engage it seriously - but let’sat the same time enjoy this chance to think creatively about peace parks - an importantmechanism for seeking peace and conservation.

This will not be difficult in the new South Africa. Minister, we thank you for being with us thismorning. It is not just that this setting is superb. It is not just that South Africa with its manyborders and the imaginative way it is now perceiving them is an appropriate place to bediscussing transboundary peace parks.

More importantly, this country has become a symbol of hope for the world. You still have hugeproblems before you. But looking at this country today and thinking back a decade or less, theevidence of transformation is startlingly clear: you are engaging in the difficult process ofbuilding a new and united nation in a wholly unique and courageous way. We outsiders canteach you little about conflict resolution; you do it every day in a very African way. We saluteyou. We fervently wish you success.

May I add that we were interested to hear this morning of the paradigm shift in your policy byinvolving communities in the management and benefits of parks. Experience elsewheresupports the good sense of such a policy.

IUCN - The World Conservation Union has been glad to be working with the Peace ParksFoundation of South Africa in bringing you all together. We thank John Hanks and his teamfor the way they have thrown themselves wholeheartedly into the venture. We are also gladthat our colleagues in the World Bank and other partners have joined us in helping set up theconference.

Let me do a brief commercial at this point about IUCN for those of you who do not know us.We are a curious and very practical hybrid: we draw our membership from governments (overa hundred) and over seven hundred non-governmental organizations around the globe. Wealso have a large group, running over ten thousand worldwide, of hardworking and committedvolunteers organized into six technical networks known as Commissions. This meeting wasorganized by one of the more venerable and extensive of these networks, the WorldCommission on Protected Areas. The WCPA has been working on the peace parks idea forsome years.

What does the Union stand for? We try to establish links between the environment anddevelopment. We stand for sound science, socially delivered. One of our more upbeatversions of this is that our product is hope, based on science. We try to match policy andaction. We mobilize ideas and knowledge and know-how and people. We try to be above thefray - but in it as well. We tend to the sustainable use side of the biodiversity conservationdebate - and we try to help empower communities and influence decision-makers. With alldue modesty, we also think that this unique alliance of governments, NGOs, volunteers andincreasingly other partners and players like the private sector is the wave of the future forinternational organizations.

You might well ask what an organization with this sort of make-up and philosophy is doingdabbling in areas like conflict resolution and mechanisms for improving transboundaryrelationships between countries and peoples.


Five quick answers are:

♦ because environmental factors are going to be a primary source of international insecurityand conflict in the 21st century;

♦ because much of this conflict will arise over the control and management of scarce naturalresources;

♦ because much of the world’s precious biodiversity, including human diversity, lies in the vastecosystems through which arbitrary national boundaries wander;

♦ because the usefulness of objective and independent third parties like IUCN in conflictresolution is proven;

♦ because transboundary protected areas, like several other forms of transboundarycooperation, usually work. With some exceptions they justify the label “peace parks”.

Let me go personal for a moment. I am by training and experience more a historian and adiplomat than a conservationist, though I have a growing claim to the latter. I left the sanctuaryof a national Foreign Service because I believe that the challenges of the next century in thearea of international relationships, including security relationships, will derive from factorswhich national systems are ill-equipped and too inflexible to confront and cope with. I am aconvinced internationalist - or perhaps multilateralist is a better word. So I have a long-standing interest in the issues before us.

It has almost become a cliché that environmental stress, and particularly scarcities ofrenewable natural resources, leads to conflict inside individual countries and across nationalboundaries. There are dozens of books and hundreds of articles on the subject, wholeresearch centres study the implications - we ourselves are working with the Paris-based OECDand the Woodrow Wilson Center of the Smithsonian Institution on aspects of the thesis and Iwas interested to see that South Africa’s White Paper on Defence has a chapter on theenvironment. The reality is that although environmental scarcity is not usually the sole orexclusive cause of conflict, when it interacts with ethnic, political, economic and/or socialfactors the mixture is volatile. In the years ahead population pressures will exacerbate theshortages, the area of high quality agricultural land and forests will decline, as will plant, animaland marine species. Widespread environmental degradation will accompany all this.Heightened conflict, much of it sub-national, will arise - at least in part as a consequence ofresource scarcities. Much of the conflict will occur in the developing world - but the richcountries will not escape the turmoil, for insecurity and political instability come to affect all.Reflecting this, it is a sad fact that the United Nations is spending as much on peacekeepingas on fostering sustainable development - so it is having to devote as much effort to treatingsymptoms as to heading off and preventing conflict.

Let me give you one example of what might be called environmental degradation as a majorcontributor to conflict.

We are in Africa. Let’s take an African example. Most observers tend to view the tragicconflict in Rwanda over these past several years as a simple case of tribal animosities gettingout of hand. But Michael Renner in his book Fighting for Survival: Environmental Decline,Social Conflict, and the New Age of Insecurity sees it differently. The Rwanda apocalypse, hesays, “…. was rooted in a complex web of explosive population growth, severe landshortages, land degradation and rapidly falling food production, lack of non-agriculturalemployment, dwindling export earnings, and the pain of structural economic adjustment”. Ofcourse tribal conflict was a substantial element - but it is altogether too simplistic to see this asthe sole cause. Environmental pressures triggered the tragedy.I do not propose to go into the environmental security issue in detail. Its relevance to thisconference is that whether we like it or not most of us here are going to become increasingly


embroiled in the debates and conflicts over environmental degradation and scarcities. We arenatural resource managers. We seek ecological sustainability. Conservation of biodiversity isa preoccupation. And increasingly we seek to work on an ecosystem-wide basis, striving (witha mixture of trepidation and arrogance) to help put in place management regimes which do nottouch only on one aspect of a problem or deal with it on one site but cover large marinesystems, whole river basins, vast inland plains, plateaus and mountain systems. So, as theMinister reminded us earlier, we run constantly up against a rather large constraint: thephysical and biological systems in which we work do not recognize national boundaries.

I read a statistic somewhere which is that over 50 percent of the present national boundariesof the world were drawn up by six colonial powers. The boundaries wander whimsically overthe face of the globe, the product often of the arbitrary actions of lost and lonely colonialsurveyors with very vague briefs. Occasionally they used physical features to define theboundaries - drawing their lines down the thalweg (the middle of the navigable channel) oflarge rivers, for example. Apart from the fact that such lines tend to be a trifle insecure (thenavigable channel shifts at flood time) they are a nightmare to ecosystem managers becausethey split river basins and watersheds precisely down the middle. They are also a nightmare tosocial scientists and community leaders and government administrators because they tendalso to split human groups down the middle.

There is little prospect of redrawing such boundaries in the foreseeable future. For reasonswhich are perfectly understandable, governments are reluctant to open this can of worms.Most regional organizations (the Organization of African Unity, for example) are committed toexisting national boundaries. But - as our conference papers illustrate - there are around theworld many instances of transboundary cooperation. Almost all stop short of a surrender ofsovereignty as such but they do affirm that, given a sufficient matching of complementaryinterests and some political will, governments will act rationally and cooperate with theirneighbours. That is reassuring.

But this is where you people also come in. Add to your responsibility for helping reduceenvironmental stress and insecurity the task of conflict resolver. When I was in New York inthe late ‘eighties I got involved through the Quakers (brilliant conflict resolvers) with theHarvard Negotiation Project people. You will know of the classic book by Roger Fisher andWilliam Ury, Getting to Yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. If you have not read it, Irecommend that you do. It’s as relevant to a park manager in Malaysia or Peru as tocommunity leaders in Siberia - or Natal, I suspect.

If I venture to boil their techniques down to what is most relevant to transboundary conflictresolution, Fisher and Ury give one basic message: focus on interests, particularly sharedinterests and those related to basic human needs. Some of those who wrote papers for thisconference utterly understand this. Juan Castro-Chamberlain puts it succinctly: “Peace parks.… reduce stress along historically tense borders by providing governments with an agenda formutual action on issues of common concern”.

What can this collection of practical field people, scientists, lawyers and academics do tofoster more peace parks? We can, in a studiously neutral way, help governments andtransboundary communities identify what their shared or matching interests are in taking sucha step. Secondly, we can point the way to achieving such agendas of common concern. Ourpapers give us lovely examples of shared or complementary interests in conservingbiodiversity and extending wildlife and watershed protection across borders to save scarceresources. We must identify wider resource management interests. We must pinpointpotential, social, economic and political benefits. As for what role we play, we should take toheart the injunction of one author that outsiders may facilitate dialogue or even on occasion


mediate in negotiations designed to produce transboundary peace parks - but they should notbe, indeed cannot be, the leaders in such processes.

You will gather from what I have said that I use the title “peace park” in an inclusive andgeneral way. To my way of thinking we should not define too specifically what examples oftransboundary cooperation qualify as a peace park. It should not be confined, for example, toprotected areas which were set up essentially to achieve enhanced physical or military securityalthough it is acknowledged that on occasion establishing such a park is a very acceptable andsensible way of backing away from border disputes. The term should also cover parks set upwith resource or ecosystem management or community economic welfare objectives in mind,for example. As Clare Shine puts it: “Whatever the main objective, the potential benefits oftransboundary protected areas are closely inter-related: prospects for peace are most likely tobe strengthened if natural resources are sustainably used and the interests of localpopulations are taken fully into account”. Not the least important consideration is that in someparts of the world groups of indigenous peoples are split and permanently distanced from eachother unless there are some creative cross-border arrangements put in place.

May I at this juncture make a point which those of you who are terrestrial park managers mayoccasionally forget? This is that the potential for establishing peace parks in the marineenvironment is much greater than on land. As one author, who identifies a whole range ofexamples of cooperation at sea puts it: “….. state sovereignty on land is absolute, whereas atsea it is partial”. The world community’s failure to match in the marine environment the degreeof protection achieved on land might even prove an advantage in this respect: reachingagreement on shared or jointly managed maritime protected areas may prove easier whereboundaries are less clearly delimited, where there are no existing protected areas and whereliving resources are more inclined to be migratory. So let’s not neglect the marine dimensionover these next three days. Indeed let’s have some specific focus on it.

Another (related) dimension which lies perhaps beyond the scope of this meeting (though Iwould not be too inhibited by this) is the potential for establishing peace parks in the globalcommons. What we have in Antarctica, especially when the Environmental Protocol comesinto force shortly, is coming close to a peace park (though I know some government lawyerswho would argue the toss on this). I put it to you that there are vast areas of the high seaswhere some degree of protection will come to be seen as a priority as living marine resources -not least that source of joy and wonder, coral reefs - contract and dwindle. Some preliminarythoughts on high seas peace parks would not be out of place.

Let me conclude with a plea to speakers and all participants. We have three precious daysonly to learn of the experiences of others, to outline geopolitical, scientific and legalparameters, and to look to the future. Let’s all be as succinct and to the point as possible.Let’s show self-discipline in our interventions. In presenting papers let’s remember that thediscussion to follow is at least as important as the formal presentation. We need to free up asmuch time as possible for brainstorming. I am looking to some tough chairing, including theuse of time warnings, to help achieve this. And let’s direct most of our thoughts to the future,to the constructive outputs and guidance we are seeking from this aggregation of experienceand talent!


PAPER PRESENTED AT THE CONFERENCE

GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION:PHILOSOPHY AND BEST PRACTICES

By: Lawrence S. HamiltonVice-Chair (Mountains) WCPA/IUCNIslands and Highlands, Environmental Consultancy342 Bittersweet Lane, Charlotte, Vermont 05445 USA;Tel/fax 802 425-6509; [email protected]

Transboundary cooperation between two or more border-abutting protected areas can be ofmany kinds and degrees. It can range from park managers feeling comfortable enough witheach other to pick up the telephone and talk about a problem or opportunity, to a formalinternational treaty that endorses cooperation between agencies administering the protectedareas. Hereafter, transboundary cooperation will be referred to as TBC. It is convenient touse terms that indicate a situation where there are two abutting parks on a common frontierbetween two countries as in SIAPAZ (Sistema Internacional de Areas Protegidas Para la Paz)(Costa Rica/Nicaragua). However this is also meant to include cases where there may bemore than two protected areas or countries, as in Volcanoes (Rwanda), Virunga (Zaire) andGorilla (Uganda). There are also conditions for TBC where very independent states orprovinces within a single country are involved as is the case for New SouthWales/Victoria/Australian Capital Territory in the Australian Alps National Parks. Also, theterms transfrontier, transborder or transboundary may have slightly different shades ofmeaning, but will be usually subsumed under the one term "transboundary" for the purpose ofthis paper and this conference.

In setting forth some guidelines and best practices for effective TBC, it is appropriate to first ofall briefly review the benefits that can be captured and that make TBC a compelling activity. Itis well to be aware of some of the impediments to effective TBC, and these will be also brieflyreviewed. More detailed development of these two aspects may be found in the publication"Transborder Protected Area Cooperation" (Hamilton, et al., 1996).

In dealing with the topic of TBC, I will not delve into the benefits of easing any internationaltension or outright conflict that derives from establishing or already having nature protectionareas adjoining the frontier. Some of these have been pointed out by McNeil (1990) andmoreover are the focus of several presentations at this conference. Tension over unusualborder situations following wars indeed have been eased, e.g. the Cracow Protocol in 1924recognized the value of an international park between Poland and Czechoslovakia, which infact did not materialize until 1949 in the case of Tatrzanski National Park in the former and1954 as Tatransky National Park in the latter. But then, because of the previous efforts tocreate an international park, collaboration began almost immediately (Vlado Vancura, pers.comm., 1997). Where relations have been somewhat strained or "cool" between countries,creation of parks such as the Finnish/Russian Karelia Friendship Park of old growth forest,promote more friendly interaction between countries. And where there are situations ofhostility or even armed conflict, creation of abutting parks can reduce military presence,demonstrate the effectiveness of non-military methods of dispute resolution and perhaps leadto solving of boundary disputes (McNeil, 1990). The SIAPAZ (or Sí-a-Paz) park betweenNicaragua and Costa Rica comes close to this, and is described in another paper in thisconference. It is to be noted that the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea is ade facto nature reserve some 230 km long and 4 km wide where both plants and animals havefound refuge from warfare. It would make a splendid peace park. Ahn and McGahey (1992)have described this possibility.Armed conflict and hostility preclude TBC, and the harvesting of a whole suite of very real


benefits, many of which are summarized below. The benefits are so substantial that theyalone may ease tensions on the border in some cases.

BENEFITS OF TBC

Aside from the value of technical, non-political interaction that promotes greater understandingand trust, and leads to cooperation in other arenas, it is in th arena of biodiversity conservationthat the benefits are most direct and obvious. For that reason they are listed first in thefollowing abbreviated listing of benefits.

1. A larger contiguous protected area cooperatively managed reduces the risk ofbiodiversity loss (genes, species or ecosystems) from different policies applied onsmaller areas with respect to harvesting levels, enhancement measures and differingprotected status or laws protecting rare species; there is less "island" effect wherebiodiversity loss increases naturally; there is more genetic exchange. More viablepopulations are maintained in the whole complex of areas. (Ordessa in Spain is 15,600ha but it abuts the large 206,350 ha Pyrénées Occidentales.)

2. Some landscape features (a mountain, a reef, a lake, a river) shared by two or more

countries virtually compell cooperation in their conservation since it is a single entity invery many respects, including its biodiversity complement. Mount Kanchenjunga, thirdhighest in the world, is being considered for trilateral protection and cooperativemanagement by India, Nepal and China.

3. Promotes ecosystem-based management for plants and animals whose populations

occur both sides of an "artificial" boundary, or for seasonally migratory wildlife speciesthat cross a jurisdictional boundary (e.g. ibex have summer range in Vanoise NationalPark in France, but winter in Italy in Gran Paradiso). The well-being of the speciesrequires that compatible management be applied in both countries.

4. Reintroduction or natural recolonization of wildlife requiring large habitat range, such as

top carnivores, is more successful it two abutting wild core areas exist and the projectcan be done jointly (e.g. wolf moving through protected areas in Alberta Canada into USprotected areas, or reintroduction of bearded vulture in Alpi Marittime and Mercantour(Italy and France)).

5. Pest species (pathogens, insect pests or alien species) that adversely affect biodiversity

are better responded to by joint action for control or else there is always an adjacentsource of the problem (e.g. wild pig cross-border control in the Australian Alps involvingVictoria, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory).

6. For rare plant species an ex-situ seed bank and nursery may be needed. Having one

such facility serving two or more areas gives a desired economy by sharing the costs(e.g.Czech Krkono e/Polish Karkonosze share one on the Czech side).

7. Joint research programs bring the benefits of different perspectives, eliminate

duplication, provide more scientific interchange and opportunities for standardizingmethodologies so that research data and results are more meaningful; wheretransboundary Biosphere Reserves exist, research cooperation is the expectedprocedure; expensive equipment can be shared (e.g.agreement for research cooperationin Tatras by Polish Tatrzanski and Slovak Tatransky researchers, or joint studies on fishotter by Saxonia-Switzerland National Park and Elbe Sandstones Protected Landscapein Germany/Czech Republic).

8. Wildfire is no respecter of park boundaries, and can be more effectively controlled with a


cooperative surveillance and suppression effort (e.g. a memorandum on fire controlacross the USA/Canada border in the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area/QueticoWilderness Provincial Park.

9. Poaching and illegal trade in plants and animals across political boundaries requires a

certain level of joint action to control effectively through common policies, rigorously andequally applied (e.g. Manas Tiger Reserve/Manas National Park in India and Bhutan). Inlaw enforcement activities and policies, there needs to be cooperation for effectiveness,such as joint patrols, sharing of the intelligence database and monitoring methods.These are being worked on in Makalu-Barun (Nepal) and Qomolangma (China) wherethey abut.

10. Nature-based tourism opportunities and resulting benefits are enhanced in several ways:

♦ It is more cost-effective and satisfying for the tourist to be able to visit more than onepark from his or her base, and even to pay one admission fee (e.g. boat trips acrossthe border on Waterton Lake for Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park; riverrafting between Kluane/Tatshenshini-Alsek/Glacier Bay crossing three jurisdictionsand two countries; boat tours go down the river border in the bilateral Bohemian-Saxonian Switzerland in Germany and Czech Republic.)

♦ Joint approach in marketing is more likely to attract tour operators as an economy of

scale and provides more of a level playing field when dealing with the tourism industry(e.g. the Yukon/Alaska Tourism Marketing Strategy for parks in Canada and USA).

♦ Collaboration on such matters as entry fees (not too disparate), tour operator training

and numbers limitations can make for more sustainable and orderly nature tourism. 11. Information and educational materials can be jointly developed and produced at cost

savings, and their use with visitors then promotes a pride of designation in the parkpersonnel and a regional and cultural image in the visitor. Common maps, logo,brochures, video material and even joint interpretive outings on both sides of the borderare hallmarks of effective TBC. The best example of all of these in one place is in theAustralian Alps National Parks, and Waterton-Glacier and Hohe Tauern are closebehind.

12. Joint training of park staff can produce economies, and foster exchange of varied

experience of field staff. This applies to law enforcement, park maintenance, fire control,environmental education and many other management activities (e.g. Hohe Tauern inthree Austrian States in the development of a joint training academy).

13. Improved staff morale seems to go hand-in-hand with transboundary cooperation. This

may be partly through reduction in the feeling of isolation for parks in remote areas. Italso reflects the sharing of experiences with other professionals who grapple with similarproblems. The cultural differences can make for enriching interaction and camaraderie(e.g. in the regularly held Glacier Bay/Wrangell-St. Elias/Kluane Borderland Managers'Workshops).

14. There is increased opportunity for staff exchanges at various levels, and this promotes

professional development (e.g. in 1996 15 days of staff exchange by 10 rangers fromMercantour (France) to Alpi Marittime (Italy) and in 1997 the exchange will work the otherway. Note that this also involves language training, but the benefit is considered to besufficient to justify this.)


15. The combined professional staffs offer a greater skills pool for finding the expertiseneeded to solve a problem on either side of the boundary (e.g.the two Tatras parks inPoland and Slovakia).

16. Expensive investments in heavy equipment, aircraft rental for patrol and other items used

infrequently may be shared to the end of greater cost savings (e.g. the cooperative firemanagement air surveillance and aerial water bombing in the Australian Alps.)

17. Where both sides agree on a priority action or expense, it carries more weight with the

"higher-ups" than if it comes unilaterally from the one park unit (e.g. upgrading CzechRepublic's Elbe Sandstones Protected Landscape to a National Park, to match itspartner across the German border, Saxonian Switzerland National Park.)

18. Similarly, the department or ministry within which the protected area unit is embedded

usually feels a greater responsibility to honor its obligations for support. This may helpwhere the parks agency is within a forestry ministry that has a timber harvest myopia.

19. Joint proposals from both sides of an international frontier have greater weight with

international designations or donors (e.g. Waterton-Glacier International Peace Parkwhich became a World Heritage Site in December 1995, and the Czech/Slovak/Austriainternational park Morava-Dyje wetlands which secured GEF funding in 1993.)

20. Where a protected area is receiving air pollution damage such as acid rain or heavy

metal deposition, an international leverage may have more effect; similarly if one area isthreatened with an inappropriate development, the joint opposition may carry the day(e.g. in the proposed copper mine in the Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park because ofits tie to Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elias and Glacier Bay which together became the world'slargest World Heritage Site.)

21. Customs and Immigration officials are more easily encouraged to cooperate by a joint

effort of transboundary parks (e.g. Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park). 22. Search and rescue activities that are part of mountain park management are often much

more efficiently and economically carried out by cooperating protected areas(e.g.Nepalese helicopter rescues in Qomolangma Nature Reserve of China on MountSagarmatha/Qomolangma).

Note that these benefits must continuously be communicated by park managers to seniordecision and policy makers of the agency and ministry in order to keep their commitment asthere are changes in administration, particularly if there are changes in political philosophy.Benefits also need to be communicated to local people within or neighbor to the parks.

IMPEDIMENTS TO TBC

No one ever claimed that it was easier to get agreement between two or more distinct entities,than to take unilateral action. TBC not always smooth sailing. Under some transboundarysituations there can be many inevitable impediments. To a large extent these explain whythere are very many levels or kinds of TBC where protected areas abut a common politicalborder.

1. Strong nationalism, isolationism, or different political ideologies can make it impossiblefor a high level of TBC to prevail. As has been previously stated, open hostility and evenarmed conflict precludes any overt level of TBC.

2. The difficult terrain and inaccessibility of most parks is in itself a problem. Lack of access


infrastructure across an international mountain or large river border is often the case, andmakes effective TBC difficult because it limits personal contact (e.g. lack of easy cross-border access in La Amistad International Park (Costa Rica and Panamá)).

3. Different and occasionally conflicting laws with respect to such things as illegal drug

crops, wildlife harvesting, wildlife trade (one may be a signatory to CITES and one not),customs and immigration, use of firearms, timber theft, all make cooperative lawenforcement a problem even though cooperative law enforcement seems a mostcompelling arena for joint action (e.g. Nyika National Park in Malawi and Zambia).

4. Transboundary parks are usually slower in response to joint emergencies that call for

quick action, unless cooperation is of a very high level, and has been in place for sometime so that response policies have been thoroughly worked out.

5. Religious/cultural differences may result in different attitudes toward nature that have to

be recognized and provide for. These differences run the gamut from attitudes aboutkilling "pest" animals to different dress codes for tourists visiting both parks.Religious/cultural differences can cause misunderstandings between park personnel, asis sometimes the case in Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu interactions, or American/Mexicaninteractions.

6. Language barriers may have to be overcome for effective communication. In the

Mercantour (France)/Alpi Marittime (Italy) staff exchange, language training has to beprovided.

7. The same level of political commitment may not exist on both sides of the border, and

this will foster a "weaker partner-dominant partner" situation (e.g. Bavarian Forest inGermany and umava in Czech Republic).

8. The structure and degree of professionalism existing in the different agencies may make

for difficulty in achieving a real twinning of equal partners (e.g. requirement for rangersto have some university education on one side but not on the other).

9. If there are differences in designated discretionary authority given to the two (or more)

protected area managers or superintendents, some serious difficulties can keep arising. 10. When two countries are at different stages of economic development there can be some

incompatibility of goals (e.g. strict nature protection versus sustainable developmentwhich might involve grazing use, forest harvesting, hydropower development etc.)Policies toward roads in protected areas are sometimes quite different. Large scaletourism or forest production may be given priority in one country and nature protectionmay be paramount in the other (Bavarian Forest/ umava).

11. Inconsistency of involvement with international protocols or conventions (Conventions on

Migratory Species, Wetlands of International Importance, and International Trade inEndangered Species, World Heritage, UNESCO Biosphere Reserve) will prevent theirbeing used as TBC support (e.g. Venezuela has not approved Biosphere Reserves whileColombia has).

12. Without clear objectives and enlightened leadership, cooperation can degenerate

somewhat into weak compromise, indecision or inaction.

Fortunately, the difficulties associated with communication between park staff across bordersare being eased by modern technology. Advances in telephone, facsimile transmission, and


electronic communication are all decreasing in the cost. There are still technical difficultiesand sometimes incompatibilities to be worked out. And there is always the persistent problemof insufficient funds for communication. Having access to each other's radio frequencies andthe increasingly common use of electronic mail will reduce some of the difficulties enumeratedabove.

GUIDELINES AND BEST PRACTICES

1. There is some UNIFYING THEME that promotes common values and a mutual vision:the river itself for the Danube; the Waddenzee; a common animal such as theendangered Andean bear for abutting parks in Venezuela and Colombia; the panther forthe whole series of linked protected areas (many of them on common borders) in theMesoAmerican Biotic Corridor for 7 countries; Mount Everest for Qomolangma andSagarmatha, and so forth. This in turn produces a cultural icon that binds not only staffbut local people on both sides of the border through pride in the designation. This isenhanced by having a common name, for example Nyika National Parks. A joint namethat appears repeatedly is the next best thing (Waterton/Glacier International PeacePark). A common logo such as Hohe Tauern has for the three units, or as the AustralianAlps has developed (even though each park agency retains its own logo as well) aregood examples.

2. Good TBC will result in capturing the economic benefits and unifying effects of joint

development and production of COMMON MATERIALS FOR EDUCATION ANDINFORMATION. These present and interpret the natural and cultural values of the wholearea, across the boundary. A common map, brochures, exhibits and audio-visualmaterial not only present this holistic view, but give economies of joint production. Thetwo-language booklets produced by Mercantour and Alpi Marittime such as "MountainsWithout Frontiers" are good examples.

3. These common materials are in turn used in NATURE TOURISM marketing, tour

operator training, concessionaire regulation. Excellent examples of all of these werevisible in the Australian Alps. Noteworthy were the agreed-upon visitor codes publishedas common pamphlets for: car-based camping, bushwalking, horse riding, snowcamping, river use, and mountain biking.

4. Common nature and culture INTERPRETATION themes and joint interpretation activities

that cross the border are hallmarks of a high degree of cooperation. This isdemonstrated Waterton/Glacier International Peace Park where there are regularinterpreter exchanges either for the season or on specific days of the week. Also,interpreters from both parks lead day-long international hikes, with a lunch stop on theborder in which Americans sit in Canada, Canadians sit in the USA and foreign visitorscan sit either side or on the boundary if they wish.

5. A highly visible, high level JOINT ACTIVITY promotes staff goodwill and morale, and

goes well with the public. A good example is the annual joint Park Superintendents' Hikein Waterton/Glacier. A joint annual field day for the public, or even joint annual staffpicnic seems like a good practice. Alpi Marittime Nature park has an annual eventcelebrating the cultural traditions of an ethnic group which is now located mainly acrossthe border in France.

6. Regular JOINT TECHNICAL MEETINGS, seminars or training programs for information

exchange, development of a transborder spirit, increased staff morale, professionalupgrading and for cooperative develpment of strategies and materials are held. A goodexample is the Northern Borderlands Managers' Workshops involving professional stafffrom the US National Park Service, Parks Canada, US Forest Service, Alaska State


Parks, British Columbia Parks, Yukon Parks and First Nation Co-managers, who focuson the large World Heritage Area that crosses all these jurisdictions.

7. JOINT RESEARCH AND MONITORING is a positive and non-threatening activity and

can be a good base on which to build other collaboration. Even when the research isdone by outside organizations or individuals, it is usually more effective when donewithout regard to an artificial (political) boundary. Shared research results for parkmanagement are significant and needed benefits. Good examples are inTatransky/Tatrzanski National Parks in Slovakia and Poland, and in Krkonoe/Karkonosze in Czech Republic and Poland. The Biosphere Reserve designationfosters research cooperation both in the core zone and buffer zone, since this UNESCOprogram encourages collaborative scientific activity.

8. COMPATIBLE or, preferably, JOINT MANAGEMENT PLANS. While joint management

plans may not be feasible due to the different timing of establishment of the respectiveareas (or other factors), they need to be compatible on major issues such as firemanagement, pest species control, and management of fauna that cross borders (e.g.France's Mercantour/Italy's Alpi Marittime for the chamois, ibex, mouflon and wolf).

9. COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT of staff through staff exchange

and joint training programs are very desirable, and develop "ties that bind". Hohe Tauernhas joint training activities that realize economies by using qualified trainers onceinstead of three times, in each of the three state jurisdictions, Carinthia, Salzburg andTyrol. It has developed a "training academy". Staff exchanges are in place inMercantour/Alpi Marittime.

10. It is desirable to have a WRITTEN AGREEMENT ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE in dealing

with illegal transborder activities such as poaching, drug movements, and timbertrespass, and with emergency situations such as fire suppression and search-and-rescue. Waterton/Glacier International Peace Park has a written agreement on the lattertwo areas of concern, and it is a major item on the US/Mexican border where a jointBorders 21 Project is working out bi-national collaboration on all of the abutting borderprotected areas.

11. Each protected area agency needs to SANCTION TIME ALLOCATION of staff for the

necessary coordination work which inevitably has a substantial amount of discussion andpre-activity meetings. In view of the benefits, this must not be regarded by higher agencyofficials as unproductive wheel-spinning.

12. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PROTOCOLS are used where possible to

support and foster effective TBC. These include World Heritage designation,Convention on Migratory Species, Convention on International Trade in EndangeredSpecies, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Biodiversity Convention,and Man and the Biosphere Program (especially Biosphere Reserves). Thesedesignations not only give a higher profile and status but another layer of protection as isthe case in Bhutan's Royal Manas National Park and India's Manas Tiger Reserve WorldHeritage site.

13. SUPPORT OF AN NGO, preferably one that can work both sides of the border in helping

to develop and maintain a constituency for the joint park. This is well illustrated by theRotary Club International in the case of Waterton/Glacier. Rotary conceived the peacepark idea and pushed each government to action. It continues to be active and iscurrently attempting to eliminate the swath of cut vegetation that marks the internationalborder. The Mountain Institute plays a nurturing and training role in Makalu-Barun


(Nepal)/Qomolangma (China), and carries out projects with the traditional people livingwithin and around the protected areas. It assists in securing donor support for park-related activities involving local self-help projects. The International Tropical TimberOrganization was instrumental in securing donor funds to help make operational theLanjak-Entimau/Bentuang-Karimun protected areas in Sarawak, Malaysia andKalimantan, Indonesia. NGOs developed a Danube Charter that was instrumental in theestablishment of the tri-lateral Morava-Dyje wetlands (Czech Republic/Slovakia/Austria).IUCN and WWF have both played effective roles in assisting border parks, particularly indeveloping countries. In these cases there is often technical and financial assistance inthe formulation of management plans. It is an IUCN program activity to promotetransborder protected area establishment and cooperative management. (See forinstance Priority Number 22 of Parks for Life:Action for Protected Areas in Europe; thestated objective is "to encourage the greater use of transborder protected areas inEurope and a greater degree of cooperation across frontiers with those that alreadyexist" (Synge, 1994).

14. While an outside group can do much to keep agency administrators and others higher on

the bureaucratic or political ladder supportive of the transborder park idea and TBC, thepark units themselves must direct attention to this matter. Timely and regularCOMMUNICATION UPWARD to higher decision-makers and other agencies that mayadversely impact the park (e.g. tourism, transportation, energy and mines, forestry,agriculture) is extremely important. International field days, publicizing successfulcooperative projects, hosting global meetings, appropriate use of newsletters, have beenused toward this end. Many of these are well illustrated in the Australian Alps LiaisonCommittee activity.

15. The same communication effort must be carried out when dealing with COMMUNITY

SUPPORT, which needs to be fostered at every opportunity. Benefits of the protectedareas need to be continually explained. Consultation with the community in planning fornew management activities is becoming increasingly the standard park policy. LocalNGOs often play a significant role here, as shown in Makalu-Barun/Qomolangma, andindigenous community co-management which is gradually taking place inKluane/Wrangell-St. Elias.

16. A FORMAL AGREEMENT between the political entities that gives a mandate to

cooperate is needed in addition to a cooperating relationship between cross-border staff,for personnel change all too often. Poland and Slovakia have such an agreement for theTatra Parks, and in Hohe Tauern, the federal government of Austria is signatory to theagreement between the States of Salzburg, Tyrol and Carinthia. The Australian Alpsnational Parks has a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding, just renewed thisyear after 10 successful years in place.

17. Some kind of ADVISORY, COORDINATING, OR OVERSIGHT GROUP has a significant

role to play and can be supportive to the directors or superintendents of the respectiveunits. (The Australian Alps Liaison Committee performs this function,and does itextremely well; in the case of Mercantour/Alpi Marittime, the Italian park director is avoting member of the management and policy board of the park across the border, andthe French director is an ex-officio invitee to the Italian policy committee.)

18. Having FUNDS THAT SUPPORT AND THEREFORE PROMOTE JOINT RESEARCH

OR JOINT MANAGEMENT PROJECTS is extremely desirable. These may come fromoutside, as is the case in Krkono e and Karkonosze where GEF funds supportcooperative projects conserving biodiversity; or be provided by the respective agenciesor ministries but earmarked for cooperative activities to be awarded and supervised bythe coordinating body, as is the case for the Australian Alps Liaison Committee (currently


around US$250,000 annually). 19. At the highest level of TBC there needs to be a FULL OR PART-TIME COORDINATOR,

perhaps on a rotating basis as is done by the four agencies in the Australian Alps, fortheir full-time Coordinator.

20. For the highest degree of collaboration a formal agreement is necessary, but it alone is

not sufficient. ENTHUSIASTIC, FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIPS between the respectivesuperintendents or park directors, and staff at all levels must exist, or TBC will founder, inspite of agreements. This "intangible" is imperative.

I must say that in my travels for WCPA, and dealings with protected area personnel, I haveencountered only friendliness and enthusiasm among staff within the protected area andacross to neighboring protected areas. Park professionals by nature seem well equipped topromote effective cooperation across all boundaries, whether they be international, interstate,interagency, or across into the neighboring communities.

LITERATURE CITED

Ahn, J.-Y. and S. McGahey. 1992. Converting the Korean Demilitarized Zone into a PeacePark. pp 9-12 in Joining Hands for Quality Tourism. Proc. Heritage InterpretationInternational, Third Global Congress. Eds. R.S,. Tabata, J. Yamashiro and G. Cherem.Univ. of Hawai`i Sea Grant Extension Service, Honolulu. 468 pp.

Cerovsky, J. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe.ECOPOINT Foundation, Prague. 108 pp.

Hamilton, L. S., J. C. Mackay, G. L. Worboys, R. A. Jones and G. B. Manson. 1996.Transborder Protected Areas Cooperation. Australian Alps Liaison Committee andIUCN, Canberra. 64 pp.

McNeil, R. J. 1990. International Parks for Peace. pp. 23-38 in Parks on the Borderline:Experience in Transfrontier Conservation. Ed. By J. Thorsell. IUCN Protected AreasProgramme Series No. 1. Gland.

Synge, H., (Ed.). 1994. Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe. IUCN, Gland.146 pp.


LEGAL MECHANISMS TO STRENGTHEN AND SAFEGUARD TRANSBOUNDARYPROTECTED AREAS

Clare ShineBarrister and consultantMember, IUCN Commission on Environmental Law37 rue Erlanger75016 ParisFrance

Introduction

Transboundary protected areas (TBPAs)2 potentially provide a range of important benefits:

♦ reduction of political tension and/or the promotion of peace;

♦ more effective management of natural resources and environments;

♦ promotion of the economic welfare of a region's communities.

♦ the preservation and enhancement of cultural values and, in certain cases, the protection oftransboundary peoples (McNeil).

The motive for creating a TBPA obviously varies in accordance with regional circumstances. Whilstthe term "peace park" has no legal definition, it has generally been applied to transboundarycooperation where the primary aim is to confirm3, strengthen or re-establish4 good relations with aneighbouring State(s); to prevent escalation of border disputes; or to safeguard important areas ofbiodiversity which are or were military zones5. In most areas, however, the primary purpose oftransboundary cooperation is to improve the management of a shared ecological unit or migratoryspecies6.

Whatever the main objective, the potential benefits of TBPAs should be seen as closely inter-related. Prospects for peace are most likely to be strengthened if natural resources are sustainablyused and the interests of local populations are taken fully into account.

As stated in the Conference Concept Paper, many TBPAs fail to realize all of their potentialbenefits. Although such failure may be attributed to political, socio-economic or financial problems, itcan be caused or exacerbated by weaknesses in the legal and institutional framework for protectedarea management, at national level and/or in the arrangements between neighbouring States.

2 Broadly interpreted to cover areas within IUCN protected area management categories I-VI for which formalor informal mechanisms for transboundary cooperation have been developed.3 e.g. the Waterton-Glacier "International Peace Park", established in 1932 by separate Acts of the CanadianParliament and the U.S. Congress to establish "an enduring monument of nature to the long-existingrelationship of peace and goodwill between the people of and Governments of Canada and United States".4 e.g. the San Juan River Watershed between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, where the "Sistema de AreasProtegidas para la Paz" (international protected area for peace) is being developed in an area subject toprevious military activity as well as to extensive rural migration.5 e.g. Ecological Bricks for our Common House of Europe initiative (sites along the former Iron Curtain) andthe Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea.6 e.g. Spanish/French cooperation in the Pyrenees; establishment of transboundary reserves for the Kouprey(grey ox) in forests along the Laos, Vietnamese and Kampuchean borders.


As a general rule, the fundamental protected area objectives of perennity and integrity are best metthrough comprehensive management instruments which address all types of activity or impactwhich could adversely affect the site (de Klemm and Shine). With specific regard to resource-basedconflicts, it is arguable that neighbouring countries which commit themselves to joint consultationand management arrangements will be better placed to deal with any cross-border problems and topursue negotiated solutions.

This short paper summarizes general legal issues and the international regime applicable to TBPAestablishment and management, before describing a range of mechanisms for this purpose. Itoutlines the main legal rules for the protection of the general environment during conflicts andconsiders possible safeguards for protected areas against hostile military activities. It concludeswith elements for further consideration by this Conference.

2. Legal framework for the establishment and management of transboundary protectedareas

2.1 Issues and obstacles

Legally, there is no difference between a protected area in a border region and any other protectedarea in the same country. Both will be subject to the relevant legislation of the country concerned.

Ecologically, however, border regions often have special importance for biological and landscapediversity, especially where located in inaccessible areas. Since political boundaries between Stateshave usually been drawn for demographic, geographic or security reasons, they may take noaccount of the parameters of an ecological unit: important watersheds or internationally significantnatural areas are often transected by national boundaries. In the absence of an appropriatemanagement regime for the whole unit, there may be a heightened risk of conflict over use of theshared resources.

Where protected areas in neighbouring countries are located along the international border, thisborder forms the jurisdictional boundary between the management authorities of the areasconcerned (if such authorities exist). It is also the line at which each country's laws cease to beapplicable7. Different parts of one ecosystem unit will therefore be managed by different institutionsin accordance with different legal rules (which may be national or, in a federated country, regionalor cantonal). This is unsatisfactory from a scientific point of view and can lead to duplication ofeffort, conflicting management policies, wasted socio-economic opportunities and weak or non-existent law enforcement.

In management terms, it would be preferable for the whole area to be administered as a single unitby one institutional body (the highest being a joint international commission established by treaty) inaccordance with a single management plan. The international border would become purelysymbolic, with immigration and customs controls being moved back to the park boundaries anduniform regulations being applicable throughout the TBPA.

Such an "ideal" will often, though not always8, be politically impossible. A sovereign State exercisessovereign rights over its national territory and the natural resources under its jurisdiction, subject toany limitations under customary international law or which it has voluntarily accepted under a treaty.In border areas of political as well as environmental sensitivity, initiatives to develop joint regimesmay be rejected as an unacceptable relinquishment of sovereign rights over part of the nationalterritory and an invitation to foreign interference in national affairs.

7 A TBPA is not a legal no-man's land: a country's civil, criminal and other laws continue to apply to thoseparts of the protected area which are under its jurisdiction.8 See McNeil on possible mechanisms for agreed multiple sovereignty in exceptional cases.


Leaving political resistance aside, obstacles to integrated management also arise where there aresignificant differences or imbalances between neighbouring countries. These may relate to ethnicor cultural issues or to economic, legal or institutional systems. Despite the rapid development ofenvironmental law worldwide, some countries lack modern nature conservation legislation andmany more have inadequately resourced management authorities without clear powers and duties.Jurisdictional overlaps and poor cross-sectoral coordination remain very common, particularly incoastal and marine areas and in river ecosystems9. [Conversely, transboundary cooperation will befacilitated under a coherent legal/institutional framework...]

2.2 International legal regime applicable to transboundary protected areas

TBPAs are a useful tool for the coordinated implementation of treaty obligations orintergovernmental programmes. Several conservation treaties10 require the Parties concerned toconsult with each other where one Party intends to establish a protected area contiguous to thefrontier of another Party, and to cooperate after the creation of the park or reserve, or in caseswhere a protected area was already established before the treaty came into force. A few go furtherby requiring the competent authorities of the Parties concerned to consult each other with a view toreaching agreement on management measures for such areas.

The Conference of the Parties to the Ramsar Convention (1971 Convention on Wetlands ofInternational Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat11) has adopted a proactive role inencouraging Parties to take joint conservation measures in respect of transboundary wetlands12.The Ramsar Strategic Plan 1997-2000:

♦ calls for the designation of transfrontier wetlands and the improvement of internationalcooperation pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention (Objectives 6 and 7);

♦ urges Parties to identify transfrontier wetlands of international importance, for example in shared

catchment/river basins, and to encourage the preparation and implementation of joint plans forsuch sites using a "catchment" approach (Rec.5.3); and

♦ supports twinning of transfrontier wetlands and use of successful cases to illustrate the benefits

of international cooperation (Action 7.12).

The 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage places aduty on the international community to protect certain cultural and natural sites of "outstandinguniversal value". Of the 506 cultural and natural properties included in the World Heritage List as of

9 It is interesting to note that before Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands agreed to coordinatemanagement of the Wadden Sea, 80 separate governmental institutions were involved in its management andprotection.10 The earliest being the 1933 Convention relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their NaturalState (which covered Africa). Relevant regional conventions include the 1979 Convention on the Conservationof European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, the 1985 ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature andNatural Resources and the Protected Area Protocols to the Regional Seas Conventions concluded for theMediterranean, East African and Wider Caribbean Regions under the auspices of UNEP.11 In March 1997, there were 101 Parties to this Convention and 872 sites included in the List of Wetlands ofInternational Importance (about 62 million ha).12 At the Sixth Meeting (Brisbane 1996), the Conference called on the Governments of Bolivia and Peru toconsider the possibility of designating Lake Titicaca (the largest freshwater lake in South America, of vitalimportance for the subsistence and development of local communities) as a transfrontier Ramsar site(Rec.6.17.20) and welcomed the proposed simultaneous designation by France and Germany of a Ramsarsite along the upper reaches of the Rhine (Rec.6.17.23).


October 1996, 107 of these are natural and 19 are mixed cultural/natural sites. Eight sets ofadjacent protected areas are considered to be transboundary World Heritage Sites, with a furtherthree transfrontier nominations to be decided by the World Heritage Committee in December 1997.Interestingly, in over a third of these cases, the site on one side of the border was listed first, whilstthe listing of its neighbour followed at a later date (the Talamanca Range in Costa Rica was listedseven years earlier than La Amistad International Park, Panama in 1990). This illustrates thecatalyst role which international designations can play in TBPA establishment.

The most relevant intergovernmental programme for TBPAs is undoubtedly the Man and theBiosphere Programme, launched by UNESCO in 1971, under which an international network ofbiosphere reserves has been established to promote a balanced relationship between humans andthe biosphere. The Network aims to include representative samples of all ecosystem types in allbiogeographical zones: by 1997, 337 biosphere reserves had been designated in 85 countries13.

Countries propose biosphere reserves for inclusion in this voluntary Network, subject to theapproval of the MAB Council or Bureau. Each reserve remains under the sovereignty of the Stateconcerned and is subject to national legislation. Clear guidance on their establishment is providedby the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves14. Reserves should belarge enough to serve three functions (conservation, development and logistic support) and to useappropriate zonation comprising three component areas: "a legally constituted core area or areasdevoted to long-term protection", a buffer zone(s) surrounding or contiguous to the core area orareas, where only activities compatible with the conservation objectives can take place; and anouter transition area where sustainable resource management practices are promoted anddeveloped.

Designations under multilateral instruments constitute an important vehicle for internationalcooperation in the management of important natural areas. Financial assistance is often targeted atsites of international importance, increasingly so where these are located in border areas and maycontribute to regional stability15. Listed sites are more likely to attract the support and vigilance ofinternational NGOs. The relevant Conference of the Parties will usually have powers to makespecific recommendations where a listed site's conservation status is threatened. Lastly, it tends tobe politically and procedurally difficult for a Party which designated a protected area for listing todelist that site, as such an action would inevitably elicit adverse reaction from other Parties andpublic opinion at large.

2.3 Legal mechanisms for effective transboundary cooperation

As the case studies presented during this Conference will show, arrangements for existing TBPAscan range from informal/personal cooperation through local consultative arrangements to high-levelgovernment declarations or bilateral treaties (Hamilton). It should be emphasized that there is nocorrect model since conditions, customs and priorities vary between countries and between regions.A few general observations can nevertheless be made:

♦ Informal or "grass-roots" liaison is always essential to effective transboundary cooperation. At itsbest, it can build familiarity and mutual trust, promote close contact with communities andsupport flexible and innovative approaches to local sustainable development. Although its scope

13 The Trifinio Conservation and Development Zone (El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras) is a trilateralbiosphere reserve. Under a Governmental agreement of 1987, the competent national authorities remain incharge of the management of the areas under their jurisdiction, in accordance with a management plan to bejointly formulated in a "homogenous way" by the signatories.14 Adopted by the 28th General Council of UNESCO, November 1995.15 The World Bank, through the Global Environment Facility, is supporting numerous projects fortransboundary biodiversity conservation throughout eastern Europe and, more recently, in southern Africa.


is necessarily limited to certain operational matters, it can create the basis - and the incentive -for "upgrading" cooperation at a later date, for example through the development of aMemorandum of Understanding.

♦ Administrative authorities responsible for managing the protected areas concerned can develop

wide-ranging consultation arrangements or other forms of cooperation. However, their ability toaddress planning/strategic matters or to carry out staff exchanges will often be restricted withouta clear legal basis or at least a political decision at Government level16.

♦ Formal agreements provide the strongest legal basis for long-term transboundary cooperation

(and the harmonised implementation of treaty obligations) but are of course conditional upon ahigh degree of political goodwill and commitment. They can take the form of joint declarations,memoranda of agreement or letters of intention etc. between the heads of state of the countriesinvolved, all of which can make provision for institutional coordination17. It will generally benecessary to conclude a treaty if detailed rights and obligations are to be laid down18.

Formal TBPA instruments should start from a common conceptual framework, with organisingprinciples and objectives taken from relevant instruments (e.g. Biosphere Reserve StatutoryFramework) or conservation treaties to which the countries involved are Parties. It will probably benecessary to amend each country's laws/regulations to incorporate these principles and objectivesand to harmonise area-based rules on conservation, illegal taking and trade, search and rescue,fire prevention, emergency measures, wardening procedures, border crossing points and so on.The TBPA should be covered by a common management plan or, if this really is not possible, atleast by clear and agreed management guidelines. Zonation of the whole area should be jointlydetermined by the competent authorities, after proper consultation with local populations and usergroups on either side of the border (a strictly protected core zone on one side of the border shouldnot tail off into a car park on the other side...).

Turning to the institutional framework, the establishment of a single TBPA authority, with legal andfinancial autonomy within defined parameters, may be seen as politically unacceptable or aspremature in the early stages of transboundary cooperation. An alternative approach is to establishregular coordination between the lead agency in each country involved, with responsibility for suchcoordination rotating between the agencies at defined intervals19. However, institutional cooperationof this kind requires that each agency has the necessary mandate to consult with its oppositenumber in respect of planning and operational activities. It may also be necessary to develop aspecific financial mechanism to address, for example, the joint funding of shared equipment andjoint programmes.

There is certainly scope for imagination when building coordination mechanisms which can evolveover time. In the Pyrenees, for example, consultation has moved progressively towards high-level 16 A rare example of an agreement concluded directly between park authorities is the Protocol of Agreementbetween the Pfalz Nature Park in Germany and the Parc Naturel Régional des Vosges du Nord in France,which provides for the exchange of information and for joint programmes for the study and protection of certainnatural habitats.17 For example, the Common Wadden Sea Secretariat was established in 1987 pursuant to a JointDeclaration.18 The 1964 treaty establishing a joint nature park between Luxembourg and the German Land of Rheinland-Pfalz requires that the total area of forest in the park must not be diminished and establishes a JointCommission to which the two Governments must submit their park management plans for information. TheCommission may make recommendations to the Governments on future management programmes and forthe harmonisation of national regulations and other measures.19 One example is the trilateral cooperation between Congo, Rwanda and Uganda in the Virunga VolcanoesRegion.


representation. French and Spanish protected area directors are now entitled to attend meetings ofthe other's management authority on an ex officio basis although, as matters stand, only one hasthe right to vote at the other authority's meetings.

3. Legal rules applicable to protected areas during armed conflict

The law of war comprises a complex body of rules, developed over decades in an attempt to strikea balance between military imperatives and the requirements of humanity20. Whilst its scope hasbeen broadened to take account of the environmental devastation which modern warfare maycause (notably in response to the Vietnam and Gulf Wars), there is a general consensus that theserules, as currently implemented, still do not provide adequately for environmental protection duringarmed conflict.

Principle 24 of the (non-binding) 1992 Rio Declaration states that "warfare is inherently destructiveof sustainable development" and requires States to "respect international law providing protectionfor the environment in time of armed conflict and co-operate in its further development, asnecessary". High-level deliberations are now under way in various international fora21 on how toimprove the effectiveness of the legal regime. Within this process and with the support of the ICRCand UNESCO, the International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL) and the IUCN Commissionon Environmental Law have recently focused on the development of special safeguards forprotected areas in times of conflict, as described in 3.3 below.

3.1 Legal protection of the general environment during armed conflict

The customary law of war is anthropocentric (focused on the protection of people and propertyrather than of the environment per se). Indirect protection of the environment may be inferred fromthe fundamental rule that military action by States should be limited to the objective of weakeningthe force of the enemy22, and possibly from other inter-related principles of customary law (militarynecessity and humanity; discrimination; unnecessary suffering; proportionality). These broadprinciples limit permissible means and methods of warfare but leave military personnel considerablediscretion in their application.

Certain established/emerging general principles of environmental protection (the no-harm principle,the precautionary principle, the obligation of consultation and notification in respect oftransboundary risks) may also provide a legal basis for environmental protection during armedconflict23.With regard to positive law, mention should be made of two modern treaties which specificallyaddress environmental protection during armed conflict:

Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of EnvironmentalModification Techniques (ENMOD Convention)

20 It is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with this vast subject in detail. See Tarasofsky for acomprehensive survey and appraisal of the existing regime.21 Such as the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the UN General Assembly and the International Committee of theRed Cross (ICRC).22 First codified in the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration.23 The "Martens Clause" (1907 Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land)provides that until the adoption of specific regulations, inhabitants and belligerents are "under the protectionand the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilisedpeoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of public conscience". It has been argued (e.g. by Sands)that this Clause could be interpreted as extending to environmental protection objectives, particularly in thecontext of current efforts to establish the environment as a civic objective.


The Convention prohibits Parties from engaging in military or any other hostile use of environmentalmodification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects24 as the means ofdestruction, damage or injury to any other State Party (Art.I(1)). However, it applies only totechniques for changing, "through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes", the dynamics,composition or structure of the Earth or of outer space (Art II)25, and their effects must exceed ahigh threshold of damage. The Convention does not protect the environment per se, applies onlyas between Parties and does not extend to collateral damage.

Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating tothe Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Additional Protocol I)

The Protocol, with over 120 Parties, is a highly significant development in international humanitarianlaw as it incorporates several provisions relating directly to environmental protection. It is not limitedto damage to a State Party: Art.35(3) prohibits methods of warfare intended or expected to causewidespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment (emphasis added), thusmaking the environment an object of protection in its own right.

Amongst other relevant measures, the Protocol prohibits attacks on objects indispensable to thesurvival of the civilian population (crops, livestock drinking water installations) and on installationscontaining dangerous forces (nuclear electrical generating stations, dams, dykes) where this wouldcause severe civilian losses, except in defined circumstances,

3.2 Area-specific rules and procedures

The legal regime described above is mainly concerned with widespread, serious environmentaldamage and control of weapons of mass destruction. However, one of the questions for thisConference is the extent to which legal measures can protect environmentally sensitive areas,particularly in border regions, during armed conflict involving any method of warfare.There are a limited number of treaty provisions which may be applied to areas of particularimportance, but none have been used to their full potential to date.

The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of ArmedConflict, and the Regulations for its execution, establish a comprehensive regime for culturalproperty, which includes the marking of property under special protection with a blue and whiteemblem. The 1972 World Heritage Convention imposes a duty to refrain from deliberate activitieswhich may directly or indirectly harm designated sites of other parties (Art VI.3). Although thiswording seems to anticipate conflict situations, the Convention does not create a regime to protectsites in such circumstances and its limited effectiveness was only too apparent during thebombardment of the Old City of Dubrovnik (a cultural World Heritage Site).

The 1977 Additional Protocol I establishes two area-specific provisions. "Non-defended localities"(Art.59) are inhabited areas which may be established unilaterally or by agreement betweenbelligerents. Localities are immune from attack, provided that the area is not used in any mannerthat would support the military effort and that all combatants and mobile military equipment areevacuated. "Demilitarized zones" (Art.60) have the potential to offer even broader protection to thearea in that they are immune from all military operations, not just attacks. Such zones can only be 24 "Widespread" is interpreted as covering several hundred square kilometres, "long-lasting" as a period ofmonths or approximately a season, "and severe" as "serious or significant disruption or harm to human life,natural and economic resources or other assets" (Understanding of the Conference of the Committee ofDisarmament).25 This probably does not cover setting fire to oilwells but has been declared to include the use of herbicides(Final Declaration of the Second Review Conference of the Parties to ENMOD, Sept. 1992, UN Doc.ENMOD/CONF.II/11).


established by agreement amongst Parties but the Protocol specifically provides that suchagreement can be made in peacetime. It has been suggested (Westing) that all World HeritageSites should be declared to be "demilitarized zones" under Article 60.

An recent precedent for site-specific protection consists of the unilateral resolutions issued by theUnited Nations Security Council to demilitarize a physical area for humanitarian reasons26. Theserequire Parties and others concerned to treat a specified place and its surroundings as a safe areawhich should be free from any armed attack or any other hostile act. The mandate of UNPROFORin Bosnia was extended to achieve this goal.

3.3 ICEL/IUCN-CEL Draft for a Convention on the Prohibition of Hostile Military Activities inProtected Areas ("the Draft")27

The Draft formalises the role of the United Nations in the protection of important natural and culturalareas by establishing a procedure whereby the UN Security Council could determine, on a case bycase basis, internationally important sites which warrant protection and the specific measuresnecessary to implement such a determination.

Under draft Article 2, each Resolution adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UNCharter in response to a situation of armed conflicts must include a list of the "relevantinternationally protected areas, thereby designated as non-target areas in which all hostile militaryactivities shall not be permitted during the armed conflict in question"28. This protection willautomatically cease if the State Party in whose territory the area is situated maintains militaryinstallations of any kind within [a distance to be defined] of that area or uses that area to carry outany military activities during an armed conflict (draft Art.3). Expert missions to monitor compliancemust be sent by the UN Security Council/regional arrangement or agency (draft Art.4.1) and mayalso be sent by other bodies as part of the United Nations operation, including non-governmentalinternational organisations (draft Art.4.2). Such missions must report any cases of non-complianceto the sending body which "shall take necessary actions to ensure effective implementation" of theConvention (draft Art 4.3).

States Parties are generally required to disseminate the Convention and make provision for its"study" (draft Art.5)29. The Convention makes provision for review meetings (draft Art.6) and disputesettlement (draft Art.7).

The mechanism applies to "protected areas", comprehensively defined as "natural or cultural areasof outstanding international significance from the points of view of ecology, history, art, science,ethnology, anthropology, or natural beauty, which may include, inter alia, areas designated underany international agreement or intergovernmental programme which meet these criteria" (draftArt.1). It is anticipated (Burhenne) that expert advice on the identification of sites could be solicited

26 "Safe areas" were created in Bosnia-Herzegovina under UN Security Council Res. 819, 824, 836 and 844(1993) and in Rwanda under Res. 925 and 929 (1994).

27The 1997 World Conservation Congress has endorsed the ICEL/IUCN-CEL initiative (IUCN-WCC Resolution1.57): the early draft discussed in this paper has been sent out for consultation and will then be revised.

28 This obligation also applies to regional arrangements or agencies which take appropriate actions in theexercise of their functions under Chapter VIII of the Charter in conformity with the Declaration on theEnhancement of Cooperation between the United Nations and Regional Arrangements or Agencies in theMaintenance of International Peace and Security (annexed to UNGA Resolution 49/57 of 9 December 1994)(draft Art.2.2).

29 As currently drafted, this provision is unclear: ideally, it should be reformulated to refer to study of theConvention within military training programmes.


from the World Heritage Committee for cultural sites and the IUCN for natural sites. An obviousstarting point would be the existing lists of designated sites under the World Heritage Convention,Ramsar Convention and relevant regional conventions, together with the UN List of Parks andProtected Areas and sites included in the Biosphere Reserve Network30.

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that this proposal for a Convention has been developed todeal with extreme situations, where a national or regional conflict requires intervention at UnitedNations level. Without minimizing the undoubted difficulty of enforcing this kind of Resolution, theproposed mechanism has several useful features.

♦ It would be applicable to non-international as well as international conflicts. It would conferprotection analogous to that for "demilitarized zones" (Art.60, Additional Protocol I) butunencumbered by the need for agreement between belligerents;

♦ It would impose constraints not only on the attacker (prohibition of "hostile military activities"

(undefined) in the "non-target" area) but also on the territorial State, which may not abuse thesite's protective status by carrying out military activities therein or maintaining military installationswithin a given radius. These last provisions are particularly important as they strengthen Stateenvironmental responsibilities and could make an effective contribution to the reduction ofcollateral damage.

4. Elements for further consideration

This paper has touched on two weaknesses in the protected area regime:

♦ the poor interface between ordinary legal/institutional frameworks and integrated managementof ecosystem units;

♦ the absence of permanent safeguards for internationally important protected areas (other than

Antarctica) against small- or large-scale conflicts.Looking to the future, the challenge is to develop a comprehensive yet flexible framework tosafeguard and strengthen transboundary protected areas. Such a mechanism should arguablyaddress issues related to ongoing peacetime management as well as containing measuresdesigned to prevent damage in the event of armed conflict.

A framework of this kind might take the form of a non-binding Code of Conduct. Without conflictingwith the work of existing fora, this could build an international consensus for improved protectedarea safeguards and contribute to building widespread awareness of the particular importance andvulnerability of such areas. A Code of this kind could also play a catalyst role by providing detailedguidance for countries wishing to formalise TBPA agreements.

What might a Code of Conduct contain? It could incorporate "best practice" recommendationsdrawn up by this Conference. It should support the elimination of legal rules which underminesustainable use of transboundary protected areas and promote the adoption of positive measuresfor this purpose. It should set out minimum institutional standards and advocate the creation ofadministrative conditions conducive to local participation in the decision-making process. It couldidentify preventive measures which concerned countries should take individually or jointly to preventthe degradation of TBPAs and designate non-confrontational procedures for dispute resolution. Itshould contain a detailed list of activities prohibited in TBPAs (preparatory and hostile military

30 As per the Final Report of the Senior Legal Experts on Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage(convened by IUCN-CEL, ICEL and the World Travel and Tourism Council, December 1992).


actions, siting of facilities etc.). It is recommended that consideration be given to conditionality offunding, to make financial aid for TBPAs conditional upon compliance with these components.

This kind of initiative may seem ambitious, but the international community has made significantprogress in recent years in developing innovative forms of environmental cooperation (such as the1994 Lusaka Agreement on Co-operative Enforcement Operations directed at Illegal Trade in WildFauna and Flora, which established an international task force with legal personality to secure itsobjectives). At the time of writing, momentum to strengthen international humanitarian law isaccelerating and a convention to ban the production, sale and use of anti-personnel landmines willhopefully be concluded in Ottawa, Canada before the end of 1997.

This Conference can make an important contribution to this wider global process and thus helppeace parks live up to their name.

Selected bibliography

Arends, A., Cerovsky, J. and Pickova, G., Transboundary Biodiversity Conservation: selected casestudies from Central Europe, Ecopoint Praha, 1995

Burhenne, W.E., 1997, The Prohibition of Hostile Military Activities in Protected Areas, paperpresented to the Elizabeth Haub Colloquium, Wiesbaden, Germany (17-19 April 1997)

Centre international pour la conservation de la montagne (ed.), Pour une protection internationaledu Mont-Blanc, date unknown

de Klemm, Cyrille in collaboration with Shine, Clare, Biological Diversity Conservation and the Law:Legal Mechanisms for Conserving Species and Ecosystems, IUCN Environmental Policy andLaw Paper No.29, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 1993

Hamilton, L.S., Mackay, J.C., Worboys, G.L., Jones, R.A. and Manson, G.B., TransborderProtected Area cooperation, Australian Alps National Parks and IUCN-The WorldConservation Union, 1996

McNeil, R.J., International Parks for Peace, in Thorsell (ed.) 1990Sands, P., Principles of international environmental law: Volume I (Frameworks, standards and

implementation), Manchester University Press in association with IUCN, Centre for Social andEconomic Research on the Environment and the Foundation for International EnvironmentalLaw and Development, 1995

Tarasofsky, R.G., Legal Protection of the Environment during International Armed Conflict,Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 1993, Vol.XXIV, pp.17-79

Thorsell, J. (ed.), Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Conservation; IUCNProtected Area Programme Series n°1, Gland, 1990

Weed, T.J, Central America's "Peace Parks" and Regional Conflict Resolution, InternationalEnvironmental Affairs, Vol.6, No.2, Spring 1994

Westing, A.H., Environmental Protection from Wartime Damage: The Role of International Law inConflict and the Environment, ed. Gleditsch, N.P., Kluwer (1997, in litt.)

