Parks for Peace

International Conference on Transboundary Protected Areas as a Vehicle for International Co-operation

16-18 September 1997 Somerset West, near Cape Town South Africa

CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

Draft of 30 January 1998

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: PHILOSOPHY AND BEST PRACTICES BY LARRY HAMILTON, UNITED STATES ............................................................................. 27 LEGAL MECHANISMS TO STRENGTHEN AND SAFEGUARD TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREAS BY CLARE SHINE, FRANCE ............................................................................................... 37 PEACE PARKS IN CENTRAL AMERICA. SUCCESSES & FAILURES IN IMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT COOPERATION BY JOSÉ CASTRO-CHAMERLAIN, COSTA RICA .................................................................. 49 TRANSBOUNDARY COLLABORATION IN THE PROTECTION OF SHARED NATURAL RESOURCES ALONG THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER BY JOSÉ CISNEROS, UNITED STATES AND JULIO CARRERA, MEXICO ................................. 61
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings i

PARKS WITHOUT PEACE BY YEMI KATERERE, ZIMBABWE........................................................................................67 THE GEOPOLITICS OF TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION: AN OVERVIEW BY GERALD BLAKE, UNITED KINGDOM ..............................................................................75 PARKS AT THE EDGE: THE CASE OF UGANDA BY RON SEALE, UGANDA ..................................................................................................83 ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE DEAD SEA BASIN AND THEIR SUSTAINABLE USE: PROBLEMS AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES OF THE BASIN BY AYMAN RABI, ISRAEL ...................................................................................................89 TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN EUROPE: PROGRESS AND POSSIBILITIES IN SOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS BY ROBERT BRUNNER, AUSTRIA .......................................................................................93 TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS ALONG THE FORMER "IRON CURTAIN" IN EUROPE BY JAN CEROVSKY, CYECH REPUBLIC ............................................................................117 THE DRAKENSBERG-MALOTI TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREA: EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS LEARNED BY TREVOR SANDWITH, SOUTH AFRICA ...........................................................................121 PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICT THE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE PEACE PARKS FOUNDATION BY JOHN HANKS, SOUTH AFRICA ....................................................................................133 THE IMPACT OF WAR ON PROTECTED AREAS IN CENTRAL AFRICA. CASE STUDY OF VIRUNGA VOLCANOES REGION BY SAMSO WERIKHE, UGANDA .......................................................................................155 POTENTIAL FOR THE CREATION OF A PEACE PARK IN THE VIRUNGA VOLCANO REGION BY ANNETTE LANJOUW, KENYA AND JOSÉ KALPERS, KENYA ...........................................163 LEBANON - THE ROLE OF THE PROTECTED AREAS PROJECT IN PROMOTING PEACE BY FAISAL ABU-IZZEDIN, LEBANON .................................................................................173 PARKS, PEACE AND PROGRESS: A FORUM FOR TRANSBOUNDARY CONSERVATION IN INDOCHINA BY THOMAS DILLON, VIETNAM ........................................................................................179 PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICT NIMULE NATIONAL PARK: A CASE STUDY BY RAGAB YAGOUB ABDULLAH, QUATAR ..........................................................................195 STATUS OF THE WORLD’S TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS BY DOROTHY ZBICZ, UNITED STATES AND MICHAEL GREEN, UNITED KINGDOM ............... 201

ii

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

A TRANSFRONTIER RESERVE FOR PEACE AND NATURE ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA BY ARTHUR WESTING, UNITED STATES ........................................................................... 234 THE CENTRAL AFRICAN EXPERIENCE IN TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS. A CASE STUDY OF THE TRI-STATE PROJECT BETWEEN THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC, CONGO, CAMEROON; AND THE NATIONAL PARKS BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA BY STEVE GARTLAND, CAMEROON ................................................................................. 242 THE MESO-AMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR: A REGIONAL TOOL FOR TRANSBOUNDARY CO-OPERATION AND PEACE KEEPING EFFORTS BY JUAN CARLOS GODOY, PANAMA ............................................................................... 248 ANNEX A: PARTICIPANTS LIST ....................................................................... 254

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

iii

iv

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

PARKS FOR PEACE - PREFACE
Welcoming participants to the Parks for Peace Conference, the South African Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Dr. Pallo Jordan gave the context to the meeting in some wellchosen words: "The rivers of Southern Africa are shared by more than one country. Our mountain ranges do not end abruptly because some 19 Century politician drew a line on a map. The winds, the oceans, the rain and atmospheric currents do not recognise political frontiers. The earth's environment is the common property of all humanity and creation, and what takes place in one country affects not only its neighbours, but many others well beyond its borders". This broad view of conservation responsibilities has always motivated IUCN’s World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). As a global network, we are uniquely well-placed to bring experts together from different countries, globally, regionally and across national boundaries. Indeed, encouraging the development of trans-boundary protected areas has for long been a priority for WCPA. But the role which trans-boundary protected areas can play in building security and confidence between nations has been a neglected topic. So when we were approached by the Parks for Peace Foundation to arrange an international meeting on this theme, the Commission saw a unique opportunity to bring together those with a conservation perspective and those with concern for international peace and understanding. Experts in protected areas, in international law and in related subjects worked together for three intensive days to examine the particular role which transboundary protected areas can play in building a better relationship between countries, but at the same time addressing frankly some of the difficulties which often arise. There was a wealth of information and case studies. There was a special concentration on Southern Africa, of course, particularly appropriate given the new climate of co-operation between neighbouring States in this region. We heard from other regions where the climate of understanding has improved markedly in recent years and now favours co-operation: from Central America and parts of Europe for example. But case studies were also presented from regions which continue to suffer from conflict and tension: the Middle East, South East Asia and the Korean Peninsula. And we heard about the tragic case of protected areas in Central Africa, which have suffered from the effects of mass population movement following appalling ethnic conflict and the breakdown of civil order. These case studies highlighted the potential role of trans-boundary protected areas, sometimes in defusing the potential for conflict between states, sometimes in confidence building measures after periods of tension and rivalry. But they also showed the vulnerability of such areas (and indeed of protected areas in general) during times of war and upheaval. Our discussions revealed some sharp differences of view from around the world. In Southern Africa, for example, the term "protected area" was not particularly welcome. Our colleagues from there asked that the term “trans-frontier conservation areas” be incorporated instead in the Declaration of Principles. Their understandable concern arose from the reputation which protected areas have had in the past in the region, as places from which local people are excluded and unable to gain any benefit from natural resources to which have had traditional access. If there is a message here for the protected area constituency, it is the importance of developing the full range of protected area types: not only those which require strict protection but also those whose objectives 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, the potential importance of the private sector and the scope for entrepreneurial approaches to
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings v

protected areas management. At the same time the meeting emphasised the need for the involvement of local and indigenous communities in the management of protected areas. Even though some protected areas come about through cross-border co-operation between sovereign Sates, 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. It contains messages for national governments and for the international community. It places protected areas firmly in the context of peacemaking and building international collaboration between States. It points towards some considerable success stories but it also identifies the great need for further work in this area. There is a particular need for best practice guidelines on the planning and management of transboundary protected areas, and for a code of conduct on the management of such areas, both in peace time and in times of conflict. Like protected areas everywhere, transboundary protected areas are needed for conservation of biodiversity; and they are essential where natural resources requiring protection - such as endangered ecosystems and species - are shared between countries. But when we left South Africa, we also took with us a much clearer understanding of the contribution that such places can play in building peace and understanding between nations. This is a dimension to conservation which deserves more international attention. WCPA will do its part to ensure a really effective follow-up to the conclusions and recommendations of the conference. The notable success of the event was made possible because there were people there from all parts of the world. On behalf of IUCN and WCPA , I would like to extend my thanks to all those who helped through sponsorship and financial support, and a particular thanks to the Parks for Peace Foundation and our South African friends who made our short time in their country not only productive but enjoyable.

Adrian Phillips Chair World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA)

vi

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPORT

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

Italian Government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Cooperation and Development
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

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

vii

viii

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Draft

Parks for Peace
CONFERENCE REPORT Draft of 7 October 1997

Conference Title

International Conference on Transboundary Protected Areas as a Vehicle for International Cooperation IUCN, The World Conservation Union and Peace Parks Foundation (South Africa) 16-18 September 1997 Somerset West, near Cape Town, South Africa

Convened by

Conference Date Location

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPORT

IUCN and Peace Parks Foundation are pleased to acknowledge the generous support of 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 conserving biodiversity and in fostering regional cooperation and security; 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; To promote awareness of the vulnerability of transboundary protected areas in times of conflict and examine the potential of international agreements to safeguard them. To promote awareness of the value of transboundary protected areas as a means of building security and confidence after conflict; and

2.

3.

4.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

1

5.

To examine proposals for the future establishment and management of transboundary protected areas, especially those priority areas which can contribute to the conservation of global 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 and Tourism for South Africa. Dr Jordan welcomed all delegates to the conference and also passed on a message of welcome from the South African President, Mr Nelson Mandela. In his speech, Dr Jordan highlighted the significance of the tourism industry, particularly in Southern Africa, and also noted that the nature tourism component of this industry is significant, and is likely to increase in the future. The Minister noted that “Peace Parks are particularly appropriate for our (the Southern African) region which has been racked by wars and other forms of conflict for the past decades. The Parks will be a token of shared commitment by the peoples and governments of Southern Africa to strive for peace and to pursue the option of peaceful resolution of conflict as an intrinsic condition for the welfare and development of our region”. The Minister further noted that transfrontier initiatives in southern Africa are in line with the directions established by the Southern African Development Community (SADC). The Minister noted the changing emphasis of conservation management in South Africa, with increasing emphasis on the involvement of local communities in the management of protected areas. Dr Jordan wished delegates well for the conference and noted that the South African government is looking forward to receiving the report from the conference, in due course. David McDowell, IUCN Director General, gave the keynote speech to the conference. Mr McDowell noted the links between transboundary cooperation and conflict resolution and suggested that environmental factors are likely to be a primary source of insecurity and conflict in the 21st Century, as conflicts will increasingly arise over the control and management of scarce natural resources. He thus suggested that approaches, such as the establishment of transboundary protected areas, can provide a useful mechanism for encouraging cooperation between countries and communities. He noted that, with some exceptions, such areas justify the label “Peace Parks” and that they can potentially reduce stress along historically tense borders by providing governments with an agenda for mutual action on issues of common concern. He urged the conference to focus on marine as well as terrestrial protected areas, as well 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 experience of the Bank in supporting transboundary protected area projects. Her presentation noted the increasing involvement of the World Bank in supporting transboundary initiatives and noted lessons learnt to date, including: ◊ the need to effectively engage local communities and other stakeholders, from an early stage 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
2 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

◊ 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 for effective transboundary cooperation. This presentation highlighted practical “nuts and bolts” aspects relating to transboundary protected area cooperation. The importance of developing close working relationships between staff on different sides of the border was emphasised, such as through staff exchanges as well as the development of joint management programmes, such as in relation to the management of fire. It was noted that transboundary protected areas have many political advantages, and these occur at local, national and regional levels. There are also many environmental benefits, such as enhanced biodiversity conservation and the protection of important landscape features, from the establishment and effective management of transboundary protected areas. Clare Shine, from the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law, outlined legal mechanisms to strengthen and safeguard transboundary protected areas. It was noted that such areas often fail 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 protected area management. The presentation reviewed the international regime applicable to TBPA establishment and outlined possible legal mechanisms to improve the existing situation. The main legal rules for the protection of the environment during conflict were outlined and the possibility of a non-binding code of conduct to reinforce such protection was suggested. Jose Castro-Chamberlain, environmental consultant from Costa Rica, described the experience of peace parks in Central America. This paper discussed practical issues associated with the establishment of a number of areas in Central America, including the La Amistad International park, located in the border region between Costa Rica and Panama; the Si-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 that success had particularly been due to a high level of political committment and support, coupled with the on-ground efforts of managers to establish joint management regimes. The importance of joint strategic planning in this area has been demonstrated. Also the important role 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 with Julio Carrera of Mexico on transboundary cooperation between United States and Mexico. The paper discussed collaboration between the Big Bend National Park and the Madera del Carmen Protected Area across the border, and noted that collaboration in this area had been underway for a significant period of time, dating back to exchanges between the Presidents of USA and Mexico in the early 1940s. The importance of both formal and informal agreements to 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 of this joint initiative in supporting economic development in the region was emphasised. The difference in institutional arrangements and budget between the two partners in this cooperative exercise (USA/Mexico) was noted as an issue that needs to be considered in relation to the effective implementation of programmes in this area.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

3

Yemi Katerere, IUCN Regional Director for Southern Africa, outlined a number of issues relevant to regional cooperation in the Southern African region. It was suggested that the focus of transboundary collaboration should be broader than protected areas, in view of the fact that many protected areas are not effectively established and managed in the region, and often do not provide adequate benefits to local communities. This situation has led to conflicts over resource use. The need for a new vision of protected areas was suggested, which would reflect the knowledge and full involvement of local communities, while addressing key issues of land tenure. It was suggested that any proposals to extend existing protected areas need to be carefully examined, with examination of questions such as (a) is it affordable?; (b) is there management capacity?; (c) who benefits?; and (d) who owns the land? The need for protected areas to be viewed within a holistic approach to landuse planning was noted, as was the need to develop effective mechanisms for joint management, which effectively involve local 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 summarised some of the ways in which states cooperate along international boundaries and in regions near these boundaries. The motives for such cooperation vary in relation to the specific context of the country and may involve: firstly, the need for states to find alternatives to absolute territorial sovereignty in the form of neutral zones, or, secondly, the need to establish shared development zones in disputed areas, to enable parties to begin resource exploitation, even though there may be agreement over the boundary, or, thirdly, the large range of mechanisms for cooperation between states over resource management. This presentation noted the rapidly evolving status of national boundaries and raised the implications of globalisation which, in some cases, are diminishing state power and changing the role and function of boundaries. It is critical that any assessment of transboundary protected areas take into account the geopolitics of international boundaries and borderlands. Ron Seale, from the IUCN Mount Elgon Conservation Development project in Uganda, raised a number of issues relating to transboundary cooperation, drawing on the Ugandan experience. 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 and promotion tool for transboundary protected areas. However, this should not diminish attention to other “lesser known” protected areas across boundaries. The need to distinguish between “peace keeping” and “peace making” roles for transboundary protected areas was noted. It was suggested that transboundary protected areas are unlikely to be established in areas where there is currently a conflict. Ayman Rabi, Executive Director of Ecopeace in Jerusalem, provided an overview of the ecological resources of the Dead Sea basin in the context of regional cooperation. This organisation involves a number of countries from the region and aims to protect shared resources, particularly water and cultural heritage. It was noted that cooperative efforts to protect biodiversity in this region are proceeding and that the many threats to areas such as the Dead Sea provide a focus for the efforts of EcoPeace in the region. Robert Brunner, WCPA member, outlined transboundary cooperation in Europe and introduced the “Parks for Life Action Plan for Europe”, which identified the need for transboundary protected areas in a number of countries in Europe. It was noted that the fall of the “Iron Curtain” in 1989 changed the conditions for transboundary cooperation and that there are now a number of initiatives in this area. Many of these transboundary protected areas are providing very successful models of how protected areas can both protect biodiversity and build cooperation and trust between countries. The importance of involving local people was emphasised. Jan Cerovsky, of the Ecopoint Foundation from the Czech Republic, discussed transfrontier protected areas along the former “Iron Curtain” in Europe. This presentation focused on the
4 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

50 remaining and 26 projected bilateral parks in Europe, of which approximately 30% are situated along the former “Iron Curtain” (a line running from the Barents Sea in the North to the Mediterranean and Black Sea to the South). This paper outlined experience to date in relation to transboundary protected areas along both sides of the former “Iron Curtain” and noted their major contribution to building peaceful and friendly relations between European nations. It was noted that, since the fall of the “Iron Curtain” in 1989-1990, many new opportunities have opened up relating both to cooperation between countries and also in relation to nature conservation. Trevor Sandwith from the Natal Parks Board, South Africa, outlined transboundary cooperation initiatives in the Drakenburg’Maloti Mountain region between the Kingdom of Lesotho and the province of Kwa Zulu-Natal in South Africa. It was noted that there is no formal recognition of this region as a peace park but that there is a growing de facto realisation that the two countries have a shared responsibility to conserve biodiversity, as well as to use this initiative to support community development on both the two sides of the border. The process of developing this transboundary protected area has brought together a wide range of people 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 ecological complex and that there are also strong historical and cultural similarities between the two countries. This has greatly facilitated the establishment of a transboundary protected area in this region. John Hanks, Director of the Peace Parks Foundation in South Africa, presented the objectives of the Foundation and proposals for future activities. His presentation highlighted the importance of economic development associated with the tourism industry in the region and the important role that nature based tourism, particularly focused on protected areas, could play in supporting this vital industry. It was noted that the Peace Parks Foundation was seeking to facilitate support for existing transfrontier initiatives such as those identified through SADC. A number of specific proposals in the Southern African region were outlined such as those between South Africa and Mozambique. It was noted that four principles underlie the work 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 behalf of the Governments of Uganda, Rwanda (John Bizimana) and the Democratic Republic of Congo(Norbert Mushenzi). This presentation discussed the impact of war on protected areas in these three countries and presented a case study of the Virunga Volcano region. The impacts of war in this region were noted, as were the issues associated with high population densities. It was suggested that there was a need for a common strategy for addressing basic human needs and conservation in this region and that the establishment of a potential peace park may provide a useful opportunity to achieve this. The potential for addressing this issue jointly with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was noted and it was suggested that a dialogue should be established between UNHCR, IUCN and other relevant parties. Annette Lanjouw, of the International Gorilla Conservation Project in Nairobi, presented a joint paper with José Kalpers, which reinforced the previous presentation in relation to possibilities for the establishment of a peace park in the Virunga Volcano region. The need for a strategy
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 5

which both addresses human needs and conservation of species was noted. The constraints in establishing such a park were outlined, including the security situation and the extremely limited resources for the establishment and management of such areas. The potential for developing and marketing a peace park concept, based around a high profile species such as the Mountain Gorilla, was put forward. It was noted that such an initiative could benefit economic development in the region and local communities. The role of the International Gorilla Conservation Programme was noted, and it was suggested that such an organisation could, 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, outlined the role of protected areas in promoting peace and national reconciliation in Lebanon. This project has involved three specific protected areas, each managed by a non-government organisation. An important aim of this project was to promote national reconciliation after the civil war in Lebanon. This project has been developing very effectively and has demonstrated the potential benefits of involving different parties in an area such as conservation. Thomas Dillon from WWF Indochina, outlined transboundary conservation activities in the former Indochina. It was noted that joint protected area transboundary initiatives had been established between Lao PDR and Vietnam and that this is being developed in accordance with an official Letter of Understanding between the two countries. This project has shown the benefits of staff exchanges at the local level as well as building political support. It was noted that the majority of Indochina’s remaining natural forest habitats are distributed along the international borders of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam and thus a transboundary approach to conservation is an important element of biodiversity conservation efforts in the region. This project has established an Indochina Biodiversity Forum which aims to build a dialogue and spirit of cooperation between the countries in the region as a precursor to effective conservation. Ragab Yagoub Abdullah from Sudan outlined experiences in achieving conservation objectives in areas of conflict, specifically in relation to the Nimule National Park in Sudan. This National Park is subjected to considerable pressures, including from armed poachers, as well as a lack of basic infrastructure and resources for protected area management. It was suggested that even during periods of conflict, simple initiatives at a local level can save an area from catastrophe and that it is important to make use of available resources and to build support at the local community level. The advantage of having an objective set of policy directives for sensitive conservation areas was noted as having the potential to influence the attitudes 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’s transboundary protected areas. This paper indicated the rapid growth over the past decade of the number of existing contiguous protected areas on two sides of a national boundary, and also the growth in the number of agreements covering such areas. It was noted that a survey of transboundary protected area managers by Dorothy Zbicz is currently underway, under the auspices of IUCN, and this will provide substantial information in relation to the current status of transboundary protected areas and the key issues associated with the management of such areas. Arthur Westing, environmental consultant from the United States of America, introduced the possibility of establishing a peace park in the demilitarised zone between North and South Korea. 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 peaceful reunification. The demilitarised zone has been left relatively undisturbed since the de facto end of the war in 1953 and has considerable value for biodiversity. This value could potentially disappear rapidly following reunification due to enormous social pressures for agricultural, industrial and urban development. The paper thus urgently suggested that North/South
6 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

negotiations be initiated to establish, as soon as possible, a Korean Bi-State Reserve for Peace and Nature. Such an endeavour could make a major contribution to biodiversity protection as well as facilitating the peace processes and ultimate reunification. Steve Gartlan from WWF Cameroon, outlined the Central African experience in transboundary protected areas in relation to the tri-state project between the Central African Republic, Congo and Cameroon. This presentation highlighted the importance of domestic stability as a precursor of conservation efforts and note the following lessons: ◊ that military strategic planning plays an important role in determining whether or not a transboundary 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 be effective; 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 the Central American Biological Corridor. It was noted that this corridor links protected areas in a number of countries in Central America and that it is proving to be a very effective regional tool for transboundary cooperation and the conservation of biodiversity. It was noted that this biological corridor is making a major contribution to building cooperation and trust between countries in the region, many of which have been involved in conflict over recent decades. It was noted that this initiative is linked with agreements between Central American countries, such as the 1989 Central American Convention for Environmental Protection. This has provided high level “head of state” support for joint conservation efforts in the region. This example provides an excellent model of regional cooperation on transboundary protected areas, 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 Big Bend region between Mexico and the United States shows that cooperation has been underway 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 the growing acknowledgement of the existence of contiguous Protected Areas divided by national boundaries. It was suggested by one of the plenary presenters that Peace Parks may 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 between participants from the Southern Africa region and most other regions in the world. It was noted that, in Southern Africa, the term transfrontier conservation areas is used rather than transboundary protected areas, and that the use of the terms transfrontier conservation area denotes broader cooperation beyond the boundaries of formal protected areas. The conference did not reach agreement on this issue but there was broad agreement that it was important to focus more on the objectives and outcomes from such areas rather than concentrating on names and titles.
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 7

◊ 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 have realistic expectations in relation to the role of transboundary protected areas in contributing to peace. It is unlikely that they will be the sole determinant in resolving conflicts, for example. However, it is clear from the examples presented at the conference that they can provide a useful element of national and regional strategies to foster cooperation between countries. ◊ 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 effective
management of shared natural resources, such as outlined in the example of the Dead 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 protected area 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 Southern Africa; 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 protected areas are not viewed in isolation from local communities. It was stressed by many speakers that such areas must benefit local communities and that traditional “western” conservation concepts, for example of strict nature reserves which exclude human use, must change for most development countries. It was also noted that protected areas could not be considered in isolation from surrounding patterns of land use and the model of the Central American Biological Corridor which links protected areas with other patterns of land use was noted 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 is important to have high level support such as that through SADC for transfrontier initiatives in Southern Africa, or for the political support for the Central American biological corridor, if such 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 in Australia) or informal (such as those between Mexico and the United States in relation to Big Bend). It is important that any mechanisms involve key stakeholders, particularly local communities, and where appropriate, address issues of State sovereignty. It was suggested that there was no one model that can be equally applied to all countries and that there is a need to tailor approaches and responses to the unique circumstances of each country. As noted by one speaker (Clare Shine): “there is a need to look at flexible approaches, 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
8 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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 protected areas are to be effective. ◊ It was noted that available financial and staff resources are often a limiting factor in relation to transboundary protected area efforts. As noted by one speaker, “to move from concept to action requires resources, if these do not exist, action is unlikely”. The need for external support in many parts of the world was noted as a critical factor but it was further noted that such support should address the issue of financial sustainability, beyond the life of the project itself. It is also critical that such support address the causes of biodiversity loss and not the symptoms. This thus implies that projects relating to conservation need to be clearly integrated with associated sustainable development activities. ◊ The critical role of the private sector was emphasised repeatedly throughout the conference and it was agreed that the key issue was not whether the private sector should be engaged but how to most effectively do this. It was agreed that the involvement of the private sector is likely to become increasingly important in future years, particularly if current trends of decreasing public sector funding continue and also that innovative mechanisms for working in partnership with the private sector need to be explored. A number of example of private sector involvement from Southern Africa, such as those from the Natal Parks Board, were noted 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 humanitarian disaster situations such as that relating to Virunga. It was agreed that conservation is one element of such responses and that this will be most effectively addressed when it is approached in collaboration with others, for example, UNHCR. ◊ Transboundary protected area efforts lend themselves to regional mechanisms for cooperation, which can be informal, such as those outlined in relation to Indochina, by Tom Dillon, or formal, such as the regional government agreements between Congo, Uganda and Rwanda in relation to Central Africa. Where possible, conservation and transboundary activities should be linked with existing systems and agreements. The increasing trend to regional programming by donors was also noted and this was a further argument in favour of 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. Successful transboundary protected areas are often built on a base of local level cooperation and activity on practical management issues, such as fire management. Mechanisms for dialogue are an important pre-cursor of transboundary protected area success and it is important to build on such mechanisms, where they exist. ◊ Joint international designations, such as World Heritage and Man and the Biosphere Reserve, 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 Central America. ◊ 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 must be 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 and national economic development. It was further noted that marketing, promotion and effective management are also essential elements of effective transboundary protected area establishment and management.
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 9

WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS A major part of the conference was working group discussions on four specific issues. Key issues identified by each working group were as follows: Working Group 1: Identification of the Role which transboundary protected areas can play in encouraging 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 transfrontier protected areas between sovereign states”. It was noted that some members of this working group were concerned about the use of the term protected area, as it was perceived as being too narrow. It was suggested that the definition of protected areas should be better explained and marketed. This working group also noted that it was unrealistic to have transboundary protected areas as a primary mechanism for resolving disputes, although it was acknowledged that 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 nature based tourism has high potential for job creation and improving the quality of life and that the private sector can play a significant contribution to the success of transboundary protected areas, and should be actively encouraged. Such partnership should be based on clear guidelines for involvement, which (a) cater to all levels of entrepreneurship; (b) set limits 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 equitable sharing of benefit; and (f) choose the appropriate level of involvement at national, regional and local levels. It was suggested that the World Bank, and other donors, could be a useful source of support for local entrepreneurs. ◊ It was suggested that better promotion of transboundary protected areas models and concepts 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 and management of transboundary protected areas to enhance international cooperation in biodiversity conservation efforts. This working group agreed that the focus of discussion could include areas with a mosaic of different land-uses, including areas not formerly gazetted as protected areas. It was suggested that there was not one single correct model but several, which could achieve

10

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

desired results. It was agreed that projects will only succeed if there are clear and tangible benefits to both sides as a result of the initiative. The subsequent stage is project preparation which should include a number of elements such as: ◊ 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 must be coordinated between the transboundary protected area units/ countries. It was considered important, for example, that wilderness trails in one unit did not end in the parking lots in the other unit. There needs to be compatibility in respect to policies and practices in relation to aspects such as: ◊ law enforcement; ◊ tourism; and ◊ fire control. It is also important that processes are established for the resolution of disputes and conflicts between parties; ideally these should be included in an operational agreement between the parties. The next stage is on-ground management and monitoring and this phase must be characterised by regular consultation, for example through joint technical meetings and management committees. Joint management and research programmes should be developed and 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 development programmes. The importance of establishing good working relations between parties was emphasised as was the need for accountability and transparency in relation to issues such as personnel selection. Working Group 3: Identification of Priority Areas for the establishment of transboundary protected areas in regions recently affected by conflict, and the incorporation of confidence building measures into the management of such transboundary protected areas. This working group agreed that it did not have the necessary background information to make a judgement in relation to which priority areas around the world should be identified for the future 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 ecological significance);

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

11

• political and social climate (the extent to which there is an existing spirit of transborder cooperation as well as the existence of an enabling political and social climate which 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 to confidence building measures after conflict. However, it is only one of a number of elements of confidence building. Several types of political situations lend themselves to the establishment of transboundary protected areas which enhance their role in serving as confidence building measures. For example, where two or more states are on good terms, or where a disputed area is already the basis 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 to take every possible action to support high priority transboundary protected areas and a number of candidate sites were mentioned including: • the potential initiatives identified by the Peace Parks Foundation (seven initiatives in Southern 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 the special needs of protected areas in times of emergency. IUCN should consider working with such agencies as WWF, UNHCR and WCMC in such an exercise. A useful model for such a body might be TRAFFIC. Working Group 4: Identification of ideas for a draft code of conduct for transboundary protected areas in peace time or during conflict. This working group identified a number of elements of a draft code of conduct and key concepts are outlined below. Draft Code of Conduct Purpose

12

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

The key purpose should be to provide a clear framework to secure the many benefits of transboundary protected areas, namely biodiversity conservation, improved economic and social 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 and give 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 where necessary, 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 installations in or near protected areas and the need to where possible, treat protected areas as demilitarised zones. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations were discussed and agreed by the conference.

1. 2. 3.

IUCN should promote and publicise the conference declaration and other outputs of the conference; IUCN should quickly produce the proceedings from this conference which will include recommendations from the workshops and distribute them widely; IUCN should prepare guidelines for the establishment and management of transboundary protected areas, which will build on the existing management guidelines and also include confidence building and conflict prevention measures; 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 and environmental law commissions and other relevant expertise; 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 with organisations like the UNHCR, WWF, WCMC and ICRC; 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 of humanitarian crises;

4.

5.

6.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

13

7.

A Southern African Working Group should be established to promote transfrontier conservation areas within the SADC region. The working group should be convened by IUCN ROSA in consultation with the SADC technical coordination unit. It was noted that Peace Parks Foundation has offered assistance to facilitate the process; and 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 appropriately applied.

8.

14

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
We, the 72 participants of this Conference from 32 countries, are gathered together from around the world, in the common conviction that transfrontier and transboundary conservation areas1 can be a vehicle for international co-operation, biodiversity conservation and economic development. We are pleased to note that:

in many regions of the world there is a new climate of co-operation between neighbouring States; and principles of transboundary resource management and resource sharing for mutual benefit are beginning to emerge, although many legal, economic and political constraints remain at both national and international levels.

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

a major contribution can be made to international co-operation, regional peace and stability by the creation of transfrontier conservation areas which promote biodiversity conservation, sustainable development and management of natural and cultural resources, noting that such 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-operative management 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 species conservation 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 to agreements 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 area categories I - VI); fully engage local communities and indigenous peoples and ensure that they derive tangible, long-term benefits from the establishment and management of transfrontier conservation areas;

1

The terms Transfrontier and Transboundary Conservation Areas are used interchangeably in different regions to denote areas which span both international and internal administrative boundaries. Transfrontier Conservation Areas include, but are not necessarily restricted to, protected areas. Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 15

build strategic partnerships between government agencies, NGOs, private sector and local communities; 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 deserve support 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 and management of transfrontier conservation areas as a means of strengthening international cooperation, maximising benefits and fostering regional peace and stability through:

encouraging individual governments, including provincial governments where these have jurisdiction over natural resources, to strengthen collaboration with their neighbours in the establishment 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 reestablishment 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

16

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

17

18

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. I would like to extend a warm welcome to all on behalf of President Nelson Mandela and the South African Government. I want to extend a particularly warm welcome to the delegates from beyond South Africa’s frontiers. For the few days you will spend with us make our country your home. We wish you a pleasant stay and feel assured that South Africa feels very honoured to be hosting this very important international gathering. World market trend indicate that tourism is the world’s fastest growing industry, with ecotourism or nature-based tourism at the fore-front of this expansion. At the present tourism accounts for 4.5% of South Africa’s GDP. If we could increase that figure to 10%, the industry could generate R40 billion annually and create two million jobs. No other industry has such a potential. 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 Nature Reserve and the Table Mountain range, both of which are home to an amazing array of plant and animal species. Southern Africa, with its untouched natural beauty, has the potential to become a highly sought after eco-tourism destination with tourism as a significant generator of the economic development that the whole region so desperately needs. The Peace Parks are particularly appropriate for our region which has been racked by wars and other forms of conflict for the past decades. These Parks will be a token of shared commitment by the peoples and governments of Southern Africa to strive for peace and to pursue the option of peaceful resolution of conflict as an intrinsic condition for the welfare and development of our region. Regional cooperation in transboundary protected areas will be one further step along the path set by the Southern African Development Community (SADC). South Africa is itself spearheading exciting new initiatives of transfrontier cooperation such as the Maputo Development Corridor and the trilateral Lubombo Development Initiative involving cooperation with Swaziland and Mozambique. These projects are grounded in the mutual dependence of the countries of this region and the recognition that the development of one’s neighbours is a condition for one’s own. These projects will enhance and greatly expand the area of regional cooperation and hopefully will ward off the threat of violent conflict. Their joint management will provide new arenas of collaboration which must necessarily help to minimise conflict itself. Your meeting on our soil at this time affords us the opportunity of obtaining pointers from other countries’ experience in the fostering of regional cooperation. Our government is therefore keenly 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 better venue to make the best impression on international visitors. As a CapeTonian I am certain that you will agree that I am being completely objective in concurring with Drake that this is the fairest Cape. After you have had a chance to taste of the delights the Western Cape has to offer, 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
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 19

our borders. We regard these initiatives, which will be undertaken with our colleagues in Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe, as one of the most interesting developments unfolding on the sub-continent. These conservation areas will compliment our other measures to promote regional peace and stability by creating hundreds of new job opportunities as well as providing a better context for the conservation of some of Africa’s bio-diversity hot spots. As you travel through our countryside and take time out to see and experience our beautiful beaches, I am certain that you will also be struck by the glaring contrasts that reflect the legacy of our recent past. The Western Cape is but a microcosm of the fundamental problems facing not only South Africa, but also the other countries in the region. Widespread poverty, in urban and rural areas, poses a very immediate and palpable threat to the ethic of sustainable use of our natural resources. Environmental management, conservation and the protection of the delicate ecological systems to be found in the region becomes that much more difficult when large numbers of people live on the edge of existence, uncertain of survival into the following day. These broader issues will have to inform your discussions while not detracting from the very laudable aim of creating Peace Parks. In elaborating the concept of Peace Parks it would not be out of place to consider how best we protect and manage our natural resources as a region. The rivers of Southern Africa are shared by more than one country. Our mountain ranges do not end abruptly because some 19th Century politician drew a line on a map. The winds, the oceans, the rain and atmospheric currents do not recognise political frontiers. The earth’s environment is the common property of all humanity and creation, and what takes place in one country affects not only its neighbours, but many others well beyond its borders. Southern Africa is regularly reminded of the fragility of our little green planet by the cruel tricks that mother nature periodically plays on us. Even as we speak the region is bracing itself for yet another El Niño phenomenon. Because we have had forewarning the region will be better prepared for the prospect. It goes without saying that the worst affected will be the poorest among our people. Addressing the economic plight of our marginalised and poor communities goes 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 drawing local communities into the management and protection of the conservation estate. We are promoting a cooperative arrangement between communities in the vicinity of protected areas and game parks so as to address their needs for land, various resources, employment and income. In a few pilot projects, in various parts of the country, we are finding ways of restoring the pride of communities in their natural heritage by giving them access to the substantial benefits 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 earmarked for development into needy neighbouring areas; allowing communities to harvest resources such as fish, grass, thatch, wood and traditional medicine 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”;

20

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

♦ ♦ ♦

forming joint management committees between local communities, conservation authorities and private operators; channelling funds generated by tourism into development programmes, such as clinics and schools; in many cases, conservationists, private operators and NGO’s have made their expertise and 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 a salutory effect on the environment by giving the poor an active interest in its conservation and sustainable management. Our National Parks Board has already initiated a programme to impart indigenous lore about conservation and environmental management to the younger generation. The preservation of such local traditions dovetails well with the National Botanical Institutes taxonomic work on medicinal plants and herbs. We trust that the outcome of your conference will be the creation of yet another window of opportunity for economic development and the empowerment of our historically disadvantaged communities. The Peace Parks can catalise job creation, the improvement of infrastructure and education. They must, of course, also provide a haven from the rat race and the pressures of urban life by being wide open spaces where we can commune with nature, as simple, uncomplicated human beings. Ladies and gentlemen, the issues you will be weighing touch some of the most challenging aspects of my Ministry. The South African government looks forward to receiving a report on your conference. We know it will offer us much to think about. Let me therefore wish you well in your deliberations and leave with our best wishes for a very successful conference. Thank you.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