Zinke, Alexander, Ecological Bricks for Europe: Integration of Conservation and SustainableDevelopment along the former East-West Border, in Protected Area Economics and Policy:


Linking Conservation and Sustainable Development, ed. Munasinghe, M. and McNeely, J,World Bank and World Conservation Union (IUCN), pp.133-143


PEACE PARKS IN CENTRAL AMERICA. SUCCESSES & FAILURES IN IMPLEMENTINGMANAGEMENT COOPERATION

The La Amistad, SI-A-PAZ/San Juan River BasinExperiences

Juan J. Castro-Chamberlain

Introduction

The La Amistad, SI-A-Paz, and other efforts to conserve transboundary natural resources andcultural heritage in Central America have their common origin in the First Central AmericanMeeting on the Management of Natural & Cultural Resources, held in San Jose, Costa Rica inDecember 1974, sponsored by FAO, IUCN, UNESCO and the OAS. Recommendations fromthis landmark event alluded to the fact that in the region “there are border areas in whichnatural and cultural resources offer characteristics of interest to two or more countries, and,therefore, should be jointly managed, inasmuch as they constitute ecosystems whosetreatment should be integrated.” (OAS-CI, 1990, IRENA-MIRENEM, 1991)

As stated by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oscar Arias and James D. Nations of ConservationInternational : “The potential benefits of Central America’s peace parks go far beyond theirbiological advantages of having larger territories for the endangered animals and plants thatinhabit these areas. Peace parks also bring economic and political benefits. Coordinatingwildlife and watershed protection across borders can save scarce resources for all countriesinvolved. Peace parks also reduce stress along historically tense borders by providinggovernments with an agenda for mutual action on issues of common concern. Moreover, themost promising aspects of establishing these peace parks in Central America is the movementto include rural families in the planning and development of the parks and the buffer zones thatsurround them. “

The Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development (ALIDES) signed by thePresidents of the Central American countries and the Prime Minister of Belize in Nicaragua,on October 12, 1994 refers specifically to Border Development as part of the economiccommitments. Its estates that they: “Consider that sustainable development projects in borderzones of Central America designed to aid the population as a means to reduce marginalconditions and poverty, promote both the preservation of natural resources and harmoniousrelationships between countries. Therefore we support efforts made with regard to borderdevelopment”.

Two examples of such areas are the subject of this presentation: La Amistad InternationalPark, a biosphere reserve an World Heritage Site located in the border region between CostaRica and Panama and the SI-A-PAZ initiative in reference to existing and potential protectedareas on the border region between Costa Rica and Nicaragua.

1. The La Amistad International Park , Biosphere Reserve & World Heritage SiteExperience

Introduction:

La Amistad is by now one of the oldest transboundary biodiversity conservation projects in theCentral American Isthmus and thus lessons of experience from it could be of interest to othersuch projects in the region or elsewhere in the world.


In the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve Region international cooperation projects wereundertaken between 1989 and 1994 by both governments, Costa Rica and Panama with thesupport of the Organization of American States (OAS) , Conservation International (CI) and theUnited Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) undertaken.

Binational cooperation between Costa Rica and Panama dates back to 1970 when thePlanning and Economic Offices for both countries determined the need to jointly promote theintegrated development of their border zones.

In 1979 Costa Rica and Panama established their first Border Cooperation Agreement for thepurpose of jointly developing investment and technical assistance projects. They also agreedto undertaking studies in areas of mutual interest. The Presidents issued at this time a JointDeclaration on the establishment of the La Amistad International Park An agreement specificto the La Amistad Park is signed by the presidents of both countries in 1982.

Presidential declarations issued both in 1979 and 1982 with reference to the establishment ofthe La Amistad International Park emphasized two important arguments: the need to conservetheir joint natural and cultural heritage and to serve as a model for peace and friendshipbetween neighboring countries.

On the basis of the 1979 agreement both countries established specific agreements in theareas of: animal and plant sanitation, natural resources and environment, education,community development, health, infrastructure, marketing and municipal development. Theyalso considered for mid term planning purposes: technical assistance for agriculturalproduction, land use feasibility studies, road network, forest conservation, horticultural &livestock production, small industries and integration of public services. Long term planningconsiderations included the agricultural sector, urban development as well as feasibility studiesfor the establishment of joint binational enterprises and an International City -the existing cityof Paso Canoas- located across the border between both countries.

The political will to carry out binational cooperation is further reaffirmed in 1992 with thesigning of a new border cooperation agreement which has been ratified by the legislatures inboth countries.

The legal framework of both the 1979 and the 1992 binational cooperation agreements call forthe establishment of Binational Technical Commissions responsible for the follow up, controland evaluation. During the 1979-1992 period such Commissions were formed for the followingareas: agricultural production, human health, natural resources, transport and cartography,economics and agroindustry , education, culture and urban development.

These commissions have operated constrained by budgetary allotments in both countries.The Natural Resources Commission has been in operation since the establishment of the LaAmistad International Park in Costa Rica in 1982 due to both the political will of both countriesand the support of various international organizations such as: the World Fund for Nature,WWF, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA), ConservationInternational (CI) and the Organization of American States (OAS) .

The La Amistad Regional Characteristics:

The La Amistad International Park consists of approximately 2,000 km2 in each country andcovers the majority of the Talamanca Mountain range rising from sea level to over 3,800 m.and straddling the border between Costa Rica and Panama, Because of its location andvariations in altitude, the region contains nearly a dozen different Holdridge’s life Zones(OAS/CI, 1990): Tropical Moist Forest, Tropical Wet Forest, Tropical Wet Forest transition toPremontane Forest, Premontane Wet Forest, Premontane Wet Forest Forest transition to


Tropical Forest, Premontane Wet Forest transition to Rain Forest, Premontane Rain Forest,Lower Montane Wet Forest,Lower Montane Rain Forest, Montane Rain Forest, Subalpine RainParam, present in both Costa Rica and Panama and Lower Montane Moist Forest andMontane Wet Forest present only in Panama.

This landscape dominates the region and forms the physical backbone that ties both countriestogether. Since approximately 3 million years, according to the Smithsonian Tropical ResearchInstitute in Panama, when the Central American Isthmus took form, the Talamanca range hasbeen a land bridge allowing the migration of North and South-American biota. (STRI - Coates,et.al, 1992) It serves as refuge for a diverse flora and fauna, many of which are rare andendangered. The high annual rainfall from 2,000 to 7,000 mm, combined with short and steepwatersheds common to the region creates both serious flood hazards as well as a potential forhydropower generation.

Talamanca has been occupied by human inhabitants for thousands of years (12,000 accordingto some authors) and in Costa Rica it holds the majority of the indigenous peoples remaining inthe country, the largest group of which are the Bribri and the Cabecar with as many as 12,000inhabitants. Panama also has numerous indigenous communities within the region with60,000 Guaymi, 5,000 Teribe and approximately 500 Bribri inhabitants.

The various management units included in La Amistad Biosphere Reserve in Costa Rica are:La Amistad International Park Costa Rica Sector, Chirripo National Park, Hitoy CerereBiological Reserve, Barbilla Biological Reserve, Rio Macho Forestry Reserve, TapantiWildlife Reserve, Las Tablas Protective Zone,Indigenous Reserves: Ujarras, Salitre,Cabagra, Talamanca, Taini, Telire and Chirripo and the Robert & Catherine WilsonBotanical Garden.

The Government of Panama has proposed a biosphere reserve in its sector of the La AmistadInternational Park which includes territories in Bocas del Toro and Chiriqui Provinces including:the La Amistad International Park, the area of the proposed Teribe Indigenous Reserve, BaruVolcano National Park, the Palo Seco Protective Forest Reserve, part of the Guaimyindigenous territory, the Bastimentos Island Marine Park, the Fortuna Hydrological Reserveand the San San wetlands areas.

The Framework for Transboundary Cooperation:

The 1992 Agreement has as its purpose: “to expand, improve and strengthen Costa Rica’sand Panama’s cooperation in every field, in order to significantly contribute to thedevelopment and improvement of the border region in the social, economic, commercial,environmental and political areas and to strengthen the process of integration between bothcountries “.

“The countries also agreed to the joint implementation of pre-investment and technicalcooperation programs, projects and activities in the border region with reference to theagricultural, public works and transport, health, natural resources, municipalities, industry,education, tourism, planning and integrated rural development, as well as any other mutuallyagreed upon in the future through the exchange of Diplomatic Notes “.

“The parties to the agreement will establish a Permanent Binational Commission presided bythe Ministers of Planning who are responsible for program, project and activity generalcoordination, follow-up and evaluation if such are undertaken under the basis of theagreement“.


The Management Challenge:

In 1988 because of mounting management problems and conflicts among the many agenciesoperating within the Biosphere Reserve in Costa Rica, a coordinating commission wasestablished with representatives of the major institutions having jurisdiction over land use.

This Commission was presided over by the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines(now the Ministry of Environment and Energy) and included as members the Director of thePark Service and the Forestry General Directorate, (both part of the Ministry) the NationalParks Foundation, the Executive Director of the National Commission of Indigenous Affairs,the Resident Director of the Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS) and the GeneralCoordinator for the Reserve on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Although progress has been slow, both countries have taken significant actions to carryforward with the joint management of the International Park and the adjoining areas that nowconform a biosphere reserve in Costa Rica. As indicated, Panama has also requestedrecognition from UNESCO for a biosphere reserve adjoining its sector of the international park.

Among such actions was the preparation of an institutional development strategy for thebiosphere reserve in Costa Rica with its sector of the international park as the core area and asustainable development strategy for the establishment and future management of abiosphere reserve in Panama with its section of the international park as its prime motive andcore area.

Both strategies with reference to the biosphere reserve in the La Amistad region wereconsulted in Costa Rica and in Panama with local governments, the private sector and localorganizations as well as with indigenous peoples.

The Role of International Cooperation Agencies

La Amistad has been strongly supported by numerous organizations since its establishment in1982. Among these CATIE and the OAS have both played a key role in the planning stage.UNEP has collaborated with OAS in the La Amistad Project. The UNESCO/MAB Program hascollaborated continuously with La Amistad.

Funding for the General Coordinator and for staffing a small planning and management unitand operating expenses to guide program and project implementation came from the proceedsof a five year debt-for-nature swap arranged by Conservation International with the CentralBank and the Ministry of Natural Resources.

The strategic planning exercise undertaken by Costa Rica under the coordination of theMinistry of Planning and supported by the OAS and CI has resulted after its presentation to thedonor community in 1990, and in subsequent fund raising by the Government in excess of $12million to respond to the needs identified in the strategy. The integrated nature of the strategyand its attempt to build consensus at the local level have help in obtaining funding frominternational donors.

The Costa Rican Government was able to obtain funds for La Amistad priorities as indicatedin the strategy from a variety of donors including Sweden, Holland, GEF, the MacArthurFoundation and the joint and binational efforts of CI and MacDonald’s Corporation through theAMISCONDE Project (a rural development project in an area of the buffer zone of La Amistadin each country). OAS and UNEP have assisted in identifying some possibilities for forestryand agroforestry management in the buffer zones of the international park.


Lessons of Experience

After 14 years since the La Amistad International Park was established in Costa Rica during1982 as part of a binational agreement by the countries of Costa Rica and Panama to protectand manage a significant forested area across their borders several conclusions can bedrawn:

Sustained Political Commitment:

La Amistad has had since its existence the sustained political will at the highest level ofGovernment expressed formally through periodic joint Presidential Declarations which form thebasis for government policy in each country with regards to the La Amistad International Parkas well as the transboundary region’s natural and cultural heritage.

Binational Cooperation:

The signing of a Binational Cooperation Agreement between Costa Rica and Panama and itsimplementation by both countries has created appropriate channels and procedures for thecountries to relate to one another in terms of objectives of the agreement.

Planning as a Tool for Management and Fund Raising:

The strategic planning efforts of both countries for the conservation of the La AmistadInternational Park natural and cultural resources endowment as well as that of adjoining areaswith other management categories, such as biosphere reserve and its component areas, hasproven to be useful both as a tool for management and as an instrument to support fundraising.

Strategic Planning:

Given the multiplicity of actors involved in the management of a transboundary area, it is ofcritical importance that an strategy be designed with the participation of key stakeholders as aprocess of conflict resolution for access to ecosystem goods and services. The strategyshould by as wide a participatory exercise as possible with the need to consult the populationin the region. The strategy should be accompanied by:

1) the identifications of priority investment projects and actions as they relate to sustainabledevelopment in the bioregion where the transboundary protected areas are located, suchprojects should include among others nature tourism and sustainable use of biodiversityas well as forestry and agriculture;

2) research, not only in biodiversity but equally important on cultural aspects such as

arqueology and ethno-history as in the case of La Amistad where there was humanoccupation for millenia. Research should also include social and economic aspects ofproductive activities within the bioregion. Further research is also needed on basicaspects such as climatology, soil characteristics, sedimentation and other aspectsrelated to watershed management on an integrated and sustainable basis;

3) training and community participation which should include not only training of

management personnel for protected areas but also training at the regional and localgovernment level in terms of sustainable development planning and management,including bioregional management of the trasnboundary protected areas. It should alsoinclude environmental education in the bioregion as well as promotional activities as theyrelate to the trasboundary protected area; and


4) management and protection projects on biodiversity, as well as on integrated watershedmanagement and on the conservation of arqueological and cultural resources within abioregional planning context.

International Support:

International support of various kinds has been instrumental in the process of consolidation ofthe La Amistad International Park. Many international organizations private and publicorganizations and governments and instruments have supported the objectives of the peacepark . Such parties include the UNESCO/MAB Program, the Donner Foundation,Conservation International, WWF, IUCN, IICA, OAS, UNDP, Spain, Sweden, Holland, as wellas an specific debt for nature swap arranged by CI, and the CI-MacDonalds Corp.AMISCONDE Project (a sustainable rural development project in buffer zones of the peacepark) as well as more recent support from GEF.

Governmental Budgetary Constraints:

Whilst the countries agree on binational cooperation there is hardly any budget support to goalong with such a commitment and specific Governmental budgetary allotments for thisparticular purpose seem to have a fairly low priority.

Regional Biodiversity Management:

The recognition that biodiversity conservation of regional landscapes and entire ecosystems isof intrinsic importance as well of economic benefit to both countries has created a renewedinterest in the coordinated management of the La Amistad International Park. There is agrowing awareness of ecosystem goods and services and their regional and binationalsignificance in terms of : the need to conserve forest cover in the upper watershed of riversoriginating in the La Amistad Park for the benefit of providing water for population centers andfor agriculture in the region , as well as for hydropower generation. There is also a greatersense of natural flood control as the results of deforestation are now increasingly evident.

Management Schemes:

The stakeholders commission formed by the Government in Costa Rica for La Amistad isprobably an adequate mechanism for conflict resolution but follow-up has been left to the ParkService (now SINAC-National System of Conservation Areas) which has been unable tonegotiate more than partial implementation of strategic planning for the bioregion. Onepossible solution is the strenghten local and regional NGO’s for the purpose of supportingimplementation on a regional and multisector basis.

The Costa Rica-Panama intergovernmental agreement for border development is sufficientbasis for the coordination of bioregional management on a binational basis coordinatingactions in each sector of La Amistad and undertaking some truly binational activities.

Regional and Local Support:

There is a need for further involvement of regional and local authorities and organizations andin this area a more aggressive stance is much needed both on the part of regional and localforces as well as on the part of Governments. So far the lead role for La Amistad has fallen onPark Service but the advancement of joint transboundary management purposes and actionsin a bioregional context, far exceeds the resources and capabilities of this organization evenon a coalition with other key regional actors.


In the absence of functioning regional planning schemes such as regional developmentcorporations as they exist in South-American countries i.e. Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil,community participation in the only viable solution for the time being.

Non Governmental Organization:

The role of NGO’s on La Amistad transboundary park and biosphere reserve management andconservation purposes has been undervalued so far. FUNDECOR and NGO supporting theCentral Volcanic Mountain Range conservation area in Costa Rica, also a biosphere reserve. Ithas become an key supporter for the protected park core areas of the Reserve, thanks to a$20 million endowment from USAID and it has proven capable of fund raising trough the JointImplementation mechanism, among others.

The existence of a large NGO to support La Amistad seems to be justified but also muchneeded are smaller local NGO’s that would have as prime motive the concept of empoweringcommunities for the management of their resources.

There are a great number of NGO’s in the La Amistad bioregion and some do outstandingwork such as Iriria-Tsochok (caring for the earth in Bribri) that is mostly concerned withindigenous communities. There are other NGO’s much involved in La Amistad ranging fromIUCN and the Talamanca Biological Corridor Project to small indigenous groups that haveorganized themselves to safeguard their traditional knowledge of ethnobotany as well as tomarket their arts and crafts.

2. SI-A-PAZ/San Juan River Basin

Introduction

This initiative also originated in the 1974 First Central American Meeting on the Managementof Natural and Cultural Resources which identified the need and desirability as well as thediminishing opportunity in view of deforestation processes, to conserve significant forestedareas along the borders of adjoining countries in Central America. (IRENA-MIRENEM).

At the Second Central American Meeting on the Management of and Cultural Resources, heldin Guatemala in October 1987, the delegations of Costa Rica and Nicaragua submitted twopreparatory documents calling for international cooperation: “Integrated Management of theSan Juan River Basin in Support of Efforts for Achieving Peace and the Rational Use ofNatural Resources” and the “Proposal for the Creation of a Multiple-use Reserve in the SanJuan River Basin, Nicaragua.

In February of 1988 at the XII General Assembly of the IUCN, held in San Jose, Costa Rica,the Ministers of Natural Resources of Nicaragua and Costa Rica signed a letter of intent tofacilitate the establishment of an International System of Protected Areas for Peace (SI-A-PAZ).

In 1989 the countries requested the continued participation of IUCN, which acted to someextent as broker between the countries, in order to strengthen the binational intentions forbiodiversity conservation which were viewed favorably by the international community. Thisinitiative was also benefited from being considered in the context of pacification efforts in theCentral American region. The Governments of Sweden, Holland and Norway lent their supportthrough IUCN to the initiative.

This area has a long history of binational economic relations tied to a riverine economy alongthe San Juan River and its hydrological network which is navigable by small water crafts on


both sides of the border (Girot &Niestschmann, 1992). In fact the Costa Rican portion of theSan Juan River Basin was until 50’s almost entirely tied to the Nicaraguan economy as therewere no passable roads to this area from the central highlands of Costa Rica

In August of 1990 at the meeting of the Central American Commission on Environment andDevelopment (CCAD) the Ministers of Natural Resources established a SI-A-PAZ NationalCommission in each country as well as a Binational Coordinating Commission. In December of1990 both Ministries signed a governmental Agreement between MIRENEM and MARENA onthe SI-A-PAZ Project.

The Presidents of both countries signed in Managua in January of 1991 a CooperationAgreement between Governments including a variety of areas of mutual interest includingenvironmental concerns. Other areas in the agreement are: security, borders and immigration,environment and health, finance, economy and trade, education, culture and tourism.

A meeting with donors was organized in 1991 by the Ministries of Natural Resources andsupported by the regional IUCN Office for Central America, (ORCA) including a portfolio ofprojects for the SI-A-PAZ initiative.

The SI-A-PAZ/San Juan River Basin Regional Characteristics:

Whilst there are a great number of protected areas within the San Juan River Basin ofunquestionable interest to biodiversity conservation only some of them are in the border areabetween the two countries. According to the more recent, 1996, Environmental Managementand Sustainable Development Project undertaken by the countries with the assistance of OASand UNEP there are in the San Juan basin a total of 51 protected areas in different categoriesand sizes, 33 in Costa Rica and 18 in Nicaragua.

According to the Action Plan generated by the countries in 1991 with the help of IUCN thereare four of Holdridge’s Life Zones found in the region: Humid Tropical, Very Humid, Pluvial andPiedmont Forests and four transitional zones located in two altitudinal plains (Piedmont andLowlands). These zones are defined by median annual biotemperature and namely rainfallwhich ranges from 1,800 to 5,500 annually. These bioclimatic conditions and the diversity ofsoil types have produced a great ecological wealth and a wide variety of plant species andassociations such as tropical humid forest, swamp vegetation, marsh vegetation and specificassociations in coastal areas.

Fauna is also very diverse as a result of it being associated with lake Nicaragua as well as theSan Juan River and their tributaries and with coastal and humid tropical ecosystems.Nicaragua or Cocibolga lake is the largest fresh water body in tropical America with 8,000 km2.San Juan River draining the lake flows towards the Caribbean Sea with a flow of 1,562m3/second. It is estimated that 85% of the run-off that enters the lower half of the San Juancomes from Costa Rican territory. This, the Action Plan points out: “illustrates the importanceof joint management of these natural and water resources by Costa Rica and Nicaragua”.(IRENA-MINAE, 1991)

The cross border wetlands in the region are deemed by the plan: “as a cornerstone of thebinational component of SI-A-PAZ as the goal is to connect the protected area of CañoNegro -in Costa Rica- with humid soils of the Los Guatusos Reserve in the Southern coast ofLake Nicaragua, and marilla groves of Tortuguero and Barra de Colorado -in Costa Rica- andthe Indio Maiz Reserve...” in Nicaragua.

According to the OAS and UNEP technical cooperation there are 1,067,952 inhabitants in theSan Juan River Basin, 779,339 in Nicaragua or 73 % of the population in the region and288,613 inhabitants in Costa Rica with 27 % of the population in the region.


Since SI-A-PAZ presented its strategy a donors meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica in 1991 therehave been important changes in land use in both countries. Such factors are being consideredby the in the preparation on an environmental management and sustainable development planunder way for the San Juan River Basin undertaken by the countries with the support of theOAS and PNUMA.

The Framework for Transboundary Cooperation:

Whilst the SI-A-PAZ project itself generated a series of intergovernmental workingarrangements for the initiative these were probable ahead of a more general binationalcooperation agreement. Even today, although the Presidents of the two countries have agreeda wider collaboration in many fields this arrangement has not become legislation approved byboth nor is there a working secretariat for follow up on the agreement. This non-withstanding,the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of both countries maintain periodic binational meetings towhich other sectorial organizations are invited on an as needed basis.

The more recent technical cooperation project undertaken by MARENA and MINAE with theparticipation of OAS and UNEP for the Environmental Management and SustainableDevelopment of the San Juan River Basin has benefited from binational cooperation by bothcountries over the last five years, since the SI-A-PAZ Action Plan was presented. This projecthas resulted on a binational request to GEF for a project centered on the need to jointlymanage and monitor the hydrological system which has important components within thenational territories of each country merging on their border with each other.

The Role of International Cooperation Agencies:

The role of international cooperation has been critical to the SI-A-PAZ initiative notably theproactive intervention of the IUCN regional office for Middle-America, OMA (formerly ORCA).Sweden, Holland and Norway also lent their financial support to the -SI-A-PAZ initiative.

OAS and UNEP have as mentioned been collaborating with both Governments on anEnvironmental Management Plan for the entire San Juan River basin, of which biodiversity isbut one very significant component.

Lessons of Experience:

According to an evaluation mission which reviewed SI-A-PAZ in 1992 the initiative proveduseful in achieving a healthy level of coordination between both countries for the purposes ofbinational coordination. Whoever, several factors seem to have dampened the possibilities ofgreater success, the strong push to banana production in Costa Rica in close proximity to theTortuguero Park was viewed by some as detrimental to regional conservation efforts

This mission also pointed to the fact that donors viewed Nicaragua more favorably then CostaRica and thus more help was availed to this country which probably discouraged Costa Rica interms of the potential benefits on a binational basis.

Also to be noted, is the fact that the San Juan basin has a considerable number of protectedareas tied to both countries but areas in Costa Rica close to the border are few and small ascompared to the areas in Nicaragua along the San Juan Rive such as the Indio-Maiz Reserve-which may be a factor accounting for a greater donor willingness to assist Nicaragua.

The Central American Regional Context and Support


The idea of a Biological Corridor in Central America has added regional relevance to projectssuch as La Amistad and SI-A-PAZ/San Juan River Basin and which contained some of the keybuilding blocks of such a corridor (Carr, Boza). This idea in turn has received the support of theCentral-American Alliance for Sustainable Development (ALIDES) a regional accord betweenthe Presidents of Central America nations and also support from the Central AmericanEnvironmental Commission (CCAD)

Central American countries have strengthen their regional cooperation through the signing ofthe Central American Biodiversity Treaty in June of 1992 just before the UNCED Convention atRio de Janeiro, Brazil.

Conclusions

Peace Parks:

International transfrontier protected areas along borders can contribute to the reduction ofborder tensions. Commonalities in management problems on both sides of the border canlead to advantages in binational collaboration and coordination for the achievement ofcommon purposes i.e. binational training for fire control; linkage of radio communicationsbetween park personnel on either side of the border; joint park guard patrols of areas of bothcountries; preparation of project proposals for funding by donors on a binational basis.

The Peace Parks idea as proposed by the 1974 Central American Meeting on theManagement of Natural and Cultural Resources has received further support beyondbiodiversity conservation interests by the pacification process in Central America and by theinterest of the vice-presidential Forum for Central America in border development projects.

The idea of protecting a biological corridor through Central America assuring and in somecases restoring connectivity between remaining forest areas in the region has gainedmomentum and support by the countries themselves and by international organizations. Thisidea is of special importance to assure the survival of several indigenous groups throughCentral America that live in close association with forested areas along borders. The peaceparks mentioned in the document are key blocks of the corridor itself and without theirmanagement and conservation there is little possibility of the continued exchange andevolution of neotropical and neoartic biota through the isthmus.

Planning as a process:

The existence of a coordinating unit is often a necessity at the outset of bioregional planning inorder to reduce interagency competition for the control of resources, to involve the localpopulation, and to serve as centralized authority for the receipt and distribution of technicalassistance and project development funds. But planning can not be done by a committee.Iteration must be part of any participatory planning process so that the objectives can befocused. (Castro et. al, 1995)

Financing:

Financing is a critical issue both in the planning stage and for implementation of biodiversityconservation requirements including investment needs for conservation “outside the gates” inthe context of bioregional development. For implementation a foundation may be a valuablemechanism for coordinating and stabilizing financial planning and management. A coalition ofnational, regional and local organizations may also be mechanism that needs to the exploredin the absence of regional development authorities. (as they exist in larger South Americancountries such as Colombia, Brazil and Venezuela among others).


The reality of inter-agency conflicts:

High level political support is fundamental for moving the concept of an internationaltransboundary peace park and overcoming the tendency of sectorial agencies to subdividepark planning and management functions into areas covered by the specific mandates of eachagency.

The bioregional conservation approach:

Management of protected transboundary areas in a regional planning context has gainedsome notoriety as a means to achieve biodiversity conservation goals of mutual interest toneighboring countries and as a means to involve regional population as well as institutions inconflict resolution regarding protected areas.

The role of international cooperation:

As analyzed in both cases presented the role of international cooperation has beeninstrumental in facilitating the planning process of an international protected area and its areaof influence.

International cooperation has also been instrumental in advancing the creation of potentialprotected areas on border regions and in funding and bringing others as cofinancers of theplanning and even the implementation process.

International cooperation should be a facilitator of dialogue between the countries for obtainingthe objectives of the trasboundary protected area but in should not be the lead agency in theprocess.

Bibliography

Arias, O & Nations, J.D. A Call for Central American Peace Parks In: Poverty, NaturalResources, and Public Policy in Central America by Sheldon Annis. Washington, D.C.Overseas Development Council. pp. 43-58.

Boza, M.A. Middle America Biodiversity & Development Paseo Pantera WCS/CCC-COSEFORMA/GTZ 1994. 240 pp. (Original in Spanish)

Carr, A.C.III Sovereignity and Mutualism: The Political Ecology of the Central AmericanBiotic Corridor In: Conservation Corridors in the Central American Region. Sept. 17-20, 1993. Heredia, Costa Rica. Tropical Conservation & Development , Inc. A. Vega Ed.pp. 11-21.

Carr,M.M., Lambert, D.E. & Zwick, P.D. Mapping of a Continuing Biological CorridorPotential in Central America Paseo Pantera Project Report. Univ. of Fla. 42 pp.

Castro, J.J. et . al. The La Amistad Biosphere Reserve In: Conservation of Biodiversity andthe New Regional Planning, OAS-IUCN Richard E. Saunier. Ed. pp.113-126. 1996.

CCAD-IICA. Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development. San Jose, CostaRica. 1994. 63 pp. (Spanish Version)

Coates, A.G. Closure of the Isthmus of Panama: the near-shore marine record of CostaRica & western Panama. In: Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 104, p.814-828. July, 1992.


Girot, P.A. & Nietschmann, B. The Rio San Juan, The Geopolitics and Ecopolitics of theRio San Juan In: National Geographic Research & Exploration 8(1):53-63. 1992.

IRENA-MIRENEM. Conceptual Framework and Plan of Action for the Development of theInternational System of Protected Areas for Peace SI-A-PAZ Managua-San Jose.Oct. 1991. 202 pp.

Thosell, J.W. (Ed) Parks on the Borderline: Experiences in Conservation IUCN, Gland,Switzerland, Cambridge, UK. 1988. 98 pp.

OAS. The Development of Border Regions in Central America. Washington, 1994. 81 pp.(Original in Spanish)

OAS-CI Strategy for the Institutional Development of the La Amistad Biosphere TechnicalCooperation Report to the Ministry of Natural Resources Energy & Mines and theMinistry of National Planning & Economic Policy. Costa Rica. June , 1990. 174 pp.(Original in Spanish)

OAS-CI Strategy for the Institutional Development of the La Amistad Biosphere SummaryReport to the Ministry of Natural Resources Energy & Mines and the Ministry of NationalPlanning & Economic Policy. Costa Rica. 1990. 17 pp.

OAS-UNEP. Integrated Assessment of the San Juan River Basin & Guidelines for anEnvironmental Action Plan Environmental Management & Sustainable DevelopmentProject: Costa Rica-MINAE/Nicaragua-MARENA. August 1996. Unpublished TechnicalCooperation Report . 196 pp. (Original in Spanish).

Miller Kenton R. Balancing the Scales: Guidelines for Increasing Biodiversity’s ChancesThrough Bioregional management World Resources Institute. Feb. 1996. 73 pp.


TRANSBOUNDARY COLLABORATION IN THE PROTECTION OF SHARED NATURALRESOURCES ALONG THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER

EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK

By: José Cisneros and Julio Carrera

A Historic Perspective

The United States (U.S.) - Mexico border has long been a source of conflict and controversy inthe history of both countries. Originally a part of Mexico since the days of the SpanishConquest of the New World, it was surrendered to the U.S. in 1848 in accordance with theterms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Feb. 1848) which ended the two year U.S.-MexicoWar. The Treaty established the present border between the two countries. Mexico gave uptwo-fifths of its territories.

Conflicts along the border were renewed during the turbulent years of the Mexican Revolutionduring the early 1900’s when raids across the border were fairly common along the NewMexico and Texas line.

Immigration from Mexico to the U.S., both legal and illegal, has created new conflicts along theborder to this day. To many citizens of Mexico, the border is still home; the political boundarybeing just that. Many have relatives in the several cities and towns along the U.S. side.However, the U.S. today is spending millions of dollars trying to close the border to illegalimmigration. Some states have enacted laws prohibiting illegal aliens from accessing humanservices, such as schools and medical assistance. This has met with both strong support andobjection from many quarters on both sides of the border.

In recent years, two totally disparate issues have further exacerbated the problems betweenthe two countries. Traffickers in illegal drugs have found some areas of the remote 2,000 mileborder easily accessible for their trade. Both countries have traded accusations about theirefforts to combat the drug traffic. As a result, both governments have expended considerableenergy and funding to deal with a problem which affects many Americans.

On the other end of the spectrum, a controversial government effort to encourage trade acrossthe border has, in the minds of some, sent scarce American jobs across the border intoMexico. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 has, in fact, opened theborder to freer trade between the U.S. and Mexico. And depending on the credibility of thesource, it has either not affected jobs in the U.S. or has encouraged U.S. companies to movetheir operations across the border where they enjoy cheaper labor and less governmentregulation.

Therefore, 150 years after the U.S.-Mexico War, the border continues to be a constant irritantto some. These see Mexico as the source of many of the social problems in the U.S. This isoften manifested along the border; a border which is often a land onto itself, neither whollyAmerican nor wholly Mexican. And this view is often shared by some in Mexico who stillremember back 150 years ago. This is best epitomized by a famous saying, whose author hasnever been confirmed, “poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.”

Big Bend Establishment

It was amidst the backdrop of this history of the border that Big Bend National Park came to bein 1935. The area began to attract national attention beginning with the U.S. GeologicalSurvey (USGS) commissioned navigation of the lower Rio Grande in 1899. Led by Robert T.


Hill, the written accounts of his conquest of the tortuous course of the canyons of the Big Bendbrought national attention to the region. A second USGS expedition in 1902 to map the regionfocused additional attention on the Big Bend. Others, such as J.O. Langford whose mineralbaths were located in the eastern end of today’s Big Bend National Park, promoted therecuperative value of the West Texas desert. The area was gaining notoriety as a tourist andoutdoor recreation area.

It took a West Texan, however, to give the area the support it needed to progress beyond justa tourist attraction. Everett Ewing Townsend had patrolled the region in 1894 on horseback forthe U.S. Customs Service. In the 1930’s, he was elected to the state house ofrepresentatives. On March 2, 1933, he introduced a bill to establish the Texas Canyons StatePark. On October 27, 1933, the bill was enacted into law. The park was simply named BigBend State Park.

The efforts to create the state park attracted the attention of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’sNew Deal program. The President had responded to the Depression with a federally plannedeconomy to put people back to work. One of the features of the New Deal was the CivilianConservation Corps (CCC), established to link work relief to the conservation of naturalresources. The proposed development of Big Bend State Park conformed perfectly with thegoals of the CCC program. In May 1933, President Roosevelt approved the location of fourCCC camps in West Texas, one in the Big Bend. With the arrival of the CCC and its proposalto make internal improvements to the new state park, local support to establish Big Bend as anational park began. It was led by Everett Ewing Townsend himself. In early 1934, theNational Park Service (NPS) responded to the call and began an investigation of the area.The first report gave the area the resounding endorsement that it “gives promise of becomingone of the noted scenic spectacles of the U.S.” After overcoming objections of whether therewas enough federal land to establish a facility worthy of national park status and of sufficiencyof water to service the park, the NPS authorized an official investigation of Big Bend StatePark in mid-1934 to determine what improvement would be needed to make the proposednational park operational.

On Feb. 5, 1935, the Secretary of Interior concurred with the NPS recommendation that BigBend was worthy of national park status. In March 1935, legislation was introduced in the U.S.House of Representatives to convert Big Bend State Park to a federal preserve. Similarlegislation was introduced in the U. S. Senate. On June 20, 1935, Congress authorized BigBend National Park.

The International Park Idea

The intriguing idea of creating an international park with Mexico had arisen during discussionof boundaries for the national park. In his presentation before the Senate for his bill creatingBig Bend National Park, Senator Morris Sheppard stressed the international potential of thepark. In a letter to President Roosevelt dated February 16, 1935, Sheppard argued that a jointeffort on the part of both governments to establish an “international peace park” in Big Bendthat was similar to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park on the U.S.-Canada borderwould do much to improve relations between the two countries. The President forwardedSheppard’s letter to the Secretary of Interior who responded favorably to the idea, saying thatif Congress authorized Big Bend National Park, Mexico should be invited to participate in aninternational park effort. The idea of improving relations with Mexico through the creation of aninternational park conformed to President Roosevelt’s central diplomatic policy toward all ofLatin America - his “Good Neighbor Policy.”

With the authorization of Big Bend National Park, the American government extended aninvitation to Mexico to discuss the possibilities of an international effort. The first meeting tookplace in El Paso, Texas on November 24, 1935, and resulted in a joint resolution to undertake


a formal investigation of the proposed project. Four months later, the Roosevelt administrationappointed a commission to conduct its part of the study. Mexico appointed a similarcommission. The two commissions made a joint tour of Big Bend in February 1936. The tourwas cut short by a fatal automobile accident which took the lives of two of the National ParkService representatives.

Discussions, however, continued for the remainder of the decade (Figure 1 & 1a). However,the outbreak of World War II prevented any further negotiations. After the war, the U.S. triedto revive the idea, but Mexico appeared to have lost interest. On October 24, 1944, PresidentRoosevelt wrote Mexican President Manuel Avila Camacho and once again proposed the ideaof adjoining parks in the Big Bend region. On November 30, 1944, President Camachoresponded favorably to the proposal (Figure 2). On June 18, 1945, M.R. Tillotson, RegionalDirector of the National Park Service in Santa Fe, New Mexico, broadcast a talk in Mexicosupporting the international park (Figure 3). In his talk, Mr. Tillotson stressed the commonrelations the international park would exemplify - not only in the world of business andeconomics, but also in cultural relationships and common aims along the line of continentalsolidarity.

On April 18, 1946, President Truman wrote President Camacho to inquire about the results ofthe investigations the Mexican government was to make on Big Bend International Park and tourge establishment of the park.

A series of meetings, commissions, and further discussions ensued in the years to follow. Thesought-after designation of adjoining parks in Mexico, however, was not to happen until almost40 years later.

The Establishment of Mexican Protected Areas

On November 7, 1994, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari finally did what othersbefore him could not do and established two protected areas for the flora and fauna in thestates of Coahuila and Chihuahua across the border from Big Bend National Park: Maderasdel Carmen and Cañon de Santa Elena (Figure 4).

While the designation category of protected areas for the flora and fauna is considered to fallshort of a “national park,” it is accepted as a beginning and the best under the circumstances.

As the Mexican administration began its development of management plans for the areas, the60- year old idea of an international park surfaced once more. The idea was still intriguing tomany in both countries.

The International Park Idea Revisited

In July 1996, a U.S./Mexico party traveled to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park at theinvitation of the Superintendents of Big Bend National Park and Glacier National Park.

The group was impressed with the international peace park designation and with thecollaboration between the two parks. They came away with the idea that such a relation waspossible among the three protected areas in the Big Bend region.

In February 1997, representatives of SEMARNAP, Mexico’s Secretariat for the Environment,Natural Resources and Fisheries, submitted to representatives of the U.S. Department of theInterior, a Proposal for the Establishment of Protected Natural Areas of Bi-NationalEcosystems-Mexico-United States-Protected Areas for Flora and Fauna Maderas delCarmen/Cañon de Santa Elena-Big Bend National Park. The proposal recognized that


because of the dynamic relationship between Mexico and the U.S., the environmentalcooperation along the border was an example of the efforts taking place between the twogovernments to develop methods for mutual understanding to solve common problems. Itrecognized that since the 1930’s there had been repeated proposals between Mexico and theU.S. to establish bilateral agreements that led to the coordination of activities tending towardconservation and the consolidation of ecosystems that integrated protected areas from bothcountries. It recognized the strides Mexico had achieved in developing a regulatory andadministrative infrastructure to regulate the creation and operation of protected areas. Itpointed out the fact that Mexico has four natural protected areas along its northern border; thetwo aforementioned areas plus one in Baja California and one in Sonora. It proposed thenegotiation of a bilateral document to form binational protected areas that would coordinatethe efforts of the two governments to maintain the balance of the policies of conservation,preservation and maintenance of the areas. It further proposed that a pilot project could startin the Big Bend/Maderas/Cañon region. In essence, Mexico was finally responding to the 60-year old request to join in the establishment of a joint park with the U.S. in the Big Bend region.

The proposal was received with some surprise by the U.S. since it was a unilateral effort to anold binational idea. Nonetheless, it was most welcomed and efforts ensued to understand andrespond to its intent.

The proposal was soon revealed to have lacked diplomatic clearance and suggestions weremade that it be redirected through diplomatic channels. It soon re-emerged in the form of aDiplomatic Note (Note).

The Note added a number of references to existing legal instruments attesting to the longhistory of cooperation between resource managers on the U.S.-Mexico border. It reiteratedthe proposal to establish the binational protected areas mentioned in the previous proposal. Italso added a number of actions of cooperation which the two countries could carry out in thecontext of the binational protected natural areas. These included:

♦ harmonization and complimentarity of policies leading to the conservation of the contiguousprotected areas

♦ exchange of expertise among personnel of the two countries

♦ implementation of environmental education for the communities living on both sides of theborder

♦ expansion of the body of scientific knowledge about the protected areas throughcooperation in research projects

♦ establishment of a swift communication network to respond to environmental emergencies,particularly fires

♦ cooperation in inspection and surveillance in order to prevent and control illegal ecology-related activities

The Note was reviewed in the Department of Interior (DOI), and revisions were suggested. Ofspecial interest among the proposed revision was the deletion by DOI of all reference to theformulation of a bilateral legal instrument to regulate the establishment of binational protectedareas by the DOI. In its place was inserted “the initiation of a process to promote and enhancecooperation in existing natural protected areas and consider new opportunities for cooperationthrough the creation of binational protected areas. The concern in the DOI was political sinceestablishing a binational protected area in the U.S. would require an act of the U.S. Congress.

It should be noted that a meeting in Mexico City of Presidents Clinton and Zedillo provided theimpetus for developing the instrument of cooperation. It was suggested that the two might bethe signatories for the agreement. That meeting was scheduled for early May, 1997.


The Note surfaced in Mexico City as a Letter of Intent (Letter) to be entered into by the DOI-USA and SEMARNAP-Mexico. The respective Secretaries were to be signatories to theinstrument (Figure 5).

The initial proposal to establish a binational protected natural resource area in the Big Bendregion had completed its bureaucratic transformation and ended as an agreement tocooperate in the management of our respective resources. The Letter mentioned the longhistory of cooperation in environmental and natural resource matters between the twocountries. It took account of the sovereign right and responsibilities of the two countries overthe management and rational use of their natural resources; a key issue to be discussedfurther.

The Letter omitted any and all references to the creation or establishment of binationalprotected areas. It simply marked the two agencies’ plan to expand cooperative activities inthe conservation of contiguous natural protected areas in the border zone and toconsider new opportunities for cooperation in the protection of natural protected areason the U.S.-Mexico border. The Letter expands the scope of cooperation to include stateand local agencies as well as encouraging voluntary participation by the communities andsocial organizations interested in protecting the riches of the areas. It did leave intact the sixactions of cooperation contained in the Note.

It had taken Mexico 60 years to finally respond to the American invitation to join in theestablishment of an international park in the Big Bend region by establishing their ownprotected areas across the border. Mexico had done not only that but had moved quickly witha proposal to bind them to Big Bend National Park as a binational protected area. It isinteresting to note that the word “international” had now disappeared from the terminology ofthe proposal.

It appears that once high administrative officials on both sides of the border became involvedin the crafting of an agreement, that political concerns over binational or joint areas straddlingpolitical borders surfaced. This is noted in the Letter’s preamble which speaks to thesovereign rights and responsibilities of the two countries over the management and rationaluse of their natural resources. The Letter was, in fact, signed during the Presidents’ meetingin Mexico City on May 5, 1997. It was signed by the two respective Secretaries of Interior andSEMARNAP.

Issues and Obstacles to Binational Park Status

Much has changed in the political arena in recent years. President Roosevelt’s personalproposal to his Mexican counterpart to establish an international park along their borders mightnever happen today.

There exists in the U.S. today serious concerns over sovereignty matters. This has been mostevident in questions about management of national parks and other such protected areaswhich have been given overlay designations as biosphere reserves and World Heritage Sites.These designations are meant to draw attention to the significant world class resources ofsuch areas, all in accord with the World Heritage Convention and the Man and the BiosphereProgram. However, some people have seen these designations as surrendering Americansovereignty of those areas to the United Nations or some world government. Some membersof Congress have been urged to enact legislation rescinding such designations. It can beassumed that establishment of binational protected areas might fall prey to these concernsunless careful and deliberate advance planning and political consultation is taken.


Other issues must also be considered. For example, current border problems of drugtrafficking and illegal immigration have intensified in all areas of the border. These are oftendepicted as “wars on drugs” and “wars to maintain the sovereignty of our borders.”

The ongoing debate over the NAFTA aftermath concerning the loss of American jobs toMexico continues to foster ill feelings in some quarters. In other quarters, concerns for theenvironmental impacts of American plants situated across the border in Mexico surface despitethe various side agreements to the NAFTA to control or limit such impacts.

In addition, on-the-ground issues of jurisdiction and enforcement of immigration and customlaws present problems to the free travel between areas. It is interesting to note that the initialinternational park proposal envisioned an International Free Zone permitting access to bothparks with customs and immigration stations pulled back to the perimeter boundaries.

Another and more significant issue would be the disparate body of laws and regulationsgoverning each individual area. U.S. National Park Service areas are governed by not onlytheir enabling acts, but by the myriad of environmental laws established over the years toprotect natural and cultural resources. In the 81 years since the creation of the NPS in 1916,the agency has developed an enormous body of policies and management regulations whichmust be adhered to in the management of parks. The NPS is a tightly regulated agency withinthe Department of Interior.

In this particular initiative, Mexico is just beginning to develop an infrastructure to establish andadminister protected areas - both cultural and natural. Their policies are evolving. Funding formanaging and operating their areas is significantly less than in the U.S. How would thesedisparities be addressed in the management of binational protected areas?

Conclusion

Despite the omission of any reference to binational protected areas, the Letter has to berecognized as a step forward in the management of contiguous areas across the border. Thetwo countries share a most unusual common border, the Rio Grande. The political boundaryruns along the deepest part of the river channel. River users meander back and forth betweenthe U.S. and Mexico during the course of their trip. Regular stops are located on the mostconvenient side-without regard of which country provides it. Concerns over river flow andwater quality affect both countries. Protection of wildlife, such as bears and beaver, has to bea collaborative effort since the animals do not observe the political boundary. The sameapplies for such endangered species as the peregrine falcon which feeds and nests on bothsides of the river. These and many other transboundary issues must be addressed as stepsare taken to implement the Letter.


PARKS WITHOUT PEACE

By: Yemi Katerere

IUCN-ROSA HARARE

While the focus of this conference is the planning and management of interstate protectedareas, it is important for Southern Africa that the emerging trends of interstate natural resourcemanagement and their impacts on communities are not overshadowed by the interests ofcentral governments and big business. The opportunities that both formal (protected area)and informal (community) interstate natural resource management can offer in the form ofenhanced benefits, biodiversity conservation through equitable and sustainable use, fosteringregional co-operation and conflict management are immense.

This paper is intended to highlight the limitations of discussing interstate natural resourcemanagement with a bias on protected areas. Its focus is southern Africa. Protected areas areimportant biodiversity and gene conservation areas as well as the major attraction for non-consumptive tourism. A pre-occupation with Parks as the major approach to management ofinterstate natural resources at the exclusion of community initiatives and community rights canonly serve to reinforce the notion that the state is not part of the overall solution to resourcescarcities at the local level or that interstate resource management efforts are not an integralcomponent of local economies. Failure to recognise community interstate natural resourcemanagement efforts as legitimate forms of economic activity can only fuel increasing land andresource-based conflicts between managers of protected areas and other resource users,particularly local communities.

The non-participatory manner in which many protected areas were and continue to beestablished through, for instance, the forced removal of people and the introduction of alienadministrative and legislative systems has only served to fuel land and resource-basedconflicts. People were and are denied access to resources in the form of grazing and huntingrights, collection of medicinal plants, fuelwood, water and thatching grass. The process ofimplementing these control mechanisms often means marginalisation or under-valuation oftraditional natural resource management systems. Some of the conflicts around protectedareas have been in the form of “illegal” settlement, “illegal” hunting and “illegal” harvesting oftimber and non-timber products as well as physical harassment of tourists.

The parks should not be viewed as a symbol of peace in the eyes of governments alone. Theymust offer real peace for local people to address poverty and achieve prosperity. The peopleof this region have paid a high price for the peace we now enjoy and they need to besupported to develop equitable and sustainable resource management practices. The parksare one such vehicle to a better life for many rural people who depend on natural resources fortheir livelihood. The parks should be a bridge to respect local culture and traditionalknowledge, food security and economic development of the region’s people. Hence themilitaristic approach to enforcement of park laws needs to be ameliorated by sanity andappropriate incentives for all stakeholders to have a unity of objectives.

IUCN classifies protected areas into six categories as follows:

1. National Parks and Equivalent Reserves. These are protected natural and scenic areas ofnational and international significance for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational andtourism purposes. These are generally areas of restricted access.

2. Scientific Reserves and Wilderness Areas. Areas free of human intervention. Intended topreserve the national environment in an undisturbed state.


3. Natural Monument. Outstanding natural or cultural features of specific scientific oreducational significance. This category can include waterfalls, caves, craters and sanddunes. These areas are to be protected and preserved.

4. Habitat and Wildlife Management Areas. These areas which include forests, lakes and

grasslands are identified specifically for manipulative management. Objectives of theseareas are breeding, education, scientific research or observation.

5. Protected Land/Sea Scapes. These areas tend to be extensive and have complex

planning and management techniques and there is an effort to integrate human settlementwith sustainable environmental management. In some instances this category may includeparks, scientific reserves, monuments and wildlife management areas. The objective of thiscategory is to provide for harmonious interaction between nature and human culture andhence public economic, scientific, spiritual, recreational and tourism needs.

6. Managed Resource Protected Areas

The six categories are useful for a unified approach to protected area management and canfacilitate coordinated interstate resource management. However, all the categories have adegree of exclusion with little or no provision for a link with people except for the ProtectedLand/Sea Scapes category and Managed Resource Protected Area.

For some of these categories there is clearly a role for local communities to be involved. Forinstance, experience elsewhere with Natural Monuments indicates that local people may bethe most effective managers of these areas, and in order to maintain them locals should begiven the right to define rules of inclusion and exclusion (Mohamed-Katerere 1997). Similarly,experience with national parks indicates that sustainable management may be impossible iflocal people are excluded. In Australia the government has entered into contracts withaboriginal people giving them rights in the parks. In Uganda a pilot agreement has beenworked out between Uganda National Parks and community bordering the BwindiImpenetrable Forest - one of the most famous and valuable national parks in Uganda. Thismodel has been extended to include the private sector. In South Africa, Ngala Game Reserveis managed by a private group, Conservation Corporation (Borrini-Feyerrabend, 1996).

In addition, this region has valuable experiences in community based natural resourcemanagement (CBNRM) initiatives which have demonstrated that communities, if supported,have the capacity to manage their local resources and derive direct and indirect benefits.Various CBNRM initiatives presently being implemented are:

♦ Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (Campfire) inZimbabwe

♦ Living in Finite Environments (LIFE) in Namibia

♦ Natural Resources Management Programme (NRMP) in Botswana

♦ The Administrative Design Programme (ADMADE) in Zambia

♦ Tchuma-Tchato Programme in Tete province of Mozambique

♦ The Tanzania National Parks has established Community Conservation Co-ordinatingCommittees as institutional fora for community participation

These initiatives offer extensive and diverse experiences of working with communities andprovide insight into the opportunities that exist for partnership with the private sector,government and NGOS. The experiences from regional community initiatives offer insights intomodels for regional co-operation.


This meeting must seek to break new ground. We should develop a new vision for protectedareas that reflects the rich diversity of human activity in the region and not one that ispreservationist. The model of excluding people from being involved in or from deriving anybenefits from management of protected areas has become too politically convenient andlucrative to be changed. Yet in the long run this model will prove to be unworkable. Interestgroups with powerful lobbying resources are well placed to influence governments in the nameof investments and employment generation against the apparently powerless communities andsmall-scale entrepreneurs.

Recognising that it is politically correct to be seen to involve and consult local communities, thegovernments and the private sector often make reference to the fact that communities will beinvolved in natural resource-based enterprises. This rhetoric is not always backed by actionsbecause the policy and institutional framework to support community based natural resourcesmanagement is weak and consultation is superficial. The challenge at this conference has tobe finding an approach that promotes broad based partnerships amongst all stakeholders.

1. Existing Interstate Land Use Categories

Along boundaries of countries in the region one finds a variety of relationships between thedifferent land use categories as shown in Table 1. Hence, interstate resource managementissues should not just be considered around protected areas as this will not address thebroader regional goal of sustainable natural resource management and economicdevelopment. Given the complex land use arrangements along boundaries and thedependence of local communities on the natural resource base for their livelihoods, theconcept of “transboundary” resource management must be extended to cover all the land usesystems as indicated in Table 1.

Table 1. Existing Interstate Relationships by Landuse Category

CommunityArea

Private land ProtectedArea

Community Area X XX XXPrivate land XX X XX

Protected Area XX XX X

More importantly, the process of establishing new interstate protected areas or expandingexisting ones requires that all stakeholders on both sides of the boundary are consulted andparticipate so that roles and responsibilities are clarified including distribution of benefits. Itshould be appreciated that this approach needs to be applied even in situations where a givencountry seeks to gazette a protected area on its own border. This is particularly importantconsidering that in many border situations both humans and animals have traditionallymigrated across or straddled political boundaries.

The establishment of a protected area by one country along an international border has crossborder implications which require prior consultation and negotiation and that interestedstakeholders should have access to information. They should also be given adequate time todiscuss and assess the information. The success of interstate resource management andcreation of new protected areas requires prior informed consent otherwise affected people arelikely to resist.

The implications of these complex land use interactions along borders present tremendouschallenges for policy makers, legislators, entrepreneurs, the private sector and NGOs which Ireturn to throughout the presentation.


2. Land Tenure

The land question remains one of the most emotional and contentious regional issuesconfronting many governments. The issue is no longer about tenure and rights over resources,but greater access to land. In some countries there are demands for land redistribution while inothers it is demands for restitution for ancestral land expropriated under colonial rule. Some ofthe existing protected areas are part of the disputed land, the benefits of which many of thedisplaced people do not enjoy. Any proposals to extend the land under protected areas mustrespond to real concerns about meaningful and transparent consultation of all stakeholdersand whether governments have the financial and management capacity to manage anexpanded Parks area. The question is in whose interest are the protected areas beingestablished, who is to benefit and how? Is it possible to define protected areas to acknowledgepeople’s cultural heritage?

The expansion of interstate protected areas will in some situations require establishment ofcorridors for animal migration. Where the establishment of corridors necessitates the relocationof some local residents then appropriate compensation mechanisms need to be worked out.

3. Social and Cultural Considerations

In discussing interstate resource management, the cultural and social relationships of bordercommunities need to be understood and contextualised. In many instances bordercommunities belong to the same ethnic group with a common language, experiences, visionand aspirations, and might even fall under the same traditional ruler. The Lozi people ofWestern Zambia and the Caprivi strip in Namibia and Botswana and the Shangani inMozambique and Zimbabwe are excellent examples to name just a few. An understanding ofthe local level situation is necessary when considering legislation and regulations governingthe movement of goods, services and people between two countries.

Southern Africa is a region ravaged by more than two decades of both liberation and civil wars.These wars have had their toll on the region’s population and resources. Many communitieswere displaced from their homes and forced into exile as political or economic refugees. Thereturn to peace presents major challenges for those returning and seeking to re-establishthemselves. There are situations such as in Mozambique where local communities are livinginside as well as along protected area boundaries. The needs and the development of thesecommunities have to be reconciled with the objectives of protected area management. Thewars have also resulted in a high incidence of female headed households and the breakdownof social and institutional structures responsible for natural resource management.

The establishment of protected areas along boundaries can have serious implicationsparticularly for border communities who get separated and must thereafter respect differentnational legislation governing access to and trade in natural resources. The parks could alsobecome physical barriers to direct access to relatives in a neighbouring country.

4. Food Security and Protected Areas

The big question is the extent to which governments recognise protected areas aseconomically viable forms of land use. This is a fundamental principle given the competingdemands for land and the varied production potentials of different pieces of land in the region.If the full economic potential of the land is to be realised then a holistic approach to land useplanning is required. Such an approach has to address the issue of food security and how thismight be achieved without converting all land to crop production. The potential contribution ofprotected areas to food security needs to be clearly articulated so that they are not seen as“locking” up land or other resources from other land uses. For maximum benefits to be realised


from the land then land use decisions need to be taken on smaller units of land at the locallevel. This thinking has major implications for proposals to extend the present land underprotected areas.

Some of the region’s richest protected areas such as Kruger National Park, Hwange NationalPark, Gonarezhou National Park, Lakes Malawi and Kariba, and Chobe National Park are alllocated along the borders. Their potential to contribute to regional food security can besubstantial.

5. Protected Areas and Neighbours

In addition, communities sharing common boundaries with protected areas have highopportunity costs in terms of foregone benefits or damage to crops and often loss of lives.Where a protected park is found only on one side of the international border, those on theother side have no mechanisms for compensation to loss of property, food, or lives fromproblem animals and do not derive any benefits from the protected park. There are numerouscomplaints by communities in Zimbabwe’s Chiredzi District of livestock deaths caused bypredators from Kruger National Park in South Africa. Considerable potential exists fordeveloping approaches which focus on the sharing of resources and benefits betweenprotected areas and their neighbours, including collaborative management of certain locallyimportant resources which may occur within protected areas.

6. Harmonisation of Laws and Policies

For border communities, interstate resources are invariably governed by different nationallaws, policies and regulations. As might be expected, there is very little harmonisation oflegislation, procedures, policies and regulations between countries in the region. This lack ofinstitutional harmonisation around use and management of natural resources between twocountries often results in unequal access to resources between communities of twoneighbouring countries. One government might have less stringent regulations therebyfacilitating greater access to natural resources and benefits to its border communities than itsneighbour. The end result can be a flourishing community on the one side and animpoverished one on the other. This can precipitate conflicts and tensions betweencommunities. Further, where a community perceives that a government is retarding itspotential for development in comparison to a community of the same tradition and culture in aneighbouring country, it might have less incentives to engage in sustainable methods ofnatural resource management.

Examples of this situation are found in fishing communities living adjacent to protected areaswhich require fishing permits against set quotas. Their counterparts living across a river in anadjacent communal area separated from the protected area by an international boundary haveless stringent controls over artisanal fishing and do not need to purchase fishing permits.The entire concept of interstate resource management requires a thorough examination ofexisting institutional arrangements and capacities. At the national level there are JointPermanent Commissions designed to handle bi-lateral matters. However, this model does notalways lend itself to resolving local level interstate resource management concerns. Forinstances there needs to be cross border institutional mechanisms to enable local authoritiesand communities to prepare joint plans to deal with issues of fire management, problem animalcontrol, illegal hunting, enforcement of local by-laws and conflict management.

If there are proposals to expand interstate resource management then there needs to beeffective institutional arrangements in place to cope with such a trend. This means that existingand any proposed new institutions must be supported and strengthened so as to be able to


respond to the administrative, technical, financial, legislative and skills requirements of the newvision.

7. Trade

Along the international boundaries, there are numerous tensions around trade in naturalresources. Communities along borders have for a long time engaged in managing and usingtheir natural resources with no restrictions on movement of goods and services across borders.With the establishment of nation states and a growing sense of nationalism communities thatonce coexisted are divided and are expected to respect international boundaries andbureaucratic systems that govern the movement of people and goods across borders. Whatwas once routine movement of goods and services is now subjected to export and importcontrol regulations rendering many long established local trade practices “illegal”. Yet thesetrade practices are long standing and constitute an integral part of the local economy andcannot be explained away by classifying them as “illegal.”

Trade in goods and services along international boundaries should not be governed only bycomplicated systems which intimidate local communities. We need appropriate, harmonisedsystems that are user friendly and that do not criminalise locally based interstate trade.

8. Benefit Generation and Sharing of Costs and Benefits

The involvement of local people in the management of protected areas must be accompaniedby acceptable methods of benefit and cost sharing by participating groups or individuals.

The success of CBNRM in the region is due, amongst other factors, to the recognition thatthose participating in the management of natural resources should derive benefits. Thepresent models of benefit sharing range from cash payments directly to individual householdsto investments in community projects such as clinics, schools and roads. Benefits of naturalresources management initiatives accrue from income and use or spiritual values from thefollowing:♦ income from non-consumptive tourism

♦ income from consumptive use (hunting, fishing, ranching, trade in live animals)

♦ access to sacred groves

♦ harvesting for local use and food (medicines, construction, honey, protein, fruits)

♦ harvesting for commercial purposes (timber)

♦ ecosystem integrity (watershed management)

The costs of expanding protected areas other than the direct costs include the loss of incomeor other benefits (spiritual, food) from alternative forms of land use or exclusion from benefitspreviously available. (World Bank, 1996). These need to be carefully considered for existingand planned protected areas.

The distribution of benefits and costs is affected by a number of factors such as the naturebusiness partnerships and how dividends form profits are shared, the procedures for grantingconcessions, hunting licences, setting and collecting licence fees and quota setting. In manyinstances communities complain that they are not consulted when quotas are set. Theseissues need to be addressed through transparent processes and policies governing them mustbe reviewed regularly with the participation of all stakeholders.Within the context of the interstate resource management debate, the question is how benefitsand costs might be transferred across political boundaries. How does a community in onecountry derive benefits from an adjacent park in a neighbouring country? Currently there is no


formal mechanism to enable the transfer of benefits or costs. Botswana and Namibia offer anexcellent example of a situation where communities in Namibia share a common border with aprotected area on the Botswana side. The same is true for Mozambican communities andGonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe. Further, where communities have suffered lossesdue to their proximity to a protected area, they have not received any compensation. Thissituation is fuelling tensions as communal residents suffer losses due to their proximity to aprotected area in a neighbouring country. In the end communal people might resort to “illegal”hunting, arson, cutting of game fences in protected areas as well as disruption of tourismactivities as a means of securing some benefits or protest. Such actions have seriousdiplomatic implications and can also fuel conflicts.

This issue has to be debated openly so that peace is not confined only to the parks. It is thusimportant that this conference not restrict its discussions on how interstate protected areas canenhance tourism for big business, but also how local entrepreneurs can be supported. For thequality of life of local communities to improve, innovative models of generating benefits onboth sides of the border for all forms of land use interactions need to be explored.Partnerships between big business and individual entrepreneurs or community agenciesshould be mutually beneficial and should result in the transfer of skills and sharing of financialbenefits.

To encourage the extension and consolidation of existing transboundary areas and thedevelopment of new protected areas in the region is likely to increase cross border conflictsunless innovative ways of resource and benefits sharing are devised. We have to avoidcreating an elitist view of transboundary protected areas.

9. Where to Next?

If the region is to use its natural resource endowment as a vehicle to promote regional co-operation, then there has to be a serious commitment to addressing local community issuesand respecting community rights to resources and benefits. With increasing population,pressures on the natural resource base will escalate and so will conflicts between parks andlocal communities. This means promoting dialogue with rural communities and theirinstitutions. There are several models of working with communities in the region which shouldbe analysed and supported.

9.1 Protected Area Outreach and Partnership

The conference should consider developing a protected area outreach and partnershipprogramme which is more than the distribution of free meat and conservation education. Sucha programme must recognise the interests of neighbours who border such protected areaswhich includes conflict resolution, benefit sharing arrangements and the need for consultation.

Further, the concept of interstate resource management must be expanded beyond theprotected parks to include communities and private land. More importantly the approach tointerstate resource management must be inclusive of all countries in the region and not justbetween one country and its neighbours.

9.2 Collaborative Management Arrangements

Collaborative management is a partnership to jointly manage a resource on land that is ownedby the state or some other owner. The partnership has negotiated rights and responsibilitieswith the following characteristics:


♦ identifies in the park important community resources that are collected “illegally” for freeruse; and

♦ defines rights and responsibilities of all stakeholders to use resources sustainably andachieve conservation and development objectives (Barrow, 1977)

9.3 Developing support systems for Communities

A concerted effort needs to be made with regard to developing appropriate support systems toempower communities to manage resources sustainably. This involves capacity enhancementincluding promotion of entrepreneurship.