21

22

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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 World Conservation Union. We have a serious issue before us. Let’s engage it seriously - but let’s at the same time enjoy this chance to think creatively about peace parks - an important mechanism for seeking peace and conservation. This will not be difficult in the new South Africa. Minister, we thank you for being with us this morning. It is not just that this setting is superb. It is not just that South Africa with its many borders and the imaginative way it is now perceiving them is an appropriate place to be discussing transboundary peace parks. More importantly, this country has become a symbol of hope for the world. You still have huge problems before you. But looking at this country today and thinking back a decade or less, the evidence of transformation is startlingly clear: you are engaging in the difficult process of building a new and united nation in a wholly unique and courageous way. We outsiders can teach you little about conflict resolution; you do it every day in a very African way. We salute you. We fervently wish you success. May I add that we were interested to hear this morning of the paradigm shift in your policy by involving communities in the management and benefits of parks. Experience elsewhere supports the good sense of such a policy. IUCN - The World Conservation Union has been glad to be working with the Peace Parks Foundation of South Africa in bringing you all together. We thank John Hanks and his team for the way they have thrown themselves wholeheartedly into the venture. We are also glad that our colleagues in the World Bank and other partners have joined us in helping set up the conference. 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 (over a hundred) and over seven hundred non-governmental organizations around the globe. We also have a large group, running over ten thousand worldwide, of hardworking and committed volunteers organized into six technical networks known as Commissions. This meeting was organized by one of the more venerable and extensive of these networks, the World Commission on Protected Areas. The WCPA has been working on the peace parks idea for some years. What does the Union stand for? We try to establish links between the environment and development. We stand for sound science, socially delivered. One of our more upbeat versions of this is that our product is hope, based on science. We try to match policy and action. We mobilize ideas and knowledge and know-how and people. We try to be above the fray - but in it as well. We tend to the sustainable use side of the biodiversity conservation debate - and we try to help empower communities and influence decision-makers. With all due modesty, we also think that this unique alliance of governments, NGOs, volunteers and increasingly other partners and players like the private sector is the wave of the future for international organizations. You might well ask what an organization with this sort of make-up and philosophy is doing dabbling in areas like conflict resolution and mechanisms for improving transboundary relationships between countries and peoples.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

23

Five quick answers are:
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

because environmental factors are going to be a primary source of international insecurity and conflict in the 21st century; because much of this conflict will arise over the control and management of scarce natural resources; because much of the world’s precious biodiversity, including human diversity, lies in the vast ecosystems through which arbitrary national boundaries wander; because the usefulness of objective and independent third parties like IUCN in conflict resolution is proven; because transboundary protected areas, like several other forms of transboundary cooperation, 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 a diplomat than a conservationist, though I have a growing claim to the latter. I left the sanctuary of a national Foreign Service because I believe that the challenges of the next century in the area of international relationships, including security relationships, will derive from factors which national systems are ill-equipped and too inflexible to confront and cope with. I am a convinced internationalist - or perhaps multilateralist is a better word. So I have a longstanding interest in the issues before us. It has almost become a cliché that environmental stress, and particularly scarcities of renewable natural resources, leads to conflict inside individual countries and across national boundaries. There are dozens of books and hundreds of articles on the subject, whole research centres study the implications - we ourselves are working with the Paris-based OECD and the Woodrow Wilson Center of the Smithsonian Institution on aspects of the thesis and I was interested to see that South Africa’s White Paper on Defence has a chapter on the environment. The reality is that although environmental scarcity is not usually the sole or exclusive cause of conflict, when it interacts with ethnic, political, economic and/or social factors the mixture is volatile. In the years ahead population pressures will exacerbate the shortages, the area of high quality agricultural land and forests will decline, as will plant, animal and 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 of resource scarcities. Much of the conflict will occur in the developing world - but the rich countries 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 peacekeeping as on fostering sustainable development - so it is having to devote as much effort to treating symptoms as to heading off and preventing conflict. Let me give you one example of what might be called environmental degradation as a major contributor to conflict. We are in Africa. Let’s take an African example. Most observers tend to view the tragic conflict in Rwanda over these past several years as a simple case of tribal animosities getting out 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, he says, “…. was rooted in a complex web of explosive population growth, severe land shortages, land degradation and rapidly falling food production, lack of non-agricultural employment, dwindling export earnings, and the pain of structural economic adjustment”. Of course tribal conflict was a substantial element - but it is altogether too simplistic to see this as the sole cause. Environmental pressures triggered the tragedy. I do not propose to go into the environmental security issue in detail. Its relevance to this conference is that whether we like it or not most of us here are going to become increasingly
24 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

embroiled in the debates and conflicts over environmental degradation and scarcities. We are natural resource managers. We seek ecological sustainability. Conservation of biodiversity is a preoccupation. And increasingly we seek to work on an ecosystem-wide basis, striving (with a mixture of trepidation and arrogance) to help put in place management regimes which do not touch only on one aspect of a problem or deal with it on one site but cover large marine systems, whole river basins, vast inland plains, plateaus and mountain systems. So, as the Minister reminded us earlier, we run constantly up against a rather large constraint: the physical 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 boundaries of the world were drawn up by six colonial powers. The boundaries wander whimsically over the face of the globe, the product often of the arbitrary actions of lost and lonely colonial surveyors with very vague briefs. Occasionally they used physical features to define the boundaries - drawing their lines down the thalweg (the middle of the navigable channel) of large rivers, for example. Apart from the fact that such lines tend to be a trifle insecure (the navigable channel shifts at flood time) they are a nightmare to ecosystem managers because they split river basins and watersheds precisely down the middle. They are also a nightmare to social scientists and community leaders and government administrators because they tend also to split human groups down the middle. There is little prospect of redrawing such boundaries in the foreseeable future. For reasons which are perfectly understandable, governments are reluctant to open this can of worms. Most regional organizations (the Organization of African Unity, for example) are committed to existing national boundaries. But - as our conference papers illustrate - there are around the world many instances of transboundary cooperation. Almost all stop short of a surrender of sovereignty as such but they do affirm that, given a sufficient matching of complementary interests and some political will, governments will act rationally and cooperate with their neighbours. That is reassuring. But this is where you people also come in. Add to your responsibility for helping reduce environmental stress and insecurity the task of conflict resolver. When I was in New York in the late ‘eighties I got involved through the Quakers (brilliant conflict resolvers) with the Harvard Negotiation Project people. You will know of the classic book by Roger Fisher and William Ury, Getting to Yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. If you have not read it, I recommend that you do. It’s as relevant to a park manager in Malaysia or Peru as to community leaders in Siberia - or Natal, I suspect. If I venture to boil their techniques down to what is most relevant to transboundary conflict resolution, Fisher and Ury give one basic message: focus on interests, particularly shared interests and those related to basic human needs. Some of those who wrote papers for this conference utterly understand this. Juan Castro-Chamberlain puts it succinctly: “Peace parks .… reduce stress along historically tense borders by providing governments with an agenda for mutual action on issues of common concern”. What can this collection of practical field people, scientists, lawyers and academics do to foster more peace parks? We can, in a studiously neutral way, help governments and transboundary communities identify what their shared or matching interests are in taking such a step. Secondly, we can point the way to achieving such agendas of common concern. Our papers give us lovely examples of shared or complementary interests in conserving biodiversity and extending wildlife and watershed protection across borders to save scarce resources. We must identify wider resource management interests. We must pinpoint potential, social, economic and political benefits. As for what role we play, we should take to heart the injunction of one author that outsiders may facilitate dialogue or even on occasion

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

25

mediate in negotiations designed to produce transboundary peace parks - but they should not be, 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 and general way. To my way of thinking we should not define too specifically what examples of transboundary cooperation qualify as a peace park. It should not be confined, for example, to protected areas which were set up essentially to achieve enhanced physical or military security although it is acknowledged that on occasion establishing such a park is a very acceptable and sensible way of backing away from border disputes. The term should also cover parks set up with 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 of transboundary protected areas are closely inter-related: prospects for peace are most likely to be strengthened if natural resources are sustainably used and the interests of local populations are taken fully into account”. Not the least important consideration is that in some parts of the world groups of indigenous peoples are split and permanently distanced from each other 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 may occasionally forget? This is that the potential for establishing peace parks in the marine environment is much greater than on land. As one author, who identifies a whole range of examples of cooperation at sea puts it: “….. state sovereignty on land is absolute, whereas at sea it is partial”. The world community’s failure to match in the marine environment the degree of protection achieved on land might even prove an advantage in this respect: reaching agreement on shared or jointly managed maritime protected areas may prove easier where boundaries are less clearly delimited, where there are no existing protected areas and where living resources are more inclined to be migratory. So let’s not neglect the marine dimension over 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 I would not be too inhibited by this) is the potential for establishing peace parks in the global commons. What we have in Antarctica, especially when the Environmental Protocol comes into force shortly, is coming close to a peace park (though I know some government lawyers who would argue the toss on this). I put it to you that there are vast areas of the high seas where 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 preliminary thoughts 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 days only to learn of the experiences of others, to outline geopolitical, scientific and legal parameters, 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 the discussion to follow is at least as important as the formal presentation. We need to free up as much time as possible for brainstorming. I am looking to some tough chairing, including the use 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 experience and talent!

26

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

PAPER PRESENTED AT THE CONFERENCE
GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION: PHILOSOPHY AND BEST PRACTICES By: Lawrence S. Hamilton Vice-Chair (Mountains) WCPA/IUCN Islands and Highlands, Environmental Consultancy 342 Bittersweet Lane, Charlotte, Vermont 05445 USA; Tel/fax 802 425-6509; LSx2_Hamilton@together.org Transboundary cooperation between two or more border-abutting protected areas can be of many kinds and degrees. It can range from park managers feeling comfortable enough with each other to pick up the telephone and talk about a problem or opportunity, to a formal international treaty that endorses cooperation between agencies administering the protected areas. Hereafter, transboundary cooperation will be referred to as TBC. It is convenient to use terms that indicate a situation where there are two abutting parks on a common frontier between 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 be more than two protected areas or countries, as in Volcanoes (Rwanda), Virunga (Zaire) and Gorilla (Uganda). There are also conditions for TBC where very independent states or provinces within a single country are involved as is the case for New South Wales/Victoria/Australian Capital Territory in the Australian Alps National Parks. Also, the terms transfrontier, transborder or transboundary may have slightly different shades of meaning, but will be usually subsumed under the one term "transboundary" for the purpose of this paper and this conference. In setting forth some guidelines and best practices for effective TBC, it is appropriate to first of all briefly review the benefits that can be captured and that make TBC a compelling activity. It is well to be aware of some of the impediments to effective TBC, and these will be also briefly reviewed. 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 international tension or outright conflict that derives from establishing or already having nature protection areas adjoining the frontier. Some of these have been pointed out by McNeil (1990) and moreover are the focus of several presentations at this conference. Tension over unusual border situations following wars indeed have been eased, e.g. the Cracow Protocol in 1924 recognized the value of an international park between Poland and Czechoslovakia, which in fact did not materialize until 1949 in the case of Tatrzanski National Park in the former and 1954 as Tatransky National Park in the latter. But then, because of the previous efforts to create 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 of hostility or even armed conflict, creation of abutting parks can reduce military presence, demonstrate the effectiveness of non-military methods of dispute resolution and perhaps lead to solving of boundary disputes (McNeil, 1990). The SIAPAZ (or Sí-a-Paz) park between Nicaragua and Costa Rica comes close to this, and is described in another paper in this conference. It is to be noted that the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea is a de facto nature reserve some 230 km long and 4 km wide where both plants and animals have found 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
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 27

benefits, many of which are summarized below. The benefits are so substantial that they alone may ease tensions on the border in some cases. BENEFITS OF TBC Aside from the value of technical, non-political interaction that promotes greater understanding and trust, and leads to cooperation in other arenas, it is in th arena of biodiversity conservation that the benefits are most direct and obvious. For that reason they are listed first in the following abbreviated listing of benefits. 1. A larger contiguous protected area cooperatively managed reduces the risk of biodiversity loss (genes, species or ecosystems) from different policies applied on smaller areas with respect to harvesting levels, enhancement measures and differing protected status or laws protecting rare species; there is less "island" effect where biodiversity loss increases naturally; there is more genetic exchange. More viable populations are maintained in the whole complex of areas. (Ordessa in Spain is 15,600 ha but it abuts the large 206,350 ha Pyrénées Occidentales.) 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 in very many respects, including its biodiversity complement. Mount Kanchenjunga, third highest in the world, is being considered for trilateral protection and cooperative management by India, Nepal and China. Promotes ecosystem-based management for plants and animals whose populations occur both sides of an "artificial" boundary, or for seasonally migratory wildlife species that cross a jurisdictional boundary (e.g. ibex have summer range in Vanoise National Park in France, but winter in Italy in Gran Paradiso). The well-being of the species requires that compatible management be applied in both countries. 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 project can be done jointly (e.g. wolf moving through protected areas in Alberta Canada into US protected areas, or reintroduction of bearded vulture in Alpi Marittime and Mercantour (Italy and France)). 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 adjacent source of the problem (e.g. wild pig cross-border control in the Australian Alps involving Victoria, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory). 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). Joint research programs bring the benefits of different perspectives, eliminate duplication, provide more scientific interchange and opportunities for standardizing methodologies so that research data and results are more meaningful; where transboundary Biosphere Reserves exist, research cooperation is the expected procedure; expensive equipment can be shared (e.g.agreement for research cooperation in Tatras by Polish Tatrzanski and Slovak Tatransky researchers, or joint studies on fish otter by Saxonia-Switzerland National Park and Elbe Sandstones Protected Landscape in Germany/Czech Republic). Wildfire is no respecter of park boundaries, and can be more effectively controlled with a
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.
28

cooperative surveillance and suppression effort (e.g. a memorandum on fire control across the USA/Canada border in the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area/Quetico Wilderness 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 and equally applied (e.g. Manas Tiger Reserve/Manas National Park in India and Bhutan). In law 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) where they abut. Nature-based tourism opportunities and resulting benefits are enhanced in several ways:

10.

It is more cost-effective and satisfying for the tourist to be able to visit more than one park from his or her base, and even to pay one admission fee (e.g. boat trips across the border on Waterton Lake for Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park; river rafting between Kluane/Tatshenshini-Alsek/Glacier Bay crossing three jurisdictions and two countries; boat tours go down the river border in the bilateral BohemianSaxonian 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 park personnel 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 border are hallmarks of effective TBC. The best example of all of these in one place is in the Australian Alps National Parks, and Waterton-Glacier and Hohe Tauern are close behind. 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 in three Austrian States in the development of a joint training academy). 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. It also reflects the sharing of experiences with other professionals who grapple with similar problems. 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). 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 from Mercantour (France) to Alpi Marittime (Italy) and in 1997 the exchange will work the other way. Note that this also involves language training, but the benefit is considered to be sufficient to justify this.)

12.

13.

14.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

29

15.

The combined professional staffs offer a greater skills pool for finding the expertise needed to solve a problem on either side of the boundary (e.g.the two Tatras parks in Poland and Slovakia). 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 fire management air surveillance and aerial water bombing in the Australian Alps.) 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 Czech Republic's Elbe Sandstones Protected Landscape to a National Park, to match its partner across the German border, Saxonian Switzerland National Park.) 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 help where the parks agency is within a forestry ministry that has a timber harvest myopia. Joint proposals from both sides of an international frontier have greater weight with international designations or donors (e.g. Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park which became a World Heritage Site in December 1995, and the Czech/Slovak/Austria international park Morava-Dyje wetlands which secured GEF funding in 1993.) 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 is threatened 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 of its tie to Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elias and Glacier Bay which together became the world's largest World Heritage Site.) Customs and Immigration officials are more easily encouraged to cooperate by a joint effort of transboundary parks (e.g. Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park). 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 Mount Sagarmatha/Qomolangma).

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Note that these benefits must continuously be communicated by park managers to senior decision and policy makers of the agency and ministry in order to keep their commitment as there 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 transboundary situations there can be many inevitable impediments. To a large extent these explain why there are very many levels or kinds of TBC where protected areas abut a common political border. 1. Strong nationalism, isolationism, or different political ideologies can make it impossible for a high level of TBC to prevail. As has been previously stated, open hostility and even armed conflict precludes any overt level of TBC. The difficult terrain and inaccessibility of most parks is in itself a problem. Lack of access
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

2.
30

infrastructure across an international mountain or large river border is often the case, and makes effective TBC difficult because it limits personal contact (e.g. lack of easy crossborder 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 law enforcement a problem even though cooperative law enforcement seems a most compelling arena for joint action (e.g. Nyika National Park in Malawi and Zambia). 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 some time so that response policies have been thoroughly worked out. 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 about killing "pest" animals to different dress codes for tourists visiting both parks. Religious/cultural differences can cause misunderstandings between park personnel, as is sometimes the case in Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu interactions, or American/Mexican interactions. Language barriers may have to be overcome for effective communication. In the Mercantour (France)/Alpi Marittime (Italy) staff exchange, language training has to be provided. 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 in Germany and umava in Czech Republic). 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 rangers to have some university education on one side but not on the other). 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. When two countries are at different stages of economic development there can be some incompatibility of goals (e.g. strict nature protection versus sustainable development which might involve grazing use, forest harvesting, hydropower development etc.) Policies toward roads in protected areas are sometimes quite different. Large scale tourism or forest production may be given priority in one country and nature protection may be paramount in the other (Bavarian Forest/ umava). Inconsistency of involvement with international protocols or conventions (Conventions on Migratory Species, Wetlands of International Importance, and International Trade in Endangered Species, World Heritage, UNESCO Biosphere Reserve) will prevent their being used as TBC support (e.g. Venezuela has not approved Biosphere Reserves while Colombia has). Without clear objectives and enlightened leadership, cooperation can degenerate somewhat into weak compromise, indecision or inaction.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

Fortunately, the difficulties associated with communication between park staff across borders are being eased by modern technology. Advances in telephone, facsimile transmission, and
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 31

electronic communication are all decreasing in the cost. There are still technical difficulties and sometimes incompatibilities to be worked out. And there is always the persistent problem of insufficient funds for communication. Having access to each other's radio frequencies and the increasingly common use of electronic mail will reduce some of the difficulties enumerated above. 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 the endangered Andean bear for abutting parks in Venezuela and Colombia; the panther for the whole series of linked protected areas (many of them on common borders) in the MesoAmerican Biotic Corridor for 7 countries; Mount Everest for Qomolangma and Sagarmatha, and so forth. This in turn produces a cultural icon that binds not only staff but local people on both sides of the border through pride in the designation. This is enhanced by having a common name, for example Nyika National Parks. A joint name that appears repeatedly is the next best thing (Waterton/Glacier International Peace Park). A common logo such as Hohe Tauern has for the three units, or as the Australian Alps has developed (even though each park agency retains its own logo as well) are good examples. Good TBC will result in capturing the economic benefits and unifying effects of joint development and production of COMMON MATERIALS FOR EDUCATION AND INFORMATION. These present and interpret the natural and cultural values of the whole area, across the boundary. A common map, brochures, exhibits and audio-visual material not only present this holistic view, but give economies of joint production. The two-language booklets produced by Mercantour and Alpi Marittime such as "Mountains Without Frontiers" are good examples. These common materials are in turn used in NATURE TOURISM marketing, tour operator training, concessionaire regulation. Excellent examples of all of these were visible in the Australian Alps. Noteworthy were the agreed-upon visitor codes published as common pamphlets for: car-based camping, bushwalking, horse riding, snow camping, river use, and mountain biking. Common nature and culture INTERPRETATION themes and joint interpretation activities that cross the border are hallmarks of a high degree of cooperation. This is demonstrated Waterton/Glacier International Peace Park where there are regular interpreter 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 the border in which Americans sit in Canada, Canadians sit in the USA and foreign visitors can sit either side or on the boundary if they wish. 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' Hike in Waterton/Glacier. A joint annual field day for the public, or even joint annual staff picnic seems like a good practice. Alpi Marittime Nature park has an annual event celebrating the cultural traditions of an ethnic group which is now located mainly across the border in France. Regular JOINT TECHNICAL MEETINGS, seminars or training programs for information exchange, development of a transborder spirit, increased staff morale, professional upgrading and for cooperative develpment of strategies and materials are held. A good example is the Northern Borderlands Managers' Workshops involving professional staff from the US National Park Service, Parks Canada, US Forest Service, Alaska State
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

32

Parks, British Columbia Parks, Yukon Parks and First Nation Co-managers, who focus on 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 is done by outside organizations or individuals, it is usually more effective when done without regard to an artificial (political) boundary. Shared research results for park management are significant and needed benefits. Good examples are in Tatransky/Tatrzanski National Parks in Slovakia and Poland, and in Krkono e/Karkonosze in Czech Republic and Poland. The Biosphere Reserve designation fosters research cooperation both in the core zone and buffer zone, since this UNESCO program encourages collaborative scientific activity. COMPATIBLE or, preferably, JOINT MANAGEMENT PLANS. While joint management plans may not be feasible due to the different timing of establishment of the respective areas (or other factors), they need to be compatible on major issues such as fire management, 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). COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT of staff through staff exchange and joint training programs are very desirable, and develop "ties that bind". Hohe Tauern has joint training activities that realize economies by using qualified trainers once instead of three times, in each of the three state jurisdictions, Carinthia, Salzburg and Tyrol. It has developed a "training academy". Staff exchanges are in place in Mercantour/Alpi Marittime. It is desirable to have a WRITTEN AGREEMENT ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE in dealing with illegal transborder activities such as poaching, drug movements, and timber trespass, and with emergency situations such as fire suppression and search-andrescue. Waterton/Glacier International Peace Park has a written agreement on the latter two areas of concern, and it is a major item on the US/Mexican border where a joint Borders 21 Project is working out bi-national collaboration on all of the abutting border protected areas. Each protected area agency needs to SANCTION TIME ALLOCATION of staff for the necessary coordination work which inevitably has a substantial amount of discussion and pre-activity meetings. In view of the benefits, this must not be regarded by higher agency officials as unproductive wheel-spinning. 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 Endangered Species, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Biodiversity Convention, and Man and the Biosphere Program (especially Biosphere Reserves). These designations not only give a higher profile and status but another layer of protection as is the case in Bhutan's Royal Manas National Park and India's Manas Tiger Reserve World Heritage site. 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 the Rotary Club International in the case of Waterton/Glacier. Rotary conceived the peace park idea and pushed each government to action. It continues to be active and is currently attempting to eliminate the swath of cut vegetation that marks the international border. The Mountain Institute plays a nurturing and training role in Makalu-Barun
33

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

(Nepal)/Qomolangma (China), and carries out projects with the traditional people living within and around the protected areas. It assists in securing donor support for parkrelated activities involving local self-help projects. The International Tropical Timber Organization was instrumental in securing donor funds to help make operational the Lanjak-Entimau/Bentuang-Karimun protected areas in Sarawak, Malaysia and Kalimantan, Indonesia. NGOs developed a Danube Charter that was instrumental in the establishment of the tri-lateral Morava-Dyje wetlands (Czech Republic/Slovakia/Austria). IUCN and WWF have both played effective roles in assisting border parks, particularly in developing countries. In these cases there is often technical and financial assistance in the formulation of management plans. It is an IUCN program activity to promote transborder protected area establishment and cooperative management. (See for instance Priority Number 22 of Parks for Life:Action for Protected Areas in Europe; the stated objective is "to encourage the greater use of transborder protected areas in Europe and a greater degree of cooperation across frontiers with those that already exist" (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, the park units themselves must direct attention to this matter. Timely and regular COMMUNICATION UPWARD to higher decision-makers and other agencies that may adversely impact the park (e.g. tourism, transportation, energy and mines, forestry, agriculture) is extremely important. International field days, publicizing successful cooperative projects, hosting global meetings, appropriate use of newsletters, have been used toward this end. Many of these are well illustrated in the Australian Alps Liaison Committee activity. The same communication effort must be carried out when dealing with COMMUNITY SUPPORT, which needs to be fostered at every opportunity. Benefits of the protected areas need to be continually explained. Consultation with the community in planning for new management activities is becoming increasingly the standard park policy. Local NGOs often play a significant role here, as shown in Makalu-Barun/Qomolangma, and indigenous community co-management which is gradually taking place in Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elias. 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 the Tatra Parks, and in Hohe Tauern, the federal government of Austria is signatory to the agreement between the States of Salzburg, Tyrol and Carinthia. The Australian Alps national Parks has a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding, just renewed this year after 10 successful years in place. 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 respective units. (The Australian Alps Liaison Committee performs this function,and does it extremely well; in the case of Mercantour/Alpi Marittime, the Italian park director is a voting member of the management and policy board of the park across the border, and the French director is an ex-officio invitee to the Italian policy committee.) Having FUNDS THAT SUPPORT AND THEREFORE PROMOTE JOINT RESEARCH OR JOINT MANAGEMENT PROJECTS is extremely desirable. These may come from outside, as is the case in Krkono e and Karkonosze where GEF funds support cooperative projects conserving biodiversity; or be provided by the respective agencies or ministries but earmarked for cooperative activities to be awarded and supervised by the coordinating body, as is the case for the Australian Alps Liaison Committee (currently
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

15.

16.

17.

18.

34

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, for their full-time Coordinator. For the highest degree of collaboration a formal agreement is necessary, but it alone is not sufficient. ENTHUSIASTIC, FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIPS between the respective superintendents or park directors, and staff at all levels must exist, or TBC will founder, in spite of agreements. This "intangible" is imperative.

20.

I must say that in my travels for WCPA, and dealings with protected area personnel, I have encountered only friendliness and enthusiasm among staff within the protected area and across to neighboring protected areas. Park professionals by nature seem well equipped to promote 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 Peace Park. pp 9-12 in Joining Hands for Quality Tourism. Proc. Heritage Interpretation International, 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 and IUCN, 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 Areas Programme Series No. 1. Gland. Synge, H., (Ed.). 1994. Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe. IUCN, Gland. 146 pp.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

35

36

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

LEGAL MECHANISMS TO STRENGTHEN AND SAFEGUARD TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREAS Clare Shine Barrister and consultant Member, IUCN Commission on Environmental Law 37 rue Erlanger 75016 Paris France

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 of transboundary peoples (McNeil).

The motive for creating a TBPA obviously varies in accordance with regional circumstances. Whilst the term "peace park" has no legal definition, it has generally been applied to transboundary cooperation where the primary aim is to confirm3, strengthen or re-establish4 good relations with a neighbouring State(s); to prevent escalation of border disputes; or to safeguard important areas of biodiversity which are or were military zones5. In most areas, however, the primary purpose of transboundary cooperation is to improve the management of a shared ecological unit or migratory species6. Whatever the main objective, the potential benefits of TBPAs should be seen as closely interrelated. Prospects for peace are most likely to be strengthened if natural resources are sustainably used 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 potential benefits. Although such failure may be attributed to political, socio-economic or financial problems, it can be caused or exacerbated by weaknesses in the legal and institutional framework for protected area 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 formal or 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 Canadian Parliament and the U.S. Congress to establish "an enduring monument of nature to the long-existing relationship 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 Areas Protegidas para la Paz" (international protected area for peace) is being developed in an area subject to previous 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) and the 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. Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 37

As a general rule, the fundamental protected area objectives of perennity and integrity are best met through comprehensive management instruments which address all types of activity or impact which could adversely affect the site (de Klemm and Shine). With specific regard to resource-based conflicts, it is arguable that neighbouring countries which commit themselves to joint consultation and management arrangements will be better placed to deal with any cross-border problems and to pursue negotiated solutions. This short paper summarizes general legal issues and the international regime applicable to TBPA establishment and management, before describing a range of mechanisms for this purpose. It outlines the main legal rules for the protection of the general environment during conflicts and considers possible safeguards for protected areas against hostile military activities. It concludes with elements for further consideration by this Conference. 2. Legal framework for the establishment and management of transboundary protected areas Issues and obstacles

2.1

Legally, there is no difference between a protected area in a border region and any other protected area 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 landscape diversity, especially where located in inaccessible areas. Since political boundaries between States have usually been drawn for demographic, geographic or security reasons, they may take no account of the parameters of an ecological unit: important watersheds or internationally significant natural areas are often transected by national boundaries. In the absence of an appropriate management regime for the whole unit, there may be a heightened risk of conflict over use of the shared resources. Where protected areas in neighbouring countries are located along the international border, this border forms the jurisdictional boundary between the management authorities of the areas concerned (if such authorities exist). It is also the line at which each country's laws cease to be applicable7. Different parts of one ecosystem unit will therefore be managed by different institutions in accordance with different legal rules (which may be national or, in a federated country, regional or cantonal). This is unsatisfactory from a scientific point of view and can lead to duplication of effort, conflicting management policies, wasted socio-economic opportunities and weak or nonexistent law enforcement. In management terms, it would be preferable for the whole area to be administered as a single unit by one institutional body (the highest being a joint international commission established by treaty) in accordance with a single management plan. The international border would become purely symbolic, with immigration and customs controls being moved back to the park boundaries and uniform regulations being applicable throughout the TBPA. Such an "ideal" will often, though not always8, be politically impossible. A sovereign State exercises sovereign rights over its national territory and the natural resources under its jurisdiction, subject to any 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 regimes may be rejected as an unacceptable relinquishment of sovereign rights over part of the national territory 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 those parts of the protected area which are under its jurisdiction.
8

See McNeil on possible mechanisms for agreed multiple sovereignty in exceptional cases. Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

38

Leaving political resistance aside, obstacles to integrated management also arise where there are significant differences or imbalances between neighbouring countries. These may relate to ethnic or cultural issues or to economic, legal or institutional systems. Despite the rapid development of environmental law worldwide, some countries lack modern nature conservation legislation and many more have inadequately resourced management authorities without clear powers and duties. Jurisdictional overlaps and poor cross-sectoral coordination remain very common, particularly in coastal and marine areas and in river ecosystems9. [Conversely, transboundary cooperation will be facilitated 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 or intergovernmental programmes. Several conservation treaties10 require the Parties concerned to consult with each other where one Party intends to establish a protected area contiguous to the frontier of another Party, and to cooperate after the creation of the park or reserve, or in cases where a protected area was already established before the treaty came into force. A few go further by requiring the competent authorities of the Parties concerned to consult each other with a view to reaching agreement on management measures for such areas. The Conference of the Parties to the Ramsar Convention (1971 Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat11) has adopted a proactive role in encouraging 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 international cooperation 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 for such 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 a duty on the international community to protect certain cultural and natural sites of "outstanding universal 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 coordinate management of the Wadden Sea, 80 separate governmental institutions were involved in its management and protection.
10

The earliest being the 1933 Convention relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural State (which covered Africa). Relevant regional conventions include the 1979 Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, the 1985 ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources and the Protected Area Protocols to the Regional Seas Conventions concluded for the Mediterranean, 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 of International Importance (about 62 million ha).
12

At the Sixth Meeting (Brisbane 1996), the Conference called on the Governments of Bolivia and Peru to consider the possibility of designating Lake Titicaca (the largest freshwater lake in South America, of vital importance 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 Ramsar site along the upper reaches of the Rhine (Rec.6.17.23). Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 39

October 1996, 107 of these are natural and 19 are mixed cultural/natural sites. Eight sets of adjacent protected areas are considered to be transboundary World Heritage Sites, with a further three 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, whilst the listing of its neighbour followed at a later date (the Talamanca Range in Costa Rica was listed seven years earlier than La Amistad International Park, Panama in 1990). This illustrates the catalyst role which international designations can play in TBPA establishment. The most relevant intergovernmental programme for TBPAs is undoubtedly the Man and the Biosphere Programme, launched by UNESCO in 1971, under which an international network of biosphere reserves has been established to promote a balanced relationship between humans and the biosphere. The Network aims to include representative samples of all ecosystem types in all biogeographical zones: by 1997, 337 biosphere reserves had been designated in 85 countries13. Countries propose biosphere reserves for inclusion in this voluntary Network, subject to the approval of the MAB Council or Bureau. Each reserve remains under the sovereignty of the State concerned and is subject to national legislation. Clear guidance on their establishment is provided by the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves14. Reserves should be large enough to serve three functions (conservation, development and logistic support) and to use appropriate zonation comprising three component areas: "a legally constituted core area or areas devoted to long-term protection", a buffer zone(s) surrounding or contiguous to the core area or areas, where only activities compatible with the conservation objectives can take place; and an outer transition area where sustainable resource management practices are promoted and developed. Designations under multilateral instruments constitute an important vehicle for international cooperation in the management of important natural areas. Financial assistance is often targeted at sites of international importance, increasingly so where these are located in border areas and may contribute to regional stability15. Listed sites are more likely to attract the support and vigilance of international NGOs. The relevant Conference of the Parties will usually have powers to make specific recommendations where a listed site's conservation status is threatened. Lastly, it tends to be politically and procedurally difficult for a Party which designated a protected area for listing to delist that site, as such an action would inevitably elicit adverse reaction from other Parties and public opinion at large. 2.3 Legal mechanisms for effective transboundary cooperation As the case studies presented during this Conference will show, arrangements for existing TBPAs can range from informal/personal cooperation through local consultative arrangements to high-level government declarations or bilateral treaties (Hamilton). It should be emphasized that there is no correct 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 its best, it can build familiarity and mutual trust, promote close contact with communities and support 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 trilateral biosphere reserve. Under a Governmental agreement of 1987, the competent national authorities remain in charge of the management of the areas under their jurisdiction, in accordance with a management plan to be jointly formulated in a "homogenous way" by the signatories.
14 15

Adopted by the 28th General Council of UNESCO, November 1995.

The World Bank, through the Global Environment Facility, is supporting numerous projects for transboundary biodiversity conservation throughout eastern Europe and, more recently, in southern Africa. 40 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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 a Memorandum 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 to address planning/strategic matters or to carry out staff exchanges will often be restricted without a 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 a high 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 countries involved, all of which can make provision for institutional coordination17. It will generally be necessary 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 organising principles and objectives taken from relevant instruments (e.g. Biosphere Reserve Statutory Framework) or conservation treaties to which the countries involved are Parties. It will probably be necessary to amend each country's laws/regulations to incorporate these principles and objectives and 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, at least by clear and agreed management guidelines. Zonation of the whole area should be jointly determined by the competent authorities, after proper consultation with local populations and user groups on either side of the border (a strictly protected core zone on one side of the border should not tail off into a car park on the other side...). Turning to the institutional framework, the establishment of a single TBPA authority, with legal and financial autonomy within defined parameters, may be seen as politically unacceptable or as premature in the early stages of transboundary cooperation. An alternative approach is to establish regular coordination between the lead agency in each country involved, with responsibility for such coordination rotating between the agencies at defined intervals19. However, institutional cooperation of this kind requires that each agency has the necessary mandate to consult with its opposite number in respect of planning and operational activities. It may also be necessary to develop a specific financial mechanism to address, for example, the joint funding of shared equipment and joint programmes. There is certainly scope for imagination when building coordination mechanisms which can evolve over 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 Agreement between 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 certain natural habitats.
17

For example, the Common Wadden Sea Secretariat was established in 1987 pursuant to a Joint Declaration.
18

The 1964 treaty establishing a joint nature park between Luxembourg and the German Land of RheinlandPfalz requires that the total area of forest in the park must not be diminished and establishes a Joint Commission to which the two Governments must submit their park management plans for information. The Commission may make recommendations to the Governments on future management programmes and for the harmonisation of national regulations and other measures.
19

One example is the trilateral cooperation between Congo, Rwanda and Uganda in the Virunga Volcanoes Region. Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 41

representation. French and Spanish protected area directors are now entitled to attend meetings of the other's management authority on an ex officio basis although, as matters stand, only one has the 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 strike a balance between military imperatives and the requirements of humanity20. Whilst its scope has been broadened to take account of the environmental devastation which modern warfare may cause (notably in response to the Vietnam and Gulf Wars), there is a general consensus that these rules, as currently implemented, still do not provide adequately for environmental protection during armed conflict. Principle 24 of the (non-binding) 1992 Rio Declaration states that "warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development" and requires States to "respect international law providing protection for the environment in time of armed conflict and co-operate in its further development, as necessary". High-level deliberations are now under way in various international fora21 on how to improve the effectiveness of the legal regime. Within this process and with the support of the ICRC and UNESCO, the International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL) and the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law have recently focused on the development of special safeguards for protected 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 property rather than of the environment per se). Indirect protection of the environment may be inferred from the fundamental rule that military action by States should be limited to the objective of weakening the force of the enemy22, and possibly from other inter-related principles of customary law (military necessity and humanity; discrimination; unnecessary suffering; proportionality). These broad principles limit permissible means and methods of warfare but leave military personnel considerable discretion 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 of transboundary risks) may also provide a legal basis for environmental protection during armed conflict23. With regard to positive law, mention should be made of two modern treaties which specifically address environmental protection during armed conflict: Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques (ENMOD Convention)

20

It is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with this vast subject in detail. See Tarasofsky for a comprehensive survey and appraisal of the existing regime.
21

Such as the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the UN General Assembly and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
22 23

First codified in the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration.