10. Conclusion

If the above issues are not addressed then the Parks will forever be sites of war and notpeace.

11. References

Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 1996. Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring TheApproach To The Context. Issues in Social Policy, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland).

World Bank. 1996. Mozambique Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and InstitutionalStrengthening Project. Report No. 15534-MOZ

Mohamed-Katerere, J. 1997. Developing Wildlife Law in Pakistan: Legislative Approaches andOptions for Sustainable Use. Discussion Paper.

Barrow, E.G. C. 1997. Campfire and Conservancies in Zimbabwe - Now and to The Future.Paper Prepared for Zimbabwe National CAMPFIRE and Conservancies Policy ReviewWorkshop, Harare, February, 1997.


THE GEOPOLITICS OF TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION: AN OVERVIEW

By: G.H. BlakeInternational Boundaries Research UnitUniversity of Durham, U.K.

Introduction.

It is hardly surprising that transboundary cooperation of one kind or another is a growingfeature of international relations in the modern world. As food, raw materials, and recreationalspace become scarcer in the face of rising populations states are seeking resources in regionswhich are both geographically and politically marginal. Resource exploitation andenvironmental protection in borderland areas cannot be properly undertaken without somereference to the neighbouring state, while resources which straddle the international boundaryclearly cannot be safely utilised without neighbourly co-operation. Against this background it isnotable that the number of international land boundaries has increased markedly in recentyears from about 280 in the late 1980s to 315 or so in 1997. There are also approximately420 potential maritime boundaries between coastal states worldwide, one third of which havebeen formally agreed. Each year up to half a dozen more maritime boundary treaties aresigned by neighbouring states. In addition, it is often forgotten that coastal states which enjoyaccess to ocean space up to 200 nautical miles offshore are obliged to determine a boundarywith the international seabed beyond under the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.The Convention obliges the coastal state to cooperate in the management of straddling andmigratory fish stocks across this boundary.(1)

Transboundary co-operation takes place at national, regional, and local levels. The nature andextent of such co-operation varies massively between states, the most important factor beingtheir political - historical relationship. Most transboundary co-operation is defined by inter-government agreements, although borderland peoples all over the world find ways tocollaborate with each other without official sanction, especially in less developed countries.These activities lie beyond the scope of this overview, although they may become a significantconsideration when national parks are being established in border regions. Table 1 givessome examples of the kinds of transboundary co-operation at national, regional and locallevels, although they all clearly overlap. The important point to note is that transboundarycooperation is commonplace in the modern world and states cannot operate as closedsystems. Indeed, some observers argue that we are moving inexorably towards a “borderlessworld” in the twenty first century, but this viewpoint needs to be examined quite critically.

Table 1: Transboundary collaborationat national, regional and local levels.

National Regional LocalPostal services River basins Crossing pointsFlight paths Hydrocarbons SmugglingTrade Fisheries Access roadsDefence Transit routes Border maintenanceHealth Pollution control Groundwater

It is true that the power of the state appears to be diminishing as “globalisation” gainsmomentum. International boundaries have clearly lost a lot of their nineteenth centuryfunctions. Governments can no longer control the flow of ideas and information in thecyberspace age, while capital and technology can cross frontiers with increasing rapidity.Economic power seems to be with the big banks and multinationals and national security and


effective environmental management often involves collaboration with other states. In recentdecades large regional political and economic associations have emerged such as theEuropean Union, the North American Free Trade Area and the Association of South EastAsian Nations. These have all markedly reduced the barrier effect of international boundariesfor certain states, but they do not imply their imminent disappearance. On the contrary insome parts of the world borders are becoming less penetrable. There are calls from right -wing politicians for more effective controls on refugees, illegal migrants, drugs, cheap goodsand the like. Nor are Governments behaving as though their borders were about to vanish.On land, thanks to the Global Positioning System (GPS) many boundaries are being re-surveyed and accurately demarcated for the first time at considerable cost.(2) At sea there isintense interest in maritime boundary delimitation. Thus there is plenty of evidence thatinternational boundaries, for better or worse, will remain as potent as ever emotionally andpractically. While their functions may be changing they remain the sensitive interface betweenneighbouring states, and must be approached with proper understanding of their historicorigins and contemporary status.

Boundary status

Most international land boundaries pass through four phases in their evolution, although notevery boundary will be subject to each phase. Allocation of territory between rival powers waslargely a nineteenth century phenomenon when imperial spheres of influence were defined.Delimitation occurs when states agree to survey their boundary in detail prior to a formal treaty.Demarcation follows delimitation, but not in every case, when the agreed boundary ispermanently marked by pillars, fences or markers of some kind. After demarcation, boundarymanagement can be properly undertaken, although it is often neglected. A well-managedboundary will be amply documented, clearly visible, carefully maintained and monitored. It willgive borderland dwellers a sense of security while allowing access to the other side withoutundue hindrance. The least well-managed boundaries are likely to create the biggestheadaches when it comes to transboundary projects. It is thus important to establish asaccurately as possible a geopolitical profile of the boundary and its adjacent borderlands.

Approximately two thirds of the world’s 315 land boundaries have been formally delimited andare unlikely to give rise to serious political differences between states.(3) Among those whichhave not been formally delimited perhaps half are seriously contested, although many of thesedisputes are dormant. It is almost impossible to say what proportion of the world’s 266,000 kmof land boundaries are demarcated. More than half follow physical features such aswatersheds, mountain peaks, rivers and streams, and approximately one fifth are straight lineswhich disregard physical geography. Most of these are identified on the ground, althoughoften quite crudely (for example by large painted oil drums). In some areas geography makesdemarcation impossible as in swamps, and shifting sand dunes.

The absence of a boundary agreement does not imply a dispute. There are many examples ofpeaceful boundaries where there is no agreement and no dispute. Similarly, contestedboundaries do not inevitably lead to armed conflict. Indeed, given that so many internationalboundaries were drawn by the imperial powers with scant regard for human or physicalgeography it is perhaps surprising there are not more border wars. One reason is that stateshave recourse to several possible conflict resolution strategies if bilateral negotiations fail.They may seek the mediation of a third party, or arbitration by a regional organisation such asthe Arab League, or they may decide to take the case before the International Court of Justicein the Hague or some other international legal tribunal such as the Law of the Sea Tribunal inHamburg. In addition, there are an emerging range of interim arrangements for the politicalmanagement of space which provide effective alternatives to conflict. These are discussedbelow.

Cooperation in the aftermath of conflict


Special territorial arrangements for international cooperation may be made in the aftermath ofconflict, some of which have proved to be surprisingly successful. Some of these areagreements between the parties to the conflict, but in most cases a third party such as theU.N. is instrumental in making the arrangements. Neutral Zones may be established eitherwhere territory is in dispute, or to provide a security zone between two potentially conflictingstates. They are often so small that they tend to be overlooked on maps. The neutral zonebetween Gibraltar and Spain can be traced to the mid-eighteenth century, but its status is oneof the bones of contention between Britain and Spain to this day. Other neutral zones havebeen more acceptable such as those between Saudi Arabia and Iraq (1923-1981) and SaudiArabia and Kuwait (1923-1966). The latter is of particular interest because the oil resources ofthe former neutral zone are still jointly exploited, although the territory has been equally dividedbetween the parties since 1966.

Buffer zones are usually designed to operate less permanently than neutral zones. They tendto emerge at the end of armed conflict between parties, and may be controlled by a third partysuch as the U.N. The buffer zone created in the Golan region between Syrian and Israeliforces in 1974 is still in existence, monitored by the U.N. A substantial buffer zone hasseparated the Turkish and Greek communities in Cyprus since 1974, also monitored by U.N.forces. Demilitarised Zones are less in vogue than in the period after World War I, but theyremain a potentially useful device. Under U.N. Resolution 687 of April 1991 a demilitarisedzone was established along the Kuwait-Iraq boundary, extending 10 kilometres into Iraq, andfive kilometres into Kuwait. From 1923 until 1936 the Turkish Straits were demilitarised andplaced under an International Straits Commission. For this reason the Turkish Straits weresometimes described as being an international zone during this period. Tangier and itshinterland at the entrance to the Strait of Gibraltar were also demilitarised and governed by aninternational administration (chiefly French and British) from 1923 until Moroccanindependence in 1956.(4)

More recently, unusual territorial arrangements have been made following international conflictduring the Iraq-Kuwait war of 1990-91 and civil war in former Yugoslavia from 1991-95. In theformer a safe haven was established for the protection of the Kurdish population of northernIraq with the assistance of U.S. and British forces. A no-fly zone for Iraqi aircraft was declaredalong the 38th parallel as part of the strategy to protect the Kurds. In former Yugoslavia theDayton peace agreement of December 1995 provided for a zone of separation from which thewarring factions would be excluded. This zone, which is only half a mile or so wide waspatrolled by IFOR and later SFOR international forces to help with the transition to peace.

These examples are not directly applicable to the parks for peace idea because they wereimplemented in the aftermath of conflict. Nevertheless they are a reminder that alternatives toabsolute state sovereignty have been tried quite widely with satisfactory results. There is nostandard model, as will be seen in sections 4 and 5 below. States can make arrangements intheir borderlands to suit themselves. Clearly the role of a third party such as the U.N. may becrucial in initiating and implementing collaboration, but such assistance must be sufficientlyflexible to suit the borderlands in question.

International transboundary cooperation offshore

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea which was concluded in 1982 and entered intoforce in 1994 sets out as far as possible guidelines for the orderly conduct of internationalrelations at sea. Coastal states are entitled to a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles and anExclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles measured from baselines around thecoast (comprising low water mark or straight baselines drawn across bays, estuaries, andhighly indented coasts etc.). States are obliged to allow the innocent passage of ships of


other states through their territorial seas and EEZs. States also have the right to lay pipelinesand cables within the EEZ of another state, and to overfly the EEZ without seeking coastalstate permission as in the territorial sea. All this assumes a measure of cooperation betweenstates which land sovereignty does not impose because state sovereignty on land is absolutewhereas at sea it is partial. If states do not declare an EEZ they may alternatively claimcontinental shelf rights (which in certain geophysical circumstances may extend beyond 200nautical miles). Continental shelf rights give states the exclusive ownership of the resources oftheir continental shelf, but not of the living resources of the waters above the shelf.

Maritime boundary drawing is still not very far advanced. There are perhaps 420 maritimesboundaries to be delimited, of which about 150 have so far been formally agreed. Becausevaluable resources may be at stake, notably hydrocarbons and fish, and because of the sheercomplexity of maritime boundary drawing, both technical and legal, a number of states havereached deadlock in their negotiations. Accordingly, maritime boundary makers havesometimes sought alternatives to the continuation of deadlock over the allocation of seabed.There are 15 agreements involving shared maritime space of one kind or another. Overall,perhaps 10 per cent of maritime boundary agreements include some provision for sharedspace. The earliest was between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in 1958. Such agreements couldmultiply in future as the advantages of joint zones are more widely appreciated. It is notdifficult to think of areas of the oceans where such zones might provide the first step towardsbetter inter-state relations, for example, between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean, andbetween claimants to the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.

Maritime joint zones take many forms but all represent compromise solutions to problems ofdisputed sovereignty. They vary considerably in size, the largest being the 1974 Japan-SouthKorea joint zone of 29,092 square nautical miles. In some joint zone agreements theinternational boundary line is formally agreed, but a zone is delimited where joint resourceexploitation is permitted. In others there is no boundary agreement and only a joint zone.The purpose of joint zones may be for the exploitation of hydrocarbon resources or livingresources; it might also include such activities as joint scientific research. While the intentionin most cases appears to be to return eventually to the question of boundary delimitation, thecompromise arrangements appear to work so well that there is no rush to settle. The 1974Joint Development Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea shelved thequestion of delimitation for 50 years, but efforts to settle the boundary are continuing. Thetemporary agreement over a disputed area of the Barents Sea reached by the Soviet Unionand Norway in 1978, initially for a period of one year, has been renewed annually ever since.

The United Kingdom-Argentina Joint Declaration of September 1995 is a remarkable exampleof what can be achieved. Having fought an ugly war in 1982 over the sovereignty of theFalkland/Malvinas Islands, the 1995 agreement designates a special area in which the partieswill develop hydrocarbon resources jointly. The Declaration makes it clear that there is nochange in the claims of the United Kingdom and Argentina to the islands. Both states werehowever so eager to begin oil exploration in the area that they agreed to cooperate whileleaving the sovereignty question unresolved.(5) The agreement has done much to improverelations between Britain and Argentina.

Shared zones for purposes of resource exploitation are still uncommon on land, but they dooccur. In 1925 the Treaty of Svalbard gave equal rights of access to the resources ofSpitzbergen to all 40 signatories, although the island was under Norwegian sovereignty. Morerecently in 1988 the Yemen Arab Republic (north) and the Peoples’ Democratic Republic ofYemen (south) agreed on a joint development zone in a border region where oil was known toexist on both sides. The two states united in 1989 and the zone became redundant.The management of transboundary resources


The most obvious resources which may require transboundary cooperation are oil, gas,minerals, groundwater and surface water on land, and oil, gas and fisheries at sea.Borderland resources may also include historic or cultural sites, flora and fauna, and timber forexample but this brief review will concentrate on those resources most frequently subject tointernational agreements - hydrocarbons, freshwater, and fish. These also happen to be themost difficult to manage because they all move across international boundaries. There is aconsiderable volume of literature on transboundary resource management but muchuncertainty still surrounds the legal position, and relatively little practical progress has beenachieved in relation to what needs to be done. Nico Shchriver has written a masterly guide tothe complex principles of international law relating to the management of natural resources(6).While the state clearly enjoys permanent sovereignty over its resources, there is a clear duty tomanage those resources responsibly. Moreover, states have an obligation to cooperate in thesolution of transboundary and global environmental problems, and they must not useresources in any way which may prove harmful to another state, which implies an obligation tocooperate to ensure optimum use of shared resources. Since the early 1970s sharedresources have featured on the agenda of U.N. agencies such as UNEP and certain principleshave been proposed for the management and use of shared environmental resources (notdefined), but not for economic resources.

Hydrocarbons

When a petroleum reservoir extends across an international boundary there is a risk that onestate will extract more than its fair share of the oil or gas, because petroleum may be inducedto flow from one side of the boundary to the other. One solution to this problem nowcommonly adopted is unitisation whereby the parties agree on terms to develop the deposit asa unit. The most important aspect is the apportionment of petroleum production based ontricky technical calculations of the total reserves and the proportions thereof which lie on eitherside of the line.(6). Alternatively the parties may agree to joint exploitation of a petroleumreservoir by a single company or consortium, with revenues shared equally or in some agreedproportion. As mentioned above, there are already 15 joint maritime agreements in operation,10 of which have lasted for more than 15 years. There is no standard agreement for suchzones although the British Institute for International and Comparative Law has produced amodel agreement, which to date does not appear to have been used(7). Table 2 lists the jointmaritime agreements. There can be little doubt that common zones will increase in number infuture, although they are not always easy to work, and most are still regarded as an interimarrangement pending a boundary agreement if none already exists.

Table 2 Joint maritime agreements

Argentina - United Kingdom 1995Argentina - Uruguay 1974Australia - Indonesia 1991Australia - Papua New Guinea 1985Bahrain - Saudi Arabia 1958Colombia - Dominican Republic 1979France - Spain 1975Iceland - Norway 1981Japan - Republic of Korea 1978Kuwait - Saudi Arabia 1966Malaysia - Thailand 1991Norway - USSR 1978Malaysia - Vietnam 1992 (signed)Qatar - United Arab Emirates 1969

Administrator

Nico Shchriver has written a masterly guide to the complex principles of international law relating to the management of natural resources(6).


Saudi Arabia - Sudan 1975

Freshwater

Problems of shared water resources are in many ways more difficult than those associatedwith hydrocarbons; they are certainly more numerous. Worldwide over 240 river basins areshared between two or more states and five are shared between seven or more states.Although there are over 2,000 bilateral agreements covering navigation, research, fishing,flood control, water quotas etc these are very few integrated river basin projects. Since 1970the U.N. International Law Commission has been trying to develop and codify the law of non-navigational uses of international watercourses, but the task is not yet complete. One principleof international water law which is clear is that the use of water by one country must not impairthe rights and interests of another country or countries.(8) There are many cases where thisprinciple is disregarded, not least in the Middle East and considerable international tensionexists as a result. The same principle of international law is applicable to groundwater,although there are no detailed conventions dealing specifically with groundwater. It took agroup of experts seven years to draft a treaty in respect of groundwater in the Mexico-UnitedStates borderlands, such is the complexity of the subject. Water resources could be the causeof serious international conflict in future if states are unable to cooperate over theirmanagement.

Fisheries

Coastal states have the exclusive right to the exploitation of living resources within theirExclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) under the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. Inrespect of migrating species however there is an obligation to cooperate with neighbouringstates both within the EEZ and in the high seas beyond to conserve and manage suchresources, (Articles 117 and 118). Such cooperation may be direct with other states orthrough an international organisation, typically a regional fisheries body. There are a numberof difficulties associated with these provisions especially the compatibility of the conservationmeasures a coastal state might implement within the EEZ, and the behaviour of foreign fleetsimmediately beyond which have less interest in conservation in spite of the obligation tocooperate. The legal position was clarified by the 1995 U.N. Convention on StraddlingStocks, but many practical problems remain.

Conclusion

There is already a considerable degree of transboundary collaboration, and there are strongincentives for this to develop further in future, especially the growing competition for moreresources. There is no standard model for any of the categories of cooperation examined.This is an encouraging feature of transboundary cooperation, suggesting an element offlexibility and ingenuity which should facilitate future arrangements. Two ingredients seem tobe essential if cooperative ventures are to be successful; a powerful incentive to cooperate,and careful groundwork to ensure that the right place and the best arrangements have beenchosen. In this context the characteristics of the boundary in question deserve carefulinvestigation. The role of a third party such as the U.N. in helping to initiate cooperation isclearly very helpful, but may not always be necessary.

References

(1) United Nations (1983) The Law of the Sea, London: Croom Helm (published in cooperationwith the United Nations).


(2) Adler, R. (1995) Positioning and Mapping International Land Boundaries, Boundary andTerritory Briefing, Volume 2, Number 1, Durham: International Boundaries ResearchUnit.

(3) Biger, G, (1995) (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of International Boundaries, New York: Facts onFile Inc.

(4) Blake, G.H. (1992) ‘Territorial Alternatives’, Boundary Bulletin, Number 3: Durham:International Boundaries Research Unit, 9.12.

(5) Armstrong, P. and V. Forbes (1997) The Falkland Islands and Their Adjacent MaritimeAreas. Maritime Briefing Series Vol 2 No 3. International Boundaries Research Unit,Durham.

(6) Swarbrick R.E. (1995) “Oil and gas reservoirs across ownership boundaries: the technicalbasis for apportioning reserves” in G.H. Blake et al. (eds) The Peaceful Managementof Transboundary Resources. Graham and Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff 41-50.

(7a) British Institute of International and Comparative Law (1989) Joint Development ofOffshore Oil and Gas: A Model Agreement for States for Joint Development withExplanatory Commentary, London: British Institute of International and ComparativeLaw.

(7b) Fox, H. (1990) (ed.) Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas, Volume II, London,British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

(8) D.A. Caponera (1995) “Shared waters in international law” in G.H. Blake et al. (eds) ThePeaceful Management of Transboundary Resources. Graham andTrotman/Martinus Nijhoff, 121-126.


PARKS AT THE EDGE: THE CASE OF UGANDA

By: Ronald G. SealePark Planning AdvisorMt. Elgon Conservation and Development ProjectIUCN, Mbale, Uganda

Frontier parks, the subject of this conference, are perhaps of greater relative importance inUganda than they are in any other country in the world. Of Uganda's ten national parks, noless than seven lie along international frontiers. Even more remarkable, all seven of thoseUganda national parks are contiguous with protected areas on the other side of theirrespective international frontiers. In a sense, therefore, the theme of this conference haspotentially more significance for Uganda than it has for any other country.

Before looking more closely at the case of Uganda, however, it first may be instructive toconsider two general factors. Around the world, it is not uncommon to find that national parksand other protected areas lie on international frontiers. The two general factors that may be atwork here are as follows:

1: The "Culture Hearth" Factor

If national boundaries evolve "logically", and come to enclose over time, the territory occupiedby a "national group", it follows that the lands further removed from that core area or culturehearth will tend to have been subjected over time to relatively less severe pressures onresources than will the core area. If those peripheral areas have in fact experienced lessresource pressures, then it is also likely that the natural systems of those areas will have beenless disturbed. Relatively undisturbed lands are good candidates for protected area status.

2: The Mountain Factor:

The character of the terrain, not considered under Factor #1, is the major consideration inFactor #2. In general , rugged mountain areas tend to be less intensively developed and lessdensely populated than, for example, extensive lowland areas such as fertile alluvial plains.These less populated and less developed mountain areas thus frequently become frontiersbetween more densely populated lower lying lands.

Mountainous lands, however, also tend to be biologically rich, because within relatively smallareas, one often finds a great variety of habitats and ecological niches, that reflect the effectsof altitudinal range on life forms. Such ecologically varied areas are particularly desirable fromthe point of view of conservation of natural values within protected areas.

Neither of the above two factors should be pushed too far, however. Geopolitics is far from anexact science. Particular caution is required in applying such thinking on frontiers to theAfrican context. International frontiers on this continent are especially capricious, or one mighteven say, "Caprivious". As is well known, the current position of African frontiers often reflectsmore the vagaries of the 19th century imperial "scramble for Africa", than it does the evolutionover centuries of frontiers between long established socio-political entities.

These qualifiers notwithstanding, however, both of the factors outlined above appear to havebeen at work in Uganda. Certainly with seven of Uganda's ten national parks located on theinternational boundaries of its periphery, Factor #1 would seem to have some applicability tothe Uganda case.

With respect to Factor #2 concerning mountainous areas, the international boundaries of six of


the seven Uganda national parks on frontiers, are associated with very mountainous terrain.The nationally and internationally significant ecological values of those six parks are directlyassociated with mountainous terrain located either within the parks themselves or immediatelyadjacent to them.

The obvious conclusion, then, is that in the case of Uganda, national parks on its internationalfrontiers are very significant in relation to that country's total national park system. That pointhaving been established, the more important question then is "What is the significance ofUganda's frontier parks vis-a vis the themes that have been set out for this conference?"

Accordingly, I shall look at Uganda's frontier national parks with respect both to the currentsituation and to the potential for future action. More specifically,

A) To what extent have Uganda's frontier parks figured in cooperative regional conservationinitiatives, and what can be anticipated in future with respect to such initiatives?

B) To what extent have Uganda's frontier parks contributed to the improvement of relations

with neighbouring states, during and after periods of conflict, and what can be anticipated infuture in this regard?

C) What potential transboundary cooperative initiatives should be highlighted in the Uganda

context, with a view to supporting achievement of objectives relating both to conservationand to regional security and cooperation?

In responding to these questions, it is convenient to group into four clusters, Uganda's sevenfrontier parks that border four different countries. The groups are defined partially, but notcompletely, by the respective bordering countries.

A The Gorilla Parks

Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park adjoin respectively, theParc National des Virungas in the Congo and the Parc National des Volcans in Rwanda. Thefour parks in these three countries are in fact all contiguous. Together these parks sustain theentire known population of mountain gorillas.

At one time or another over the past 20 years, parks in all three countries have enjoyedremarkable success as ecotourism destinations. These parks have provided high qualityvisitor experiences for which visitors have been willing to pay very high prices and from whichthe countries and specific communities concerned have reaped very considerable benefits.

Unfortunately, over the same period that gorilla tourism has blossomed, the region in which thegorilla parks lie has experienced serious political and social instability, accompanied by humantragedy on a scale scarcely parallelled anywhere else in the world during that time. Rwandatoday is attempting to rebuild in the aftermath of horrific genocidal conflict earlier in the 1990's.Uganda has now enjoyed a decade of relative peace and security after enduring 15 years ofdictatorship, civil war, torture, murder, and mayhem from 1971 to 1986. The Congo's worstperiod of civil war was experienced even earlier than Uganda's troubles. However, the pastdecade in Congo has been characterized by general economic decline and relativelyineffective political control from the centre, culminating in the recent struggle that brought downthe long established Mobutu regime.

The general levels of instability and strife in the three countries over the past generation havenaturally been reflected in the levels of tourism success enjoyed by their respective gorillaparks. International tourism is known, after all, to respond quickly and massively to situation ofinstability and insecurity.


The Congo was the first to demonstrate what could be achieved with perhaps the mostoutstanding example in the world, of a strictly controlled ecotourism operation oriented to avery small upscale market. Congo was succeeded by Rwanda as the leader in gorilla tourism.Then when disaster overtook Rwanda in the early 1990's, the rapidly recovering Uganda wasin a position to assume a primary role in gorilla tourism offerings.

Given the severity of civil strife and the attendant levels of human suffering in this small regionof Africa in the past two decades, it is remarkable that the mountain gorilla population has notsuffered more than it has during this period. In contrast, the wildlife populations of Uganda'sbest known savannah parks suffered catastrophic declines during the worst period of civil strifein the 1970's and early 1980's. However, the mountain gorillas appear to have been relativelylittle affected by the social and security crises swirling around them. Equally remarkably,though the primary points of tourism contact have shifted over the years, the tourism volumeswithin what is one rather small region have been maintained to a surprising degree.

That tourism levels within the three country region have held up, despite the strife and tragedyexperienced, would seem to evidence two points:

♦ The fundamental appeal of gorilla tourism for a small but significant niche market ofinternational tourists is unquestioned.

♦ The importance of tourism benefits relating to gorilla observation is widely recognized by

people and communities in the region. This in turn results in the protection of the gorillasthemselves and in the persistence of associated tourism activities under extremely tryingcircumstances.

These points augur well for the future, and particularly for transboundary cooperation in themanagement of protected areas in the three countries sharing the region that is home to themountain gorillas. There have been limited cooperative management initiatives to date, butthat limited level is nonetheless remarkable. There would seem to be a base upon which tobuild, both at the national agency level, and at the district, community, and field operationallevels.

It is important that those involved in gorilla tourism in the three countries perceive themselvesto be jointly responsible for managing a rare, vulnerable, and valuable resource, rather thanthat they perceive themselves to be in direct competition with each other. Given the levels ofbookings and the fact that would-be visitors are prepared to make travel commitments manymonths in advance, it would seem that international demand for gorilla tourism products ismore than adequate to satisfy interests in all three countries, at the restricted levels that areconsistent with protection of the wildlife resource.

B: The Rwenzori/Virunga System:

Three Uganda parks are included in this system. They are Rwenzori National Park, SemulikiNational Park, and Queen Elizabeth National Park. All three border Parc National desVirungas in the Congo, to the north of the area that is home to the mountain gorillas.

There is considerable potential benefit to be gained in these parks from cooperation at theoperational level of protected area management. The level of potential benefit is perhapsgreatest in the case of Semuliki National Park. The Semliki River is part of the upper drainageof the Albert Nile. For part of its course, the Semliki River forms the boundary betweenSemuliki National Park and Parc National des Virungas. There has been very little meaningfulcontact to date between the respective park staffs on the ground. Effective resource


management would certainly benefit from such contact.

In the long term, there is considerable potential for provision of provision of ecotourismopportunities that focus on the Semuliki River and on the biological wealth of the Congo/ItariForest. This forest permits the ranges of many species of flora and fauna that are typical ofWest and Central Africa to extend into Uganda. For the present, however, visitor numbers tothe Semuliki/Virungas area remain at very low levels, in large part due to difficulties relating toaccess, particularly on the Congo side.

Development of ecotourism potential in this region in the long term would seem to depend inpart upon the level of success achieved in future in grouping several destinations intoattractive packages. The appeal of such packages for international long-haul tourism can beclearly seen in other regions of Africa, such as northern Tanzania and northwesternZimbabwe/northeastern Botswana. Thus whereas it would be very difficult to promoteSemuliki National Park on its own to international tourism markets, a package that includedSemuliki, Rwenzori, the Virungas, and other ecotourism destinations in that region wouldpotentially have very considerable appeal.

Here too there is an important place for Queen Elizabeth National Park. Linkages with theVirungas for resource management purposes would seem to be less important than they arefor Semuliki for example. However, as a relatively high profile anchor for ecotourism packagesthat include other destinations in Uganda, Congo, and Rwanda, Queen Elizabeth NationalPark can potentially play a critical role. With its extensive areas of savannah, its populationsof large mammals, and its diverse scenic landscapes, Queen Elizabeth can provide anoutstanding regional complement, both for the gorilla parks to the south and for theRwenzori/Virungas/ Semuliki area to the north.

C Kidepo Valley:

Kidepo Valley National Park is in the extreme northeastern corner of Uganda, lying along theSudan border. In northern Uganda, and more particularly in northwestern Uganda, theconditions of peace and security enjoyed in the rest of the country have yet to be achieved.Relations between Uganda and Sudan are seriously strained. In the meantime, wildlifepopulations in northern Uganda have declined greatly in the past 20 years, in large partbecause of civil unrest.

The Kidepo region also remains relatively remote. In the foreseeable future, it seems unlikelythat the security issue in northern Uganda will be satisfactorily resolved. If, however, peaceand security could be achieved, there are significant potential benefits to be gained in Ugandaand Sudan with respect to cooperative initiatives relating to both conservation and tourismdevelopment. Such cooperative initiatives could in fact be the basis around which a generalimprovement in Uganda - Sudan relationships could be attained.

D Mount Elgon

Mount Elgon is a major massif lying on the border of east central Uganda and northwesternKenya. There are adjoining Mount Elgon National Parks in the two countries. In contrast tothe situation in the Kidepo region, the international climate along the Uganda - Kenya borderhas markedly improved within the past three years. Relations between the two countries hadbeen frosty for almost 20 years, since the Amin era and the collapse of the East AfricanCommunity. The border station on the north side of Mount Elgon recently re-opened to permitcross-border travel on the Kapchorwa - Kitale route for the first time in well over ten years.

The outlook for continuing improvement of Uganda - Kenya relations is fairly bright. Thisimprovement is taking place within the broader context of efforts to revive in some new form,


the former East African Community that included Tanzania as well as Uganda and Kenya.The improved international climate bodes well for the two Mount Elgon National Parks. Illegalborder crossings in both directions, by cattle raiders and other smugglers, have long posedproblems for national park management on both sides of the border. Recent instances ofcooperation between law enforcement agencies in the two countries are likely to be followedby meaningful and continuing contact between the two national park operations.

The prospects for mutually beneficial contacts between the two Mount Elgon National Parksare also enhanced by major planning and development projects in progress on both sides ofthe border. On the Uganda side, Mount Elgon has been the focus of an integratedconservation and development initiative since 1987. Funding for this Mount ElgonConservation and Development Project is provided by the Government of Norway, withIUCN/The World Conservation Union providing technical and administrative support.

Within the past few months, there have been efforts to initiate a somewhat similar integratedconservation and development project on the Kenya side of Mount Elgon. The Government ofThe Netherlands has expressed interest in supporting such a project, and it appears that IUCNwould again provide technical and administrative support. If the proposed Kenya project doesindeed go ahead, particularly with the involvement of IUCN as a common player in twosomewhat similar projects, we would have here an excellent opportunity for cooperationbetween adjacent protected areas on the Kenya - Uganda border. There is potential for fruitfulcooperative efforts in planning, development, and operations that would benefit visitors,tourism interests, park managers, and the respective resources themselves.

Such cooperation between park agencies would thus be reflected both in strengthenedresource management and in enhanced tourism benefits. Eastern Uganda and northwesternKenya have benefitted relatively little from tourism activity to date. Kenya's primary ecotourismdestinations are Masai Mara, Nakuru/Naivasha, and the Mount Kenya/Aberdares area.Uganda's primary tourism destinations meanwhile are in the western part of the country, inparticular Queen Elizabeth National Park and the gorilla parks of Bwindi and Mgahinga.

Transboundary cooperation centring on Mount Elgon could be the basis for establishment of anew ecotourism circuit in a region that has thus far attracted few international tourists.Together with the two Mount Elgon National Parks, that new circuit could take in suchcomplementary attractions as the Kakamega Forest, Saiwa Swamp National Park, and theCherangani Hills on the Kenya side, together with the Pian - Upe Game Reserve north ofMount Elgon on the Uganda side.

Such a circuit would include extremely diverse landscapes and ecosystems, together withoutstanding opportunities for wildlife viewing, mountain trekking, and forest and swamp walks.Moreover, the entire circuit would be within an area that currently receives very few tourists,relative to the large numbers now visiting destinations such as Masai Mara and the Aberdaresin Kenya or Queen Elizabeth and the gorilla parks in Uganda. In the long term, pending therestoration of peace and stability in the area to the north, this Mount Elgon circuit could eveninclude Kidepo Valley National Park.

Summary and Conclusions

Two general factors are suggested in an attempt to account for the disproportionately largenumber of national parks that lie along international frontiers. Both the culture hearth and themountain factor appear to apply to at least some degree in the case of Uganda.The recent history of the mountain gorilla region that is shared by Uganda and two othercountries suggests that even in periods of severe civil strife and human tragedy, protectedareas and their wildlife populations can survive, if the benefits of the protected areas are clear


and significant for local populations. It would appear that in the mountain gorilla region, localpopulations have come to regard the great apes as their gorillas, as a wildlife resource inwhich local people take pride. In such a situation, it would seem that the national parks thatsustain the gorillas could well be the focal point of international cooperative initiatives. Thoseinitiatives could enable neighbouring countries to begin to rebuild shattered societies, to thebenefit both of the residents and of the wildlife populations of the parks in question.

In addition to parks in the mountain gorilla region, national parks in two other parts of Ugandahave the potential within the short to medium term, to be the bases of international cooperativeconservation initiatives. One of these areas includes Rwenzori and Semuliki National Parks,while the other centres on Mount Elgon National Park in Uganda and the neighbouring MountElgon National Park in Kenya. Each of these initiatives could serve to advance the cause ofconservation and the cause of improved regional security and cooperation. Thus nationalparks in three different sectors of Uganda's international frontier would seem to provide goodexamples of the important themes that this conference is intended to explore.


ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE DEAD SEA BASIN AND THEIR SUSTAINABLE USE:PROBLEMS AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES OF THE BASIN

By: Ayman Rabi

1. Background

Dead Sea basin is one part of the great rift valley extending from Africa in the south to Turkeyin the north. It is the lowest part on earth with elevation varies from -250 m (bsl) In the north to-420 m (bsl) in the south at the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Structurally, the Basin can beconsidered one of the most significant features in the world. The north – south developedfaulting system has created a sharp and high escarpments on both sides of a narrow valleystrip. The elevation of the mountain ridges in both sides of the valley goes up to 1500 m in theeast and 1000 m in the western ridges. Nonetheless, the narrow strip confined between themountain ridges has become the most fertile lands in the region as a result of the sedimentloads accumulated by the surface water flows. Today, the Basin forms good portion of thefood basket of Jordan, Israel and Palestine.

The Basin enjoys a Subtropical – Mediterranean weather conditions in the north (in themountains), where rainfall might reach 600 mm/year and almost Desert conditions in the south,where rainfall is less than 50 mm/year. This unique nature of the basin has rendered it as oneof the most, environmentally, significant areas, especially for north - south bird migration, in theworld.

Growing demand on the basins very limited natural resources, by various riparian countries,has potentially made it one of the most politically fragile areas in the world.

2. Natural Resources

2.1 Water Resources

Jordan River system including Lake Tiberias are the major water sources of the basin. Otherside valleys, springs and seepage from groundwater aquifers are also important contributors tothe overall water balance of the basin. The estimated total surface water available at the Basinis 1,330 Mcm/year. Of which 125 Mcm reaches the Dead Sea and the rest is being used bysome of the riparian countries upstream as will be explained later.

2.2 Flora and Fauna

One of the significance of the basin is it brings together both south and north diversities.There are some European plants found in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, the most southerlyplace in the world where they are found. Many African plants are also found the most northerlyplace in the world where they are found. In addition, there are a number of fauna speciessuch as Leopard, Ibex, Gazelle, Egyptian Vulture and other endemic fish species in thesurrounding streams.

More important, the basin is one of the important bird migration paths. Bird-life Internationalhas identified Mujib basin in the east, as an important wet land area, for bird migration.

2.3 Medicinal Value

Dead Sea waters are very rich with mineral content. Salt concentration in the Dead Sea watersis nearly ten times more than the water of the oceans. The black mud of the Dead Sea is being


extracted and manufactured in the form of various treatment and care products. Moreover, theSulphate content of the mud and water of the Sea attracting many people from all over theworld, particularly from Europe, to visit the Dead Sea for treatment of some skin problems.

3. Cultural Heritage

The basin is rich in its cultural and historic heritage. It is the place where the oldest writtenevidence of the Bible were found (Qumran). It had been the refuge for many ancientcivilizations who enjoyed the silence and bareness of desert environment. King Herod hadbuilt his palace at the heart of this silence. Jericho, one of the most oldest cities in the world,was continuously settled is located in the northern shores of the sea.

4. Threats and Consequences

4.1 The Shrinking Sea

Over exploitation of water from the upper Jordan River system has reduced substantially theinflow to the Dead Sea. Figure 1, illustrates the quantities of the water abstracted by eachcountry upstream.

This water abstraction have caused a serious reduction in the water quantities which,historically, used to flow to the Lower Jordan River and to the Dead Sea. Thus, The water theDead Sea level has continuously dropped in the same ratio of this reduction. Figure 2,illustrates the decline of the flow of the Lower Jordan.

Figure 1: Upstream Water Use Per Country (Mcm/Year) Israel

Jordan

Sy ria

Lebanon

210 20

620270

F ig u r e 2 : J o r d a n R iv e r F lo w B e tw e e n 1 9 0 0 a n d 1 9 8 5 (B illio n C u b ic M e ter Per Year )

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

Y e a r

Flo

w (

Bcm

/yea

r)

Ser ies1


It can be easily noticed that in the late fifties there has been a major change in the rivershydrograph. This change is being referred to the major diversion works which took placeduring that time upstream.

In addition to that evaporation ponds created for industrial extraction of potash, phosphorousand other minerals such as bromide have been contributing substantially to the loss of thisvery unique resources. It has been reported that in 1995, almost 200 mcm of the Dead Seawater (brine) was pumped by the Arab Potash company, Harza (1996).

4.2 Proposed Development

As a result of peace treaties signed between Jordanians-Israelis and Palestinian-Israelis, anumber of proposed projects have come out, by each entity, to develop their part of the basin.The following are some examples:

1. Tourism: Some 50.000 new hotel rooms are being proposed to be built around the DeadSea shores. Yet, no consideration were given to the carrying capacity of this highly sensitiveecosystem and no regional master plan exists to define this issue. (Figure 4).

2. Industry: More mineral extraction will continue over the coming decade. Under the MontrealProtocol, of which both Jordan and Israel are signatories, Israel will have to phase out bromineproduction by 2000 AD. However, Jordan was classified as a developing country, they areallowed until 2010 AD. As a result a joint venture between the two operating industries is beingformed in order to continue producing the Bromine in the Jordanian side. This would simplymean that more pressure on the available water quantities will be placed. Moreover, theproduct (Bromine) is one of the substances contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer.Figure 4, shows the existing evaporation ponds for both industries.

3. Transportation: An international highway is being proposed to run from the Gulf of Aqabain the south and continue up to Lebanon in the North. This highway is proposed to run parallelto the sea shores which means that it will destroy the cliffs and will jeopardize the narrow pathwhich indigenous species are using to travel in the basin.

4. Water Schemes: New diversion canals and dams are being proposed which will placemore pressure on the quantities reaching the sea. Hence, will further interrupt the waterbalance and will faster the shrinkage of the Dead Sea.

Concluding Remarks,

Dead Sea the lowest part on earth;

Should it be the lowest part for peace on earth?Should it be protected and declared as a world heritage site?

Up to us environmentalists to cooperate together and lobby hardly to insure the sustainabilityof this unique source and other sources in the globe.

It is also up to the governments of the region, who already started peace and doing someprogress to implement peace. However, they need much more cooperative efforts to maintainpeace and to insure the preservation of the natural and cultural assets for future generation.

Moreover, Parks for Peace indicates that there is a lot more potential to further the peaceamong people. One of the significant potentials is the military and security Zones which are


already preserved along the borders between various countries. They can be converted into apreserved natural areas where both people of the two countries can enjoy its beauty and meettogether to further peace and to build confidence.


TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN EUROPE: PROGRESS AND POSSIBILITIES INSOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS

By: Dipl.-Ing. Robert Brunner

General:

The ”Parks for Life – Action plan for Europe”, published by FNNPE and IUCN in 1994,mentions 29 priority projects designed to fill the gaps and enhance the prospects for protectedareas in Europe.

The Austrian Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth, and Family Affairs has approved afinancial support for a basic project on ”Transboundary Protected Areas – problems, futureaspects, and international criterias. Since ”Parks for Life” is a programmatic document of IUCNand FNNPE, both institutions have been involved in the preparation of the research.

Since different studies on this subject have been worked out in the last 10 years, whichprovide a wide range of ideas in transboundary protected area cooperation andrecommendations, this study should concentrate on following subjects: harmonizing of recentprotected areas masterplans in neighbouring countries definition of potential transboundaryprotected areas modelling different types of cooperation contributions to a better cooperationin the most valuable cultural and natural European landscapes.

TEMPORARY STATUS

Remarks

The work on the study is still in progress. The following report can only show the concepts andthe first results.

Data collection

The description of transboundary protected areas should contain all categories of protectedareas, including important large-scale cultural landscapes (this was the demand of FNNPE).The data collection was done on different levels:

♦ excerpts of literature

♦ personal contacts

♦ written information, provided by administrations, ministries, WCPA-members, NGOs.

The data collection is not completed until now. There is a lack in the information from westernand southern European countries.

Problems occur in the valuation of proposed transboundary protected areas. The informationavailable about intensity and type of future cooperation is rather poor.

Literature

The second step was an interpretation of the literature and studies. A list of studies andpublications is included in the appendix. It is mainly about nature protected areas, first of allNational Parks. Information about transboundary cultural landscapes was very poor.


Working group

A working group has been installed to accompany the research. The members of this workinggroup are:

Ms. Marija Zupancic-Vicar, Slovenia, in behalf of WCPA (IUCN)

Ms. Marie-Odile Guth, Director of Parc National Le Mercantour, France, in behalf of theFederation of Nature and National Parks in Europe (FNNPE)

Mr. Jan Cerovsky, Czech Republic, in behalf of IUCN

Collection of addresses

For further analyses of protected areas an address file was designed. This might be importantfor further steps. It is rather difficult to find contacts for transboundary projects.

Questionnaire

To comprehend the experiences of the administrations in transboundary protected areas aquestionnaire has been worked out (see annex) and sent to more than 130 administrationoffices. This questionnaire was evaluated with regard to experiences, advantages, suggestionsfor the improvement and problems in transboundary protected areas.

It is the basis for the definition of future criterias for the designation and evaluation oftransboundary protected areas.

Case studies

A limited number of transboundary areas was selected for detailed case studies. This will alsohelp to evaluate the results of the interpretation of the questionnaires.

THEORY…

Transboundary cooperation in protected areas occurs in different fields and on different levels.In the moment, legally sanctioned or written agreements are rather exceptions, while goodpersonal contacts play an important role. On the other hand there are no official commoninternational standards in transboundary cooperation.

There are different recommendations in other fields of international tasks in nature protection,like IUCN-guidelines for protected areas management categories. To improve the internationalcooperation, to define common goals, and to support the better understanding of neighbouringprotected areas a official document might be helpful to define a common standard ofinternational cooperation in protected areas

♦ to assimilate the protected areas system on both sides of the border

♦ to improve the management system

♦ to establish an exchange program of the personal

♦ to assist regular meetings of the area administrations on an official level


…AND REALITY

More than 80 transboundary cooperations or proposed cooperation exist in Europe. About 60are bilateral, 20 are tri- or multi-lateral (at least more than 180 single protected areas areinvolved). Some of them arise in the area of the former Iron Curtain in the mid of Europe.Nevertheless there is still a lack of information from Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, and Croatia andfrom states of the former USSR.

Administration

Due to the differences in nature protection competence and administrative systems, despitethe sovereignty of each country, there is no chance to install common administrations.Nevertheless, administrative bodies might be created, which allow partners from theneighbouring administration to participate in decisions in common tasks on a very high andofficial level.

Protected area systems

The fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 changed the conditions for transboundary cooperationsquite well. But recent social-economic development also endangers some last refuges ofthreatened species. Only common attempts to protect large areas or corridors might lead to asufficient result in nature protection. A system of core zones, transition zones and specialreserves might reduce the impacts on the local population and local economy and might leadto a easier acceptance of a protected area system.

The Spanish-French Pyreneen mountains are a good example. The well known National ParksLes Pyrenees and Ordesa – Monte Perdido represent just a small part of the whole system ofprotected areas, which exists on both sides of the border. Nature parks, hunting reserves,riverine areas and transition zones complete the protection of this sensitive and variousecosystems.

Although the maps of Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland show a dense system ofprotected areas along their borders.

Management in protected areas

But wide varieties of protected areas are just one thing. The other one is the accordance of themanagement or master plans. There might be a majority for the designation of protected areasof the same level on both sides of the border (park to park, nature reserve to nature reserveand so on). I would suggest to attach more importance to the accordance of the managementof the areas. Core zones should meet core zones, strict reserves should meet strict reserves.The subjects and the level of protection in this different zones have to coincide on both sidesand are more important than the name of the area.

Language problems

The wide variety of languages in Europe rises to an other important problem. Involving localpeople in the daily work of protecting the nature might be difficult but necessary. Some parkadministrations pointed out, that people hardly speak of ”their park”. As long it is the park ofthe others, there is still some work to do.

On the FNNPE conference in Bled (SLO) 1995 I suggested, that information about natureprotection in border areas should always be presented in the language of the neighbouringcountry and/or in one of the important languages too. This is still not the rule.


But not only written information gives a chance for better understanding. Exchange ofpersonal, language training courses and transborder guided tours might be other good ideas.

FINAL REPORT

The final report, which will be finished by the end of October contains interpretation ofliterature available:

♦ list of protected areas in Europe

♦ results of the interrogation of transboundary protected areas administrations

♦ about five case studies

♦ criterias for transboundary protected areas-. suggestions for the improvement of cooperation-. recommendations for the designation of transboundary protected areas in close

cooperation with the established administration or the representatives of projects

LITERATURE

ANDRIENKO T.L. and STETSENKO M.P.(1996), Transboundary Protected Areas in Ukraine.In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

BIBELRIETHER H. und R. SCHREIBER Hg. (1990), Die Nationalparke in Europa. Frankfurt

BOARD OF POLISH NATIONAL PARKS (1996), National Parks in Poland. Warszawa-Bialwieza

BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR UMWELT, JUGEND UND FAMILIE (1997), Naturschutz[inter]national. Internationale Naturschutzprojekte in Österreich. Wien

BURELL TH. (1988), Transfrontier Parks in Europe. Vortrag anläßlich der Europarc-Tagung1988

CEROVSKI J. (1996), Parks for Life Priority Project 22 ‘Support to Transfontier Areas‘. In:Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

CEROVSKY J. Ed. (1996), Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

CHRANENA UZEMI PRIRODY CESKE REPUBLIKY (o.J.), 1:500.000

CHRANENE UZEMIA PRIRODY SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY (1996), Mapa v miereke1:500.000. Bratislava

CNPPA (1990), Promoting Effective Management of Transfrontier Parks and Reserves:Guidelines. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfontier Conservation. Glandand Cambridge

DANISH NATIONAL FOREST AND NATURE AGENCY (o.J.), The Danish Contributiion to aTrilateral Danish, German and Dutch Management Plan for the Wadden Sea Area,Copenhagen

DEUTSCHE NATIONALPARKE (1991), In: Nationalpark – Sonderausgabe, Nr. 71, 2/91.Grafenau


DEUTSCHE NATURPARKE (1992), In: Nationalpark – Sonderausgabe, Nr. 76, 3/92. Grafenau

DIREKTION DES NATIONALPARKES FERTÖ HANSAG (o.J.), LandschaftsschutzgebietKöszeg. Sarrod

ECOPOINT (1995), Trandboundary Biodiversity Conservation. Selected Case Studies fromCentral Europe. Prahe 1995

EKOLOGIA BRATISLAVA (1992), National Parks and Protected Landscape Areas of Slovakia.Bratislava

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Aggtelek National ParkDirectorate. Budapest

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Bükk National ParkDirectorate. Budapest

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Körös-Maros NatureConservation Directorate. Budapest

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Middle-Trans-danubianNature Conservation Directorate. Budapest

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Nationalpark-direktionHortobagy. Budapest

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Nationalpark-direktionKiskunsag. Budapest

EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION, Hg. (1996), Nationalpark-direktionDonau-Drau. Budapest

FERTÖ HANSAG NEMZETI PARK (o.J.), Nationalpark Fertö-Hansag. Sarrod

FLOUSEK J. (1996), Cooperation in Biodiversity Conservation in the Czech and PolishKrkonose National Parks and Biosphere Reserve. In: Transborder Protected AreaCooperation. Canberra

HAMILTON L. and J. THORSELL (1996), Mountains Transborder Parks in Europe. In:Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

HAMILTON L. et al. (1996), Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. Canberra

HENTSCHEL W. and J. STEIN (1996), Experience from the Bohemian-Saxonian Switzerland.In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

HUNGARIAN NATIONAL AUTHORITY FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (o.J.), NatureConservation Management of Grasslands in Hungary. Budapest

POORE D. (Ed.) (1992), Guidelines for Mountain Protected Areas. (= IUCN Protected AreasProgramme Series No. 2. Gland and Cambridge


KASHEVAROV B. (1996), Comparative Analysis of Biodiversity in the Finnish_RussianFriendship Nature Reserve. In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

KREMSER H. (1996), Hohe Tauern National Park. In: Transborder Protected AreaCooperation. Canberra

KULESHOVA L.V., ZABELINA N.M. and ISAEVA-PETROVA L.S. (1996), TransboundaryProtected Areas in Russia: The Present Situation and Prospects of Development. In:Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

LE MERCANTOUR PARC NATIONAL (o.J.), Aims of Research in a TransboundaryCooparation: Mercantour (France) – Alpi Marittime (Italy). Nice

LE MERCANTOUR PARC NATIONAL (o.J.), Document de travail. Charte entre le “Parcnational du Mercantour” et le “Parco naturale delle Alpi Maritime”. Nice

McNEELY, J. HARRISON ana P. DINGWALL (Ed.) (1994), Prtecting Nature. Regional Reviewsof Protected Areas. Gland and Cambridge

McMEIL R. (1990), International Parks for Peace. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience inTransfontier Conservation. Gland and Cambridge

MIHALIC D. and M. SYROTEUK (1996), Waterton Glacier International Peace Park. In:Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. Canberra

MILOSEVIC J. (1996), Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas in Serbia.In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIK (1991), Frontier Parks inCzechoslovakia. Praha

MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIK (1995), Nature Protectionin Slovakia. Bratislava

NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIK (1994), Act No. 287/1994 on Nature andLandscape Protection. Bratislava

NATIONALPARKKOMMISSION DER IUCN (1994), Parke für das Leben: Aktionsplan fürSchutzgebiete in Europa. Gland und Cambridge

ÖKOLOGISCHE BAUSTEINE (1990), In: Politische Ökologie, Sonderheft 2. München

OKOLOW C. (1994), Bialowieza National Park and Biosphere Reserve. In: BiodiversityConservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Bieszczady-Tatry

OKOLOW C. (1995), Bialowieza National Park. In: Parki Narodowe i Rezerwaty Przyrody. Tom14, Nr. 1

ÖSTERREICHISCHE RAUMORDNUNGSKONFERENZ Hg. (1988), NaturschutzrechtlicheFestlegungen in Österreich. Wien

POLSKA AGENCJA PROMOCJI TURYSTYKI (1994), Nationalparks in Polen.

ROSSI P. (1990), Rapport sur la Collaboration entre Parc Naturel de L´Argentera at ParcNational du Mercantour. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience in TransfontierConservation. Gland and Cambridge


ROSSI P. (1996), Argentera Nature Park: scientifif Research, Management and TransfrontierCooperation. In: Parks, Vol 6 No 1, Newbury

ROSSI P. (1996), Maritime Alps/Mercantour Parks. In: Transborder Protected AreaCooperation. Canberra

THARKOV S. (1996), The Finnish-Russian Friendship Zapovednik: Legislative Basis. In:Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha

THORSELL J.W. Ed. (1990), Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfontier Conservation(= IUCN Protected Area Programme Series No. 1). Gland and Cambridge

THORSELL J.W. and J. HARRISON (1990), Parks that Promote Peace: A Global Inventory ofTransfrontier Nature Reserves. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience in TransfontierConservation. Gland and Cambridge

VEREIN NATURPARK SÜDEIFEL (o.J.), Naturparke und ihr Potential für die Entwicklung desländlichen Raumes am Beispiel des Naturparks Südeifel und Deutsch-LuxemburgischenNaturparks.


TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN EUROPE: PROGRESS AND POSSIBILITIES INSOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS

The ”Parks for Life – Action plan for Europe”, published by FNNPE and IUCN in 1994 mentions29 priority projects designed to fill the gaps and enhance the prospects for protected areas inEurope.

More than 80 transboundary cooperations or proposed cooperation exist in Europe. Some ofthem arise in the area of the former Iron Curtain in the mid of Europe.

Transboundary cooperation in protected areas occurs in different fields and on different levels.In the moment, legally sanctioned or written agreements are rather exceptions, while goodpersonal contacts play an important role. On the other hand there are no common internationalstandards in transboundary cooperation.

The Austrian ministry for the Environment supports a study on ”Transboundary ProtectedAreas – Problems, future aspects, and international criterias”.

The main goals of the reserach on transboundary cooperation in Europe are:

♦ The presentation of the value of transborder protected cooperation for the Europeanlandscapes.

♦ The development of cooperation models on the basis of existing neighbouring or

transboundary protected areas. ♦ The extension of guidelines for transboundary cooperation. ♦ To outline criterias for the development of transboundary protected areas. ♦ The fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 changed the conditions for transboundary cooperations

quite well. But social-economic development also endangers some last refuges ofthreatened species. Only common attempts to protect large areas or corridors might lead toa sufficient result in nature protection.

♦ The wide variety of languages in Europe rises to an important problem. Involving local

people in the daily work of protecting the nature might be difficult but necessary. Somepark administrations pointed out, that people hardly speak of ”their park”. As long it is thepark of the others, there is still some work to do.