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 protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilised peoples, 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 the context of current efforts to establish the environment as a civic objective. 42 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

The Convention prohibits Parties from engaging in military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects24 as the means of destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party (Art.I(1)). However, it applies only to techniques 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 a high threshold of damage. The Convention does not protect the environment per se, applies only as between Parties and does not extend to collateral damage. Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Additional Protocol I) The Protocol, with over 120 Parties, is a highly significant development in international humanitarian law as it incorporates several provisions relating directly to environmental protection. It is not limited to damage to a State Party: Art.35(3) prohibits methods of warfare intended or expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment (emphasis added), thus making the environment an object of protection in its own right. Amongst other relevant measures, the Protocol prohibits attacks on objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population (crops, livestock drinking water installations) and on installations containing dangerous forces (nuclear electrical generating stations, dams, dykes) where this would cause 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 environmental damage and control of weapons of mass destruction. However, one of the questions for this Conference 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 particular importance, 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 Armed Conflict, and the Regulations for its execution, establish a comprehensive regime for cultural property, which includes the marking of property under special protection with a blue and white emblem. The 1972 World Heritage Convention imposes a duty to refrain from deliberate activities which may directly or indirectly harm designated sites of other parties (Art VI.3). Although this wording seems to anticipate conflict situations, the Convention does not create a regime to protect sites in such circumstances and its limited effectiveness was only too apparent during the bombardment 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 between belligerents. Localities are immune from attack, provided that the area is not used in any manner that would support the military effort and that all combatants and mobile military equipment are evacuated. "Demilitarized zones" (Art.60) have the potential to offer even broader protection to the area 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 of months 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 of Disarmament).
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). Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 43

established by agreement amongst Parties but the Protocol specifically provides that such agreement can be made in peacetime. It has been suggested (Westing) that all World Heritage Sites should be declared to be "demilitarized zones" under Article 60. An recent precedent for site-specific protection consists of the unilateral resolutions issued by the United Nations Security Council to demilitarize a physical area for humanitarian reasons26. These require Parties and others concerned to treat a specified place and its surroundings as a safe area which should be free from any armed attack or any other hostile act. The mandate of UNPROFOR in Bosnia was extended to achieve this goal. 3.3 ICEL/IUCN-CEL Draft for a Convention on the Prohibition of Hostile Military Activities in Protected Areas ("the Draft")27

The Draft formalises the role of the United Nations in the protection of important natural and cultural areas by establishing a procedure whereby the UN Security Council could determine, on a case by case basis, internationally important sites which warrant protection and the specific measures necessary to implement such a determination. Under draft Article 2, each Resolution adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter in response to a situation of armed conflicts must include a list of the "relevant internationally protected areas, thereby designated as non-target areas in which all hostile military activities shall not be permitted during the armed conflict in question"28. This protection will automatically cease if the State Party in whose territory the area is situated maintains military installations of any kind within [a distance to be defined] of that area or uses that area to carry out any military activities during an armed conflict (draft Art.3). Expert missions to monitor compliance must be sent by the UN Security Council/regional arrangement or agency (draft Art.4.1) and may also be sent by other bodies as part of the United Nations operation, including non-governmental international organisations (draft Art.4.2). Such missions must report any cases of non-compliance to the sending body which "shall take necessary actions to ensure effective implementation" of the Convention (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 dispute settlement (draft Art.7). The mechanism applies to "protected areas", comprehensively defined as "natural or cultural areas of 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 under any international agreement or intergovernmental programme which meet these criteria" (draft Art.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).
27

The 1997 World Conservation Congress has endorsed the ICEL/IUCN-CEL initiative (IUCN-WCC Resolution 1.57): 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 the exercise of their functions under Chapter VIII of the Charter in conformity with the Declaration on the Enhancement of Cooperation between the United Nations and Regional Arrangements or Agencies in the Maintenance 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 the Convention within military training programmes.

44

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

from the World Heritage Committee for cultural sites and the IUCN for natural sites. An obvious starting 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 and Protected Areas and sites included in the Biosphere Reserve Network30. In conclusion, it should be emphasized that this proposal for a Convention has been developed to deal with extreme situations, where a national or regional conflict requires intervention at United Nations level. Without minimizing the undoubted difficulty of enforcing this kind of Resolution, the proposed mechanism has several useful features.

It would be applicable to non-international as well as international conflicts. It would confer protection analogous to that for "demilitarized zones" (Art.60, Additional Protocol I) but unencumbered 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 the site's protective status by carrying out military activities therein or maintaining military installations within a given radius. These last provisions are particularly important as they strengthen State environmental responsibilities and could make an effective contribution to the reduction of collateral damage. Elements for further consideration

4.

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

the poor interface between ordinary legal/institutional frameworks and integrated management of 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 to safeguard and strengthen transboundary protected areas. Such a mechanism should arguably address issues related to ongoing peacetime management as well as containing measures designed 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 conflicting with the work of existing fora, this could build an international consensus for improved protected area safeguards and contribute to building widespread awareness of the particular importance and vulnerability of such areas. A Code of this kind could also play a catalyst role by providing detailed guidance for countries wishing to formalise TBPA agreements. What might a Code of Conduct contain? It could incorporate "best practice" recommendations drawn up by this Conference. It should support the elimination of legal rules which undermine sustainable use of transboundary protected areas and promote the adoption of positive measures for this purpose. It should set out minimum institutional standards and advocate the creation of administrative conditions conducive to local participation in the decision-making process. It could identify preventive measures which concerned countries should take individually or jointly to prevent the degradation of TBPAs and designate non-confrontational procedures for dispute resolution. It should 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).

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

45

actions, siting of facilities etc.). It is recommended that consideration be given to conditionality of funding, 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 significant progress in recent years in developing innovative forms of environmental cooperation (such as the 1994 Lusaka Agreement on Co-operative Enforcement Operations directed at Illegal Trade in Wild Fauna and Flora, which established an international task force with legal personality to secure its objectives). At the time of writing, momentum to strengthen international humanitarian law is accelerating and a convention to ban the production, sale and use of anti-personnel landmines will hopefully be concluded in Ottawa, Canada before the end of 1997. This Conference can make an important contribution to this wider global process and thus help peace parks live up to their name. Selected bibliography Arends, A., Cerovsky, J. and Pickova, G., Transboundary Biodiversity Conservation: selected case studies from Central Europe, Ecopoint Praha, 1995 Burhenne, W.E., 1997, The Prohibition of Hostile Military Activities in Protected Areas, paper presented to the Elizabeth Haub Colloquium, Wiesbaden, Germany (17-19 April 1997) Centre international pour la conservation de la montagne (ed.), Pour une protection internationale du 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 and Law 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., Transborder Protected Area cooperation, Australian Alps National Parks and IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 1996 McNeil, R.J., International Parks for Peace, in Thorsell (ed.) 1990 Sands, P., Principles of international environmental law: Volume I (Frameworks, standards and implementation), Manchester University Press in association with IUCN, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Environment and the Foundation for International Environmental Law 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; IUCN Protected Area Programme Series n°1, Gland, 1990 Weed, T.J, Central America's "Peace Parks" and Regional Conflict Resolution, International Environmental Affairs, Vol.6, No.2, Spring 1994 Westing, A.H., Environmental Protection from Wartime Damage: The Role of International Law in Conflict and the Environment, ed. Gleditsch, N.P., Kluwer (1997, in litt.) Zinke, Alexander, Ecological Bricks for Europe: Integration of Conservation and Sustainable Development along the former East-West Border, in Protected Area Economics and Policy:

46

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

47

48

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

PEACE PARKS IN CENTRAL AMERICA. SUCCESSES & FAILURES IN IMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT COOPERATION

The La Amistad, SI-A-PAZ/San Juan River Basin Experiences
Juan J. Castro-Chamberlain Introduction The La Amistad, SI-A-Paz, and other efforts to conserve transboundary natural resources and cultural heritage in Central America have their common origin in the First Central American Meeting on the Management of Natural & Cultural Resources, held in San Jose, Costa Rica in December 1974, sponsored by FAO, IUCN, UNESCO and the OAS. Recommendations from this landmark event alluded to the fact that in the region “there are border areas in which natural and cultural resources offer characteristics of interest to two or more countries, and, therefore, should be jointly managed, inasmuch as they constitute ecosystems whose treatment should be integrated.” (OAS-CI, 1990, IRENA-MIRENEM, 1991) As stated by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oscar Arias and James D. Nations of Conservation International : “The potential benefits of Central America’s peace parks go far beyond their biological advantages of having larger territories for the endangered animals and plants that inhabit these areas. Peace parks also bring economic and political benefits. Coordinating wildlife and watershed protection across borders can save scarce resources for all countries involved. Peace parks also reduce stress along historically tense borders by providing governments with an agenda for mutual action on issues of common concern. Moreover, the most promising aspects of establishing these peace parks in Central America is the movement to include rural families in the planning and development of the parks and the buffer zones that surround them. “ The Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development (ALIDES) signed by the Presidents 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 economic commitments. Its estates that they: “Consider that sustainable development projects in border zones of Central America designed to aid the population as a means to reduce marginal conditions and poverty, promote both the preservation of natural resources and harmonious relationships between countries. Therefore we support efforts made with regard to border development”. Two examples of such areas are the subject of this presentation: La Amistad International Park, a biosphere reserve an World Heritage Site located in the border region between Costa Rica and Panama and the SI-A-PAZ initiative in reference to existing and potential protected areas on the border region between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. 1. The La Amistad International Park , Biosphere Reserve & World Heritage Site Experience Introduction: La Amistad is by now one of the oldest transboundary biodiversity conservation projects in the Central American Isthmus and thus lessons of experience from it could be of interest to other such projects in the region or elsewhere in the world.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

49

In the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve Region international cooperation projects were undertaken between 1989 and 1994 by both governments, Costa Rica and Panama with the support of the Organization of American States (OAS) , Conservation International (CI) and the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) undertaken. Binational cooperation between Costa Rica and Panama dates back to 1970 when the Planning and Economic Offices for both countries determined the need to jointly promote the integrated development of their border zones. In 1979 Costa Rica and Panama established their first Border Cooperation Agreement for the purpose of jointly developing investment and technical assistance projects. They also agreed to undertaking studies in areas of mutual interest. The Presidents issued at this time a Joint Declaration on the establishment of the La Amistad International Park An agreement specific to 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 of the La Amistad International Park emphasized two important arguments: the need to conserve their joint natural and cultural heritage and to serve as a model for peace and friendship between neighboring countries. On the basis of the 1979 agreement both countries established specific agreements in the areas of: animal and plant sanitation, natural resources and environment, education, community development, health, infrastructure, marketing and municipal development. They also considered for mid term planning purposes: technical assistance for agricultural production, land use feasibility studies, road network, forest conservation, horticultural & livestock production, small industries and integration of public services. Long term planning considerations included the agricultural sector, urban development as well as feasibility studies for the establishment of joint binational enterprises and an International City -the existing city of Paso Canoas- located across the border between both countries. The political will to carry out binational cooperation is further reaffirmed in 1992 with the signing of a new border cooperation agreement which has been ratified by the legislatures in both countries. The legal framework of both the 1979 and the 1992 binational cooperation agreements call for the establishment of Binational Technical Commissions responsible for the follow up, control and evaluation. During the 1979-1992 period such Commissions were formed for the following areas: 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 La Amistad International Park in Costa Rica in 1982 due to both the political will of both countries and the support of various international organizations such as: the World Fund for Nature, WWF, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA), Conservation International (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 and covers 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 and variations 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 to Premontane Forest, Premontane Wet Forest, Premontane Wet Forest Forest transition to
50 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Tropical Forest, Premontane Wet Forest transition to Rain Forest, Premontane Rain Forest, Lower Montane Wet Forest,Lower Montane Rain Forest, Montane Rain Forest, Subalpine Rain Param, present in both Costa Rica and Panama and Lower Montane Moist Forest and Montane Wet Forest present only in Panama. This landscape dominates the region and forms the physical backbone that ties both countries together. Since approximately 3 million years, according to the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, when the Central American Isthmus took form, the Talamanca range has been 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 and endangered. The high annual rainfall from 2,000 to 7,000 mm, combined with short and steep watersheds common to the region creates both serious flood hazards as well as a potential for hydropower generation. Talamanca has been occupied by human inhabitants for thousands of years (12,000 according to some authors) and in Costa Rica it holds the majority of the indigenous peoples remaining in the country, the largest group of which are the Bribri and the Cabecar with as many as 12,000 inhabitants. Panama also has numerous indigenous communities within the region with 60,000 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 Cerere Biological Reserve, Barbilla Biological Reserve, Rio Macho Forestry Reserve, Tapanti Wildlife Reserve, Las Tablas Protective Zone,Indigenous Reserves: Ujarras, Salitre, Cabagra, Talamanca, Taini, Telire and Chirripo and the Robert & Catherine Wilson Botanical Garden.
The Government of Panama has proposed a biosphere reserve in its sector of the La Amistad International 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, Baru Volcano National Park, the Palo Seco Protective Forest Reserve, part of the Guaimy indigenous territory, the Bastimentos Island Marine Park, the Fortuna Hydrological Reserve and the San San wetlands areas. The Framework for Transboundary Cooperation: The 1992 Agreement has as its purpose: “to expand, improve and strengthen Costa Rica’s and Panama’s cooperation in every field, in order to significantly contribute to the development and improvement of the border region in the social, economic, commercial, environmental and political areas and to strengthen the process of integration between both countries “. “The countries also agreed to the joint implementation of pre-investment and technical cooperation programs, projects and activities in the border region with reference to the agricultural, public works and transport, health, natural resources, municipalities, industry, education, tourism, planning and integrated rural development, as well as any other mutually agreed upon in the future through the exchange of Diplomatic Notes “. “The parties to the agreement will establish a Permanent Binational Commission presided by the Ministers of Planning who are responsible for program, project and activity general coordination, follow-up and evaluation if such are undertaken under the basis of the agreement“.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

51

The Management Challenge: In 1988 because of mounting management problems and conflicts among the many agencies operating within the Biosphere Reserve in Costa Rica, a coordinating commission was established 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 the Park Service and the Forestry General Directorate, (both part of the Ministry) the National Parks Foundation, the Executive Director of the National Commission of Indigenous Affairs, the Resident Director of the Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS) and the General Coordinator for the Reserve on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Although progress has been slow, both countries have taken significant actions to carry forward with the joint management of the International Park and the adjoining areas that now conform a biosphere reserve in Costa Rica. As indicated, Panama has also requested recognition 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 the biosphere reserve in Costa Rica with its sector of the international park as the core area and a sustainable development strategy for the establishment and future management of a biosphere reserve in Panama with its section of the international park as its prime motive and core area. Both strategies with reference to the biosphere reserve in the La Amistad region were consulted in Costa Rica and in Panama with local governments, the private sector and local organizations as well as with indigenous peoples. The Role of International Cooperation Agencies La Amistad has been strongly supported by numerous organizations since its establishment in 1982. 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 has collaborated continuously with La Amistad. Funding for the General Coordinator and for staffing a small planning and management unit and operating expenses to guide program and project implementation came from the proceeds of a five year debt-for-nature swap arranged by Conservation International with the Central Bank and the Ministry of Natural Resources. The strategic planning exercise undertaken by Costa Rica under the coordination of the Ministry of Planning and supported by the OAS and CI has resulted after its presentation to the donor community in 1990, and in subsequent fund raising by the Government in excess of $12 million to respond to the needs identified in the strategy. The integrated nature of the strategy and its attempt to build consensus at the local level have help in obtaining funding from international donors. The Costa Rican Government was able to obtain funds for La Amistad priorities as indicated in the strategy from a variety of donors including Sweden, Holland, GEF, the MacArthur Foundation and the joint and binational efforts of CI and MacDonald’s Corporation through the AMISCONDE Project (a rural development project in an area of the buffer zone of La Amistad in each country). OAS and UNEP have assisted in identifying some possibilities for forestry and agroforestry management in the buffer zones of the international park.

52

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Lessons of Experience After 14 years since the La Amistad International Park was established in Costa Rica during 1982 as part of a binational agreement by the countries of Costa Rica and Panama to protect and manage a significant forested area across their borders several conclusions can be drawn: Sustained Political Commitment: La Amistad has had since its existence the sustained political will at the highest level of Government expressed formally through periodic joint Presidential Declarations which form the basis for government policy in each country with regards to the La Amistad International Park as 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 its implementation by both countries has created appropriate channels and procedures for the countries 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 Amistad International Park natural and cultural resources endowment as well as that of adjoining areas with other management categories, such as biosphere reserve and its component areas, has proven to be useful both as a tool for management and as an instrument to support fund raising. Strategic Planning: Given the multiplicity of actors involved in the management of a transboundary area, it is of critical importance that an strategy be designed with the participation of key stakeholders as a process of conflict resolution for access to ecosystem goods and services. The strategy should by as wide a participatory exercise as possible with the need to consult the population in the region. The strategy should be accompanied by: 1) the identifications of priority investment projects and actions as they relate to sustainable development in the bioregion where the transboundary protected areas are located, such projects should include among others nature tourism and sustainable use of biodiversity as well as forestry and agriculture; 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 human occupation for millenia. Research should also include social and economic aspects of productive activities within the bioregion. Further research is also needed on basic aspects such as climatology, soil characteristics, sedimentation and other aspects related to watershed management on an integrated and sustainable basis; training and community participation which should include not only training of management personnel for protected areas but also training at the regional and local government level in terms of sustainable development planning and management, including bioregional management of the trasnboundary protected areas. It should also include environmental education in the bioregion as well as promotional activities as they relate to the trasboundary protected area; and
53

2)

3)

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

4)

management and protection projects on biodiversity, as well as on integrated watershed management and on the conservation of arqueological and cultural resources within a bioregional planning context.

International Support: International support of various kinds has been instrumental in the process of consolidation of the La Amistad International Park. Many international organizations private and public organizations and governments and instruments have supported the objectives of the peace park . Such parties include the UNESCO/MAB Program, the Donner Foundation, Conservation International, WWF, IUCN, IICA, OAS, UNDP, Spain, Sweden, Holland, as well as 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 peace park) 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 go along with such a commitment and specific Governmental budgetary allotments for this particular purpose seem to have a fairly low priority. Regional Biodiversity Management: The recognition that biodiversity conservation of regional landscapes and entire ecosystems is of intrinsic importance as well of economic benefit to both countries has created a renewed interest in the coordinated management of the La Amistad International Park. There is a growing awareness of ecosystem goods and services and their regional and binational significance in terms of : the need to conserve forest cover in the upper watershed of rivers originating in the La Amistad Park for the benefit of providing water for population centers and for agriculture in the region , as well as for hydropower generation. There is also a greater sense 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 is probably an adequate mechanism for conflict resolution but follow-up has been left to the Park Service (now SINAC-National System of Conservation Areas) which has been unable to negotiate more than partial implementation of strategic planning for the bioregion. One possible solution is the strenghten local and regional NGO’s for the purpose of supporting implementation on a regional and multisector basis. The Costa Rica-Panama intergovernmental agreement for border development is sufficient basis for the coordination of bioregional management on a binational basis coordinating actions 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 and in this area a more aggressive stance is much needed both on the part of regional and local forces as well as on the part of Governments. So far the lead role for La Amistad has fallen on Park Service but the advancement of joint transboundary management purposes and actions in a bioregional context, far exceeds the resources and capabilities of this organization even on a coalition with other key regional actors.

54

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

In the absence of functioning regional planning schemes such as regional development corporations 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 and conservation purposes has been undervalued so far. FUNDECOR and NGO supporting the Central Volcanic Mountain Range conservation area in Costa Rica, also a biosphere reserve. It has 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 Joint Implementation mechanism, among others. The existence of a large NGO to support La Amistad seems to be justified but also much needed are smaller local NGO’s that would have as prime motive the concept of empowering communities for the management of their resources. There are a great number of NGO’s in the La Amistad bioregion and some do outstanding work such as Iriria-Tsochok (caring for the earth in Bribri) that is mostly concerned with indigenous communities. There are other NGO’s much involved in La Amistad ranging from IUCN and the Talamanca Biological Corridor Project to small indigenous groups that have organized themselves to safeguard their traditional knowledge of ethnobotany as well as to market 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 Management of Natural and Cultural Resources which identified the need and desirability as well as the diminishing opportunity in view of deforestation processes, to conserve significant forested areas along the borders of adjoining countries in Central America. (IRENA-MIRENEM). At the Second Central American Meeting on the Management of and Cultural Resources, held in Guatemala in October 1987, the delegations of Costa Rica and Nicaragua submitted two preparatory documents calling for international cooperation: “Integrated Management of the San Juan River Basin in Support of Efforts for Achieving Peace and the Rational Use of Natural Resources” and the “Proposal for the Creation of a Multiple-use Reserve in the San Juan 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 to facilitate the establishment of an International System of Protected Areas for Peace (SI-APAZ). In 1989 the countries requested the continued participation of IUCN, which acted to some extent as broker between the countries, in order to strengthen the binational intentions for biodiversity conservation which were viewed favorably by the international community. This initiative was also benefited from being considered in the context of pacification efforts in the Central American region. The Governments of Sweden, Holland and Norway lent their support through IUCN to the initiative. This area has a long history of binational economic relations tied to a riverine economy along the San Juan River and its hydrological network which is navigable by small water crafts on
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 55

both sides of the border (Girot &Niestschmann, 1992). In fact the Costa Rican portion of the San Juan River Basin was until 50’s almost entirely tied to the Nicaraguan economy as there were 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 and Development (CCAD) the Ministers of Natural Resources established a SI-A-PAZ National Commission in each country as well as a Binational Coordinating Commission. In December of 1990 both Ministries signed a governmental Agreement between MIRENEM and MARENA on the SI-A-PAZ Project. The Presidents of both countries signed in Managua in January of 1991 a Cooperation Agreement between Governments including a variety of areas of mutual interest including environmental 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 and supported by the regional IUCN Office for Central America, (ORCA) including a portfolio of projects 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 of unquestionable interest to biodiversity conservation only some of them are in the border area between the two countries. According to the more recent, 1996, Environmental Management and Sustainable Development Project undertaken by the countries with the assistance of OAS and UNEP there are in the San Juan basin a total of 51 protected areas in different categories and 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 there are four of Holdridge’s Life Zones found in the region: Humid Tropical, Very Humid, Pluvial and Piedmont Forests and four transitional zones located in two altitudinal plains (Piedmont and Lowlands). These zones are defined by median annual biotemperature and namely rainfall which ranges from 1,800 to 5,500 annually. These bioclimatic conditions and the diversity of soil types have produced a great ecological wealth and a wide variety of plant species and associations such as tropical humid forest, swamp vegetation, marsh vegetation and specific associations in coastal areas. Fauna is also very diverse as a result of it being associated with lake Nicaragua as well as the San 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 1,562 m3/second. It is estimated that 85% of the run-off that enters the lower half of the San Juan comes from Costa Rican territory. This, the Action Plan points out: “illustrates the importance of 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 the binational component of SI-A-PAZ as the goal is to connect the protected area of Caño Negro -in Costa Rica- with humid soils of the Los Guatusos Reserve in the Southern coast of Lake Nicaragua, and marilla groves of Tortuguero and Barra de Colorado -in Costa Rica- and the Indio Maiz Reserve...” in Nicaragua. According to the OAS and UNEP technical cooperation there are 1,067,952 inhabitants in the San Juan River Basin, 779,339 in Nicaragua or 73 % of the population in the region and 288,613 inhabitants in Costa Rica with 27 % of the population in the region.
56 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Since SI-A-PAZ presented its strategy a donors meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica in 1991 there have been important changes in land use in both countries. Such factors are being considered by the in the preparation on an environmental management and sustainable development plan under way for the San Juan River Basin undertaken by the countries with the support of the OAS and PNUMA. The Framework for Transboundary Cooperation: Whilst the SI-A-PAZ project itself generated a series of intergovernmental working arrangements for the initiative these were probable ahead of a more general binational cooperation agreement. Even today, although the Presidents of the two countries have agreed a wider collaboration in many fields this arrangement has not become legislation approved by both 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 to which other sectorial organizations are invited on an as needed basis. The more recent technical cooperation project undertaken by MARENA and MINAE with the participation of OAS and UNEP for the Environmental Management and Sustainable Development of the San Juan River Basin has benefited from binational cooperation by both countries over the last five years, since the SI-A-PAZ Action Plan was presented. This project has resulted on a binational request to GEF for a project centered on the need to jointly manage and monitor the hydrological system which has important components within the national 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 the proactive 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 an Environmental Management Plan for the entire San Juan River basin, of which biodiversity is but one very significant component. Lessons of Experience: According to an evaluation mission which reviewed SI-A-PAZ in 1992 the initiative proved useful in achieving a healthy level of coordination between both countries for the purposes of binational coordination. Whoever, several factors seem to have dampened the possibilities of greater success, the strong push to banana production in Costa Rica in close proximity to the Tortuguero 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 Costa Rica and thus more help was availed to this country which probably discouraged Costa Rica in terms 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 protected areas tied to both countries but areas in Costa Rica close to the border are few and small as compared to the areas in Nicaragua along the San Juan Rive such as the Indio-Maiz Reservewhich may be a factor accounting for a greater donor willingness to assist Nicaragua. The Central American Regional Context and Support

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

57

The idea of a Biological Corridor in Central America has added regional relevance to projects such as La Amistad and SI-A-PAZ/San Juan River Basin and which contained some of the key building blocks of such a corridor (Carr, Boza). This idea in turn has received the support of the Central-American Alliance for Sustainable Development (ALIDES) a regional accord between the Presidents of Central America nations and also support from the Central American Environmental Commission (CCAD) Central American countries have strengthen their regional cooperation through the signing of the Central American Biodiversity Treaty in June of 1992 just before the UNCED Convention at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Conclusions Peace Parks: International transfrontier protected areas along borders can contribute to the reduction of border tensions. Commonalities in management problems on both sides of the border can lead to advantages in binational collaboration and coordination for the achievement of common purposes i.e. binational training for fire control; linkage of radio communications between park personnel on either side of the border; joint park guard patrols of areas of both countries; 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 the Management of Natural and Cultural Resources has received further support beyond biodiversity conservation interests by the pacification process in Central America and by the interest 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 some cases restoring connectivity between remaining forest areas in the region has gained momentum and support by the countries themselves and by international organizations. This idea is of special importance to assure the survival of several indigenous groups through Central America that live in close association with forested areas along borders. The peace parks mentioned in the document are key blocks of the corridor itself and without their management and conservation there is little possibility of the continued exchange and evolution 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 in order to reduce interagency competition for the control of resources, to involve the local population, and to serve as centralized authority for the receipt and distribution of technical assistance 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 be focused. (Castro et. al, 1995) Financing: Financing is a critical issue both in the planning stage and for implementation of biodiversity conservation requirements including investment needs for conservation “outside the gates” in the context of bioregional development. For implementation a foundation may be a valuable mechanism for coordinating and stabilizing financial planning and management. A coalition of national, regional and local organizations may also be mechanism that needs to the explored in the absence of regional development authorities. (as they exist in larger South American countries such as Colombia, Brazil and Venezuela among others).

58

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

The reality of inter-agency conflicts: High level political support is fundamental for moving the concept of an international transboundary peace park and overcoming the tendency of sectorial agencies to subdivide park planning and management functions into areas covered by the specific mandates of each agency. The bioregional conservation approach: Management of protected transboundary areas in a regional planning context has gained some notoriety as a means to achieve biodiversity conservation goals of mutual interest to neighboring countries and as a means to involve regional population as well as institutions in conflict resolution regarding protected areas. The role of international cooperation: As analyzed in both cases presented the role of international cooperation has been instrumental in facilitating the planning process of an international protected area and its area of influence. International cooperation has also been instrumental in advancing the creation of potential protected areas on border regions and in funding and bringing others as cofinancers of the planning and even the implementation process. International cooperation should be a facilitator of dialogue between the countries for obtaining the objectives of the trasboundary protected area but in should not be the lead agency in the process. Bibliography Arias, O & Nations, J.D. A Call for Central American Peace Parks In: Poverty, Natural Resources, 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 COSEFORMA/GTZ 1994. 240 pp. (Original in Spanish) Paseo Pantera WCS/CCC-

Carr, A.C.III Sovereignity and Mutualism: The Political Ecology of the Central American Biotic Corridor In: Conservation Corridors in the Central American Region. Sept. 1720, 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 Corridor Potential 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 and the New Regional Planning, OAS-IUCN Richard E. Saunier. Ed. pp.113-126. 1996. CCAD-IICA. Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development. San Jose, Costa Rica. 1994. 63 pp. (Spanish Version) Coates, A.G. Closure of the Isthmus of Panama: the near-shore marine record of Costa Rica & western Panama. In: Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 104, p.814828. July, 1992.
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 59

Girot, P.A. & Nietschmann, B. The Rio San Juan, The Geopolitics and Ecopolitics of the Rio San Juan In: National Geographic Research & Exploration 8(1):53-63. 1992. IRENA-MIRENEM. Conceptual Framework and Plan of Action for the Development of the International 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 Technical Cooperation Report to the Ministry of Natural Resources Energy & Mines and the Ministry 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 Summary Report to the Ministry of Natural Resources Energy & Mines and the Ministry of National Planning & Economic Policy. Costa Rica. 1990. 17 pp. OAS-UNEP. Integrated Assessment of the San Juan River Basin & Guidelines for an Environmental Action Plan Environmental Management & Sustainable Development Project: Costa Rica-MINAE/Nicaragua-MARENA. August 1996. Unpublished Technical Cooperation Report . 196 pp. (Original in Spanish). Miller Kenton R. Balancing the Scales: Guidelines for Increasing Biodiversity’s Chances Through Bioregional management World Resources Institute. Feb. 1996. 73 pp.

60

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

TRANSBOUNDARY COLLABORATION IN THE PROTECTION OF SHARED NATURAL RESOURCES 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 in the history of both countries. Originally a part of Mexico since the days of the Spanish Conquest of the New World, it was surrendered to the U.S. in 1848 in accordance with the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Feb. 1848) which ended the two year U.S.-Mexico War. The Treaty established the present border between the two countries. Mexico gave up two-fifths of its territories. Conflicts along the border were renewed during the turbulent years of the Mexican Revolution during the early 1900’s when raids across the border were fairly common along the New Mexico and Texas line. Immigration from Mexico to the U.S., both legal and illegal, has created new conflicts along the border to this day. To many citizens of Mexico, the border is still home; the political boundary being 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 illegal immigration. Some states have enacted laws prohibiting illegal aliens from accessing human services, such as schools and medical assistance. This has met with both strong support and objection from many quarters on both sides of the border. In recent years, two totally disparate issues have further exacerbated the problems between the two countries. Traffickers in illegal drugs have found some areas of the remote 2,000 mile border easily accessible for their trade. Both countries have traded accusations about their efforts to combat the drug traffic. As a result, both governments have expended considerable energy 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 across the border has, in the minds of some, sent scarce American jobs across the border into Mexico. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 has, in fact, opened the border to freer trade between the U.S. and Mexico. And depending on the credibility of the source, it has either not affected jobs in the U.S. or has encouraged U.S. companies to move their operations across the border where they enjoy cheaper labor and less government regulation. Therefore, 150 years after the U.S.-Mexico War, the border continues to be a constant irritant to some. These see Mexico as the source of many of the social problems in the U.S. This is often manifested along the border; a border which is often a land onto itself, neither wholly American nor wholly Mexican. And this view is often shared by some in Mexico who still remember back 150 years ago. This is best epitomized by a famous saying, whose author has never 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 be in 1935. The area began to attract national attention beginning with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) commissioned navigation of the lower Rio Grande in 1899. Led by Robert T.
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 61

Hill, the written accounts of his conquest of the tortuous course of the canyons of the Big Bend brought national attention to the region. A second USGS expedition in 1902 to map the region focused additional attention on the Big Bend. Others, such as J.O. Langford whose mineral baths were located in the eastern end of today’s Big Bend National Park, promoted the recuperative value of the West Texas desert. The area was gaining notoriety as a tourist and outdoor recreation area. It took a West Texan, however, to give the area the support it needed to progress beyond just a tourist attraction. Everett Ewing Townsend had patrolled the region in 1894 on horseback for the U.S. Customs Service. In the 1930’s, he was elected to the state house of representatives. On March 2, 1933, he introduced a bill to establish the Texas Canyons State Park. On October 27, 1933, the bill was enacted into law. The park was simply named Big Bend State Park. The efforts to create the state park attracted the attention of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal program. The President had responded to the Depression with a federally planned economy to put people back to work. One of the features of the New Deal was the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), established to link work relief to the conservation of natural resources. The proposed development of Big Bend State Park conformed perfectly with the goals of the CCC program. In May 1933, President Roosevelt approved the location of four CCC camps in West Texas, one in the Big Bend. With the arrival of the CCC and its proposal to make internal improvements to the new state park, local support to establish Big Bend as a national park began. It was led by Everett Ewing Townsend himself. In early 1934, the National 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 becoming one of the noted scenic spectacles of the U.S.” After overcoming objections of whether there was enough federal land to establish a facility worthy of national park status and of sufficiency of water to service the park, the NPS authorized an official investigation of Big Bend State Park in mid-1934 to determine what improvement would be needed to make the proposed national park operational. On Feb. 5, 1935, the Secretary of Interior concurred with the NPS recommendation that Big Bend 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. Similar legislation was introduced in the U. S. Senate. On June 20, 1935, Congress authorized Big Bend National Park. The International Park Idea The intriguing idea of creating an international park with Mexico had arisen during discussion of boundaries for the national park. In his presentation before the Senate for his bill creating Big Bend National Park, Senator Morris Sheppard stressed the international potential of the park. In a letter to President Roosevelt dated February 16, 1935, Sheppard argued that a joint effort on the part of both governments to establish an “international peace park” in Big Bend that was similar to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park on the U.S.-Canada border would do much to improve relations between the two countries. The President forwarded Sheppard’s letter to the Secretary of Interior who responded favorably to the idea, saying that if Congress authorized Big Bend National Park, Mexico should be invited to participate in an international park effort. The idea of improving relations with Mexico through the creation of an international park conformed to President Roosevelt’s central diplomatic policy toward all of Latin America - his “Good Neighbor Policy.” With the authorization of Big Bend National Park, the American government extended an invitation to Mexico to discuss the possibilities of an international effort. The first meeting took place in El Paso, Texas on November 24, 1935, and resulted in a joint resolution to undertake
62 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

a formal investigation of the proposed project. Four months later, the Roosevelt administration appointed a commission to conduct its part of the study. Mexico appointed a similar commission. The two commissions made a joint tour of Big Bend in February 1936. The tour was cut short by a fatal automobile accident which took the lives of two of the National Park Service 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. tried to revive the idea, but Mexico appeared to have lost interest. On October 24, 1944, President Roosevelt wrote Mexican President Manuel Avila Camacho and once again proposed the idea of adjoining parks in the Big Bend region. On November 30, 1944, President Camacho responded favorably to the proposal (Figure 2). On June 18, 1945, M.R. Tillotson, Regional Director of the National Park Service in Santa Fe, New Mexico, broadcast a talk in Mexico supporting the international park (Figure 3). In his talk, Mr. Tillotson stressed the common relations the international park would exemplify - not only in the world of business and economics, but also in cultural relationships and common aims along the line of continental solidarity. On April 18, 1946, President Truman wrote President Camacho to inquire about the results of the investigations the Mexican government was to make on Big Bend International Park and to urge establishment of the park. A series of meetings, commissions, and further discussions ensued in the years to follow. The sought-after designation of adjoining parks in Mexico, however, was not to happen until almost 40 years later. The Establishment of Mexican Protected Areas On November 7, 1994, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari finally did what others before him could not do and established two protected areas for the flora and fauna in the states of Coahuila and Chihuahua across the border from Big Bend National Park: Maderas del Carmen and Cañon de Santa Elena (Figure 4). While the designation category of protected areas for the flora and fauna is considered to fall short 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, the 60- year old idea of an international park surfaced once more. The idea was still intriguing to many in both countries. The International Park Idea Revisited In July 1996, a U.S./Mexico party traveled to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park at the invitation of the Superintendents of Big Bend National Park and Glacier National Park. The group was impressed with the international peace park designation and with the collaboration between the two parks. They came away with the idea that such a relation was possible 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 the Interior, a Proposal for the Establishment of Protected Natural Areas of Bi-National Ecosystems-Mexico-United States-Protected Areas for Flora and Fauna Maderas del Carmen/Cañon de Santa Elena-Big Bend National Park. The proposal recognized that
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 63

because of the dynamic relationship between Mexico and the U.S., the environmental cooperation along the border was an example of the efforts taking place between the two governments to develop methods for mutual understanding to solve common problems. It recognized that since the 1930’s there had been repeated proposals between Mexico and the U.S. to establish bilateral agreements that led to the coordination of activities tending toward conservation and the consolidation of ecosystems that integrated protected areas from both countries. It recognized the strides Mexico had achieved in developing a regulatory and administrative infrastructure to regulate the creation and operation of protected areas. It pointed out the fact that Mexico has four natural protected areas along its northern border; the two aforementioned areas plus one in Baja California and one in Sonora. It proposed the negotiation of a bilateral document to form binational protected areas that would coordinate the 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 start in the Big Bend/Maderas/Cañon region. In essence, Mexico was finally responding to the 60year 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 an old binational idea. Nonetheless, it was most welcomed and efforts ensued to understand and respond to its intent. The proposal was soon revealed to have lacked diplomatic clearance and suggestions were made that it be redirected through diplomatic channels. It soon re-emerged in the form of a Diplomatic Note (Note). The Note added a number of references to existing legal instruments attesting to the long history of cooperation between resource managers on the U.S.-Mexico border. It reiterated the proposal to establish the binational protected areas mentioned in the previous proposal. It also added a number of actions of cooperation which the two countries could carry out in the context of the binational protected natural areas. These included:
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

harmonization and complimentarity of policies leading to the conservation of the contiguous protected areas exchange of expertise among personnel of the two countries implementation of environmental education for the communities living on both sides of the border expansion of the body of scientific knowledge about the protected areas through cooperation 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 ecologyrelated activities

The Note was reviewed in the Department of Interior (DOI), and revisions were suggested. Of special interest among the proposed revision was the deletion by DOI of all reference to the formulation of a bilateral legal instrument to regulate the establishment of binational protected areas by the DOI. In its place was inserted “the initiation of a process to promote and enhance cooperation in existing natural protected areas and consider new opportunities for cooperation through the creation of binational protected areas. The concern in the DOI was political since establishing 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 the impetus for developing the instrument of cooperation. It was suggested that the two might be the signatories for the agreement. That meeting was scheduled for early May, 1997.
64 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

The Note surfaced in Mexico City as a Letter of Intent (Letter) to be entered into by the DOIUSA and SEMARNAP-Mexico. The respective Secretaries were to be signatories to the instrument (Figure 5). The initial proposal to establish a binational protected natural resource area in the Big Bend region had completed its bureaucratic transformation and ended as an agreement to cooperate in the management of our respective resources. The Letter mentioned the long history of cooperation in environmental and natural resource matters between the two countries. It took account of the sovereign right and responsibilities of the two countries over the management and rational use of their natural resources; a key issue to be discussed further. The Letter omitted any and all references to the creation or establishment of binational protected areas. It simply marked the two agencies’ plan to expand cooperative activities in the conservation of contiguous natural protected areas in the border zone and to consider new opportunities for cooperation in the protection of natural protected areas on the U.S.-Mexico border. The Letter expands the scope of cooperation to include state and local agencies as well as encouraging voluntary participation by the communities and social organizations interested in protecting the riches of the areas. It did leave intact the six actions of cooperation contained in the Note. It had taken Mexico 60 years to finally respond to the American invitation to join in the establishment of an international park in the Big Bend region by establishing their own protected areas across the border. Mexico had done not only that but had moved quickly with a proposal to bind them to Big Bend National Park as a binational protected area. It is interesting to note that the word “international” had now disappeared from the terminology of the proposal. It appears that once high administrative officials on both sides of the border became involved in the crafting of an agreement, that political concerns over binational or joint areas straddling political borders surfaced. This is noted in the Letter’s preamble which speaks to the sovereign rights and responsibilities of the two countries over the management and rational use of their natural resources. The Letter was, in fact, signed during the Presidents’ meeting in Mexico City on May 5, 1997. It was signed by the two respective Secretaries of Interior and SEMARNAP. Issues and Obstacles to Binational Park Status Much has changed in the political arena in recent years. President Roosevelt’s personal proposal to his Mexican counterpart to establish an international park along their borders might never happen today. There exists in the U.S. today serious concerns over sovereignty matters. This has been most evident in questions about management of national parks and other such protected areas which 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 of such areas, all in accord with the World Heritage Convention and the Man and the Biosphere Program. However, some people have seen these designations as surrendering American sovereignty of those areas to the United Nations or some world government. Some members of Congress have been urged to enact legislation rescinding such designations. It can be assumed that establishment of binational protected areas might fall prey to these concerns unless careful and deliberate advance planning and political consultation is taken.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

65

Other issues must also be considered. For example, current border problems of drug trafficking and illegal immigration have intensified in all areas of the border. These are often depicted 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 to Mexico continues to foster ill feelings in some quarters. In other quarters, concerns for the environmental impacts of American plants situated across the border in Mexico surface despite the 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 custom laws present problems to the free travel between areas. It is interesting to note that the initial international park proposal envisioned an International Free Zone permitting access to both parks with customs and immigration stations pulled back to the perimeter boundaries. Another and more significant issue would be the disparate body of laws and regulations governing each individual area. U.S. National Park Service areas are governed by not only their enabling acts, but by the myriad of environmental laws established over the years to protect 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 which must be adhered to in the management of parks. The NPS is a tightly regulated agency within the Department of Interior. In this particular initiative, Mexico is just beginning to develop an infrastructure to establish and administer protected areas - both cultural and natural. Their policies are evolving. Funding for managing and operating their areas is significantly less than in the U.S. How would these disparities be addressed in the management of binational protected areas? Conclusion Despite the omission of any reference to binational protected areas, the Letter has to be recognized as a step forward in the management of contiguous areas across the border. The two countries share a most unusual common border, the Rio Grande. The political boundary runs along the deepest part of the river channel. River users meander back and forth between the U.S. and Mexico during the course of their trip. Regular stops are located on the most convenient side-without regard of which country provides it. Concerns over river flow and water quality affect both countries. Protection of wildlife, such as bears and beaver, has to be a collaborative effort since the animals do not observe the political boundary. The same applies for such endangered species as the peregrine falcon which feeds and nests on both sides of the river. These and many other transboundary issues must be addressed as steps are taken to implement the Letter.

66

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

PARKS WITHOUT PEACE By: Yemi Katerere

IUCN-ROSA HARARE
While the focus of this conference is the planning and management of interstate protected areas, it is important for Southern Africa that the emerging trends of interstate natural resource management and their impacts on communities are not overshadowed by the interests of central governments and big business. The opportunities that both formal (protected area) and informal (community) interstate natural resource management can offer in the form of enhanced benefits, biodiversity conservation through equitable and sustainable use, fostering regional co-operation and conflict management are immense. This paper is intended to highlight the limitations of discussing interstate natural resource management with a bias on protected areas. Its focus is southern Africa. Protected areas are important biodiversity and gene conservation areas as well as the major attraction for nonconsumptive tourism. A pre-occupation with Parks as the major approach to management of interstate natural resources at the exclusion of community initiatives and community rights can only serve to reinforce the notion that the state is not part of the overall solution to resource scarcities at the local level or that interstate resource management efforts are not an integral component of local economies. Failure to recognise community interstate natural resource management efforts as legitimate forms of economic activity can only fuel increasing land and resource-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 be established through, for instance, the forced removal of people and the introduction of alien administrative and legislative systems has only served to fuel land and resource-based conflicts. People were and are denied access to resources in the form of grazing and hunting rights, collection of medicinal plants, fuelwood, water and thatching grass. The process of implementing these control mechanisms often means marginalisation or under-valuation of traditional natural resource management systems. Some of the conflicts around protected areas have been in the form of “illegal” settlement, “illegal” hunting and “illegal” harvesting of timber 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. They must offer real peace for local people to address poverty and achieve prosperity. The people of this region have paid a high price for the peace we now enjoy and they need to be supported to develop equitable and sustainable resource management practices. The parks are one such vehicle to a better life for many rural people who depend on natural resources for their livelihood. The parks should be a bridge to respect local culture and traditional knowledge, food security and economic development of the region’s people. Hence the militaristic approach to enforcement of park laws needs to be ameliorated by sanity and appropriate 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 of national and international significance for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and tourism purposes. These are generally areas of restricted access. 2. Scientific Reserves and Wilderness Areas. Areas free of human intervention. Intended to preserve the national environment in an undisturbed state.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

67

3. Natural Monument. Outstanding natural or cultural features of specific scientific or educational significance. This category can include waterfalls, caves, craters and sand dunes. 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 these areas 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 settlement with sustainable environmental management. In some instances this category may include parks, scientific reserves, monuments and wildlife management areas. The objective of this category is to provide for harmonious interaction between nature and human culture and hence 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 can facilitate coordinated interstate resource management. However, all the categories have a degree of exclusion with little or no provision for a link with people except for the Protected Land/Sea Scapes category and Managed Resource Protected Area. For some of these categories there is clearly a role for local communities to be involved. For instance, experience elsewhere with Natural Monuments indicates that local people may be the most effective managers of these areas, and in order to maintain them locals should be given the right to define rules of inclusion and exclusion (Mohamed-Katerere 1997). Similarly, experience with national parks indicates that sustainable management may be impossible if local people are excluded. In Australia the government has entered into contracts with aboriginal people giving them rights in the parks. In Uganda a pilot agreement has been worked out between Uganda National Parks and community bordering the Bwindi Impenetrable Forest - one of the most famous and valuable national parks in Uganda. This model has been extended to include the private sector. In South Africa, Ngala Game Reserve is managed by a private group, Conservation Corporation (Borrini-Feyerrabend, 1996). In addition, this region has valuable experiences in community based natural resource management (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) in Zimbabwe 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-ordinating Committees as institutional fora for community participation

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

68

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

This meeting must seek to break new ground. We should develop a new vision for protected areas that reflects the rich diversity of human activity in the region and not one that is preservationist. The model of excluding people from being involved in or from deriving any benefits from management of protected areas has become too politically convenient and lucrative to be changed. Yet in the long run this model will prove to be unworkable. Interest groups with powerful lobbying resources are well placed to influence governments in the name of investments and employment generation against the apparently powerless communities and small-scale entrepreneurs. Recognising that it is politically correct to be seen to involve and consult local communities, the governments and the private sector often make reference to the fact that communities will be involved in natural resource-based enterprises. This rhetoric is not always backed by actions because the policy and institutional framework to support community based natural resources management is weak and consultation is superficial. The challenge at this conference has to be 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 the different land use categories as shown in Table 1. Hence, interstate resource management issues should not just be considered around protected areas as this will not address the broader regional goal of sustainable natural resource management and economic development. Given the complex land use arrangements along boundaries and the dependence of local communities on the natural resource base for their livelihoods, the concept of “transboundary” resource management must be extended to cover all the land use systems as indicated in Table 1. Table 1. Existing Interstate Relationships by Landuse Category Community Area X XX XX Private land XX X XX Protected Area XX XX X

Community Area Private land Protected Area

More importantly, the process of establishing new interstate protected areas or expanding existing ones requires that all stakeholders on both sides of the boundary are consulted and participate so that roles and responsibilities are clarified including distribution of benefits. It should be appreciated that this approach needs to be applied even in situations where a given country seeks to gazette a protected area on its own border. This is particularly important considering that in many border situations both humans and animals have traditionally migrated across or straddled political boundaries. The establishment of a protected area by one country along an international border has cross border implications which require prior consultation and negotiation and that interested stakeholders should have access to information. They should also be given adequate time to discuss and assess the information. The success of interstate resource management and creation of new protected areas requires prior informed consent otherwise affected people are likely to resist. The implications of these complex land use interactions along borders present tremendous challenges for policy makers, legislators, entrepreneurs, the private sector and NGOs which I return to throughout the presentation.
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 69

2. Land Tenure The land question remains one of the most emotional and contentious regional issues confronting 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 in others it is demands for restitution for ancestral land expropriated under colonial rule. Some of the existing protected areas are part of the disputed land, the benefits of which many of the displaced people do not enjoy. Any proposals to extend the land under protected areas must respond to real concerns about meaningful and transparent consultation of all stakeholders and whether governments have the financial and management capacity to manage an expanded Parks area. The question is in whose interest are the protected areas being established, who is to benefit and how? Is it possible to define protected areas to acknowledge people’s cultural heritage? The expansion of interstate protected areas will in some situations require establishment of corridors for animal migration. Where the establishment of corridors necessitates the relocation of 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 border communities need to be understood and contextualised. In many instances border communities belong to the same ethnic group with a common language, experiences, vision and aspirations, and might even fall under the same traditional ruler. The Lozi people of Western Zambia and the Caprivi strip in Namibia and Botswana and the Shangani in Mozambique and Zimbabwe are excellent examples to name just a few. An understanding of the local level situation is necessary when considering legislation and regulations governing the 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 communities were displaced from their homes and forced into exile as political or economic refugees. The return to peace presents major challenges for those returning and seeking to re-establish themselves. There are situations such as in Mozambique where local communities are living inside as well as along protected area boundaries. The needs and the development of these communities have to be reconciled with the objectives of protected area management. The wars have also resulted in a high incidence of female headed households and the breakdown of social and institutional structures responsible for natural resource management. The establishment of protected areas along boundaries can have serious implications particularly for border communities who get separated and must thereafter respect different national legislation governing access to and trade in natural resources. The parks could also become 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 as economically viable forms of land use. This is a fundamental principle given the competing demands 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 use planning is required. Such an approach has to address the issue of food security and how this might be achieved without converting all land to crop production. The potential contribution of protected 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
70 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

from the land then land use decisions need to be taken on smaller units of land at the local level. This thinking has major implications for proposals to extend the present land under protected areas. Some of the region’s richest protected areas such as Kruger National Park, Hwange National Park, Gonarezhou National Park, Lakes Malawi and Kariba, and Chobe National Park are all located along the borders. Their potential to contribute to regional food security can be substantial. 5. Protected Areas and Neighbours In addition, communities sharing common boundaries with protected areas have high opportunity 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 the other side have no mechanisms for compensation to loss of property, food, or lives from problem animals and do not derive any benefits from the protected park. There are numerous complaints by communities in Zimbabwe’s Chiredzi District of livestock deaths caused by predators from Kruger National Park in South Africa. Considerable potential exists for developing approaches which focus on the sharing of resources and benefits between protected areas and their neighbours, including collaborative management of certain locally important resources which may occur within protected areas. 6. Harmonisation of Laws and Policies For border communities, interstate resources are invariably governed by different national laws, policies and regulations. As might be expected, there is very little harmonisation of legislation, procedures, policies and regulations between countries in the region. This lack of institutional harmonisation around use and management of natural resources between two countries often results in unequal access to resources between communities of two neighbouring countries. One government might have less stringent regulations thereby facilitating greater access to natural resources and benefits to its border communities than its neighbour. The end result can be a flourishing community on the one side and an impoverished one on the other. This can precipitate conflicts and tensions between communities. Further, where a community perceives that a government is retarding its potential for development in comparison to a community of the same tradition and culture in a neighbouring country, it might have less incentives to engage in sustainable methods of natural resource management. Examples of this situation are found in fishing communities living adjacent to protected areas which require fishing permits against set quotas. Their counterparts living across a river in an adjacent communal area separated from the protected area by an international boundary have less stringent controls over artisanal fishing and do not need to purchase fishing permits. The entire concept of interstate resource management requires a thorough examination of existing institutional arrangements and capacities. At the national level there are Joint Permanent Commissions designed to handle bi-lateral matters. However, this model does not always lend itself to resolving local level interstate resource management concerns. For instances there needs to be cross border institutional mechanisms to enable local authorities and communities to prepare joint plans to deal with issues of fire management, problem animal control, illegal hunting, enforcement of local by-laws and conflict management. If there are proposals to expand interstate resource management then there needs to be effective institutional arrangements in place to cope with such a trend. This means that existing and any proposed new institutions must be supported and strengthened so as to be able to

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

71

respond to the administrative, technical, financial, legislative and skills requirements of the new vision. 7. Trade Along the international boundaries, there are numerous tensions around trade in natural resources. Communities along borders have for a long time engaged in managing and using their 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 that once coexisted are divided and are expected to respect international boundaries and bureaucratic systems that govern the movement of people and goods across borders. What was once routine movement of goods and services is now subjected to export and import control regulations rendering many long established local trade practices “illegal”. Yet these trade practices are long standing and constitute an integral part of the local economy and cannot be explained away by classifying them as “illegal.” Trade in goods and services along international boundaries should not be governed only by complicated systems which intimidate local communities. We need appropriate, harmonised systems 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 accompanied by 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 that those participating in the management of natural resources should derive benefits. The present models of benefit sharing range from cash payments directly to individual households to investments in community projects such as clinics, schools and roads. Benefits of natural resources management initiatives accrue from income and use or spiritual values from the following: ♦ 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 income or other benefits (spiritual, food) from alternative forms of land use or exclusion from benefits previously available. (World Bank, 1996). These need to be carefully considered for existing and planned protected areas. The distribution of benefits and costs is affected by a number of factors such as the nature business partnerships and how dividends form profits are shared, the procedures for granting concessions, hunting licences, setting and collecting licence fees and quota setting. In many instances communities complain that they are not consulted when quotas are set. These issues need to be addressed through transparent processes and policies governing them must be reviewed regularly with the participation of all stakeholders. Within the context of the interstate resource management debate, the question is how benefits and costs might be transferred across political boundaries. How does a community in one country derive benefits from an adjacent park in a neighbouring country? Currently there is no

72

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

formal mechanism to enable the transfer of benefits or costs. Botswana and Namibia offer an excellent example of a situation where communities in Namibia share a common border with a protected area on the Botswana side. The same is true for Mozambican communities and Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe. Further, where communities have suffered losses due to their proximity to a protected area, they have not received any compensation. This situation is fuelling tensions as communal residents suffer losses due to their proximity to a protected 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 tourism activities as a means of securing some benefits or protest. Such actions have serious diplomatic 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 thus important that this conference not restrict its discussions on how interstate protected areas can enhance tourism for big business, but also how local entrepreneurs can be supported. For the quality of life of local communities to improve, innovative models of generating benefits on both sides of the border for all forms of land use interactions need to be explored. Partnerships between big business and individual entrepreneurs or community agencies should be mutually beneficial and should result in the transfer of skills and sharing of financial benefits. To encourage the extension and consolidation of existing transboundary areas and the development of new protected areas in the region is likely to increase cross border conflicts unless innovative ways of resource and benefits sharing are devised. We have to avoid creating 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 cooperation, then there has to be a serious commitment to addressing local community issues and respecting community rights to resources and benefits. With increasing population, pressures on the natural resource base will escalate and so will conflicts between parks and local communities. This means promoting dialogue with rural communities and their institutions. There are several models of working with communities in the region which should be analysed and supported. 9.1 Protected Area Outreach and Partnership The conference should consider developing a protected area outreach and partnership programme which is more than the distribution of free meat and conservation education. Such a programme must recognise the interests of neighbours who border such protected areas which includes conflict resolution, benefit sharing arrangements and the need for consultation. Further, the concept of interstate resource management must be expanded beyond the protected parks to include communities and private land. More importantly the approach to interstate resource management must be inclusive of all countries in the region and not just between one country and its neighbours.
9.2 Collaborative Management Arrangements

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

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

73

♦ ♦

identifies in the park important community resources that are collected “illegally” for freer use; and defines rights and responsibilities of all stakeholders to use resources sustainably and achieve 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 to empower communities to manage resources sustainably. This involves capacity enhancement including promotion of entrepreneurship. 10. Conclusion If the above issues are not addressed then the Parks will forever be sites of war and not peace. 11. References Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 1996. Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring The Approach To The Context. Issues in Social Policy, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland). World Bank. 1996. Mozambique Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional Strengthening Project. Report No. 15534-MOZ Mohamed-Katerere, J. 1997. Developing Wildlife Law in Pakistan: Legislative Approaches and Options 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 Review Workshop, Harare, February, 1997.

74

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

THE GEOPOLITICS OF TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION: AN OVERVIEW By: G.H. Blake International Boundaries Research Unit University of Durham, U.K. Introduction. It is hardly surprising that transboundary cooperation of one kind or another is a growing feature of international relations in the modern world. As food, raw materials, and recreational space become scarcer in the face of rising populations states are seeking resources in regions which are both geographically and politically marginal. Resource exploitation and environmental protection in borderland areas cannot be properly undertaken without some reference to the neighbouring state, while resources which straddle the international boundary clearly cannot be safely utilised without neighbourly co-operation. Against this background it is notable that the number of international land boundaries has increased markedly in recent years from about 280 in the late 1980s to 315 or so in 1997. There are also approximately 420 potential maritime boundaries between coastal states worldwide, one third of which have been formally agreed. Each year up to half a dozen more maritime boundary treaties are signed by neighbouring states. In addition, it is often forgotten that coastal states which enjoy access to ocean space up to 200 nautical miles offshore are obliged to determine a boundary with 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 and migratory fish stocks across this boundary.(1) Transboundary co-operation takes place at national, regional, and local levels. The nature and extent of such co-operation varies massively between states, the most important factor being their political - historical relationship. Most transboundary co-operation is defined by intergovernment agreements, although borderland peoples all over the world find ways to collaborate 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 significant consideration when national parks are being established in border regions. Table 1 gives some examples of the kinds of transboundary co-operation at national, regional and local levels, although they all clearly overlap. The important point to note is that transboundary cooperation is commonplace in the modern world and states cannot operate as closed systems. Indeed, some observers argue that we are moving inexorably towards a “borderless world” in the twenty first century, but this viewpoint needs to be examined quite critically. Table 1: Transboundary collaboration at national, regional and local levels. National Postal services Flight paths Trade Defence Health Regional River basins Hydrocarbons Fisheries Transit routes Pollution control Local Crossing points Smuggling Access roads Border maintenance Groundwater

It is true that the power of the state appears to be diminishing as “globalisation” gains momentum. International boundaries have clearly lost a lot of their nineteenth century functions. Governments can no longer control the flow of ideas and information in the cyberspace 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
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 75

effective environmental management often involves collaboration with other states. In recent decades large regional political and economic associations have emerged such as the European Union, the North American Free Trade Area and the Association of South East Asian Nations. These have all markedly reduced the barrier effect of international boundaries for certain states, but they do not imply their imminent disappearance. On the contrary in some 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 goods and 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 resurveyed and accurately demarcated for the first time at considerable cost.(2) At sea there is intense interest in maritime boundary delimitation. Thus there is plenty of evidence that international boundaries, for better or worse, will remain as potent as ever emotionally and practically. While their functions may be changing they remain the sensitive interface between neighbouring states, and must be approached with proper understanding of their historic origins and contemporary status. Boundary status Most international land boundaries pass through four phases in their evolution, although not every boundary will be subject to each phase. Allocation of territory between rival powers was largely 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 is permanently marked by pillars, fences or markers of some kind. After demarcation, boundary management can be properly undertaken, although it is often neglected. A well-managed boundary will be amply documented, clearly visible, carefully maintained and monitored. It will give borderland dwellers a sense of security while allowing access to the other side without undue hindrance. The least well-managed boundaries are likely to create the biggest headaches when it comes to transboundary projects. It is thus important to establish as accurately 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 and are unlikely to give rise to serious political differences between states.(3) Among those which have not been formally delimited perhaps half are seriously contested, although many of these disputes are dormant. It is almost impossible to say what proportion of the world’s 266,000 km of land boundaries are demarcated. More than half follow physical features such as watersheds, mountain peaks, rivers and streams, and approximately one fifth are straight lines which disregard physical geography. Most of these are identified on the ground, although often quite crudely (for example by large painted oil drums). In some areas geography makes demarcation impossible as in swamps, and shifting sand dunes. The absence of a boundary agreement does not imply a dispute. There are many examples of peaceful boundaries where there is no agreement and no dispute. Similarly, contested boundaries do not inevitably lead to armed conflict. Indeed, given that so many international boundaries were drawn by the imperial powers with scant regard for human or physical geography it is perhaps surprising there are not more border wars. One reason is that states have 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 as the Arab League, or they may decide to take the case before the International Court of Justice in the Hague or some other international legal tribunal such as the Law of the Sea Tribunal in Hamburg. In addition, there are an emerging range of interim arrangements for the political management of space which provide effective alternatives to conflict. These are discussed below. Cooperation in the aftermath of conflict
76 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Special territorial arrangements for international cooperation may be made in the aftermath of conflict, some of which have proved to be surprisingly successful. Some of these are agreements between the parties to the conflict, but in most cases a third party such as the U.N. is instrumental in making the arrangements. Neutral Zones may be established either where territory is in dispute, or to provide a security zone between two potentially conflicting states. They are often so small that they tend to be overlooked on maps. The neutral zone between Gibraltar and Spain can be traced to the mid-eighteenth century, but its status is one of the bones of contention between Britain and Spain to this day. Other neutral zones have been more acceptable such as those between Saudi Arabia and Iraq (1923-1981) and Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (1923-1966). The latter is of particular interest because the oil resources of the former neutral zone are still jointly exploited, although the territory has been equally divided between the parties since 1966. Buffer zones are usually designed to operate less permanently than neutral zones. They tend to emerge at the end of armed conflict between parties, and may be controlled by a third party such as the U.N. The buffer zone created in the Golan region between Syrian and Israeli forces in 1974 is still in existence, monitored by the U.N. A substantial buffer zone has separated 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 they remain a potentially useful device. Under U.N. Resolution 687 of April 1991 a demilitarised zone was established along the Kuwait-Iraq boundary, extending 10 kilometres into Iraq, and five kilometres into Kuwait. From 1923 until 1936 the Turkish Straits were demilitarised and placed under an International Straits Commission. For this reason the Turkish Straits were sometimes described as being an international zone during this period. Tangier and its hinterland at the entrance to the Strait of Gibraltar were also demilitarised and governed by an international administration (chiefly French and British) from 1923 until Moroccan independence in 1956.(4) More recently, unusual territorial arrangements have been made following international conflict during the Iraq-Kuwait war of 1990-91 and civil war in former Yugoslavia from 1991-95. In the former a safe haven was established for the protection of the Kurdish population of northern Iraq with the assistance of U.S. and British forces. A no-fly zone for Iraqi aircraft was declared along the 38th parallel as part of the strategy to protect the Kurds. In former Yugoslavia the Dayton peace agreement of December 1995 provided for a zone of separation from which the warring factions would be excluded. This zone, which is only half a mile or so wide was patrolled 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 were implemented in the aftermath of conflict. Nevertheless they are a reminder that alternatives to absolute state sovereignty have been tried quite widely with satisfactory results. There is no standard model, as will be seen in sections 4 and 5 below. States can make arrangements in their borderlands to suit themselves. Clearly the role of a third party such as the U.N. may be crucial in initiating and implementing collaboration, but such assistance must be sufficiently flexible 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 into force in 1994 sets out as far as possible guidelines for the orderly conduct of international relations at sea. Coastal states are entitled to a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles and an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles measured from baselines around the coast (comprising low water mark or straight baselines drawn across bays, estuaries, and highly indented coasts etc.). States are obliged to allow the innocent passage of ships of
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 77

other states through their territorial seas and EEZs. States also have the right to lay pipelines and cables within the EEZ of another state, and to overfly the EEZ without seeking coastal state permission as in the territorial sea. All this assumes a measure of cooperation between states which land sovereignty does not impose because state sovereignty on land is absolute whereas at sea it is partial. If states do not declare an EEZ they may alternatively claim continental shelf rights (which in certain geophysical circumstances may extend beyond 200 nautical miles). Continental shelf rights give states the exclusive ownership of the resources of their 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 maritimes boundaries to be delimited, of which about 150 have so far been formally agreed. Because valuable resources may be at stake, notably hydrocarbons and fish, and because of the sheer complexity of maritime boundary drawing, both technical and legal, a number of states have reached deadlock in their negotiations. Accordingly, maritime boundary makers have sometimes 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 shared space. The earliest was between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in 1958. Such agreements could multiply in future as the advantages of joint zones are more widely appreciated. It is not difficult to think of areas of the oceans where such zones might provide the first step towards better inter-state relations, for example, between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean, and between claimants to the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea. Maritime joint zones take many forms but all represent compromise solutions to problems of disputed sovereignty. They vary considerably in size, the largest being the 1974 Japan-South Korea joint zone of 29,092 square nautical miles. In some joint zone agreements the international boundary line is formally agreed, but a zone is delimited where joint resource exploitation 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 living resources; it might also include such activities as joint scientific research. While the intention in most cases appears to be to return eventually to the question of boundary delimitation, the compromise arrangements appear to work so well that there is no rush to settle. The 1974 Joint Development Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea shelved the question of delimitation for 50 years, but efforts to settle the boundary are continuing. The temporary agreement over a disputed area of the Barents Sea reached by the Soviet Union and 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 example of what can be achieved. Having fought an ugly war in 1982 over the sovereignty of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands, the 1995 agreement designates a special area in which the parties will develop hydrocarbon resources jointly. The Declaration makes it clear that there is no change in the claims of the United Kingdom and Argentina to the islands. Both states were however so eager to begin oil exploration in the area that they agreed to cooperate while leaving the sovereignty question unresolved.(5) The agreement has done much to improve relations between Britain and Argentina. Shared zones for purposes of resource exploitation are still uncommon on land, but they do occur. In 1925 the Treaty of Svalbard gave equal rights of access to the resources of Spitzbergen to all 40 signatories, although the island was under Norwegian sovereignty. More recently in 1988 the Yemen Arab Republic (north) and the Peoples’ Democratic Republic of Yemen (south) agreed on a joint development zone in a border region where oil was known to exist on both sides. The two states united in 1989 and the zone became redundant. The management of transboundary resources

78

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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 for example but this brief review will concentrate on those resources most frequently subject to international agreements - hydrocarbons, freshwater, and fish. These also happen to be the most difficult to manage because they all move across international boundaries. There is a considerable volume of literature on transboundary resource management but much uncertainty still surrounds the legal position, and relatively little practical progress has been achieved in relation to what needs to be done. Nico Shchriver has written a masterly guide to the 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 to manage those resources responsibly. Moreover, states have an obligation to cooperate in the solution of transboundary and global environmental problems, and they must not use resources in any way which may prove harmful to another state, which implies an obligation to cooperate to ensure optimum use of shared resources. Since the early 1970s shared resources have featured on the agenda of U.N. agencies such as UNEP and certain principles have been proposed for the management and use of shared environmental resources (not defined), but not for economic resources. Hydrocarbons When a petroleum reservoir extends across an international boundary there is a risk that one state will extract more than its fair share of the oil or gas, because petroleum may be induced to flow from one side of the boundary to the other. One solution to this problem now commonly adopted is unitisation whereby the parties agree on terms to develop the deposit as a unit. The most important aspect is the apportionment of petroleum production based on tricky technical calculations of the total reserves and the proportions thereof which lie on either side of the line.(6). Alternatively the parties may agree to joint exploitation of a petroleum reservoir by a single company or consortium, with revenues shared equally or in some agreed proportion. 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 such zones although the British Institute for International and Comparative Law has produced a model agreement, which to date does not appear to have been used(7). Table 2 lists the joint maritime agreements. There can be little doubt that common zones will increase in number in future, although they are not always easy to work, and most are still regarded as an interim arrangement pending a boundary agreement if none already exists. Table 2 Joint maritime agreements Argentina - United Kingdom Argentina - Uruguay Australia - Indonesia Australia - Papua New Guinea Bahrain - Saudi Arabia Colombia - Dominican Republic France - Spain Iceland - Norway Japan - Republic of Korea Kuwait - Saudi Arabia Malaysia - Thailand Norway - USSR Malaysia - Vietnam Qatar - United Arab Emirates
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

1995 1974 1991 1985 1958 1979 1975 1981 1978 1966 1991 1978 1992 (signed) 1969
79

Saudi Arabia - Sudan Freshwater

1975

Problems of shared water resources are in many ways more difficult than those associated with hydrocarbons; they are certainly more numerous. Worldwide over 240 river basins are shared 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 1970 the U.N. International Law Commission has been trying to develop and codify the law of nonnavigational uses of international watercourses, but the task is not yet complete. One principle of international water law which is clear is that the use of water by one country must not impair the rights and interests of another country or countries.(8) There are many cases where this principle is disregarded, not least in the Middle East and considerable international tension exists 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 a group of experts seven years to draft a treaty in respect of groundwater in the Mexico-United States borderlands, such is the complexity of the subject. Water resources could be the cause of serious international conflict in future if states are unable to cooperate over their management. Fisheries Coastal states have the exclusive right to the exploitation of living resources within their Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) under the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. In respect of migrating species however there is an obligation to cooperate with neighbouring states both within the EEZ and in the high seas beyond to conserve and manage such resources, (Articles 117 and 118). Such cooperation may be direct with other states or through an international organisation, typically a regional fisheries body. There are a number of difficulties associated with these provisions especially the compatibility of the conservation measures a coastal state might implement within the EEZ, and the behaviour of foreign fleets immediately beyond which have less interest in conservation in spite of the obligation to cooperate. The legal position was clarified by the 1995 U.N. Convention on Straddling Stocks, but many practical problems remain. Conclusion There is already a considerable degree of transboundary collaboration, and there are strong incentives for this to develop further in future, especially the growing competition for more resources. There is no standard model for any of the categories of cooperation examined. This is an encouraging feature of transboundary cooperation, suggesting an element of flexibility and ingenuity which should facilitate future arrangements. Two ingredients seem to be 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 been chosen. In this context the characteristics of the boundary in question deserve careful investigation. The role of a third party such as the U.N. in helping to initiate cooperation is clearly very helpful, but may not always be necessary. References (1) United Nations (1983) The Law of the Sea, London: Croom Helm (published in cooperation with the United Nations).

80

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

(2) Adler, R. (1995) Positioning and Mapping International Land Boundaries, Boundary and Territory Briefing, Volume 2, Number 1, Durham: International Boundaries Research Unit. (3) Biger, G, (1995) (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of International Boundaries, New York: Facts on File Inc. (4) Blake, G.H. (1992) ‘Territorial Alternatives’, Boundary Bulletin, Number 3: International Boundaries Research Unit, 9.12. Durham:

(5) Armstrong, P. and V. Forbes (1997) The Falkland Islands and Their Adjacent Maritime Areas. 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 technical basis for apportioning reserves” in G.H. Blake et al. (eds) The Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources. Graham and Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff 41-50. (7a) British Institute of International and Comparative Law (1989) Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas: A Model Agreement for States for Joint Development with Explanatory Commentary, London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

(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) The Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources. Graham and Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, 121-126.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

81

82

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

PARKS AT THE EDGE: THE CASE OF UGANDA By: Ronald G. Seale Park Planning Advisor Mt. Elgon Conservation and Development Project IUCN, Mbale, Uganda Frontier parks, the subject of this conference, are perhaps of greater relative importance in Uganda than they are in any other country in the world. Of Uganda's ten national parks, no less than seven lie along international frontiers. Even more remarkable, all seven of those Uganda national parks are contiguous with protected areas on the other side of their respective international frontiers. In a sense, therefore, the theme of this conference has potentially 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 to consider two general factors. Around the world, it is not uncommon to find that national parks and other protected areas lie on international frontiers. The two general factors that may be at work here are as follows: 1: The "Culture Hearth" Factor If national boundaries evolve "logically", and come to enclose over time, the territory occupied by a "national group", it follows that the lands further removed from that core area or culture hearth will tend to have been subjected over time to relatively less severe pressures on resources than will the core area. If those peripheral areas have in fact experienced less resource pressures, then it is also likely that the natural systems of those areas will have been less 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 in Factor #2. In general , rugged mountain areas tend to be less intensively developed and less densely populated than, for example, extensive lowland areas such as fertile alluvial plains. These less populated and less developed mountain areas thus frequently become frontiers between more densely populated lower lying lands. Mountainous lands, however, also tend to be biologically rich, because within relatively small areas, one often finds a great variety of habitats and ecological niches, that reflect the effects of altitudinal range on life forms. Such ecologically varied areas are particularly desirable from the 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 an exact science. Particular caution is required in applying such thinking on frontiers to the African context. International frontiers on this continent are especially capricious, or one might even say, "Caprivious". As is well known, the current position of African frontiers often reflects more the vagaries of the 19th century imperial "scramble for Africa", than it does the evolution over centuries of frontiers between long established socio-political entities. These qualifiers notwithstanding, however, both of the factors outlined above appear to have been at work in Uganda. Certainly with seven of Uganda's ten national parks located on the international boundaries of its periphery, Factor #1 would seem to have some applicability to the Uganda case. With respect to Factor #2 concerning mountainous areas, the international boundaries of six of
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 83

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 directly associated with mountainous terrain located either within the parks themselves or immediately adjacent to them. The obvious conclusion, then, is that in the case of Uganda, national parks on its international frontiers are very significant in relation to that country's total national park system. That point having been established, the more important question then is "What is the significance of Uganda'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 current situation and to the potential for future action. More specifically, A) To what extent have Uganda's frontier parks figured in cooperative regional conservation initiatives, 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 in future 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 conservation and to regional security and cooperation? In responding to these questions, it is convenient to group into four clusters, Uganda's seven frontier parks that border four different countries. The groups are defined partially, but not completely, by the respective bordering countries. A The Gorilla Parks Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park adjoin respectively, the Parc National des Virungas in the Congo and the Parc National des Volcans in Rwanda. The four parks in these three countries are in fact all contiguous. Together these parks sustain the entire known population of mountain gorillas. At one time or another over the past 20 years, parks in all three countries have enjoyed remarkable success as ecotourism destinations. These parks have provided high quality visitor experiences for which visitors have been willing to pay very high prices and from which the countries and specific communities concerned have reaped very considerable benefits. Unfortunately, over the same period that gorilla tourism has blossomed, the region in which the gorilla parks lie has experienced serious political and social instability, accompanied by human tragedy on a scale scarcely parallelled anywhere else in the world during that time. Rwanda today 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 of dictatorship, civil war, torture, murder, and mayhem from 1971 to 1986. The Congo's worst period of civil war was experienced even earlier than Uganda's troubles. However, the past decade in Congo has been characterized by general economic decline and relatively ineffective political control from the centre, culminating in the recent struggle that brought down the long established Mobutu regime. The general levels of instability and strife in the three countries over the past generation have naturally been reflected in the levels of tourism success enjoyed by their respective gorilla parks. International tourism is known, after all, to respond quickly and massively to situation of instability and insecurity.
84 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

The Congo was the first to demonstrate what could be achieved with perhaps the most outstanding example in the world, of a strictly controlled ecotourism operation oriented to a very 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 was in 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 region of Africa in the past two decades, it is remarkable that the mountain gorilla population has not suffered more than it has during this period. In contrast, the wildlife populations of Uganda's best known savannah parks suffered catastrophic declines during the worst period of civil strife in the 1970's and early 1980's. However, the mountain gorillas appear to have been relatively little 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 volumes within 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 tragedy experienced, would seem to evidence two points:

The fundamental appeal of gorilla tourism for a small but significant niche market of international 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 gorillas themselves and in the persistence of associated tourism activities under extremely trying circumstances.