No. Name Country Counterpart I Country I Counterpart II Country II

AL 01 National Park Prespa Lake Albania National Park Prespa Lake Greece National Parks Galichica -Lake Ohrid, Pelister

Republic ofMacedonia

AL 02 National Park Thethi Albania Proposed National ParkProkletije Mountains

Yugoslavia(Montenegro)

AL 03 Nature Reserve Skhoder Lake Albania National Park Skadar Lake Yugoslavia(Montenegro)

A 01 International Ramsar-Management March-Thaya-Region

Austria International RamsarManagement Morava-Dyje

CzechRepublik

International RamsarManagement Morava-Dyje

Slovakia

A 02 National Park Neusiedler See-Seewinkel

Austria National Park Fertö to Hungary

A 03 Nature Park Geschriebenstein Austria Nature Park Irottkö Hungary

A 04 Proposed Nature Protected Area(INTERREG II Programm) -Schutzgebiet SüdöstlicheKalkalpen

Austria Proposed Nature ProtectedArea South EasternLimestone Alps (INTERREGII)

Italy Proposed NatureProtected Area SouthEastern Limestone Alps(INTERREG II)

Slovenia

A 05 Proposed Protected Area(Biosphere Reserve) BayerischerWald, Böhmerwald, Sumava

Austria Proposed Protected Area(Biosphere Reserve) Regionnarodniho parku Bavarsky les,Böhmerwald, Sumava

CzechRepublik

Proposed Protected Area(Biosphere Reserve)DreiländerregionBöhmerwald

Germany

A 06 Proposed Protected AreaLebensraum Salzach Auen

Austria Protected Area LebensraumSalzach Auen

Germany

A 07 Proposed Strict Nature ReserveLainsitzniederung

Austria Protected Area Trebonsko CzechRepublik

A 08 Proposed Trilateral Nature ParkRaab-Örseg-Goricko

Austria Proposed Trilateral NaturePark Raab-Örseg-Goricko

Hungary Proposed Trilateral NaturePark Raab-Örseg-Goricko

Slovenia



A 09 Protected Landscape AreaDonau-March

Austria Protected Landscape AreaMale Karpaty

Slovakia Protected Area Zahorie Slovakia

A 10 Protected Landscape Area Mur(proposed Biosphere Reserve)

Austria Proposed Protected AreaMura-Drava

Croatia Proposed Protected AreaMura-Drava

Hungary,Slovenia

A 11 Strict Nature Reserve (ProposedNational Park) Kalkhochalpen

Austria National Park Berchtesgaden Germany

A 12 Strict Nature Reserve (ProposedNational Park) Thayatal

Austria National Park Podyji CzechRepublik

A 13 Strict Nature Reserve Unterer Inn Austria Strict Nature Reserve UntererInn

Germany

BR 01 National Park BelovezhskayaPushcha

Belarus National Park Bialowieza Poland

BR 02 National Park Pripiatsky Belarus Nature Reserve Polessky Ukraine

BR 03 Protected Managed AreaVygonoschanske

Belarus National Park Polesie Poland National Park Shatsk Ukraine

B 01 Nature Park Belgium-Netherlands

Belgium Nature Park Belgium-Netherlands De Zoom-Kalmthout

Netherlands

B 02 Nature Park Hautes Fagnes -Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany

Belgium Nature Park Hautes Fagnes -Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany

Germany

B 03 Nature Park Plaines de l'Escaut Belgium Nature Park Scarpe-Escaut France

B 04 Nature Park Vallee de l'Attert -Haute Sure

Belgium Nature Park Haute Sure -Vallee de l' Attert

Luxemburg

BiH 01 National Park Sutjeska Bosnia -Hercegovina

National Park Durmitor Yugoslavia(Montenegro)

National Park Tara Yugoslavia(Montenegro)



HR 01 National Park Kopacki rit Croatia Proposed Mura-DravaProtected Area (ProposedBiosphere Reserve)

Croatia National Park Duna-Drava Hungary

HR 02 National Park Risnjak Croatia Proposed Regional NaturePark Nostranjski

Slovenia Proposed Nature ParkKoveski

Slovenia

HR 03 Proposed Protected Area(Biosphere Reserve) Mura-Drava

Croatia Protected Landscape AreaMur (proposed BiosphereReserve)


Hungary,Slovenia

HR 04 Proposed Protected Area Mura-Drava (Proposed BiosphereReserve)

Croatia National Park Kopacki rit Croatia National Park Duna-Drava Hungary

CZ 01 International RamsarManagement Morava-Dyje

CzechRepublik

International Ramsar-Management March-Thaya-Region


Slovakia

CZ 02 National Park Krkonose CzechRepublik

Protected Landscape AreaIser Mountains

CzechRepublik

National Park Karkonosze Poland

CZ 03 National Park Podyji CzechRepublik

Strict Nature Reserve(Proposed National Park)Thayatal

Austria

CZ 04 National Park Sumava, ProtectedLandscape Sumava

CzechRepublik

National Park BayerischerWald, Nature ParkBayerischer Wald

Germany

CZ 05 Proposed Protected Area(Biosphere Reserve) Regionnarodniho parku Bavarsky les,Böhmerwald, Sumava

CzechRepublik

Proposed Protected Area(Biosphere Reserve)Bayerischer Wald,Böhmerwald, Sumava

Austria Proposed Protected Area(Biosphere Reserve)DreiländerregionBöhmerwald

Germany

CZ 06 Protected Landscape AreaBeskidy

CzechRepublik

Landscape Park Zywiecki Poland Protected LandscapeArea Kysuce

Slovakia

CZ 07 Protected Landscape Area BileKarpaty

CzechRepublik

Protected Landscape AreaBiele Karpaty

Slovakia


CZ 08 Protected Landscape AreaBroumovsko

CzechRepublik

Protected Landscape AreaOrlicke Hory

CzechRepublik

National Park GoryStolowe

Poland


CZ 09 Protected Landscape Area IserMountains

CzechRepublik

National Park Krkonose CzechRepublik

National Park Karkonosze Poland

CZ 10 Protected Landscape AreaOrlicke Hory

CzechRepublik

Protected Landscape AreaBroumovsko

CzechRepublik

National Park GoryStolowe

Poland

CZ 11 Protected Landscape AreaTrebonsko

CzechRepublik

Proposed Strict NatureReserve Lainsitzniederung

Austria

CZ 12 Protected Landscape Labskepiskovce

CzechRepublik

National Park SächsischeSchweiz

Germany

CZ 13 Protected Landscape LuzickeHory (Lausitanian Mountains)

CzechRepublik

Proposed ProtectedLandscape Area ZittauerGebirge

Germany

DK 01 Trilateral Protected AreaWadden Sea

Denmark Trilateral Protected AreaWadden Sea

Germany Trilateral Protected AreaWadden Sea

Netherlands

EE 01 Proposed Strict Nature ReserveWetland Area Nigula

Estonia Nature Reserve NorthernComplex Vidzeme

Latvia

SF 01 National Park ItäinenSuomenlathi

Finland Strict Nature Reserve FinnishGulf

RussianFederation

SF 02 National Park Lemmenjoki,Pyörisjarvi, Pulju andHammastunturi Wilderness Area

Finland National Park Ovre Anarjokka Norway

SF 03 National Park Oulanka, StrictNature Reserve Sukerijärvi

Finland National Park Paanajärvi,Proposed SieppiunturyUplands Regional Park

RussianFederation

SF 04 National Park Urho Kekkonen Finland Strict Nature ReserveLaplandskiy

RussianFederation

SF 05 Nature Reserve Malla Finland Proposed National ParkTreriksroysa

Norway Proposed Protected AreaPalsta

Sweden



SF 06 Nature Reserves Elimussalo,Lentua, Iso-Palonen andMaariansarkat, Juortanansalo-Lapinsue Mire Reserve,Ulvinsalo Strict Nature Reserve

Finland Strict Nature ReserveKostumuksha

RussianFederation

SF 07 Wilderness Area Käsivarsi Finland National Park Reisa ,Protected Landscape AreaRaisdoutterhaldi, ProposedNational Park Guoatteloubbal

Norway

SF 08 Wilderness Area Vätsäri Finland National Park Pasvik, NatureReserve Pasvik

Norway Nature Reserve PasvikZapovednik

RussianFederation

F 01 National Park Le Mercantour France Nature Park Alpi Marittime Italy

F 02 National Park Les Pyrenees France National Park Ordesa/MontePerdido

Spain

F 03 National Park Vanoise France National Park Gran Paradiso Italy

F 04 Nature Park Plaine Scarpe et del'Escaut

France Nature Park Plaines del'Escaut

Belgium

F 05 Nature Park Vosges du Nord France Nature Park Pfälzerwald Germany

F 06 Proposed National Park Bouchesde Bonifacio

France Proposed National Park d'ellArchipelago della Maddalena

Italy

F 07 Proposed National Park MontBlanc

France Proposed National Park MontBlanc

Italy Proposed National ParkMont Blanc

Switzerland

D 01 National Park Bayerischer Wald,Nature Park Bayerischer Wald

Germany National Park Sumava,Protected Landscape Sumava

CzechRepublik

D 02 National Park Berchtesgaden Germany Strict Nature Reserve(Proposed National Park)Kalkhochalpen

Austria



D 03 National Park Odertal Germany Landscape Park DolinaDolney Odry

Poland

D 04 National Park SächsischeSchweiz

Germany Protected Landscape Labskepiskovce

CzechRepublik

D 05 Nature Park German-NetherlandMaas-Schwalm-Mette

Germany Nature Park German-Netherland Maas-Schwalm-Mette

Netherlands

D 06 Nature Park Hautes Fagnes -Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany

Germany Nature Park Hautes Fagnes -Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany

Belgium

D 07 Nature Park Luxemburg-Germany (Nature Park Südeifel)

Germany Nature Park Luxemburg-Germany (Nature ParkSüdeifel)

Luxemburg

D 08 Nature Park Pfälzerwald Germany Nature Park Vosges du Nord France

D 09 Proposed Nature Park Usedom Germany National Park Wolinski Poland

D 10 Proposed Protected Area(Biosphere Reserve) BayerischerWald, Böhmerwald, Sumava

Germany Proposed Protected Area(Biosphere Reserve)Bayerischer Wald,Böhmerwald, Sumava

Austria Proposed Protected Area(Biosphere Reserve)Region narodniho parkuBavarsky les,Böhmerwald, Sumava

CzechRepublik

D 11 Proposed Protected AreaLebensraum Salzach Auen

Germany Protected Area LebensraumSalzach Auen

Austria

D 12 Proposed Protected LandscapeArea Zittauer Gebirge

Germany Protected Landscape LuzickeHory

CzechRepublik

D 13 Strict Nature Reserve Unterer Inn Germany Strict Nature Reserve UntererInn

Austria

D 14 Trilateral Protected AreaWadden Sea

Germany Trilateral Protected AreaWadden Sea


Netherlands

GR 01 Doya Lake Greece Dojran Ez. (Lake) Republic ofMacedonia


GR 02 National Park and Ramsar SitePrespa Lake

Greece National Park Prespa Lake Albania National Parks Galichica -Lake Ohrid, Pelister



H 01 National Park Aggtelek Hungary Protected Landscape AreaSlovensky kras (ProposedNational Park)

Slovakia

H 02 National Park Duna-Drava Hungary National Park Kopacki rit Croatia Proposed Mura-DravaProtected Area (ProposedBiosphere Reserve)

Croatia

H 03 National Park Fertö to Hungary National Park Neusiedler See-Seewinkel

Austria

H 04 Nature Park Irottkö Hungary Nature Park Geschriebenstein Austria

H 05 Proposed protected area Körös-er

Hungary Proposed Protected AreaKörös er

Yugoslavia

H 06 Proposed Protected Area Mura-Drava

Hungary Protected Landscape AreaMur (proposed BiosphereReserve)


Croatia,Slovenia

H 07 Proposed Trilateral Nature ParkRaab-Örseg-Goricko

Hungary Proposed Trilateral NaturePark Raab-Örseg-Goricko


Slovenia

H 08 Protected Area Karancs-Madves Hungary Protected Area Cerovavrchovina

Slovakia

I 01 National Park Gran Paradiso Italy National Park Vanoise France

I 02 National Park Stelvio Italy National Park Swiss Switzerland

I 03 Nature Park Alpi Marittime Italy National Park Le Mercantour France

I 04 Proposed National Park d'ellArchipelago della Maddalena

Italy Proposed National ParkBouches de Bonifacio

France

I 05 Proposed National Park MontBlanc

Italy Proposed National Park MontBlanc

France Proposed National ParkMont Blanc

Switzerland



I 06 Proposed Nature Protected AreaSouth Eastern Limestone Alps

Italy Proposed Nature ProtectedArea (INTERREG IIProgramm) - SchutzgebietSüdöstliche Kalkalpen

Austria Proposed NatureProtected Area SouthEastern Limestone Alps(INTERREG II)

Slovenia

I 07 Proposed Protected LandscapeKarst

Italy Proposed Regional ParkKraski

Slovenia

I 08 Regional Park Alpi Giulie Italy National Park Triglav Slovenia

LET 01 Nature Reserve NorthernComplex Vidzeme

Latvia Proposed transborder StrictNature Reserve Wetland AreaNigula

Estonia

LIT 01 Proposed National Park Kursiunerija

Lithuania Proposed National ParkKurshskaja kosa

RussianFederation

L 01 Nature Park Haute Sure - Valleede l' Attert

Luxemburg Nature Park Vallee de l' Attert- Haute Sure

Belgium

L 02 Nature Park Luxemburg-Germany (Nature Park Südeifel)

Luxemburg Nature Park Luxemburg-Germany (Nature ParkSüdeifel)

Germany

NL 01 Nature Park Belgium-Netherlands De Zoom-Kalmthout

Netherlands Nature Park Belgium-Netherlands

Belgium

NL 02 Nature Park German-NetherlandMaas-Schwalm-Mette

Netherlands Nature Park German-Netherland Maas-Schwalm-Mette

Germany

NL 03 Trilateral Protected AreaWadden Sea

Netherlands Trilateral Protected AreaWadden Sea


Germany

N 01 National Park Ovre Anarjokka Norway National Park Lemmenjoki,Pyörisjarvi, Pulju andHammastunturi WildernessArea

Finland

N 02 National Park Ovre Dividalen Norway Proposed TavvavuomaNational Park

Sweden



N 03 National Park Pasvik, NatureReserve Pasvik

Norway Wilderness Area Vätsäri Finland Nature Reserve PasvikZapovednik

RussianFederation

N 04 National Park Rago, ProposedNational Park TysfjordHellemobotn

Norway National Parks Sarek,Padjelante, Stora Sjöfallet;Nature Reserve Sjaunja

Sweden

N 05 National Park Reisa , ProtectedLandscape AreaRaisdoutterhaldi, ProposedNational Park Guoatteloubbal

Norway Wilderness Area Käsivarsi Finland

N 06 National Parks Femundsmarka,Gutulia

Norway Nature Reserve Rogens,Nature Reserve Langfjallet(Proposed National ParkRogen-Langfjället)

Sweden

N 07 Proposed National ParkSjördalen-Isdalen

Norway National Parks Vadvetjakka,Abisko, Proposed NationalPark Kirunafjallen

Sweden

N 08 Proposed National ParkTreriksroysa

Norway Nature Reserve Malla Finland Proposed Protected AreaPalsta

Sweden

N 09 Protected Area Spitzbergen Norway Proposed Strict NatureReserve Zemlja Fransa-Iosifa

RussianFederation

N 10 Strict Nature ReserveLundsneset

Norway National Park Tresticklan Sweden

PL 01 Landscape Park Dolina DolneyOdry

Poland National Park Odertal Germany

PL 02 Landscape Park Zywiecki Poland Protected Landscape AreaBeskidy

CzechRepublik

Protected LandscapeArea Kysuce

Slovakia

PL 03 National Park Babia Gora Poland Protected Landscape AreaHorna Orava

Slovakia

PL 04 National Park Bialowieza Poland National Park BelovezhskayaPushcha

Belarus



PL 05 National Park Gory Stolowe Poland Protected Landscape AreaBroumovsko

CzechRepublik

Protected LandscapeArea Orlicke Hory

CzechRepublik

PL 06 National Park Karkonosze Poland National Park Krkonose CzechRepublik

Protected LandscapeArea Iser Mountains

CzechRepublik

PL 07 National Park Pieniny Poland National Park Pieninsky Slovakia

PL 08 National Park Polesie Poland Protected Managed AreaVygonoschanske

Belarus National Park Shatsk Ukraine

PL 09 National Park Roztzczanski Poland Protected Landscape AreaRoztochya

Ukraine

PL 10 National Park Tatrzansky Poland National Park Tatra (TANAP) Slovakia

PL 11 National Park Wolinski Poland Proposed Nature ParkUsedom

Germany

PL 12 National Parks Bieszczady,Magura

Poland Protected Landscape AreaVychodne Karpaty

Slovakia National Park Karpatsky Ukraine

P 01 National Park Peneda Geres Portugal Nature Park Baixa-Lima-Serrado Xeres

Spain

P 02 Nature Reserve (ReservaNatural) da Ria Formosa

Portugal Nature Reserve (ReservaNatural) da Sapal de CastroMarim e Vila Real de Sto.Antonio

Portugal Natural LandscapeMarismos de Isla Christina

Spain

P 03 Nature Reserve (ReservaNatural) da Sapal de CastroMarim e Vila Real de Sto.Antonio

Portugal Nature Reserve (ReservaNatural) da Ria Formosa

Portugal Natural LandscapeMarismos de Isla Christina

Spain

MA 01 Dojran Ez. (Lake) Republic ofMacedonia

Doya Lake Greece

MA 02 National Parks Galichica - LakeOhrid, Pelister


National Park Prespa Lake Albania National Park PrespaLake

Greece

MA 03 National Park Mavrovo Republic ofMacedonia

National Park SharaMountains



MA 04 National Parks Pelister, Galichica- Lake Ohrid


National Park Prespa Lake Albania National Park PrespaLake

Greece


RO 01 Biosphere Reserve DanubeDelta

Romania Biosphere Reserve DanubeDelta

Ukraine

RO 02 Strict Nature Reserve Cazanele Romania National Park Derdap Yugoslavia

RUS 01 National Park Paanajärvi,Proposed Sieppiuntury UplandsRegional Park

RussianFederation

National Park Oulanka, StrictNature Reserve Sukerijärvi

Finland

RUS 02 Nature Reserve PasvikZapovednik

RussianFederation

Wilderness Area Vätsäri Finland National Park Pasvik,Nature Reserve Pasvik

Norway

RUS 03 Proposed National ParkKurshskaja kosa

RussianFederation

Proposed National ParkKursiu nerija

Lithuania

RUS 04 Proposed Protected Area KerchPeninsula

RussianFederation

Proposed Protected AreasTaman Peninsula

Ukraine

RUS 05 Proposed Protected AreasSteppe (Belgorod - Kharkov -Region)

RussianFederation

Proposed RegionalLandscape Park (NationalPark) Pechenizke Pole

Ukraine

RUS 06 Proposed Strict Nature ReserveZemlja Fransa-Iosifa

RussianFederation

Protected Area Spitzbergen Norway

RUS 07 Strict Nature Reserve(Zapovednik) Bryanskiy les

RussianFederation

Protected AreaStarogutovskiy and StaraHuta

Ukraine

RUS 08 Strict Nature Reserve FinnishGulf

RussianFederation

National Park ItäinenSuomenlathi

Finland

RUS 09 Strict Nature ReserveKostumuksha

RussianFederation

Nature Reserves Elimussalo,Lentua, Iso-Palonen andMaariansarkat, Juortanansalo-Lapinsue Mire Reserve,Ulvinsalo Strict NatureReserve

Finland


RUS 10 Strict Nature ReserveLaplandskiy

RussianFederation

National Park Urho Kekkonen Finland


SK 01 International RamsarManagement Morava-Dyje

Slovakia International Ramsar-Management March-Thaya-Region


CzechRepublik

SK 02 National Park Pieninsky Slovakia National Park Pieniny Poland

SK 03 National Park Tatra (TANAP) Slovakia National Park Tatrzansky Poland

SK 04 Protected Area Cerova vrchovina Slovakia Protected Area Karancs-Madves

Hungary

SK 05 Protected Area Zahorie Slovakia Protected Landscape AreaDonau-March

Austria Protected LandscapeArea Male Karpaty

Slovakia

SK 06 Protected Landscape Area BieleKarpaty

Slovakia Protected Landscape AreaBile Karpaty

CzechRepublik

SK 07 Protected Landscape AreaHorna Orava

Slovakia National Park Babia Gora Poland

SK 08 Protected Landscape AreaKysuce

Slovakia Protected Landscape AreaBeskidy

CzechRepublik

Landscape Park Zywiecki Poland

SK 09 Protected Landscape Area MaleKarpaty

Slovakia Protected Landscape AreaDonau-March

Austria Protected Area Zahorie Slovakia

SK 10 Protected Landscape AreaSlovensky kras (ProposedNational Park)

Slovakia National Park Aggtelek Hungary

SK 11 Protected Landscape AreaVychodne Karpaty

Slovakia National Parks Bieszczady,Magura

Poland National Park Karpatsky Ukraine

SLO 01 National Park Triglav Slovenia Regional Park Alpi Giulie Italy

SLO 02 Proposed Nature Park Koveski Slovenia National Park Risnjak Croatia Proposed RegionalNature Park Nostranjski

Slovenia


SLO 03 Proposed Nature Protected AreaSouth Eastern Limestone Alps

Slovenia Proposed Nature ProtectedArea (INTERREG IIProgramm) - SchutzgebietSüdöstliche Kalkalpen

Austria Proposed NatureProtected Area SouthEastern Limestone Alps(INTERREG II)

Italy


SLO 04 Proposed Protected Area Mura-Drava

Slovenia Protected Landscape AreaMur (proposed BiosphereReserve)


Croatia,Hungary

SLO 05 Proposed Regional Nature ParkNostranjski

Slovenia National Park Risnjak Croatia Proposed Nature ParkKoveski

Slovenia

SLO 06 Proposed Regional Park Kraski Slovenia Proposed ProtectedLandscape Karst

Italy

SLO 07 Proposed Trilateral Nature ParkRaab-Örseg-Goricko

Slovenia Proposed Trilateral NaturePark Raab-Örseg-Goricko


Hungary

E 01 National Park Ordesa/MontePerdido

Spain National Park Les Pyrenees France

E 02 Natural Landscape Marismos deIsla Christina

Spain Nature Reserve (ReservaNatural) da Ria Formosa

Portugal Nature Reserve (ReservaNatural) da Sapal deCastro Marim e Vila Realde Sto. Antonio

Portugal

E 03 Nature Park Baixa-Lima-Serra doXures

Spain National Park Peneda Geres Portugal

S 01 Nature Reserve Rogens, NatureReserve Langfjallet (ProposedNational Park Rogen-Langfjället)

Sweden National ParksFemundsmarka, Gutulia

Norway

S 02 National Park Tresticklan Sweden Strict Nature ReserveLundsneset

Norway

S 03 National Parks Sarek,Padjelante, Stora Sjöfallet;Nature Reserve Sjaunja

Sweden National Park Rago, ProposedNational Park TysfjordHellemobotn

Norway


S 04 National Parks Vadvetjakka,Abisko, Proposed National ParkKirunafjallen

Sweden Proposed National ParkSjördalen-Isdalen

Norway

S 05 Proposed National ParkTavvavuoma

Sweden National Park Ovre Dividalen Norway


S 06 Proposed Protected Area Palsta Sweden Nature Reserve Malla Finland Proposed unspecifiedProtected Area

Norway

CH 01 National Park Swiss Switzerland National Park Stelvio Italy

CH 02 Proposed National Park MontBlanc

Switzerland Proposed National Park MontBlanc

France Proposed National ParkMont Blanc

Italy

UKR 01 Biosphere Reserve DanubeDelta

Ukraine Biosphere Reserve DanubeDelta

Romania

UKR 02 National Park Karpatsky Ukraine National Parks Bieszczady,Magura

Poland Protected LandscapeArea Vychodne Karpaty

Slovakia

UKR 03 National Park Shatsk Ukraine Protected Managed AreaVygonoschanske

Belarus National Park Polesie Poland

UKR 04 Nature Reserve Polessky Ukraine National Park Pripiatsky Belarus

UKR 05 Proposed Protected Area TamanPeninsula

Ukraine Proposed Protected AreasKerch Peninsula

RussianFederation

UKR 06 Proposed Regional LandscapePark (National Park) PechenizkePole

Ukraine Proposed Protected AreasSteppe (Belgorod - Kharkov -Region)

RussianFederation

UKR 07 Protected Area Starogutovskiyand Stara Huta

Ukraine Strict Nature Reserve(Zapovednik) Bryanskiy les

RussianFederation

UKR 08 Protected Landscape AreaRoztochya

Ukraine National Park Roztzczanski Poland

YU 01 National Park Derdap Yugoslavia Strict Nature ReserveCazanele

Romania


YU 02 Proposed Protected Area Köröser

Yugoslavia Proposed protected areaKörös-er

Hungary

YU 03 National Park Durmitor Yugoslavia(Montenegro)

National Park Sutjeska Bosnia -Hercegovina

National Park Tara Yugoslavia(Montenegro)

YU 04 National Park Shara Mountains Yugoslavia(Montenegro)

National Park Mavrovo Republic ofMacedonia


YU 05 National Park Skadar Lake Yugoslavia(Montenegro)

Nature Reserve Skhoder Lake Albania

YU 06 National Park Tara Yugoslavia(Montenegro)

National Park Sutjeska Bosnia -Hercegovina

National Park Durmitor Yugoslavia(Montenegro)

YU 07 Proposed National ParkProkletije Mountains


National Park Thethi Albania


TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS ALONG THE FORMER "IRON CURTAIN" INEUROPE

By: Jan CerovskyPrague, Czech Republic

INTRODUCTION

Among the 50 existing and 26 projected bilateral parks in Europe (according to a recent-studyby Brunner 1997), 22 - e.g. nearly 29% - are situated along a line running from the Barents seain the north to the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea in the south. This stringaccompanies a very sad line, now fortunately eradicated by history from the surface of theEarth: the former "Iron Curtain". Transfrontier protected areas are one of the priorities of theIUCN'S "Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe" (IUCN 1994). Transfrontierprotected areas crossing the former Iron Curtain are a priority of the European transfrontierparks project. The objective of this paper is to offer a closer look at those parks on both sidesof the former Iron Curtain, considering their unneglectable importance for peaceful andfriendly relations between different European nations.

THE PHENOMENON OF THE IRON CURTAIN

The term "Iron Curtain" was first used by Sir Winston Churchill in his famous speech in Fultonin March 1946. The term indicated the beginning of the "Cold War", the start of a post-warbarrier building between the western democratic world and the eastern "socialist" block fromthe initiative of the latter one. Whatever fictitious this term had been, only after a few years tofollow its invention it has become a harsh reality of a sophisticated fence on the ground.

The Iron Curtain as a Political Phenomenon Surely, the Iron Curtain in the first place was a political provision, a result of the Cold War 1947- 1953, and the following continuous crisis - or a series of crises in East - West relations. Thefence should, under a false pretension of the "defence against the imperialistic spies andintruders "keep the people of the countries under communist rule definitely closed in their"socialist paradise". When you came to my country, Czechoslovakia at that time, in the fiftiesor during the following decades by train, you would have to pass through a corridor in a barbedwire fence dominated by a watch tower with a machine-gun post, while staring at a big poster"Welcome in the World of Freedom". Perversely enough, the monster of the Iron Curtain wasmisused by the politicians - sometimes, unfortunately, from both sides of it - to feed the oldenmities from the past between neighboring nations (Czechs-Germans; Czechs-Austrians;Russians-Finns; Bulgarians-Turks etc.). It even was producing hate between two parts of onenation with the unfortunate fate of being divided. (Do not forget that the Iron Curtain separatedthe Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic!) This ghostlyexpression of a deeply inhuman international hostility has disappeared with the politicalchanges of 1989/1990.

The Physical Implementation of the Iron Curtain

As already mentioned above, the Iron Curtain was a real continuous fence, sometimes eventwo or more lines of fence. The construction was a very sophisticated one: barbed wire, wireswith a constant supply of electric current, between the rows of a narrow long patch of bare soil,sometimes with explosive mines or at least signal rockets. Guards regularly walking along thebarrier or patrolling with their machine guns on chains of watch towers. Countless tragedies,most of them fatal, did happen in those obscure places in those dark days.

Moreover, the fence was expanded by a more or less extended forbidden zone on its easternpart. In some "forbidden zones" military areas were established concentrating East Europeanarmed forces against (or rather for?) an attack in the expected war conflict with the West.

Socio-economic Follow-ups of the Iron Curtain

Certainly, the Iron Curtain was also a barrier in economic, ideological and cultural contacts. Inthis paper, as the reader has already noticed, the major attention is paid to the "on the ground"physical aspects of the phenomenon. The lands on the Eastern side of the Iron Curtain -forbidden zone - were mostly "inhabited" by the troops maybe with some limited and controlledaccess of the foresters, woodcutters and farmers only. There was, by no means, no industryactive in the area, and the agricultural and forestry management was strongly restricted. Withthe access granted to a limited number of persons only, the presence or development of anyform of tourism was out of question. The lands could be regarded, to a considerable extent, asderelict ones. But also the zone on the western side of the Iron Curtain laid out of the maindevelopment streams. It somehow was "on the end of the world", underdeveloped, maybeattractive for the naturalists, nature friends and some lonely hikers.

The Impact of the Iron Curtain on the Nature and the Landscape

The existence of the sophisticated fence was naturally a certain barrier to the free movementof wildlife across the borderline. (In spite of this, the wolves, when reintroduced in the lateseventies and early eighties into the Bavarian forest on the German side of the Iron Curtain,they managed to cross the frontier - through the fence! - to the Czech side, certainly morequite and acceptable for them. It sounds like a bad joke, that they were especially severlypursuited on the Czech side by hunters, being considered almost as a kind of a "imperialisticclass enemy". Neither the shooting at the borderline and in the military zones was favorable towild animals. Generally, however - be it paradoxical as it may be or not - the impact of thephysical Iron Curtain and all connected characteristics. has been a predominantly positive onefor the nature and landscape from the point of view of their conservation. The situation lastingfor 40 years led to an impressive restoration of ecosystems.

With the depopulation of the forbidden zone and a considerable fading out of humancommercial impacts, the landscape and the nature experienced an unusual come-back to self-regulating natural processes, such as succession, water self-clearing and others. This wasstrongly supported by the total underdevelopment of deteriorating influences, fully underway inthe countries' interior: the environmental pollution from local industrial, communal, agriculturaland other sources; the environmental intoxication due to overuse of pesticides and fertilizers;the large-scale drainage, water stream canalization and other interventions in the hydrologicalbalance of the landscape. The result of all this has been a remarkable restoration of thebiological diversity at all the three levels - genetic, taxonomic (species) and ecosystem, andsubsequently also the landscape diversity. There neither were admitted any mining andquarrying activities in the forbidden zone on the eastern side of the fence.

I even dare to say that the existence of the Iron Curtain has enhanced - by the fact of the"underdevelopment" - the natural and landscape values on the western side of it. The BavarianForest probably never would become the Germany's first National Park, if not situated in theremote corner of Bavaria close to the Iron Curtain.

The Interior Implications of the Iron Curtain

The Iron Curtain, however, has not been such a simple phenomenon, as it might seem fromthe above lines. Two types can be pointed out in this connection: I call them a) the Shifting IronCurtain, and b) the Interior (or Second) Iron Curtain. Both have a considerable importance andimpact on nature conservation, protected areas in particular. Before the construction of theBerlin Wall (1961) most of the refugees from Czechoslovakia fled to the West via Eastern


Germany to West Berlin. Therefore in the mid-fifties the Iron Curtain was also establishedalong the Czechoslovak frontier with the German Democratic Republic. It contributed its dealto the remoteness and relative intact stage of what now is being developed as a Czech-German bilateral park in the Elbe Sandstones - the "Bohemian Saxonian Switzerland".

As already indicated above, the Iron Curtain divided before 1989 the Eastern and WesternGermany. Probably the best example of the bilateral "national" (across the lands' borders)National Park is the Harz, a middle-mountain in Central Germany, once located direct on theIron Curtain.

The tensions on the western Yugoslav border were released by the considerable liberation ofBelgrade after the quarrel with Moscow in 1948. Thus also the transfrontier cooperation innature conservation and contacts in frontier areas generally got easier between Austria andItaly on one, Slovenia on the other side, the Iron Curtain shifting further to the East - to theHungarian, Rumanian and Bulgarian frontier.

Even during the times of a relative mutual confidence within the Eastern Bloc, the Soviet Unionnevertheless maintained an "Interior Iron Curtain" on its western frontier with its socialistneighbour friends. Due to this, for example, the unique Carpathian forests in the presentwestern Ukraine remained preserved giving birth to the first trilateral Biosphere Reserve - thepresent Polish-Slovak-Ukrainian Carpathian Biosphere Reserve. Nevertheless, in some of itsparts the "Interior Iron Curtain" still remains. The Polish managers of the bilateral BialowiezaNational Park (also Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site) still complain of the existenceof a fence through the protected complex built by the Belorussian partner and preventing afully free exchange of wildlife in this jewel of European transfrontier parks.

THE COOPERATION IN NATURE CONSERVATION ACROSS THE FORMER IRON CURTAIN

Before the Fall

In spite of the seemingly hermetic isolation between the Eastern and Western Europe, waysalways could have been found to establish contacts, exchange information and prepare acloser collaboration for the "coming better days". Even on the eastern side of the Iron Curtainprotected areas were established, in some cases (Czech Republic in the Sumava - BohemianForest, and Podyji - Thaya River Valley) even pioneering such efforts before relevant action onthe western side. The cooperation was prepared by scientists and conservationists mainlythrough international organisations: IUCN - The World Conservation Union has played a role ofa special importance here.

The intensity of the contacts of course varied according to the instantaneous thaws andfreezings in the East-West relations . May I be permitted to present one personal experience.When the "Prague Spring" was approaching, I was instrumental in leading the first talks withthe Bavarian conservationists and politicians about a potential future cooperation in theBavarian/Bohemian forest. In 1966 I showed a Czech nature conservation exhibition in theBavarian town of Regensburg - by the way, famous by its historical cultural and religiouscontacts with Bohemia. One day I was asked to guide through the exhibit a group of the"Sudetenlands-mannschaft" - the organisation of the Germans native in the Bohemian Forestand after 1945 expelled from my country. This experience convinced me (and gave thenecessary strength) that love to native countryside and genuine interest in its protection are inthe position to overcome even the political injustice and heal the wounds of wrath.

Our conservationist friends in Hungary were developing a long time ago, deep in the "ColdWar" times, friendly relations with their Austrian colleagues, particularly in the area of thegreatest Central European steppe lake - Neusiedler See/Fertti-to. The lake, divided artificiallyby the state frontier between Austria and Hungary, is now a bilateral National Park and

Biosphere Reserve. According to the statements by the managers of the both parks, this factis meaningfully contributing to the mutual understanding and friendship between the Austrianand the Hungarian nations. A historic excellence: the area of the Ferto/Neusiedler See wasthe first place where the Iron Curtain was abolished, the fence removed. This did happenalready in the Spring of 1989 - and for nature conservation reasons.

After the Fall

After the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 - 1990, there have been opened new opportunitieswhich before the people hardly could even dream about. The already existing frontierprotected areas started, after the removal of the fence, in a new political climate and with manysympathizers among broad general public the process of mutual coordination and integrationbetween the adjacent partner areas. Protected areas of lower category have been upgraded(mostly from the IUCN Category V to Category II). New frontier parks are being projected to fillin the existing gaps. In the early nineties the initiative "Ecological Bricks for Our CommonHouse Europe" was formed. It has identified 26 potential sites for protected areas, most ofthem along the former Iron Curtain. Even when the "Ecological Bricks" initiative has not turnedinto a special organisation or foundation, leaving the implementation to the Governmentsconcerned and their specialized authorities and agencies, the appeal has been well acceptedattracting important support, both moral and material. The efforts by IUCN and thecooperating FNNPE (Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe), particularly the"Parks for Life" exercise has been already mentioned above. Within these activitiesimplementing the relevant priority project, two meetings on transfrontier protected areasdeserve to be mentioned, convened and organized by the ECOPOINT Foundation in theCzech Republic, just one of the former "Iron Curtain countries" (Arends, Cerovsky, Pickova1995; Cerovsky 1996) . The forthcoming European meeting of the IUCN WCPA on theGerman Isle of Ruegen, will devote one of its working sessions to the issue. The IUCN actionprogramme for protected areas in Europe is entitled "Parks for Life". This means a realconcern in the real life, in people. Frontier parks along the former Iron Curtain have a highlyimportant task to bring closer, through the enjoyment of unspoilt, well looked for naturalenvironment, neighboring nations not always living in peace and good mutual relations, formore than forty years separated by political, ideological and socio-economic barriers and evenby real fences. It is a noble task, and despite various difficulties, the frontier parks along theformer Iron Curtain have entered a good path to promote peace and friendship throughtransfrontier nature conservation.


THE DRAKENSBERG-MALOTI TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREA: EXPERIENCEAND LESSONS LEARNED

By: T.S. SandwithNatal Parks Board, South Africa

INTRODUCTION

The Drakensberg-Maloti mountain region epitomises the need for long-term commitment to thedevelopment and establishment of transfrontier conservation areas. There has, as yet beenno formal recognition of this region as a peace park, but there is a growing de facto realisationof the joint responsibility of the two countries to give effect to the objectives of heritageconservation, both natural and cultural, and the role that this unique resource can play incommunity development and enterprise. At the same time, the process has brought togetherthe diversity and respective strengths of the peoples who make up this complex region, in anenduring association. By sketching briefly the attributes of this project, and the process whichis still very much in the development phases, it is hoped that the observations and lessonslearned will contribute to the objectives of determining the role, opportunities and difficulties inusing transboundary protected areas for peace and international cooperation.

OVERVIEW OF STUDY AREA

The Drakensberg-Maloti mountain region extends over a distance of almost 300 km along theinternational frontier between the Kingdom of Lesotho and the Province of KwaZulu-Natal inSouth Africa, and covers an area of approximately 5000 km2. It links three of the nineprovinces of South Africa, namely KwaZulu-Natal, the Free State and the Eastern Cape, whichcompletely surround Lesotho. Rising to 3482 m in the eastern mountain region of Lesotho, thealpine, sub-alpine and montane regions form a component of the Great Escarpment whichseparates the central plateau from the Eastern seaboard of southern Africa. The mostsignificant physiographic feature of southern Africa, the Drakensberg-Maloti mountains arealso the principal source of water for the sub-region, and underpin the economies of bothSouth Africa and Lesotho. The mountain region, in comparison with other African mountainareas, has been spared the large scale degradation of transforming land- uses, and has beenretained in a virtually pristine condition, both through effective protected area management, aswell as benign and sustainable land-use practices. This situation is unlikely to persist in thelong term because of the pressures which face the region, especially for development andagriculture. Although there are political and language differences across this boundary, theregion consists of a single ecological complex, and there are also many strong socialrelationships, including historical and cultural similarities, kinship ties and common land-usepractices and opportunities.

The political insularity of the past has given way to a more open exchange, and the explorationof common development and tourism relationships. Despite this, it remains surprising howlittle real knowledge and understanding there is between the peoples of two neighbouringcountries. The Drakensberg-Maloti region, which is shared by the two countries, provides astrategic arena for cooperation and development around a programme which is supported inequal measure by Lesotho and South Africa.

KEY BIODIVERSITY CHARACTERISTICS

The Drakensberg-Maloti mountain region is one of outstanding natural beauty and arecognised centre of diversity and endemism. The biological importance of the area isdescribed by Bainbridge and Motsamai (1995) and Bourn (1995). The principal vegetationtype is Austral Afro-alpine vegetation which is floristically distinct from mountainous areas tothe north (Killick, 1990). It is species rich, containing at least 2153 plant species, 295 bird

species, 60 mammal species, 49 species of reptiles and 26 species of amphibians. It is alsodistinct, with a high degree of plant, bird and invertebrate endemism estimated at 30% forplants (Hilliard and Burtt, 1987) and a significant proportion of the fauna. It ranks as one ofseven recognised biodiversity hotspots in Southern Africa, namely the Eastern Mountains andas an Endemic Bird Area. The South African Red Data List of Plants, indicates 109 taxa whichoccur in the region. (R. Scott-Shaw, pres. comm.)

Two main high altitude vegetation complexes occur, namely the Alti-Mountain biome from2500- 3480m a.s.l. and the Afro-Mountain Grassland biome from 1700m - 2500m a.s.l. (Killick,1990)

The water catchment status of the area is dependent upon the extensive wetlands which occurin the Alpine Zone. The wetlands are distinct, both structurally and floristically from all otherwetland systems in Southern Africa (Schwabe, 1989). The wetlands provide a vitalhydrological function, ensuring the delivery of water of a high quality throughout the year, andare the habitat for a range of endemic plants and animals, such as the endemic Maloti minnow(Pseudobarbus quahlambae), the rock catfish (Austroglanis sclateri), the Drakensberg frog(Rana dracomontana) and the endemic submerged water-plant Aponogeton ranunculiformis.The Natal Drakensberg Park has been designated as a Wetland of International Importanceunder the Ramsar Convention, and there is no doubt that the adjacent areas in Lesotho wouldalso qualify.

In addition, preparatory work on a nomination proposal for listing the area as a World Heritagesite has indicated that it would meet the criteria of outstanding universal value for inscription asboth a Cultural property and Natural property.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

The Drakensberg-Maloti region was seasonally occupied by Late Stone Age hunter- gatherers(San) over the last 8000 years until their decimation in the late nineteenth century following theestablishment of white settlements in the Colony of Natal. A study conducted by Wahl, et al.,(1 997) recorded 600 sites containing a total of 35000 individual images, representing one ofthe richest occurrences of rock art in the world. Apart from paintings which record actualevents or observations, the images convey themes of great cultural and spiritual significance.Of great interest is the protection of this rock art heritage within the context of the verylandscape which the artists inhabited.

On the basis of the rock art alone, the area is considered worthy of World Heritage status, andthe nomination proposal is likely to be submitted both as a natural and cultural property. Thereare also many sites in Lesotho which were occupied and painted by San hunter-gatherers,drawing a strong cultural linkage with the South African component. The Drakensberg-Malotiprogramme has created an opportunity for the two countries to commemorate the occupationof the region at a time which predates artificial international boundaries.

CORE PROTECTED AREAS

The Drakensberg-Maloti Transfrontier Conservation Area contains a number of statutorilyprotected areas making up the Natal Drakensberg Park in South Africa, and the SehlabathebeNational Park in Lesotho. There are extensive opportunities to expand the system of protectedareas to represent the major components of biodiversity in the mountain region. A componentof Phase 1A of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project is the identification and development offour protected areas. This work is currently underway, and will include the necessary staff andinstitutional capacity-building to ensure the long-term success of this component.In South Africa, there are important components of the Drakensberg catchment area whichcurrently fall outside of the Natal Drakensberg Park, but where there is an opportunity toacquire or manage land and create linkages. In particular the southerly extension of the


Drakensberg mountain range is a key area for addition to the park (Scotcher, et al., 1982).The land is in private ownership, but its status has been under question, both in terms of theprevious process to consolidate the boundaries of the former Transkei homeland, and thecurrent process of determining provincial boundaries. Similarly, there are socio-economicconstraints on the effective management of the Okhahlamba communal land area in theupper catchment of the Thukela River, and the land is subject to certain unsustainable land-use practices including the illegal cultivation of Cannabis (Masson, 1991; A'Bear, et al., 1987).

In Lesotho, there is a need to identify further sites which need formal protection in protectedareas, such as in the southern mountains. The range management model was introduced inLesotho owing to concern about the siltation of the major reservoirs of the Lesotho HighlandsWater Project (Quinlan and Morris, 1994). It was proposed that the grasslands of the easternmountain catchments above 2750 m a.s.l. should be proclaimed as a Managed ResourceArea, conforming with the IUCN protected area categories (IUCN, 1994). Legislation has beenintroduced to enable this process, but there remains a need to facilitate the participation oflocal communities and land-users (Natural Resources Institute, 1996).

The biosphere reserve model provides the most promising and appropriate vehicle forensuring that management of this unique region takes place within a framework of commonobjectives, and provides for the integration of statutorily proclaimed protected areas withmanaged resource areas and buffer zones. It is highly unlikely that the majority of the easternmountain region in Lesotho can be contained within formal protected areas, and the most likelypossibility is for a managed resource area which incorporates the Range Management model.In South Africa, there is considerable sensitivity surrounding the allocation of land, andparticularly as a result of the discriminatory legislation of the past. The Restitution of LandRights Act (No. 22 of 1994) makes provision for the restitution of land to people who weredispossessed through discriminatory laws, and the Provision of Certain Land for SettlementAct (No. 126 of 1993) enables the allocation of land to landless peoples. There is a perceptionthat protected areas are likely candidates for land re-allocation. In the case of the Drakensbergcatchment area, there are significant disadvantages to this approach, notably the fragility ofthe mountain ecosystem and its importance for water production. The alternative approach isto ensure that the use of the land for water production, for nature conservation, sustainabletourism and resource use provides long term benefits. The Drakensberg-Maloti transfrontierpark provides a challenging example for the implementation of an integrated conservation anddevelopment programme in a unique and internationally significant region. The alternative is adownward spiral of degradation which would have adverse impacts on the whole sub-region.

AREAS OF CONFLICT

Historical conflict. The marginal agricultural land of the Natal Drakensberg and Lesothooccupied a geographically central, but fairly insignificant position in the scramble for land inSouthern Africa which took place in the nineteenth century. The distribution of people in andaround the mountain kingdom and the establishment of the modern state of Lesotho, however,is a direct result of this process.

The consolidation of Sotho-speaking people into Basotholand had resulted partially from theaggression from Zululand which had a dispersive effect on retreating tribes, and the settlementof land in the Orange Free State by the Voortrekkers. Zulu aggression had also resulted in thedisplacement of the amaHlubi from Zululand and their forced settlement in the foothills of theDrakensberg where the colonial government in Natal hoped that they would form a bufferbetween the San (Bushmen) and the colonists (Wright, J.B. 1971). Other fragments of theamaHlubi had scattered as far as Thaba Nchu where they were absorbed by the Basotho.This set the stage for a conflict which had effects which persist to the present day.

The relationship of the amaHlubi and their leader Langalibalele with the colonial administrationwas tense, and the amaHlubi resisted settlement in the Drakensberg for which they weresanctioned by the colonial government. In their capacity as a buffer between the San andwhite farmers, they were themselves subjected to cattle raids by the San raiders. Followingtheir failure to comply with regulations pertaining to the registration of firearms and rumoursthat Langalibalele intended to seek a safe refuge for his people and their cattle inBasotholand, the colonial government undertook a military campaign to cordon off theamaHlubi and prevent the retreat of the "rebels" into Lesotho. This resulted in an unfortunateincident at the summit the Drakensberg north of the Bushman's River pass, where there werecasualties on both sides (Brookes and Webb, 1965).

The incident provoked outrage among the colonists, and the government's reaction was tooutlaw the tribe, depose and imprison their chief, and confiscate their cattle and land. Inaddition, the colonial government's agent in Basotholand put pressure on Basotho chiefs todemonstrate their loyalty and assist in the apprehension of Langalibalele. The subsequentbetrayal and capture of Langalibalele in Lesotho resulted in the responsible chief earning anunfortunate reputation for faithlessness among African people in the sub-continent (Guest,1976). There were also repercussions following the then Bishop of Natal's criticism of themanner in which Langalibalele had been treated which contributed to schism within theAnglican church and highlighted the racial segregation of the colonial administration. Theepisode also resulted in the Iandlessness of the amaHlubi and amaSwazi tribes, which to thisday has not been resolved and places pressure on the Natal Drakensberg Park.

Perhaps the most tragic consequence of these conflicts over land and resources was thecomplete elimination of the San people, the oldest known inhabitants of KwaZulu-Natal , fromthe Drakensberg-Maloti region. Virtually all that remains is the rich record of rock art in thesandstone shelters, which in many instances records faithfully the arrival and activities of thenew landowners.

Apartheid policies and isolation. Ironically, it was these same segregationist policies whichthe South African government entrenched in law, perpetuating a system where black tribeswere confined to specific locations. In many cases these areas were of insufficient size orproductivity to enable any sustainable form of land-use, resulting in their general degradationand lack of development. Those areas in the Natal Drakensberg are among the most poverty-stricken in present day KwaZulu- Natal, and their situation adjacent to the comparatively well-managed protected areas heightens the contrast. In addition, competition for resources andpower has been deeply divisive, and mitigates against a structured reconstruction anddevelopment programme.

Political relationships. Strategically situated within South Africa, Lesotho has since itsindependence in 1966, been burdened by the sometimes overbearing economic and politicalpower of her larger neighbour. Although a destination for refugees from the apartheid policies,Lesotho was obliged to cooperate with South Africa economically (Legum and Drysdale,1969), and the official policy was one of "peaceful co-existence". The years of conflict aroundachieving a new political dispensation in South Africa were reflected in the internal politics ofLesotho, with a division between those for and against collaboration with South Africa. In1985, accusations that Lesotho was being used as a base for the African National Congress,led to a raid on Maseru in which six ANC refugees and three Basotho were killed, and theimposition of an economic blockade of Lesotho by South Africa. The action brought analready unstable political situation in Lesotho to a head, resulting in the collapse of thegovernment and agreement between South Africa and the new Military Council that neithercountry would allow its territory to be used for attacks on the other (Legum, 1987). This pavedthe way for the signing of the Lesotho Highlands Water Treaty in 1986, the establishment of ajoint trade mission, and full diplomatic relations in 1992. Following the political transformationin South Africa, President Mandela stressed the importance of good relations between the twocountries. Cross-border friction remains, however, over the persistent problem of stock theft


and an unresolved claim to conquered territory in the Free State. The growing involvement ofthe two countries in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) has led to greaterinteraction and collaboration at many levels (Brown, 1997).

Illegal activities. The international border remains a focus for certain illegal activities includingdrug smuggling and stock theft. These activities have rendered certain areas as virtuallyungovernable, and have affected the viability of traditional farming practices.

KEY THREATS

In the absence of a comprehensive management programme for the Drakensberg- Malotiregion, there are a number of key threats which will contribute to a reduction in biodiversity andproductivity of the region.

The protected areas are threatened by:

♦ Alien invasive plants. In many areas, and particularly the river valleys, there has beenextensive encroachment by alien species which have displaced the indigenous communitiesof plants and animals. Wattles, including Acacia meamsii and Acacia dealbata, pines(mainly Pinus patula) and the American bramble (Rubus cuneifolius) are the principal alienspecies threatening natural ecosystems. A unique programme, known as the Working forWater programme, has been introduced by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry,to eradicate alien plants in designated areas, provide employment opportunities andimprove water production potential.

♦ Land invasions and land claims. There have been a number of land invasions where

cattle have been driven into the Natal Drakensberg Park, in response to the generally slowresponse of government to deal with land claims in adjacent areas. No formal land claimshave been registered. There is a perception, though, that the protected area should directlybenefit local communities.

♦ Inappropriate development in adjacent areas. There are development pressures for

holiday resorts and associated infrastructure adjacent to the protected areas. Of concernare proposals to introduce casino developments and cableways in some areas. Thesehave the potential to generate direct impacts on the park and the communities which livenearby.

♦ Changing land-use practices. Much of the area adjacent to the Natal Drakensberg Park

has been used for extensive grazing, which is generally compatible with the objectives ofmaintaining a natural landscape character and water production potential. Recentchanges in the economics of farming have promoted a move towards increasingcommercial plantation forestry, which affects landscape quality and water production, aswell as providing a source of wind-blown alien seeds.

In the communal areas of KwaZulu-Natal, the principal threats are:

♦ Population pressure and poverty. The Okhahlamba area is typical of many ruralcommunal land areas, where people were settled on marginal land far from social services.The generally poor production and increasing population is indicated by high levels ofmalnutrition and ill-health, and place increasing pressure on the natural resource base.

♦ Unsustainable resource use. The principal agricultural activity is rough grazing of cattle

on communal land areas, which in the absence of any form of pasture management hasresulted in extensive sheet and gulley erosion and the siltation of streams and rivers. Inaddition, there has been extensive harvesting of firewood and collection of medicinal plants.

♦ Illegal activities. Stock theft and illegal cultivation of Cannabis have created a spiral of

conflict and degradation, mitigating against a stable settlement and land-use pattern, andincreasing pressure on land particularly at higher altitudes, and transport routes betweenKwaZulu-Natal and Lesotho.

♦ Political conflict. Many areas are characterised by a society in transition, with tensions

between traditional authority structures and components of the community where politicalsupport is derived from emergent development structures. There is a danger of introducinggovernance structures which might be regarded as being in competition with existingstructures, and it is consequently difficult to negotiate agreements with credible leaders.

♦ Lack of an agreed land-use plan. Despite many previous attempts to introduce land-use

planning in the region, the areas which previously formed part of the KwaZulu homeland donot have any agreed land-use plans. In addition, the land-use planning and developmentcontrol policies of the former Natal Provincial Administration did not take account of theadjacent communal land areas.

In the eastern mountain region of Lesotho, there are similar threats which can be summarisedas follows:

♦ Poor representation of biodiversity in protected areas. Protected areas in Lesothocover less that 0.35% of the country's surface area, and there is currently only oneprotected area, namely the Sehlabathebe National Park.

♦ Biodiversity depletion. The potential for agricultural production in Lesotho is severely

constrained with less than 15% of the land considered arable. Pressure on fuelwoodresources for energy, and on wetland systems in the highlands for stock grazing hasresulted in extensive soil erosion and wetland degradation.

♦ Development pressure. The construction of major reservoirs as part of the Lesotho

Highlands Water Project has inundated valuable grazing and scarce agricultural land in rivervalleys, despite creating other entrepreneurial opportunities, especially in remote areas.There have also been positive and negative social impacts arising from the construction ofmajor dams. The improved access to the highland region has also resulted in newpressures being brought to bear, such as off-road vehicles accessing the high mountainareas, impacting directly on paths and transport routes, and introducing a threat to thequality of the core wilderness areas.

In general, the threats to the sub-region are interrelated, arising mainly from competition forscarce resources by rapidly increasing populations. Solutions to these problems will likewisehave to be integrated within a single framework, where the opportunities and constraints arebalanced and trade-offs recognised and managed. Of prime importance is the lack ofinstitutions which can ensure that the development of the region can take place in an orderlyand rational matter, supported by the communities which depend on it.


KEY INTERVENTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES

The key opportunity and challenge for the Drakensberg-Maloti transfrontier conservation areais to intervene and avoid the degradation which otherwise result, and to achieve sustainabledevelopment in accordance with the objectives of Agenda 21 Chapter 13: Managing fragileecosystems: Sustainable mountain development. In addition, there is the opportunity toachieve reconciliation and cooperative development between the two countries, and to dispelsome of the earlier tensions. In the view of the Drakensberg-Maloti roleplayers, theseinterventions and opportunities include the following:

♦ Seek formal recognition of the transfrontier conservation area including SehlabathebeNational Park and the Natal Drakensberg Park, and identify further areas suitable forproclamation as national parks and nature reserves

The two existing parks are contiguous, and it is necessary to consider how the numerouscommon management issues and problems can be jointly addressed. This will require thedevelopment of joint or complementary management plans and the structuring ofmanagement agreements and instruments of international cooperation. The designation ofa transfrontier Peace Park is feasible and desirable. In addition, there are numerousadditions which can be made to the protected areas, through purchase or negotiation.

♦ Recognise, protect and manage cultural resources to commemorate the occupation ofthe area by the San people

The occupation of the transfrontier conservation area provides a historical link between thetwo countries, and the opportunity to develop a joint cultural resource management andinterpretation programme to commemorate these early inhabitants of the region. Apart fromtechnical cooperation, the cultural resources provide a unique heritage and attraction forvisitors to the region.

♦ Seek international recognition for components to form a World Heritage Site, Wetlandsof International Importance (Ramsar sites) and Biosphere Reserves

The cultural and natural heritage of the transfrontier conservation area are of outstandinguniversal value, and likely to comply fully with the criteria for designation as a transfrontierWorld Heritage and Ramsar Site. In addition, the surrounding Managed Resource Areascomplement the core protected areas and accord with the requirements of a BiosphereReserve, accommodating the development needs and opportunities of local communities ineach country.

♦ Institute integrated land-use planning, management plans and programmed

The successful integration of livestock management, agriculture, nature conservation,ecotourism and community development requires the analysis of the land-use opportunitiesand constraints of the region, the identification of common and complementary objectives,and the preparation of a comprehensive land-use plan. In addition, strategic environmentalassessments of proposals should be conducted, and decision-making guidelines adoptedby a joint management authority.

♦ Expand and develop an integrated community conservation and developmentprogramme

Harmonious and coordinated sustainable development can only be achieved if consultationand participation by interested and affected parties is extensive, inclusive and appropriate.

Building upon existing structures and within the context of an integrated land-use plan, theidentification of a participatory framework, participatory planning and conflict resolutionwould lead to the establishment of local protected area advisory structures, the facilitation ofcommunity development and entrepreneurial opportunities.

♦ Facilitate an ecotourism planning and development programme

The internationally renowned resource base will support the expansion and development ofnew economic opportunities based on tourism. The Roof of Africa route, recently agreed bythe two countries, will define a unique mountain region and provide access to unparalleleddevelopment opportunities. A comprehensive programme is required to analyse the tourismresource base, develop an agreed protected area zonation which will provide a spectrum ofrecreational opportunities, undertake conceptual planning for the development of identifiedvisitor facilities, conclude the necessary feasibility studies, and to construct and commissionand market tourism developments.

♦ Restore damaged or degraded areas

A number of management programmed are required for the restoration and rehabilitation ofdegraded sites. These are likely to include an alien plant programme, akin to the Workingfor Water campaign being facilitated by the South African Department of Water Affairs andForestry, where alien plant removal is coupled with water production objectives andmaximising employment opportunities; a soil erosion reclamation programme, in thoseareas where agricultural activities have had impacts, or where roads and paths have beeneroded; and the removal of inappropriate infrastructure, e.g. fences and buildings. oProvide key infrastructure At present, much of the area is inaccessible, and there are manydeficiencies in facilities for nature conservation management. To ensure the effectivemanagement, control and use of the area, there is a requirement for new roads and theupgrading of existing roads, as well as electricity, fencing, potable water, wastemanagement, telecommunications and information systems management. The extent ofinfrastructure required needs to be evaluated.

COLLABORATION AND COOPERATION BETWEEN LESOTHO AND SOUTH AFRICAREGARDING THE DRAKENSBERG-MALOTI PROGRAMME

The most significant international agreement between the two countries is the LesothoHighlands Water Project. This is a multilaterally funded project, which includes theconstruction of dams in the Lesotho highlands, the diversion of water to the industrialheartland of South Africa and the generation of electricity. The economic development of thewater-poor South Africa has, through this process become fundamentally linked to thesustainability of water production from the Lesotho highlands. A component of this programmeis the undertaking to develop certain nature conservation areas for biodiversity protection andtourism.

The Drakensberg-Maloti Programme was initiated in 1982 at the request of the LesothoGovernment, as a collaborative effort between the two countries. Supervised by anIntergovernmental Liaison Committee, the programme was largely funded by South Africathrough the Range Management Division of the Ministry of Agriculture in Lesotho and the NatalParks Board in South Africa. It continued until 1993 when funding was withdrawn, and at astage when most of the baseline information had been collected, but where land-use planningand implementation strategies had not been formulated or applied. Since that time, the NatalParks Board and the National Environmental Secretariat of Lesotho have been interacting witha range of role-players to maintain the initial momentum of the project, and to secure furtherfunding for the work which is required to implement the programme. A delegation of theLesotho Cabinet met with the Board in 1994 to request the continued involvement by theBoard.


Various presentations have been made to international organisations such as the World Bank,the European Union and Development Bank of South Africa. In addition, representatives ofthe UNDP and ODA have participated in workshops and discussions on possible involvementin the programme.

At a workshop held in January 1995 involving all role-players, key areas for consideration andfurther action were identified, including:

(i) the need for extensive consultation with communities in the areas which would fall withinthe scope of the programme;

(ii) the need for co-ordination of the programme (iii) the need for the development of proposals for the South African component of the

programme (iv) the need for an holistic integrated approach to the land-use planning of the region

Financial assistance was received from the European Community towards the identification,preparation and testing of a programme of conservation and protection measures for theLesotho component of the Drakensberg-Maloti region. Further assistance has been providedfor the preparation and testing of a tentative integrated natural resources management plan fora pilot area of approximately 1000 km2 to commence in 1998, to be followed bycomprehensive support for the programme in Lesotho.

In addition, the National Environmental Secretariat of Lesotho has, together with the UNDPsubmitted proposals for the funding of a similar project in the southern mountains of Lesotho.

Despite these significant achievements over many years, the objective of a comprehensivedevelopment programme spanning the transfrontier conservation area and addressing similarissues in both countries has not been achieved. This requires the collaboration not only of therespective countries, but necessitates the cooperative support of potential funding andfinancing agencies, and a comprehensive programme of coordinated implementation. It is thebelief of the principal roleplayers in South Africa and Lesotho that the necessary foundationhas been laid, and that there is the desire and will to forge ahead.

10. CONSTRAINTS

There are certain constraints and preconditions which require to be met, including:

♦ Establishment of instruments of international cooperation

A number of legal and political instruments are required to give effect to this programme,including a bilateral agreement between South Africa and Lesotho, and at least aMemorandum of Understanding between the respective government agencies with theresponsibility for the management of the area.

♦ Institution of a programme steering committee and panel of experts.

At an early stage, it will be necessary to identify the relevant agencies, staff and expertiserequired to implement the program me. These will include the National EnvironmentalSecretariat of Lesotho, the Natal Parks Board, government ministries and departments inLesotho and South Africa, and a range of experts in the fields of rural sociology, resourceeconomics, range and livestock ecology, nature conservation, ecotourism planning,

community conservation, land-use planning, civil engineering and architecture. Aprogramme coordinator is a key requirement.

♦ Securing funding for the preparatory and implementation phases

Despite the general agreement that the programme is worthwhile and well- considered, thesingle most significant constraint has been the availability of funding or affordable financingfor the preparatory and implementation phases. Neither the Natal Parks Board nor theNational Environmental Secretariat of Lesotho has the mandate or the funding to engage ina multilateral development programme of this magnitude. Yet the capacity exists to supportthe programme, provided that funding for coordination, specialist technical assistance, andfinancing of key projects can be found. Dealing with the different objectives and fundingparameters of the major roleplayers has proven to be an enormous challenge, but there arereal advantages of a comprehensive programme which can draw on a suite of funding andfinancing options around a common set of objectives.

KEY DIRECTIONS

At this stage in the development of the Drakensberg-Maloti programme, there are a number ofkey findings, lessons and directions of the past 15 years: These include:

♦ Long-term commitment. Despite the evident logic of pursuing a transfrontier conservationprogramme, it is necessary to understand that the process of building trust and confidenceis a slow one, and one which can be overshadowed by political or economic circumstancesfar removed from the technical aspects of cooperation.

♦ The need for guidance and institutional support. There is clearly a need to provide

guidance and institutional support to the technical role-players who do not necessarily havethe background or opportunity to deal with the political aspects.

♦ A recognition of the relative capacities of relevant agencies. Ideally, the roleplayers

should be matched in terms of their capability to participate as partners in the developmentprocess. In the case of Lesotho and South Africa, the process has been marked by thedevelopment of capacity and expertise in different ways in each country. Whereas SouthAfrican roleplayers possessed technical expertise and capacity, the Lesotho counterpartshave had access to international support and involvement. These strengths can now becombined in a collaborative programme. In addition, the capacity of communities toparticipate is likely to be a key feature of the future programme.

♦ Political and administrative support. The changing political situation in both Lesotho and

South Africa has frustrated efforts to achieve real progress, since agreements which arereached at one point in the process, can be set aside or marginalised by political changes.In addition, the competency of provincial agencies to interact with neighbouring territoriesrequires definition. There is a need for structures which can withstand these changes, andensure that technical cooperation continues at the most appropriate level. This is one rolewhich an external funding agency can provide, although many agencies are themselvesclearly influenced by political circumstances.

♦ Overall coordination. Without a dedicated project team, and a vehicle for steering project

development and implementation, progress can be severely constrained. Several modelshave been suggested including a bilateral steering committee and project coordinator, but amore efficient and effective development company model, which would enable investmentand loan- funding may be more appropriate.

♦ Funding. Without adequate funding, it is unlikely that the development possibilities oftransfrontier conservation areas can be unlocked. However, this is not to suggest that


programmed should be net receivers of funds. Funding intervention is required, especially inthe early stages to generate commitment and confidence in the programme, and to attractinterest from investors in the development synergy and raised profile which can result. Acautionary note is advised though, in that pure conservation and land managementobjectives are likely to require state funding. The cost can be largely offset by the suite ofbenefits which can be derived from development opportunities, and it remains a function ofgovernment to provide support for infrastructure and services. The nature of thecomprehensive development programme and the impetus and profile of the internationalcooperative agreement can serve to focus and sustain efforts in this regard.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Despite the unresolved status of the Drakensberg-Maloti programme, it is believed that both interms of the intrinsic value of the biodiversity of this unique mountain region, and thedevelopment needs of the respective communities on either side of the international boundary,that there is a remarkable opportunity afforded by the Peace Parks model. Rather than simplyjoining two formal protected areas across an international boundary, there is the opportunity touse the protected areas as the focus of an integrated conservation and developmentprogramme in some of the most remote and undeveloped regions of South Africa andLesotho, and to restore a sense of mutual cooperation and the resolution of long-standingconflicts which have characterised this troubled region. There is also a unique opportunity tocommemorate the existence of the earliest inhabitants of the region, through the collaborativemanagement of the mountain region which provided both the inspiration and the palette forone of the richest collections of rock art in the world.

REFERENCES

A'Bear, D. R., Davis, R. S., Krone, A. G., McCormack, J. B., Totman, D.T. and A.J. von Riesen.1987. A proposed structure plan for the Upper Tugela Location and adjacent blackoccupied areas. Unpublished report. 87 pp. + appendices.

Bainbridge, W.R. and B. Motsamai. 1995. Project motivation document. GreaterDrakensberg- Maloti Mountain Region: Community development and conservationprogramme. Lesotho National Environmental Secretariat, Maseru and Planning Division,Natal Parks Board, Pietermaritzburg. 45 pp.

Bourn, D. 1995. Conceptual framework for biodiversity management in Lesotho. MissionReport TSSI -LES/94/01 /T. FAO, Rome. 42 pp.

Brookes, E.H. and C. de B. Webb. 1965. A history of Natal. University of Natal Press,Pietermaritzburg.

Brown, R. 1997. Recent history. In: Africa south of the Sahara. Europa publishers, London.26th edition. p 528-532.

Guest, W.R. 1976. Langalibalele: The crisis in Natal 1873-1875. Department of History andPolitical Science Research monograph 2. University of Natal, Durban.

Hilliard, O.M. and B.L. Burtt. 1987. The botany of the southern Natal Drakensberg. NatalBotanic Gardens and CTP Book Printers, Cape Town.

IUCN 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. IUCN Commission onNational Parks and Protected Areas and World Conservation Monitoring Centre,Cambridge.

Killick, D.J.B. 1990. Field guide to the Flora of the Natal Drakensberg. Jonathan Ball and A.D.Donker Publishers, Johannesburg.

Legum, C. (Ed.). 1975. Africa Contemporary Record: Annual survey and documents 1974-1975. London: Rex Conings, p371-384.

Legum, C. and J. Drysdale (eds. ). 1969. Africa Contemporary Record: Annual survey anddocuments 1968-1969. London: Africa Research P280-285.

Masson, J. 1991. The Amangwane Tribal Ward: Okhahlamba Magisterial District. Anenvironmental assessment. Unpublished report. Bureau of Natural Resources:KwaZulu Government Service. 61 pp. + appendices.

Mazel, A. 1989. The Stone Age peoples of Natal. In: Duminy, A. and B. Guest. (1 989). Nataland Zululand: from earliest times to 1910. University of Natal Press. Pietermaritzburg.

Natural Resources Institute. 1996. Outline project proposal for European Union funding for theDrakensberg-Maloti Mountains Conservation Programme. Unpublished report, NaturalResources Institute, United Kingdom.

Schwabe, C. 1989. The assessment, planning and management of wetlands in the MalutiDrakensberg mountain catchment. I.N.R investigation Report No 38. PietermaritzburgInstitute of Natural Resources.

Scotcher, J.S. B, Rowe-Rowe, D.T. and R.J. Cooke. 1982. Report on a boundary survey ofthe proposed Nature Reserve, East Griqualand. Unpublished report, Natal Parks Board.

Wahl, E. J., Mazei, A.D. and S.E. Roberts. 1997. Cultural resource management plan for theNatal Drakensberg Park. Discussion document for public workshop. Unpublished report,Natal Parks Board.

Wright, J.B. 1971. Bushman raiders of the Drakensberg, 1840- 1870: a study of their conflictwith stock-keeping peoples in Natal. University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg.


PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICTTHE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE PEACE PARKS FOUNDATION

By: J Hanks, Peace Parks Foundation, P.O.Box 227, Somerset West 7129, South AfricaTelephone: 27(0)21 855 3564; Fax 27(0)21 855 3958: E-mail

AFRICAN NATIONALISM AND ARMED CONFLICT

The history of the African continent over the last forty years has been dominated by the growthof African nationalism. Armed campaigns to take control of the state have contributed to thewithdrawal of colonial governments and also to the overthrow of repressive regimes. In somecases, this has opened the way to a peaceful settlement, but in others it has left a legacy ofpolitical violence and even of civil war and a collapse of state authority and social order.Protected natural areas have all too often been severely disrupted by military actions, with aconcomitant loss of biological diversity (Westing, 1992). Some of the civil wars have beenexacerbated by external interventions, and have left many people dead, in exile, or exposed tofamine (Williams, 1997). In southern Africa, Angola, Mozambique, and to a lesser extentZimbabwe and Namibia experienced several years of savage conflict, a guerilla war whichhad, and still has, a profound effect on economic relations with bordering countries, and oninternal post-independent economies. For example, Mozambique's economy since itsindependence from Portugal in June 1975, has suffered not only the damaging effects ofnearly 17 years of war, but also drought, floods, famine, the displacement of millions of peopleand a severe scarcity of foreign exchange and of skilled workers. As a consequence,Mozambique became one of the poorest countries in the world, heavily reliant on foreigncredits. The vast majority of Mozambicans live below the poverty line, and social indicators areamong the lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa. In 1995, according to estimates from the WorldBank, the country's gross national product (GNP) was US$1,513m, equivalent to only $88 perhead (Cravinho, 1997).

In February 1990, President de Klerk released Nelson Mandela and lifted the ban on theAfrican National Congress of South Africa, and by the end of that year most of the remnants ofapartheid (racial segregation) had been formally repealed. By the end of June 1991, the lastremaining legislative pillars of apartheid had been repealed, and the legal revolution wascomplete. The election of Mandela as President of South Africa in April 1994 undoubtedlymarked the culmination of the African drive for independence, and brought a new level ofpeace to South Africa and a desire for co-operation between South Africa and its immediateneighbours, namely Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. In1997, this part of the sub-continent has arguably become one of the most peaceful regions inAfrica, with great potential for regional co-operation on transboundary protected areas.However, the establishment of trust and mutual respect did not come automatically withpolitical settlements, and the legacy of South Africa's past policy of destabilizing its neighbourscan still be felt today.

The Southern African Development Community

In 1995, South Africa became a member of the Southern African Development Community(SADC), joining Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia,Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The aims of the Treaty establishing SADC areparticularly relevant to the objectives of the Peace Parks Foundation31, and to the objectives ofthe Parks for Peace Conference, and are follows:

31 The Peace Parks Foundation has approached the Inland Fisheries, Wildlife and Forestry Sector ofSADC with a request that the activities of the Foundation are approved and accepted by SADC.

♦ deeper economic co-operation and integration, on the basis of balance, equality and mutualbenefit, providing for cross-border investment and trade, and freer movement of factors ofproduction, goods and services across national boundaries;

♦ common economic, political social values and systems, enhancing enterprise

competitiveness, democracy and good governance, respect for the rule of law and humanrights, popular participation, and the alleviation of poverty; and

♦ strengthened regional solidarity, peace and security, in order for the people of the region to

live and work in harmony.

The origin of the Peace Parks Foundation

On 7 May 1990, Anton Rupert, the President of WWF South Africa (then called the SouthernAfrican Nature Foundation) had a meeting in Maputo with Mozambique's President JoaquimChissano to discuss the possibility of a permanent link being established between some of theprotected areas in southern Mozambique and their adjacent counterparts in South Africa,Swaziland and Zimbabwe. The concept of transborder protected area co-operation through theestablishment of "peace parks" was not a new one. The World Conservation Union (IUCN)had long been promoting their establishment because of the many potential benefitsassociated with them (Hamilton et al., 1996; Westing, 1993). In 1988, IUCN's Commission onNational Parks and Protected Areas had identified at least 70 protected areas in 65 countrieswhich straddle national frontiers (Thorsell, 1990). As a result of Rupert's meeting, WWF SouthAfrica was requested to carry out the relevant feasibility study, which was completed andsubmitted to the Government of Mozambique in September 1991 (Tinley and van Riet, 1991).The report was discussed by the Mozambique Council of Ministers, who recommended thatfurther studies were required to assess fully the political, socio-economic and ecologicalaspects of the feasibility study. The Government of Mozambique then requested the GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF) of the World Bank to provide assistance for the project, which wasgranted. The first mission was fielded in 1991, and in June 1996 the Bank released itsrecommendations in a report entitled Mozambique: Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot andInstitutional Strengthening Project (World Bank, 1996).

The report suggested an important conceptual shift away from the idea of strictly protectednational parks towards greater emphasis on multiple resource use by local communities byintroducing the Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) concept. In short, TFCAs weredefined as relatively large areas, which straddle frontiers between two or more countries andcover large-scale natural systems encompassing one or more protected areas. Very oftenboth human and animal populations traditionally migrated across or straddled the politicalboundaries concerned. In essence, TFCAs extend far beyond designated protected areas,and can incorporate such innovative approaches as biosphere reserves and a wide range ofcommunity based natural resource management programmes (World Bank, 1996). (The PeaceParks Foundation subsequently adopted this new paradigm.)

As a result of the political constraints prevalent in southern Africa at the time of the initiation ofthe GEF funded programme in Mozambique, only limited attention could be given to thedevelopment of formal links between the three main participating countries i.e. Mozambique,Zimbabwe and South Africa, and unfortunately this persisted throughout the duration of thestudy. Two years after the election of Nelson Mandela, South Africa was experiencing a rapidand significant growth in its nature-based tourism industry, but very few of the benefitsassociated with this growth were being made available to Mozambique. These concernsprompted Anton Rupert to request another meeting with President Chissano, and this was heldon 27 May 1996. At this meeting, Rupert emphasized the significant economic benefits thatcould accrue to Mozambique if the proposed TFCAs were implemented. The Maputodiscussions were followed by a Transfrontier Park Initiative meeting in the Kruger NationalPark on 8 August 1996 under the joint Chairmanship of Mozambique's Minister of Transport


and Communications, Paulo Muxanga, and South Africa's Minister of Transport, Mac Maharaj,where it was agreed that the two countries, together with Zimbabwe and Swaziland, should co-operate to realize the economic benefits of the proposed TFCAs.

Towards the end of 1996, it became clear to WWF South Africa that interest in the peace parkconcept was not only growing within the country, but also in the neighbouring states. For thefirst time, southern Africa was being seen as a tourist destination, not just South Africa or othercountries on their own, and an integral part of this vision was the development of TFCAs orpeace parks involving all of South Africa's neighbouring countries (de Villiers, 1994; Pinnock,1996). The Executive Committee of WWF South Africa came to the conclusion that unless aseparate body was set up to co-ordinate and drive the process of TFCA establishment andfunding, these areas would not receive the attention that was required to make them a realityon the ground. Accordingly, the Peace Parks Foundation was established on 1 February 1997with an initial grant of Rand 1.2 million (US$ 260,000) from Anton Rupert to facilitate theestablishment of TFCAs in southern Africa.

Objectives of the Peace Parks Foundation

The Peace Parks Foundation has been constituted and established in South Africa as anAssociation incorporated under Section 21 i.e. a company "not for gain". It has virtually all thepowers of a normal company, but cannot have shareholders, and no profits can be paid tosupporting members. The Foundation is managed by a Board of Directors under theChairmanship of Anton Rupert, and has four Honorary Patrons, namely President NelsonMandela of South Africa, President Sam Nujoma of Namibia, President Bakili Muluzi of Malawiand His Majesty King Letsie III of Lesotho. Invitations to become a Patron have also beenextended to the Heads of State in Botswana, Mozambique, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. Theoverall objective of the Foundation is to facilitate the development of a regional internationalpartnership to promote job creation and biodiversity conservation involving Botswana, Lesotho,Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe. Specific objectives includethe following:

Raise and allocate funds to projects (essentially of a capital nature) which will further theestablishment and management of TFCAs. These projects will have been approved andrecommended to the Foundation by the relevant conservation agencies responsible formanaging the TFCAs.

Assist with the identification of land to be acquired for the development of the TFCAs, takinginto account the rights and circumstances of communities living on such land. The Foundationwill then:

♦ Purchase the land for leasing to the various conservation agencies, or ♦ Negotiate with private landowners and residents of communal lands for leasing on a

contractual basis. ♦ Negotiate loans to the TFCA conservation agencies for approved projects. ♦ Negotiate with governments and semi-government bodies with regards to political and land

tenure/ legal issues associated with TFCAs. ♦ Promote the development of TFCAs on a commercial basis (including private sector

development) as and when appropriate within the parameters imposed by environmentaland conservation practices and principles, and whenever possible and practical, involvinglocal communities.

♦ Promote the case for TFCAs nationally and internationally in terms of their economicviability, ecological sustainability, and their contribution to the conservation of globalbiodiversity. Every effort will be made to promote the recognition of TFCAs as WorldHeritage sites if applicable. Special attention will be given to promoting broad-basededucation programmes for residents in or adjacent to the TFCAs.

Following discussions with South Africa's National Parks Board and Natal Parks Board andwith conservation agencies in neighbouring countries, seven potential TFCAs have beenidentified for initial support by the Foundation (Map 1). In the text that follows, the first six arelisted from the west to the east of the region, ending with the Drakensberg/Maloti TFCA to thesouth.

Transfrontier Conservation Areas supported by the Peace Parks Foundation

1. Richtersveld / Ai-Ais TFCA. This proposed TFCA spans some of the most spectacularscenery of the arid and desert environments of southern Africa, incorporating the Fish RiverCanyon (often equated to the Grand Canyon in the USA) and the Ai-Ais hot springs. It is6,222 km2 in extent of which about 1,902 km2 (31%) are in South Africa, and the remainder(69%) in Namibia (Map 2). It comprises the Richtersveld National Park in South Africa, whichwas proclaimed in 1991 as South Africa's only fully contractual National Park, and the Ai-AisNature Reserve in Namibia which was proclaimed in 198632. Dissected by the Orange River,which forms the border between the two countries, the TFCA is one of the most diverse partsof the species-rich Succulent Karoo biome, partly the result of two different rainfall systemsand climatic zones. The list of Red Data Book and endemic plant species is impressive,making the TFCA one of the most species-rich arid zones in the world, an undisputed hotspotof biodiversity. Many of the species of fauna found in the area are adapted to withstand theharsh, arid climate (between 15 and 300 mm of rain each year, and summer temperatures wellover 40oC). Fifty-six species of mammals have been recorded, including eight Red Data Bookspecies. There are at least 194 species of birds, 23 of which are endemic to southern Africa.The TFCA is particularly noted for its herpetofauna, the diverse microhabitats of the area beingpopulated by a large variety of lizards (35 species) and snakes (16 species) (Acocks, 1988;Gelderblom et al., 1997; National Parks Board, 1996; Powrie, 1992; van Jaarsveld, 1981).

The Namibian conservation authorities have been approached informally by the South AfricanNational Parks Board on the subject of the formal establishment of the proposed TFCA, but noagreement or joint management plan exists. The Peace Parks Foundation subsequently metwith Namibia's Minister of Environment and Tourism on 18 July 1997 to facilitate thedevelopment of the TFCA. The Minister reiterated Namibia's strong support for the initiative. Aformal liaison committee needs to be established between the two countries to advance theprocess, and to address one of the main challenges associated with the implementation of theTFCA, namely the rehabilitation of the diamond mining areas on both sides of the OrangeRiver.

The TFCA has limited visitor facilities. In the Richtersveld National Park, there are fiveunserviced campsites and three guesthouses. The Ai-Ais Hot Springs and the Fish RiverCanyon has much more extensive tourist accommodation facilities. The whole of the TFCA isclosed to visitors during the hot summer months (November to March). The opening of theTFCA would greatly facilitate movement from the Richtersveld to the Fish River Canyon andHot Springs, but there is a limited potential for a significant increase in tourist numbers.

32 The Richtersveld was declared a Contractual National Park in terms of section 2B(I)(B) of the NationalParks Act 57 of 1976. The declaration followed an agreement between the National Parks Board (NPB),the Minister of Environment Affairs, and the local inhabitants, in terms of which the NPB manages theland as a national park in accordance with a management plan agreed to by all the parties for aminimum period of 30 years. The area will continue to be used by 26 semi-nomadic pastoralists and theirstock.


2. Gariep TFCA. This is the least developed of all the seven proposed TFCAs, and is still atthe concept stage. As with the Richtersveld/ Ai-Ais, the area is also centered along a stretchof the Orange River which forms the international boundary between South Africa andNamibia. The proposed TFCA is 2,774 km2 in extent, of which 2,007 km2 (72%) are in SouthAfrica, and a further 767 km2 (28%) in Namibia (Map 3). It comprises an arid areacharacterized by broken terrain with deep sandy dry river gorges flowing down to the OrangeRiver from both sides. The river itself has unique clusters of islands in several places, creatinga similar effect as found in river deltas. These islands support untouched stands of riverinebush, a representative of the Orange River Nama Karoo vegetation type, only 1.5% of which ispresently conserved. Inland on the South African side are relatively untransformed areas oftypical Namaqualand Broken Veld, with a unique "forest" of Aloe dichotoma. The proposedTFCA has the potential to be a major new sanctuary for the conservation of the blackrhinoceros (Acocks, 1988; Bezuidenhout, 1997; Gelderblom et al., 1997).

Unlike all of the other proposed TFCAs, land on both sides of the border is privately owned,and at present has no conservation status. The Namibian conservation authorities haveaccepted the concept, but no formal discussions have taken place. In the first six months of1997, irrigation development for the production of table grapes has extended into the heart ofthe proposed TFCA, causing significant land transformations, and this will necessitate arevision of the proposed boundaries. The Peace Parks Foundation is waiting for advice on thismatter from the National Parks Board before any further action is taken.

Kalahari TFCA. In contrast to Gariep, this is the furthest advanced of the seven TFCAs, andshould be formally ratified by Botswana and South Africa early in 1998. The proposed TFCAis 37,991 km2 in extent, of which 9,591 km2 (27%) are in South Africa with the remainder inBotswana (Map 4). This TFCA has been de facto in existence since 1948 through a verbalagreement between South Africa and Botswana, and is comprised of the Kalahari GemsbokNational Park in South Africa (proclaimed in 1931), and the Gemsbok National Park inBotswana (proclaimed in 1971), and subsequently extended to incorporate the MabuasehubeGame Reserve. The area represents an increasingly rare phenomenon in Africa, namely alarge ecosystem relatively free of human influence. The 60 mammalian species recordedinclude large herds of ungulates, (springbok, gemsbok and blue wildebeest, and to a lesserextent hartebeest and eland). These ungulates support many carnivores and the TFCA hasbuilt up a deserved reputation as one on the best places in southern Africa to see cheetah andprides of lion. Leopard, spotted hyaena and brown hyaena are also well represented. A totalof 264 bird species have been recorded, including many species endemic to the arid southwest region of southern Africa. Shrubby Kalahari Dune Bushveld predominates, with theThorny Kalahari Dune Bushveld dominating along the Nossob and Auob Rivers (Acocks, 1988;Eloff, 1984; Gelderblom et al., 1997; Main, 1987; Mills & Haagner, 1989; NPB (South Africa)and DWNP (Botswana), 1997).

In June 1992 representatives from the South African National Parks Board and theDepartment of Wildlife and National Parks of Botswana set up a joint management committee(Transfrontier Management Committee) to address the formalization of the verbal agreement,and to produce a management plan that would set out the framework for the joint managementof the area as a single ecological unit. The TFCA has been formally named as the KalahariTransfrontier Park, and the Kalahari Transfrontier Park Management Plan was reviewed andapproved by the two conservation agencies early in 1997. The Plan provides a basis for co-operative tourism ventures33, and proposes the sharing of entrance fees equally by bothcountries. An integral feature of the new agreement is that each country will provide and

33 The Development Strategies section of the Plan deals at length with allowable forms of tourism andthe proposed zoning system for the park, which indicate the degree of protection accorded. Each zonehas its own management and development policies.

maintain its own tourism facilities and infrastructure, giving particular attention to developingand involving neighbouring communities (NPB (South Africa) and DWNP(Botswana), 1997).The Transfrontier Management Committee is in the process of establishing a Section 21company "The Kalahari Transfrontier Park Company" to manage and control the financialaspects of the programme.

There are three rest camp on the South African side of the TFCA run by the National ParksBoard, each with chalets and camping facilities. At present, only camping facilities areavailable on the Botswana side of the border. The Management plan recognizes theimportance of expanding visitor facilities, but the capacities for each of the zones and the sitingof new camps has still not been decided.

Dongola / Limpopo Valley TFCA. This proposed TFCA is 4,872 km2 in extent, of which 2,561km2 (53%) is in South Africa, 1,350 km2 (28%) is in Botswana, and 960 km2 (19%) is inZimbabwe (Map 5). The TFCA is centered at the confluence of the Limpopo and ShasheRivers. It is made up of a complex mosaic of land ownership, including land owned by thestate, National Parks Board and private landowners in South Africa, privately owned land inBotswana (including the Tuli Block Game Reserve and cattle/game ranches), and a mixture ofcommunal lands, privately owned stock and game farming operations and a governmentowned safari area in Zimbabwe. In South Africa, after a long and often acrimonious debatedating back to 1944 (Carruthers, 1992), an agreement that paved the way for the proclamationof a national park in the vicinity of the Limpopo–Shashe confluence was signed on 9 June1995 between the central government, the Northern Province and the National Parks Board.The government-owned Tuli Safari Circle in Zimbabwe was gazetted in 1963. The TFCA hasexcellent potential as a "big five" conservation area. Viable populations of lion, leopard, andcheetah still occur, and the population of 600 elephants in Botswana is the largest populationon private land in Africa. Ungulates already present include eland, impala, blue wildebeest,zebra, Sharpe's grysbok, and steenbok, and there is suitable habitat for both black and whiterhino. No detailed information is available on birds, reptiles and amphibians found specificallywithin the TFCA, although the area around the confluence of the two rivers is known to have agreat diversity of birdlife. Three main vegetation communities are recognized in the region: theriparian fringe occurs along the main rivers and their tributaries, the Acacia-Salvadoracommunity occurs on the Limpopo flats and vlei areas, and the mixed western mopane veldoccurs on ridges and flats south of the riparian fringe and flood plains. Twenty-six Red DataBook plant species have been recorded in the area. The proposed TFCA also has numerousarchaeological sites dating from the early Stone Age, including Mapungubwe Hill, a site ofmajor importance in Sub-Saharan Africa and the most remarkable Iron Age site in the country(Gelderblom et al., 1997; Robinson, 1995).

The Peace Parks Foundation has been involved in working with the National Parks Board ofSouth Africa and with the private landowners to establish an agreed South African position onlandownership issues related to the proposed TFCA. In August 1997, the Foundation assistedthe Board with the purchase of a farm adjacent to the Limpopo River for incorporation in theTFCA. Most of the private landowners on the Botswana side have indicated their willingness toparticipate in the TFCA, and they have the support of Botswana's Department of Wildlife andNational Parks. Prospects appear equally as encouraging in Zimbabwe. The National ParksBoard of South Africa has had preliminary discussions on the implementation of the TFCA withtheir counterparts from the two neighbouring countries, but no formal agreements have beenconcluded, and no joint development plan exists. The Board is actively involved in establishinga core area for the proposed TFCA on the South Africa side of the border, which it will ownand manage as a Schedule 1 National Park. A major constraint to the movement of animals inthe area is the presence of the veterinary cordon fence and an electrified military barrier on theSouth African side of the Limpopo River, and this needs to be addressed urgently.

The Dongola/Limpopo TFCA with its wealth of wildlife and scenery and its cultural/historicalassets has the potential to become a major new southern African tourist destination. Existing


tourist facilities are mainly restricted to a small number of privately run lodges in Botswana(which already attract about 20,000 visitors each year), and an even smaller number withinSouth Africa. In Zimbabwe, the Tuli Circle Safari Area in Zimbabwe is used extensively forhunting by permit. The proposed national park on the South African side of the TFCA couldattract 30,000 additional visitors per year. All three counties have potential for private sectorinvestment in ecotourism development.

Kruger / Banhine – Zinave / Gonarezhou TFCA. This is the largest of the seven proposedTFCAs. It is 95,712 km2 in extent, of which 69,208 km2 (72%) is in Mozambique, 19,458 km2

(21%) in South Africa, and 7,019 km2 (7%) in Zimbabwe, and it will create one of the mostsubstantial and impressive conservation areas in the world (Map 6). With more species of biggame than any other tract of land of equivalent size, the TFCA has the potential to becomeone of Africa's premier ecotourism destinations. The South African side will incorporate Africa'sfirst national park, the Kruger National Park, which was proclaimed on 31 May 1926, and anumber of privately owned areas on the western boundary of the park. Zimbabwe's portion ofthe TFCA will include a small area of communal land and the Gonarezhou National Park,which was proclaimed as a reserve in 1968 and obtained national parks status in 1972. InMozambique the TFCA will incorporate the Coutada 16 Wildlife Utilization Area immediatelyadjacent to the Kruger National Park, the Zinave National Park, which was originallyproclaimed as a safari hunting area in 1962 and as a national park in 1972, Banhine NationalPark which was established in 1972, and a large area of state owned communal land with arelatively low population density34. Kruger National Park alone is one of the major areas ofvertebrate diversity in southern Africa, with 147 species of mammals, 505 species of birds, 51fish, 35 amphibians, and 119 reptiles. Several of these are Red Data Book species. TheGonarezhou National Park has a similarly diverse vertebrate fauna, although the total numberof species and of individuals is lower. Elephants and several species of ungulates used tomove freely between South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe before fences divided thearea. Unfortunately, the many years of civil war in Mozambique coupled with recurrentdroughts and a serious lack of management capacity has resulted in the decimation or evencomplete elimination of most of the large and medium-sized mammals from Zinave andBanhine National Parks and from the intermediate areas. The extent of the decline is difficultto determine because no systematic surveys have been carried out in this part of Mozambiquefor over 20 years. The plant life of the proposed TFCA is equally as diverse, varying fromtropical to subtropical with some temperate forms occurring at higher altitudes. Nearly 2,000species of vascular plants have been collected in the Kruger National Park alone. Theproposed TFCA is also of great cultural-historical value, as underlined by the recent discoveryof archeological sites at Thulamela Hill in the Kruger National Park from the gold and ivoryculture which prevailed from about 1200 to 1640 AD (Branch, 1988; Carruthers, 1995;Gelderblom et al., 1997; Greyling & Huntley, 1984; Jacana Education and the National ParksBoard, 1996; Nel, 1996; Sinclair & Whyte, 1991).

As described at the start of this paper, discussions between South Africa and Mozambique ata variety of levels have been taking place since 1990. A Transfrontier Committee wasestablished in 1997 involving representatives from the conservation agencies from the twocountries, but no formal agreement is in place. The Peace Parks Foundation has been askedto join the Committee. Some preliminary discussions have taken place between conservationagencies in Zimbabwe and representatives of the National Parks Board of South Africa andthe Peace Parks Foundation, but once again no formal agreement is in place. The GlobalEnvironment Facility (GEF) Trust Fund has granted US$ 5 million to Mozambique for the"Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional Strengthening Project". There is atotal commitment to this TFCA from all the relevant South African and Mozambican authorities,

34 Recent aerial observations suggest that the human settlements in the area are sparse with limitedslash and burn agriculture taking place. An estimated 7,800 people are settled along the Limpopo Riverin or immediately adjacent to Coutada 16 (World Bank, 1996).

and considerable progress should be made with the initial phases of the project in 1998. Onthe Mozambique side of the border priority activities must address the problems of increasinghuman encroachment into the area, ongoing poaching, a lack of staff, funds and capacity torehabilitate and restock the existing designated protected areas, and deforestation forfuelwood collection and charcoal production. Existing settlements will be incorporated into theTFCA, and no attempt will be made to force people to relocate to other areas. Rather, everyeffort will be made to develop outreach programmes to offer people opportunities to work withconservation and/or tourism development activities. In South Africa, the Makuleke peoplehave lodged a land claim for land between the Luvuvhu and Limpopo Rivers from which theywere removed in 1969 to make this area part of the Kruger National Park. This justifiable claimneeds urgent attention, and must be handled with a great deal of sensitivity.

There is already an extensive and well developed tourism infrastructure within the KrugerNational Park, with 25 rest camps of various sizes providing 4,056 beds as well as 405caravan/camping sites. These are complemented by the more "upmarket" accommodationprovided in the numerous private conservation areas adjoining the park. Facilities generallyare far less developed in Gonarezhou, with just one rest camp providing 21 beds, and a smallnumber of camping sites. In Mozambique, Coutada 16 has a small tourist camp operated by aprivate contractor. There are no facilities in Zinave or in Banhine National Parks, and accessis difficult. There is great potential for commercial tourism development on the Mozambiqueside of the TFCA, but this will not succeed unless coupled with a significant effort to makeprogress with the priority activities mentioned above.

Maputaland TFCA. This proposed TFCA straddles the border between South Africa,Mozambique and Swaziland. It is situated on a low-lying coastal plain between the LebomboHills in the west and the Indian Ocean in the east, and offers a unique combination of biggame, extensive wetlands and coastal areas. The TFCA is 4,195 km2 in extent, of which 317km2 (8%) is in Swaziland, 2,783 km2 (66%) is in Mozambique, and 1,095 km2 (26%) is in SouthAfrica (Map 7). In Swaziland, the King holds all the land in trust for the nation. The proposedTFCA will eventually incorporate Hlane National Park, and the Mlawula, Simunye and MbuluziNature Reserves, a small section of Sisa Ranch and Malahleni dispersal area, all of which arein the process of being incorporated into a new conservancy. The Maputo Elephant Reservein Mozambique was established in 1932, and was subsequently increased in size in 1969. Allthe remainder of the land in the country is state owned communal land, with a relatively lowpopulation density. Approximately 8,000 people live between the Maputo River and the coast.In South Africa, the Ndumu Game Reserve was established in 1924, and the Tembe ElephantReserve in 1983. The consolidated area will be particularly important for elephantconservation. Tembe (90 – 100 elephants) and Maputo Elephant Reserve (approximately 200elephants) are the only indigenous populations remaining on the coastal plains of southernMozambique and KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa) in protected areas, and the two areas would belinked together. The 102 species of mammals include both black and white rhino, and otherRed Data Book mammals include samango monkey, suni and red duiker. Unfortunately,severe poaching has reduced or even eliminated several species of large mammals from theMozambican side. Of the more than 427 bird species found in the area, four species and 43subspecies are endemic to the Maputaland Centre of Endemism. In the Ndumu Game Reservealone, 416 bird species have been recorded. The 112 species of reptiles include theloggerhead and leatherback turtles, which nest along the extensive beaches. The vegetationof Maputaland falls within the savanna biome, and consists primarily of Subhumid LowveldBushveld and Natal Lowveld Bushveld, with limited Coastal Bushveld–Grassland, a complexmosaic of savanna, sand forest, grassland, dune forest, floodplain, pan systems and swampcommunities. The conservation of these sand forests and their associated fauna in particular isimportant, as this habitat type is very limited in extent. The world's largest remaining area ofsand forest (5 km wide and 20 km long) lies to the north of Ndumu Game Reserve inMozambique. This area alone has tremendous potential for tourism because of its rich birdlife.The proposed TFCA is one of the most striking areas of biodiversity in the world. It containsan exceptionally high number of species of fauna and flora, and is a zone of sharp transition,


representing the southernmost extent of the East African flora and fauna, and thenorthernmost extent of many of the southern African species. It also contains many endemicsspread over the whole taxonomic spectrum. The proposed TFCA is the core of theMaputaland centre of endemism, which was recently recognized as the only centre of plantdiversity in Mozambique35. The TFCA also has a strong cultural history. In Swaziland, nearthe proposed TFCA, archeologists have made several interesting discoveries, including a veryrare record of modern man dating back 110,000 years, as well as many Early and MiddleStone Age remains (Acocks, 1988; Bruton & Cooper, 1980; Gelderblom et al., 1997; Mountain,1990; van Wyk, 1996; World Bank, 1996).

As with the Kruger TFCA, discussions at a variety of levels on the Maputaland TFCA involvingSouth Africa, Mozambique and Swaziland have been taking place since 1990. The GEFallocation of US$ 5 million will also cover developments in Mozambique for this TFCA as well.In November 1996, the Council of Ministers of Mozambique granted a major tourismdevelopment concession to Blanchard-Mozambique Enterprises (BME) to develop an area of2,300 km2 from Inhaca Island south to the Mozambique – South Africa border. This areaincludes all the land to the east of the Maputo River up to the coast and also the MaputoElephant Reserve. BME has made a commitment to make available over US$ 800 million for avariety of enterprises in the region. This concession is by far the most significant private sectorinvestment in a protected area anywhere in Africa. A Joint Management Committee has beenestablished to co-ordinate the activities of the BME project with other initiatives. It is not clearat this stage how this programme will be co-ordinated with the Lubombo Spatial DevelopmentInitiative, which was set up in 1997 by a Trilateral Ministerial Committee to develop a range oftransnational and national projects (including "cross-border conservation areas") within theproposed TFCA. The Peace Parks Foundation has already committed R69,100(approximately US$ 15,000) for the funding of salaries for a senior ranger and eight gamescouts for one year in the Maputo Elephant Reserve, (a project it is carrying out with theassistance of the Endangered Wildlife Trust's Mozambique's office) and will give priority toother requests from the Mozambique Government for this area. On 9 July 1997, the PeaceParks Foundation convened a meeting in Swaziland to introduce the concept of TFCAs ingeneral, and to discuss Swaziland's involvement in the Maputo TFCA in particular. Themeeting was unanimous in its support for the TFCA, and agreed to set up a committee tofurther the establishment of the proposed conservancy in the area. An important component ofthe development of the TFCA, which needs further attention, is the whole process ofcommunity consultation and involvement. Although a number of workshops have been held toinform local communities of progress, a great deal more needs to be done. The additionalpriority activities mentioned earlier for the Kruger TFCA also apply to the Maputaland TFCA.To these must be added the construction of an electric fence extending from the westernboundary of the Maputo Elephant Reserve to the western boundary of the Tembe ElephantReserve.

The extraordinary biodiversity of this TFCA, coupled with its magnificent scenery, makes thisarea yet another potentially significant new southern African tourist destination. Existing touristfacilities are concentrated on the South African side of the border. Ndumu Game Reserve hasa good network of roads, seven three-bed cottages, and a small luxury lodge. TembeElephant Reserve has adequate roads and three tented camps. In Swaziland, Hlane NationalPark has good roads, one small camp offering rustic accommodation and a more moderncamp with three self-contained cottages. Two camping sites are available in the MlawulaNature Reserve. In the Maputo Elephant Reserve, access is at present restricted to 4x4vehicles. There are many opportunities throughout this TFCA for private sector investment inthe tourism industry.

35 International centres of plant diversity are selected globally as first order sites, which if conserved willsafeguard the greatest number of plant species (van Wyk, 1994).

Drakensberg / Maloti TFCA. The Drakensberg is the highest region in South Africa. Theproposed TFCA is 8,113km2 in extent, of which 5,170 km2 (64%) is in Lesotho and 2,943 km2

(36%) is in South Africa (Map 8). It will contain the largest and most important high altitudeprotected area in the subcontinent, supporting unique montane and subalpine ecosystems.The area has spectacular scenery, as well as being an important centre of endemism formontane plant species. The high altitude streams, oxbow lakes and wetlands, coupled with thehigh annual rainfall (800 mm at lower altitude to 2,000 mm near the escarpment) make amajor contribution to the provision of water for the urban and industrial complexes in the SouthAfrican provinces of Gauteng and Mpumalanga, and this will be further enhanced through theLesotho Highlands Water Project which is presently under construction in Lesotho. On theSouth African side of the border, a number of provincial nature reserves have been combinedtogether with state forests, wilderness areas and nature reserves proclaimed in terms of theForest Act to form the Natal Drakensberg Park. This is now being managed by the NatalParks Board as a statutory protected area, incorporating Giants Castle Game Reserve, RoyalNatal National Park, Loteni Nature Reserve, Vergelegen Nature Reserve, Rugged Glen NatureReserve, and the state forests at Cathedral Peak, Monks Cowl, Highmoor, Mkhomazi, Cobhamand Garden Castle. The continuity of the protected area on the South African side of theborder between the Royal Natal National Park and Cathedral Peak is broken by theamaNgwane Tribal Area. However, several members of the resident local community havealready expressed interest in having the Tribal Area developed for a variety of ecotourismprogammes which would be compatible with the activities within the Natal Drakensberg Park.On the Lesotho side, the Sehlabathebe National Park ranks as a schedule IV protected area interms of IUCN protected area categories. Portions of the alpine belt of Lesotho have beenearmarked as a Managed Resource Area in terms of the Managed Resource Order No.18 of1993. The proposed TFCA is home to a variety of ungulates, including bushbuck, eland,reedbuck, mountain reedbuck, grey rhebok, klipspringer, and oribi although numbers aregenerally low. About 246 species of birds have been recorded, of which 14 are listed in theRed Data Book. The Tsoelikana River harbours the highly threatened Maloti/Drakensbergminnow Oreodaimon zuathlambae which was thought to be extinct. The vegetation of theTFCA falls within the grassland biome, and consists mainly of Alti Mountain Grassland withsome Moist Upland Grassland in the lower-lying areas. An estimated 30% of the plant specieswithin this biome are endemic to the Drakensberg. There are also several areas ofAfromontane forest in the sheltered valleys. Both sides of the border contain importantarchaeological sites in the form of some outstanding examples of San cave paintings andartefacts. With the combination of these exceptional natural and cultural features, the wholeTFCA deserves nomination as a World Heritage Site. The entire Natal Drakensberg Park hasalready been accepted for listing under the Ramsar Convention as a wetland of internationalimportance. The harsh climatic conditions have deterred permanent settlement within theTFCA with the exception of a few recent isolated exceptions, although the Lesotho side isused in the summer months for grazing. (Acocks, 1988; Bainbridge and Motsami, 1995;Gelderblom et al., 1997; Hilland and Burtt, 1987; IUCN, 1990; Smith, 1997).

The establishment of the TFCA has been under negotiation since 1982, and the negotiationsare ongoing. Initially these took place under the aegis of an Intergovernmental LiaisonCommittee. This was halted in 1993 after the election in Lesotho, but was continued in 1996by the Natal Parks Board working closely with the National Environmental Secretariat ofLesotho. In the same year, the Natural Resources Institute of UK's Overseas DevelopmentAdministration prepared and submitted a proposal for European Union funding for a majorconservation programme in a 1,000 km2 pilot area of the TFCA within Lesotho (NaturalResources Institute, 1996). Expected key outputs will be comprehensive strategies forlivestock husbandry, natural resource conservation, ecotourism, environmental education andextension, and sustainable land use. ECU 2 million was subsequently granted from the LomeIII Indicative Programme. In July 1997 a representative of the Peace Parks Foundationattended a meeting in Maseru with representatives of the Natal Parks Board and the NationalEnvironment Secretariat, where it was agreed that a formal Project Steering Committee should


be established to drive the initiative forward. One of the primary goals of the SteeringCommittee would be the establishment of a Section 21 company for the TFCA.

The South African side of the border has an extensive network of accommodation facilities,with the best developed being in the Royal Natal National Park and the Giant's Castle GameReserve. All the reserves have campsites and self-catering chalets. The higher mountainshave a number of caves that are used by overnight hikers and mountaineers. In Lesotho,limited accommodation is available only at the Sehlabathebe National Park.

The Peace Parks Foundation's fundraising strategy

During the initial stages of the growth and development of the Foundation, funds will be raisedby the following three main methods. 1. Membership of the Peace Parks Club. TheFoundation has launched a Peace Parks Club, and His Royal Highness Prince Bernhard of theNetherlands has accepted the appointment as the President of the Club. A package of traveland accommodation benefits is available for Club members for a period of ten years on receiptof a one-off payment (Peace Parks Club, 1997). One thousand individuals are being invited tobecome Individual Founder Members (US$ 5,000 each), together with 100 Corporate FounderMembers (US$ 50,000 each). 2. Grants from bilateral and multilateral aid agencies. 3. Grantsand donations from individuals, corporations, Trusts and Foundations.

REFERENCES

Acocks,J.P.H.(1988) Veld types of South Africa. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of SouthAfrica 57:1-146.

Bainbridge,W.R. and Motsami,B. (1995) Project motivation document. Greater Drakensberg-Maloti Mountain Region: Community Development and Conservation Programme.Lesotho National Environment Secretariat, Maseru, and Planning Division, Natal ParksBoard, Pietermaritzburg. 45pp.

Bezuidenhout,H.(1997) Preliminary report on the vegetation of the possible transfrontierOnseepkans area. Unpublished report of the National Parks Board's Research &Development Section, Kimberley. 3pp.

Branch,W.R.(1988) South African Red Data Book–Reptiles and Amphibians. S.Afr. Nat. Sci.Prog. Report No.151. FRD, Pretoria. 241 pp.

Bruton,M.N. and Cooper,K.H. (1980) Studies on the ecology of Maputaland. RhodesUniversity, Grahamstown.

Carruthers,J.(1992) The Dongola Wild Life Sanctuary: 'psychological blunder, economic follyand political monstrosity' or 'more valuable than rubies and gold'. Kleio XXIV:82–100.

Carruthers,J.(1995) The Kruger National Park. A social and political history. University of NatalPress, Pietermaritzburg.

Cravinho, J.G. (1997) Economy of Mozambique. In: Africa South of the Sahara 1997.pp 664-670. Europa Publications, London.

de Villiers,N.N. (1994) The Open Africa Initiative. OAI, Claremont.

Eloff,F. (1984) The Kalahari ecosystem. Koedoe supplement: 11-20

Gelderblom,C.,van Wilgen,B.W. and Rossouw,N.(1997) Proposed Transfrontier ConservationAreas. Maps and preliminary data sheets. Prepared for the Peace Parks Foundation bythe CSIR Division of Water, Environment and Forestry Technology, Stellenbosch. 50 pp.

Greyling,T. and Huntley,B.J. (1984) Directory of southern African conservation areas.S.Afr.Nat.Sci.Prog. Report No. 98. FRD, Pretoria.

Hilland,O.M. and Burtt,B.L. (1987) The botany of the Southern Natal Drakensberg. Annals ofKirstenbosch Botanical Gardens, Vol. 15.

Hamilton,L.S., Mackay,J.C., Worboys,G.L., Jones,R.A. and Manson,G.B. (1996) TransborderProtected Areas Cooperation. Australian Alps Liaison Committee and IUCN, Canberra.64 pp.

IUCN (1990) 1990 United Nations list of national parks and protected areas. WorldConservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. 275 pp.

Jacana Education and National Parks Board. (1966) Kruger Park. Visitors map. JacanaEducation, Johannesburg. 11pp.

Main,M. (1987) Kalahari:life's variety in dune and delta. Southern Book Publishers,Johannesburg.

Mills,M.G.L. and Haagner,C. (1989) Guide to the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park. SouthernBook Publishers, Johannesburg.

Mountain,A. (1990) Paradise under pressure:St Lucia, Kosi Bay, Sodwana, Lake Sibaya,Maputaland. Southern Book Publishers, Johannesburg.

National Parks Board (1996) Richtersveld National Park. Proposal/Nomination. A WorldHeritage Site. National Parks Board, Pretoria. 13pp.

National Parks Board (South Africa) and Department of Wildlife and National Parks(Botswana) (1997) Kalahari Transfrontier Park Management Plan. NPB, South Africa andDWNP, Botswana.

Natural Resources Institute (1996) Outline project proposal for the European Union funding forthe Drakensberg-Maloti Mountains conservation progamme. Overseas DevelopmentAdministration, London.

Nel,M. (1996) Kruger land claim. South Africa's premier national park faces a major challenge.African Wildlife 50(6):6-7.

Peace Parks Club (1997) A special invitation to join the Peace Parks Club. Peace ParksFoundation, Somerset West. 15 pp.

Pinnock,D.(1996) Superparks. The impossible dream ? Getaway 8(8): 88-97.

Powrie,L.W. (1992) How alert are those Richtersveld plants ? Veld & Flora 78(1):14-17.

Robinson,G.A.(1995) Dongola National Park. Towards transfrontier conservation in southernAfrica. National Parks Board, Pretoria. 23 pp.

Sinclair,I. and Whyte,I. (1991) Field guide to the birds of the Kruger National Park. Struik, CapeTown.


Smith,F.H. (1997) Some factors to consider in the conservation of the Drakensberg WaterCatchment Area of KwaZulu-Natal. South African Journal of Environmental Law andPolicy. 4(1) :91-111.

Thorsell,J.W. Ed. (1990) Parks on the borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Conservation.IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Tinley,K.L. and van Riet,W.F.(1991) Conceptual proposals for Kruger/Banhine: A TransfrontierNatural Resource Area. Prepared for SANF. 13 pp and 4 maps.

van Jaarsveld,E. (1991) A preliminary report on the vegetation of the Richtersveld with specificreference to the trees and shrubs of the area. Trees in South Africa 33:58-85.

van Wyk,A.E. (1994) Maputaland-Pondoland Region. South Africa, Swaziland andMozambique. In: Centres of Plant Diversity. A guide and strategy for their conservation.Davis,S.D., Heywood,V.H. and Hamilton,A.C. (Eds.) IUCN Publication Unit, Cambridge.

van Wyk, A.E. (1996) Biodiversity of the Maputaland Centre. In: The biodiversity of Africanplants. van der Mensen et al. (Eds.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.

Westing,A.H. (1992) Protected natural areas and the military. Environmental Conservation19:343-348.

Westing,A.H. (1993) Building confidence with tansfrontier reserves: the global potential. In:Transfrontier Reserves for peace and nature: a contribution to human security.Westing,A.H. (Ed.) UNEP, Nairobi.

Williams,G. (1997) Africa in retrospect and prospect. In: Africa South of the Sahara 1997.pp3-10. Europa Publications, London.

World Bank (1996) Mozambique. Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and InstitutionalStrengthening Project. Report No.15534-MOZ , Agriculture and Environment Division,Southern Africa Department, The World Bank. 17 pp, with maps and appendices.


THE IMPACT OF WAR ON PROTECTED AREAS IN CENTRAL AFRICA. CASE STUDY OFVIRUNGA VOLCANOES REGION

By: Samson E.W. Werikhe, Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)Norbert Mushenzi, Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN)Jean Bizimana, Office Rwandais des Tourisme et Parcs Nationaux (ORTPN)

BACKGROUND

The area referred to as Virunga Volcanoes Region (VVR) is that part in Central Africa coveredby three protected areas in three countries. These protected areas, currently managed asnational parks are: Parc National des Volcans (PNV, 160 km2) in Rwanda, Parc National desVirungas (PNVi, 240 km2) in Democratic Republic of Congo) and Mgahinga Gorilla NationalPark (MGNP, 33.7 km2). Parc National des Virungas was Africa's first national park gazetted in1925 and it was later reclassified as a World Heritage Site because of its internationallyrecognized unique natural and cultural sites. Straddling the international boundaries of thethree countries, the Virunga Volcanoes Region has no physical demarcation along the bordersand free ranging animals within the area are transient between the different neighbouringcountries.

Of notable significance, the region harbors the rare and endangered mountain gorilla, Gorillagorilla beringei whose total population worldwide is approximately 600 animals. Slightly lessthan 50% of these are within the Virunga Volcanoes Region (Butynski, T.M., S.E. Werikhe andJ. Kalina, 1990). The other population is found in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda.

For a long time, only the Virunga Volcanoes portions of Rwanda and Congo were managedunder national parks. The Ugandan portion was until 1991 managed as a Forest - and GameReserve (Werikhe, 1991). Creation of MGNP six years ago elevated its level of protection andmatched it with the other two national parks in the region. This was a significant breakthroughin support of conservation and it now seems certain that the three countries recognize theimportance and urgent need to safeguard the mountain gorilla and its habitat.

The Virunga Volcanoes Region protects a large number of plant and animal species endemicto the Albertine Rift. This marked biological diversity with a high level of endemism is related tothe long natural evolution and tormented geological and volcanic history during the Plio-Pleistocene era (d'Huart, 1989).

Human population density in the region is considerably high. At a population density averaging300 people/km2, there is enormous pressure onto these protected areas for livelihood needsespecially fertile land for agriculture, fuel wood, construction wood, coffee plantations, foodand lots of other forest products. The conservation policies in place have therefore, beendesigned to address the above pressures but also ensure a balanced situation with theadjacent people for enhanced protection and continued existence of the resource.

The region is well known for its very high tourism potential exhibited by presence of mountaingorillas, other taxa and impressive scenery. Some groups of gorillas have been habituated tohuman presence and are currently viewed by tourists, fetching a fair amount of revenue to thethree countries. The substantial amounts of money generated from tourism are used by theRwanda, Congo and Uganda's Wildlife institutions of Office Rwandais du Tourisme et ParcsNationaux (ORTPN), Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN), and UgandaWildlife Authority (UWA), respectively to manage conservation activities in the VirungaVolcanoes.

During the late 1990, a civil war was waged onto the Rwanda Government and this is reportedto have started from the Mutara Region, Rwanda. Launching war from the Mutara was


deleterious to conservation because of its location in the Virunga Volcanoes Region. Over theyears, the war advanced slowly into deeper regions of Rwanda until 1994 when the RwandesePatriotic Front took over power. This saw over 700,000 refugees fleeing Rwanda to North KivuDistrict, Eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo for sanctuary.

The effects of this war on conservation in the region were directly felt for about seven yearssince the war broke. They were most seriously felt when refugees camped in or near protectedareas and utilized resources therein with impunity. Other negative effects felt included loss oflives of protected area staff, destruction of wildlife species and their habitat, breakdown incommunication, destruction of infrastructure, halt on tourism activities, and above all,complete degeneration in staff work effectiveness due to insecurity.

IMPACT OF THE WAR ON PARC NATIONAL DES VIRUNGAS, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLICOF CONGO.

Refugee Problem

In July 1994 a mass exodus of Rwandese refugees took place to Uganda and DemocraticRepublic of Congo. Congo took in the largest number of the refugees who were given asylumin the region of North and South Kivu near Parc National des Virungas. The refugee crisisaggravated conflicts over land tenure and heightened inter-ethnic tensions within Congo.

The presence of over 700,000 refugees who were temporarily resettled in five refugee campson the borders of Parc National des Virungas was a disaster to conservation. Foremost, thissettlement contravened the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' (UNHCR) policyagainst establishment of refugee camps on the borders of protected areas (Lanjouw,Cummings and Miller, 1995). The minimum distance should not be less than 150 km awayfrom the nearest protected area boundary. However, the situation with these refugees wasincredibly pathetic and large numbers were perishing on a daily basis. The UNHCR, actingagainst its own policy, was forced to establish refugee camps in the neighborhood of Africa'soldest national park.

The presence of refugees on the PNVi's boundary resulted into;

♦ Destruction of more than 150 km2 of the forest cover of the park, and deterioration of theaesthetic value of the landscape. The refugees specialized in the trading of charcoal,firewood and wild game and all these were from the PNVi. Over 50 % of the bamboo onMt. Mikeno was cut for manufacture of mats, fans, baskets, and for construction purposes.

♦ Reduction of the available firewood supply from plantations and village-based forest

reserves which act as buffer areas to the PNVi, thus leaving the park very vulnerable tofuelwood removal.

♦ Massacre of the wildlife in PNVi. Exact information on species and numbers affected is yet

to be collected but some information shows that large mammals like hippopotamus,elephant and gorillas were killed. The number of nylon and metallic snares seized by theICCN guards went from 913 in 1994 to 2795 in 1995, and the number of machetes wentfrom 1,588 to 4,078.

♦ Decrease of the livestock in North Kivu, causing the drop in availability of animal protein for

the human population. This then drove an increased number of people into the nationalpark to poach. The unplanned presence of the army in the area did compound the problemof poaching and other forms of illegal utilization.

Decline in Tourism.


There was a marked decline in tourism over the years due to the high level of insecurity andpresence of refugees in the area. Six Italian tourists were unfortunately murdered in coldblood and no additional visitors could risk their lives to visit the region.

Lawlessness.

There was absolutely no rule of law. Park authorities and the legislation were never respectedand taken seriously. There was a general feeling of lawlessness and disrespect for parkauthorities especially rangers. The situation was seen as an opportunity to freely and illegallyutilize park's resources which had been under strict control previously. No courts of law wereavailable and hence no legal proceedings could be implemented to convict wrong doers. Thepoachers responsible for killing the gorillas in 1995 were set free and these went back to theirvillages.

General insecurity.

General insecurity in the area led to suspension of all externally funded conservation projects.Areas like those near the Congo-Rwanda border where the Ndungutse Group of gorillas wasliving could not be accessed by guides. With the exclusion of projects, there was no adequatefunding to fully cover conservation costs even the overheads. As a result, there were virtuallyno conservation activities implemented. Yet the security situation needed an active and hard-line intervention which was initially supported by GTZ. Seven teams of guards had to patrolday and night in the vicinity of the gorilla groups. The system was very costly and requiredconsiderable physical efforts and logistics.

IMPACT OF THE WAR ON VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK , RWANDA.

Volcanoes National Park in Rwanda was an area of great interest to the Rwandese Armybecause this was an area highly suspected to be a hide-out for the Rwandese Patriotic Front.There were considerable defensive arrangements with use of gun fire put in the park and itssurroundings in an effort to scare off or repulse the enemy. Very similar to what happened inPNVi, the impacts were as follows:

Loss of human life.

Many people were killed as a result of gunfire and of these, some were the national park'spersonnel involved in conservation and protection activities.

Increased Poaching.

Surveillance patrols were limited to certain parts of the park because elsewhere, it was toodangerous to reach. Dangerous places were heavily mined and infiltrated with large forces ofmilitia. Almost all conservation and protection activities were brought to halt thus paving wayfor poachers. Animals poached included buffalo, bushbuck, and duiker. Bamboo andfuelwood removal was very rampant. Areas close to the border with Congo were avoided bythe park's anti-poaching unit and such areas suffered great loss of wildlife species topoachers. The number of snares collected increased two-fold and much of this was attributedto the presence of refugees in neighbouring Congo. Two gorillas were reported trapped insnares and these were promptly rescued by veterinarians of the Karisoke Research Centre.Lack of respect for park authorities and legislation.

There was overall neglect of law protecting the national park. The problem of illegal utilizationreached high levels when park staff were denied use of arms during patrols. The local peoplemoved into the park to remove forest products and apportioned a chunk of land for cultivation.


Agricultural encroachment occurred on the lower slopes of the Park where there is a primehabitat for mountain gorillas and other taxa.

Lack of coordination with counterparts on Uganda and Congo portions.

Before the war, wildlife authorities in Rwanda, Congo and Uganda were implementing localinitiatives aimed at coordinating conservation activities in the region. These includedcommunication of information on park infringements, planning and networking meetings tomap out strategies for future implementation, organizing combined antipoaching patrols,regional meetings, etc. In essence, conservation activities were moving effectively thoughinformally, and with the onset of the International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP),most of these got strengthened up in implementation.

The war definitely removed opportunities for networking and all on-going and planned activitieswere frustrated. Regional meetings attended by IGCP National Representatives weresupposed to be held quarterly. It was not until 1995 when it was possible to hold the firstregional meeting. The meeting was held in Kisoro, Uganda on 31 August 1995 and allrepresentatives from the three countries attended. Due to the continued conflict, the nextmeeting was held in March 1997 in Kigali and the Congo representatives could not easilymake it in time. All subsequent regional meetings with effect from April 1997 have been heldwithout much ado.

Destruction of infrastructure.

The war caused a lot of confusion and anarchy characteristic of looting of infrastructure andequipment both inside and outside of the park. These included the well equipped KarisokeResearch Centre, the National Park Headquarters, the Visitor's Centre, housing quarters forstaff, vehicles, radios, and uniforms.

Impacts on Tourism and loss of income

Tourism in the region is based on gorilla viewing. The heavily sounding, threatening and lethalmilitary artillery caused gorillas to flee and scatter in areas other than their home ranges. Itbecame difficult to monitor movements of tourist groups after inevitably abandoning theirtraditional home ranges. This meant that gorilla trekking for tourism purposes was excluded.Tourism based on gorilla viewing started in 1984. By 1990 when the war broke, touristnumbers had risen by 50% thus doubling the amount of revenue to the country. The wareroded all these opportunities.

Impact of war on the Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Uganda

In Uganda's MGNP, lots of military shells were projected into this park as well as mining almostall the areas. As mentioned above, this was a move acting on suspicion that the RwandaPatriotic Front was camped in the Park. As a result;

♦ One law enforcement ranger of MGNP lost his whole leg to a land mine. ♦ Tourism development activities were suspended due to insecurity and tourists ceased

coming. At the time when MGNP was reclassified as a national park (1991), there wasalready a habituated group of gorillas (Nyakagezi/Faida) visiting MGNP from Congo.Werikhe (1991) reports that this group spent approximately 42% in MGNP and this wasbefore the protection level was improved. Uganda expected to begin implementing tourismon this group immediately but was delayed until 1995.


♦ The intensity and seriousness in patrols declined. The patrols were now conducted only inparts of the morning and afternoon/evening along the Park's boundary yet previously theywere carried out both during the day and night and in almost all areas of the Park. Landmines were placed in strategic places of Rugezi Swamp, Kabiranyuma Swamp, and alongthe international border line. These swamps are prime to wildlife and the local people in theneighbourhood as a source of water especially during the dry season.

Destruction of wildlife species

One gorilla, 3 buffaloes, 1 bushbuck,and 1 golden monkey were killed as a result of gunfire.Elephants fled and went deep into PNVi due to the destructive noise and disturbance causedby heavy artillery. The tops of Sabinyo, Gahinga and Mhavura were shelled destroying anamount of alpine vegetation and unknown animal species. The alpine flora on tops of thevolcanoes is highly endemic and rare, typical of the Albertine Rift biodiversity.

Infrastructure

The park's offices and radio communication were destroyed. Park authorities had to rentalternative accommodation beyond Kisoro Town at Mutolere. This was far from the nationalpark, making it difficult to implement park management activities.

Refugees

Unlike in the PNVi, refugees did not cause much destruction in MGNP. However, about 5,000of these crossed MGNP on their way to Congo and Kisoro for asylum. On their way, theycamped in the park and in the process, used quite an amount of fuelwood and probablypoached animals for food.

Future of Conservation in the Virunga Volcanoes Region

Over the years, conservation in the Virunga Volcanoes Region (VVR) has faced challengingproblems, most which, if not all, hinge on the high population pressure and demand forlivelihood needs. The loss of huge amounts of forest land to agricultural encroachment, illegalutilization of forest products, poaching and habitat destruction have left just a small percentageof the original abundant resources which must now be actively controlled to ensure theircontinued existence. Until 1991, only the MGNP (Uganda portion of the Region) was notmanaged as a national park. The concern of various conservationists worldwide andgovernment authorities enabled for this additional portion be reclassified as a national parkthus increasing the protection level of the entire Virunga Volcanoes Region in totality. Thiswas seen as a tremendous step ahead in the evolution of the protection process of the VVRsince the declaration of its first portion as a national park seven decades ago.

Individual governments' and donor interventions have been implemented in support forconservation in the region. Informal regional initiatives at field staff level in the three countrieshave shown good progress and with the onset of the IGCP later in 1991 which has beenproviding technical and logistic support, the regional approach has been emphasized realizingthe great potential it has. Before the war interruptions set in, conservation activities liketourism based on gorilla viewing were flourishing. Increase in tourism activities brought inmore revenue and for example in Uganda where park revenue is shared with communities,local people adjacent to the protected areas seem to have began appreciating the total valueand importance of conservation based on biodiversity resources.

Infrastructural development, training, employment opportunities, tangible and intangibleecological, socio-economic and cultural benefits cannot be overemphasized. The foregoingindicate that the war has sunk many conservation opportunities and efforts that had been


invested over the years whose recovery depends solely on the nature of resources affected.The Virunga Resource is precious and sensitive, and could be extirpated very easily if thethree countries responsible do not decide on a common strategy. At this time, potential threatsinclude; a) each country can formulate her own policies however inappropriate they may applyto other portions of the region, b) the region has a high level of endemism and houses one ofthe world's endangered species (the mountain gorilla) whose home range does not recognizethe existing boundaries and could be wiped out at the hands of man anytime, c) the region issurrounded by a fast expanding human population with a correspondingly increasing demandfor livelihood needs thus putting the Region under pressure of exploitation and, d) there is noformal international convention, treaty or agreement in the region requiring the three states tobecome members to implement one legislation for better protection of the resources. It is nottoo late yet. The three countries can map out a strategy that will ensure long-term existence ofresources in this Region.

The effects of the recent wars upon conservation in the area are still fresh and a great losstoo. Cost of the recovery programme will be enormous yet not everything lost may berecovered. The nature resource-based capital lost in terms of individual wildlife species andrelated revenue should be an eye-opener to the relevant authorities to protect the Region moreadequately than before for posterity. According to Mackinnon, J., K. Mackinnon, G. Child andJ. Thorsell (1986), there is no foolproof management prescription to protect parks undercircumstances of warfare. However, we need public support and a more condensedinternational linkage if we must protect this region.

We recommend that the three countries manage the Region as an international or peacepark. The strengths of this recommendation are;

♦ the Region harbors a unique and extremely important which straddles across threeinternational borders,

♦ the individual country's conservation policies differ and however slightly, this poses a

problem of lack of common conservation strategy, ♦ the area which has potential as an international/ a peace park is only 420 km2. This is

small enough to be managed but also draws immediate attention as it can all disappearsoon,

♦ the ecological, socio-economic, cultural and ethnic set up in the area is more or less uniform

across the borders, ♦ there are opportunities for utilizing gorilla permits across countries as habituated gorillas

move between Rwanda and Congo and between Congo and Uganda. Currently, TourOperators in Uganda take tourists to Rwanda and Congo when all gorilla permits in Ugandaare fully booked,

♦ currently, conservation and management activities are regionally focused under the

auspices of the International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP), ♦ all protected areas in the Region are national parks.

REFERENCES

Butynski, T.M., S.E Werikhe and J. Kalina. 1990. Status, Distribution and Conservation of theMountain Gorilla in the Gorilla Game Reserve, Uganda. Primate Conservation 11: 31 -41.


d'Huart, J.P. 1989. Bases for the Development of a Coordinated Management of contiguousProtected Areas in Zaire and Uganda. AGRICONSULTING.

Lanjouw, A., G. Cummings and J. Miller. 1995. Gorilla Problems and activities in North Kivu,Eastern Zaire. African Primates 1: 44 - 46.

Mackinnon, J., K. Mackinnon, G. Child and J. Thorsell. 1986. Managing Protected Areas inthe Tropics. IUCN, GLAND, SWITZERLAND.

Werikhe, S.E.W. 1991. An Ecological Survey of the Gorilla Game Reserve, South-WestUganda. M Sc Thesis, Makerere University, Kampala.


POTENTIAL FOR THE CREATION OF A PEACE PARK IN THE VIRUNGA VOLCANOREGION

By: Annette Lanjouw36 and José Kalpers37

Introduction

The presentation by Werikhe et al. (Session 3) stressed the value of the Virunga Volcanoregion in terms of biodiversity and demonstrated the variety and level of the threats to theseecosystems. As described in their paper, the two main types of threats affecting the region are:

♦ on the one hand, a very high human population density (to the order of 300 to 400 peopleper km2) with a high growth rate (the rate of population growth in the Great Lakes regionaverages at 3.1%) (May, 1996), leading to considerable pressure on natural habitats and toharvesting resources from the forest (poaching, collection of wood and bamboo, water andsecondary products);

♦ to these problems, which have existed for many years, one must now add the effects of the

recent crisis, of which the first manifestations occurred during the war between theRwandan Patriotic Front and the army of the ex-Rwandan government in 1990. Thesituation then evolved with the presence of hundreds of thousands of refugeesconcentrated in camps in the Democratic Republic of Congo (ex-Zaïre, DRC), and thenfinally with the civil war in DRC. Werikhe et al. have described the details of this crisisduring their exposé.

Faced with the multitude of problems encountered in the region, it is important to recognisethat conservationists were forced to limit themselves to a “reactive” attitude, able only to followevents as they developed and intervening only there where security conditions allowed andwhen finances, however modest, were available (Thorsell, 1991). At no point was it possible torealistically predict events and plan activities according to pre-established scenarios, forexample (d’Huart, 1992).

It is possible, however, that the moment has come to look at more innovative approaches,based upon novel solutions that can be tested in the field (Simons, 1988). These approachescan specifically look at some of the difficulties associated with transfrontier co-operationbetween the countries sharing the Virunga massif: Rwanda, Uganda and DRC. This paperproposes to consider one of the possible approaches, namely the establishment of a “PeacePark” in the Virunga volcanoes.

History of transfrontier co-operation in the region

With the initiation of the Mountain Gorilla Project (formed by the African Wildlife Foundationand other conservation organisations) in 1979 (Vedder & Weber, 1990), contacts wereestablished between the authorities in Rwanda and Uganda, although generally on an informalbasis. Later, activities were also initiated in DRC (activities implemented by the FrankfurtZoological Society and the World Wide Fund for Nature-WWF) and bilateral commissions(primarily between Rwanda and Uganda and between Rwanda and DRC) were held on an adhoc basis. They generally dealt with aspects linked to the development of regional tourism, 36 Regional Coordinator, International Gorilla Conservation Programme. Address: c/o AWF, P.O.Box48177, Nairobi, Kenya. Email: [email protected]

37 Technical Associate, International Gorilla Conservation Programme. Current address: Serviced'Ethologie, Université de Liège, Quai Van Beneden, 22, B-4020 Liège, Belgium. Email:[email protected]


however, or specific problems linked to the visits by tourists to gorilla groups that tended tomove along and across the frontier zone between Rwanda and DRC.

It was only in 1989 that the conservation of afromontane forest ecosystems became thesubject of a regional forum, with the organisation of the first seminar-workshop on theconservation of afromontane forests, held at Cyangugu in Rwanda. Subsequently, otherconferences were organised at Bujumbura (Burundi) in 1992 and at Mbarara (Uganda) in1994. These workshops provided the opportunity for the different countries with afromontaneforests to forge links and for some to initiate, or reinforce contacts with the objective ofimproving the management of transfrontier protected areas (ex.: Kibira-Nyungwe, Virungamassif, Mount Elgon, Ruwenzori massif). Although they provided the opportunity to formallybring together protected area managers and national authorities of a number of Africancountries, the conferences were organised sporadically. Follow-up between the differentsessions of the workshops was generally superficial, limited to the drafting of workshop-reportsfor each session and the organisation of the next workshop, without monitoring andsupervision of the implementation of recommendations.

In 1991, the coalition of three organisations that financed the Mountain Gorilla Project inRwanda (the African Wildlife Foundation, Fauna and Flora International and the World WideFund for Nature-WWF) decided to start the International Gorilla Conservation Programme(IGCP). The goal of the programme is to ensure the protection and long term conservation ofmountain gorillas and their habitat, the medium- and high altitude forests of Rwanda, Ugandaand DRC. IGCP works towards this goal in close collaboration with the protected areaauthorities in the three countries (IGCP, 1996).

To date, IGCP has had to work in particularly difficult circumstances as its conceptioncoincided with the beginning of the “Great Lakes crisis”. Nevertheless, at a regional level, anumber of achievements have been made:

♦ organisation and facilitation of bilateral and trilateral meetings between the protected areamanagers of the 4 national parks included in the programme (Mgahinga Gorilla NationalPark, Volcanoes National Park, Virunga National Park and Bwindi Impenetrable NationalPark);

♦ development of a communication network and system for regular information exchange

between the three countries involved; ♦ organisation and facilitation of the first joint patrols between the field-based staff in Rwanda

and DRC; ♦ development of a number of independent, but common activities in the three countries:

these include the development and monitoring of tourism, the initiation of a training andecological monitoring programme.

Value of a Peace Park in the Virungas

The creation of a peace park in the Virungas would serve a dual purpose, at the level ofbiodiversity conservation and at the political-diplomatic level.

For the conservation of biodiversity

A peace park enables a homogeneous and concerted approach to management andconservation of the transfrontier zone


Although the three protected areas concerned form part of the same forest block, it hasbecome apparent in the past that their management is based on principles that are sometimesvery different. We will not enter into the details of these differences, but the principal ones areidentified here: protection/surveillance systems (anti-poaching patrols, amongst others);tourism programmes (especially with respect to the utilisation of “alternative” attractions, or, inother words, attractions other than the visits to the gorillas); community-based conservationapproaches, etc.

A peace park would provide a mechanism whereby these differences could be minimised inorder to arrive at a uniform management system that could be applied in the three sites. Thiscould include, for example, the elaboration of integrated conservation plans serving as overallstrategies for the conservation of these ecosystems or species (Oates, 1996), or thedevelopment of plans focusing on certain flagship species (such as the gorilla). The advantageof such an approach is to weaken the “virtual barriers” separating the three national parks andto arrive at a common approach to management. If only for the long-term conservation of thepopulation of mountain gorillas in the Virunga massif, the concept of a peace park has a greatdeal of merit. The recent conclusions of Sarmiento et al.(1996), suggesting that the mountaingorilla is to be found only in the Virunga volcanoes, still reinforce the significance of aconcerted approach between the three countries.

By merit of its prestige and institutional foundation, a peace park constitutes a pole ofattraction for the outside world

For several decades, the mountain gorilla has attracted the attention of the internationalcommunity: the work of pioneers such as Schaller (1963) and Fossey (1983) have drawn theattention of the conservation community, by emphasising the extreme vulnerability of this greatape and close relative to humans. Since then, a number of conservation initiatives have beenlaunched in the region. These initiatives were not always co-ordinated between the differentexternal partners responsible for implementation, nor even between the authorities in the threecountries that were beneficiaries of the support.