These points augur well for the future, and particularly for transboundary cooperation in the management of protected areas in the three countries sharing the region that is home to the mountain gorillas. There have been limited cooperative management initiatives to date, but that limited level is nonetheless remarkable. There would seem to be a base upon which to build, both at the national agency level, and at the district, community, and field operational levels. It is important that those involved in gorilla tourism in the three countries perceive themselves to be jointly responsible for managing a rare, vulnerable, and valuable resource, rather than that they perceive themselves to be in direct competition with each other. Given the levels of bookings and the fact that would-be visitors are prepared to make travel commitments many months in advance, it would seem that international demand for gorilla tourism products is more than adequate to satisfy interests in all three countries, at the restricted levels that are consistent with protection of the wildlife resource. B: The Rwenzori/Virunga System: Three Uganda parks are included in this system. They are Rwenzori National Park, Semuliki National Park, and Queen Elizabeth National Park. All three border Parc National des Virungas 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 the operational level of protected area management. The level of potential benefit is perhaps greatest in the case of Semuliki National Park. The Semliki River is part of the upper drainage of the Albert Nile. For part of its course, the Semliki River forms the boundary between Semuliki National Park and Parc National des Virungas. There has been very little meaningful contact to date between the respective park staffs on the ground. Effective resource
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 85

management would certainly benefit from such contact. In the long term, there is considerable potential for provision of provision of ecotourism opportunities that focus on the Semuliki River and on the biological wealth of the Congo/Itari Forest. This forest permits the ranges of many species of flora and fauna that are typical of West and Central Africa to extend into Uganda. For the present, however, visitor numbers to the Semuliki/Virungas area remain at very low levels, in large part due to difficulties relating to access, particularly on the Congo side. Development of ecotourism potential in this region in the long term would seem to depend in part upon the level of success achieved in future in grouping several destinations into attractive packages. The appeal of such packages for international long-haul tourism can be clearly seen in other regions of Africa, such as northern Tanzania and northwestern Zimbabwe/northeastern Botswana. Thus whereas it would be very difficult to promote Semuliki National Park on its own to international tourism markets, a package that included Semuliki, Rwenzori, the Virungas, and other ecotourism destinations in that region would potentially have very considerable appeal. Here too there is an important place for Queen Elizabeth National Park. Linkages with the Virungas for resource management purposes would seem to be less important than they are for Semuliki for example. However, as a relatively high profile anchor for ecotourism packages that include other destinations in Uganda, Congo, and Rwanda, Queen Elizabeth National Park can potentially play a critical role. With its extensive areas of savannah, its populations of large mammals, and its diverse scenic landscapes, Queen Elizabeth can provide an outstanding regional complement, both for the gorilla parks to the south and for the Rwenzori/Virungas/ Semuliki area to the north. C Kidepo Valley: Kidepo Valley National Park is in the extreme northeastern corner of Uganda, lying along the Sudan border. In northern Uganda, and more particularly in northwestern Uganda, the conditions 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, wildlife populations in northern Uganda have declined greatly in the past 20 years, in large part because of civil unrest. The Kidepo region also remains relatively remote. In the foreseeable future, it seems unlikely that the security issue in northern Uganda will be satisfactorily resolved. If, however, peace and security could be achieved, there are significant potential benefits to be gained in Uganda and Sudan with respect to cooperative initiatives relating to both conservation and tourism development. Such cooperative initiatives could in fact be the basis around which a general improvement 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 northwestern Kenya. There are adjoining Mount Elgon National Parks in the two countries. In contrast to the situation in the Kidepo region, the international climate along the Uganda - Kenya border has markedly improved within the past three years. Relations between the two countries had been frosty for almost 20 years, since the Amin era and the collapse of the East African Community. The border station on the north side of Mount Elgon recently re-opened to permit cross-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. This improvement is taking place within the broader context of efforts to revive in some new form,
86 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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. Illegal border crossings in both directions, by cattle raiders and other smugglers, have long posed problems for national park management on both sides of the border. Recent instances of cooperation between law enforcement agencies in the two countries are likely to be followed by meaningful and continuing contact between the two national park operations. The prospects for mutually beneficial contacts between the two Mount Elgon National Parks are also enhanced by major planning and development projects in progress on both sides of the border. On the Uganda side, Mount Elgon has been the focus of an integrated conservation and development initiative since 1987. Funding for this Mount Elgon Conservation and Development Project is provided by the Government of Norway, with IUCN/The World Conservation Union providing technical and administrative support. Within the past few months, there have been efforts to initiate a somewhat similar integrated conservation and development project on the Kenya side of Mount Elgon. The Government of The Netherlands has expressed interest in supporting such a project, and it appears that IUCN would again provide technical and administrative support. If the proposed Kenya project does indeed go ahead, particularly with the involvement of IUCN as a common player in two somewhat similar projects, we would have here an excellent opportunity for cooperation between adjacent protected areas on the Kenya - Uganda border. There is potential for fruitful cooperative 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 strengthened resource management and in enhanced tourism benefits. Eastern Uganda and northwestern Kenya have benefitted relatively little from tourism activity to date. Kenya's primary ecotourism destinations 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, in particular 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 a new 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 such complementary attractions as the Kakamega Forest, Saiwa Swamp National Park, and the Cherangani Hills on the Kenya side, together with the Pian - Upe Game Reserve north of Mount Elgon on the Uganda side. Such a circuit would include extremely diverse landscapes and ecosystems, together with outstanding 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 Aberdares in Kenya or Queen Elizabeth and the gorilla parks in Uganda. In the long term, pending the restoration of peace and stability in the area to the north, this Mount Elgon circuit could even include Kidepo Valley National Park. Summary and Conclusions Two general factors are suggested in an attempt to account for the disproportionately large number of national parks that lie along international frontiers. Both the culture hearth and the mountain 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 other countries suggests that even in periods of severe civil strife and human tragedy, protected areas and their wildlife populations can survive, if the benefits of the protected areas are clear
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 87

and significant for local populations. It would appear that in the mountain gorilla region, local populations have come to regard the great apes as their gorillas, as a wildlife resource in which local people take pride. In such a situation, it would seem that the national parks that sustain the gorillas could well be the focal point of international cooperative initiatives. Those initiatives could enable neighbouring countries to begin to rebuild shattered societies, to the benefit 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 Uganda have the potential within the short to medium term, to be the bases of international cooperative conservation 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 Mount Elgon National Park in Kenya. Each of these initiatives could serve to advance the cause of conservation and the cause of improved regional security and cooperation. Thus national parks in three different sectors of Uganda's international frontier would seem to provide good examples of the important themes that this conference is intended to explore.

88

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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 Turkey in 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 be considered one of the most significant features in the world. The north – south developed faulting system has created a sharp and high escarpments on both sides of a narrow valley strip. The elevation of the mountain ridges in both sides of the valley goes up to 1500 m in the east and 1000 m in the western ridges. Nonetheless, the narrow strip confined between the mountain ridges has become the most fertile lands in the region as a result of the sediment loads accumulated by the surface water flows. Today, the Basin forms good portion of the food basket of Jordan, Israel and Palestine. The Basin enjoys a Subtropical – Mediterranean weather conditions in the north (in the mountains), 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 one of the most, environmentally, significant areas, especially for north - south bird migration, in the world. 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. Other side valleys, springs and seepage from groundwater aquifers are also important contributors to the overall water balance of the basin. The estimated total surface water available at the Basin is 1,330 Mcm/year. Of which 125 Mcm reaches the Dead Sea and the rest is being used by some 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 southerly place in the world where they are found. Many African plants are also found the most northerly place in the world where they are found. In addition, there are a number of fauna species such as Leopard, Ibex, Gazelle, Egyptian Vulture and other endemic fish species in the surrounding streams. More important, the basin is one of the important bird migration paths. Bird-life International has 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 waters is nearly ten times more than the water of the oceans. The black mud of the Dead Sea is being
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 89

extracted and manufactured in the form of various treatment and care products. Moreover, the Sulphate content of the mud and water of the Sea attracting many people from all over the world, 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 written evidence of the Bible were found (Qumran). It had been the refuge for many ancient civilizations who enjoyed the silence and bareness of desert environment. King Herod had built 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 the inflow to the Dead Sea. Figure 1, illustrates the quantities of the water abstracted by each country upstream.

Figure 1: Upstream Water Use Per Country (Mcm/Year) 210 20 620 270

Israel Jordan S y ria Lebanon

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 the Dead Sea level has continuously dropped in the same ratio of this reduction. Figure 2, illustrates the decline of the flow of the Lower Jordan.
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 i c M e ter P e r Y e a r )
1.4 Flow (Bcm/year) 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 1880 1900 1920 1940 Year 1960 1980 2000 Series1

90

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

It can be easily noticed that in the late fifties there has been a major change in the rivers hydrograph. This change is being referred to the major diversion works which took place during that time upstream. In addition to that evaporation ponds created for industrial extraction of potash, phosphorous and other minerals such as bromide have been contributing substantially to the loss of this very unique resources. It has been reported that in 1995, almost 200 mcm of the Dead Sea water (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, a number 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 Dead Sea shores. Yet, no consideration were given to the carrying capacity of this highly sensitive ecosystem 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 Montreal Protocol, of which both Jordan and Israel are signatories, Israel will have to phase out bromine production by 2000 AD. However, Jordan was classified as a developing country, they are allowed until 2010 AD. As a result a joint venture between the two operating industries is being formed in order to continue producing the Bromine in the Jordanian side. This would simply mean that more pressure on the available water quantities will be placed. Moreover, the product (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 Aqaba in the south and continue up to Lebanon in the North. This highway is proposed to run parallel to the sea shores which means that it will destroy the cliffs and will jeopardize the narrow path which indigenous species are using to travel in the basin. 4. Water Schemes: New diversion canals and dams are being proposed which will place more pressure on the quantities reaching the sea. Hence, will further interrupt the water balance 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 sustainability of 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 some progress to implement peace. However, they need much more cooperative efforts to maintain peace 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 peace among people. One of the significant potentials is the military and security Zones which are
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 91

already preserved along the borders between various countries. They can be converted into a preserved natural areas where both people of the two countries can enjoy its beauty and meet together to further peace and to build confidence.

92

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN EUROPE: PROGRESS AND POSSIBILITIES IN SOLVING 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 protected areas in Europe. The Austrian Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth, and Family Affairs has approved a financial support for a basic project on ”Transboundary Protected Areas – problems, future aspects, and international criterias. Since ”Parks for Life” is a programmatic document of IUCN and 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, which provide a wide range of ideas in transboundary protected area cooperation and recommendations, this study should concentrate on following subjects: harmonizing of recent protected areas masterplans in neighbouring countries definition of potential transboundary protected areas modelling different types of cooperation contributions to a better cooperation in 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 and the first results. Data collection The description of transboundary protected areas should contain all categories of protected areas, 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 western and southern European countries. Problems occur in the valuation of proposed transboundary protected areas. The information available 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 and publications is included in the appendix. It is mainly about nature protected areas, first of all National Parks. Information about transboundary cultural landscapes was very poor.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

93

Working group A working group has been installed to accompany the research. The members of this working group 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 the Federation 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 important for further steps. It is rather difficult to find contacts for transboundary projects. Questionnaire To comprehend the experiences of the administrations in transboundary protected areas a questionnaire has been worked out (see annex) and sent to more than 130 administration offices. This questionnaire was evaluated with regard to experiences, advantages, suggestions for the improvement and problems in transboundary protected areas. It is the basis for the definition of future criterias for the designation and evaluation of transboundary protected areas. Case studies A limited number of transboundary areas was selected for detailed case studies. This will also help 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 good personal contacts play an important role. On the other hand there are no official common international 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 international cooperation, to define common goals, and to support the better understanding of neighbouring protected areas a official document might be helpful to define a common standard of international 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

94

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

…AND REALITY More than 80 transboundary cooperations or proposed cooperation exist in Europe. About 60 are bilateral, 20 are tri- or multi-lateral (at least more than 180 single protected areas are involved). 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 and from states of the former USSR. Administration Due to the differences in nature protection competence and administrative systems, despite the sovereignty of each country, there is no chance to install common administrations. Nevertheless, administrative bodies might be created, which allow partners from the neighbouring administration to participate in decisions in common tasks on a very high and official level. Protected area systems The fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 changed the conditions for transboundary cooperations quite well. But recent social-economic development also endangers some last refuges of threatened species. Only common attempts to protect large areas or corridors might lead to a sufficient result in nature protection. A system of core zones, transition zones and special reserves might reduce the impacts on the local population and local economy and might lead to a easier acceptance of a protected area system. The Spanish-French Pyreneen mountains are a good example. The well known National Parks Les Pyrenees and Ordesa – Monte Perdido represent just a small part of the whole system of protected 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 various ecosystems. Although the maps of Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland show a dense system of protected 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 the management or master plans. There might be a majority for the designation of protected areas of the same level on both sides of the border (park to park, nature reserve to nature reserve and so on). I would suggest to attach more importance to the accordance of the management of 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 sides and 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 local people in the daily work of protecting the nature might be difficult but necessary. Some park administrations pointed out, that people hardly speak of ”their park”. As long it is the park of the others, there is still some work to do. On the FNNPE conference in Bled (SLO) 1995 I suggested, that information about nature protection in border areas should always be presented in the language of the neighbouring country and/or in one of the important languages too. This is still not the rule.
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 95

But not only written information gives a chance for better understanding. Exchange of personal, 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 of literature 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. WarszawaBialwieza 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-Tagung 1988 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 miereke 1:500.000. Bratislava CNPPA (1990), Promoting Effective Management of Transfrontier Parks and Reserves: Guidelines. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfontier Conservation. Gland and Cambridge DANISH NATIONAL FOREST AND NATURE AGENCY (o.J.), The Danish Contributiion to a Trilateral Danish, German and Dutch Management Plan for the Wadden Sea Area, Copenhagen DEUTSCHE NATIONALPARKE (1991), In: Nationalpark – Sonderausgabe, Nr. 71, 2/91. Grafenau
96 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

DEUTSCHE NATURPARKE (1992), In: Nationalpark – Sonderausgabe, Nr. 76, 3/92. Grafenau DIREKTION DES NATIONALPARKES FERTÖ HANSAG (o.J.), Landschaftsschutzgebiet Köszeg. Sarrod ECOPOINT (1995), Trandboundary Biodiversity Conservation. Selected Case Studies from Central Europe. Prahe 1995 EKOLOGIA BRATISLAVA (1992), National Parks and Protected Landscape Areas of Slovakia. Bratislava EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Aggtelek National Park Directorate. Budapest EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Bükk National Park Directorate. Budapest EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Körös-Maros Nature Conservation Directorate. Budapest EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Middle-Trans-danubian Nature Conservation Directorate. Budapest EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Nationalpark-direktion Hortobagy. Budapest EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Nationalpark-direktion Kiskunsag. Budapest EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION, Hg. (1996), Nationalpark-direktion Donau-Drau. Budapest FERTÖ HANSAG NEMZETI PARK (o.J.), Nationalpark Fertö-Hansag. Sarrod FLOUSEK J. (1996), Cooperation in Biodiversity Conservation in the Czech and Polish Krkonose National Parks and Biosphere Reserve. In: Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. 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.), Nature Conservation Management of Grasslands in Hungary. Budapest POORE D. (Ed.) (1992), Guidelines for Mountain Protected Areas. (= IUCN Protected Areas Programme Series No. 2. Gland and Cambridge

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

97

KASHEVAROV B. (1996), Comparative Analysis of Biodiversity in the Finnish_Russian Friendship Nature Reserve. In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha KREMSER H. (1996), Hohe Tauern National Park. In: Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. Canberra KULESHOVA L.V., ZABELINA N.M. and ISAEVA-PETROVA L.S. (1996), Transboundary Protected 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 Transboundary Cooparation: Mercantour (France) – Alpi Marittime (Italy). Nice LE MERCANTOUR PARC NATIONAL (o.J.), Document de travail. Charte entre le “Parc national du Mercantour” et le “Parco naturale delle Alpi Maritime”. Nice McNEELY, J. HARRISON ana P. DINGWALL (Ed.) (1994), Prtecting Nature. Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. Gland and Cambridge McMEIL R. (1990), International Parks for Peace. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfontier 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 in Czechoslovakia. Praha MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIK (1995), Nature Protection in Slovakia. Bratislava NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIK (1994), Act No. 287/1994 on Nature and Landscape Protection. Bratislava NATIONALPARKKOMMISSION DER IUCN (1994), Parke für das Leben: Aktionsplan für Schutzgebiete in Europa. Gland und Cambridge ÖKOLOGISCHE BAUSTEINE (1990), In: Politische Ökologie, Sonderheft 2. München OKOLOW C. (1994), Bialowieza National Park and Biosphere Reserve. In: Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Bieszczady-Tatry OKOLOW C. (1995), Bialowieza National Park. In: Parki Narodowe i Rezerwaty Przyrody. Tom 14, Nr. 1 ÖSTERREICHISCHE RAUMORDNUNGSKONFERENZ Hg. (1988), Naturschutzrechtliche Festlegungen 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 Parc National du Mercantour. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfontier Conservation. Gland and Cambridge
98 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

ROSSI P. (1996), Argentera Nature Park: scientifif Research, Management and Transfrontier Cooperation. In: Parks, Vol 6 No 1, Newbury ROSSI P. (1996), Maritime Alps/Mercantour Parks. In: Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. 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 of Transfrontier Nature Reserves. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfontier Conservation. Gland and Cambridge VEREIN NATURPARK SÜDEIFEL (o.J.), Naturparke und ihr Potential für die Entwicklung des ländlichen Raumes am Beispiel des Naturparks Südeifel und Deutsch-Luxemburgischen Naturparks.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

99

TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN EUROPE: PROGRESS AND POSSIBILITIES IN SOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS 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 protected areas in Europe. More than 80 transboundary cooperations or proposed cooperation exist in Europe. Some of them 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 good personal contacts play an important role. On the other hand there are no common international standards in transboundary cooperation. The Austrian ministry for the Environment supports a study on ”Transboundary Protected Areas – 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 European landscapes. 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 of threatened species. Only common attempts to protect large areas or corridors might lead to a 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. Some park administrations pointed out, that people hardly speak of ”their park”. As long it is the park of the others, there is still some work to do.

♦ ♦ ♦

100

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

No.
AL 01 AL 02 AL 03 A 01

Name
National Park Prespa Lake National Park Thethi Nature Reserve Skhoder Lake International Management Region

Country
Albania Albania Albania

Counterpart I
National Park Prespa Lake Proposed National Prokletije Mountains

Country I
Greece

Counterpart II

Country II

National Parks Galichica - Republic of Lake Ohrid, Pelister Macedonia

Park Yugoslavia (Montenegro) Yugoslavia (Montenegro) International Ramsar Slovakia Management Morava-Dyje

National Park Skadar Lake

Ramsar- Austria March-Thaya-

International Ramsar Czech Management Morava-Dyje Republik National Park Fertö to Nature Park Irottkö Hungary Hungary

A 02 A 03 A 04

National Park Neusiedler See- Austria Seewinkel Nature Park Geschriebenstein Austria Proposed Nature Protected Area Austria (INTERREG II Programm) Schutzgebiet Südöstliche Kalkalpen Proposed Protected Area Austria (Biosphere Reserve) Bayerischer Wald, Böhmerwald, Sumava Proposed Protected Area Austria Lebensraum Salzach Auen Proposed Strict Nature Reserve Austria Lainsitzniederung Proposed Trilateral Nature Park Austria Raab-Örseg-Goricko

Proposed Nature Protected Italy Area South Eastern Limestone Alps (INTERREG II) Proposed Protected Area Czech (Biosphere Reserve) Region Republik narodniho parku Bavarsky les, Böhmerwald, Sumava Protected Area Lebensraum Germany Salzach Auen Protected Area Trebonsko Czech Republik

Proposed Nature Slovenia Protected Area South Eastern Limestone Alps (INTERREG II) Proposed Protected Area Germany (Biosphere Reserve) Dreiländerregion Böhmerwald

A 05

A 06 A 07 A 08

Proposed Trilateral Nature Hungary Park Raab-Örseg-Goricko

Proposed Trilateral Nature Slovenia Park Raab-Örseg-Goricko

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

101

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

102

No.
A 09 A 10 A 11 A 12 A 13 BR 01 BR 02 BR 03 B 01

Name
Protected Landscape Donau-March

Country
Area Austria

Counterpart I
Protected Landscape Male Karpaty Proposed Protected Mura-Drava

Country I
Area Slovakia Area Croatia Germany Czech Republik

Counterpart II
Protected Area Zahorie

Country II
Slovakia

Protected Landscape Area Mur Austria (proposed Biosphere Reserve) Strict Nature Reserve (Proposed Austria National Park) Kalkhochalpen Strict Nature Reserve (Proposed Austria National Park) Thayatal Strict Nature Reserve Unterer Inn Austria National Park Pushcha Belovezhskaya Belarus Belarus Area Belarus Belgium- Belgium

Proposed Protected Area Hungary, Slovenia Mura-Drava

National Park Berchtesgaden National Park Podyji

Strict Nature Reserve Unterer Germany Inn National Park Bialowieza Nature Reserve Polessky National Park Polesie Poland Ukraine Poland National Park Shatsk Ukraine

National Park Pripiatsky Protected Managed Vygonoschanske Nature Park Netherlands

Nature Park Belgium- Netherlands Netherlands De ZoomKalmthout Nature Park Hautes Fagnes - Germany Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany Nature Park Scarpe-Escaut France Nature Park Haute Sure - Luxemburg Vallee de l' Attert Yugoslavia National Park Tara (Montenegro) Yugoslavia (Montenegro)

B 02 B 03 B 04 BiH 01

Nature Park Hautes Fagnes - Belgium Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany Nature Park Plaines de l'Escaut Belgium Nature Park Vallee de l'Attert - Belgium Haute Sure National Park Sutjeska

Bosnia - National Park Durmitor Hercegovina

No.

Name

Country

Counterpart I

Country I

Counterpart II

Country II

HR 01

National Park Kopacki rit

Croatia

Proposed Mura-Drava Croatia Protected Area (Proposed Biosphere Reserve) Proposed Regional Park Nostranjski Nature Slovenia

National Park Duna-Drava Hungary

HR 02 HR 03

National Park Risnjak

Croatia

Proposed Koveski

Nature

Park Slovenia

Proposed Protected Area Croatia (Biosphere Reserve) Mura-Drava Proposed Protected Area Mura- Croatia Drava (Proposed Biosphere Reserve) International Ramsar Czech Management Morava-Dyje Republik National Park Krkonose National Park Podyji Czech Republik Czech Republik

Protected Landscape Area Austria Mur (proposed Biosphere Reserve) National Park Kopacki rit Croatia

Proposed Protected Area Hungary, Slovenia Mura-Drava National Park Duna-Drava Hungary

HR 04

CZ 01

International Management Region

Ramsar- Austria March-ThayaArea Czech Republik

International Ramsar Slovakia Management Morava-Dyje National Park Karkonosze Poland

CZ 02 CZ 03

Protected Landscape Iser Mountains

Strict Nature Reserve Austria (Proposed National Park) Thayatal National Park Bayerischer Germany Wald, Nature Park Bayerischer Wald Proposed Protected Area Austria (Biosphere Reserve) Bayerischer Wald, Böhmerwald, Sumava Landscape Park Zywiecki Protected Landscape Biele Karpaty Poland Area Slovakia Proposed Protected Area Germany (Biosphere Reserve) Dreiländerregion Böhmerwald Protected Area Kysuce Landscape Slovakia

CZ 04

National Park Sumava, Protected Czech Landscape Sumava Republik Proposed Protected Area Czech (Biosphere Reserve) Region Republik narodniho parku Bavarsky les, Böhmerwald, Sumava Protected Beskidy Landscape Area Czech Republik

CZ 05

CZ 06 CZ 07

Protected Landscape Area Bile Czech Karpaty Republik

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

103

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

104

CZ 08

Protected Landscape Broumovsko

Area Czech Republik

Protected Landscape Orlicke Hory

Area Czech Republik

National Stolowe

Park

Gory Poland

No.
CZ 09 CZ 10 CZ 11 CZ 12 CZ 13

Name

Country

Counterpart I
National Park Krkonose Protected Landscape Broumovsko

Country I
Czech Republik Area Czech Republik

Counterpart II

Country II

Protected Landscape Area Iser Czech Mountains Republik Protected Landscape Orlicke Hory Protected Trebonsko Protected piskovce Landscape Landscape Area Czech Republik Area Czech Republik Labske Czech Republik

National Park Karkonosze Poland National Stolowe Park Gory Poland

Proposed Strict Nature Austria Reserve Lainsitzniederung National Schweiz Proposed Landscape Gebirge Park Sächsische Germany

Protected Landscape Luzicke Czech Hory (Lausitanian Mountains) Republik Trilateral Protected Wadden Sea Area Denmark

Protected Germany Area Zittauer Area Germany Trilateral Protected Area Netherlands Wadden Sea

DK 01 EE 01 SF 01 SF 02

Trilateral Protected Wadden Sea Nature Reserve Complex Vidzeme

Proposed Strict Nature Reserve Estonia Wetland Area Nigula National Suomenlathi Park Itäinen Finland

Northern Latvia

Strict Nature Reserve Finnish Russian Gulf Federation National Park Ovre Anarjokka Norway

National Park Lemmenjoki, Finland Pyörisjarvi, Pulju and Hammastunturi Wilderness Area National Park Oulanka, Strict Finland Nature Reserve Sukerijärvi National Park Urho Kekkonen Nature Reserve Malla Finland Finland

SF 03

National Park Paanajärvi, Russian Proposed Sieppiuntury Federation Uplands Regional Park Strict Nature Laplandskiy Proposed National Treriksroysa Reserve Russian Federation Park Norway Proposed Protected Area Sweden Palsta

SF 04 SF 05

No.
SF 06

Name

Country

Counterpart I
Strict Nature Kostumuksha

Country I
Reserve Russian Federation

Counterpart II

Country II

Nature Reserves Elimussalo, Finland Lentua, Iso-Palonen and Maariansarkat, JuortanansaloLapinsue Mire Reserve, Ulvinsalo Strict Nature Reserve Wilderness Area Käsivarsi Finland

SF 07

National Park Reisa , Norway Protected Landscape Area Raisdoutterhaldi, Proposed National Park Guoatteloubbal National Park Pasvik, Nature Norway Reserve Pasvik Nature Park Alpi Marittime Italy National Park Ordesa/Monte Spain Perdido National Park Gran Paradiso Nature Park l'Escaut Plaines Italy de Belgium Germany Nature Reserve Zapovednik Pasvik Russian Federation

SF 08 F 01 F 02 F 03 F 04 F 05 F 06 F 07 D 01 D 02

Wilderness Area Vätsäri National Park Le Mercantour National Park Les Pyrenees National Park Vanoise

Finland France France France

Nature Park Plaine Scarpe et de France l'Escaut Nature Park Vosges du Nord France Proposed National Park Bouches France de Bonifacio Proposed National Park Mont France Blanc National Park Bayerischer Wald, Germany Nature Park Bayerischer Wald National Park Berchtesgaden Germany

Nature Park Pfälzerwald

Proposed National Park d'ell Italy Archipelago della Maddalena Proposed National Park Mont Italy Blanc National Park Sumava, Czech Protected Landscape Sumava Republik Strict Nature Reserve Austria (Proposed National Park) Kalkhochalpen Proposed National Park Switzerland Mont Blanc

No.

Name

Country

Counterpart I

Country I

Counterpart II

Country II

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

105

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

106

D 03 D 04 D 05

National Park Odertal National Schweiz Park

Germany Sächsische Germany

Landscape Dolney Odry

Park

Dolina Poland

Protected Landscape Labske Czech piskovce Republik Nature Park German- Netherlands Netherland Maas-SchwalmMette Nature Park Hautes Fagnes - Belgium Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany Nature Park Luxemburg- Luxemburg Germany (Nature Park Südeifel) Nature Park Vosges du Nord National Park Wolinski France Poland Proposed Protected Area Czech (Biosphere Reserve) Republik Region narodniho parku Bavarsky les, Böhmerwald, Sumava

Nature Park German-Netherland Germany Maas-Schwalm-Mette Nature Park Hautes Fagnes - Germany Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany Nature Park Luxemburg- Germany Germany (Nature Park Südeifel) Nature Park Pfälzerwald Proposed Nature Park Usedom Germany Germany

D 06 D 07

D 08 D 09 D 10

Proposed Protected Area Germany (Biosphere Reserve) Bayerischer Wald, Böhmerwald, Sumava

Proposed Protected Area Austria (Biosphere Reserve) Bayerischer Wald, Böhmerwald, Sumava Protected Area Lebensraum Austria Salzach Auen Protected Landscape Luzicke Czech Hory Republik Strict Nature Reserve Unterer Austria Inn Trilateral Protected Wadden Sea Dojran Ez. (Lake) Area Denmark Republic of Macedonia

D 11 D 12 D 13 D 14 GR 01

Proposed Protected Area Germany Lebensraum Salzach Auen Proposed Protected Landscape Germany Area Zittauer Gebirge Strict Nature Reserve Unterer Inn Germany Trilateral Protected Wadden Sea Doya Lake Area Germany Greece

Trilateral Protected Area Netherlands Wadden Sea

GR 02

National Park and Ramsar Site Greece Prespa Lake

National Park Prespa Lake

Albania

National Parks Galichica - Republic of Lake Ohrid, Pelister Macedonia

No.
H 01

Name
National Park Aggtelek

Country
Hungary

Counterpart I

Country I

Counterpart II

Country II

Protected Landscape Area Slovakia Slovensky kras (Proposed National Park) National Park Kopacki rit Croatia Proposed Mura-Drava Croatia Protected Area (Proposed Biosphere Reserve)

H 02

National Park Duna-Drava

Hungary

H 03 H 04 H 05 H 06

National Park Fertö to Nature Park Irottkö

Hungary Hungary

National Park Neusiedler See- Austria Seewinkel Nature Park Geschriebenstein Austria Proposed Körös er Protected Area Yugoslavia Proposed Protected Area Croatia, Slovenia Mura-Drava Proposed Trilateral Nature Slovenia Park Raab-Örseg-Goricko

Proposed protected area Körös- Hungary er Proposed Protected Area Mura- Hungary Drava Proposed Trilateral Nature Park Hungary Raab-Örseg-Goricko Protected Area Karancs-Madves Hungary National Park Gran Paradiso National Park Stelvio Nature Park Alpi Marittime Italy Italy Italy

Protected Landscape Area Austria Mur (proposed Biosphere Reserve) Proposed Trilateral Nature Austria Park Raab-Örseg-Goricko Protected vrchovina Area Cerova Slovakia France Switzerland France Park France

H 07 H 08 I 01 I 02 I 03 I 04 I 05

National Park Vanoise National Park Swiss National Park Le Mercantour Proposed National Bouches de Bonifacio

Proposed National Park d'ell Italy Archipelago della Maddalena Proposed National Park Mont Italy Blanc

Proposed National Park Mont France Blanc

Proposed National Park Switzerland Mont Blanc

No.

Name

Country

Counterpart I

Country I

Counterpart II

Country II
107

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

108

I 06

Proposed Nature Protected Area Italy South Eastern Limestone Alps

Proposed Nature Protected Austria Area (INTERREG II Programm) - Schutzgebiet Südöstliche Kalkalpen Proposed Kraski Regional Park Slovenia Slovenia

Proposed Nature Slovenia Protected Area South Eastern Limestone Alps (INTERREG II)

I 07 I 08 LET 01

Proposed Protected Landscape Italy Karst Regional Park Alpi Giulie Nature Reserve Complex Vidzeme Italy Northern Latvia

National Park Triglav

Proposed transborder Strict Estonia Nature Reserve Wetland Area Nigula Proposed National Kurshskaja kosa Park Russian Federation

LIT 01 L 01 L 02

Proposed National Park Kursiu Lithuania nerija Nature Park Haute Sure - Vallee Luxemburg de l' Attert Nature Park Luxemburg- Luxemburg Germany (Nature Park Südeifel) Nature Park Belgium- Netherlands Netherlands De Zoom-Kalmthout Nature Park German-Netherland Netherlands Maas-Schwalm-Mette Trilateral Protected Wadden Sea Area Netherlands Norway

Nature Park Vallee de l' Attert Belgium - Haute Sure Nature Park Luxemburg- Germany Germany (Nature Park Südeifel) Nature Park Netherlands Belgium- Belgium

NL 01 NL 02

Nature Park German- Germany Netherland Maas-SchwalmMette Trilateral Protected Wadden Sea Area Denmark Trilateral Protected Area Germany Wadden Sea

NL 03 N 01

National Park Ovre Anarjokka

National Park Lemmenjoki, Finland Pyörisjarvi, Pulju and Hammastunturi Wilderness Area Proposed National Park Tavvavuoma Sweden

N 02

National Park Ovre Dividalen

Norway

No.

Name

Country

Counterpart I

Country I

Counterpart II

Country II

N 03 N 04

National Park Pasvik, Nature Norway Reserve Pasvik National Park Rago, Proposed Norway National Park Tysfjord Hellemobotn National Park Reisa , Protected Norway Landscape Area Raisdoutterhaldi, Proposed National Park Guoatteloubbal National Parks Femundsmarka, Norway Gutulia

Wilderness Area Vätsäri

Finland

Nature Reserve Zapovednik

Pasvik Russian Federation

National Parks Sarek, Sweden Padjelante, Stora Sjöfallet; Nature Reserve Sjaunja Wilderness Area Käsivarsi Finland

N 05

N 06

Nature Reserve Rogens, Sweden Nature Reserve Langfjallet (Proposed National Park Rogen-Langfjället) National Parks Vadvetjakka, Sweden Abisko, Proposed National Park Kirunafjallen Nature Reserve Malla Finland Proposed Protected Area Sweden Palsta

N 07

Proposed National Sjördalen-Isdalen Proposed Treriksroysa National

Park Norway

N 08 N 09 N 10 PL 01 PL 02 PL 03 PL 04

Park Norway Norway

Protected Area Spitzbergen Strict Nature Lundsneset

Proposed Strict Nature Russian Reserve Zemlja Fransa-Iosifa Federation National Park Tresticklan National Park Odertal Protected Beskidy Landscape Sweden Germany Area Czech Republik Area Slovakia Protected Area Kysuce Landscape Slovakia

Reserve Norway

Landscape Park Dolina Dolney Poland Odry Landscape Park Zywiecki National Park Babia Gora National Park Bialowieza Poland Poland Poland

Protected Landscape Horna Orava

National Park Belovezhskaya Belarus Pushcha

No.