The creation of a peace park in the Virungas would add to the traditional renown of themountain gorilla the prestige of an original and creative initiative such as a transfrontierconservation zone. Such a double attraction would draw the attention of external donors andrender other sources of potential funding available.

A peace park authorises the development of true regional tourism

Ecotourism, and especially “gorilla tourism”, has been a very important component of theconservation of mountain gorillas for more than ten years. It would be fair to say that due, inpart, to the visits to habituated families of gorillas by tourists, conservationists in the regionhave managed to protect the Virunga massif and its population of mountain gorillas. Thisbiological resource has been given a significant economic connotation. Although tourism togorillas has been developed in all three countries, the demand at times exceeds the availableplaces and not all visitors can be satisfied. This sometimes leads to considerable pressuresbeing placed on the resource, emanating from both the private sector (tour operators) andeven some official authorities (Aveling, 1991; Stewart, 1992). A peace park would be of valuein enabling the development of regional tourism circuits bringing together the three countries,based on a diversification of ecotourism attractions. One of the consequences of such aconcerted strategy would be to “dilute” the pressure on natural resources from tourism bydividing the demand more equitably between the three countries.

Objectives at a political and diplomatic level


A peace park would intensify the contacts between the three national protected areaauthorities

Contacts developed under the aegis of a peace park represent a remarkable opportunity forthe intensification of regional co-operation in the field of biodiversity conservation. This will alsofacilitate the harmonisation of conservation policies, not only for the three national parksconcerned, but at a national level in each of the three countries. It would therefore be possibleto speak of three networks of protected areas that would benefit from the new dynamics.

A peace park is a tool for political stabilisation in the region

After the more than 6 years of civil strife that have ravaged the Great Lakes region, thecreation of a peace park would represent a positive action by the three concerned countries, asymbol of their respective desire to take the path of conflict resolution. Far from pretending tobe a solution to the crisis that has enveloped this region of Central Africa, a peace parkrepresents a “cornerstone in the building of long-term peace” and its value, albeit onlysymbolic, must not be underestimated.

Existing and potential constraints (feasibility)

Existing constraints

Communication problems

The three countries included do not share the same official language (in Rwanda and DRC,the official language is French, whereas in Uganda it is English). This constraint, however,should not be insurmountable given that: a) the populations bordering the national parksconcerned speak the same language group (Kinyarwanda and Rukiga), and b) Rwanda hasrecently become bilingual, utilising both French and English.

Different administration systems

Due to their shared colonial past, official institutions in DRC and Rwanda operate on the basisof similar administrative and bureaucratic systems. In Uganda, on the other hand, the officialadministration is based on the Anglo-Saxon system. These differences could have potentiallynegative repercussions on efforts at harmonising management approaches in the threeprotected areas included in a peace park.

Relative importance of the three protected areas at a national level

The Volcanoes National Park is an extremely important site in Rwanda, both in terms ofconservation of biodiversity as well as in terms of national economy. At the opposite extreme,Mgahinga Gorilla National Park is only considered a “minor” national park for Uganda, whereasBwindi Impenetrable National Park is central in terms of both biodiversity conservation andeconomic development. The Mikeno sector (ca. 250 km2) of the Virunga National Park in DRCrepresents only a tiny portion of a very large protected area covering about 8,000 km2, but isnevertheless very important in bringing in substantial tourism revenues. The differences inrelative importance, although they may appear insignificant, could also have a negative impacton the degree to which the different governments are willing to invest in the creation of apeace park.

Potential constraints

Diplomatic context


Although diplomatic relations between the three countries concerned are currently excellent,the recent past has demonstrated that tensions have existed and that they can seriouslyundermine the climate of confidence existing at a regional level. It is always possible that adeterioration of diplomatic relations could occur that would slow the process of development oreffective functioning of a peace park.

Administrative constraints with respect to border crossings and security

This is a classical constraint in a network of transfrontier protected areas (Blake, 1993). It isintensified in this case by the fact that the region is only recently coming out of a period of civilwar where the Virunga massif served as an entry point and passage way for groups of armedforces. Security is currently still a problem, as the forest is being used by armed forces andmilitias. Therefore border crossings have to be thoroughly checked, complicating ease ofpassage and making relaxation of immigration formalities for effective co-managementimpossible

Legislative and institutional framework

Institutional framework

In each of the three countries, management and conservation of protected areas is theresponsibility of parastatal organisations falling under the jurisdiction of ministerialdepartments. Werikhe et al. have described the three protected area authorities and we willnot enter into the details. The fact that we are dealing with comparable field managementstructures is already a strength in fostering transfrontier collaboration between the threecountries. Each of the three organisations has a relatively high level of functional autonomy,which can lead to the adoption of common initiatives. As a first step, this can include therapprochement between the managers of the three national parks, and the implementation ofcommon activities (see below).

Legislative framework

Status of the three constituents of the Virunga Massif

Although each of the three protected areas has the status of a national park (IUCNclassification, category II), international recognition differs between the sites: the VirungaNational Park is a World Heritage Site, the Volcanoes National Park is part of the Man and theBiosphere Programme (UNESCO), whereas the Mgahinga Gorilla National Park has nointernationally recognised status. These differences constitute a challenge to theharmonisation of management approaches in the three sites, and priority should be given tothe inclusion of Rwanda to the World Heritage Convention.

Role of international conventions

A number of treaties and conventions exist that could significantly contribute to theestablishment of a regional structure such as a peace park:

♦ Firstly, there exist a series of general agreements providing guidelines for co-operativerelations between nation states, such as the Charter of the United Nations (San Francisco,1945), the United Nations General Assembly Declaration of Principles of International Lawconcerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with theCharter of the United Nations (New York, 1970), or the Declaration of the United NationsConference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972). These agreements stimulatesignatory nations to deal with differences between themselves in a peaceful manner andunderline the necessity for co-operation between nations.


♦ In addition, there exist a number of agreements that specifically deal with the conservation

of nature and the environment, such as the United Nations General Assembly WorldCharter for Nature (New York, 1982), the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro,1992), the United Nations Declaration on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro,1992), or the World Heritage Convention. The latter convention could play a critical role,were a similar status to be accorded to the three national parks, by allowing for a uniformityin approach to management and international context.

At a regional level

Outside of a number of general bilateral agreements, mechanisms for regional co-operationbetween the three countries concerned have already been established. These mechanismsinclude components for the environment and for tourism: a) the Economic Community of theGreat Lakes Countries (CEPGL) includes DRC, Burundi, and Rwanda. CEPGL wasestablished in 1976 and recognises the role of environmental protection in sustainabledevelopment and the regional nature of many of the environmental issues for the Great Lakesregion; b) the Organisation of the Kagera Basin (OBK) includes Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzaniaand Uganda, and promotes industrial and economic co-operation in the region; c) thePreferential Trade Area (PTA) was a regional organisation that included Burundi, Kenya,Rwanda, Tanzania and DRC, with the objective of promoting preferential trade between itsmember countries. This PTA has now merged with southern African States into the COMESA(Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa).

Proposed strategy for the creation of a peace park in the Virungas

This section proposes a series of steps for the creation of a single management structure forthe three constituents of the Virunga conservation area. Some of these steps can overlap intiming, some needing to be started in the early phases to be finalised at a later date.

Designation and endorsement of a facilitator

The creation of a peace park must involve a neutral body, able to play the role of catalyst andfacilitator throughout the preparatory process and establishment of the park, following themodel developed for the Indochina reserve for peace and nature (Westing, 1993). Such aneutral body could be a non-governmental organisation (ex.: IUCN/WCPA), an operationalprogramme in the field (ex: IGCP) or a United Nations agency (ex: UNEP, or one of itsdependant structures such as GEF).

A number of activities have already been implemented in at least two of the three countriesconcerned. These activities were initiated independently and supported by the same externalpartners: IGCP has been involved for many years in tourism development, day-to-daymanagement and administration by the protected area authorities, training of field-basedpersonnel and ecological monitoring. More recently, the Morris Animal Foundation hasprovided a framework for health monitoring and veterinary support in the Virunga massif andthe Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund is proposing to develop a community-based conservationprogramme. The merit of these different activities is that they are building a solid foundation ineach of the three countries, which can then be fused into an extensive regional programmewhen the appropriate moment arrives.

Informal contacts

Informal contacts can be initiated before an official facilitator is designated. For example,activities implemented by IGCP since 1991 have paved the way for the development of regularcollaboration between the Office Rwandais du Tourisme et des Parcs Nationaux, the Institut


Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature and the Uganda Wildlife Authority. Such informalcontacts between the official protected area authorities in the respective countries can bemade at both local and central administration level (in other words, at the headquarters level inthe respective capital cities).

Equally, it is at this stage that attempts can be made to harmonise the status of the threeprotected areas: steps can be taken to have the three sites recognised by the World HeritageConvention, and contacts can be taken with the MAB programme (UNESCO) and with theIUCN.

Initiate joint activities

As soon as conditions permit, efforts should be made towards the development of regionalactivities that involve two (bilateral collaboration) or three countries. Collaborative activities canthus be extended to include the following aspects:

♦ planning and development of integrated conservation strategies, harmonising the activitiesdeveloped in the 3 countries

♦ joint patrols for surveillance

♦ implementation of an ecological monitoring programme

♦ development of a communication network

♦ development of an integrated tourism strategy

♦ allowing free passage to tourists and field-based personnel across borders

♦ implementation of a common regional training strategy

♦ development of a common methodology for data analysis

♦ implementation of similar community-based conservation strategies

Some of these activities have already been initiated, notably under the auspices of IGCP:training strategy, ecological monitoring programme and joint patrols.

Extending discussions to other authorities/departments

Although the protected area authorities have a great deal of autonomy in each of the threecountries, it will be necessary to extend the discussions on the development of a peace park toother authorities in the three concerned countries. These authorities will include the Ministriesresponsible for the environment and protected areas, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, thepresidential offices, legislative bodies (such as parliament), etc.

Given that in many cases these same authorities will be involved in the ratification ofinternational conventions and treaties, it is at this stage that the harmonisation of the status ofthe three protected areas will be finalised: signature by Rwanda of the World HeritageConvention, inclusion of the PNV and MGNP as World Heritage sites, inclusion of PNVi andMGNP in the MAB programme.

Signature of a “Memorandum of understanding”

A preliminary document will be proposed for signature by the three governments involved,based on the model utilised for the creation of a peace park in Indochina. The objective is todraft and have a interim “memorandum of understanding” signed between the governments(Westing, 1993), that will pave the way for the actual agreement establishing a peace park inthe Virungas. This MOU will describe the parties and endorser, define the peace park and list


the interim steps that will lead to the formal agreement, subject to ratification by the legislativebodies of the three countries.

Preparation of a formal agreement

This is the most important, and most delicate step in that it will influence the stability of theentire process. The three steps to envisage include: a) drafting of a formal agreement; b)identification of funding mechanisms; and, c) setting up of the structures for a peace park.

The agreement will outline in its preamble the legislative background of the peace park, defineits purpose, describe the parties and the endorsing partner, and define the peace park and itsstructures (being a commission or another mechanism) and modes of operation.

Funding

Adequate financing may well be the most difficult aspect in the development and effectivefunctioning of a peace park (Dennis and Spergel, 1993). It is possible, however, to envisagethat the creation of such a park would attract the curiosity and attention of the internationalcommunity and would thus increase funding possibilities. Three principal types of funding canbe envisaged, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:

1. “Classical” funding, where bilateral or multilateral donors make funds available for thedevelopment of a regional programme. Various examples of regional programmes exist inCentral Africa: the ECOFAC project, financed by the European Union, or the CARPEproject, financed by USAID. The advantage of such funding is that relatively large sums canbecome available as soon as they are attributed to a programme. The disadvantage is thatthey are generally slow to be implemented and the administration of managementprocedures and the disbursement of funds tend to be complicated and slow. In addition,such support falls under the approach of a “project”, limited in time and submitted to politicalconsiderations linked to both the donor and the beneficiary nation.

2. Funding through a “Trust Fund”: financing conservation through a trust fund has been tried

in a number of African countries (Dillenbeck, 1994), most notably in the BwindiImpenetrable National Park and the Mgahinga Gorilla National Park (through the Bwindi andMgahinga Forests Conservation Trust Fund). The advantage of such a formula is to providelong-term financing, at least in theory. It would be possible to envisage the creation of asingle regional trust that would provide a guaranteed source of funding even in times ofinstability, as long as the funds are invested outside of the zone considered. Such a trustwould be more reliable than a national trust fund, as it would be less open to externalinfluences (Dennis and Spergel, 1993), but it would be more likely to be confronted withtechnical problems linked to the financial modalities of its implementation. One could alsoenvisage the establishment of three individual national trusts with a common managementand co-ordination system for the three countries (coinciding with the peace park structures).The inconvenience of trust funds is the generally lengthy process of establishment, as wellas the difficulty of the management and administration of one or more trusts. In order forsuch a funding mechanism to be immediately effective, it is necessary that a sufficientamount of capital is invested so that the interest generated can finance activities.

3. Establishment of an international or local non-governmental organisation that can serve as

a basis for the management of a peace park and for centralising sources of funding. Theexample of IGCP is suggestive: the core funds of this programme enabled it to assist thethree national parks of the Virunga Massif throughout the long years of civil war and strifethat have plagued the region. At the same time, outside sources of funding enabled theprogramme to support rehabilitation activities (WWF and UNHCR funds for Rwanda andDRC, for example) and development activities (for example USAID funds in Uganda). The


advantage of such a system is that it is very flexible and can react rapidly when necessary.The disadvantage is that it is difficult to plan activities for more than a few years at a timeand the absence of any guaranteed long-term funding.

Conclusions

The Great Lakes Region is barely coming out of several long years of civil strife anddifficulties. Security problems continue to plague the Virunga massif, suggesting that theestablishment of a peace park must be considered a long term objective for the moment. Thecomplexity of such a structure implies, however, that the preparations must be started now,initiating activities that will pave the way for the future. An excellent climate of confidencealready exists between the three protected area authorities involved. This confidence has beenamply demonstrated by the joint presentation given today by representatives of the threecountries. We also recognise that one of the primary premises for the establishment of apeace park is precisely this mutual confidence, where each of the partners is completelycommitted to co-operation and openness.

We therefore find ourselves at the first step of a long process that will probably take a numberof years to reach its goal. At the end of this process the entire region will hopefully be able toenjoy the effects of recovered peace and stability while at the same time maintaining andprotecting the outstanding ecosystems of the Virunga massif.

Bibliography

Aveling, R. (1991). Gorilla tourism - possibilities and pitfalls. Unpublished report, AfricanWildlife Foundation, Nairobi.

Blake, G.H. (1993). Transfrontier collaboration: a worldwide survey. in: Westing, A.H.ed.,Transfrontier reserves for peace and nature: a contribution to human security. UNEP,Nairobi: 35-48.

d'Huart, J.P. (1992). Armed Conflicts and Protected Areas in Central Africa. IVth WorldCongress of National Parks & Protected Areas (Caracas), 11 pp.

Dennis, J.V. & B.A. Spergel (1993). Protected natural areas: the financial challenge. in:Westing, A.H.ed., Transfrontier reserves for peace and nature: a contribution to humansecurity. UNEP, Nairobi: 59-65.

Dillenbeck, M. (1994). National Environmental Funds: a new mechanism for conservationfinance. Parks 4(2): 39-46.

Fossey, D. (1983). Gorillas in the mist. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Holowesko, L. (1995). The Bahamas National Trust: an option for protected area management.Parks 5(3): 20- 25.

IGCP (1996). International Gorilla Conservation Programme 1995, Annual Update. GorillaConservation News 10: 17-18.

May, J.F. (1996). Pression démographique et politiques de population au Rwanda, 1962-1994.Population et Sociétés, 319: 1-4.

Oates, J.F. (1996). African Primates. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN,Gland, Switzerland.


Sarmiento, E.E. & T.M. Butynski (1996). Present problem in gorilla taxonomy. Gorilla Journal12: 5-7.

Schaller, G.B. (1963). The Mountain Gorilla: ecology and behavior. University of ChicagoPress, Chicago.

Simons, P. (1988). Conservation parks for peace. New Scientist, 117(1599): 23.

Stewart, K.J. (1992). Gorilla tourism: problems of control. Gorilla Conservation News 6: 15-16

Thorsell, J. (1991). Protected areas in the combat zone. IUCN Bulletin 22(3): 22-23.

Vedder, A. & Weber, W. (1990). The Mountain Gorilla Project (Volcanoes National Park). in:Living with Wildlife: Wildlife Resource Management with Local Participation in Africa,World Bank Technical Paper n° 130 (ed. A. Kiss), World Bank, Washington, D.C.

Weber, W. (1993). Primate conservation and ecotourism in Africa. Pp. 129-150, in C.S. Potter,J.I. Cohen, D. Janezewski, eds. Perspectives on Biodiversity: Case studies of GeneticResource Conservation and Development. AAAS.

Westing, A.H. (1993). From hope to reality: establishing an indochina tri-state reserve forpeace and nature. in: Westing, A.H.ed., Transfrontier reserves for peace and nature: acontribution to human security. UNEP, Nairobi: 99-102.


LEBANON - THE ROLE OF THE PROTECTED AREAS PROJECT IN PROMOTING PEACE

By: Faisal Abu-IzzeddinProject ManagerProtected Areas ProjectMinistry of Environment, Lebanon

INTRODUCTION

Lebanon has an estimated population of about 3.5 million and an annual population growth of2%. About 65% of the total population is concentrated in eight principal urban areas. It hastraditionally been a haven for Arab capital and has acted as an open route for trade betweeneast and west. Before 1974 it enjoyed a long period of rapid economic growth and financialstability.

Lebanon is a small country in area, 10,450 sq. km., and represents a typical easternMediterranean climate with two mountain ranges running from north to south creating anumber of varied and rich habitats. All the habitats and the species they harbour are at riskbecause of the lack of proper enforcement of existing laws that protect forests and theirwildlife.

In fact, the issue of over-exploitation of natural resources in Lebanon is thousands of yearsold, and the urgent need to conserve the remaining forests and wildlife is a vital part of thefuture of the country if it is to promote national reconciliation, maintain its ecological balance,achieve sustainable development, and regain its tourist attraction to visitors from around theworld.

Today less than 5% of Lebanon has a forest cover compared to 15% or more at the turn of thecentury. Records dating back to 2500 BC indicate that forests covered most of MountLebanon. Numerous ancient inscriptions are full of references to the "cedar forests" and theirdiversity of flora and fauna. A good example of this was the visit by the Roman EmperorHadrian to Lebanon almost two thousand years ago. He was shocked to find that most of thecedars and pines had been cut, and he ordered that stone inscriptions be placed around theremaining forests declaring them as "imperial domain". It may well be one of the first writtenconservation laws in the history of mankind.

The exact loss of species as a result of the destruction of these forests may never be known,however, it is clear that their absence robbed the country of much of its intrinsic beauty and leftLebanon with a landscape that is quickly turning into a desert. However, despite this loss ofbiodiversity Lebanon continues to have thousands of species of flowering plants many ofwhich are endemic, hundreds of species of birds that migrate over Lebanon, numerousspecies of mammals, reptiles, insects, fish and molluscs.

The massive building boom that sprang up after the recent civil war is accelerating the rate ofenvironmental destruction across the country. Contractors demand and receive access todiminishing water supplies, concrete, stone and sand with little or no regard to theenvironment. Factories pump their poisonous wastes into the sea, noxious fumes fill the air,garbage is dumped along the coast, trees are cut for firewood and charcoal, livestock grazeeroding slopes, and migrating birds continue to be shot in the thousands.

TWO DECADES OF WAR

From 1974 to 1990 Lebanon suffered a violent and bloody civil war which resulted intremendous loss of human lives, massive destruction of property, reduction of productivecapacity, and fragmentation and weakening of the central authority. In economic terms


Lebanon's gross domestic product dropped from US$ 2,250 in 1974 to US$ 825 in 1990. Asan example, tourism was considered an important source of revenue for the country, but as aresult of the security situation it was drastically reduced.

In the absence of effective government institutions during the war, the task of speaking outagainst the deteriorating environmental conditions was left up to concerned citizens, on allsides of the conflict. They established a number of NGOs for conservation of the environmentand distinguished themselves by operating under dangerous war time conditions. Theiractivities led to increased awareness and the enactment of a number of important laws anddecrees. The most active of these NGOs were the Society for Protection of Nature in Lebanon(SPNL), Friends of Nature (FON), Environmental Protection Committee (EPC), and Green Line(GL).

It is important to note that the twenty years separating the 1972 UN Conference on the HumanEnvironment and the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development witnessed verysignificant advances in dealing with global environmental issues. Unfortunately for Lebanon,those same two decades witnessed the destructive civil war that threatened its very survival.Now that stability has been restored, Lebanon is faced with many environmental difficultiesand is looking to the global community for help in dealing with them.

Fortunately, Lebanon has entered a number of agreements and legal obligations relating tothe environment. It ratified the World Heritage Convention on 3 Feb.1983, the Convention forthe Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution on 18 May 1983. Lebanon signedthe Convention on Biological Diversity on 12 June 1993 at the time of the UN Conference onEnvironment and Development in Rio de Janeiro and ratified it in 1994.

It was shortly before the Rio Conference that Lebanon enacted Law No 216 of 2 April 1993which created the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and entrusted it with the task of proposinglegislation, co-ordination and oversight on matters relating to the environment. Shortly after itsestablishment the MOE identified conservation of biodiversity as one of its areas of priority,and requested the UNDP Office in Lebanon to prepare a study for the establishment ofprotected areas for possible financing by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through theUnited Nations Development Programme. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) wascommissioned to prepare the Project Proposal which, after review by all the parties, wasapproved by the GEF Council as Project Document LEB/95/G31/A/1G/99 and awarded $2.5million over a period of five years.

THE PROTECTED AREAS PROJECT

Project LEB/95/G31/A/1G/99 - Strengthening of National Capacity and Grassroots In-SituConservation for Sustainable Biodiversity Protection, commonly known as the Protected AreasProject, commenced its work on 15 November, 1996 and is located at the Ministry ofEnvironment. The Project is focusing its resources on establishing and managing threedemonstration nature reserves in active partnership with the Ministry of Environment, NGOsand scientific institutions.

Although there are dozens of important areas in Lebanon that should be managed as naturereserves only three were selected for inclusion in the Project, Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve, HorshEhden Reserve, and Palm Islands Reserve on the grounds of their legislative standing,location and level of biodiversity.

To achieve the Project's major objectives of biodiversity conservation and capacity building thefollowing major activities already being implemented:


1. Conserving endemic and endangered wildlife and their habitats by establishing a co-ordinated system of protected areas, beginning with Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve, Horsh EhdenReserve, and Palm Islands Reserve, and through this process introducing wildlifeconservation as an integral part of sustainable human development.

2. Creating an institutional capacity for the NGOs directly responsible for the management and

protection of the reserves, wherein each nature reserve is provided with its ownmanagement team, management plan and continuous on-the-job training of staff.

3. Strengthening institutional capacity of Government agencies to regulate and oversee the

overall management of the reserves, and of scientific institutions to study the naturalresources and monitor the conservation efforts at these reserves and elsewhere.

4. Gathering, analysing and storing an accurate body of information that include species

surveys, socio-economic studies and monitoring programmes that utilise GIS/GPS mappingsystems to analyse results, and list, quantify and locate flora and fauna within the reserves.

5. Mounting an effective Awareness Campaign utilising a series of video introductions and

slide presentations designed to highlight the importance of biodiversity conservation,support fund raising activities, and alert government and public sectors to the urgent needfor protecting wildlife.

6. Strengthening national reconciliation by bringing people and institutions together from

different regions for the protection of nature.

THE NATURE RESERVES

Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve

Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve represents a mountainous ecosystem on the slopes of the centralportion of the Mt. Lebanon chain. The eastern slope faces the southern Bekaa valley andoverlooks the Ammik swamp. The western slope faces the Shouf region of Mount Lebanon. Itis made up of a series of peaks parallel to the sea and their altitude varies from 1200 to 2000meters. Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve has the largest self propagating stand of Cedars and islocated at the southern-most limit of this tree's growing range. It is one of the last remainingareas in Lebanon where larger mammals such as the wolf and wild boar can still be found, andwhere the ibex and mountain gazelle can be reintroduced.

A protected area in the Shouf region will be an asset to the community because a) the park issituated in the higher cedar zone and is not inhabited by anyone and therefore poses no threatto the inhabitants or their farming activities, b) the villagers will become active participants inthe planning and management of the park through their local NGO, the Al-Shouf CedarSociety.

Horsh Ehden Reserve

Horsh Ehden Reserve represents a mountainous ecosystem on the elevated slopes of thenorthern Mt. Lebanon chain (1300-1950 meters o.s.l) in the Governorate of North Lebanon.The area is 280 hectares, however more communal contiguous land that is owned by themunicipality could be added at a later date to expand the forest to 700 hectares. During thelast hundred years the terrain was inaccessible which spared the forest from heavy logging.

The inhabitants of the town of Ehden are summer residents who traditionally maintain winterhomes in the town of Zgharta near the coast. It is predominantly a residential community withshops and services to cater to the residents and vacationing tourists.


Palm Islands Reserve

The Palm Islands represent an eastern Mediterranean marine island ecosystem and is madeup of the Palm, Sanani and Ramkine Islands. The islands and surrounding water constitute anintegrated natural marine basin with a surface area of 5 km2 off the coast of the city of El-Mina, which is the harbour section of the city of Tripoli. The Islands are important bird restingand nesting areas for migrating and indigenous birds; and are rich in wild flowers.

As a result of the uncontrolled use of these islands the wildlife, both flora and fauna, havesuffered tremendously. People have also been adversely affected, particularly the fishermen.Increased tourism to and around the islands will provide the fishermen with added income asthey ferry people back and forth under the guidance of the park rangers responsible for theislands.

PROMOTING PEACE IN LEBANON

National reconciliation is an intangible, but nonetheless real, component of the ProtectedAreas Project. It is a difficult parameter to measure when it is considered on its own. However,its impact can be partly measured by studying the progress of a number of Project activitiesand estimating their effect on national reconciliation and hence peace in Lebanon.

1. Visiting the Reserves

The fragmentation of the country during the civil war prohibited the movement of men, womenand especially children, from one area to another. As a result an entire "war generation" ofLebanese do not know each other and are not familiar with many regions of their country.Mending the fragmentation of the country by bringing people together from all the differentareas of Lebanon and reintroducing them to their natural heritage through properly organizedand guided tours in the nature reserves will be the Project's primary contribution to nationalreconciliation.

2. Appointing Local NGOs

Appointing local NGOs to plan, protect and manage the nature reserves was a calculatedmove designed to promote national reconciliation by diffusing tensions and minimisingunwanted friction between opposing factions in Lebanon. This safeguard was incorporatedearly into the project to ensure that management practices are fully compatible with localpolitical, social and religious institutions.

3. Bringing Institutions Together

National reconciliation will be enhanced by bringing institutions together so that Government,NGOs and scientific institutions will work together to establish a network of nature reservesthat are surveyed, studied and monitored according to internationally recognised standards.This is the first time that such a wide array of people will work together for the conservation ofnature.

4. Allowing Ideas and Solutions to Interact

By approaching the problem of national reconciliation from the perspective of people,communities and institutions, and by allowing ideas and solutions to be brought together onmany different levels through the a peaceful activities of nature conservation, the chances of asuccessful outcome are enhanced. Any other approach could arouse animosities that lead toconflicts.


5. Upgrading the Role of Women

Women constitute the largest segment of active conservationists in Lebanon today and they,more than men, deplore the destruction of all living resources in the country. Their majorcontribution to the educational, public awareness and field research components of thisconservation project cannot be exaggerated, nor for that matter their role in promoting peace.

6. Increasing International Financial Support

International recognition and financial support for Lebanon from the developed nations of theworld can help a great deal in furthering national reconciliation. This is possible if Lebanonchooses to provide safe shelters for all birds, both migrants and residents, and the governmentsupports efforts to impose a five year hunting moratorium throughout Lebanon. The globalimpact of protecting the migrant birds would be immediate. It would be felt in Europe, Asia andAfrica where their numbers will increase. The benefit of this to Lebanon would be the gratitudeof many nations in the world who would consider with favour the financial requests fromLebanon.

TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREAS

The advantages of transboundary protected areas for Lebanon cannot be denied, especiallywhen it impacts positively on conservation of biodiversity. The desirability of transboundaryprotected areas was raised during a working meeting of the Syrian Minister of State for theEnvironment and the Lebanese Minister of Environment, and their respective staff, inDamascus on 9 March 1997. After the issue was introduced, a discussion followed thatreviewed the desirability of such a venture. A decision was reached that cooperation andstudies are needed for establishment of such transboundary protected areas. The subject wasagain raised, and its potential confirmed, during a follow-up meeting of the two Ministers inBeirut on 13 June 1997.

At this point in time it is not practical to expect that either Syria or Lebanon are ready toestablish transboundary protected areas. The meetings of the Ministers allowed us tointroduce the subject, not only to the Ministers but to their staff as well. The subject will enterthe realm of implementation when each of these two countries has its own functional networkof protected areas. Lebanon is now on its way to establishing such a system of parks andreserves, and Syria is in the early stages of doing the same.


PARKS, PEACE AND PROGRESS: A FORUM FOR TRANSBOUNDARY CONSERVATION ININDOCHINA

By: Thomas C. Dillon † and Eric D. Wikramanayake †‡

† WWF-Indochina Program116 Yet Kieu Street; Hanoi, VietnamEmail: [email protected]

‡ Conservation Science ProgramWWF-US1250, Twenty-Fourth Street, NW; Washington D.C. 20037

INTRODUCTION

In July 1997, three years after finding the largest muntjac species--the giant muntjac--in theforests of Vietnam, possibly the smallest of the muntjacs was discovered. Scientists are callingthe new species the Truong Son muntjac (Giao et al., in review) after the area along theVietnam-Lao border where it was found. This is the fifth new large mammal species scientistshave described from the forests of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia during the past five years(Box 1), attesting to the biological richness of these forested habitats. The natural habitats inthese countries, however, have become fragmented, or are becoming increasingly so; a causefor concern about the long-term survival of the forests and the faunal assemblages theyharbor.

With much of Indochina’s remaining blocks of natural forest dissected by international borders(Dinerstein et al., 1995), a transboundary approach to conservation is an essential aspect ofbiodiversity protection in Indochina. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam have established severalprotected areas close to or along the borders with their neighboring countries (MacKinnon,1993a). In many instances, however, these protected areas can be greatly augmented andtheir effectiveness enhanced by complementary protection on the opposite side of therespective international border and by coordinated planning between the countries. Larger,transborder conservation complexes would especially be better suited to support viablepopulations of the wide-ranging, larger animal species that require expansive habitats(Wikramanayake et al., in press) and such parallel gazettement would lessen the managementburden of each country as well (MacKinnon, 1993b).

Box 1. New Mammal Discoveries in Indochina

The species-rich border forests of Indochina are largely unexplored scientifically, and several new speciesdiscoveries and rediscoveries have been made over the past few years, most noteworthy being several species oflarge mammals: saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) (Dung et. al., 1994), giant muntjac (Megamuntiacus vuquangensis)(Tuoc, et.al, 1994), Truong Son muntjac (Muntiacus truongsonensis) (Giao et. al., in review), Pseudonovibos spiralis(Peter and Feiler, 1994), and Indochinese warty pig (Sus bucculentus) (Groves et al., in press). Many more speciesvery likely await scientific discovery. These finds help confirm that Indochina's forests, particularly along theCambodia, Laos, and Vietnam borders, are of global conservation priority (Wikramanayake et al., in prep).

Indochina's recent steps towards transboundary cooperation are positive developments thatcould lead to enhanced biodiversity and natural resource protection as well as increasedpolitical stability in the sub-region. Effective conservation of many of Indochina’s forest biomesdepends upon coordinated planning and cooperation between Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.Due to social conflicts, the necessary potential for transboundary conservation cooperation didnot exist until recently. To facilitate and catalyze the emerging dialogue, the IndochinaBiodiversity Forum project (the Forum) was conceived (UNDP, 1993).


Three areas were identified as having the greatest potential to form transboundary protectedareas complexes in the Forum’s first sub-regional meeting in November 1995. The complexesare: the Northern Annamite Range, which contains several protected areas in both Laos andVietnam that protect more than 1,000,000 hectares of habitats ranging from wet and dryevergreen and semi-evergreen forests in the north to a large limestone forest in the south; theCambodia-Laos-Vietnam Tri-Border area, which comprises a protected areas complex of morethan 800,000 hectares; and the Cambodia-Thailand-Laos Tri-Border area which consists of theforest and wetlands where Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia meet. These complexes requiresome extensions and additions to the existing protected areas to create links to and connectproximate, protected areas.

This paper provides a broad overview of the context and issues relevant to transboundaryconservation in Indochina, outlines the structure and approach the Forum has taken toaddress the issue in this sub-region, and comments on the future of the transboundaryprotected areas and their potential for enhancing peace and stability.

INDOCHINA IN CONTEXT

To understand the constraints, pitfalls, and opportunities for transboundary conservation inIndochina, it is important to understand the socio-political setting and the natural features thatpresent conservation opportunities.

Political Features

At times the term "Indochina" is used geographically to refer to all mainland Southeast Asiancountries located between India and China (not including peninsular Malaysia). More often,however, the use of the term refers to the countries of Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.Although the three countries do not share a common language and have quite distinctcultures, their histories have been long intertwined and affected by common forces.

For the past several hundred years, the dominant and competitive forces influencing thesubregion have been China, Thailand and Vietnam. Cambodia and Laos have in many waysserved as buffers between Thailand and Vietnam. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam comprisedFrench Indochina from the 1880s to 1954 (Vien, 1992). During the French colonial era, theVietnamese dominated French Indochina's administrative structure and to this day Vietnam stillhas a powerful influence on the politics and economics of its two smaller neighbors.

Today, disagreements exist regarding various border issues, such as exact location of theinternational boundaries, migration by Vietnamese into Laos and Cambodia, and exploitationof natural resources across borders. Transboundary conservation is helping to lessen thesuspicions of each country’s motives on sensitive issues and contributing to an improveddialogue and trust in the region.

War Legacy

All three countries were involved in varying levels in the conflict known as the American War inVietnam and the Vietnam War in the United States, destroying vast amounts of natural areas.In Vietnam alone, it is estimated that up to 2 million hectares of land may have been damagedduring the war (World Bank, 1995). During the war, the many veins of the Ho Chi Minh Trail,the famous supply route stretching from northern Vietnam to the war front in central andsouthern Vietnam, cut its way through the forests constituting the frontiers between thesethree countries. Massive aerial bombing of that network of roads and trails has left a legacy ofunexploded bombs which still lie scattered throughout the transfrontier forests of Indochina.The problem of neutralising unexploded bombs in eastern Cambodia's frontiers is


compounded by the existence of millions of land mines strewn throughout western Cambodia,most of which were lain in the civil warfare of the 1980s.

Indochina's Minority Peoples

In all three countries, the minority peoples are, for the most part, traditionally shifting cultivatorswho live mainly in upland areas. Almost half of the population of Laos is ethnic minority, whileVietnam contains 54 different ethnic groups which constitute 13 percent of the population. Themajority ethnic group in each respective country, are traditionally lowland wet rice agriculturists.

Box 2. Community Participation

In 1960 the Ruc (zook) consisted of approximately 500 people. By 1996 their population had dwindled to 285. Thelast group of people in Vietnam known to subsist by hunting and gathering, the Ruc migrate throughout a limestoneforest shared both by Vietnam and Laos - not bounded by the political frontier.

The Ruc are dependent on harvesting forest products such as the Doac tree (Arenca pinnata). The tree contributesto their diet, provides poles for their temporary homes, and its bark is distilled for alcohol. In attempts to sedentarizethe Ruc, the Government of Vietnam in 1992 built permanent homes for these people and provided funds for livestockand rice cultivation. But the Ruc returned to their nomadic life in the forest soon after.

Understanding better the relationship of the Ruc to the forest and including their views into the transboundarydialogue is vital to ensuring successful conservation. The Forum’s 2 field surveys into Phong Nha Nature Reservehave helped gain some insight about the Ruc and the Forum plans to cooperate with the Ruc people intransboundary conservation planning of the area.

Data from Canh et.al., 1997a.

It is natural, therefore, that the Indochina frontiers, mainly characterized by mountains and highplateaus, are populated primarily by minority peoples. This situation is changing in some areas,most notably in the central highlands of Vietnam, as lowlanders migrate into upland areasseeking land. This change is usually associated with deforestation and loss of biodiversity asthe shifting cultivation regime is disrupted and the fallow cycle is shortened. The official policyof Laos is to resettle all upland peoples to lowland areas and teach them paddy (wet rice)agriculture by the year 2000.

Some of the minority groups migrate across the borders, such as the Ruc peoples (Box 2) whoinhabit the limestone forests shared by Vietnam’s western Quang Binh Province and Laos'eastern Khammouane Province (Canh et al., 1997a). Other groups, such as the Jarai, are splitby international borders in the highlands of both Cambodia and Vietnam.

These borders are still considered politically sensitive as various minority groups in Vietnam'scentral highlands fought alongside South Vietnam and the United States. A government policyencouraging migration into the central highlands by the Vietnamese ethnic majority (the Kinh)has ensured political allegiance to Hanoi.

Demographics and Natural Forest Cover

With approximately 77 million people, Vietnam is one of the most densely populated countriesin the world (PRB, 1996). This large human population has exacted a heavy toll on Vietnam'snatural forest cover; only 10 percent of the country's land area is now covered by good qualityoriginal forest (BAP, 1994). Approximately 37 percent of the country is classified as barelands. In neighboring Laos, human population, estimated at 5 million (PRB, 1996), isconsiderably lower; extensive shifting cultivation, however, has resulted in heavy loss of forestcover, especially in the north (Chape, 1996). Both Laos and Vietnam suffer from flash floods


during the monsoons as a result of deforestation reducing the forest sponge effect of the area.(MacKinnon, 1993a).

Cambodia, with a population of 11 million (PRB, 1996), still retains much of its natural forestcover (between 30% and 56% of total land area depending on source of information). Thegranting of large-scale forest and plantation concessions to foreign companies, however, placeCambodia's forests under immediate threat (World Bank, 1996).

Other Natural Features

The rugged mountains of the Truong Son Range form much of the international boundarybetween Laos and Vietnam. The Lao side of the border drains into the Mekong River and theVietnamese side drains into the Gulf of Tonkin and South China Sea (or East Sea as it isreferred to in Vietnam). The mountains extend southwards to form the Kon Tum and Bolovansplateaus which extend from Vietnam into Laos and Cambodia. The relative inaccessibility ofthese montane areas has been largely responsible for the band of forest that exists along theLao-Vietnam and Cambodia-Vietnam borders.

The forests of Laos, northern Cambodia, and the central highlands of Vietnam also constituteimportant and significant watersheds of the Mekong river system. The Sekong, Se San andSrepok Rivers originate in the Kon Tum and Bolovans plateaus, and flow through southernLaos and northern Cambodia, contributing about 15% to 20% of the Mekong River’s flow(Baird, 1995a). Several ambitious hydro-electric schemes have been planned for all theserivers and their significant tributaries. These dams are expected to displace minority peoples,flood biodiversity-rich lowland forest, and degrade fisheries (Baird, 1995b; Colm, 1997).

Protected Area Systems

In 1993, both Laos and Cambodia established extensive protected areas systems. AlthoughVietnam established its first post-colonial protected area, Cuc Phuong National Park, in 1962,most of its protected areas were gazetted in the 1980s and 1990s. But because of thefragmented habitat in Vietnam its protected areas are relatively small (Fig. 1). The protectedareas in Cambodia and Laos, which have relatively more large forest blocks, are relativelylarge, and exceed by far, the average size of Asian protected areas (Dinerstein andWikramanayake, 1993).

INDOCHINA TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREA COMPLEXES

Opportunities

All three countries have natural habitats adjacent to the international borders between thesecountries that are of high enough biodiversity value to contribute significantly towards atransboundary conservation system (Fig. 1). There are two primary clusters of protected areas.A third potential area contains ideal habitat near the borders but does not have protectedareas gazetted yet.

Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam Tri-Border

This protected area complex of roughly 8,000 km2 (800,000 hectares) comprises a large part ofthe Eastern Indochina Moist Forests ecoregion (Wikramanayake et al., in prep) and forms thecore of the highest priority Tiger Conservation Unit (TCU) in Indochina (Dinerstein at al., 1997).It also is one of Indochina's main floristic biodiversity centers (Schmid, 1993) At 335,000hectares, Cambodia's Virachey National Park is one of the largest protected areas in mainlandSoutheast Asia and serves as the "biodiversity anchor" or "core protected area" in a largerlandscape matrix of other important protected areas, natural habitat linkages, buffer zones,


community forests, plantations, agricultural areas, settlements, and other land-uses. The otherprotected areas are Mom Ray in Vietnam, and Laos’s Nam Khong and Dong Amphan.

Although the tri-border area contains some of Southeast Asia's largest forested landscapes,large logging concessions, planned oil palm plantations, hydro-schemes, and other planneddevelopment processes threaten to make the current and proposed protected areas insularparks. In this event, the indigenous people now living around the parks will lose theirtraditional resource base and likely view the remaining forests as a potential alternative, posingadditional threats to the area's ecological integrity.

However, careful land-use planning could create a better conservation landscape for wildlifeand natural resources, and also help to maintain a better human environment. Conservingthese links would also help to conserve the watersheds of the rivers that feed into the MekongRiver, help to stabilize the upland areas, allow maintenance of forests for the local people tocollect non-timber forest products, and serve as genetic reservoirs for reseeding the fallowagricultural areas.

Northern Annamite Range

Several protected areas in both Laos and Vietnam, which still contain extensive old-growthevergreen and semi-evergreen forest, straddle the Northern Annamite Range. Theseprotected areas -- Pu Mat, Vu Quang and Phong Nha in Vietnam and Nam Chuan, Nam TheunExtension, Nam Theun/Nakai and Hin Namno in Laos -- include approximately 10,000 km2

(1,000,000 hectares) of habitat ranging from wet and dry evergreen and semi-evergreenforests in the north to a large limestone forest in the south (MacKinnon, 1993a; Timmins andKhounboline, 1996; Canh et al., 1997a). These forests also contain several species of plantsand animals with very limited distributions, including several species of large mammals thathave been discovered over the past five years (Dung et al., 1994; Tuoc et al., 1994; Groves et.al., In Press; Giao et al., In Press). A significant factor affecting this transboundary complexare the hydroelectric dams already built and planned, particularly in Laos. The controversialNam Theun 2 dam, if built, will abut the western border of Nakai/Nam Theun NationalBiodiversity Conservation Area (NBCA).

Cambodia-Thailand-Laos Tri-Border

The forest and wetlands comprising the area where Thailand, Laos, and Cambodian meet (Fig1) is known to be particularly rich in wildlife on the Lao side in southern Champasak Province(Timmins and Vongkhamhang, 1996). It is known that the Cambodian side was still wildlife richin the 1950s, particularly with large ungulates (Wharton, 1957). The continued existence ofthese mammals cannot be confirmed since that part of Cambodia has been under KhmerRouge control since the 1970s. Protected areas do not yet exist on either the Lao orCambodian sides of the border.

Additional Constraints

Conservation Capacity

A significant constraint to conservation activities in Indochina is the lack of trained conservationprofessionals. Many of the educated people either fled or were killed during the Khmer Rougeregime in Cambodia. Laos and Vietnam were isolated from most of the non-communist worlduntil the late 1980s. Although Vietnam has many well-trained biologists, most lack exposure tocontemporary conservation principles and techniques. The majority of the biologists who areengaged in conservation activities are primarily taxonomists trained in the former Soviet bloccountries. A younger cohort of conservation biologists is only now beginning to appear.


The protected areas systems in all three countries were established recently; thus, many haveno staff, no infrastructure, no equipment, and lack adequate budgets for proper managementof the protected areas. Many of the protected areas and surrounding forests in the threecountries are threatened by chronic anthropogenic impacts such as shifting cultivation andhunting, and also from high intensity impacts such as large-scale logging, commercialplantations of cash crops, and road and hydro-electric development (World Bank, 1996; Canhet al., 1997b; Colm, 1997).

There is an extensive cross-border trade in wildlife and other forest products involving all threecountries that also poses a serious threat to conservation efforts (TRAFFIC, 1993; Woodfordet al., 1997). The wildlife trade, in particular, has severely decreased abundances of manyspecies, placing them on the brink of extinction and creating 'empty' forests throughout muchof the sub-region (Desai and Vuthy, 1996; Salter, 1993; Olivier and Woodford, 1994). Manyof the protected areas, therefore, require active conservation measures if the habitats and thespecies communities and even populations are to survive.

The lack of capacity and trained staff to manage and protect the reserve systems and theabsence of dialogue between the neighboring countries that would lead to cooperation inmitigating cross-border threats to conservation remain major constraints to alleviatingconservation threats, especially for transboundary conservation. Developing human resourcesand capacity to address these issues through recruitment and training is a priority, particularlyin Cambodia and Laos. Provision of outside technical assistance is limited, however, by thelow capacity of the conservation institutions to absorb training and other technical inputs.

Politics

As with many countries, central governments in Indochina have the least control of the borderareas and this contributes to the difficulties of implementing conservation in these remoteareas. This is further compounded by the political sensitivities that have risen through years ofconflict, causing disagreements over exact location of borders and suspicions about eachother’s motives regarding control of natural resources. This is especially evident in relationsbetween Cambodia and Vietnam.

In Cambodia, general instability and lawlessness and land-mines also pose problems toimplementing conservation activities. Several border forest areas between Cambodia andThailand which could be candidates for transboundary conservation attention are presently toodangerous to venture into and the security situation is in flux in other areas, such as Ratanakiriand Mondolkiri Provinces in the northeast.

The stark difference in economic and political power between Vietnam and its two smallerneighbors creates an asymmetrical power relationship. Vietnam’s dominance strains opendialogue and cooperation on natural resource management and conservation.

THE INDOCHINA BIODIVERSITY FORUM

With biodiversity conservation in Indochina at a fledging stage and little history of cooperationregarding land management, few attempts had been made to forge transboundary cooperationbefore the Indochina Biodiversity Forum, funded by the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme and implemented by the WWF Indochina Programme, began in July 1995. Themost significant previous effort to address the situation was organized by Dr. Arthur Westingunder the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and resulted in thepublication of a book with several detailed papers outlining the issues relevant to theestablishment of transfrontier reserves in Indochina (Westing, 1993).


To conserve these high priority border areas, it was suggested that transboundaryconservation in Indochina begin with incremental steps. Preliminary activities such as eachcountry independently managing complementary protected areas with abutting boundaries,dialogue between protected area managers, information exchange, and staff exchanges(MacKinnon, 1993b) were recommended. These activities were expected to lead to eventualrelaxation of border regulations and consequent joint surveys and cooperative lawenforcement. Following these recommendations, the Forum began by emphasizing “parallelconservation” as a first step toward formal cooperative activities between neighboringcountries.

Structure and Role of the Forum

The Indochina Biodiversity Forum was developed to establish a forum in which greater levelsof technical exchange and discussion on biodiversity conservation issues that require aninternational rather than national approach could occur. Transboundary conservation as thecore subject. Specifically, the mandate of the project is to:

♦ Identify transboundary areas of high conservation potential and priority along the bordersbetween Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam;

♦ Help design a transboundary protected areas system along the international borders of

Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam by identifying complementary cross-border protected areasor adding extensions to create links between existing protected areas that are close toeach other;

♦ Facilitate exchange of information for biodiversity conservation among conservation

personnel in the four countries; ♦ Provide training for conservation staff to develop capacity in the conservation sectors; ♦ Provide a forum for discussion and solving transboundary issues of conservation

relevance.

Project Administration

In order to administer and coordinate the project, WWF established a Project Secretariat withinits office in Hanoi. The role of the secretariat is to perform the tasks of coordinating andadministering the project activities. These responsibilities include drafting work plans, reportingto donors, coordinating field activities, fund raising, coordinating inputs into a biodiversityinformation management system, and maintaining communication links with national andinternational institutions. A permanent project staff of three in Hanoi, including a projectmanager, technical officer and administrative officer, and one conservation officer in Vientiane,perform these tasks. Two conservation scientists provide technical assistance with projectimplementation on a consultative basis.

Dialogue

Perhaps the most vital component of the project involves sponsoring meetings with technicaland political officers with the aim of facilitating discussion, information exchange, andcoordinated conservation planning. These meetings are held on both a sub-regional basis(Box 3), involving all four countries working with the project and on a bilateral or trilateral level,following the recommendations made by the workshop participants during the first sub-regionalmeeting (Box 4).


Box 3. Getting to Know Each Other

The first time many of the conservation officials involved with transboundary issues in Indochina met each other, theytravelled down a long and muddy road in the monsoon season to the middle of Vietnam’s Cuc Phuong National Park,deep in the middle of the forest. This was the location of the first Sub-regional Biodiversity Forum. The initialexchange of business cards was the first time many of the officials had contact information for each other. Later,officials from neighboring countries exchanged maps showing forest status and location of protected areas. By theend of farewell barbecue, all 50 representatives knew each other’s names.

The presentations and small group sessions were informative and spawned many recommendations for conservationactivities that should occur, including identification of priority transboundary areas. The most important step towardeventual establishment of transboundary protected areas, however, may have been the relationships startedbetween counterparts in neighboring countries.

Fifteen months later, a four-day Lao - Vietnam transboundary meeting was held in January 1997. The meeting wasthe first bilateral meeting between the governments of Laos and Vietnam on conservation issues. As a result of themeeting, the countries are now sharing information and discussing common actions in highly sensitive andbiologically rich areas on a regular basis.

Box 4. The First Meeting

The first significant dialogue pursued by the Project Secretariat was a sub- regional meeting in November, 1995consisting of more than 50 technical and administrative representatives from all four countries. The aim of themeeting, held at Cuc Phoung National Park, Vietnam, was to begin the process of information sharing and to producerecommendations that could set a course for the project.

Recommendations from the sub-regional meeting were:

♦ International meetings on transboundary conservation should be held at the bilateral level involving localauthorities from relevant border areas and staff of border protected areas to the fullest extent possible.

♦ Provincial contact across borders was considered to be especially useful for issues such as wildlifeinvestigations/surveys and in monitoring hunting and trade pressures.

♦ Information sharing should begin on species, locality information (i.e. news about which projects and whichprotected areas are being developed), habitats and socio- economic information.

♦ Joint international surveys were recommended as one way to promote cooperation and similar methodologysimilar survey techniques by teams on both sides of any international border.

♦ It was recognized that the capacity to conserve transfrontier areas was lacking and that assisting to build thatcapacity should be a high priority for the sub-region.

The transfrontier protected areas complexes were prioritized by each country, giving the project an indication of whichareas to focus its efforts.

Information Gathering

The dearth of information on the transfrontier forest areas necessitates gathering of additionalbiological and socio-economic information in these areas. The information is necessary forplanning a representational and complementary sub-regional protected areas system.Specifically, identification of what new protected areas should be declared and what type ofmanagement interventions should occur is important.

Information Management and Exchange


In order for information necessary for conservation activities to be available in an easy-to-usedigital database, the project has adopted a data management program developed by Dr. JohnMacKinnon, Asian Bureau for Conservation. It is a common link that eventually will enableinformation management and exchange among the four countries. This program -- BiodiversityInformation Management System (BIMS) -- integrates ArcInfo GIS coverages with conventionaldatabase files (FoxPro 2.5) to allow monitoring of the status of individual species, habitattypes, and protected areas.

The software can perform the following functions: process and store records resulting fromfield surveys; generate lists of known and expected species for any given area; locality lists forany given species, the statistics and status records for protected areas, including staff details;socio-economic information for surrounding and enclaved communities; conservation laws andpolicies, inter alia. BIMS also contains a number of analytical tools for evaluating speciesconservation status and gaps in the protected area system of a given country based on theremaining habitat types.

Capacity Building

A major function of the Project Secretariat is to assist the sub-region with improving itscapacity to perform transfrontier conservation. Capacity building will include trainingconservation staff, providing technical assistance and equipment. The Project Secretariat alsoserves as a facilitator, catalyst, and broker in seeking funds and technical assistance forconservation projects.

Project Implementation and Coordination

Many of the projects that are initiated or facilitated by the Project Secretariat run eitherindependently of the Project Secretariat or, if co-funded, in collaboration with the ProjectSecretariat. All, however, are closely coordinated with the Project Secretariat, which isresponsible for ensuring that the projects contribute to the overall context and objectives of asub-regional conservation strategy.

Progress

Dialogue Meetings

Since the first sub-regional transboundary meeting in Cuc Phoung National Park in 1995, theProject Secretariat has held provincial and bilateral forum meetings.

The first Lao-Vietnam Transborder Biodiversity Conservation Seminar was held from 21- 24January 1997 in North-central Vietnam. The meeting focused on five provinces -- Nghe An,Ha Tinh and Quang Binh in central Vietnam and Bolykamxai and Khammouane in centralLaos. These five provinces abut each other. More than 100 delegates from the district,provincial, and central governments of the two countries participated in the seminar, which wasalso attended by several international organizations.

At the meeting, the participants agreed that the forested area along the Lao-Vietnameseborder, within these five provinces is of high biodiversity value, and that conservation efforts todate had been inadequate. The participants recommended that complementary gazettementof protected areas should occur and the following actions be taken:

♦ include issues of biodiversity conservation into the agenda of regular semi-annual meetingsamong local authorities of the five provinces;


♦ ensure that the management boards of the nature reserves and national parks in the borderregion actively implement cooperation activities and regularly provide information onconservation status to one another;

♦ implement public information campaigns concentrating on these areas of high biodiversity

shared by the two countries; ♦ establish a joint Vietnam - Laos field survey team; ♦ prepare cooperative plans to develop ecotourism in the border region; ♦ prepare a proposal for a cluster of protected areas in the border region to be designated as

natural and cultural World Heritage Site; ♦ prepare plans to immediately prevent illegal exploitation, transborder transport, and trade of

animals and plants according to the laws of each country; and ♦ hold a second Lao - Vietnam Transboundary Conservation Seminar in 1998 in Laos.

The document containing the points outlined above was signed by the lead representatives ofeach country. Later, the Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister signed a decree embodying themajor points of the agreement.

Biological Surveys and Inventories

Biological surveys have been either initiated or coordinated by the Secretariat in prioritytransboundary areas in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.

Limestone Forests of Central Laos - Vietnam

Two multi-disciplinary surveys were conducted in Vietnam’s Quang Binh Province, along theLao-Vietnam border. The surveys, which involved biological and socio-economic experts fromvarious Vietnamese institutions, were conducted during the late dry season of 1996 and earlydry season of 1996/1997 in the extensive limestone forests of Vietnam's Quang Binh Province.

The objectives of the surveys were to collect information on the relative species richness of thearea and to assess the feasibility of enlarging Phong Nha Nature Reserve to include theadjoining Ke Bang forest, a change that would triple the size of the protected area and alterthe boundaries to meet Hin Namno NBCA in Laos.

Together the two protected areas will comprise 200,000 hectares of limestone forest which arerich in botanical diversity and will provide protected habitat for populations of two endangeredprimates, the red-shanked duoc langur (Pygathrix n. nemaeus) and the Ha Tinh langur(Trachpithecus f. hatinhensis), which are endemic to Indochina (Canh et al., 1997a). Theseprotected areas also harbor several other endangered species (Canh, et al. 1997a; Timminsand Khounboline, 1996). If extended, the protected areas will connect through the Hin NamnoNBCA to Nam Theun NBCA and, therefore, also to the Nam Theun extension, Nam Chuan, VuQuang, and Pu Mat; an overall contiguous transboundary protected area complex ofapproximately one million hectares (Fig. 1).

Wet Evergreen Forests of Central Laos - Vietnam

In the dry season of 1997 (May, June) a feasibility survey for whether a new protected areashould be designated was conducted in Vietnam's western Quang Binh Province. The


compilation and analysis of the survey results have convinced the Ministry of Agriculture andRural Development to recommend the Government of Vietnam to gazette a new 100,000 haprotected area called Song Thanh/Dakpring on the Lao border. The boundaries of thisprotected area are still under preparation, but in all likelihood it will abut the proposed southernextension of Laos' Xe Sap NBCA. The proposed protected area will include the southern rangeof the recently discovered Saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis), the Giant muntjac(Megamuntiacus vuquangensis), the newly identified Truong Son muntjac (Muntiacustruongsonensis), and several other endangered species.

Central Plateau Area

Two biological surveys were conducted in 1996 and 1997 in the extensive forests ofCambodia's Mondulkiri and Ratanakiri Provinces; one was focussed primarily on largemammals (Desai and Vuthy, 1996), and the other was a feasibility and needs assessmentsurvey to prepare a management plan proposal for Virachey National Park and its buffer zone(Fig. 1). A third large mammal survey in Mondulkiri Province (eastern Cambodia) wascancelled because a group of Khmer Rouge suddenly moved into the area.

A large mammal survey was conducted across from Mondulkiri in Vietnam's Dac Lac Province,the southern section of the central plateau. The Vietnamese survey team included oneCambodian wildlife biologist, the first such collaboration between the two countries. The drydipterocarp forests surveyed represent some of the best habitat for endangered largemammals in Indochina, including tiger, elephants, and wild cattle such as banteng, gaur, andone of the most severely endangered large mammals in the world, the kouprey.

The purpose of these surveys, conducted in the dry seasons of 1996 and 1997, was toascertain the areas of highest densities of endangered large mammals for conservationmanagement planning in these connecting forests shared by Vietnam and Cambodia. Thatsurvey found the largest population of banteng in Indochina, but it also revealed a rapid anddisturbing decline in these large mammal populations since the early 1990s (Canh et al.,1997b)

Another Planned Joint Survey

Among the various areas proposed for survey work in the 1997-98 dry season(December-June) is Hin Namno NBCA in Laos (Fig. 1). The survey will be conducted by ateam consisting of Lao and Vietnamese researchers, and in collaboration with both WWF’sIndochina Biodiversity Forum and the Wildlife Conservation Society.

Capacity Building

The sub-regional project has also concentrated on providing training. In Cambodia, the projecthas provided training in field research skills to help conservation staff develop the ability tocollect data relevant to transfrontier conservation and to introduce the Ministry of Environmentstaff to basic protected area management. Training has included visits to functioning protectedareas in Thailand.

In Vietnam, the project has focused on training relevant to using the BIMS system, such asmapping skills and database management, and on introducing new approaches toconservation in Vietnam, such as training a core of resource persons in participatorymanagement skills and conducting training for protected areas managers and relevantprovincial officials.

BIMS training has also been the focus of training in Laos and Thailand. In Laos, however,training activities will be expanded to include skills in basic surveying and orienteering,


protected area planning, and participatory techniques for working with communities nearconservation areas. Thailand will continue to serve as a base of technical resources whichcan be drawn on for assistance in building capacity in Indochina, in particular, using itsinstitutions for training.

Besides training, the project has attempted to build capacity to implement transfrontierconservation by assisting with design of projects in priority transfrontier areas and by assistingwith environmental awareness campaigns.

Box 5. The First Model Transboundary Site: The Monkey World

Dr. Le Xuan Canh, leader of the Forum’s two surveys of Vietnam’s Phong Nha Nature Reserve, described the200,000 hectare limestone forest straddling the Lao - Vietnam border as the “Monkey World” as it contains what maybe the largest populations of red-shanked Duoc langur and Ha Tinh langur, two endangered primates endemic toIndochina.

Representatives to the Lao-Vietnam Transboundary Meeting in January 1997 recommended that these limestoneforests, which also comprise Hin Namno NBCA in Laos, serve as the first field test for transborder cooperationbetween the two countries. Consequently, the Forum will sponsor a joint team of Lao and Vietnamese researchers tosurvey Hin Namno in the next dry season (March, April 1998) and a district-to-district dialogue meeting will be heldafterwards concerning how best to conserve these special forests and the endangered species inhabiting them.

Previous to the bilateral meeting and the two surveys sponsored by the Forum, these forests did not receive muchattention from central government in either country. Bringing the local authorities together for the first time to discusstheir joint border sparked recognition of the commonalties along this international border and the importance of theshared natural resources.

Project documents have been written and funding confirmed for two transfrontier areas. TheForum has prepared an extensive project document management planning and conservationactivities at Virachey National Park, Cambodia, and a project design was prepared forconservation activities along the Phong Nha/Ke Bang - Hin Namno transfrontier area (Box 5).Other areas to be considered for project design include Dong Amphan and Nam Kongprotected areas in Attapu Province, Laos. These projects will run independently of theSub-regional Forum but in close coordination with the Project Secretariat.

Conservation Awareness

The Sub-regional Project is involved with production of awareness materials in all fourcountries. Many of the materials have been in the form of posters, which seem to be the mosteffective and widely distributed visual media in the remote areas where radio and TV areusually not available. In Thailand, an identification booklet for wild bovine was produced sincethe transfrontier trade of the endangered gaur and banteng, in particular, is occurring atalarming rates (Srikosamatara et al., 1992). In Vietnam, the forum is becoming involved inenvironmental education for middle school children in the province of Ha Tinh where VuQuang Nature Reserve is located.

CONCLUSION

The recent opening of Indochina to the international community has invigorated conservationthroughout the sub-region and revealed its astonishing potential for establishment oftransfrontier protected areas. Given the constraints that exist, however, it is clear that moretime will be required to establish transfrontier protected area complexes that embody conceptsof complementary management and information sharing across borders.


The Forum project has been able to act as a catalyst to generate interest and initiate adialogue in Indochina that is leading toward coordinated conservation of the rich forests alongits borders. The fact that neighboring countries now are taking steps to add extensions and linkdisjointed border protected areas is a significant step forward. Another major achievement isthe agreement to address more fully the issue of illegal wildlife trade across borders. Scientificcooperation such as the joint Vietnam/Cambodia field survey during the dry season of 1997and the planned Laos/Vietnam field survey for dry season 1998 are a third indicator ofprogress.

Protected areas establishment and management has been incorporated into the developmentplans even at the provincial and district levels. In Cambodia and Laos, the Forum has begunhelping to identify boundaries and build capacity for managing provincial protected areas. TheForum will also help the provincial and district authorities develop management plans for theseprotected areas and buffer zones, and seek funds to implement the management plans.

Biological surveys, including bilateral participation, have begun to identify possible linksbetween border protected areas. Designation of one of the protected areas complexes as aWorld Heritage Site, an action presently under consideration (N. Ishwaran, UNESCO, pers.comm, 1997), would likely catalyze more dialogue and a degree of cooperation necessary forensuring a well-managed site. The recent admission of Vietnam and Laos into the Associationof Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) could also serve as a powerful force for promotingtransboundary conservation.

According to one definition, border parks have three main functions, which are promotion ofpeace, improvement of resource management, and preservation of cultural values (McNeil,1993). These are worthy objectives for the transboundary protected areas system in Indochinato aspire to accomplish. Currently, the dialogue on transboundary conservation is dominatedby technical officers from the local and central governments. These officials focus primarily onimprovement of resource management and secondarily on issues of poverty eradicationthrough development activities. Preservation of cultural values, particularly for minoritypeoples, with the exception of Cambodia’s Ratanakiri Province, is not a major issue. In Laosand Vietnam, more attention is given to how these minorities can change their cultural valuesand become more like the majority ethnic group. Promotion of peace is not an overt topic ofconversation, but could be a natural outcome of improved natural resource management alongthe borders.

The Forum facilitated the process of establishing a dialogue that has resulted in identifyingpriority conservation areas along the national borders. Although transboundary conservation inIndochina is still a long way from transborder reserves managed as single administrative units,transboundary conservation advocates in this sub-region must proceed with caution, balancingthe urgency of conservation needs with the realities of the moment. Vigorous efforts toaccelerate the process of joint management of border parks could create concerns about lossof national pride or sovereignty. Transboundary conservation does not inherently include jointmanagement between countries, and expectations for transboundary conservation asenvisioned by Westing (Westing, 1993) must be a long-term goal.

Although a true 'peace park' may be far in the future, the Forum has succeeded in initiating theprocess of cooperation and dialogue, making progress in transboundary conservation that mayhelp achieve this end. With most of Indochina’s border conservation areas along the Ho ChiMinh Trail, it is fitting that this symbol of regional conflict could unite Cambodia, Laos, andVietnam in an effort to conserve one of the most biologically significant forest areas in Asia.

References


Baird, I.G. 1995a. A Rapid Study of Fish and Fisheries; and Livelihoods and NaturalResources Along the Sesan River. Livelihoods and Natural Resources Study. OxfamUK&I and Novib. Ratanakiri, Cambodia.

Baird, I.G. 1995b. Investigations of the Xe Kaman and Xe Xou Rivers, with Special Referenceto Freshwater Fish and River Ecology; and a Review of the Potential Social andEnvironmental Impacts of Large Dam Projects Being Considered for These Rivers inAttapu Province, Southern Lao PDR. Report prepared for Protected Area Division of theDepartment of Forestry, Lao PDR. WCS Report. Vientiane, Lao PDR.

Biodiversity Action Plan For Vietnam (BAP). 1994. Published by the Government of theSocialist Republic of Vietnam.

Canh, L., T. La, D. Dap, H. Cuc, N. Dao, N. Chinh, N. Dung, P. Nhat, N. Tu, N. Thang, T.Hien. 1997a. A Report on 2 Field Surveys of Phong Nha - Ke Bang Forest, Central,Vietnam. WWF/UNDP Indochina Biodiversity Forum Project. Hanoi, Vietnam.

Canh, L., P. Anh, J. Duckworth, V. Thanh, L. Vuthy. 1997b. A Survey of Large Mammals inDak Lak Province, Vietnam. WWF/UNDP Indochina Biodiversity Forum Project andIUCN Species Survival Commission. Hanoi, Vietnam.

Chape, S. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation, Protected Areas and the Development Imperativein Lao PDR: Forging the links. IUCN. Vientiane, Lao PDR.

Colm, S. 1997. Land Rights: The challenge for Ratanakiri’s Indigenous Communities.Watershed. 3:1: 29-38. Bangkok, Thailand.

Desai, A.A. and L.Vuthy. 1996. Status and Distribution of Large Mammals in EasternCambodia: Results of the First Foot Surveys in Modulkiri and Rattanakiri Provinces.IUCN/FFI/WWF Large Mammal Conservation Project. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Dinerstein, E. and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1993. Beyond "Hotspots": How to PrioritizeInvestments in Biodiversity in the Indo-Pacific Region. Conservation Biology. 7:53-65.

Dinerstein, E., E.D. Wikramanayake, and M. Forney. 1995. Conserving the Reservoirs andRemnants of Tropical Moist Forest in the Indo-Pacific Region. In: “Ecology, Conservationand Management of Southeast Asian Rainforests”. pp. 140-175. R.B.Primack and T.E.Lovejoy, ed. Yale University Press, New Haven.

Dinerstein, E., E.D. Wikramanayake, J. Robinson, U. Karanth, A. Rabinowitz, D. Olson, T.Mathew, P. Hedao, and M. Connor. 1997. A Framework for Identifying High PriorityAreas and Actions for the Conservation of Tigers in the Wild. WWF-US Report.Washington DC, USA.

Dung, V.V., P. M.Giao, N. Chinh, and J. MacKinnon. 1994. Discovery and Conservation of theVu Quang Ox Pseudoryx nghetinhensis in Vietnam. Oryx. 28:1: 16-21.

Giao, P.M., D. Touc, V.V. Dung, E.D. Wikramanayake, G. Amato. P. Arctander, and J.MacKinnon. Description of Muntiacus truongsonensis, a New Species of muntjac(Artiodactyla: Muntiacidae) from Central Vietnam, and its Conservation Significance.Animal Conservation. In Review.

Groves, C. P., G. Schaller, K. Khounboline, and G. Amato, G. Phylogenetic and ConservationSignificance of the Rediscovery of Sus bucculentus (Mammalia, Suidae). Nature. InPress.


MacKinnon, J.R. 1993 a. Draft Border Protected Area System Plan forVietnam/Lao/Cambodia/ Thailand Sub-region. Appendix to UNDP Project Document:RAS/93/102 Sub-Regional Biodiversity Component.

MacKinnon, J.R. 1993b. An Indochina Tri-state Reserve: The Practical Challenges. In:“Transfrontier Reserves For Peace and Nature: A Contribution to Human Security”.Westing, A.H (ed.). UNEP publication. Nairobi, Kenya.

McNeil, R.J. 1993. International Parks For Peace. In: “Parks on the Borderline: Experience inTransfrontier Conservation”. Thorsell, J.W (ed.). IUCN. Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Olivier, R. and E. Woodford. 1994. Aerial Survey for Kouprey in Cambodia. IUCN SpeciesSurvival Commission. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Peter, W.P. and A. Feiler. 1994. Horner von einer unbekannten Bovidenart aus Vietnam(Mammalia:Ruminantia). Faunistische Abhandlungen Staatliches Muesum for TierkundsDresden 19(4):144-148.

Population Reference Bureau (PRB). 1996. World Population Data Sheet. Washington DC.USA.

Salter, R.E. (compiler). 1993. Wildlife in Lao PDR.. A Status Report. IUCN. Vientiane, LaoPDR.

Schmid, M.1993. Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos. In "Floristic Inventory of Tropical Countries".Campbell, D.J. & H.D. Hammond (eds.). NYBG and WWF. Pgs 85-89.

Srikosamatara, S., B. Siripholdej, and V. Suteethorn. 1992. Wildlife Trade in Lao PDR andBetween Lao PDR and Thailand. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society. Bangkok.40:1-47.

Timmins, R.J. and K. Khounboline. 1996. A Preliminary Wildlife and Habitat Survey of HinNamno National Biodiversity Conservation Area, Khammouane Province, Lao PDR.WCS/CPAWM Report. Vientiane.

Timmins, R.J. and C. Vongkhamheng. 1996. A Preliminary Wildlife and Habitat Survey of theDong Khanthung Area, Champassak Province, Lao PDR. WCS/CPAWM Report.Vientiane, Lao PDR.

TRAFFIC Southeast Asia. 1993. Wildlife Trade Between the Southern Lao PDR Provinces ofChampassak, Sekong, and Attapeu, and Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Field ReportNo. 3.

Tuoc, D., V.V. Dung, S. Dawson, P. Arctander and J. MacKinnon. 1994. Introduction of a NewLarge Mammal Species in Vietnam. Technical Report, Ministry of Forestry, Vietnam (inVietnamese). Hanoi, Vietnam.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1993. UNDP Project Document:RAS/93/102 Sub-Regional Biodiversity Conservation Component.

Vien, Nguyen Khac. 1992. Vietnam: A Long History. Hanoi, Vietnam.

Westing, A.H. 1993. From Hope to Reality: Establishing an Indochina Tri-state Reserve forPeace and Nature. In: “Transfrontier Reserves For Peace and Nature: A Contribution toHuman Security”.Westing, A.H (ed). UNEP publication. Nairobi, Kenya.


Wharton, C. 1957. Man, Fire and Cattle in North Cambodia. An Ecological Study of theKouprey Novibos sauveli. In: “Proceedings of the Annual Tall Timbers Forest EcologyConference” 6:23-65.

Wikramanayake, E.D., E. Dinerstein, J. G. Robinson, U. Karanth, A. Rabinowitz, D. Olson, T.Mathew, P. Hedao, M. Conner, G. Hemley, and D. Bolze. An Ecology-Based Approachto Setting Priorities for Conservation of Wild Tigers, Panthera tigris. ConservationBiology. In Press.

Wikramanayake E.D., E. Dinerstein, P. Hedao, D. Olson, P. Hurley, and L. Horowitz. AConservation Assessment of Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific Region. WWF-US Conservation Science Program, Washington DC, USA. In Prep.

World Bank. 1995. Agriculture and Environment Operations Division. Country Department I.East Asia and Pacific Region. Vietnam Environmental Program and Policy Priorities for aSocialist Economy in Transition. Report No. 13200-VN.

World Bank. 1996. Agriculculture and Environment Operations Divison. Country Department I.East Asia and Pacific Region. Cambodia Forest Policy Assessment. Report No. 15777-KH.

Woodford, E., T. Huong, and V. Long. 1997. An Assessment of the Wildlife Trade in Gia LaiProvince, Vietnam: Structure, Processes, Law Enforcement. Report of WWF/UNDPIndochina Biodiversity Forum Project. Hanoi, Vietnam.

Acknowledgments

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) provides financial support to theIndochina Biodiversity Forum and the MacArthur Foundation has supported many of WWF'stransboundary conservation activities in the sub-region. The project has also advancedconsiderably in a short time because of the efforts and support of government agencies inLaos, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia: in particular the Center for Protected Areas andWatershed Management, Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,Government of Lao P.D.R.; National Environment Agency, Ministry of Science, Technology,and Environment, Government of Vietnam; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development,Government of Vietnam; Ministry of Environment, Royal Government of Cambodia; and theRoyal Forest Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Thailand. The projecthad its beginings from Dr. John Mackinnon's vision and has benefitted from his advice. Wewarmly thank them all.


PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICTNIMULE NATIONAL PARK: A CASE STUDY

By: Rajab Yagoub Abdullaformerly Research Officer in Nimule National Park, the Sudan

SUMMARY

First hand management experiences in a protected area along international borders, during conflict,indicate that within the limitations imposed by security and logistical constraints, a number ofeffective initiatives at a local level can be often taken with regard to the management of the generalenvironment as well as of specific wildlife populations, the morale and performances ofconservation staff, the war refugees, and the military and administrative personnel from both sidesof the borders. The described experiences suggest that negative effects of the isolation of wildlifemanagement staff and the difficulties to effectively update directives from the headquarters, couldbe concretely counterbalanced by international coordinative efforts. Such endeavour shouldcomplement common sense and experience based initiatives at a local level, with a view toensuring that the identification and updating of local management priorities fit in the broader contextof ecosystemic, often transnational, priorities. Given favourable conditions, collaborative initiativestaken at local level, including with authorities across the boundary, might yield some results, butcan only buy time for the implementation of agreement frameworks set up at an international level.The contention is also put forward that the above considerations may parallely apply to giveninternational conservation priorities in some, currently overlooked, conflict areas.

INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AREA

First I wish to thank the IUCN for having invited me and sponsored my participation to this Congressand, with it, for the opportunity to meet on conservation issues with friends and colleagues ofinternational standard in the most conducive and welcoming atmosphere created by theheadquarters of the Peace Parks Foundation in Somerset West.

But let me also express my gratitude for two, more specific additional reasons:

♦ the first, is the opportunity to discuss about conservation problems and perspectives of a poorlyknown and yet extremely interesting protected area of my beloved Sudan. A country whichemerges as one of the most diverse environmentally as well as for being characterized, at aglobal scale, by most impressive wildlife populations and species richness levels, and yet, alsobecause of a lengthy and ravaging war, is virtually absent from present day conservationdebates and international environmental fora.

♦ The second reason spans, maybe, a smaller scope, but an equal spirit and involvement from my

side: the hope that, within the goals of this Congress, my modest personal experiences maycontribute as a vivid case study, to the development and refining of present methodological andpolicy frameworks. And this is because I fully share with the Organizers the believe that anumber of effective conservation options which are offered to the management of protectedareas across boundaries may only be accessible today through international support and/orcoordination, and that this particularly applies when facing the demanding task of dealing withconflict or post conflict realities.

Moving to the specific National Park I am going to focus in my talk, I also wish to suggest that while,sadly, there is little future for some of the local wildlife populations, a number of effectiveconservation options can and should be considered at an international level. Although the first handpersonal experiences which I shall refer to, are of several years ago, I have kept in close contactwith the local realities and I believe that the message they convey is worth strong considerationcurrently. And this is not only because the discussed problems and potential are up to date, but


also because besides Nimule they also apply to other important National Parks and protected areasin the Region.

Today I live out of my Country and in an urban environment and, I must confess, together with thecry of the fish eagle and the rumbling of elephants, I also miss the intermittent sounds of heavyfirearms shooting at night in the Park. Jointly with many sometimes daunting events, they all makeup unforgettable memories of a most rewarding experience during my work, from 1987 to 1989, asresearch officer and assistant park warden in Nimule National Park, Southern Sudan.

Nimule National Park (Fig. 1) is situated in the extreme south of the Sudan as an enclave along theUganda border spanning an area of 41.000 hectares. It was gazetted as game reserve in 1935 andupgraded to National Park in 1954.

Biogeographically, the Park falls in the "East African Woodland/Savanna Province" (Guillet & Moll,1992; IUCN/UNEP, 1987) and contains bushed grasslands, wooded grasslands and riverinewoodland. Viewed from the top of the hills on the eastern part, the Park has natural scenic beautyincluding the view of an imposingly wide White Nile (here called Bahr-el-Jebel 'the sea coming fromthe mountains') entering the Sudan in narrow rocky gorges forming the massive Fula rapids.

The markedly dichotomous rainfall pattern with a relatively long and somewhat heavy monomodalrainy season (stretching from March to November) and a quite severe dry season, contrast thegeneral climatic pattern which otherwise fits equatorial standards, with relatively reducedtemperature fluctuations (with a maximum of 29°C in November and a minimum of 24°C in July).

The implications of the described climatic and physiognomic patterns, are compounded by the factthat the Park is also marking a climatic limit with its northern relatively dryer border areas and reflectin somewhat dynamic utilization patterns by game, particularly elephants (Guillet, 1990; Guillet &Moll, 1992), which move to and from Uganda and the Sudan.

The area, which also includes some major historical site (such as the big old Tamarind tree whereGeneral Gordon Pasha held court and read names inscribed on a stone at its foot), was originallygazetted as a National Park for the protection of the White Rhino. A species which, however, wassadly exterminated during the seventeen years (1955-1972) civil war. Before the retreat of thewildlife forces from the Park in 1989 (as the area was taken over by non-governmental troops),notable populations of elephant (over 1000 were recorded in a 1987 census), of hippo, ugandakob, baboon, vervet monkey, water buck, oribi, grey duiker, warthog, as well as of birds such ascormorants, crowned crane, secretary bird, fish eagle, kori bustard, emerged as the more commonhighlights of the park. And, particularly the first five of the above mentioned species wherefrequently recorded moving across the borders (Yagoub Abdulla, 1984).

The Park falls, formally, under the administration of the Directorate of Wildlife Conservation andNational Park Forces with headquarters in Juba; and is managed, normally, by wildlife conservationpersonnel including four officers and thirty game scouts. Generally, beside being poached insidethe Park, animals are also killed outside its boundaries when they cross into Uganda or move intonearby natives cultivations. The most affected are elephants for their particular lean on sugar caneand sorghum.

DISCUSSION

As the duration of warfare operations was extending, the ordinary burden of park managementactivities was aggravated in terms of additional control of poaching and encroachment of peopleinto the Park for firewood and grass for thatch. Many people from the surrounding areas had, infact, flown their rural homes to take refuge in Nimule Town. Great pressure was put on the Park byarmed poachers entering from Uganda as well as from Sudanese organized forces and militia men.


Besides the security situation, the Park management had to face the lack of logistic suppliesbecause the road connecting the Headquarters in Juba to Nimule was cut off by warfare activities.As a result, no salaries, supplies of ammunition, firearms, uniforms, or any other form of logisticsupport could be directly supplied by the Headquarters, with which the only means of contact was aradio telephone set. The Park was left with only one small Suzuki car, but soon the stocks of fuel,lubricants or spare parts were depleted.

Despite all these difficulties, the staff have for long been able to assure management continuity andsignificantly reduce the incidence of poaching and other illegal activities. We, eventually, decided tofocus on control of poaching as a priority, and directed virtually all the available meager resourcesto the scouts stationed in the innermost parts of the Park. Anti poaching operations and intensivepatrols were carried out from two tented camps which were supplied with food purchased withmoney collected from fees for fishing licenses and park entry. Salaries, with usual delays of up tofour months, were secured from Nimule traders who had agents in Juba who, in turn, could be paidby the Headquarters.

In the framework of anti-poaching operations and patrol activities, the Park Managementestablished contacts and held meetings on poaching by Ugandan nationals in the Park, withneighbouring government authorities in Uganda. These authorities were very cooperative andresponsive and some poachers were arrested at their homes in Uganda and their weapons wereconfiscated.

Additional problems aroused when soldiers of the Sudanese organized forces stationed in NimuleTown, started receiving their salaries with some months delay and demanded wildlife meat for theirbase sustainment. We held a number of, not always easy, meetings and personal contacts withtheir leaders. With their cooperation we eventually managed to restrain the soldiers' poachingactivities.

Also during war times life continues, and we felt that even without normal logistic support andspecific directives, we could ensure law enforcement on civilian natives by involving the chief’scourt, and we even arranged some conservation enlightenment talks in schools and with other localleaders.

Although my original responsibility was to conduct research, I was engaged in organizing andleading the anti-poaching operations and patrols. With preplanned maneuvers, sometimes for fivedays on foot, I was able to arrest many Ugandan and Sudanese poachers and seize theirweapons, but, above all, I could ensure visibility to the conservation authority's presence in anatmosphere of otherwise general administrative disarray.

On the other hand, the very same patrol operations, were providing the opportunity to conductsurvey at least on large mammals and major park management problems.

Despite the insecurity situation, poachers activities and lack of research equipment's and facilities, Iwas able to train the game scouts and, with their help, to collect distribution/density data andgeneral habitat information. These efforts enabled us, in more than a few occasions, to takesometimes hard but realistic decisions, and to formulate recommendations on what were at a locallevel the park’s management priorities given the limitations imposed by the war.

But besides the mentioned operational contributions, let me offer an additional consideration onsome, maybe less obvious but equally significant outputs of the described experiences. I am herereferring to the strong feelings which were generated in me by the tremendous responsibility I wasfaced with, but also by the potentials which I had access to as a wildlife manager cut off by warfareactivities, when dealing with the task of leading wildlife personnel. These were often young andmotivated scouts who had been de jure turned into military forces. Our efforts ensured that de factothey were concretely reminded of their conservation mandate, preserving their professional dignity,


and even strengthening their morale and the feeling that any conservation perspective of the Parkwas vitally depending on their individual contribution and initiative.

The recrudescence of warfare activities and the duration of insecurity conditions have haddestructive impacts on the majority of game species in the Park and caused migration of manyanimal into Uganda. The survival of such game depends now on the protection which may beprovided by the SPLA, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, as well as the Uganda WildlifeConservation Authority. In the absence of the Sudanese wildlife conservation forces in the Park, theentry of poachers into the park from Uganda could only be controlled through the cooperation ofUganda wildlife Authority by establishing game posts in the proximity of the border. This is not onlyaiming at controlling people's entry into the park, but also at preventing killing of elephants andother species when they cross the border into Uganda. The IUCN and other organizationscooperating at an international level in the management and conservation of protected areas andbiodiversity are called upon to encourage and support such action which will help protect the Park'swildlife for post war conservation and development.

The present perspectives to control poaching from Ugandans inside the park and safeguard themovement of animals across the border into Uganda, depend on the cooperation of Ugandanauthorities on actions including the arrest of poachers, collection of illegal firearms and control atleast of peoples inhabiting in the Park's neighbourhoods. This cooperation can be achieved in theframework of mutual agreements between Uganda and the Sudan to create and protect a relativelynarrow buffer zone on the Uganda side. Such an action could also account most effectively for theperiodical impact of flushes of warfare activities inside the Park.

Expectedly, there is the superficial tendency to believe that when dealing with conflict realities it isalways a matter of complexities and/or actions which are out of reach in absence of a wealth ofmeans and additional support. Besides, the generally sub-chronic instability conditions which morefrequently characterize conflicts relevant to our discussion, are wrongly dealt with in the samemanner as the often only short lived peaks in warfare activities where only emergency action mightbe conceivable. This makes a lot of planning necessary to influence, before it is to late, the humanbehavioural adaptations and distributional responses to security realities. The movement andresettlement of refugees can for example be influenced by proper coordination of theenvironmental conservation organizations with those organization that supply food aid, but thisneeds concertation and policy development at an international level.

Often, however, during periods of conflict, also simple initiatives at a local level can save an areafrom the catastrophe. What, on the other hand, cannot be realistically achieved handicraftly, is toestablish a framework for a dynamic rationalization of the number of the very same simple buteffective actions.

A general coordinative management framework should consider, guidelines for identifying andupdating prioritary actions, at a local level, aiming at facing emerging conflicts, but also post conflictrealities. This specifically applies to the human adaptations to the above mentioned sub-chronic,lengthy war induced instability conditions. Though only erratically punctuated by warfare episodes,such conditions are equally characterized by the impact of unchecked resettlement patterns of thehuman population, a wealth of weapons among the civilian and a notable increase in the demandof wildlife resources.

Specifically relevant to Nimule National Park, I wish to appeal to IUCN to actively engage ininvolving current international conservation momentum to act through the Ugandan authorities andthe Sudan Government, but also through the SPLA. A set of objective policy directives for sensitiveconservation areas, could influence its attitude toward the management of the broader ecosystemicresources which, de facto, it controls over a large part of the national territory. And this particularlyapplies to the White Nile Basin, realm of one of the two world largest congregation of wildungulates.


Finally, with regard to the potential for acting from opportunistically more appropriate sides of theborders, it might be worth underscoring that (Fig. 1, and Map 3.3 in IUCN/UNEP 1986) besidesNimule National Park, several other important Sudan protected areas are located alonginternational borders which should be explored for transboundary management and cooperation.These include: Boma N.P., Dinder N.P. (Biosphere Reserve) and Rahad G.R. on the borders withEthiopia; Kidepo G.R. adjacent to Kidepo Valley N.P. in Uganda, Bire Kpatuos G.R. and BangangaiG.R. on the borders with the Democratic Republic of Congo near Garamba N.P. (also abutting theSudan borders); and Radon N.P. (Biosphere Reserve) on the borders with the Central AfricanRepublic.

REFERENCES

Guillet, A. 1990. Ivory smuggling in Sudan. Swara 13 (1): 31-33.

Guillet, A. & Moll, E.J. 1992. Structural and biogeographical patterns of vegetation in EquatorialSudan. I: Terrestrial communities. Coenoses 7(2): 61-73.

IUCN/UNEP 1986. Review of the Protected Areas System in the Afrotropical Realm. IUCN, Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xviii + 259 pp.

IUCN/UNEP 1987. The IUCN Afrotropical Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland andCambridge, UK. xix + 1034 pp.

Yagoub Abdulla, R. 1984. Larger mammal census and management problems in Nimule NationalPark (Sudan). Unpublished report to the Ministry of Wildlife and National Parks, SouthernRegion, The Sudan.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful to the IUCN for inviting me and sponsoring my participation to an extremely interestingand challenging Conference. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr Alfredo Guillet fromthe Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for nominating and recommending me to the Conference, aswell as for constructive comments to the paper.

Caption to Fig. 1:

Fig 1. From IUCN/UNEP 1987.


STATUS OF THE WORLD’S TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS

By: Dorothy C. Zbicz , Duke UniversityNicholas School of the Environment, Box 90328, Durham, NC 27511, USA

and

Michael J. B. Green, World Conservation Monitoring Centre219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, U.K.

1. INTRODUCTION

Protected areas that adjoin across international boundaries, referred to in this paper as transfrontierprotected areas, provide intriguing possibilities for promoting biodiversity conservation acrosspolitically-severed ecosystems and species' home ranges, as well as transfrontier collaborativemanagement which may ultimately contribute to international peace. Since 1932, whenWaterton/Glacier was jointly declared the first international peace park by Canada and the UnitedStates of America, the concept has gained increasingly widespread recognition and application,particularly in the last decade.

The first review of transfrontier protected areas was presented to the Border Parks Workshop heldin 1988 during the First Global Conference on Tourism - A Vital Force for Peace. A total of 70 casesinvolving 68 countries was identified where established or proposed protected areas met acrossinternational boundaries. (Thorsell and Harrison, 1990). The purpose of this paper is to examineprogress since the 1988 Border Parks Workshop and assess the present extent of transfrontierprotected areas. No attempt is made here to examine the level of collaborative managementbetween protected areas that abut on international boundaries; this is the subject of ongoingresearch by the first author, for which the identification of all transfrontier protected areas in theworld was the necessary first stage.

2. METHODOLOGY

The process of compiling a comprehensive list of transfrontier protected areas began three yearsago with the list of border parks compiled by Thorsell and Harrison (1990). The list was updatedwith other information from various sources and from the many individuals at Duke Universityworking in protected areas around the world. Further input was provided by protected areaprofessionals attending the 1996 IUCN World Conservation Congress in Montreal. In the spring of1997, the first author spent several weeks at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) inCambridge, UK working with staff to verify this compiled list with the Centre’s Protected AreasDatabase and its Biodiversity Map Library, an ARC.INFO-based Geographic Information System.She then took the list to IUCN Headquarters, Switzerland where, due to fortunate timing, she wasalso able to solicit feedback from the World Commission on Protected Areas Steering Committee,including its vice chairs from the different regions of the world. Finally, the list was verified byhundreds of protected area managers around the world, through electronic mail, fax and mail.

The following criteria were used for listing complexes of transfrontier protected areas:

♦ sites must adjoin across one or more international boundaries; and

♦ sites must qualify as protected areas, based on the IUCN (1994) definition38. Such sites areassigned to one of six IUCN protected area management categories (I-VI).

Most of the identified transfrontier protected areas are actually part of larger conglomerates ofprotected areas, referred to in this paper as transfrontier protected areas complexes. This 38 A protected area is an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity,and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means (IUCN, 1994).


concept of complexes is useful for determining the area of contiguous habitat that is protected.Since each complex usually contains more than two protected areas, the total number ofindividual protected areas is much more than double the number of complexes. It should benoted, however, that not all protected areas within a complex necessarily adjoin aninternational boundary.

Transfrontier protected areas complexes were mapped using WCMC's Biodiversity MapLibrary. In the absence of digitized information for the boundaries of some protected areas,their locations were marked by a single georeferenced point. It was not possible to map alltransfrontier protected areas due to a lack of both digital and georeferenced data in somecases.

Potential transfrontier protected areas were also identified on the basis of establishedprotected areas adjoining proposed protected areas across an international boundary. This listof potential transfrontier protected areas is likely to be incomplete as data on proposedprotected areas are much less comprehensive than data for established protected areas. Forthis reason the list is not presented here, but summary data derived from it are used to indicatethe scale of future opportunities for promoting the international peace park concept.

3. STATUS OF TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS COMPLEXES

3.1 EXTENT

A total of 136 transfrontier protected areas complexes were identified (Annex 1). These aredistributed among 98 countries and comprise 415 individual protected areas. The total number oflegally designated areas is higher (487) because a number of these have not been assigned toIUCN categories for various reasons. As shown in the accompanying maps, it has been possible tomap 382 of the 415 protected areas, based on their digitized boundaries or known geographiccoordinates. From the available information, we know that transfrontier protected areas complexescover at least 1,127,934 km2, this being the total area of the 382 protected areas (Table 1). Suchcomplexes represent nearly 10% of the world's network of 13.2 million km2 of protected areas ornearly 1% of the total area of all countries in the world (Green and Paine, in press). This highlightsthe global significance of transfrontier protected areas complexes in terms of their extensiveness,quite apart from their potential importance for collaborative management across internationalboundaries and ultimately for contributing to international peace.

Table 1 Summary of available information on mapped transfrontier protected areas complexes

Transfrontier protected areascomplexes

Point locations(i.e. geographic

coordinates)

Polygons(i.e. digitizedboundaries)

Total

No. protected areas 142 240 382Total area (km2) 226,124 901,810 1,127,934No. countries 53 64 98

A further 85 potential transfrontier protected areas complexes were identified. These aredistributed among 14 countries additional to the 98 with established complexes. Potentialtransfrontier protected areas complexes have not been listed or mapped.

3.2 GROWTH

Comparison with the first survey by Thorsell and Harrison (1990) shows that there has beentremendous growth in the number of transfrontier protected areas complexes since 1988,particularly over the last three years. The number of complexes comprising establishedtransfrontier protected areas has more than doubled, from 59 to 136. Furthermore, the numberof complexes straddling the boundaries of three countries has increased from two in 1988 to23 in 1997, with a further seven potential complexes identified. In one case, the proposedMura-Drava complex, four countries (Austria, Croatia, Hungary and Slovenia) are involved.


While some of this growth reflects changing political situations, as with the emergence of theNewly Independent States from the former Soviet Union, much of it represents genuine effortsto establish a common agenda for conserving biological diversity that straddles internationalboundaries.

Table 2 Regional growth of transfrontier protected areas complexes since 1988

Regions No. complexes No.protected areas

No. proposedcomplexes

No.complexeswith threecountries

1988 1997 1997 1988 1997 1997N. America 5 8 36 0 4 0C. & S.America

7 24 80 0 15 5

Europe 20 45 126 3 41 6Africa 20 34 104 2 13 9Asia 7 25 69 6 12 3TOTAL 59 136 415 11 85 23

The regional distribution of transfrontier protected areas complexes is summarised in Table 2 for1988 and 1997. In general, such complexes are distributed fairly evenly throughout the differentregions, becoming more evenly spread during the last decade due to an increase in the percentageof complexes in Central and South America (Figure 1). The increase in Central and South Americapartly reflects the establishment of several transfrontier protected areas since the cessation ofarmed conflicts in the region. While North America contains only 6% of the world's total number ofcomplexes, it should be appreciated that these occur along only two international boundaries.

Figure 1 Regional distribution of transfrontier protected areas complexes in 1988 and 1997

3.3 INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

As considered in Section 3.1, 98 countries have transfrontier protected areas complexes, whichrepresents nearly half of the 224 countries and dependent territories in the world. The InternationalBoundaries Research Unit, University of Durham, UK, maintains a global database of internationalboundaries, which includes at present 309 international boundaries (M. Pratt, pers. comm., 1997).Some 112 (36%) of these international boundaries have transfrontier protected areas complexeslocated along them and an additional 47 international boundaries contain potential complexes. Itshould be noted that there is not a 1:1 ratio between international boundaries and complexes.There are 23 complexes involving three countries and, therefore, three international boundaries.

1997 (N=136)

Asia18%

Africa25%

Europe33%

C/S America

18%

North America

6%

1988 (N=59)

Europe34%

Africa34%

Asia12%

North America

8% C/S America

12%


Conversely, 38 of the 112 international boundaries are straddled by more than one protected areascomplex (24 have two complexes, nine have three, three have four and two have five complexes).

The regional distribution of existing and potential transfrontier protected areas complexes withrespect to international boundaries is shown in Table 3. The number of international landboundaries has increased considerably in recent decades, from about 280 in the late 1980s tosome 315 in 1997 (Blake, these proceedings), leading to increased opportunities for transfrontierprotected areas complexes. In Europe, for example, the number of such complexes has doubledsince 1988 (Table 2), partly due to the increased number of boundaries resulting from dissolution ofthe former USSR in 1991. Moreover, most of the proposed complexes in Europe (Table 3) lie alongthese new political boundaries in former eastern Europe or USSR.

Table 3 Regional distribution of protected areas complexes straddling internationalboundaries

Region Number of international boundaries with:

1 transfrontierprotected areas

complex

1 potentialtransfrontier

protected areascomplex*

> 1 transfrontierprotected areas

complex

N. America 2 1 2C. & S.America

21 6 8

Europe 33 28 12Africa 34 9 11Asia 22 3 5TOTAL 112 47 38

* Not included in Column 2

4. PARKS FOR PEACE

Some 136 cases exist around the world where the boundaries of two or more contiguousprotected areas straddle 112 international boundaries. These transfrontier protected areascomplexes provide real opportunities for co-operative management across internationalboundaries in the interests of biodiversity conservation. In the broader political framework,such cooperation contributes to political stability between neighbouring countries.

In a 1991 article from the Journal of Peace Research, Brock concluded that although peaceparks to date had probably had little independent effect on international relations, transfrontierenvironmental cooperation has the potential to develop into an independent variableinfluencing world politics. Experience in Europe during the past twenty years has demonstratedthe important role of cooperative resource management at the local, transfrontier level inleading to greater European economic, social and political integration. Brock (1991) suggeststhat environmental cooperation may have a direct effect on regional politics by helping tointernalize norms, establish regional identities and interests, operationalize routineinternational communication, and marginalize the acceptability of the use of force. Simplyestablishing international peace parks is unlikely to bring an end to border hostilities, but suchinitiatives may help to promote communication and cooperation as an early part of the peaceprocess, building confidence and ultimately improving transfrontier relations. Wheretransfrontier relations are already cordial, they can be enhanced by focusing on biodiversityconservation objectives within adjoining protected areas.

In the past decade, many countries have begun to explore the potential for promoting transfrontierprotected areas as models of international cooperation. Examples include: Laos/Cambodia/Thailand, Ecuador/Peru, La Amistad between Costa Rica and Panama, Sí-a-Paz between CostaRica and Nicaragua, Turkey/Greece, Bosnia/ Serbia-Montenegro, Papua New Guinea/ Indonesia,Jordan/ Israel, South Africa/ Mozambique and the demilitarized zone between North and South


Korea. The extent to which transfrontier protected areas may serve the twin objectives ofconserving biodiversity and promoting peace across international boundaries was the subject of aconference in 1993 (Westing, 1993). At a more recent workshop in 1995, the experience gained bymanagers from transfrontier mountain protected areas was reviewed, and common elements foreffective transfrontier cooperation identified (Hamilton et al., 1996).

In many more cases, however, the extent of transfrontier cooperation between adjoiningprotected areas has not yet been examined on a global scale. The next step is to assess thelevels of cooperation that exist within existing transfrontier protected areas complexes. This isalready underway by the first author by means of a questionnaire survey involving managersof all transfrontier protected areas in the world. This survey will provide the basis for identifyingthe conditions under which transfrontier cooperation is practicable and the factors which aremost likely to encourage or inhibit it.


Annex 1

List of Transfrontier Protected Areas Complexes

Note: Complexes may include proposed protected areas and areas designated under national legislation that have not been assigned an IUCNCategory (i.e. unassigned), provided that there is at least one established protected area adjacent to another either side of an international boundary.

Countries WCMC Code Designated Areas IUCN Category

North AmericaCanada/

US

612187077406

130381005

35387224901010

2248535382

Kluane National Park & PreserveKluane Wildlife SanctuaryTatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park/

Tongass National ForestWrangell-St Elias National ParkWrangell-St Elias Wilderness AreaWrangell-St Elias National PreserveGlacier Bay National ParkGlacier Bay National PreserveGlacier Bay Wilderness Area

IIIVII

IVII

IbVIIVIb

Canada/

US

62621193

973100967

Waterton Lakes National ParkAkamina Kishinena Provincial ParkFlathead Provincial Forest Reserve/

Glacier National ParkFlathead National Forest

IIII

IIVI

Canada/

US

100672100673101594

2904

Ivvavik National ParkVuntut National ParkOld Crow Flats Special Management Area/

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

IIII

Ib

IV



Canada/

US

66395

21322100955

988

Quetico Wilderness Provincial ParkNeguaguon Lake Indigenous Reserve/

Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness AreaSuperior National ForestVoyageurs National Park

II

IbVIII

Canada/

US

418518646

10167865159

97921389

Cathedral Provincial ParkE. C. Manning Provincial ParkSkagit Valley Recreation AreaCultus Lake Provincial Park/

N. Cascades National ParkPasayten Wilderness National Forest

IIIIIIII

IIIb

Mexico/

US

101431101457

976

Sierra de Maderas del Carmen Protection AreaCañón de Santa Elena Protection Area/

Big Bend National Park

VI

IIMexico/

US

34862

100881

Sierra de los Ajos Buenos Aires la PúricaNational Forest Reserve/

Coronado National ForestMexico/

US

3297118091

1377135472359771020

El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar NationalBiological Reserve

Sierra del Pinacate Refugio

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife RefugeCabeza Prieta Wilderness AreaOrgan Pipe Cactus Wilderness AreaOrgan Pipe Cactus National MonumentTohono O’odham Reservation

VIIV

IVIbIbIII



Latin America

Belize/

Guatemala/

Mexico

2022461957

2662130604

102817

19570

Rio Bravo Conservation Area Private ReserveAguas Turbia National Park/

Maya Biosphere ReserveMirador -Río Azul National ParkNaachtún - Dos Lagunas Protected Biotope/

Calakmul Biological Reserve

IVII

n/aIaII

VIBelize/

Guatemala

202303314

11629728850

Chiquibul National ParkColumbia River Forest ReserveVaca Forest ReserveMaya Mountains Forest Reserve/

Complejo III - Reserva de Biosfera MontañasMayas Chiquibul

IIVIVIVI

Costa Rica/

Nicaragua

1673059912493

3062820220

Tortuguero National ParkTortuguero Protected ZoneBarro del Colorado National Wildlife Reserve/

Río Indio-Maíz Biological ReserveSan Juan Delta Biological Reserve

IIVIIV

IaPr

Colombia/

Panama

142

236102255

Los Katios National Park/

Darién National ParkPunta Patiño Nature Reserve

II

II

Costa Rica/

Panama

255312491

255217185

102253

La Amistad International ParkLas Tablas Protected Zone/

La Amistad International ParkPalo SecoLagunas de Volcán

IIVI

IIVIIV

Costa Rica/

Panama

19402

16787

Gandoca y Manzanillo National Wildife Refuge/

Isla Bastimentos Marine National ParkHumedal de San San Pond Sac

IV

II



El Salvador/

Guatemala/

Honduras

9638

102815

18804

Montecristo National Park/

Fraternidad o Trifinio National BiosphereReserve/

Montecristo Trifinio National Park

IV

n/a

II

El Salvador/

Honduras/

Nicaragua

40996

12652

Proposed/

Río Negro Biological Reserve/

Estero Real Natural Reserve

Pr

IV

IIGuatemala/

Mexico 1430567671

Lacandón National Park/

Montes Azules Biological ReserveBonompak National Monument

II

IaIII

Honduras/

Nicaragua

41014410454101341034

2650

Río Plátano National ParkTawasha Indigenous ReservePatuca National ParkRío Coco Natural Monument/

Bosawas National Reserve

Pr

IIPr

VIArgentina/

Brazil/

Paraguay

1561817

60

Iguazú National ParkIguazú Strict Nature Reserve/

Iguaçu National Park/

M.S. Bertoni Reserve

IIIa

II

Argentina/

Chile

9749097523

9088

Nahuel Huapi National ParkNahuel Huapi Strict Nature Reserve/

Puyehue National ParkVincente Perez Rosales National Park

IIIb

IIII



Argentina/

Chile

7618202497

3084416875

91107069418

Lanín National ParkLanin Strict Nature ReserveLanín Natural MonumentComplejo Islote LobosChañy Forest Reserve/

Villarrica National ParkVillarica National ReserveHuerqueque National Park

IIIaII

IVVI

IIIVII

Argentina/

Chile

64329

941489

Los Glaciares National ParkLos Glaciares Strict Nature Reserve/

Bernardo O’Higgins National ParkTorres del Paine National Park

IIIa

IIII

Argentina/

Chile

16873

111

Copahue -Caviahue Provincial Park/

Ñuble Reseserva Nacional

II

IVBolivia/

Brazil

20049

51264109034028

Iténez Reserva Fiscal/

Guaporé Federal Biological ReserveBaixo Sao Miguel State Extractive ForestPedras Negras State Extractive Forest

VI

IaVIVI

Bolivia/

Chile

36

9411230043

Eduardo Abaroa National Reserve/

Llicancabur National ParkLos Flamencos National Reserve

IV

IIIV

Bolivia/

Chile

332003020035

869435

Sajama National ParkSajama Integrated Management AreaAltamachi Vicuña Reserve/

Lauca National ParkLas Vicuñas National Reserve

II

IV

IIIV

Bolivia/

Peru

98183

7460

Madidi National Park/

Pampas de Heath National SanctuaryBahua-Sonene National ParkTambopata Candamo Reserved Zone

II

III

III



Brazil/

Suriname

101760

276

Tucumaque Forest Reserve/

Sipaliwini Nature Reserve

VI

IVBrazil/

Venezuela

54

4367

Pico da Neblina National Park/

Serranía de La Neblina National Park

II

IIColombia/

Ecuador/

Peru

9400

2499

98245

La Paya National Park/

Cuyabeño Reserva Faunistica/

Guepí National Park

II

VI

UnColombia/

Venezuela

144

32210112930640

Tamá Natural National Park/

El Tamá National ParkCerro Machado- El SilencioSan Antonio- Ureña Protected Zone

II

IIVIV

Colombia/

Ecuador/

Venezuela

19993

186

31820068

Catatumbo-Bari National Park/

Yasuni/

Perijá National ParkRegión Lago de Maracaibo -Sierra de PeriProtected Zone

II

II

IIV

Europe

Albania/

Greece/

Former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia

674

25161056

Prespa Lake National Park/

Prespes National Park/

Galichica National ParkPelister National Park

II

IIII

Austria/

Czech Republic

102736103578

307214280

Thayatal Protected Landscape AreaThayatal Nature Reserve/

Podyjí National ParkPodyji Protected Landscape Area

VIV

IIV



Austria/

Czech Republic

1028825425

2558

Lainsitzniederung Strict Nature ReserveBlockheide Eibenstein Nature ParkBlockheide Eibenstein Nature ReserveNorthern Waldviertel Area/

Trebonsko Protected Landscape Area

VV

VAustria/

Czech Republic/

Germany

42822605926059

6787064659

Bayerischer Wald, Böhmerwald, SumavaNational Park/

Šumava CHKO Protected Landscape AreaŠumava National ParkSumaveská Raselinisté/

Bayerischer Wald Nature Park DeïlanderregionBöhmerwald Biosphere Reserve

Pr

VIIII

VPr

Austria/

Germany

31402

688

Kalkhochalpen Nature Reserve/

Berchtesgaden National Park

IV

IIAustria/

Hungary

121862709

102857

9566

Neusiedlersee Nature ReserveNeusiedlersee - Seewinkel National ParkNeusiedler See und Umgebung ProtectedLandscape Area/

Fertö Hansag National Park

IVIIV

II

Austria/

Slovakia

1876931412683411220

31408

1903412155

Donau-Auen National ParkDonau-March Protected Landscape AreaAuen Protected Landscape AreaMarchaven-Marchegg NSG Nature ReserveUntere Marchauen Nature Reserve/

Slovakia Zahorie CHKO Protected LandscapeArea

Male Karpaty Protected Landscape Area

IIVV

UnIV

VV

Belarus/

Poland

1985

854

Belovezhskaya Puscha National Park/

Bialowieski National Park

II

II



Belarus/

Ukraine

1644

1749

Pripiatsky National Park/

Polessky Nature Reserve

Ib

IaBelgium/

Germany

18950

6971

Hautes Fagnes Eifel Nature Park/

Nordeifel Nature Park

V

VBosnia-Herzegovina/

Yugoslavia (Montenegro)

1055

155961051

Sutjeska National Park/

Tara National ParkDurmitor National Park

II

IIII

Croatia/

Hungary

1560515602

9683100798

Kopacki Rit Special ReserveKopacki Rit Nature Park/

Mohacsi Tortenelmi Emlekhely NatureConservation Area

Duna-Drava National Park

IaV

IVV

Czech Republic/

Germany

4275

3266611800

Protected Landscape Area Labské Pískovce/

Sächsische Schweiz National ParkSächsische Schweiz Protected Landscape Area

V

VV

Czech Republic/

Germany

61421

20920

Luzicke Hory PLA

Zittauer Gebirge PLA VCzech Republic/

Poland

645

852

Krkonoše National ParkProtected Landscape Area Iser Mountains/

Karkonoski National Park

V

IICzech Republic/

Poland/

Slovakia

4267

12270

11812

Beskydy Protected Landscape Area/

Zywiecki Park Krajobrazowy/

Protected Landscape Area Kysuce CHKO

V

V

VCzech Republic/

Slovakia

12154

12159

Protected Landscape Area White Carpathians/

Biele Karpaty Protected Landscape Area

V

V



Denmark/

Germany/

Netherlands

924915762

1770364575

43801541

3339132669118373011682256

6461712754

Waddensea Nature ReserveVadehavet Wildlife ReserveVadehavet Conservation AreaVadehavet National Nature Area/

Rantumbecken Nature ReserveNord-Sylt Nature ReserveHosteinische Schweiz Nature ParkSchleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer NationalPark

Niedersaohsisones Wattenmeer National ParkDollart Nature ReserveNordfriesisches Wattenmeer Nature Reserve/

Dollard Nature ReserveWaddensea Area Biosphere Reserve

IVVIV

IVIVVVVIVIV

n/a

Finland/

Norway

654

822

Lemmenjoki National Park/

Ovre Annarjakka National Park

II

IIFinland/

Norway 12297

Kasivarsi Wilderness Area/

Reisa National ParkRaisdoutterhaldi Protected Landscape Area

IV

IIV

Finland/

Norway/

Russian Federation

832

62446

Vätsäri Wilderness Area/

Ovre Pasvik National Park & Reserve/

Pasvik Zapovednikovednik

IV

II

IaFinland/

Russian Federation

656

68351

Oulanka National Park/

Paanajärvi

II

IIFinland/

Russian Federation

2561

1700

Urho Kekkonen National Park/

Laplandskiy Zapovednik

IV

Ia



Finland/

Russian Federation

1523102007102041

13988

Friendship Nature Reserve, Kainou ParkElimussalo Nature ReserveLehtua Nature ReserveUlvinsalo Strict Nature ReserveJuortansalo-Lapinuo Protected MireLososuo-Saarijarvi Protected MireIso-Palonen & Maariansarkat Nature Reserve/

Kostomukskiy Zapovednik

IaIVIV

IaFinland/

Sweden

40928

308111397

106872

Perameri National Park/

Haparanda Archipelago National ParkHaparanda-Sandskar Nature ReserveHaparanda Skärgård National Park

II

PrIVII

France/

Germany

6307

81245

Vosges du Nord Regional Nature Park/

Pfälzerwald Nature Park

V

France/

Italy

66110350

718

Vanoise National ParkVanoise National Park Buffer Zone/

Gran Paradiso National Park

IIV

VFrance/

Italy

664

14618

Mercantour National Park/

Maritime Alps National Park

II

VFrance/

Spain

662703151

893

Pyrenees Occidentales National ParkPyrennes Occidentales National Park BZ/

Ordessa y Monte Perdido National Park

II

IIHungary/

Slovakia

13652

4376

Aggtelék National Park/

Slovenský Kras CHKO Protected LandscapeArea

II

V

Hungary/

Slovakia

30853680

14146

Karancs-Madves Protected AreaBükki National Park/

Protected Landscape Area Cerová Vrchovina

VII

V



Italy/

Slovenia

15346

2517

Foresta Di Tarvisio Nature ReserveRegional Park Alpi Guilie/

Triglavski National Park

Un

IIItaly/

Switzerland

717

915

Stelvio National Park/

Suisse National Park

V

IaLithuania/

Russian Federation

31552

68348

Kursiu Nerija National Park/

Kurshaskayja Kosa National Park

II

IIFormer Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia/

Yugoslavia (Serbia)

1050 Mavrovo National Park/

Shara Mountains National Park

II

II

Norway/

Sweden

829

905906

399830818

Rago National ParkPr. Tysfjord Hellembotn National Park/

Padjelanta National ParkSarek National ParkStora Sjõfallet National ParkSjaunja Nature Reserve

II

IIIIV

PrNorway/

Sweden

8269906833

1040130816

Femundsmarka National ParkFemundsmarka Protected Landscape AreaGutulia National Park/

Rogen Nature ReserveRogen-Langfjallet National Park

IIVII

IVPr

Norway/

Sweden

125857

30821

Lunddsneset Nature Reserve/

Tresticklan National Park

Ia

Poland/

Slovakia

848

1975

Tatrzanski National Park/

Tatranský National Park

II

IIPoland/

Slovakia

106887

1216014115

Babiogorski National Park/

Horná Orava CHKO Protected Landscape AreaBabia Hora National Nature Reserve

II

VIa



Poland/

Slovakia

857

646

Pieninski National Park/

Pieninski National Park

II

IIPoland/

Slovakia/

Ukraine

851

67746

6775012157

19901745

Bieszcadski National ParkMagura National ParkE. Carpathian - E Beskeid? Biosphere Reserve/

E. Carpathians Biosphere ReserveVychodne Karpaty CHKO Protected LandscapeArea/

Karpatskiy National Biosphere Reserve,Zapovednik

Karpatskiy National Nature Park

II

n/a

n/aV

IaII

Portugal/

Spain

860

71215

Peneda-Geres National Park/

Baixa-Lima-Serra do Xures Natural Park

II

VRomania/

Ukraine

287913170231703

4814

Danube Delta Biosphere ReserveRosca-Buhaiova National ReserveLetea Nature Reserve/

Dunaiskie Plavni Nature Zapovednik.

n/aIaIa

IaRomania/

Yugoslavia

11150

2522

Cazanele Forest Reserve/

Djerdap National Park

IV

V

Africa

Angola/

Namibia

3472251

885

Iona National ParkMocamedes Parital Reserve/

Skeleton Coast Game Park

VIIV

IIAngola/

Namibia/

Zambia

4493

7442

30052

Mucusso National ParkLuiana Partial Reserve/

W. Caprivi Game Reserve/

Mamili National Park

IVIV

VI

II



Angola/

Zambia

4493

10874081

Luiana Partial Reserve/

Sioma Ngweze National ParkWest Zambezi Game Management AreaLiuwa Plain National Park

IV

IIVI

Benin/

Burkina Faso

59722532254

3228322692644488

Boucle de la Pendjari National ParkPendjari Hunting ZoneAtakora Hunting Zone/

Pama Partial Faunal ReserveArly Total Faunal ReserveArly Partial Faunal ReserveKourtiagou Partial Faunal Reserve

IIVIVI

IVIVIVIV

Benin/

Burkina Faso/

Niger

12201

10484488

818

“W” du Benin National Park/

“W” du Burkina Faso National ParkKourtiagou Partial Faunal Reserve/

“W” du Niger National Park

II

IIIV

IIBotswana/

Namibia/

South Africa

7508

97586

874

Gemsbok National Park/

Kalahari Private Reserve/

Kalahari Gemsbok National Park

II

Un

IIBotswana/

South Africa/

Zimbabwe

21174

3059

Northern Tuli Game Reserve/

Vhembe-Dongola Nature Reserve/

Tuli Safari Area

IV

VIBurkina Faso/

Côte d’Ivoire

13746 Komoé-Leraba Classified Forest/

Warigué Classified Forest

VI

VIBurundi/

Rwanda

9161

9148

Kibira National Park/

Nyungwe Forest Reserve

IV

IV



Cameroon/

Central African Republic/

Republic of Congo

3145831459

72332

Lake Lobeke/

Dzanga-Ndoki National ParkDzanga Sangha Forest Special Reserve/

Nouabalé Ndoki National Park

Pr

IIVI

IICameroon/

Nigeria

20058

20299

Korup National Park/

Cross River National Park

II

IICentral African Republic/

Sudan

2261

5090

Yata-Ngaya Faunal Reserve/

Radom National Park

IV

IICôte d’Ivoire/

Guinea/

Liberia

1295

29067

917620175

Mont Nimba Strict Nature Reserve/

Mont Nimba Strict Nature Reserve/

E. Nimba National ForestW. Nimba National Forest

Ia

Ia

UnUn

Gambia/

Senegal

2290

866

Niomi National Park/

Delta (Iles) du Saloum National Park

II

IIGuinea/

Senegal

2906929409

865

Badiar National ParkBadiar-Sud Classified Forest/

Niokola Koba National Park

IIUn

IIKenya/

Tanzania

1297

7437916918

Maasai Mara National Park/

Maswa Game ReserveSerengeti National ParkNgorongoro Crater Conservation Area

II

IVII

VIKenya/

Somalia

2417

13715872

1371013714

Boni National Reserve/

Juba Left Controlled Hunting AreaLag Badana National ParkBushbush Game ReserveBushbush Controlled Hunting Area

VI

UnPr.VI



Kenya/

Tanzania

19564

14027433

Tsavo West National Park/

Mkomazi Game ReserveUmba Game Reserve

II

IVIV

Kenya/

Tanzania

7587633

92231593

Amboseli National ParkLoitokitok Forest Reserve/

Kilimanjaro National ParkKilimanjaro Game ReserveKitenden Corridor

IIUn

IIIVPr

Kenya/

Uganda

760

9179

Mount Elgon National Park/

Sebei Controlled Hunting Area

II

VIMalawi/

Zambia

779

1102

Nyika National Park/

Nyika National Park

II

IIMalawi/

Zambia

4648

4102

Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve/

Musalangu Game Management AreaLundezi Forest Reserve

IV

VI

Malawi/

Zambia

780

1088108611001091

Kasungu National Park/

N Luangwa National ParkS Luangwa National ParkLuambe National ParkLukusuzi National Park

II

IIIIIIII

Mauritania/

Senegal

9310

86711653

Diawling National Park/

Djoudj National ParkGueumbeul Special Faunal Reserve

II

IIIV

Mozambique/

South Africa/

Swaziland

4652

11632939758

Maputo Game Reserve/

Ndumu Game ReserveTembe Elephant Park Reserve/

Hlane National Park, Mlawula Nature Reserve

IV

IIIV

IV



Mozambique/

South Africa/

Zimbabwe

20295800799

873

1104

Limpopo Valley Wildlife Utilization AreaZinhave National ParkBanhine National Park/

Kruger National Park/

Gonarezhou National ParkMabalauta

VIIIII

II

II

Namibia/

South Africa

8785

30851

Ai-Ais Hot Springs Game ParkFish River Canyon/

Richtersveld National Park

II

IIRwanda/

Uganda/

Zaïre

863

1843618437

108120331

Volcans National Park/

Mgahinga Gorilla National ParkBwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park/

Virunga National ParkRutshuru Hunting Zone

II

IIII

IIVI

Sudan/

Uganda

9047933/

31275647003276

Nimule National Park/

Otze- Dufile Wildlife Sanctuary

Otze Forest Forest ReserveMount Kei White Rhino Sanctuary

II

IV

UnIV

Sudan/

Uganda

1369

958

Kidepo Game Reserve/

Kidepo Valley National Park

VI

IISudan/

Democratic Republic of theCongo (Zaïre)

10737

108320036

Lantoto National Park/

Garamba National ParkMondo Misso Hunting Zone

Pr.

IIVI

Uganda/

Zaïre

184389184

1446

1081

Rwenzori MountainsSemluiki Controlled Hunting AreaSemuliki National ParkKyambura Game Reserve/

Virunga National Park

IIVI

II

IV



Zambia/

Zimbabwe

7692

25312524

Lower Zambezi National Park/

Mana Pools National ParkCharara Safari AreaSapi , Chewore, Dande Special Areas

II

IIVIVI

Zambia/

Zimbabwe

234762183

19932530

Mosi-oa-Tunya National ParkVictoria Falls National Monument/

Victoria Falls National ParkZambezi National Park

IIIIII

IIIII

Asia

Bangladesh/

India

4478

9960

Sundarbans W. Wildlife Sanctuary/

Sundarbans National Park/

IV

IaBhutan/

India

7996

18189232

62663

Royal Manas/

Manas SanctuaryBuxa Tiger ReserveBuxa National Park

II

IVIV

UnBrunei Darussalam/

Malaysia

3964118035329483937

3790787

Labi Hills Protection Forest ReserveLabi Hills Recreation AreaSungei Ingei Conservation AreaEnsengi Forest Reserve/

Gading Forest ReserveGunung Mulu National Park

IaVIa

Un

IICambodia/

Thailand

12249

1415

Preh Vihear Protected Landscape/

Yod Dome Wildlife SanctuaryPhanom Dong Rak Wildlife Sanctuary

V

IVIV



Cambodia/

Laos/

Viet Nam

68862

18872

12171

Virachey National Park/

Dong Ampham Nature ReserveNam Kong Nature ReserveAltopeu/

Mom Ray Nature Reserve

II

VIPrPr

IVChina/

N. Korea/

Russian Federation

954619546096016

17908

1726

Jingpo Lake Nature ReserveMudan Peak Nature ReserveChangbai Mountains Biosphere Reserve/

Paekdu Mountain Nature Protection Area/

Kedrovaya Pad Zapovednik

IIVI

n/a

IV

IaChina/

Mongolia/

Russian Federation

96064

93538

62684

Dalai Lake Nature Reserve/

Mongul Daguur Strict Protected Area/

Daurskiy Zapovednik

IV

Ib

IaChina (Tibet)/

Nepal

9578595784

804803

2660626605

Zhu Feng Nature ReserveJiang Cun Nature Reserve/

Sagarmatha National ParkLangtang National ParkMakalu-Barun National ParkMakalu-Barun Conservation Area

IbVI

IIIIII

IVChina/

Pakistan

96118

836

Ta Shi Ku Er Gan Nature Reserve/

Khunjerab National Park

Ib

IIChina/

Russian Federation

95476

62691

Xing Kai Lake Nature Reserve/

Khankaiskiy Zapovednik.

VI

IaChina/

Russian Federation

95471

1715

Hunhe Nature ReserveHong River Nature Reserve/

Bol’shekhekhtsizskiy Zapovednik

IVIV

Ia



China (Guangxi)/

Viet Nam

9587295618

10360

Gu Long Mountain Shui Yuan LinXia Lei Shui Yuan Lin Nature Reserve/

Trungkhanh

VIVI

IVChina/

Viet Nam

9977695742

10357

Guan Yin Mountain Nature ReserveFen Shui Ling Peak Nature Reserve/

Hoang Lien Son #2

VI

IVIndia/

Nepal

1807691

1308

Katarniaghat SanctuaryDudhwa National Park/

Royal Bardia National Park

IVII

IIIndia/

Nepal

4578124144543

805

Valmiki SanctuarySohagibarwa SanctuaryUdaipur Sanctuary/

Royal Chitwan National Park

IVIVIV

IIIndia/

Pakistan

19683

6684

Kachchh Desert Sanctuary/

Rann of Kutch Wildlife Sanctuary

IV

IVIndonesia (Kalimantan)/

Malaysia (Sarawak)

8673

130012250

Gunung Bentang Karimum National Park/

Lanjak Entimau Wildlife SanctuaryBatang Ai National Park

II

IVII

Indonesia/

Papua New Guinea

29966

42004202

Wasur National Park/

Tonda Wildlife Management AreaMaza Wildlife Management Area

II

VIVI

Kyrgyz Republic/

Uzbekistan

1675

1761

Besharalsky Zapovednik./

Ugam-Chatkal National Park

Ia

IaLaos/

Thailand

18893

39518

Phou Xiang Thong National biodiversityConservation Area/

Pha Taem National Park

VI

II

Laos/

Viet Nam

61496

10363

Nam Et National Biodiversity Conservation Area/

Sop Cop Nature Reserve

VI

IV



Laos/

Viet Nam

12182

10362

Phou Dene Dinh National BiodiversityConservation Area/

Muong Nhe Nature Reserve

VI

IV

Malaysia (Sabah)/

Philippines

793

14758

Pulau Penya Park/

Turtle Island Marine Sanctuary

II

IVMongolia/

Russia

93566

67722

Uvs Nuur Basin Strict Protected Area/

Ubsunurskaya Kotlovina

Ia

IaMongolia/

Russia

93579

68356

Khovsgul Nuur National C Park/

Turkinskiy National Park

II

II

Key to IUCN category field:Pr proposed protected arean/a not applicable (as in the case of internationally designated sites, such as biosphere reserves)Un unassigned (not assigned to a category because the designation/site does not meet IUCN’s definition of a protected area)blank category not yet assigned (often due to inadequate information)


REFERENCES

Blake, G.H. (these proceedings). The geopolitics of transboundary cooperation: an overview.

Brock, L. (1991). “Peace through Parks: The Environment on the Peace Research Agenda.”Journal of Peace Research 28(4): 407-423

Green, M.J.B. and Paine, J. (in press). State of the World’s Protected Areas at the End of theTwentieth Century. In: Protected Areas in the 21st Century: from Islands to Networks, WorldCommission on Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland , Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Hamilton, L. S., Mackay, J. C., Worboys, G. L., Jones, R. A. and Manson, G. B. (Ed.) (1996).Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. Canberra, Australia, Australian Alps NationalParks and IUCN.

IUCN (1994). Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Commission on NationalParks and Protected Areas with the assistance of the World Conservation MonitoringCentre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x + 261pp.

Pratt, M. (1997). Electronic mail list-serve “int-boundaries”, 17 October 1997. InternationalBoundaries Research Unit, University of Durham, Durham, UK.

Thorsell, J. and Harrison, J. (1990). Parks That Promote Peace: A Global Inventory ofTransfrontier Nature Reserves. Parks on the Borderline: Experience in TransfrontierConservation. J. Thorsell (Ed.). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Pp. 4-21.

Westing, A. H. (1993). Building Confidence with Transfrontier Reserves: The Global Potential.Transfrontier Reserves for Peace and Nature: A Contribution to Human Security. A. H.Westing. (Ed.). UNEP, Nairobi, Pp. 1-15.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the hundreds of protected area managers who obliginglyresponded to requests for information on transfrontier protected areas. Members of the WCMCProtected Areas Unit, namely James Paine, Samuel Kanyamibwa, Isabel Ripa Juliá, JavierBeltrán and Balzhan Zhimbiev, contributed their knowledge and expertise. Vicky Fletcher andOliver Jarratt matched listed transfrontier protected areas with database records, Simon Blythably prepared a poster map for this Conference at very short notice, and Victoria Freemanprovided secretarial and other support. Members of the Protected Areas Programme at IUCNHeadquarters shared their expertise and provided various support, which is greatlyappreciated. The study has also benefited from the comments and suggestions of the WorldCommission on Protected Areas Steering Committee, numerous researchers at DukeUniversity, and many participants at the IUCN World Conservation Congress.


A TRANSFRONTIER RESERVE FOR PEACE AND NATURE ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA

By: Arthur H. Westing

BACKGROUND

The Korean War of 1950-1953 left the Korean peninsula divided into the Democratic People'sRepublic of Korea [North Korea] and the Republic of Korea [South Korea] (Sullivan & Foss,1987). That war (my war, as it happens) is still technically in progress, and the 246 h MilitaryDemarcation Line separating the two states - as established by the Military Armistice Agreementof 27 July 1953 - is surrounded by a demilitarized zone (DMZ) 4 km in width (with 2 km on eitherside of the line), and thus with an area of 98400 ha (Kirkbride, 1985).