Name

Country

Counterpart I

Country I

Counterpart II

Country II
109

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

110

PL 05 PL 06 PL 07 PL 08 PL 09 PL 10 PL 11 PL 12 P 01 P 02

National Park Gory Stolowe National Park Karkonosze National Park Pieniny National Park Polesie National Park Roztzczanski National Park Tatrzansky National Park Wolinski National Magura Parks

Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland Poland

Protected Landscape Broumovsko National Park Krkonose National Park Pieninsky Protected Managed Vygonoschanske Protected Landscape Roztochya Proposed Usedom Nature

Area Czech Republik Czech Republik Slovakia Area Belarus Area Ukraine Slovakia

Protected Landscape Czech Area Orlicke Hory Republik Protected Landscape Czech Area Iser Mountains Republik National Park Shatsk Ukraine

National Park Tatra (TANAP)

Park Germany Area Slovakia National Park Karpatsky Ukraine

Bieszczady, Poland Portugal

Protected Landscape Vychodne Karpaty

National Park Peneda Geres

Nature Park Baixa-Lima-Serra Spain do Xeres Nature Reserve (Reserva Portugal Natural) da Sapal de Castro Marim e Vila Real de Sto. Antonio Nature Reserve (Reserva Portugal Natural) da Ria Formosa Natural Landscape Spain Marismos de Isla Christina

Nature Reserve (Reserva Portugal Natural) da Ria Formosa

P 03

Nature Reserve (Reserva Portugal Natural) da Sapal de Castro Marim e Vila Real de Sto. Antonio Dojran Ez. (Lake)

Natural Landscape Spain Marismos de Isla Christina

MA 01 MA 02 MA 03

Republic of Doya Lake Macedonia

Greece Albania National Lake Park Prespa Greece

National Parks Galichica - Lake Republic of National Park Prespa Lake Ohrid, Pelister Macedonia National Park Mavrovo Republic of National Macedonia Mountains Park

Shara Yugoslavia (Montenegro)

MA 04

National Parks Pelister, Galichica Republic of National Park Prespa Lake - Lake Ohrid Macedonia

Albania

National Lake

Park

Prespa Greece

No.
RO 01 RO 02

Name
Biosphere Delta Reserve

Country
Danube Romania Romania

Counterpart I

Country I

Counterpart II

Country II

Biosphere Reserve Danube Ukraine Delta National Park Derdap Yugoslavia National Park Oulanka, Strict Finland Nature Reserve Sukerijärvi Wilderness Area Vätsäri Proposed National Kursiu nerija Proposed Protected Taman Peninsula Finland Park Lithuania Areas Ukraine National Park Pasvik, Norway Nature Reserve Pasvik

Strict Nature Reserve Cazanele

RUS 01 National Park Paanajärvi, Russian Proposed Sieppiuntury Uplands Federation Regional Park RUS 02 Nature Reserve Zapovednik RUS 03 Proposed National Kurshskaja kosa Pasvik Russian Federation Park Russian Federation

RUS 04 Proposed Protected Area Kerch Russian Federation Peninsula RUS 05 Proposed Protected Areas Russian Steppe (Belgorod - Kharkov - Federation Region) RUS 06 Proposed Strict Nature Reserve Russian Federation Zemlja Fransa-Iosifa RUS 07 Strict Nature Reserve Russian (Zapovednik) Bryanskiy les Federation RUS 08 Strict Nature Reserve Finnish Russian Gulf Federation RUS 09 Strict Nature Kostumuksha Reserve Russian Federation

Proposed Regional Ukraine Landscape Park (National Park) Pechenizke Pole Protected Area Spitzbergen Protected Starogutovskiy Huta Norway

and

Area Ukraine Stara Itäinen Finland

National Park Suomenlathi

Nature Reserves Elimussalo, Finland Lentua, Iso-Palonen and Maariansarkat, JuortanansaloLapinsue Mire Reserve, Ulvinsalo Strict Nature Reserve
111

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

112

RUS 10 Strict Nature Laplandskiy

Reserve Russian Federation

National Park Urho Kekkonen Finland

No.
SK 01

Name

Country

Counterpart I
International Management Region

Country I
Ramsar- Austria March-ThayaPoland Poland

Counterpart II

Country II

International Ramsar Slovakia Management Morava-Dyje National Park Pieninsky National Park Tatra (TANAP) Slovakia Slovakia

International Ramsar Czech Management Morava-Dyje Republik

SK 02 SK 03 SK 04 SK 05 SK 06 SK 07 SK 08 SK 09 SK 10

National Park Pieniny National Park Tatrzansky Protected Madves Area

Protected Area Cerova vrchovina Slovakia Protected Area Zahorie Slovakia

Karancs- Hungary Area Austria Area Czech Republik Poland Area Czech Republik Area Austria Hungary Landscape Park Zywiecki Poland Protected Area Zahorie Slovakia Protected Landscape Slovakia Area Male Karpaty

Protected Landscape Donau-March Protected Landscape Bile Karpaty National Park Babia Gora Protected Beskidy Landscape

Protected Landscape Area Biele Slovakia Karpaty Protected Landscape Horna Orava Protected Kysuce Landscape Area Slovakia Area Slovakia

Protected Landscape Area Male Slovakia Karpaty Protected Landscape Area Slovakia Slovensky kras (Proposed National Park) Protected Landscape Vychodne Karpaty Area Slovakia Slovenia Slovenia

Protected Landscape Donau-March National Park Aggtelek

SK 11

National Magura

Parks

Bieszczady, Poland Italy Croatia

National Park Karpatsky

Ukraine

SLO 01 National Park Triglav SLO 02 Proposed Nature Park Koveski

Regional Park Alpi Giulie National Park Risnjak

Proposed Regional Slovenia Nature Park Nostranjski

SLO 03 Proposed Nature Protected Area Slovenia South Eastern Limestone Alps

Proposed Nature Protected Austria Area (INTERREG II Programm) - Schutzgebiet Südöstliche Kalkalpen

Proposed Nature Italy Protected Area South Eastern Limestone Alps (INTERREG II)

No.

Name

Country

Counterpart I

Country I

Counterpart II

Country II

SLO 04 Proposed Protected Area Mura- Slovenia Drava SLO 05 Proposed Regional Nature Park Slovenia Nostranjski SLO 06 Proposed Regional Park Kraski Slovenia

Protected Landscape Area Austria Mur (proposed Biosphere Reserve) National Park Risnjak Proposed Landscape Karst Croatia

Proposed Protected Area Croatia, Hungary Mura-Drava Proposed Koveski Nature Park Slovenia

Protected Italy Proposed Trilateral Nature Hungary Park Raab-Örseg-Goricko

SLO 07 Proposed Trilateral Nature Park Slovenia Raab-Örseg-Goricko E 01 E 02 National Perdido Park Ordesa/Monte Spain

Proposed Trilateral Nature Austria Park Raab-Örseg-Goricko National Park Les Pyrenees France

Natural Landscape Marismos de Spain Isla Christina

Nature Reserve (Reserva Portugal Natural) da Ria Formosa

Nature Reserve (Reserva Portugal Natural) da Sapal de Castro Marim e Vila Real de Sto. Antonio

E 03 S 01

Nature Park Baixa-Lima-Serra do Spain Xures Nature Reserve Rogens, Nature Sweden Reserve Langfjallet (Proposed National Park Rogen-Langfjället) National Park Tresticklan Sweden

National Park Peneda Geres

Portugal

National Parks Norway Femundsmarka, Gutulia Strict Nature Lundsneset Reserve Norway

S 02 S 03

National Parks Sarek, Sweden Padjelante, Stora Sjöfallet; Nature Reserve Sjaunja

National Park Rago, Proposed Norway National Park Tysfjord Hellemobotn

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

113

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

114

S 04

National Parks Vadvetjakka, Sweden Abisko, Proposed National Park Kirunafjallen Proposed National Tavvavuoma Park Sweden

Proposed National Sjördalen-Isdalen

Park Norway

S 05

National Park Ovre Dividalen

Norway

No.
S 06 CH 01 CH 02

Name

Country

Counterpart I
Nature Reserve Malla National Park Stelvio

Country I
Finland Italy

Counterpart II

Country II

Proposed Protected Area Palsta Sweden National Park Swiss Switzerland

Proposed unspecified Norway Protected Area Proposed National Park Italy Mont Blanc

Proposed National Park Mont Switzerland Blanc Reserve Danube Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine Ukraine

Proposed National Park Mont France Blanc Biosphere Reserve Danube Romania Delta National Magura Parks Bieszczady, Poland Area Belarus Belarus Areas Russian Federation

UKR 01 Biosphere Delta

UKR 02 National Park Karpatsky UKR 03 National Park Shatsk UKR 04 Nature Reserve Polessky

Protected Landscape Slovakia Area Vychodne Karpaty National Park Polesie Poland

Protected Managed Vygonoschanske National Park Pripiatsky Proposed Protected Kerch Peninsula

UKR 05 Proposed Protected Area Taman Ukraine Peninsula UKR 06 Proposed Regional Landscape Ukraine Park (National Park) Pechenizke Pole UKR 07 Protected Area and Stara Huta UKR 08 Protected Roztochya YU 01 Starogutovskiy Ukraine Area Ukraine Yugoslavia

Proposed Protected Areas Russian Steppe (Belgorod - Kharkov - Federation Region) Strict Nature Reserve Russian (Zapovednik) Bryanskiy les Federation National Park Roztzczanski Strict Nature Cazanele Poland

Landscape

National Park Derdap

Reserve Romania

YU 02 YU 03 YU 04

Proposed Protected Area Körös Yugoslavia er National Park Durmitor National Park Shara Mountains

Proposed Körös-er

protected

area Hungary Bosnia - National Park Tara Hercegovina Republic of Macedonia Yugoslavia (Montenegro)

Yugoslavia National Park Sutjeska (Montenegro) Yugoslavia National Park Mavrovo (Montenegro)

No.
YU 05 YU 06 YU 07

Name
National Park Skadar Lake National Park Tara Proposed National Prokletije Mountains

Country

Counterpart I

Country I

Counterpart II

Country II

Yugoslavia Nature Reserve Skhoder Lake Albania (Montenegro) Yugoslavia National Park Sutjeska (Montenegro) Park Yugoslavia National Park Thethi (Montenegro) Bosnia - National Park Durmitor Hercegovina Albania Yugoslavia (Montenegro)

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

115

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

116

TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS ALONG THE FORMER "IRON CURTAIN" IN EUROPE By: Jan Cerovsky Prague, Czech Republic INTRODUCTION Among the 50 existing and 26 projected bilateral parks in Europe (according to a recent-study by Brunner 1997), 22 - e.g. nearly 29% - are situated along a line running from the Barents sea in the north to the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea in the south. This string accompanies a very sad line, now fortunately eradicated by history from the surface of the Earth: the former "Iron Curtain". Transfrontier protected areas are one of the priorities of the IUCN'S "Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe" (IUCN 1994). Transfrontier protected areas crossing the former Iron Curtain are a priority of the European transfrontier parks project. The objective of this paper is to offer a closer look at those parks on both sides of the former Iron Curtain, considering their unneglectable importance for peaceful and friendly 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 Fulton in March 1946. The term indicated the beginning of the "Cold War", the start of a post-war barrier building between the western democratic world and the eastern "socialist" block from the initiative of the latter one. Whatever fictitious this term had been, only after a few years to follow 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. The fence should, under a false pretension of the "defence against the imperialistic spies and intruders "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 fifties or during the following decades by train, you would have to pass through a corridor in a barbed wire 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 was misused by the politicians - sometimes, unfortunately, from both sides of it - to feed the old enmities from the past between neighboring nations (Czechs-Germans; Czechs-Austrians; Russians-Finns; Bulgarians-Turks etc.). It even was producing hate between two parts of one nation with the unfortunate fate of being divided. (Do not forget that the Iron Curtain separated the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic!) This ghostly expression of a deeply inhuman international hostility has disappeared with the political changes of 1989/1990. The Physical Implementation of the Iron Curtain As already mentioned above, the Iron Curtain was a real continuous fence, sometimes even two or more lines of fence. The construction was a very sophisticated one: barbed wire, wires with 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 the barrier 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.

117

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Moreover, the fence was expanded by a more or less extended forbidden zone on its eastern part. In some "forbidden zones" military areas were established concentrating East European armed 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. In this 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 controlled access of the foresters, woodcutters and farmers only. There was, by no means, no industry active in the area, and the agricultural and forestry management was strongly restricted. With the access granted to a limited number of persons only, the presence or development of any form of tourism was out of question. The lands could be regarded, to a considerable extent, as derelict ones. But also the zone on the western side of the Iron Curtain laid out of the main development streams. It somehow was "on the end of the world", underdeveloped, maybe attractive 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 movement of wildlife across the borderline. (In spite of this, the wolves, when reintroduced in the late seventies 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 more quite and acceptable for them. It sounds like a bad joke, that they were especially severly pursuited on the Czech side by hunters, being considered almost as a kind of a "imperialistic class enemy". Neither the shooting at the borderline and in the military zones was favorable to wild animals. Generally, however - be it paradoxical as it may be or not - the impact of the physical Iron Curtain and all connected characteristics. has been a predominantly positive one for the nature and landscape from the point of view of their conservation. The situation lasting for 40 years led to an impressive restoration of ecosystems. With the depopulation of the forbidden zone and a considerable fading out of human commercial impacts, the landscape and the nature experienced an unusual come-back to selfregulating natural processes, such as succession, water self-clearing and others. This was strongly supported by the total underdevelopment of deteriorating influences, fully underway in the countries' interior: the environmental pollution from local industrial, communal, agricultural and other sources; the environmental intoxication due to overuse of pesticides and fertilizers; the large-scale drainage, water stream canalization and other interventions in the hydrological balance of the landscape. The result of all this has been a remarkable restoration of the biological diversity at all the three levels - genetic, taxonomic (species) and ecosystem, and subsequently also the landscape diversity. There neither were admitted any mining and quarrying 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 Bavarian Forest probably never would become the Germany's first National Park, if not situated in the remote 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 from the above lines. Two types can be pointed out in this connection: I call them a) the Shifting Iron Curtain, and b) the Interior (or Second) Iron Curtain. Both have a considerable importance and impact on nature conservation, protected areas in particular. Before the construction of the Berlin 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 established along the Czechoslovak frontier with the German Democratic Republic. It contributed its deal to the remoteness and relative intact stage of what now is being developed as a CzechGerman bilateral park in the Elbe Sandstones - the "Bohemian Saxonian Switzerland". As already indicated above, the Iron Curtain divided before 1989 the Eastern and Western Germany. 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 the Iron Curtain. The tensions on the western Yugoslav border were released by the considerable liberation of Belgrade after the quarrel with Moscow in 1948. Thus also the transfrontier cooperation in nature conservation and contacts in frontier areas generally got easier between Austria and Italy on one, Slovenia on the other side, the Iron Curtain shifting further to the East - to the Hungarian, Rumanian and Bulgarian frontier. Even during the times of a relative mutual confidence within the Eastern Bloc, the Soviet Union nevertheless maintained an "Interior Iron Curtain" on its western frontier with its socialist neighbour friends. Due to this, for example, the unique Carpathian forests in the present western Ukraine remained preserved giving birth to the first trilateral Biosphere Reserve - the present Polish-Slovak-Ukrainian Carpathian Biosphere Reserve. Nevertheless, in some of its parts the "Interior Iron Curtain" still remains. The Polish managers of the bilateral Bialowieza National Park (also Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site) still complain of the existence of a fence through the protected complex built by the Belorussian partner and preventing a fully 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, ways always could have been found to establish contacts, exchange information and prepare a closer collaboration for the "coming better days". Even on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain protected areas were established, in some cases (Czech Republic in the Sumava - Bohemian Forest, and Podyji - Thaya River Valley) even pioneering such efforts before relevant action on the western side. The cooperation was prepared by scientists and conservationists mainly through international organisations: IUCN - The World Conservation Union has played a role of a special importance here. The intensity of the contacts of course varied according to the instantaneous thaws and freezings 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 with the Bavarian conservationists and politicians about a potential future cooperation in the Bavarian/Bohemian forest. In 1966 I showed a Czech nature conservation exhibition in the Bavarian town of Regensburg - by the way, famous by its historical cultural and religious contacts 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 Forest and after 1945 expelled from my country. This experience convinced me (and gave the necessary strength) that love to native countryside and genuine interest in its protection are in the 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 "Cold War" times, friendly relations with their Austrian colleagues, particularly in the area of the greatest Central European steppe lake - Neusiedler See/Fertti-to. The lake, divided artificially by the state frontier between Austria and Hungary, is now a bilateral National Park and
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 119

Biosphere Reserve. According to the statements by the managers of the both parks, this fact is meaningfully contributing to the mutual understanding and friendship between the Austrian and the Hungarian nations. A historic excellence: the area of the Ferto/Neusiedler See was the first place where the Iron Curtain was abolished, the fence removed. This did happen already 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 opportunities which before the people hardly could even dream about. The already existing frontier protected areas started, after the removal of the fence, in a new political climate and with many sympathizers among broad general public the process of mutual coordination and integration between 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 fill in the existing gaps. In the early nineties the initiative "Ecological Bricks for Our Common House Europe" was formed. It has identified 26 potential sites for protected areas, most of them along the former Iron Curtain. Even when the "Ecological Bricks" initiative has not turned into a special organisation or foundation, leaving the implementation to the Governments concerned and their specialized authorities and agencies, the appeal has been well accepted attracting important support, both moral and material. The efforts by IUCN and the cooperating FNNPE (Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe), particularly the "Parks for Life" exercise has been already mentioned above. Within these activities implementing the relevant priority project, two meetings on transfrontier protected areas deserve to be mentioned, convened and organized by the ECOPOINT Foundation in the Czech Republic, just one of the former "Iron Curtain countries" (Arends, Cerovsky, Pickova 1995; Cerovsky 1996) . The forthcoming European meeting of the IUCN WCPA on the German Isle of Ruegen, will devote one of its working sessions to the issue. The IUCN action programme for protected areas in Europe is entitled "Parks for Life". This means a real concern in the real life, in people. Frontier parks along the former Iron Curtain have a highly important task to bring closer, through the enjoyment of unspoilt, well looked for natural environment, neighboring nations not always living in peace and good mutual relations, for more than forty years separated by political, ideological and socio-economic barriers and even by real fences. It is a noble task, and despite various difficulties, the frontier parks along the former Iron Curtain have entered a good path to promote peace and friendship through transfrontier nature conservation.

THE DRAKENSBERG-MALOTI TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREA: EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS LEARNED By: T.S. Sandwith Natal Parks Board, South Africa INTRODUCTION The Drakensberg-Maloti mountain region epitomises the need for long-term commitment to the development and establishment of transfrontier conservation areas. There has, as yet been no formal recognition of this region as a peace park, but there is a growing de facto realisation of the joint responsibility of the two countries to give effect to the objectives of heritage conservation, both natural and cultural, and the role that this unique resource can play in community development and enterprise. At the same time, the process has brought together the diversity and respective strengths of the peoples who make up this complex region, in an enduring association. By sketching briefly the attributes of this project, and the process which is still very much in the development phases, it is hoped that the observations and lessons learned will contribute to the objectives of determining the role, opportunities and difficulties in using 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 the international frontier between the Kingdom of Lesotho and the Province of KwaZulu-Natal in South Africa, and covers an area of approximately 5000 km2. It links three of the nine provinces of South Africa, namely KwaZulu-Natal, the Free State and the Eastern Cape, which completely surround Lesotho. Rising to 3482 m in the eastern mountain region of Lesotho, the alpine, sub-alpine and montane regions form a component of the Great Escarpment which separates the central plateau from the Eastern seaboard of southern Africa. The most significant physiographic feature of southern Africa, the Drakensberg-Maloti mountains are also the principal source of water for the sub-region, and underpin the economies of both South Africa and Lesotho. The mountain region, in comparison with other African mountain areas, has been spared the large scale degradation of transforming land- uses, and has been retained in a virtually pristine condition, both through effective protected area management, as well as benign and sustainable land-use practices. This situation is unlikely to persist in the long term because of the pressures which face the region, especially for development and agriculture. Although there are political and language differences across this boundary, the region consists of a single ecological complex, and there are also many strong social relationships, including historical and cultural similarities, kinship ties and common land-use practices and opportunities. The political insularity of the past has given way to a more open exchange, and the exploration of common development and tourism relationships. Despite this, it remains surprising how little real knowledge and understanding there is between the peoples of two neighbouring countries. The Drakensberg-Maloti region, which is shared by the two countries, provides a strategic arena for cooperation and development around a programme which is supported in equal measure by Lesotho and South Africa. KEY BIODIVERSITY CHARACTERISTICS The Drakensberg-Maloti mountain region is one of outstanding natural beauty and a recognised centre of diversity and endemism. The biological importance of the area is described by Bainbridge and Motsamai (1995) and Bourn (1995). The principal vegetation type is Austral Afro-alpine vegetation which is floristically distinct from mountainous areas to the north (Killick, 1990). It is species rich, containing at least 2153 plant species, 295 bird
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 121

species, 60 mammal species, 49 species of reptiles and 26 species of amphibians. It is also distinct, with a high degree of plant, bird and invertebrate endemism estimated at 30% for plants (Hilliard and Burtt, 1987) and a significant proportion of the fauna. It ranks as one of seven recognised biodiversity hotspots in Southern Africa, namely the Eastern Mountains and as an Endemic Bird Area. The South African Red Data List of Plants, indicates 109 taxa which occur in the region. (R. Scott-Shaw, pres. comm.) Two main high altitude vegetation complexes occur, namely the Alti-Mountain biome from 2500- 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 occur in the Alpine Zone. The wetlands are distinct, both structurally and floristically from all other wetland systems in Southern Africa (Schwabe, 1989). The wetlands provide a vital hydrological function, ensuring the delivery of water of a high quality throughout the year, and are 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 Importance under the Ramsar Convention, and there is no doubt that the adjacent areas in Lesotho would also qualify. In addition, preparatory work on a nomination proposal for listing the area as a World Heritage site has indicated that it would meet the criteria of outstanding universal value for inscription as both 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 the establishment 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 of the richest occurrences of rock art in the world. Apart from paintings which record actual events 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 very landscape which the artists inhabited. On the basis of the rock art alone, the area is considered worthy of World Heritage status, and the nomination proposal is likely to be submitted both as a natural and cultural property. There are 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-Maloti programme has created an opportunity for the two countries to commemorate the occupation of the region at a time which predates artificial international boundaries. CORE PROTECTED AREAS The Drakensberg-Maloti Transfrontier Conservation Area contains a number of statutorily protected areas making up the Natal Drakensberg Park in South Africa, and the Sehlabathebe National Park in Lesotho. There are extensive opportunities to expand the system of protected areas to represent the major components of biodiversity in the mountain region. A component of Phase 1A of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project is the identification and development of four protected areas. This work is currently underway, and will include the necessary staff and institutional capacity-building to ensure the long-term success of this component. In South Africa, there are important components of the Drakensberg catchment area which currently fall outside of the Natal Drakensberg Park, but where there is an opportunity to acquire 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 the previous process to consolidate the boundaries of the former Transkei homeland, and the current process of determining provincial boundaries. Similarly, there are socio-economic constraints on the effective management of the Okhahlamba communal land area in the upper catchment of the Thukela River, and the land is subject to certain unsustainable landuse 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 protected areas, such as in the southern mountains. The range management model was introduced in Lesotho owing to concern about the siltation of the major reservoirs of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project (Quinlan and Morris, 1994). It was proposed that the grasslands of the eastern mountain catchments above 2750 m a.s.l. should be proclaimed as a Managed Resource Area, conforming with the IUCN protected area categories (IUCN, 1994). Legislation has been introduced to enable this process, but there remains a need to facilitate the participation of local communities and land-users (Natural Resources Institute, 1996). The biosphere reserve model provides the most promising and appropriate vehicle for ensuring that management of this unique region takes place within a framework of common objectives, and provides for the integration of statutorily proclaimed protected areas with managed resource areas and buffer zones. It is highly unlikely that the majority of the eastern mountain region in Lesotho can be contained within formal protected areas, and the most likely possibility is for a managed resource area which incorporates the Range Management model. In South Africa, there is considerable sensitivity surrounding the allocation of land, and particularly as a result of the discriminatory legislation of the past. The Restitution of Land Rights Act (No. 22 of 1994) makes provision for the restitution of land to people who were dispossessed through discriminatory laws, and the Provision of Certain Land for Settlement Act (No. 126 of 1993) enables the allocation of land to landless peoples. There is a perception that protected areas are likely candidates for land re-allocation. In the case of the Drakensberg catchment area, there are significant disadvantages to this approach, notably the fragility of the mountain ecosystem and its importance for water production. The alternative approach is to ensure that the use of the land for water production, for nature conservation, sustainable tourism and resource use provides long term benefits. The Drakensberg-Maloti transfrontier park provides a challenging example for the implementation of an integrated conservation and development programme in a unique and internationally significant region. The alternative is a downward 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 Lesotho occupied a geographically central, but fairly insignificant position in the scramble for land in Southern Africa which took place in the nineteenth century. The distribution of people in and around 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 the aggression from Zululand which had a dispersive effect on retreating tribes, and the settlement of land in the Orange Free State by the Voortrekkers. Zulu aggression had also resulted in the displacement of the amaHlubi from Zululand and their forced settlement in the foothills of the Drakensberg where the colonial government in Natal hoped that they would form a buffer between the San (Bushmen) and the colonists (Wright, J.B. 1971). Other fragments of the amaHlubi 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.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

123

The relationship of the amaHlubi and their leader Langalibalele with the colonial administration was tense, and the amaHlubi resisted settlement in the Drakensberg for which they were sanctioned by the colonial government. In their capacity as a buffer between the San and white farmers, they were themselves subjected to cattle raids by the San raiders. Following their failure to comply with regulations pertaining to the registration of firearms and rumours that Langalibalele intended to seek a safe refuge for his people and their cattle in Basotholand, the colonial government undertook a military campaign to cordon off the amaHlubi and prevent the retreat of the "rebels" into Lesotho. This resulted in an unfortunate incident at the summit the Drakensberg north of the Bushman's River pass, where there were casualties on both sides (Brookes and Webb, 1965). The incident provoked outrage among the colonists, and the government's reaction was to outlaw the tribe, depose and imprison their chief, and confiscate their cattle and land. In addition, the colonial government's agent in Basotholand put pressure on Basotho chiefs to demonstrate their loyalty and assist in the apprehension of Langalibalele. The subsequent betrayal and capture of Langalibalele in Lesotho resulted in the responsible chief earning an unfortunate 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 the manner in which Langalibalele had been treated which contributed to schism within the Anglican church and highlighted the racial segregation of the colonial administration. The episode also resulted in the Iandlessness of the amaHlubi and amaSwazi tribes, which to this day 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 the complete elimination of the San people, the oldest known inhabitants of KwaZulu-Natal , from the Drakensberg-Maloti region. Virtually all that remains is the rich record of rock art in the sandstone shelters, which in many instances records faithfully the arrival and activities of the new landowners. Apartheid policies and isolation. Ironically, it was these same segregationist policies which the South African government entrenched in law, perpetuating a system where black tribes were confined to specific locations. In many cases these areas were of insufficient size or productivity to enable any sustainable form of land-use, resulting in their general degradation and lack of development. Those areas in the Natal Drakensberg are among the most povertystricken in present day KwaZulu- Natal, and their situation adjacent to the comparatively wellmanaged protected areas heightens the contrast. In addition, competition for resources and power has been deeply divisive, and mitigates against a structured reconstruction and development programme. Political relationships. Strategically situated within South Africa, Lesotho has since its independence in 1966, been burdened by the sometimes overbearing economic and political power 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 around achieving a new political dispensation in South Africa were reflected in the internal politics of Lesotho, with a division between those for and against collaboration with South Africa. In 1985, 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 the imposition of an economic blockade of Lesotho by South Africa. The action brought an already unstable political situation in Lesotho to a head, resulting in the collapse of the government and agreement between South Africa and the new Military Council that neither country would allow its territory to be used for attacks on the other (Legum, 1987). This paved the way for the signing of the Lesotho Highlands Water Treaty in 1986, the establishment of a joint trade mission, and full diplomatic relations in 1992. Following the political transformation in South Africa, President Mandela stressed the importance of good relations between the two countries. 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 of the two countries in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) has led to greater interaction and collaboration at many levels (Brown, 1997). Illegal activities. The international border remains a focus for certain illegal activities including drug smuggling and stock theft. These activities have rendered certain areas as virtually ungovernable, and have affected the viability of traditional farming practices. KEY THREATS In the absence of a comprehensive management programme for the Drakensberg- Maloti region, there are a number of key threats which will contribute to a reduction in biodiversity and productivity of the region. The protected areas are threatened by:

Alien invasive plants. In many areas, and particularly the river valleys, there has been extensive encroachment by alien species which have displaced the indigenous communities of plants and animals. Wattles, including Acacia meamsii and Acacia dealbata, pines (mainly Pinus patula) and the American bramble (Rubus cuneifolius) are the principal alien species threatening natural ecosystems. A unique programme, known as the Working for Water programme, has been introduced by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, to eradicate alien plants in designated areas, provide employment opportunities and improve 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 slow response of government to deal with land claims in adjacent areas. No formal land claims have been registered. There is a perception, though, that the protected area should directly benefit local communities. Inappropriate development in adjacent areas. There are development pressures for holiday resorts and associated infrastructure adjacent to the protected areas. Of concern are proposals to introduce casino developments and cableways in some areas. These have the potential to generate direct impacts on the park and the communities which live nearby. 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 of maintaining a natural landscape character and water production potential. Recent changes in the economics of farming have promoted a move towards increasing commercial plantation forestry, which affects landscape quality and water production, as well 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 rural communal 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 of malnutrition 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 has resulted in extensive sheet and gulley erosion and the siltation of streams and rivers. In addition, there has been extensive harvesting of firewood and collection of medicinal plants.
125

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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, and increasing pressure on land particularly at higher altitudes, and transport routes between KwaZulu-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 political support is derived from emergent development structures. There is a danger of introducing governance structures which might be regarded as being in competition with existing structures, 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 do not have any agreed land-use plans. In addition, the land-use planning and development control policies of the former Natal Provincial Administration did not take account of the adjacent communal land areas.

In the eastern mountain region of Lesotho, there are similar threats which can be summarised as follows:

Poor representation of biodiversity in protected areas. Protected areas in Lesotho cover less that 0.35% of the country's surface area, and there is currently only one protected 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 fuelwood resources for energy, and on wetland systems in the highlands for stock grazing has resulted 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 river valleys, despite creating other entrepreneurial opportunities, especially in remote areas. There have also been positive and negative social impacts arising from the construction of major dams. The improved access to the highland region has also resulted in new pressures being brought to bear, such as off-road vehicles accessing the high mountain areas, impacting directly on paths and transport routes, and introducing a threat to the quality of the core wilderness areas.

In general, the threats to the sub-region are interrelated, arising mainly from competition for scarce resources by rapidly increasing populations. Solutions to these problems will likewise have to be integrated within a single framework, where the opportunities and constraints are balanced and trade-offs recognised and managed. Of prime importance is the lack of institutions which can ensure that the development of the region can take place in an orderly and 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 area is to intervene and avoid the degradation which otherwise result, and to achieve sustainable development in accordance with the objectives of Agenda 21 Chapter 13: Managing fragile ecosystems: Sustainable mountain development. In addition, there is the opportunity to achieve reconciliation and cooperative development between the two countries, and to dispel some of the earlier tensions. In the view of the Drakensberg-Maloti roleplayers, these interventions and opportunities include the following:

Seek formal recognition of the transfrontier conservation area including Sehlabathebe National Park and the Natal Drakensberg Park, and identify further areas suitable for proclamation as national parks and nature reserves The two existing parks are contiguous, and it is necessary to consider how the numerous common management issues and problems can be jointly addressed. This will require the development of joint or complementary management plans and the structuring of management agreements and instruments of international cooperation. The designation of a transfrontier Peace Park is feasible and desirable. In addition, there are numerous additions which can be made to the protected areas, through purchase or negotiation.

Recognise, protect and manage cultural resources to commemorate the occupation of the area by the San people The occupation of the transfrontier conservation area provides a historical link between the two countries, and the opportunity to develop a joint cultural resource management and interpretation programme to commemorate these early inhabitants of the region. Apart from technical cooperation, the cultural resources provide a unique heritage and attraction for visitors to the region.

Seek international recognition for components to form a World Heritage Site, Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar sites) and Biosphere Reserves The cultural and natural heritage of the transfrontier conservation area are of outstanding universal value, and likely to comply fully with the criteria for designation as a transfrontier World Heritage and Ramsar Site. In addition, the surrounding Managed Resource Areas complement the core protected areas and accord with the requirements of a Biosphere Reserve, accommodating the development needs and opportunities of local communities in each 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 opportunities and constraints of the region, the identification of common and complementary objectives, and the preparation of a comprehensive land-use plan. In addition, strategic environmental assessments of proposals should be conducted, and decision-making guidelines adopted by a joint management authority.

Expand and develop an integrated community conservation and development programme Harmonious and coordinated sustainable development can only be achieved if consultation and participation by interested and affected parties is extensive, inclusive and appropriate.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

127

Building upon existing structures and within the context of an integrated land-use plan, the identification of a participatory framework, participatory planning and conflict resolution would lead to the establishment of local protected area advisory structures, the facilitation of community development and entrepreneurial opportunities.

Facilitate an ecotourism planning and development programme The internationally renowned resource base will support the expansion and development of new economic opportunities based on tourism. The Roof of Africa route, recently agreed by the two countries, will define a unique mountain region and provide access to unparalleled development opportunities. A comprehensive programme is required to analyse the tourism resource base, develop an agreed protected area zonation which will provide a spectrum of recreational opportunities, undertake conceptual planning for the development of identified visitor facilities, conclude the necessary feasibility studies, and to construct and commission and market tourism developments.

Restore damaged or degraded areas A number of management programmed are required for the restoration and rehabilitation of degraded sites. These are likely to include an alien plant programme, akin to the Working for Water campaign being facilitated by the South African Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, where alien plant removal is coupled with water production objectives and maximising employment opportunities; a soil erosion reclamation programme, in those areas where agricultural activities have had impacts, or where roads and paths have been eroded; and the removal of inappropriate infrastructure, e.g. fences and buildings. o Provide key infrastructure At present, much of the area is inaccessible, and there are many deficiencies in facilities for nature conservation management. To ensure the effective management, control and use of the area, there is a requirement for new roads and the upgrading of existing roads, as well as electricity, fencing, potable water, waste management, telecommunications and information systems management. The extent of infrastructure required needs to be evaluated.

COLLABORATION AND COOPERATION BETWEEN LESOTHO AND SOUTH AFRICA REGARDING THE DRAKENSBERG-MALOTI PROGRAMME The most significant international agreement between the two countries is the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. This is a multilaterally funded project, which includes the construction of dams in the Lesotho highlands, the diversion of water to the industrial heartland of South Africa and the generation of electricity. The economic development of the water-poor South Africa has, through this process become fundamentally linked to the sustainability of water production from the Lesotho highlands. A component of this programme is the undertaking to develop certain nature conservation areas for biodiversity protection and tourism. The Drakensberg-Maloti Programme was initiated in 1982 at the request of the Lesotho Government, as a collaborative effort between the two countries. Supervised by an Intergovernmental Liaison Committee, the programme was largely funded by South Africa through the Range Management Division of the Ministry of Agriculture in Lesotho and the Natal Parks Board in South Africa. It continued until 1993 when funding was withdrawn, and at a stage when most of the baseline information had been collected, but where land-use planning and implementation strategies had not been formulated or applied. Since that time, the Natal Parks Board and the National Environmental Secretariat of Lesotho have been interacting with a range of role-players to maintain the initial momentum of the project, and to secure further funding for the work which is required to implement the programme. A delegation of the Lesotho Cabinet met with the Board in 1994 to request the continued involvement by the Board.

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 of the UNDP and ODA have participated in workshops and discussions on possible involvement in the programme. At a workshop held in January 1995 involving all role-players, key areas for consideration and further action were identified, including: (i) the need for extensive consultation with communities in the areas which would fall within the 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 the Lesotho component of the Drakensberg-Maloti region. Further assistance has been provided for the preparation and testing of a tentative integrated natural resources management plan for a pilot area of approximately 1000 km2 to commence in 1998, to be followed by comprehensive support for the programme in Lesotho. In addition, the National Environmental Secretariat of Lesotho has, together with the UNDP submitted 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 comprehensive development programme spanning the transfrontier conservation area and addressing similar issues in both countries has not been achieved. This requires the collaboration not only of the respective countries, but necessitates the cooperative support of potential funding and financing agencies, and a comprehensive programme of coordinated implementation. It is the belief of the principal roleplayers in South Africa and Lesotho that the necessary foundation has 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 a Memorandum of Understanding between the respective government agencies with the responsibility 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 expertise required to implement the program me. These will include the National Environmental Secretariat of Lesotho, the Natal Parks Board, government ministries and departments in Lesotho and South Africa, and a range of experts in the fields of rural sociology, resource economics, range and livestock ecology, nature conservation, ecotourism planning,

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

129

community conservation, land-use planning, civil engineering and architecture. programme coordinator is a key requirement.

A

Securing funding for the preparatory and implementation phases Despite the general agreement that the programme is worthwhile and well- considered, the single most significant constraint has been the availability of funding or affordable financing for the preparatory and implementation phases. Neither the Natal Parks Board nor the National Environmental Secretariat of Lesotho has the mandate or the funding to engage in a multilateral development programme of this magnitude. Yet the capacity exists to support the programme, provided that funding for coordination, specialist technical assistance, and financing of key projects can be found. Dealing with the different objectives and funding parameters of the major roleplayers has proven to be an enormous challenge, but there are real advantages of a comprehensive programme which can draw on a suite of funding and financing options around a common set of objectives.