Both Koreas are formally committed to consummating a peace treaty, as well as to ultimatepeaceful reunification - and negotiations of a desultory nature towards those ends have beenoccurring on and off for several decades now. The process began with a South-North JointCommuniqué of 4 July 1972, by which the two Koreas pledged to achieve unification throughindependent efforts and peaceful means, and to carry out exchanges in many areas. Even moreto the point, a detailed ‘Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression and Exchanges andCooperation between the South and the North' of 13 December 1991 reaffirms the earlier JointCommuniqué and goes on to proclaim that a South-North Joint Military Committee shall, inter alia,carry out peaceful uses of the DMZ (see its Article 12); and that the two parties shall plan andcarry out cooperation in diverse fields, including the environment (see itsArticle 16).

The DMZ has been left relatively undisturbed ever since the end of the war, the primary humaninterference having been occasional circumscribed forest fires deliberately set for militarypurposes. To the south of the DMZ there is an additional civilian control zone of varying width,averaging 5.4 km, that has also remained relatively undeveloped and only modestly disturbed,although some agriculture is permitted in this informal zone; a similar civilian control zone is saidto exist to the north of the DMZ (see Note 1]. At present, South Korea as a whole has about 7%of its national area under nature protection, and North Korea only about 0.5% (IUCN. 1992, pp43-54; 1994, pp 124-125) (see Note 2). The environment throughout the rest of the peninsula, itmust be added, is widely degraded and otherwise abused, not surprising in view of the humanpopulation pressures in both Koreas and the rapid rate of economic development in South Korea(Kim & Oever, 1992). However, the DMZ plus its associated civilian control zones now support -that is, provide a most important refuge for - a substantial fraction of the numerous species offlora and fauna indigenous to the Korean peninsula (see Note 3).

The DMZ itself is now a flourishing de facto nature reserve, a status that could, however,disappear rapidly following reunification owing to the truly enormous social pressures, both northand south, for agricultural, industrial, and urban development (Kim, 1997; Matthiessen, 1996). Iand others have thus been urgently suggesting for some years now that North-South negotiationsbe initiated on a priority basis so as to establish, as soon as possible, a Korean Bi-state Reservefor Peace and Nature (Kim, 1997; Westing, 1993, pp 8-9). Then the two states could begin todeal cooperatively with a precious common natural heritage of that ecogeographical region: thespecies-rich ecosystems that straddle the north-south divide. Such an endeavor would serve notonly to contribute to the very necessary expansion of areas devoted to biodiversity protection onthe peninsula [with a biota that includes a number of species threatened with extinction), butwould, I should hope, at the same time facilitate the still desultory peace process and - thereby -ultimate reunification and conflict prevention (Cumings, 1992; Sullivan & Foss, 1987; Westing,1998).

Specifically what I am suggesting is the establishment of two distinct transfrontier zones: one alargely low wetland toward the western end of the Demarcation Line, about 60 km northeast of


Panmunjom, important inter alia as a wintering ground for migratory birds; and the other largely amountainous temperate-forest upland about 50 km southwest of the eastern terminus of the DMZ.I would suggest that each of these reserves be a minimum of 50000 ha in size, and that theyextend beyond the DMZ itself and into the two existing civilian control zones (Westing, 1993, pp8-9). This would leave up to 73% of the combined DMZ and civilian control zones for thedevelopment so ardently desired (not to say, expected) on both sides of the Line (see Note 4].

The western wet lowland site I propose is important as a migratory staging area or winteringground for a number of waterfowl (Scott, 1989, pp 98-99, 105-109). Indeed, it is crucial to thesurvival of two majestic bird species (Archibald, 1975; Higuchi et al., 1996; Matthiessen, 1996;MM, 1987b, pp 397-398; Zimmerman, 1981): the red-crowned (or Manchuria or Japanese) crane(Grus japonensis; IUCN Vulnerable) and the white-naped (or gray) crane (Grus vipio; IUCNVulnerable). Other threatened bird species that could benefit from this site include the Chineseegret (Egretta eulophotes; IUCN Vulnerable), the black-faced spoonbill (Platalea minor; IUCNEndangered], the white-tailed sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla; IUCN Vulnerable), and possibly alsothe hooded crane (Grus monacha; IUCN Vulnerable) (MIA, 1987b, pp 397-398]. Mammalsthreatened with extinction in this area include the grey wolf (Canis lupus; IUCN Vulnerable] andthe Siberian musk deer (Moschus moschiferus; IUCN Endangered) (ML/l, 1987b, pp 387 & 395-396) (see Note 5).

The eastern dry upland site I propose is important for a number of threatened mammalianspecies, including the Asiatic black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus: IUCN Vulnerable), the Siberianmusk deer, the grey wolf, and ever so possibly (if any remain there) the tiger (Panthera tigris:IUCN Endangered] (MIA, 1987a, p. 507) (see Note 5). Birds threatened with extinction in the areaappear again to include the red-crowned crane (MIA, 1987a, p. 551) (see Note 5). In creating theeastern site. consideration must be given to thereby joining, at least by protected corridors, twoalready existing national reserves, one on each side of the DMZ: North Korea's KumgangMountain National Park (44 000 ha; IUCN II; ca 30 km northwest of the DMZ) and South Korea'sSorak Mountain National Park (37 000 ha; IUCN V; ca 40 km southeast of the DMZ) (McGahey,1991; Kim, 1997). A generally north-south ridge-line complex of reserves of that magnitude wouldbe especially beneficial to large mammals and other wildlife.

TRANSFRONTIER POSITIONS OF THE TWO KOREAS

Both Koreas have at one time or another supported the notion of setting aside at least a portionof the DMZ as a nature reserve, although at the moment their positions on the matter areunfortunately quite at odds. North Korea approached the United Nations Secretary-General inearly 1991, requesting that he explore the possibility of a DMZ-centered nature reserve, a stepsoon thereafter supported in like manner by South Korea. The task was given over to the UnitedNations Environment Programme [UNEP] (Nairobi), which then appointed me to visit both Seouland Pyongyang in order to initiate appropriate arrangements. My mission to Seoul transpired inDecember 1991, but my visit to Pyongyang was in the eleventh hour postponed indefinitely.

South Korea had already been systematically studying the environmental status of its civiliancontrol zone for some years prior to 1991 (e.g., MIA, 1987a; 1987b; NUB, 1989), and quickly (inmid 1991) followed up on the new initiative by establishing an inter-agency task force comprisedof high-level representatives of eight relevant bodies, both political and technical, to explore thematter diplomatically, to carry out further ecological surveys of the border region, and torecommend specific sites (see Note 6). The Government, in recognizing the potential for a DMZreserve to serve as a political tension-easing, confidence-building, and conflict-preventionmeasure between North and South, in December 1991 indicated its readiness to meet on thismatter with representatives of the North, with no objection to having UNEP serve in a facilitatingrole. In December 1994, the Government of South Korea contacted me to reinforce that offer, thistime emphasizing its desire to have either UNEP or the United Nations Development Programme


[UNDP] [New York) play a key catalytic role. And in August 1997, the director of the UNEPregional office for Asia and the Pacific [UNEP/ROAP] (Bangkok), informed me that South Koreacontinues to have a positive reaction to establishing a transfrontier reserve.

North Korea, after its early 1991 initiative, followed later that year by discussions between itsEnvironment Protection Bureau and UNEP, has essentially withdrawn into silence on the matterdespite many subsequent exploratory moves on the part of UNEP (through me, throughUNEP/ROAP, and via other avenues] plus further ones by UNDP. I was informed in mid May of1992 by the Government of North Korea that a committee had just been formed for cooperationwith South Korea on environmental and other matters; and in late May that the issue of turningthe DMZ into a peaceful and natural park would follow smoothly upon implementation of theAgreement on Reconciliation mentioned earlier. But despite its consummation a few monthsearlier (in December 1991, entering into force in February 1992), nothing of substance in thatregard seems to have occurred since. Indeed, as recently as July 1997 I was informed by theUNDP resident representative in Pyongyang (UNDP/DPRK) that he continues to raise the issuefrom time to time, but that the Government is not as yet the least bit interested in reviving thematter. And the director of UNEP/ROAP has raised the issue in Pyongyang no less than twiceduring 1997 with both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the General Bureau of EnvironmentProtection and Land Administration (and has additionally done so with North Korea'srepresentative in Bangkok) - only to be decisively informed that the Government does not wish topursue the subject at this time.

NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS

Thus, despite the continuing low-key efforts by both UNEP and UNDP, formal progress toward aDMZ-associated nature reserve is languishing at the moment owing to North Korea's reticence tore-open the matter. However, peace talks are once again in the process of being resuscitated -for the first time with North Korea, South Korea, the USA, and China all formally involved as co-equals in the negotiations - and this may provide the justification and impetus for a re-awakenedinterest by North Korea. In the meantime, two USA-based non-governmental organizations standout in their efforts to keep the matter alive.

The International Crane Foundation (Baraboo, WI, USA), co-founded in 1973 by George W.Archibald, and directed by him since then, has long been active in trying to establish protectedareas for the red-crowned and white-naped cranes in and near the DMZ and elsewhere alongtheir ranges (Archibald, 1975; Matthiessen, 1996: Zimmerman, 1981). The Foundation hascarried out study tours of the DMZ on various occasions over the past two decades. Mostrecently, in 1995 it petitioned the South Korean National Unification Board to facilitatecooperation between the two Koreas on crane research and conservation under the auspices ofthe Foundation. Moreover, the Foundation, which has been working in collaboration with the[South] Korean Association for Bird Protection, was instrumental in having South Korea establisha crane refuge in the Han River estuary near the western terminus of the DMZ (Zimmerman,1981, p. 62).

The Korea Peace Bioreserves System Project (University Park, PA, USA), founded in 1994 bv KeChung Kim, and directed by him since then. is actively attempting to convince the two Koreas toestablish within the DMZ a system if bioreserves enjoying varying levels of restrictiveness(Hocknell, 1996, pp 68-70: Kim. 1997]. One of the aims of the Project is to foster eco-tourism as ameans of making the reserves more palatable to people in the area.FUTURE PROSPECTS

So what does the future look like? Both Koreas are more or less strongly committed toconserving their own natural environments and to joining with the community of nations to further


global environmental aims. Nonetheless, it is clear that both have a long way to go, North Koreamore so than South Korea.

Regrettably, neither of the two Koreas is as yet a party to the 1977 Protocol on InternationalArmed Conflicts (UNTS #17512), so important because - as one of its basic rules - this widelyadopted instrument draws protection of the environment during wartime into the orbit ofinternational humanitarian law (see especially its Article 35.3). Furthermore, neither country is asyet a party to Protocol II of the 1980 Inhumane Conventional Weapon Convention (UNTS#22495), which imposes restrictions on the use of the environmental scourge of anti-personnelland mines.

North Korea has a Ministry of Forestry, a General Bureau of Environment Protection and LandAdministration (the former Environment Protection Bureau), and a Natural Conservation Union,but as yet no non-governmental environmental organizations (IUCN, 1992, pp 43-46). Moreover,it is not as yet a party to the 1971 Wetlands (Ramsar) Convention (UNTS #14583) (whichcommits its parties to consultation with respect to any transfrontier wetland [see its Article 5]), tothe 1972 World Heritage Convention (UNTS #15511), or to the 1973 Convention on InternationalTrade in Endangered Species (CITES] (UNTS #14537] - three of the keystone treaties in globalenvironmental cooperation. On the other hand, it is good to be able to point out that North Koreadid become a party to the highly apropos 1992 Biological Diversity Convention (UNTS #30619] in1994 - as did South Korea - which, inter alia, commits all of its parties both to establishing, asappropriate, a system of protected areas (see its Article 8a) and to cooperating amongthemselves (see its Article 5).

South Korea has a Ministry of Environment, a National Parks Authority. a ForestryAdministration, plus various relevant non-governmental organizations (IUCN, 1992, pp 47-54).Moreover, South Korea became a party to the 1972 World Heritage Convention in 1988, to the1973 Convention on Trade in Endangered Species in 1993, and [as noted earlier) to the 1992Biological Diversity Convention in 1994. However, (as with North Korea) it is not as yet a party tothe 1971 Wetlands Convention. As a welcome note, South Korea is making a point to publicize itsgrowing commitment to the environment (Kang, 1997). And more directly to the subject, inaddressing the 19th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on 23 June 1997,the President of South Korea specifically expressed his hope that the two Koreas wouldcooperate with each other to protect and preserve the DMZ, turning it into a zone for peace andecological integrity. Moreover, since 4 July 1997 there has been before the South KoreanNational Assembly proposed legislation to establish a nature reserve that includes the DMZ.

A political impediment to establishing the proposed transfrontier reserve prior to theconsummation of a peace treaty is that it would perforce include a portion of the DMZ, a zone thatwas (as noted earlier] created by the 1953 Military Armistice Agreement (see its Article 1). Theparties to this Agreement are the United Nations Command (with the USA speaking on its behalf),North Korea, and China. Thus, formally speaking, it is only these three parties that are now in aposition to decide the disposition of the DMZ. That makes it somewhat awkward for South Korea,not a party to the Agreement, to pursue negotiations that involve the DMZ. On the other hand, inpractice, if the two Koreas were to agree on the use of a portion of the DMZ for environmentalprotection, as is being envisioned here, I feel confident that acquiescence by the two other partiesto the Agreement would come as a matter of course, especially so inasmuch as the newestpeace negotiations for the first time formally involve both Koreas.

A technical impediment to establishing the proposed transfrontier reserve is that the immediatesurroundings of the DMZ - and the DMZ itself to some greater or lesser extent - are heavilymined. Clearing operations are not only exceedingly difficult, expensive, and dangerous, but atthe same time can be most environmentally disruptive (Westing, 1985).


In closing, it is abundantly clear that the possibility of a Korean hi-state reserve for peace andnature has been received most favorably by the Government of South Korea; and has alsoreceived the careful attention of the Government of North Korea. Despite the sensitive nature ofany negotiations between the two Koreas - or perhaps because of this - a confidence-buildingand conflict-prevention measure that involves something as benign, as mutually beneficial, andas apolitical as biodiversity and related nature protection would be most important to initiate, andwould then seem to have a reasonable chance of succeeding in due course. Clearly, the projectis well worth pursuing as one of the most valuable opportunities in the world for a newtransfrontier protected area. It would be making a critical contribution to the environmentalsecurity - and thus also to the comprehensive human security - of the long troublesome Koreanpeninsula.

REFERENCES

Archibald, G. 1975.Cranes over Panmunjom: how Korea's demilitarized zone became a lush wildlife sanctuary.International Wildlife, Vienna, VA, USA, 5(5) :18-21.

Cumings, B. 1992.Spring thaw for Korea's cold war?Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Chicago, 48(3):14-23.

Higuchi, H., et al. 1996.Satellite tracking of white-naped crane migration and the importance of the Koreandemilitarized zone.Conservation Biology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 10:806-812.

Hocknell, P. 1996.Partitioned states, divided resources: North/South Korea and cases for comparison.IBRU (International Boundaries Research Unit) Boundary & Security Bulletin, Durham, UK,1996:65-71.

IUCN. 1992.Protected areas of the world: a review of national systems. II. Palaearctic.Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union (IUCN), 556 pp.

IUCN. 1993.1994 IUCN red list of threatened animals.Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union (IUCN), 286 pp.

IUCN. 1994.1993 United Nations list of national parks and protected areas.Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union (IUCN), 313 pp.

Kang, Hyon-Wook. 1997.For life on earth.Our Planet, Nairobi, 9(1):36.

Kim, Ke Chung. 1997.Preserving biodiversity in Korea's demilitarized zone.Science, Washington, 278:242-243.

Kim, Ock-Kyung, & Oever, P. van den. 1992.Demographic transition and patterns of natural-resources use in the Republic of Korea.Ambio, Stockholm, 21:56-62.


Kirkbride, W.A. 1985.Panmunjom: facts about the Korean DMZ.Seoul: Hollym, 80 pp.

KOIS. 1990.Handbook of Korea. 8th ed.Seoul: Korean Overseas Information Service, 574 DD.

Matthiessen, P. 1996.Accidental sanctuary.Audubon, New York, 98(4) :44-55,106-107.

McGahey, S. 1991.Korean tourism industry's ultimate challenge.Travel Trade Journal, Seoul, 5(11):55-59.

MIA. 1987a.Report on the environmental study of near DMZ, Korea: Kangwondo area (in Koreanw/English abstracts).Seoul: Ministry of Internal Affairs, Kangwon Province, 694 pp.

MIA. 1987b.Report on the environmental study of near DMZ, Korea: Kyonggido area (in Koreanw/English abstracts).Seoul: Ministry of Internal Affairs, Kyonggi Province, 553 pp.

NUB. 1989.Study of natural ecosystems in DMZ (in Korean).Seoul: National Unification Board, 131 pp.

Scott, D.A. (ed.). 1989.Directory of Asian wetlands.Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union [IUCN], 1181 pp.

Sullivan, J., & Foss, R. (eds). 1987.Two Koreas: one future?Lanham, MD, USA: University Press of America, 167 pp. pp 1-16.

Westing, A.H. 1985.Explosive remnants of war: an overview.In: Westing, A.H. (ed.). Explosive remnants of war: mitigating the environmental effects.London: Taylor & Francis, 141 pp:

Westing, A.H. 1993.Building confidence with transfrontier reserves: the global potential.In: Westing, A.H. (ed.). Transfrontier reserves for peace and nature: a contribution to globalsecurity. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme, 127 pp: pp 1-15.

Westing, A.H. 1998.Establishment and management of transfrontier reserves for conflict prevention andconfidence building. In preparation.

Zimmerman, D.R. 1981.Fragile victory for beauty on an old Asian battleground.


Smithsonian, Washington, 12(7) :56-65.

NOTES

* Invited paper, International Conference of the World Conservation Union [IUCN] plus PeaceParks Foundation on ‘Transboundary protected Areas as a Vehicle for International Co-operation', Somerset West (Cape Town), South Africa, 16-18 September 1997. The author, aforest ecologist, is with Westing Associates in Environment, Security, & Education, RFD 2, Box330H, Putney, VT 05346, USA, [email protected]. He is most pleased to acknowledge thereceipt of useful information or suggestions from George W, Archibald, Seek-Young Choi, KeChung Kim, Yoon-Yul Kim, Christian Lemaire, Masa Nagai, Yu Bo Sun, Carol E. Westing, andSuvit Yodmani.

1. The eastern portion of the South Korean civilian control zone (CCZ) [the portion in KangwonProvince) has an area of 104 850 ha (MIA, 1987a, p. 243) and the western portion (the portion inKyonggi Province) 29 000 ha (MIA, 1987b, p. 183), for a total of 133 850 ha. At a length of 246km, the average width of this zone is thus 5.4 km. With the assumption that there is a CCZ ofsimilar size to the north of the DMZ, then the combined area of the DMZ (4 km x 246 km = 98 400ha) plus the two associated CCZs comes to 366 100 ha.

2. North Korea, which is 12054000 ha in size, has two registered nature reserves with acombined area of 57 890 ha (0.5% of the country) (IUCN, 1994, p. 124). South Korea, which is 9848 000 ha in size, has 28 registered nature reserves with a combined area of 693 798 ha (7% ofthe country) (IUCN, 1994, p. 125). Thus, the Korean peninsula as a whole is 21902000 ha in sizeand has 30 nature reserves that total 751688 ha (3% of the peninsula).

3. The Korean peninsula supports more than 3000 species of higher (vascular) plants, includinga number of endemic ones (KOIS, 1990, p. 24), of which more than 1000 can be found in theDMZ and/or associated civilian control zones (CCZs) (Kim, 1997; MIA, 1987a, p. 341; 1987b, pp241 & 253]; more than 75 species of mammals (KOIS, 1990, p. 30], of which perhaps half ormore are in the DMZ and/or CCZs (Kim, 1997; MIA, 1987a, p. 507; 1987b, p. 387); more than 320species of birds (KOIS, 1990, p. 30), of which more than 50 are in the DMZ and/or CCZs; andmore than 130 species of freshwater fish (KOIS, 1990, p. 30), of which more than 80 are in theDMZ and/or CCZs (Kim, 1997). An authoritative source for biodiversity data. not available to me.is (Biodiversity Korea 2000: a strategy to save, study, and sustainable use Korea's bioticresources)(in Korean). Seoul: Minumsa, 1994.

4. The DMZ plus its associated civilian control zones have an area of perhaps 366 100 ha (seeNote 1). If the two proposed reserves were 50000 ha each, then together they would represent27% of the combined DMZ and civilian control zones. If the two recommended reserves were, infact, established, then this would expand the portion of North Korea under protection to 107890ha (to 1% of the country); that of South Korea to 743 798 ha (to 8% of the country); and that ofthe two Koreas together to 85 1688 ha (to 4% of the peninsula).5. Further animal species of the Korean peninsula threatened with extinction that perhaps nowbenefit from the protected status of the DMZ, in either eastern or western portions, include (IUCN,1993; KOIS, 1990, pp 30-31): the crested ibis (Nipponia nippon; IUCN Endangered); fairy pitta(Pitta nympha; IUCN Rare); great bustard (Otis tarda; IUCN Rare); cinereous (or black) vulture(Aegypius monachus; IUCN Vulnerable); and Steller's sea eagle (Haliaeetus pelagicus; IUCNRare). Moreover, there are a number of plant species found in the DMZ and/or associated civiliancontrol zones that are threatened with extinction, both in the eastern (MIA, 1987a, pp 341 & 386]and western (MIA, 1987b, p. 253) portions.

6. The South Korean inter-agency DMZ-reserve task force established in mid 1991 wascomprised of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [presiding), ForestryAdministration, Forestry Research Institute, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of National Defense,


National Unification Board, Ministry of Internal Affairs, and National Security Planning Board. Itshould also be noted that in April 1997 the Ministry of Environment received from the [South]Korean National Commission for UNESCO a report it had requested on preserving theecosystems of its civilian control zone.


THE CENTRAL AFRICAN EXPERIENCE IN TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS. A CASESTUDY OF THE TRI-STATE PROJECT BETWEEN THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC,CONGO, CAMEROON; AND THE NATIONAL PARKS BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA.

By: Steve Gartlan,WWF Representative for Cameroon39

The principal theme of this conference is the possible role of transboundary protected areas inthe resolution of local and regional conflicts and in improving relationships between countries.The importance of the theme lies in the fact that a very high proportion of protected areas inAfrica abut or adjoin national boundaries. Regional, trans-national and internal civil conflictsseem endemic in much of sub-Saharan Africa. The causes are various; inter-ethnic rivalry,disputes over resources and the existence of artificial national boundaries inherited from thecolonial era but vigorously defended by present nation states. It should be noted in passing thatthe existence of conflict per se is not necessarily incompatible with habitat conservation and thereis much evidence to show (Richards, 1966) that large areas of West African forests have retainedtheir ecological integrity because of the existence of disputes in which neither side was able toachieve hegemony over the resource base: it should not be automatically assumed that conflictand conservation are inherently incompatible. There is no doubt, however that for rationalmanagement of trans-boundary protected areas, a non-conflict context is desirable. However, inmuch of sub-Saharan Africa the impediments to this are considerable. This case study raisessome of these issues and attempts to establish some criteria which should be in place beforesuch trans-boundary management is attempted.

Cameroon provides a potentially valuable case study because of experiences incurred during thecreation of a protected area system and also because of actual armed conflict in the immediatevicinity of a transboundary protected area. In the south-east of the country three new protectedareas are in the process of creation (Boumba-Bek (249,920 ha), Nki (181,568 ha) and LakeLobeke (206,528 ha); the proposed protected area of Lake Lobeke has a common boundary ofc.27 kilometers with the Dzangha-Sangha Dense Forest Reserve of the Central African Republicand (depending on the ultimate size and limits of the Lac Lobeke Reserve), a similar boundarywith the Nouabale-Ndoki National Park of the Congo. In addition, the Korup National Park,(125,900 ha) created by Presidential Decree in 1986, lies against the south-western boundary ofCameroon with Nigeria, and opposite the Cross River National Park and shares a joint boundaryof some 14 kilometers with it. Two other Cameroon savanna national parks lie very close tointernational boundaries; Faro (less than 8km from the Nigerian border) and Waza (less than5km); furthermore, two other parks have boundaries with Tchad; Boubanjidah has a 34 kilometerboundary with the Tchad Republic, and Kalamaloue lies on the western bank of the Chari river,separating Cameroon and Tchad, with Tchad on the eastern bank.

The Republic of Cameroon covers almost 475,000 square kilometers in area. It is located inCentral Africa and is exceptionally diverse biologically, partly because of the existence ofPleistocene refugia and partly because of an exceptionally varied landscape including the highestmountain in West Africa (and only active volcano), Mount Cameroon, which exceeds 4,000m inheight. Cameroon has a human population of about 15 million and a growth rate of some 3%.The human population density of the country is very unevenly distributed; some agricultural areas(near Waza National Park, for example, have populations exceeding 100 persons per squarekilometer; in contrast in much of the south-east, the human population density is below 1 personper square kilometer.

Cameroon is bordered to the west by Nigeria, a country with twice the land area and a humanpopulation of over 100 million. Relations between Cameroon and Nigeria are tense, partlybecause of the continued impasse over the Bakassi peninsula where Cameroonian and Nigerian 39 The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of WWF.


troops are engaged in a protracted and ongoing armed conflict. The Bakassi peninsula lies lessthan 40 kilometers south of the southern boundary of Korup National Park. To the east,Cameroon is bordered by Chad, the Central African Republic and Congo. All these arefrancophone countries and all are members of the same customs and economic union (UDEAC)and share a common currency, the CFA franc. These countries have relatively low humanpopulations and relations between them and Cameroon have been generally friendly over thepast few years. However, civil disturbance in neighboring countries over the last decade has hadconsequences in Cameroon with influxes of refugees. Also, as in all civil conflicts, firearmsbecome readily available and are then used in poaching wildlife. The north-east sector of theBoubanjidah National Park in Cameroon has been for several years occupied by armedTchandian factions with significant negative effects on the wildlife of the park. The northernsection of the park has been inaccessible to tourists for several years. The continued civil unrestin the Central African Republic (mainly confined to the capital, Bangui) has had little discernibleeffect on Cameroon. To the south, Cameroon is bordered by Equatorial Guinea, Gabon andCongo. These are all members of the CFA franc zone and are francophone apart from EquatorialGuinea where Spanish is the official language. Relations with these countries is generally good,apart from occasional problems with Gabon. The countries bordering Cameroon to the east andsouth are ethnically similar with people of similar tribal affinities both sides of the border.However, in the case of Nigeria there is a clear ethnic difference with the Nigerian/Cameroonianborder essentially dividing Bantu and semi-Bantu ethnic affiliations, furthermore there is also aclear linguistic and cultural divide.

1. The Pre-conflict situation.

The Korup National Park was created by Presidential Decree on 30th October, 1986. Much ofthe land had previously been occupied by the Korup Forest Reserve, which had been establishedby the British Colonial Administration in the early 1930s. The process of negotiation andgazettement was a lengthy one. However, it was evident from the outset that the formerPresident of the Republic, Ahmadou Ahidjo was taking a keen personal interest. No questionswere asked about the security aspects of a national park on the boundary with Nigeria; thePresident’s concerns were institutional, and his approval was finally given in principle for the parkto be created as long as the then Federal University was involved, and that it was used for fieldstudies.

The judicial process for setting up a protected area is set out clearly in the legislation. Officialnotice must be posted on the doors of local government premises, and public meetings held. Atthis early stage, rarely in public, but often in private, opposition to the idea of creating a protectedarea in the Korup region was expressed by officials of the security forces, from individual agentsof the Special Branch who attended public meetings, and who reported back through thehierarchy to the Minister in charge of Security. The security forces did not wish to see thecreation of a people-free area, which they saw as a vacuum, right against the boundary with theirpopulous neighbor, Nigeria. Part of the reason for slowness in the process of the gazettementwas opposition from the security services. Things came to a head in 1986 when ODA offeredfunding as long as the park was officially gazetted. With the active assistance of influentialpeople from the area who were close to the center of Government, and after apparently detailedscrutiny of the texts by the new President, Paul Biya, the park was created in 1986.

The prime mover in the creation of the Korup National Park was WWF-UK through its partnershipwith the British Overseas Development Administration. Both WWF-UK and ODA had significantinterests in Nigeria, and after the successful gazettement of Korup in Cameroon, moves weresoon began to attempt the creation of a similar project Nigeria. By June 1988, WWF had finishedits preliminary survey of the Oban Group Forest Reserve in Cross River State of Nigeria andconcluded that setting up a national park there, adjacent to Korup, would be both desirable andfeasible. The initiative stemmed partly from a wish to increase the size of the conservation unit inan area of high biodiversity, partly to access European Community (EC) funds which are available


for transfrontier projects and partly because of an affinity for Nigeria on the part of a keyindividual within WWF-UK. Funding was located and the Cross River National Park wasestablished in 1991 by Federal Decree 36. It should be emphasized that while there wereextensive interactions with the Governments of both Cameroon and Nigeria during the periodprior to the gazettement, there was no attempt to promote the idea of a transnational park toeither government. While within WWF there was the feeling that this was an important step, itwas largely because of the securing of a large block of forest; for conservation purposes and notfor any other motive. The projects had different managers, and although there were occasionalmeetings between Nigerian and Cameroonian project staffs, they operated and continue tooperate as independent, separate projects.

The situation regarding the proposed trinational parks of Cameroon, Central Africa and Congowas rather different. During the early and mid-80s, field studies were being carried out by in theregion and its biological value began to become apparent. A proposal for the creation of the tri-national protected area in Central Africa, Cameroon and Congo was drawn up by WWF-US andNew York Zoological Society and submitted to USAID in 1991. Funding failed to materialize, butextensive contacts were made with the various governments. In CAR and Congo the idea of a tri-national park was welcomed and steps begun towards gazettement of the areas. In Cameroon,however, the situation was different. There was opposition from the outset to the idea of a tri-national park. The opposition stemmed to come from the fact that the process was seen to beflawed. To begin to create a trinational area would have required, so it was thought, extensiveinternational lobbying and agreements. It was thought more practical to start with thegazettement of the individual units within the respective countries, and then, at a later stage,discuss joint management strategies and collaboration. Because of this opposition, themovement towards creation of the protected areas was much slower in Cameroon. Both Dzanga-Sangha and Nouabale-Ndoki have been officially gazetted; the former in 1990 and the latter in1994. Lake Lobeke and the other proposed protected areas have still to be officially gazetted.

I think it is useful here to examine the military and demographic context. Nigeria, the mostpopulous nation in Africa with a population of over 100 million, and also one of the most denselypopulated. The population is particularly dense along the coast and in the south-east of thecountry. The town of Calabar is an ancient and major trading post and was an importantembarkation point for the slave trade. The adjacent area of Cameroon, in contrast, is remote(there was at the time no road connecting it to the rest of Cameroon), and with a very low humanpopulation density. The Nigerians are also great traders. All along the western border of Nigeria,there is a network of paths where traders head-load all manner of goods; illicit gin, bushmeat,dried fish, medicines, gasoline, radios, television sets and recently illegal drugs. The villages onthe border have strong strategic position and smuggling is a lucrative way of life. While thepeople of the west of the park have strong ethnic ties with Nigeria (Korup people), the people inthe east of the park have little (Bantu: semi-Bantu divide). The Cameroon side of the border isremote with low human population density and people make their money principally by trappingand farming. In Nigeria, the area is accessible, has high human population density and peoplemake their money by trading, furthermore, the ethnic affinities are not close.

2. During conflict

The Bakassi Peninsula lies some 40 kilometers south of the Korup National Park. In Christmas,1995, after a series of incidents involving Cameroonian gendarmes and Nigerian military, theNigerian army invaded what had been, until that point, part of Cameroon. They are still therealmost three years later and there are frequent skirmishes. The noise of shell-fire is clearlyaudible from Mundemba, the headquarters of the Korup National Park. When a militaryemergency was declared, the whole area of the Ndian Division was affected by military actions.It was decided by the military that the construction of a road to the village of Ikassa fromMundemba was important and construction was begun without reference to the Ministry of theEnvironment and Forests, which has jurisdiction over the National Park; only when the Korup


Project brought this to the attention of MINEF, were they aware of what was going on. This roadcuts through the southern portion of the national park and isolates some 9 km2 from the rest ofthe national park. The military presence has resulted in an increase in hunting within theprotected area. Park activities are also inhibited because of military rules that are in place. Thiscase has been forwarded to the International Court of Justice in the Hague for jurisdiction, but inthe meantime, hostilities continue.

3. Post-conflict period

There is little data on the post-conflict period. The Bakassi conflict continues. A major effect ofarmed conflict in a region is the persistence of firearms afterwards. The Korup National Park isclose to the Ibo heartland of south-east Nigeria that comprised the break-away Republic of Biafrain 1965 Biafra has come and gone, but guns from this civil conflict were still being used forpoaching in Korup almost 25 years later.

4. Lessons to be learned.

a) The emergent function of promoting peace by the creation of trans-frontier protected areas isessentially an institutional one to be negotiated and agreed between the highest levels ofgovernment. This emergent function is additional to the functions of conservation and habitatprotection and the interface will be at government rather than at grass roots level. It is thereforenecessary that the institutional conservation measures (gazettement, management plans, staffand infrastructure, effective budgets) are in place on both sides of the border. The first priority isto ensure that there are efficiently managed protected areas both sides of the border; theemergent functions can be negotiated and implemented at a later stage.

b) Military and strategic considerations play an important role in determining the viability orotherwise of trans-border protected areas. In many sub-Saharan African countries the militaryvoice is exceptionally powerful and defense considerations outweigh other priorities. If nationalsecurity is threatened, there is little doubt that, international agreements notwithstanding, theprotected areas will be invaded if the military believes that access is necessary. Similarly, themilitary view is often opposed to the creation of no-go protected areas against nationalboundaries, as these are seen as an invitation to invasion.

c) There should be homogeneity on both sides of the border. It is important that economicconditions on both sides are roughly similar (if there is economic imbalance, there will beinfiltration from low to high). It is important that population pressures on both sides are roughlysimilar. If population pressure on one side of the border is high and on the other is low, there willbe infiltration from high to low. Cameroon (13 million) feels very threatened by the size of Nigeria(100 million). Similarly, there should be comparability of way of life between the two sides. If oneside of the border are producers (farmers, trappers) and the others are traders; the traders willinvade and will become involved in commerce in the producing side. There should be ethnic andcultural homogeneity. French-speaking Cameroon distrusts English-speaking Nigeria; the semi-Bantus distrust the Bantus.

d) The protected areas must provide approximately equal economic benefits to local populationson both sides of the border. Each individual unit of a trans-boundary protected area should meetthe criteria for protected status without taking the other unit into account. Both units should havea similar conservation status (an ecologically rich zone adjacent to an ecologically impoverishedzone should be avoided). Both units should have appropriate and approximately similar levels ofinstitutional development (legal status, management plans, staff and infrastructure, budgets).Laws, regulations, charges and fines should be consistent on both sides of the border.


e) Trans-national protected areas should not be created in regions where land-use conflicts arelikely to develop (demographic trends, presence of reserves of oil, gold or diamonds, etc).

References:

Carroll, R.W. & W. Weber (1991). An integrated plan for regional forest conservation andmanagement in Southeastern Cameroon, Southwestern Central African Republic andNorthern Congo. Proposal submitted to USAID, Washington.

Harrison, M. & P. Agland, (1987). Southeast Cameroon: A Proposal for Three New RainforestReserves. Report for Secretary of State for Tourism, Yaoundé, Cameroon.

Caldecott, J. (1991). The Cross River National Park Project, Nigeria: Operational ExperienceDuring the Start-up Phase. Internal WWF Report, 39pp.

Brandon, K.E. & M. Wells (1992). Planning for People and Parks: Design dilemmas. WorldDevelopment, 20 (4), 557-570.

Richards, Paul (1966) Forest indigenous peoples: concept, critique and cases. Proceedings ofthe Royal Society of Edinburgh, 104B, 349-365.


THE MESO-AMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR: A REGIONAL TOOL FORTRANSBOUNDARY CO-OPERATION AND PEACE KEEPING EFFORTS

By: Juan Carlos GodoyWCPA Regional Vice-Chair for Central America

General Information

Meso-America have been defined as a region that comprise the five southern states of Mexico(Campeche, Chiapas, Quintana Roo, Yucatán y Tabasco) plus the seven Central Americancountries: Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama.Meso-America is located between 8 and 23 degrees North Latitude, therefore considered as partof the intertropical zone. It is a region of high climatic, cultural and biological diversity which coveran extension of 768,990 km2, representing the 0,51% of the world’s terrestrial surface, butcontaining 8% of the global biodiversity.

The extraordinary biological diversity of Meso-America and the presence of a high number ofendemic plant and animal species have been long recognised . Some data can give an idea ofthis biological richness: Panama contain more species of birds -929- than Canada and theUnited States of America together; in Belize, with only 22,965Km2, more than 150 species ofmammals, 540 species of birds and 152 amphibians and reptiles have been identified; CostaRica, with the size of Denmark, have more than 55 biotic units; in Nicaragua is possible to findmore than 800 species of orchids divided in 150 genus, particularly in the highlands of thenorthern part of the country; and in Guatemala 70% of the vascular plants in the mountains areendemic. These are only examples that justified why Meso-America is considered as amegabiodiversity region.

Population and Economic Growth

Central American reported in 1993 a population of 29,9 million inhabitants, as a result of apopulation growth rate of over 3% per year. It have been estimated that for the year 2030 thetotal population in Central America will doubled. According to UNDP in 1991 from the totalpopulation of the region, 10,2% were indigenous peoples; more than 20 different ethnic groups ina number of settlements are living in areas that form part of the Central American ProtectedAreas System (CAPAS).

The majority of the population is leaving in conditions of extreme poverty, which is thefundamental reason for many of the army conflicts that took place in recent years. The Index ofHuman Development increased in the period between 1970-1985, and as a general tendencydecreased between 1985 and 1990, with the exception of Costa Rica, where this index maintainan increasing rate. However, between 1990-1993 it have been noted an improvement on thisindex, with the exception of Nicaragua.

Ecosystems, Threats and Protected Areas

An assessment done by the World Bank and WWF on the importance of terrestrial ecoregions inLatin America and the Caribbean stressed the urgent need to take conservation measures toprotected key ecoregions of high biodiversity from fragmentation mainly due to population growthand economic development. There are 33 ecoregions in Meso-America from which 11 areconsidered to be in a critical state, and the same number of ecoregions (11) are threatened to belost in the future.

In the last 30 years, 461 protected areas have been declared in Meso-America. Belize is thecountry with the higher proportion of national territory covered by protected areas (31%), followed


by Guatemala (27%), Costa Rica and Panama (24%); Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico and ElSalvador (2%), that altogether represents over 18 million hectares. However, at least 270 areasare small, with less than 10,000 hectares, half of them are lacking field staff, for only 55 areasmanagement plan have been prepared, and very few (40) are having research programmes.Some “privileged” protected areas counts with an adequate infrastructure to achieve effectiveconservation and to ensure the production of services and benefits that can contribute to thedevelopment of the region. In addition, only some ecoregions are well represented in theCAPAS, and in some cases representation can only be achieved by protecting fragments ofnatural areas that remains as part of the land dedicated to development activities.

The Challenge of Avoiding Fragmentation

Despite all the work and efforts done at the national and regional levels to develop the CAPAS,still biodiversity in Central America is severely threatened due to several factors, includingdeforestation at a rate of 400,000ha/year, which means that there is a lost of 50ha of forestevery hour. Poverty, land ownership, lack of adequate incentives in the forest sector, the use ofinadequate technologies, lack of economic incentives for conservation, inappropriate agriculturalpractices, insufficient assessment of the economic values of biodiversity and the lack of acomprehensive legal and institutional framework for protection and restoration of landscapes, aresome factors influencing environmental degradation.

There are other elements that represent a threat to protected areas and biodiversity: projects fortourism development in coastal and marine areas, lack of institutional co-ordination, crops andtraffic of drugs, illegal extraction of plants and animals, mining and oil prospecting andexploitation. All these activities increase habitats fragmentation and biodiversity lost. At theregional level the lack of common policies, inadequate exchange of information and expertise,and the low level of regional integration are strong limitations for an efficient co-ordinationtowards biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.

Towards Regional Integration

As a result of the peace and democratisation process in Meso-America, joint efforts and initiativeshave been develop to promote regional integration to make better use of common strengths,aiming to overcome political, economic and social problems which could help countries in theregion to reach a better quality of life for theirs citizens. In the context of these efforts, thegovernments of Meso-America considered as a key factor the establishment of co-operationmechanisms in lookinf for viable solutions that allow to reverse the negative trend on the use ofnatural resources.

Each country have developed institutional efforts to conserve and to sustainable use naturalresources within their jurisdiction. However, the Presidents of Central American countries signedin December 1989 the Central American Convention for Environmental Protection , by which theCentral American Council for Environment and Development (CACED) was established, whichcomprised representatives from each country.

Furthermore, as part of the process of regional integration within the scope of the protection ofnatural resources, on 5 June of 1992, the Presidents of the region signed the Convention for theConservation of Biological Diversity and the Protection of Priority Natural Areas, which mainobjective is the conservation of terrestrial and coastal-marine biodiversity for the present andfuture generations. This agreement consider that conservation of biological diversity can only beaddressed as a joint effort and therefore require regional and international co-operation tosupport national actions. As part of this agreement it was created the Central American Councilfor Protected Areas (CACPA), as the regional institutional entity to co-ordinate regional actionsand to harmonise policies related to the development of a Regional System of Protected Areas.


In the period between September and October 1994, the Central American Alliance forSustainable Development (CAASD) was created, conceived as an integrated strategy forsustainable development in the region, and as a mechanism to enhance co-ordination ofinterests, development initiatives, shared responsibilities and common rights. A key principle ofCAASD is to respect and sustainable use the biodiversity on Earth “To protect and conserve thebiodiversity of all species of plants and animals, other organisms, the inter-specific geneticpopulations, and the variety of ecosystems”. Also established as one of its key commitments theneed to develop the Central American Biological Corridor as a tool to enhance the system ofprotected areas in each country.

Regional co-operation

Under the umbrella of these initiative for regional co-operation, and using priorities determined atnational and local levels, a number of international co-operation agencies are supporting theimplementation of key actions, related to sustainable forestry, community management of naturalresources, in-situ conservation of biodiversity, and development of ecotourism projects. There isa growing commitment and interest from the international donors community to support regionalefforts on rural development, biodiversity conservation and management of natural resources.According to the available information 16 regional projects are underway, including tri-nationaland bi-national projects, which represent and investment of USD$37 millions.

In addition to the regional projects, there are national projects that are on the process ofnegotiation with international agencies, as well as others that have been already funded andunder implementation. These national projects are supporting in-country efforts on ruraldevelopment, biodiversity conservation and management of natural resources. A number ofthese national projects are under the leadership of international NGOs such as WWF, TNC andIUCN, and others are supported by USAID, the Dutch Co-operation, EU, GTZ, DANIDA andrecently the GEF.

Regional Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation

On the basis of the technical information (assessment of global and regional context,geographical scope and national priorities) prepared in 1996 for the Central American Council forEnvironment and Development, and after a long process of review and discussions supported byUNDP, in 1996 the conceptual framework for the Central American Biological Corridor wasapproved by the Ministers of Environment and Natural Resources of Central American countriesin February 1997. This framework consider the regional biological corridor as “an innovativeframework to implement the principles of sustainable development between the society and theenvironment, concentrating the efforts on natural and man-made ecosystems at regional scale forinter-generations periods”. The Central American Biological Corridor have been defined as “asystem of well consolidated and organised territorial planing, formed by natural areas underespecial management and administrative arrangements (core and buffer zones, areas of multipleuse of natural resources and areas of interconnections among them) that offer a wide range ofenvironmental services and products for the society of Central American and for that of the wholeWorld; which also offers and opportunity to reach concerted positions on social andenvironmental issues, therefore promoting investments on conservation and sustainable use forbiodiversity and natural resources in order to improve the quality of life for the people in theregion”.

The development of the Central American Biological Corridor (CABC) require a long-termStrategic Programme that can enhance and consolidate on-going initiatives that are promotingalternative ways to respond to local social and economic needs while optimising the sustainableuse of biodiversity and natural resources under agreed economic, social and ecological criteria.


The CABC is seen by GEF, GTZ and DANIDA as an important tool to articulate land use planningwith biodiversity conservation at regional and national levels, thus they are supporting itsimplementation. In addition the CABC can provide a framework to orient international co-operation on rural development and natural resources management on the basis of agreedregional and national priorities.

The Strategic Plan for the CABC is focused on the need to get the necessary political supportand commitment to promote bioregional planning and biodiversity conservation through theconsolidation of the Central American System of Protected Areas, providing alternative optionsfor sustainable use of natural resources in buffer zones as well as promoting landscaperestoration in the surrounding land, helping to build up “bridges” between existing protectedareas. This Strategic Plan should be a flexible framework to: a) identify gaps for the protection ofkey ecosystems; b) promote new opportunities at the national and local levels to supportsustainable development initiatives; c) provide technical elements for the discussion on thecapacity of natural and semi-natural ecosystems to support economic development; d) develop amonitoring system to provide relevant and updated information for decision makers; e) promotealternative financial mechanisms to fund biodiversity conservation; and f) maximise the co-ordination of programmes and projects to make more efficient their contribution to biodiversityconservation and sustainable development.

Considerable amount of work have been done already: at the present there are technicalassessments for each country of the region, that give a first geographical approximation of theCentral American Biological Corridor. Most recently the coastal and marine part of the BiologicalCorridor have been discussed and endorsed by the Presidents of Mexico, Guatemala, Belize andHonduras by the Declaration of Tulum, which reflects the political will to co-operate for theconservation and management of the Great Barrier Reef of Meso-America.

The CABC should promote the use of different tools, at different scales and using differentcapacities in helping the countries to fulfil the political, economic and social objectives of theCentral American Alliance for Sustainable Development. All individual institutions, organisations,projects or programmes need to contribute to the overall regional effort. The CABC will also havedirect link with the Central American Environmental Fund to orient investments that contribute tothe development of the CABC.

In addition to promote regional co-ordination, the CABC consider as a key principle that onlystrengthening the capacity of local and national actors is possible to build up and consolidate theregional corridor, and that the overall local and national experience and lessons learned wouldfeed the necessary elements to approach the regional problems from a realistic perspective. Theactions promoted by the CABC should preserve the basic natural systems to keep open optionsfor the development of the region, it should promote the rational management of watersheds andthe restoration of degraded lands, as well as to optimise the long-term use of agro-ecosystems.

To support this ambitious effort the Presidents of the region, meeting at the XIX Central AmericanSummit in July 1997, agreed to respond to the challenge of developing the CABC using allpossible mechanisms: regional agencies, governmental institutions, local authorities, indigenouspeoples and farmers organisations, the private sector, agricultural exporter enterprises , andNGOs dealing with conservation issues.

The CABC will have a direct relation with those national and regional projects that are helping tosystematise, demonstrate and exchange lessons learned that have the potential to contribute tothe ecological, social and economic basis of a long-tern democratisation and peace process inthe region.

Therefore the CABC is an unique opportunity to strategically mobilise the interests of the 7countries of the region that, despite to be small states, have a gigantic willingness to develop in a


co-ordinated and jointly manner, a regional system of protected areas supported by anecologically friendly land use system, that altogether can provide a wide range of products andenvironmental services that are required to a post-war era in the region, therefore helping toachieve sustainable development in Central and Meso-America.

REFERENCES

CCAD. 1992. Convenio Centroamericano de Biodiversidad y Areas Silvestres Protegidas.Guatemala. CCAD-UICN. 13pp.

CCAD. 1994. Alianza Centroamericana para el Desarrollo Sostenible. Guatemala. 28pp.

GARCIA,R. et al. 1996. Informe Técnico Regional de la Asistencia Preparatoria para el CorredorBiológico Mesoamericano. UNDP-CCAD.

GODOY, J.C. 1997. Marco Conceptual del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano.

McCARTHY, R. et al. 1997. Buscando Respuestas: Nuevos arreglos para la gestión de áreasprotegidas y el Corredor Biológico en Centroamerica. UICN-CCAD-WCPA-PFA. 62pp.


ANNEX A: PARTICIPANTS LIST


Parks for PeaceList of Participants

AMr Faisal ABU-IZZEDINProject ManagerProtected Areas ProjectMinistry of EnvironmentPO Box 113-5474BeirutLEBANONTel/Fax: ++9611 418910Email: [email protected]

Ms Fiona ARCHERProgramme ManagerDepartment of Land AffairsGTZ6 Highstead Flats3 Highstead RoadRondebosch 770SOUTH AFRICATel: ++ 27 21 689 5202Fax: ++ 27 21 686 4724Email: [email protected]

BMr Jean BIZIMANAChef de Service Tourisme et Parcs NationauxOffice Rwandais de Tourisme et des ParcsNationauxB.P. 905KigaliRWANDAFax: ++250 83574

Mr Gerald BLAKEInternational Boundaries Research UnitMountjoy Research CentreSuite 3PUniversity of DurhamUNITED KINGDOMTel: ++44 1913 747701Fax: ++44 1913 747702Email: [email protected]

Dr Jan BOJOSenior Environmental EconomistEnvironment Group - Africa RegionThe World Bank1818 H Street, NWWashington DC 20433UNITED STATESTel: ++1 202 473 4429Fax: ++1 202 473 8185Email: [email protected]

Ms Michele BOWEProject LeaderInternational Collaboration PNG - IndonesiaJl. Seruni No 4Naikoten I, KupangPO Box 1123 Pos OeboboKupang NTT 85000INDONESIATel: ++62 0380 23494

++62 0380 32976 home

Mr Robert BRUNNERConsultantKirchengasse 39/13A-1070 ViennaAUSTRIATel: ++43 1 5228696Fax: ++43 1 5228696

CMr. Julio CARRERAUniversidad Autónoma AgrariaApto Postal 486Saltillo CoahuilaMexico 25000MEXICOFax: ++ 52 84 105714

++52 84 144 997 Home


Mr Juan. J. CASTRO-CHAMBERLAINEnvironmental Management ConsultantApdo. 1515-1000,San JoseCOSTA RICATel: ++506 236 9555Fax: ++506 221 3168Email: [email protected]

Dr Jan CEROVSKYEcopoint Foundationc/o AOPKPO Box 8513023Praque 8CZECH REPUBLICTel: ++420 2 6975938Fax: ++420 2 6975938

++420 2 6970012.

Mr William CHADZANational HeadquartersPO Box 1429BlantyreMALAWITel: ++ 265 643 428/643 502Fax ++265 643 765Email: [email protected]

Dr E. CHONQUICAIUCN-MOZAMBIQUEArmando Tivang Rd 971MAPUTOTel: ++258 1 492815Fax: ++258 1 490812

José CISNEROSBig Bend National ParkPO Box 129Big Bend National ParkTX 79834,UNITED STATESTel: ++ 915 477 2251ext 101Fax: ++ 915 477 2357Email: [email protected]

Stefan COETZEEDirector Finance & AdministrationPeace Parks Foundation29 Magnolia StreetSomerset West 7129,SOUTH AFRICATel: ++27 21 855 3564Fax: ++27 21 855 3966Email: [email protected]

DMr Thomas DILLONWWF—VIETNAMIndochina Programme Office116 Yet Kieu StreetInternational P.O. Box 151HanoiVIETNAMTel: ++844 8220 640Fax: ++844 8220 642Email: [email protected]

FMs. Josiane FALLAEnvironmental ConsultantUNHCRc/o So GomaCP 25001211 Genève 2SWITZERLAND

Rue Jean Prevot No. 584620 FleronBELIQUETel: ++1 407 7265027/8/9/30Fax: ++1 407 7265026Email: [email protected]

Mr Francois FALLOUXSenior Environmental AdvisorEnvironmental GroupAfrica RegionThe World Bank1818 H Street NWWashington DC 20433UNITED STATESTel: ++ 1 202 473 5562Fax: ++1 202 4738185Email: [email protected]

G


Mr Steve GARTLANWWF –CAMEROONB.P. 6776Yaounde,CAMEROONTel: ++237 214241Fax: ++237 214240Email: [email protected]

Mr Howard GEACHBlanchard SodeturAv. Martires de Moeda No. 580Torres Vermelitas, Bloco 25, andar 19°, Apt. 192MamputoMOZAMBIQUETel: 258 1 496405Fax: ++ 258 1 492246

27 Cotswold Drive SaxonwoldJohannesburg 2196SOUTH AFRICATel: ++27 11 442 3174

++27 11 4425199 homeFax: ++ 27 11 4425199

Mr Juan Carlos GODOYPFA/FUNDESCALos Angeles,calle 62 oeste,casa No 12Ciudad PanamaPANAMATel: ++507-2368186Fax: ++507-2696966Email: [email protected]

Mr Fergus O’GORMANDirectorNational Conservation Education CentreKnocksink Wood National Nature Res.Knocksink Wood, EnneskerryCo. WicklowIRELANDTel: ++ 353 1 2866609Fax: ++353 1 2866610Email: [email protected]

Dr. Michael GREENWorld Conservation Monitoring Centre - WCMC219 Huntingdon RoadCambridge CB3 0DLUNITED KINGDOMTel: ++44 1223 277314Fax: ++ 44 1223 277136

Dr Alfredo GUILLETMinistry of Foreign Affairs - Directorate Generalfor Development CooperationVia Contarini 25Rome 00194ITALYTel: ++39 6 36914615/4166direct no 3691 4166Fax: ++39 6 3240585

Dr Isdore GWASHUREChairmanZimbabwe Tourism AuthorityBox CY 1211HarareZIMBABWETel: ++263 737 944Fax: ++ 263 4 734 769

HMs. Philippa HADENLand Use Options Adviser Department of LandAffairs184 Tahob Mare 87PretoriaSOUTH AFRICATel: ++27 12 3128273Fax: ++27 12 3236015

Dr Anthony HALL-MARTINDirector: Research & DevelopmentNational Parks BoardPO Box 787Pretoria 0001SOUTH AFRICATel: ++27 12 3439770Fax: ++27 12 3432832Email: [email protected]


Prof. Larry HAMILTONIslands & Highlands Environmental Consultancy342 Bittersweet LaneCharlotte, Vermont 05445UNITED STATESTel: ++1 802 4256509Fax: ++1 802 4256509Email: [email protected]

Mrs Linda HAMILTONAccompanying Prof HamiltonUNITED STATES

Dr John HANKSExecutive DirectorPeace Parks FoundationP.O. Box 227Somerset West 7129SOUTH AFRICATel: ++27 21 855 3564Fax: ++27 21 855 3958Email: [email protected]

Mr Derek de la HARPEPrice WaterhouseWildlife, Tourism and Environmental ConsultingUnitPO Box 453HarareZIMBABWETel: ++263 4 757 610Fax: ++ 263 4 752 584Email: [email protected]

Dr George HUGHESChief DirectorNatal Parks BoardPO Box 662Pietermarityburg 3200SOUTH AFRICATel ++27 331 471 961Fax ++27 331 472 977Email: [email protected]

JDr Z. Pallo JORDANMinister of Environmental Affairs and TourismPretoriaSOUTH AFRICAFax: ++27 21 21453216

KMr José KALPERSTechnocal AssociateInternational Gorilla Conservation ProgrammeP.O. Box 48177NairobiKENYATel: .++ 254 2 710367Fax: ++ 254 2 710372Email: [email protected]

Mr Yemi KATERERegional DirectorIUCN-ROSA6 Lanark RoadBelgraviaHarareZIMBABWETel: ++263 4 705714

LLMs Annette LANJOUWRegional CoordinatorInternational Gorilla Conservation ProgrammeP.O. Box 48177NairobiKENYATel: ++254 2 710367Fax: ++254 2 710372Email: [email protected]

Dr John LEDGERDirectorEndangered Wildlife TrustProvate Bag 11Parkview 2122SOUTH AFRICATel: ++27 11 4861102Fax: ++27 11 4861506Email: [email protected]

Mr Leonel LEITE LOPESGrupo de Trabalho AmbientalMOZAMBIQUETel: ++ 258 1 493 102Fax: ++258 1 493 3049


Dr M. LINDEQUEDeputy DirectorMinistry of Environment and TourismPrivate Bag 13346WindhoekNAMIBIAFax: ++264 61 232057

MDr Ian MACDONALDChief ExecutiveWWF – SAPO Box 456StellenboschSOUTH AFRICATel: ++ 27 21 887 2801Fax: ++ 27 21 887 9517

Ms Kathy MACKINNONBiodiversity SpecialistThe World Bank1818 H StreetWashington D.C. 20433UNITED STATESTel: ++ 1 202 458 4682Fax: ++ 1 202 522 3256Email: kmackinnon@ worldbank.org

Mr. Alfonso MADOPENational DirectorDNFFBBox 1406MaputoMOZAMBIQUETel ++258 1 460036/96Fax: ++258 1 460060/479

Mr S. L. MAMBAChief Executive OfficerSwaziland National Trust CommissionPO Box 100Lobamba, H 107SWAZILANDTel: ++268 61151Fax: ++268 61875Email: [email protected]

Mr. Willas MAKOMBEActing DirectorDepartment of National Parks and Wild LifeManagementHarareZIMBABWEFax: ++ 263 4 724 914

Mr Taperandava MAVENEKECampfire AssociationBox 4027HarareZIMBABWETel: ++263 4 747429/30Fax: ++263 4 795150

Mr David MCDOWELLDirector GeneralIUCN-HQRue Mauverney 281196 GlandSWITZERLANDTel: ++41 22 9990295Fax: ++41 22 9990029

Mr. Lota MELAMARIDirector GeneralTanzania National Parks (TANAPA)AICC Building, room 618,Kilimanjaro WingPO Box 3134ArushaTANZANIATel: ++255 57 3471

++255 57 4082Fax: ++255 57 8216

++255 57 4075Email: [email protected]

Mr Benjamin MIBENGEWildlife SocietyBox 30255LusakaZAMBIATel: ++260 1 254226Fax: ++260 1 254226(or IUCN Zambia Office)Email: [email protected]


Dr Simon MUNTHALIHeadSADC WSTCUBox 30131Lilongwe 3MALAWITel: ++265 723505/676Fax: ++265 723089

Mr Norbert MUSHENZIDirecteur ProvincialInstitute Congolais pour la Conservation de laNaturec/o IGCP, Box 28 UNHCRGomaCONGOFax: ++ 1 407 726 5026

NMr Daniel NJAGABiodiversity OfficerKenya Wildlife ServicePO Box 40241NairobiKENYATel: ++ 254 2 501 081/2Fax: ++254 2 505 866/501 866Email: [email protected]

Dr. Peter NOVELLIEChief ExecutiveNational Parks Board

PMr David PEACOCKDepartment of Wildlife & National ParksPO Box 131GaboroneBOTSWANATel: ++ 267 371405/353010Fax: ++267 312354

Mr Adrian PHILLIPSChair WCPA2 the Old RectoryDumbleton near EveshamGloucestershire WR11 6TGUNITED KINGDOMTel: ++44 1386 882094Fax: ++44 1386 882094Email: [email protected]

RMr Ayman RABIExecutive DirectorECOPEACEPO Box 55302Jerusalem 97400ISRAELTel: ++972 2 6260841/3Fax: ++972 2 6260840Email: [email protected]

Dr Robbie ROBINSONPO Box 339Newlands 7725SOUTH AFRICATel: ++27 21 612557Fax: ++27 21 6830683

Mr Pedro ROSABALProgramme OfficerProgramme on Protected AreasIUCN-HQRue Mauverney 281196 GlandSWITZERLANDTel: ++41 22 9990163Fax: ++41 22 9990015Email: [email protected]

Dr Karen ROSSConservation InternationalOkavango ProgramPO Box 448MaunBOTSWANATel: ++267 660017Fax: ++267 661 798E Mail: [email protected]

SMr Trevor SANDWITHChief PlannerNatal Parks BoardPietermaritzburg 3200SOUTH AFRICATel: ++27 331 471 961Fax: ++21 331 471 173Email: [email protected]


Dr Arno SCKEYDEProject OfficerSouthern Africa DivisionGTZDag Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5Postfach 51 8065725 EschbornGERMANYTel: +49 61 96 79-1507Telex: 4 07 501-0 gtz dFax: ++ 49 61 96 79-7177Email: [email protected]

Mr Ron SEALEPark Planning AdvisorMt Elgon Conservation and Development ProjectMbaleUGANDAFax: ++256 41 342298

Mr David SHEPPARDHeadProgramme on Protected AreasIUCN-HQSWITZERLANDTel: ++41 22 9990162Fax: ++41 22 9990015Email: [email protected]

Ms Clare SHINEBarrister and ConsultantIUCN Commission on Environmental Law37 rue Erlanger75016 ParisFRANCETel: ++331 46519011Fax: ++331 46519011

Dr Victor SIAMUDAALANational Parks & Wildlife ServicePrivate Bag 1ChilangaZAMBIATel. ++260 1 278323Fax. ++260 1 27 8439

Dr Elizabeth SODERSTROMUSAIDRegional Centre for Southern Africa PO Box 2427Gaborone 2170BOTSWANATel: ++267 324449Fax: ++267 324404Email: [email protected]

Dr Bartolemeu SOTOTransfrontier Project Co-ordinatorBox 1406MaputoMOZAMBIQUETel: ++258 1 460036/96Fax: ++258 1 460060/479

TTMr Ted STEYNChairmanNorthern Tuli Game Reserve Landowners’AssociationPO Box 593Kelvin, Johannesburg 2054SOUTH AFRICAFax: ++27 11 8043918

Mr Clive STOCKILChairman/Provate Safari OperatorSave Valley ConservancyP.O.Box 160ChiredziZIMBABWETel: ++263 31 7241Fax: ++263 31 7244

Ms March TURNBILLPeace Parks FoundationP.O. Box 227Somerset West7129, SOUTH AFRICATel: ++ 27 21 855 3564Fax: ++ 27 21 855 3958Email: [email protected]


VMr J. D. VILAKATIDirector of EnvironmentMinistry of Natural Resources and EnergyPO Box 57MbabaneSWAZILANDTel: ++268 46244-7Fax: ++268 42436

Gert van der VEERMember of the Board of DirectorsPeace Parks Foundation13 van der Stel Street1709 FloridaSOUTH AFRICATel: ++27 11 672 7130Fax: ++27 11 672 7130Email: [email protected]

Mr Rod de VLETTERWorld BankPO Box 4053MaputoMOZAMBIQUETel: ++258 1 492841Fax: ++258 1 492893Email: [email protected]

Mr Vongphet VENEDeputy DirectorCentre for Protected Areas & WatershedManagementMinistry of Agriculture and ForestryVientiane,LAO P.D.R.Tel: ++856 21 217 161Fax: ++ 856 21 215 004

WMr Samson WERIKHEEIA and Research CoordinatorUganda Wildlife AuthorityP.O. Box 3530KampalaUGANDATel ++256 41 346 288Fax ++256 41 257 945

Mr Arthur H WESTINGWesting AssociatesRFD 2, Box 330H,Putney, VT 05346UNITED STATESTel: ++1 802 3872152Fax: ++1 802 3874001Email: [email protected]

YMr Ragab YAGOUB ABDULLAHPO Box 920DohaQUATARTel: ++ 974 330270 / 400491Fax ++974 411806

conference proceedings, parks for peace, 1997

Documents