KEY DIRECTIONS At this stage in the development of the Drakensberg-Maloti programme, there are a number of key findings, lessons and directions of the past 15 years: These include:

Long-term commitment. Despite the evident logic of pursuing a transfrontier conservation programme, it is necessary to understand that the process of building trust and confidence is a slow one, and one which can be overshadowed by political or economic circumstances far 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 have the background or opportunity to deal with the political aspects. A recognition of the relative capacities of relevant agencies. Ideally, the role- players should be matched in terms of their capability to participate as partners in the development process. In the case of Lesotho and South Africa, the process has been marked by the development of capacity and expertise in different ways in each country. Whereas South African roleplayers possessed technical expertise and capacity, the Lesotho counterparts have had access to international support and involvement. These strengths can now be combined in a collaborative programme. In addition, the capacity of communities to participate 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 are reached 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 territories requires definition. There is a need for structures which can withstand these changes, and ensure that technical cooperation continues at the most appropriate level. This is one role which an external funding agency can provide, although many agencies are themselves clearly 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 models have been suggested including a bilateral steering committee and project coordinator, but a more efficient and effective development company model, which would enable investment and loan- funding may be more appropriate. ♦ Funding. Without adequate funding, it is unlikely that the development possibilities of transfrontier conservation areas can be unlocked. However, this is not to suggest that

programmed should be net receivers of funds. Funding intervention is required, especially in the early stages to generate commitment and confidence in the programme, and to attract interest from investors in the development synergy and raised profile which can result. A cautionary note is advised though, in that pure conservation and land management objectives are likely to require state funding. The cost can be largely offset by the suite of benefits which can be derived from development opportunities, and it remains a function of government to provide support for infrastructure and services. The nature of the comprehensive development programme and the impetus and profile of the international cooperative 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 in terms of the intrinsic value of the biodiversity of this unique mountain region, and the development 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 simply joining two formal protected areas across an international boundary, there is the opportunity to use the protected areas as the focus of an integrated conservation and development programme in some of the most remote and undeveloped regions of South Africa and Lesotho, and to restore a sense of mutual cooperation and the resolution of long-standing conflicts which have characterised this troubled region. There is also a unique opportunity to commemorate the existence of the earliest inhabitants of the region, through the collaborative management of the mountain region which provided both the inspiration and the palette for one 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 black occupied areas. Unpublished report. 87 pp. + appendices. Bainbridge, W.R. and B. Motsamai. 1995. Project motivation document. Greater Drakensberg- Maloti Mountain Region: Community development and conservation programme. Lesotho National Environmental Secretariat, Maseru and Planning Division, Natal Parks Board, Pietermaritzburg. 45 pp. Bourn, D. 1995. Conceptual framework for biodiversity management in Lesotho. Mission Report TSSI -LES/94/01 /T. FAO, Rome. 42 pp. Brookes, E.H. and C. de B. Webb. 1965. Pietermaritzburg. A history of Natal. University of Natal Press,

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 and Political Science Research monograph 2. University of Natal, Durban. Hilliard, O.M. and B.L. Burtt. 1987. The botany of the southern Natal Drakensberg. Natal Botanic Gardens and CTP Book Printers, Cape Town. IUCN 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. IUCN Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas and World Conservation Monitoring Centre, Cambridge.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

131

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 19741975. London: Rex Conings, p371-384. Legum, C. and J. Drysdale (eds. ). 1969. Africa Contemporary Record: Annual survey and documents 1968-1969. London: Africa Research P280-285. Masson, J. 1991. The Amangwane Tribal Ward: Okhahlamba Magisterial District. An environmental 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). Natal and Zululand: from earliest times to 1910. University of Natal Press. Pietermaritzburg. Natural Resources Institute. 1996. Outline project proposal for European Union funding for the Drakensberg-Maloti Mountains Conservation Programme. Unpublished report, Natural Resources Institute, United Kingdom. Schwabe, C. 1989. The assessment, planning and management of wetlands in the Maluti Drakensberg mountain catchment. I.N.R investigation Report No 38. Pietermaritzburg Institute of Natural Resources. Scotcher, J.S. B, Rowe-Rowe, D.T. and R.J. Cooke. 1982. Report on a boundary survey of the 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 the Natal 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 conflict with stock-keeping peoples in Natal. University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg.

PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICT THE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE PEACE PARKS FOUNDATION By: J Hanks, Peace Parks Foundation, P.O.Box 227, Somerset West 7129, South Africa Telephone: 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 growth of African nationalism. Armed campaigns to take control of the state have contributed to the withdrawal of colonial governments and also to the overthrow of repressive regimes. In some cases, this has opened the way to a peaceful settlement, but in others it has left a legacy of political 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 a concomitant loss of biological diversity (Westing, 1992). Some of the civil wars have been exacerbated by external interventions, and have left many people dead, in exile, or exposed to famine (Williams, 1997). In southern Africa, Angola, Mozambique, and to a lesser extent Zimbabwe and Namibia experienced several years of savage conflict, a guerilla war which had, and still has, a profound effect on economic relations with bordering countries, and on internal post-independent economies. For example, Mozambique's economy since its independence from Portugal in June 1975, has suffered not only the damaging effects of nearly 17 years of war, but also drought, floods, famine, the displacement of millions of people and 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 foreign credits. The vast majority of Mozambicans live below the poverty line, and social indicators are among the lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa. In 1995, according to estimates from the World Bank, the country's gross national product (GNP) was US$1,513m, equivalent to only $88 per head (Cravinho, 1997). In February 1990, President de Klerk released Nelson Mandela and lifted the ban on the African National Congress of South Africa, and by the end of that year most of the remnants of apartheid (racial segregation) had been formally repealed. By the end of June 1991, the last remaining legislative pillars of apartheid had been repealed, and the legal revolution was complete. The election of Mandela as President of South Africa in April 1994 undoubtedly marked the culmination of the African drive for independence, and brought a new level of peace to South Africa and a desire for co-operation between South Africa and its immediate neighbours, namely Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. In 1997, this part of the sub-continent has arguably become one of the most peaceful regions in Africa, with great potential for regional co-operation on transboundary protected areas. However, the establishment of trust and mutual respect did not come automatically with political settlements, and the legacy of South Africa's past policy of destabilizing its neighbours can 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 are particularly relevant to the objectives of the Peace Parks Foundation31, and to the objectives of the Parks for Peace Conference, and are follows:

31

The Peace Parks Foundation has approached the Inland Fisheries, Wildlife and Forestry Sector of SADC with a request that the activities of the Foundation are approved and accepted by SADC. Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 133

deeper economic co-operation and integration, on the basis of balance, equality and mutual benefit, providing for cross-border investment and trade, and freer movement of factors of production, 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 human rights, 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 Southern African Nature Foundation) had a meeting in Maputo with Mozambique's President Joaquim Chissano to discuss the possibility of a permanent link being established between some of the protected areas in southern Mozambique and their adjacent counterparts in South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. The concept of transborder protected area co-operation through the establishment of "peace parks" was not a new one. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) had long been promoting their establishment because of the many potential benefits associated with them (Hamilton et al., 1996; Westing, 1993). In 1988, IUCN's Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas had identified at least 70 protected areas in 65 countries which straddle national frontiers (Thorsell, 1990). As a result of Rupert's meeting, WWF South Africa was requested to carry out the relevant feasibility study, which was completed and submitted 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 that further studies were required to assess fully the political, socio-economic and ecological aspects of the feasibility study. The Government of Mozambique then requested the Global Environment Facility (GEF) of the World Bank to provide assistance for the project, which was granted. The first mission was fielded in 1991, and in June 1996 the Bank released its recommendations in a report entitled Mozambique: Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional Strengthening Project (World Bank, 1996). The report suggested an important conceptual shift away from the idea of strictly protected national parks towards greater emphasis on multiple resource use by local communities by introducing the Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) concept. In short, TFCAs were defined as relatively large areas, which straddle frontiers between two or more countries and cover large-scale natural systems encompassing one or more protected areas. Very often both human and animal populations traditionally migrated across or straddled the political boundaries concerned. In essence, TFCAs extend far beyond designated protected areas, and can incorporate such innovative approaches as biosphere reserves and a wide range of community based natural resource management programmes (World Bank, 1996). (The Peace Parks Foundation subsequently adopted this new paradigm.) As a result of the political constraints prevalent in southern Africa at the time of the initiation of the GEF funded programme in Mozambique, only limited attention could be given to the development of formal links between the three main participating countries i.e. Mozambique, Zimbabwe and South Africa, and unfortunately this persisted throughout the duration of the study. Two years after the election of Nelson Mandela, South Africa was experiencing a rapid and significant growth in its nature-based tourism industry, but very few of the benefits associated with this growth were being made available to Mozambique. These concerns prompted Anton Rupert to request another meeting with President Chissano, and this was held on 27 May 1996. At this meeting, Rupert emphasized the significant economic benefits that could accrue to Mozambique if the proposed TFCAs were implemented. The Maputo discussions were followed by a Transfrontier Park Initiative meeting in the Kruger National Park 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 cooperate 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 park concept was not only growing within the country, but also in the neighbouring states. For the first time, southern Africa was being seen as a tourist destination, not just South Africa or other countries on their own, and an integral part of this vision was the development of TFCAs or peace 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 a separate body was set up to co-ordinate and drive the process of TFCA establishment and funding, these areas would not receive the attention that was required to make them a reality on the ground. Accordingly, the Peace Parks Foundation was established on 1 February 1997 with an initial grant of Rand 1.2 million (US$ 260,000) from Anton Rupert to facilitate the establishment of TFCAs in southern Africa. Objectives of the Peace Parks Foundation The Peace Parks Foundation has been constituted and established in South Africa as an Association incorporated under Section 21 i.e. a company "not for gain". It has virtually all the powers of a normal company, but cannot have shareholders, and no profits can be paid to supporting members. The Foundation is managed by a Board of Directors under the Chairmanship of Anton Rupert, and has four Honorary Patrons, namely President Nelson Mandela of South Africa, President Sam Nujoma of Namibia, President Bakili Muluzi of Malawi and His Majesty King Letsie III of Lesotho. Invitations to become a Patron have also been extended to the Heads of State in Botswana, Mozambique, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. The overall objective of the Foundation is to facilitate the development of a regional international partnership to promote job creation and biodiversity conservation involving Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe. Specific objectives include the following: Raise and allocate funds to projects (essentially of a capital nature) which will further the establishment and management of TFCAs. These projects will have been approved and recommended to the Foundation by the relevant conservation agencies responsible for managing the TFCAs. Assist with the identification of land to be acquired for the development of the TFCAs, taking into account the rights and circumstances of communities living on such land. The Foundation will 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 environmental and conservation practices and principles, and whenever possible and practical, involving local communities.

♦ ♦

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

135

Promote the case for TFCAs nationally and internationally in terms of their economic viability, ecological sustainability, and their contribution to the conservation of global biodiversity. Every effort will be made to promote the recognition of TFCAs as World Heritage sites if applicable. Special attention will be given to promoting broad-based education programmes for residents in or adjacent to the TFCAs.

Following discussions with South Africa's National Parks Board and Natal Parks Board and with conservation agencies in neighbouring countries, seven potential TFCAs have been identified for initial support by the Foundation (Map 1). In the text that follows, the first six are listed from the west to the east of the region, ending with the Drakensberg/Maloti TFCA to the south. Transfrontier Conservation Areas supported by the Peace Parks Foundation 1. Richtersveld / Ai-Ais TFCA. This proposed TFCA spans some of the most spectacular scenery of the arid and desert environments of southern Africa, incorporating the Fish River Canyon (often equated to the Grand Canyon in the USA) and the Ai-Ais hot springs. It is 6,222 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, which was proclaimed in 1991 as South Africa's only fully contractual National Park, and the Ai-Ais Nature 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 parts of the species-rich Succulent Karoo biome, partly the result of two different rainfall systems and 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 hotspot of biodiversity. Many of the species of fauna found in the area are adapted to withstand the harsh, arid climate (between 15 and 300 mm of rain each year, and summer temperatures well over 40oC). Fifty-six species of mammals have been recorded, including eight Red Data Book species. 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 being populated 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 African National Parks Board on the subject of the formal establishment of the proposed TFCA, but no agreement or joint management plan exists. The Peace Parks Foundation subsequently met with Namibia's Minister of Environment and Tourism on 18 July 1997 to facilitate the development of the TFCA. The Minister reiterated Namibia's strong support for the initiative. A formal liaison committee needs to be established between the two countries to advance the process, and to address one of the main challenges associated with the implementation of the TFCA, namely the rehabilitation of the diamond mining areas on both sides of the Orange River. The TFCA has limited visitor facilities. In the Richtersveld National Park, there are five unserviced campsites and three guesthouses. The Ai-Ais Hot Springs and the Fish River Canyon has much more extensive tourist accommodation facilities. The whole of the TFCA is closed to visitors during the hot summer months (November to March). The opening of the TFCA would greatly facilitate movement from the Richtersveld to the Fish River Canyon and Hot 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 National Parks 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 the land as a national park in accordance with a management plan agreed to by all the parties for a minimum period of 30 years. The area will continue to be used by 26 semi-nomadic pastoralists and their stock.

2. Gariep TFCA. This is the least developed of all the seven proposed TFCAs, and is still at the concept stage. As with the Richtersveld/ Ai-Ais, the area is also centered along a stretch of the Orange River which forms the international boundary between South Africa and Namibia. The proposed TFCA is 2,774 km2 in extent, of which 2,007 km2 (72%) are in South Africa, and a further 767 km2 (28%) in Namibia (Map 3). It comprises an arid area characterized by broken terrain with deep sandy dry river gorges flowing down to the Orange River from both sides. The river itself has unique clusters of islands in several places, creating a similar effect as found in river deltas. These islands support untouched stands of riverine bush, a representative of the Orange River Nama Karoo vegetation type, only 1.5% of which is presently conserved. Inland on the South African side are relatively untransformed areas of typical Namaqualand Broken Veld, with a unique "forest" of Aloe dichotoma. The proposed TFCA has the potential to be a major new sanctuary for the conservation of the black rhinoceros (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 have accepted the concept, but no formal discussions have taken place. In the first six months of 1997, irrigation development for the production of table grapes has extended into the heart of the proposed TFCA, causing significant land transformations, and this will necessitate a revision of the proposed boundaries. The Peace Parks Foundation is waiting for advice on this matter 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, and should be formally ratified by Botswana and South Africa early in 1998. The proposed TFCA is 37,991 km2 in extent, of which 9,591 km2 (27%) are in South Africa with the remainder in Botswana (Map 4). This TFCA has been de facto in existence since 1948 through a verbal agreement between South Africa and Botswana, and is comprised of the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park in South Africa (proclaimed in 1931), and the Gemsbok National Park in Botswana (proclaimed in 1971), and subsequently extended to incorporate the Mabuasehube Game Reserve. The area represents an increasingly rare phenomenon in Africa, namely a large ecosystem relatively free of human influence. The 60 mammalian species recorded include large herds of ungulates, (springbok, gemsbok and blue wildebeest, and to a lesser extent hartebeest and eland). These ungulates support many carnivores and the TFCA has built up a deserved reputation as one on the best places in southern Africa to see cheetah and prides of lion. Leopard, spotted hyaena and brown hyaena are also well represented. A total of 264 bird species have been recorded, including many species endemic to the arid south west region of southern Africa. Shrubby Kalahari Dune Bushveld predominates, with the Thorny 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 the Department 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 management of the area as a single ecological unit. The TFCA has been formally named as the Kalahari Transfrontier Park, and the Kalahari Transfrontier Park Management Plan was reviewed and approved by the two conservation agencies early in 1997. The Plan provides a basis for cooperative tourism ventures33, and proposes the sharing of entrance fees equally by both countries. An integral feature of the new agreement is that each country will provide and
The Development Strategies section of the Plan deals at length with allowable forms of tourism and the proposed zoning system for the park, which indicate the degree of protection accorded. Each zone has its own management and development policies. Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 137
33

maintain its own tourism facilities and infrastructure, giving particular attention to developing and involving neighbouring communities (NPB (South Africa) and DWNP(Botswana), 1997). The Transfrontier Management Committee is in the process of establishing a Section 21 company "The Kalahari Transfrontier Park Company" to manage and control the financial aspects of the programme. There are three rest camp on the South African side of the TFCA run by the National Parks Board, each with chalets and camping facilities. At present, only camping facilities are available on the Botswana side of the border. The Management plan recognizes the importance of expanding visitor facilities, but the capacities for each of the zones and the siting of new camps has still not been decided. Dongola / Limpopo Valley TFCA. This proposed TFCA is 4,872 km2 in extent, of which 2,561 km2 (53%) is in South Africa, 1,350 km2 (28%) is in Botswana, and 960 km2 (19%) is in Zimbabwe (Map 5). The TFCA is centered at the confluence of the Limpopo and Shashe Rivers. It is made up of a complex mosaic of land ownership, including land owned by the state, National Parks Board and private landowners in South Africa, privately owned land in Botswana (including the Tuli Block Game Reserve and cattle/game ranches), and a mixture of communal lands, privately owned stock and game farming operations and a government owned safari area in Zimbabwe. In South Africa, after a long and often acrimonious debate dating back to 1944 (Carruthers, 1992), an agreement that paved the way for the proclamation of a national park in the vicinity of the Limpopo–Shashe confluence was signed on 9 June 1995 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 has excellent potential as a "big five" conservation area. Viable populations of lion, leopard, and cheetah still occur, and the population of 600 elephants in Botswana is the largest population on 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 white rhino. No detailed information is available on birds, reptiles and amphibians found specifically within the TFCA, although the area around the confluence of the two rivers is known to have a great diversity of birdlife. Three main vegetation communities are recognized in the region: the riparian fringe occurs along the main rivers and their tributaries, the Acacia-Salvadora community occurs on the Limpopo flats and vlei areas, and the mixed western mopane veld occurs on ridges and flats south of the riparian fringe and flood plains. Twenty-six Red Data Book plant species have been recorded in the area. The proposed TFCA also has numerous archaeological sites dating from the early Stone Age, including Mapungubwe Hill, a site of major 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 of South Africa and with the private landowners to establish an agreed South African position on landownership issues related to the proposed TFCA. In August 1997, the Foundation assisted the Board with the purchase of a farm adjacent to the Limpopo River for incorporation in the TFCA. Most of the private landowners on the Botswana side have indicated their willingness to participate in the TFCA, and they have the support of Botswana's Department of Wildlife and National Parks. Prospects appear equally as encouraging in Zimbabwe. The National Parks Board of South Africa has had preliminary discussions on the implementation of the TFCA with their counterparts from the two neighbouring countries, but no formal agreements have been concluded, and no joint development plan exists. The Board is actively involved in establishing a core area for the proposed TFCA on the South Africa side of the border, which it will own and manage as a Schedule 1 National Park. A major constraint to the movement of animals in the area is the presence of the veterinary cordon fence and an electrified military barrier on the South 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/historical assets 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 within South Africa. In Zimbabwe, the Tuli Circle Safari Area in Zimbabwe is used extensively for hunting by permit. The proposed national park on the South African side of the TFCA could attract 30,000 additional visitors per year. All three counties have potential for private sector investment in ecotourism development. Kruger / Banhine – Zinave / Gonarezhou TFCA. This is the largest of the seven proposed TFCAs. 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 most substantial and impressive conservation areas in the world (Map 6). With more species of big game than any other tract of land of equivalent size, the TFCA has the potential to become one of Africa's premier ecotourism destinations. The South African side will incorporate Africa's first national park, the Kruger National Park, which was proclaimed on 31 May 1926, and a number of privately owned areas on the western boundary of the park. Zimbabwe's portion of the 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. In Mozambique the TFCA will incorporate the Coutada 16 Wildlife Utilization Area immediately adjacent to the Kruger National Park, the Zinave National Park, which was originally proclaimed as a safari hunting area in 1962 and as a national park in 1972, Banhine National Park which was established in 1972, and a large area of state owned communal land with a relatively low population density34. Kruger National Park alone is one of the major areas of vertebrate diversity in southern Africa, with 147 species of mammals, 505 species of birds, 51 fish, 35 amphibians, and 119 reptiles. Several of these are Red Data Book species. The Gonarezhou National Park has a similarly diverse vertebrate fauna, although the total number of species and of individuals is lower. Elephants and several species of ungulates used to move freely between South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe before fences divided the area. Unfortunately, the many years of civil war in Mozambique coupled with recurrent droughts and a serious lack of management capacity has resulted in the decimation or even complete elimination of most of the large and medium-sized mammals from Zinave and Banhine National Parks and from the intermediate areas. The extent of the decline is difficult to determine because no systematic surveys have been carried out in this part of Mozambique for over 20 years. The plant life of the proposed TFCA is equally as diverse, varying from tropical to subtropical with some temperate forms occurring at higher altitudes. Nearly 2,000 species of vascular plants have been collected in the Kruger National Park alone. The proposed TFCA is also of great cultural-historical value, as underlined by the recent discovery of archeological sites at Thulamela Hill in the Kruger National Park from the gold and ivory culture which prevailed from about 1200 to 1640 AD (Branch, 1988; Carruthers, 1995; Gelderblom et al., 1997; Greyling & Huntley, 1984; Jacana Education and the National Parks Board, 1996; Nel, 1996; Sinclair & Whyte, 1991). As described at the start of this paper, discussions between South Africa and Mozambique at a variety of levels have been taking place since 1990. A Transfrontier Committee was established in 1997 involving representatives from the conservation agencies from the two countries, but no formal agreement is in place. The Peace Parks Foundation has been asked to join the Committee. Some preliminary discussions have taken place between conservation agencies in Zimbabwe and representatives of the National Parks Board of South Africa and the Peace Parks Foundation, but once again no formal agreement is in place. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Trust Fund has granted US$ 5 million to Mozambique for the "Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional Strengthening Project". There is a total 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 limited slash and burn agriculture taking place. An estimated 7,800 people are settled along the Limpopo River in or immediately adjacent to Coutada 16 (World Bank, 1996). Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 139

and considerable progress should be made with the initial phases of the project in 1998. On the Mozambique side of the border priority activities must address the problems of increasing human encroachment into the area, ongoing poaching, a lack of staff, funds and capacity to rehabilitate and restock the existing designated protected areas, and deforestation for fuelwood collection and charcoal production. Existing settlements will be incorporated into the TFCA, and no attempt will be made to force people to relocate to other areas. Rather, every effort will be made to develop outreach programmes to offer people opportunities to work with conservation and/or tourism development activities. In South Africa, the Makuleke people have lodged a land claim for land between the Luvuvhu and Limpopo Rivers from which they were removed in 1969 to make this area part of the Kruger National Park. This justifiable claim needs urgent attention, and must be handled with a great deal of sensitivity. There is already an extensive and well developed tourism infrastructure within the Kruger National Park, with 25 rest camps of various sizes providing 4,056 beds as well as 405 caravan/camping sites. These are complemented by the more "upmarket" accommodation provided in the numerous private conservation areas adjoining the park. Facilities generally are far less developed in Gonarezhou, with just one rest camp providing 21 beds, and a small number of camping sites. In Mozambique, Coutada 16 has a small tourist camp operated by a private contractor. There are no facilities in Zinave or in Banhine National Parks, and access is difficult. There is great potential for commercial tourism development on the Mozambique side of the TFCA, but this will not succeed unless coupled with a significant effort to make progress 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 Lebombo Hills in the west and the Indian Ocean in the east, and offers a unique combination of big game, extensive wetlands and coastal areas. The TFCA is 4,195 km2 in extent, of which 317 km2 (8%) is in Swaziland, 2,783 km2 (66%) is in Mozambique, and 1,095 km2 (26%) is in South Africa (Map 7). In Swaziland, the King holds all the land in trust for the nation. The proposed TFCA will eventually incorporate Hlane National Park, and the Mlawula, Simunye and Mbuluzi Nature Reserves, a small section of Sisa Ranch and Malahleni dispersal area, all of which are in the process of being incorporated into a new conservancy. The Maputo Elephant Reserve in Mozambique was established in 1932, and was subsequently increased in size in 1969. All the remainder of the land in the country is state owned communal land, with a relatively low population 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 Elephant Reserve in 1983. The consolidated area will be particularly important for elephant conservation. Tembe (90 – 100 elephants) and Maputo Elephant Reserve (approximately 200 elephants) are the only indigenous populations remaining on the coastal plains of southern Mozambique and KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa) in protected areas, and the two areas would be linked together. The 102 species of mammals include both black and white rhino, and other Red Data Book mammals include samango monkey, suni and red duiker. Unfortunately, severe poaching has reduced or even eliminated several species of large mammals from the Mozambican side. Of the more than 427 bird species found in the area, four species and 43 subspecies are endemic to the Maputaland Centre of Endemism. In the Ndumu Game Reserve alone, 416 bird species have been recorded. The 112 species of reptiles include the loggerhead and leatherback turtles, which nest along the extensive beaches. The vegetation of Maputaland falls within the savanna biome, and consists primarily of Subhumid Lowveld Bushveld and Natal Lowveld Bushveld, with limited Coastal Bushveld–Grassland, a complex mosaic of savanna, sand forest, grassland, dune forest, floodplain, pan systems and swamp communities. The conservation of these sand forests and their associated fauna in particular is important, as this habitat type is very limited in extent. The world's largest remaining area of sand forest (5 km wide and 20 km long) lies to the north of Ndumu Game Reserve in Mozambique. 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 contains an 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 the northernmost extent of many of the southern African species. It also contains many endemics spread over the whole taxonomic spectrum. The proposed TFCA is the core of the Maputaland centre of endemism, which was recently recognized as the only centre of plant diversity in Mozambique35. The TFCA also has a strong cultural history. In Swaziland, near the proposed TFCA, archeologists have made several interesting discoveries, including a very rare record of modern man dating back 110,000 years, as well as many Early and Middle Stone 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 involving South Africa, Mozambique and Swaziland have been taking place since 1990. The GEF allocation 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 tourism development concession to Blanchard-Mozambique Enterprises (BME) to develop an area of 2,300 km2 from Inhaca Island south to the Mozambique – South Africa border. This area includes all the land to the east of the Maputo River up to the coast and also the Maputo Elephant Reserve. BME has made a commitment to make available over US$ 800 million for a variety of enterprises in the region. This concession is by far the most significant private sector investment in a protected area anywhere in Africa. A Joint Management Committee has been established to co-ordinate the activities of the BME project with other initiatives. It is not clear at this stage how this programme will be co-ordinated with the Lubombo Spatial Development Initiative, which was set up in 1997 by a Trilateral Ministerial Committee to develop a range of transnational and national projects (including "cross-border conservation areas") within the proposed 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 game scouts for one year in the Maputo Elephant Reserve, (a project it is carrying out with the assistance of the Endangered Wildlife Trust's Mozambique's office) and will give priority to other requests from the Mozambique Government for this area. On 9 July 1997, the Peace Parks Foundation convened a meeting in Swaziland to introduce the concept of TFCAs in general, and to discuss Swaziland's involvement in the Maputo TFCA in particular. The meeting was unanimous in its support for the TFCA, and agreed to set up a committee to further the establishment of the proposed conservancy in the area. An important component of the development of the TFCA, which needs further attention, is the whole process of community consultation and involvement. Although a number of workshops have been held to inform local communities of progress, a great deal more needs to be done. The additional priority 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 western boundary of the Maputo Elephant Reserve to the western boundary of the Tembe Elephant Reserve. The extraordinary biodiversity of this TFCA, coupled with its magnificent scenery, makes this area yet another potentially significant new southern African tourist destination. Existing tourist facilities are concentrated on the South African side of the border. Ndumu Game Reserve has a good network of roads, seven three-bed cottages, and a small luxury lodge. Tembe Elephant Reserve has adequate roads and three tented camps. In Swaziland, Hlane National Park has good roads, one small camp offering rustic accommodation and a more modern camp with three self-contained cottages. Two camping sites are available in the Mlawula Nature Reserve. In the Maputo Elephant Reserve, access is at present restricted to 4x4 vehicles. There are many opportunities throughout this TFCA for private sector investment in the tourism industry.

35

International centres of plant diversity are selected globally as first order sites, which if conserved will safeguard the greatest number of plant species (van Wyk, 1994). Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 141

Drakensberg / Maloti TFCA. The Drakensberg is the highest region in South Africa. The proposed 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 altitude protected area in the subcontinent, supporting unique montane and subalpine ecosystems. The area has spectacular scenery, as well as being an important centre of endemism for montane plant species. The high altitude streams, oxbow lakes and wetlands, coupled with the high annual rainfall (800 mm at lower altitude to 2,000 mm near the escarpment) make a major contribution to the provision of water for the urban and industrial complexes in the South African provinces of Gauteng and Mpumalanga, and this will be further enhanced through the Lesotho Highlands Water Project which is presently under construction in Lesotho. On the South African side of the border, a number of provincial nature reserves have been combined together with state forests, wilderness areas and nature reserves proclaimed in terms of the Forest Act to form the Natal Drakensberg Park. This is now being managed by the Natal Parks Board as a statutory protected area, incorporating Giants Castle Game Reserve, Royal Natal National Park, Loteni Nature Reserve, Vergelegen Nature Reserve, Rugged Glen Nature Reserve, and the state forests at Cathedral Peak, Monks Cowl, Highmoor, Mkhomazi, Cobham and Garden Castle. The continuity of the protected area on the South African side of the border between the Royal Natal National Park and Cathedral Peak is broken by the amaNgwane Tribal Area. However, several members of the resident local community have already expressed interest in having the Tribal Area developed for a variety of ecotourism progammes 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 in terms of IUCN protected area categories. Portions of the alpine belt of Lesotho have been earmarked as a Managed Resource Area in terms of the Managed Resource Order No.18 of 1993. The proposed TFCA is home to a variety of ungulates, including bushbuck, eland, reedbuck, mountain reedbuck, grey rhebok, klipspringer, and oribi although numbers are generally low. About 246 species of birds have been recorded, of which 14 are listed in the Red Data Book. The Tsoelikana River harbours the highly threatened Maloti/Drakensberg minnow Oreodaimon zuathlambae which was thought to be extinct. The vegetation of the TFCA falls within the grassland biome, and consists mainly of Alti Mountain Grassland with some Moist Upland Grassland in the lower-lying areas. An estimated 30% of the plant species within this biome are endemic to the Drakensberg. There are also several areas of Afromontane forest in the sheltered valleys. Both sides of the border contain important archaeological sites in the form of some outstanding examples of San cave paintings and artefacts. With the combination of these exceptional natural and cultural features, the whole TFCA deserves nomination as a World Heritage Site. The entire Natal Drakensberg Park has already been accepted for listing under the Ramsar Convention as a wetland of international importance. The harsh climatic conditions have deterred permanent settlement within the TFCA with the exception of a few recent isolated exceptions, although the Lesotho side is used 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 negotiations are ongoing. Initially these took place under the aegis of an Intergovernmental Liaison Committee. This was halted in 1993 after the election in Lesotho, but was continued in 1996 by the Natal Parks Board working closely with the National Environmental Secretariat of Lesotho. In the same year, the Natural Resources Institute of UK's Overseas Development Administration prepared and submitted a proposal for European Union funding for a major conservation programme in a 1,000 km2 pilot area of the TFCA within Lesotho (Natural Resources Institute, 1996). Expected key outputs will be comprehensive strategies for livestock husbandry, natural resource conservation, ecotourism, environmental education and extension, and sustainable land use. ECU 2 million was subsequently granted from the Lome III Indicative Programme. In July 1997 a representative of the Peace Parks Foundation attended a meeting in Maseru with representatives of the Natal Parks Board and the National Environment 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 Steering Committee 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 Game Reserve. All the reserves have campsites and self-catering chalets. The higher mountains have 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 raised by the following three main methods. 1. Membership of the Peace Parks Club. The Foundation has launched a Peace Parks Club, and His Royal Highness Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands has accepted the appointment as the President of the Club. A package of travel and accommodation benefits is available for Club members for a period of ten years on receipt of a one-off payment (Peace Parks Club, 1997). One thousand individuals are being invited to become Individual Founder Members (US$ 5,000 each), together with 100 Corporate Founder Members (US$ 50,000 each). 2. Grants from bilateral and multilateral aid agencies. 3. Grants and donations from individuals, corporations, Trusts and Foundations. REFERENCES Acocks,J.P.H.(1988) Veld types of South Africa. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South Africa 57:1-146. Bainbridge,W.R. and Motsami,B. (1995) Project motivation document. Greater DrakensbergMaloti Mountain Region: Community Development and Conservation Programme. Lesotho National Environment Secretariat, Maseru, and Planning Division, Natal Parks Board, Pietermaritzburg. 45pp. Bezuidenhout,H.(1997) Preliminary report on the vegetation of the possible transfrontier Onseepkans 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. Rhodes University, Grahamstown. Carruthers,J.(1992) The Dongola Wild Life Sanctuary: 'psychological blunder, economic folly and 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 Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg. Cravinho, J.G. (1997) Economy of Mozambique. In: Africa South of the Sahara 1997.pp 664670. Europa Publications, London. de Villiers,N.N. (1994) The Open Africa Initiative. OAI, Claremont. Eloff,F. (1984) The Kalahari ecosystem. Koedoe supplement: 11-20

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

143

Gelderblom,C.,van Wilgen,B.W. and Rossouw,N.(1997) Proposed Transfrontier Conservation Areas. Maps and preliminary data sheets. Prepared for the Peace Parks Foundation by the 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 of Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens, Vol. 15. Hamilton,L.S., Mackay,J.C., Worboys,G.L., Jones,R.A. and Manson,G.B. (1996) Transborder Protected Areas Cooperation. Australian Alps Liaison Committee and IUCN, Canberra. 64 pp. IUCN (1990) 1990 United Nations list of national parks and protected areas. World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. 275 pp. Jacana Education and National Parks Board. (1966) Kruger Park. Visitors map. Jacana Education, 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. Southern Book 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. Heritage Site. National Parks Board, Pretoria. 13pp. A World

National Parks Board (South Africa) and Department of Wildlife and National Parks (Botswana) (1997) Kalahari Transfrontier Park Management Plan. NPB, South Africa and DWNP, Botswana. Natural Resources Institute (1996) Outline project proposal for the European Union funding for the Drakensberg-Maloti Mountains conservation progamme. Overseas Development Administration, 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 Parks Foundation, 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 southern Africa. National Parks Board, Pretoria. 23 pp. Sinclair,I. and Whyte,I. (1991) Field guide to the birds of the Kruger National Park. Struik, Cape Town.

Smith,F.H. (1997) Some factors to consider in the conservation of the Drakensberg Water Catchment Area of KwaZulu-Natal. South African Journal of Environmental Law and Policy. 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 Transfrontier Natural Resource Area. Prepared for SANF. 13 pp and 4 maps. van Jaarsveld,E. (1991) A preliminary report on the vegetation of the Richtersveld with specific reference 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 and Mozambique. 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 African plants. van der Mensen et al. (Eds.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands. Westing,A.H. (1992) Protected natural areas and the military. Environmental Conservation 19:343-348. 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.pp 3-10. Europa Publications, London. World Bank (1996) Mozambique. Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional Strengthening Project. Report No.15534-MOZ , Agriculture and Environment Division, Southern Africa Department, The World Bank. 17 pp, with maps and appendices.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

145

146

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

147

148

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

149

150

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

151

152

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

153

154

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

THE IMPACT OF WAR ON PROTECTED AREAS IN CENTRAL AFRICA. CASE STUDY OF VIRUNGA 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 covered by three protected areas in three countries. These protected areas, currently managed as national parks are: Parc National des Volcans (PNV, 160 km2) in Rwanda, Parc National des Virungas (PNVi, 240 km2) in Democratic Republic of Congo) and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park (MGNP, 33.7 km2). Parc National des Virungas was Africa's first national park gazetted in 1925 and it was later reclassified as a World Heritage Site because of its internationally recognized unique natural and cultural sites. Straddling the international boundaries of the three countries, the Virunga Volcanoes Region has no physical demarcation along the borders and free ranging animals within the area are transient between the different neighbouring countries. Of notable significance, the region harbors the rare and endangered mountain gorilla, Gorilla gorilla beringei whose total population worldwide is approximately 600 animals. Slightly less than 50% of these are within the Virunga Volcanoes Region (Butynski, T.M., S.E. Werikhe and J. 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 managed under national parks. The Ugandan portion was until 1991 managed as a Forest - and Game Reserve (Werikhe, 1991). Creation of MGNP six years ago elevated its level of protection and matched it with the other two national parks in the region. This was a significant breakthrough in support of conservation and it now seems certain that the three countries recognize the importance and urgent need to safeguard the mountain gorilla and its habitat. The Virunga Volcanoes Region protects a large number of plant and animal species endemic to the Albertine Rift. This marked biological diversity with a high level of endemism is related to the long natural evolution and tormented geological and volcanic history during the PlioPleistocene era (d'Huart, 1989). Human population density in the region is considerably high. At a population density averaging 300 people/km2, there is enormous pressure onto these protected areas for livelihood needs especially fertile land for agriculture, fuel wood, construction wood, coffee plantations, food and lots of other forest products. The conservation policies in place have therefore, been designed to address the above pressures but also ensure a balanced situation with the adjacent 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 mountain gorillas, other taxa and impressive scenery. Some groups of gorillas have been habituated to human presence and are currently viewed by tourists, fetching a fair amount of revenue to the three countries. The substantial amounts of money generated from tourism are used by the Rwanda, Congo and Uganda's Wildlife institutions of Office Rwandais du Tourisme et Parcs Nationaux (ORTPN), Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN), and Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA), respectively to manage conservation activities in the Virunga Volcanoes. During the late 1990, a civil war was waged onto the Rwanda Government and this is reported to have started from the Mutara Region, Rwanda. Launching war from the Mutara was
155 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

deleterious to conservation because of its location in the Virunga Volcanoes Region. Over the years, the war advanced slowly into deeper regions of Rwanda until 1994 when the Rwandese Patriotic Front took over power. This saw over 700,000 refugees fleeing Rwanda to North Kivu District, 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 years since the war broke. They were most seriously felt when refugees camped in or near protected areas and utilized resources therein with impunity. Other negative effects felt included loss of lives of protected area staff, destruction of wildlife species and their habitat, breakdown in communication, 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 REPUBLIC OF CONGO. Refugee Problem In July 1994 a mass exodus of Rwandese refugees took place to Uganda and Democratic Republic of Congo. Congo took in the largest number of the refugees who were given asylum in the region of North and South Kivu near Parc National des Virungas. The refugee crisis aggravated 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 camps on the borders of Parc National des Virungas was a disaster to conservation. Foremost, this settlement contravened the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' (UNHCR) policy against 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 away from the nearest protected area boundary. However, the situation with these refugees was incredibly pathetic and large numbers were perishing on a daily basis. The UNHCR, acting against its own policy, was forced to establish refugee camps in the neighborhood of Africa's oldest 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 the aesthetic 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 on Mt. 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 to fuelwood 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 the ICCN guards went from 913 in 1994 to 2795 in 1995, and the number of machetes went from 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 national park to poach. The unplanned presence of the army in the area did compound the problem of poaching and other forms of illegal utilization.

Decline in Tourism.
156 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

There was a marked decline in tourism over the years due to the high level of insecurity and presence of refugees in the area. Six Italian tourists were unfortunately murdered in cold blood 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 respected and taken seriously. There was a general feeling of lawlessness and disrespect for park authorities especially rangers. The situation was seen as an opportunity to freely and illegally utilize park's resources which had been under strict control previously. No courts of law were available and hence no legal proceedings could be implemented to convict wrong doers. The poachers responsible for killing the gorillas in 1995 were set free and these went back to their villages. 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 was living could not be accessed by guides. With the exclusion of projects, there was no adequate funding to fully cover conservation costs even the overheads. As a result, there were virtually no conservation activities implemented. Yet the security situation needed an active and hardline intervention which was initially supported by GTZ. Seven teams of guards had to patrol day and night in the vicinity of the gorilla groups. The system was very costly and required considerable 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 Army because 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 its surroundings in an effort to scare off or repulse the enemy. Very similar to what happened in PNVi, 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's personnel involved in conservation and protection activities. Increased Poaching. Surveillance patrols were limited to certain parts of the park because elsewhere, it was too dangerous to reach. Dangerous places were heavily mined and infiltrated with large forces of militia. Almost all conservation and protection activities were brought to halt thus paving way for poachers. Animals poached included buffalo, bushbuck, and duiker. Bamboo and fuelwood removal was very rampant. Areas close to the border with Congo were avoided by the park's anti-poaching unit and such areas suffered great loss of wildlife species to poachers. The number of snares collected increased two-fold and much of this was attributed to the presence of refugees in neighbouring Congo. Two gorillas were reported trapped in snares 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 utilization reached high levels when park staff were denied use of arms during patrols. The local people moved into the park to remove forest products and apportioned a chunk of land for cultivation.
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 157

Agricultural encroachment occurred on the lower slopes of the Park where there is a prime habitat 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 local initiatives aimed at coordinating conservation activities in the region. These included communication of information on park infringements, planning and networking meetings to map out strategies for future implementation, organizing combined antipoaching patrols, regional meetings, etc. In essence, conservation activities were moving effectively though informally, 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 activities were frustrated. Regional meetings attended by IGCP National Representatives were supposed to be held quarterly. It was not until 1995 when it was possible to hold the first regional meeting. The meeting was held in Kisoro, Uganda on 31 August 1995 and all representatives from the three countries attended. Due to the continued conflict, the next meeting was held in March 1997 in Kigali and the Congo representatives could not easily make it in time. All subsequent regional meetings with effect from April 1997 have been held without much ado. Destruction of infrastructure. The war caused a lot of confusion and anarchy characteristic of looting of infrastructure and equipment both inside and outside of the park. These included the well equipped Karisoke Research Centre, the National Park Headquarters, the Visitor's Centre, housing quarters for staff, 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 lethal military artillery caused gorillas to flee and scatter in areas other than their home ranges. It became difficult to monitor movements of tourist groups after inevitably abandoning their traditional 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, tourist numbers had risen by 50% thus doubling the amount of revenue to the country. The war eroded 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 almost all the areas. As mentioned above, this was a move acting on suspicion that the Rwanda Patriotic 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 was already a habituated group of gorillas (Nyakagezi/Faida) visiting MGNP from Congo. Werikhe (1991) reports that this group spent approximately 42% in MGNP and this was before the protection level was improved. Uganda expected to begin implementing tourism on this group immediately but was delayed until 1995.

158

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

The intensity and seriousness in patrols declined. The patrols were now conducted only in parts of the morning and afternoon/evening along the Park's boundary yet previously they were carried out both during the day and night and in almost all areas of the Park. Land mines were placed in strategic places of Rugezi Swamp, Kabiranyuma Swamp, and along the international border line. These swamps are prime to wildlife and the local people in the neighbourhood 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 caused by heavy artillery. The tops of Sabinyo, Gahinga and Mhavura were shelled destroying an amount of alpine vegetation and unknown animal species. The alpine flora on tops of the volcanoes 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 rent alternative accommodation beyond Kisoro Town at Mutolere. This was far from the national park, making it difficult to implement park management activities. Refugees Unlike in the PNVi, refugees did not cause much destruction in MGNP. However, about 5,000 of these crossed MGNP on their way to Congo and Kisoro for asylum. On their way, they camped in the park and in the process, used quite an amount of fuelwood and probably poached animals for food. Future of Conservation in the Virunga Volcanoes Region Over the years, conservation in the Virunga Volcanoes Region (VVR) has faced challenging problems, most which, if not all, hinge on the high population pressure and demand for livelihood needs. The loss of huge amounts of forest land to agricultural encroachment, illegal utilization of forest products, poaching and habitat destruction have left just a small percentage of the original abundant resources which must now be actively controlled to ensure their continued existence. Until 1991, only the MGNP (Uganda portion of the Region) was not managed as a national park. The concern of various conservationists worldwide and government authorities enabled for this additional portion be reclassified as a national park thus increasing the protection level of the entire Virunga Volcanoes Region in totality. This was seen as a tremendous step ahead in the evolution of the protection process of the VVR since the declaration of its first portion as a national park seven decades ago. Individual governments' and donor interventions have been implemented in support for conservation in the region. Informal regional initiatives at field staff level in the three countries have shown good progress and with the onset of the IGCP later in 1991 which has been providing technical and logistic support, the regional approach has been emphasized realizing the great potential it has. Before the war interruptions set in, conservation activities like tourism based on gorilla viewing were flourishing. Increase in tourism activities brought in more 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 value and importance of conservation based on biodiversity resources. Infrastructural development, training, employment opportunities, tangible and intangible ecological, socio-economic and cultural benefits cannot be overemphasized. The foregoing indicate that the war has sunk many conservation opportunities and efforts that had been
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 159

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 the three countries responsible do not decide on a common strategy. At this time, potential threats include; a) each country can formulate her own policies however inappropriate they may apply to other portions of the region, b) the region has a high level of endemism and houses one of the world's endangered species (the mountain gorilla) whose home range does not recognize the existing boundaries and could be wiped out at the hands of man anytime, c) the region is surrounded by a fast expanding human population with a correspondingly increasing demand for livelihood needs thus putting the Region under pressure of exploitation and, d) there is no formal international convention, treaty or agreement in the region requiring the three states to become members to implement one legislation for better protection of the resources. It is not too late yet. The three countries can map out a strategy that will ensure long-term existence of resources in this Region. The effects of the recent wars upon conservation in the area are still fresh and a great loss too. Cost of the recovery programme will be enormous yet not everything lost may be recovered. The nature resource-based capital lost in terms of individual wildlife species and related revenue should be an eye-opener to the relevant authorities to protect the Region more adequately than before for posterity. According to Mackinnon, J., K. Mackinnon, G. Child and J. Thorsell (1986), there is no foolproof management prescription to protect parks under circumstances of warfare. However, we need public support and a more condensed international linkage if we must protect this region. We recommend that the three countries manage the Region as an international or peace park. The strengths of this recommendation are;

the Region harbors a unique and extremely important which straddles across three international borders, the individual country's conservation policies differ and however slightly, problem of lack of common conservation strategy, this poses a

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 disappear soon, 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, Tour Operators in Uganda take tourists to Rwanda and Congo when all gorilla permits in Uganda are 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 the Mountain Gorilla in the Gorilla Game Reserve, Uganda. Primate Conservation 11: 31 41.

160

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

d'Huart, J.P. 1989. Bases for the Development of a Coordinated Management of contiguous Protected 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 in the Tropics. IUCN, GLAND, SWITZERLAND. Werikhe, S.E.W. 1991. An Ecological Survey of the Gorilla Game Reserve, South-West Uganda. M Sc Thesis, Makerere University, Kampala.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

161

162

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

POTENTIAL FOR THE CREATION OF A PEACE PARK IN THE VIRUNGA VOLCANO REGION By: Annette Lanjouw36 and José Kalpers37 Introduction The presentation by Werikhe et al. (Session 3) stressed the value of the Virunga Volcano region in terms of biodiversity and demonstrated the variety and level of the threats to these ecosystems. 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 people per km2) with a high growth rate (the rate of population growth in the Great Lakes region averages at 3.1%) (May, 1996), leading to considerable pressure on natural habitats and to harvesting resources from the forest (poaching, collection of wood and bamboo, water and secondary 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 the Rwandan Patriotic Front and the army of the ex-Rwandan government in 1990. The situation then evolved with the presence of hundreds of thousands of refugees concentrated in camps in the Democratic Republic of Congo (ex-Zaïre, DRC), and then finally with the civil war in DRC. Werikhe et al. have described the details of this crisis during their exposé.

Faced with the multitude of problems encountered in the region, it is important to recognise that conservationists were forced to limit themselves to a “reactive” attitude, able only to follow events as they developed and intervening only there where security conditions allowed and when finances, however modest, were available (Thorsell, 1991). At no point was it possible to realistically predict events and plan activities according to pre-established scenarios, for example (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 approaches can specifically look at some of the difficulties associated with transfrontier co-operation between the countries sharing the Virunga massif: Rwanda, Uganda and DRC. This paper proposes to consider one of the possible approaches, namely the establishment of a “Peace Park” 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 Foundation and other conservation organisations) in 1979 (Vedder & Weber, 1990), contacts were established between the authorities in Rwanda and Uganda, although generally on an informal basis. Later, activities were also initiated in DRC (activities implemented by the Frankfurt Zoological 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 ad hoc 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.Box 48177, Nairobi, Kenya. Email: alanjouw@awfke.org
37

Technical Associate, International Gorilla Conservation Programme. Current address: Service d'Ethologie, Université de Liège, Quai Van Beneden, 22, B-4020 Liège, Belgium. Email: 100657.707@compuserve.com

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

163

however, or specific problems linked to the visits by tourists to gorilla groups that tended to move along and across the frontier zone between Rwanda and DRC. It was only in 1989 that the conservation of afromontane forest ecosystems became the subject of a regional forum, with the organisation of the first seminar-workshop on the conservation of afromontane forests, held at Cyangugu in Rwanda. Subsequently, other conferences were organised at Bujumbura (Burundi) in 1992 and at Mbarara (Uganda) in 1994. These workshops provided the opportunity for the different countries with afromontane forests to forge links and for some to initiate, or reinforce contacts with the objective of improving the management of transfrontier protected areas (ex.: Kibira-Nyungwe, Virunga massif, Mount Elgon, Ruwenzori massif). Although they provided the opportunity to formally bring together protected area managers and national authorities of a number of African countries, the conferences were organised sporadically. Follow-up between the different sessions of the workshops was generally superficial, limited to the drafting of workshop-reports for each session and the organisation of the next workshop, without monitoring and supervision of the implementation of recommendations. In 1991, the coalition of three organisations that financed the Mountain Gorilla Project in Rwanda (the African Wildlife Foundation, Fauna and Flora International and the World Wide Fund 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 of mountain gorillas and their habitat, the medium- and high altitude forests of Rwanda, Uganda and DRC. IGCP works towards this goal in close collaboration with the protected area authorities in the three countries (IGCP, 1996). To date, IGCP has had to work in particularly difficult circumstances as its conception coincided with the beginning of the “Great Lakes crisis”. Nevertheless, at a regional level, a number of achievements have been made:

organisation and facilitation of bilateral and trilateral meetings between the protected area managers of the 4 national parks included in the programme (Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Volcanoes National Park, Virunga National Park and Bwindi Impenetrable National Park); 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 and ecological 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 of biodiversity conservation and at the political-diplomatic level. For the conservation of biodiversity A peace park enables a homogeneous and concerted approach to management and conservation of the transfrontier zone

164

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Although the three protected areas concerned form part of the same forest block, it has become apparent in the past that their management is based on principles that are sometimes very different. We will not enter into the details of these differences, but the principal ones are identified here: protection/surveillance systems (anti-poaching patrols, amongst others); tourism programmes (especially with respect to the utilisation of “alternative” attractions, or, in other words, attractions other than the visits to the gorillas); community-based conservation approaches, etc. A peace park would provide a mechanism whereby these differences could be minimised in order to arrive at a uniform management system that could be applied in the three sites. This could include, for example, the elaboration of integrated conservation plans serving as overall strategies for the conservation of these ecosystems or species (Oates, 1996), or the development of plans focusing on certain flagship species (such as the gorilla). The advantage of such an approach is to weaken the “virtual barriers” separating the three national parks and to arrive at a common approach to management. If only for the long-term conservation of the population of mountain gorillas in the Virunga massif, the concept of a peace park has a great deal of merit. The recent conclusions of Sarmiento et al.(1996), suggesting that the mountain gorilla is to be found only in the Virunga volcanoes, still reinforce the significance of a concerted approach between the three countries. By merit of its prestige and institutional foundation, a peace attraction for the outside world park constitutes a pole of

For several decades, the mountain gorilla has attracted the attention of the international community: the work of pioneers such as Schaller (1963) and Fossey (1983) have drawn the attention of the conservation community, by emphasising the extreme vulnerability of this great ape and close relative to humans. Since then, a number of conservation initiatives have been launched in the region. These initiatives were not always co-ordinated between the different external partners responsible for implementation, nor even between the authorities in the three countries that were beneficiaries of the support. The creation of a peace park in the Virungas would add to the traditional renown of the mountain gorilla the prestige of an original and creative initiative such as a transfrontier conservation zone. Such a double attraction would draw the attention of external donors and render 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 the conservation of mountain gorillas for more than ten years. It would be fair to say that due, in part, to the visits to habituated families of gorillas by tourists, conservationists in the region have managed to protect the Virunga massif and its population of mountain gorillas. This biological resource has been given a significant economic connotation. Although tourism to gorillas has been developed in all three countries, the demand at times exceeds the available places and not all visitors can be satisfied. This sometimes leads to considerable pressures being placed on the resource, emanating from both the private sector (tour operators) and even some official authorities (Aveling, 1991; Stewart, 1992). A peace park would be of value in 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 a concerted strategy would be to “dilute” the pressure on natural resources from tourism by dividing the demand more equitably between the three countries. Objectives at a political and diplomatic level

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

165

A peace park would intensify the contacts between the three national protected area authorities Contacts developed under the aegis of a peace park represent a remarkable opportunity for the intensification of regional co-operation in the field of biodiversity conservation. This will also facilitate the harmonisation of conservation policies, not only for the three national parks concerned, but at a national level in each of the three countries. It would therefore be possible to 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, the creation of a peace park would represent a positive action by the three concerned countries, a symbol of their respective desire to take the path of conflict resolution. Far from pretending to be a solution to the crisis that has enveloped this region of Central Africa, a peace park represents a “cornerstone in the building of long-term peace” and its value, albeit only symbolic, 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 parks concerned speak the same language group (Kinyarwanda and Rukiga), and b) Rwanda has recently 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 basis of similar administrative and bureaucratic systems. In Uganda, on the other hand, the official administration is based on the Anglo-Saxon system. These differences could have potentially negative repercussions on efforts at harmonising management approaches in the three protected 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 of conservation 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, whereas Bwindi Impenetrable National Park is central in terms of both biodiversity conservation and 2 economic development. The Mikeno sector (ca. 250 km ) of the Virunga National Park in DRC represents only a tiny portion of a very large protected area covering about 8,000 km2, but is nevertheless very important in bringing in substantial tourism revenues. The differences in relative importance, although they may appear insignificant, could also have a negative impact on the degree to which the different governments are willing to invest in the creation of a peace park. Potential constraints Diplomatic context

166

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Although diplomatic relations between the three countries concerned are currently excellent, the recent past has demonstrated that tensions have existed and that they can seriously undermine the climate of confidence existing at a regional level. It is always possible that a deterioration of diplomatic relations could occur that would slow the process of development or effective 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 is intensified in this case by the fact that the region is only recently coming out of a period of civil war where the Virunga massif served as an entry point and passage way for groups of armed forces. Security is currently still a problem, as the forest is being used by armed forces and militias. Therefore border crossings have to be thoroughly checked, complicating ease of passage and making relaxation of immigration formalities for effective co-management impossible Legislative and institutional framework Institutional framework In each of the three countries, management and conservation of protected areas is the responsibility of parastatal organisations falling under the jurisdiction of ministerial departments. Werikhe et al. have described the three protected area authorities and we will not enter into the details. The fact that we are dealing with comparable field management structures is already a strength in fostering transfrontier collaboration between the three countries. 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 the rapprochement between the managers of the three national parks, and the implementation of common 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 (IUCN classification, category II), international recognition differs between the sites: the Virunga National Park is a World Heritage Site, the Volcanoes National Park is part of the Man and the Biosphere Programme (UNESCO), whereas the Mgahinga Gorilla National Park has no internationally recognised status. These differences constitute a challenge to the harmonisation of management approaches in the three sites, and priority should be given to the inclusion of Rwanda to the World Heritage Convention. Role of international conventions A number of treaties and conventions exist that could significantly contribute to the establishment of a regional structure such as a peace park:

Firstly, there exist a series of general agreements providing guidelines for co-operative relations between nation states, such as the Charter of the United Nations (San Francisco, 1945), the United Nations General Assembly Declaration of Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (New York, 1970), or the Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972). These agreements stimulate signatory nations to deal with differences between themselves in a peaceful manner and underline the necessity for co-operation between nations.
167

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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 World Charter 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 uniformity in approach to management and international context.

At a regional level Outside of a number of general bilateral agreements, mechanisms for regional co-operation between the three countries concerned have already been established. These mechanisms include components for the environment and for tourism: a) the Economic Community of the Great Lakes Countries (CEPGL) includes DRC, Burundi, and Rwanda. CEPGL was established in 1976 and recognises the role of environmental protection in sustainable development and the regional nature of many of the environmental issues for the Great Lakes region; b) the Organisation of the Kagera Basin (OBK) includes Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania and Uganda, and promotes industrial and economic co-operation in the region; c) the Preferential Trade Area (PTA) was a regional organisation that included Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and DRC, with the objective of promoting preferential trade between its member 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 for the three constituents of the Virunga conservation area. Some of these steps can overlap in timing, 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 and facilitator throughout the preparatory process and establishment of the park, following the model developed for the Indochina reserve for peace and nature (Westing, 1993). Such a neutral body could be a non-governmental organisation (ex.: IUCN/WCPA), an operational programme in the field (ex: IGCP) or a United Nations agency (ex: UNEP, or one of its dependant structures such as GEF). A number of activities have already been implemented in at least two of the three countries concerned. These activities were initiated independently and supported by the same external partners: IGCP has been involved for many years in tourism development, day-to-day management and administration by the protected area authorities, training of field-based personnel and ecological monitoring. More recently, the Morris Animal Foundation has provided a framework for health monitoring and veterinary support in the Virunga massif and the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund is proposing to develop a community-based conservation programme. The merit of these different activities is that they are building a solid foundation in each of the three countries, which can then be fused into an extensive regional programme when 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 regular collaboration between the Office Rwandais du Tourisme et des Parcs Nationaux, the Institut
168 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature and the Uganda Wildlife Authority. Such informal contacts between the official protected area authorities in the respective countries can be made at both local and central administration level (in other words, at the headquarters level in the respective capital cities). Equally, it is at this stage that attempts can be made to harmonise the status of the three protected areas: steps can be taken to have the three sites recognised by the World Heritage Convention, and contacts can be taken with the MAB programme (UNESCO) and with the IUCN. Initiate joint activities As soon as conditions permit, efforts should be made towards the development of regional activities that involve two (bilateral collaboration) or three countries. Collaborative activities can thus be extended to include the following aspects:
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦

planning and development of integrated conservation strategies, harmonising the activities developed 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 three countries, it will be necessary to extend the discussions on the development of a peace park to other authorities in the three concerned countries. These authorities will include the Ministries responsible for the environment and protected areas, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, the presidential offices, legislative bodies (such as parliament), etc. Given that in many cases these same authorities will be involved in the ratification of international conventions and treaties, it is at this stage that the harmonisation of the status of the three protected areas will be finalised: signature by Rwanda of the World Heritage Convention, inclusion of the PNV and MGNP as World Heritage sites, inclusion of PNVi and MGNP 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 to draft 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 in the Virungas. This MOU will describe the parties and endorser, define the peace park and list

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

169

the interim steps that will lead to the formal agreement, subject to ratification by the legislative bodies 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 the entire 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, define its purpose, describe the parties and the endorsing partner, and define the peace park and its structures (being a commission or another mechanism) and modes of operation. Funding Adequate financing may well be the most difficult aspect in the development and effective functioning of a peace park (Dennis and Spergel, 1993). It is possible, however, to envisage that the creation of such a park would attract the curiosity and attention of the international community and would thus increase funding possibilities. Three principal types of funding can be envisaged, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive: 1. “Classical” funding, where bilateral or multilateral donors make funds available for the development of a regional programme. Various examples of regional programmes exist in Central Africa: the ECOFAC project, financed by the European Union, or the CARPE project, financed by USAID. The advantage of such funding is that relatively large sums can become available as soon as they are attributed to a programme. The disadvantage is that they are generally slow to be implemented and the administration of management procedures 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 political considerations 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 Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and the Mgahinga Gorilla National Park (through the Bwindi and Mgahinga Forests Conservation Trust Fund). The advantage of such a formula is to provide long-term financing, at least in theory. It would be possible to envisage the creation of a single regional trust that would provide a guaranteed source of funding even in times of instability, as long as the funds are invested outside of the zone considered. Such a trust would be more reliable than a national trust fund, as it would be less open to external influences (Dennis and Spergel, 1993), but it would be more likely to be confronted with technical problems linked to the financial modalities of its implementation. One could also envisage the establishment of three individual national trusts with a common management and 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 well as the difficulty of the management and administration of one or more trusts. In order for such a funding mechanism to be immediately effective, it is necessary that a sufficient amount 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. The example of IGCP is suggestive: the core funds of this programme enabled it to assist the three national parks of the Virunga Massif throughout the long years of civil war and strife that have plagued the region. At the same time, outside sources of funding enabled the programme to support rehabilitation activities (WWF and UNHCR funds for Rwanda and DRC, for example) and development activities (for example USAID funds in Uganda). The
170 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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 time and the absence of any guaranteed long-term funding. Conclusions The Great Lakes Region is barely coming out of several long years of civil strife and difficulties. Security problems continue to plague the Virunga massif, suggesting that the establishment of a peace park must be considered a long term objective for the moment. The complexity 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 confidence already exists between the three protected area authorities involved. This confidence has been amply demonstrated by the joint presentation given today by representatives of the three countries. We also recognise that one of the primary premises for the establishment of a peace park is precisely this mutual confidence, where each of the partners is completely committed to co-operation and openness. We therefore find ourselves at the first step of a long process that will probably take a number of years to reach its goal. At the end of this process the entire region will hopefully be able to enjoy the effects of recovered peace and stability while at the same time maintaining and protecting the outstanding ecosystems of the Virunga massif. Bibliography Aveling, R. (1991). Gorilla tourism - possibilities and pitfalls. Unpublished report, African Wildlife 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 World Congress 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 human security. UNEP, Nairobi: 59-65. Dillenbeck, M. (1994). National Environmental Funds: a new mechanism for conservation finance. 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. Gorilla Conservation 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.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

171

Sarmiento, E.E. & T.M. Butynski (1996). Present problem in gorilla taxonomy. Gorilla Journal 12: 5-7. Schaller, G.B. (1963). The Mountain Gorilla: ecology and behavior. University of Chicago Press, 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 Genetic Resource Conservation and Development. AAAS. Westing, A.H. (1993). From hope to reality: establishing an indochina tri-state reserve for peace and nature. in: Westing, A.H.ed., Transfrontier reserves for peace and nature: a contribution to human security. UNEP, Nairobi: 99-102.

172

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

LEBANON - THE ROLE OF THE PROTECTED AREAS PROJECT IN PROMOTING PEACE By: Faisal Abu-Izzeddin Project Manager Protected Areas Project Ministry of Environment, Lebanon INTRODUCTION Lebanon has an estimated population of about 3.5 million and an annual population growth of 2%. About 65% of the total population is concentrated in eight principal urban areas. It has traditionally been a haven for Arab capital and has acted as an open route for trade between east and west. Before 1974 it enjoyed a long period of rapid economic growth and financial stability. Lebanon is a small country in area, 10,450 sq. km., and represents a typical eastern Mediterranean climate with two mountain ranges running from north to south creating a number of varied and rich habitats. All the habitats and the species they harbour are at risk because of the lack of proper enforcement of existing laws that protect forests and their wildlife. In fact, the issue of over-exploitation of natural resources in Lebanon is thousands of years old, and the urgent need to conserve the remaining forests and wildlife is a vital part of the future 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 the world. Today less than 5% of Lebanon has a forest cover compared to 15% or more at the turn of the century. Records dating back to 2500 BC indicate that forests covered most of Mount Lebanon. Numerous ancient inscriptions are full of references to the "cedar forests" and their diversity of flora and fauna. A good example of this was the visit by the Roman Emperor Hadrian to Lebanon almost two thousand years ago. He was shocked to find that most of the cedars and pines had been cut, and he ordered that stone inscriptions be placed around the remaining forests declaring them as "imperial domain". It may well be one of the first written conservation 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 left Lebanon with a landscape that is quickly turning into a desert. However, despite this loss of biodiversity Lebanon continues to have thousands of species of flowering plants many of which are endemic, hundreds of species of birds that migrate over Lebanon, numerous species of mammals, reptiles, insects, fish and molluscs. The massive building boom that sprang up after the recent civil war is accelerating the rate of environmental destruction across the country. Contractors demand and receive access to diminishing water supplies, concrete, stone and sand with little or no regard to the environment. 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 graze eroding 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 in tremendous loss of human lives, massive destruction of property, reduction of productive capacity, and fragmentation and weakening of the central authority. In economic terms
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 173

Lebanon's gross domestic product dropped from US$ 2,250 in 1974 to US$ 825 in 1990. As an example, tourism was considered an important source of revenue for the country, but as a result of the security situation it was drastically reduced. In the absence of effective government institutions during the war, the task of speaking out against the deteriorating environmental conditions was left up to concerned citizens, on all sides of the conflict. They established a number of NGOs for conservation of the environment and distinguished themselves by operating under dangerous war time conditions. Their activities led to increased awareness and the enactment of a number of important laws and decrees. 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 Human Environment and the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development witnessed very significant 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 difficulties and is looking to the global community for help in dealing with them. Fortunately, Lebanon has entered a number of agreements and legal obligations relating to the environment. It ratified the World Heritage Convention on 3 Feb.1983, the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution on 18 May 1983. Lebanon signed the Convention on Biological Diversity on 12 June 1993 at the time of the UN Conference on Environment 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 1993 which created the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and entrusted it with the task of proposing legislation, co-ordination and oversight on matters relating to the environment. Shortly after its establishment 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 of protected areas for possible financing by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the United Nations Development Programme. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) was commissioned to prepare the Project Proposal which, after review by all the parties, was approved by the GEF Council as Project Document LEB/95/G31/A/1G/99 and awarded $2.5 million over a period of five years. THE PROTECTED AREAS PROJECT Project LEB/95/G31/A/1G/99 - Strengthening of National Capacity and Grassroots In-Situ Conservation for Sustainable Biodiversity Protection, commonly known as the Protected Areas Project, commenced its work on 15 November, 1996 and is located at the Ministry of Environment. The Project is focusing its resources on establishing and managing three demonstration nature reserves in active partnership with the Ministry of Environment, NGOs and scientific institutions. Although there are dozens of important areas in Lebanon that should be managed as nature reserves only three were selected for inclusion in the Project, Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve, Horsh Ehden 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 the following major activities already being implemented:

174

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

1. Conserving endemic and endangered wildlife and their habitats by establishing a coordinated system of protected areas, beginning with Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve, Horsh Ehden Reserve, and Palm Islands Reserve, and through this process introducing wildlife conservation 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 own management 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 natural resources 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 mapping systems 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 need for 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 central portion of the Mt. Lebanon chain. The eastern slope faces the southern Bekaa valley and overlooks the Ammik swamp. The western slope faces the Shouf region of Mount Lebanon. It is made up of a series of peaks parallel to the sea and their altitude varies from 1200 to 2000 meters. Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve has the largest self propagating stand of Cedars and is located at the southern-most limit of this tree's growing range. It is one of the last remaining areas in Lebanon where larger mammals such as the wolf and wild boar can still be found, and where 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 is situated in the higher cedar zone and is not inhabited by anyone and therefore poses no threat to the inhabitants or their farming activities, b) the villagers will become active participants in the planning and management of the park through their local NGO, the Al-Shouf Cedar Society. Horsh Ehden Reserve Horsh Ehden Reserve represents a mountainous ecosystem on the elevated slopes of the northern 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 the municipality could be added at a later date to expand the forest to 700 hectares. During the last 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 winter homes in the town of Zgharta near the coast. It is predominantly a residential community with shops and services to cater to the residents and vacationing tourists.
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 175

Palm Islands Reserve The Palm Islands represent an eastern Mediterranean marine island ecosystem and is made up of the Palm, Sanani and Ramkine Islands. The islands and surrounding water constitute an integrated natural marine basin with a surface area of 5 km2 off the coast of the city of ElMina, which is the harbour section of the city of Tripoli. The Islands are important bird resting and 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, have suffered tremendously. People have also been adversely affected, particularly the fishermen. Increased tourism to and around the islands will provide the fishermen with added income as they ferry people back and forth under the guidance of the park rangers responsible for the islands. PROMOTING PEACE IN LEBANON National reconciliation is an intangible, but nonetheless real, component of the Protected Areas 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 activities and 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, women and especially children, from one area to another. As a result an entire "war generation" of Lebanese 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 different areas of Lebanon and reintroducing them to their natural heritage through properly organized and guided tours in the nature reserves will be the Project's primary contribution to national reconciliation. 2. Appointing Local NGOs Appointing local NGOs to plan, protect and manage the nature reserves was a calculated move designed to promote national reconciliation by diffusing tensions and minimising unwanted friction between opposing factions in Lebanon. This safeguard was incorporated early into the project to ensure that management practices are fully compatible with local political, 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 reserves that 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 of nature. 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 on many different levels through the a peaceful activities of nature conservation, the chances of a successful outcome are enhanced. Any other approach could arouse animosities that lead to conflicts.

176

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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 major contribution to the educational, public awareness and field research components of this conservation 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 the world can help a great deal in furthering national reconciliation. This is possible if Lebanon chooses to provide safe shelters for all birds, both migrants and residents, and the government supports efforts to impose a five year hunting moratorium throughout Lebanon. The global impact of protecting the migrant birds would be immediate. It would be felt in Europe, Asia and Africa where their numbers will increase. The benefit of this to Lebanon would be the gratitude of many nations in the world who would consider with favour the financial requests from Lebanon. TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREAS The advantages of transboundary protected areas for Lebanon cannot be denied, especially when it impacts positively on conservation of biodiversity. The desirability of transboundary protected areas was raised during a working meeting of the Syrian Minister of State for the Environment and the Lebanese Minister of Environment, and their respective staff, in Damascus on 9 March 1997. After the issue was introduced, a discussion followed that reviewed the desirability of such a venture. A decision was reached that cooperation and studies are needed for establishment of such transboundary protected areas. The subject was again raised, and its potential confirmed, during a follow-up meeting of the two Ministers in Beirut on 13 June 1997. At this point in time it is not practical to expect that either Syria or Lebanon are ready to establish transboundary protected areas. The meetings of the Ministers allowed us to introduce the subject, not only to the Ministers but to their staff as well. The subject will enter the realm of implementation when each of these two countries has its own functional network of protected areas. Lebanon is now on its way to establishing such a system of parks and reserves, and Syria is in the early stages of doing the same.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

177

178

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

PARKS, PEACE AND PROGRESS: A FORUM FOR TRANSBOUNDARY CONSERVATION IN INDOCHINA By: Thomas C. Dillon † and Eric D. Wikramanayake †‡
† WWF-Indochina

Program 116 Yet Kieu Street; Hanoi, Vietnam Email: wwfvn@netnam.org.vn
‡ Conservation

Science Program WWF-US 1250, Twenty-Fourth Street, NW; Washington D.C. 20037 INTRODUCTION In July 1997, three years after finding the largest muntjac species--the giant muntjac--in the forests of Vietnam, possibly the smallest of the muntjacs was discovered. Scientists are calling the new species the Truong Son muntjac (Giao et al., in review) after the area along the Vietnam-Lao border where it was found. This is the fifth new large mammal species scientists have 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 in these countries, however, have become fragmented, or are becoming increasingly so; a cause for concern about the long-term survival of the forests and the faunal assemblages they harbor. 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 of biodiversity protection in Indochina. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam have established several protected areas close to or along the borders with their neighboring countries (MacKinnon, 1993a). In many instances, however, these protected areas can be greatly augmented and their effectiveness enhanced by complementary protection on the opposite side of the respective international border and by coordinated planning between the countries. Larger, transborder conservation complexes would especially be better suited to support viable populations of the wide-ranging, larger animal species that require expansive habitats (Wikramanayake et al., in press) and such parallel gazettement would lessen the management burden 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 species discoveries and rediscoveries have been made over the past few years, most noteworthy being several species of large 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 species very likely await scientific discovery. These finds help confirm that Indochina's forests, particularly along the Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam borders, are of global conservation priority (Wikramanayake et al., in prep). Indochina's recent steps towards transboundary cooperation are positive developments that could lead to enhanced biodiversity and natural resource protection as well as increased political stability in the sub-region. Effective conservation of many of Indochina’s forest biomes depends upon coordinated planning and cooperation between Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. Due to social conflicts, the necessary potential for transboundary conservation cooperation did not exist until recently. To facilitate and catalyze the emerging dialogue, the Indochina Biodiversity Forum project (the Forum) was conceived (UNDP, 1993).
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 179

Three areas were identified as having the greatest potential to form transboundary protected areas complexes in the Forum’s first sub-regional meeting in November 1995. The complexes are: the Northern Annamite Range, which contains several protected areas in both Laos and Vietnam that protect more than 1,000,000 hectares of habitats ranging from wet and dry evergreen and semi-evergreen forests in the north to a large limestone forest in the south; the Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam Tri-Border area, which comprises a protected areas complex of more than 800,000 hectares; and the Cambodia-Thailand-Laos Tri-Border area which consists of the forest and wetlands where Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia meet. These complexes require some extensions and additions to the existing protected areas to create links to and connect proximate, protected areas. This paper provides a broad overview of the context and issues relevant to transboundary conservation in Indochina, outlines the structure and approach the Forum has taken to address the issue in this sub-region, and comments on the future of the transboundary protected areas and their potential for enhancing peace and stability. INDOCHINA IN CONTEXT To understand the constraints, pitfalls, and opportunities for transboundary conservation in Indochina, it is important to understand the socio-political setting and the natural features that present conservation opportunities. Political Features At times the term "Indochina" is used geographically to refer to all mainland Southeast Asian countries 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 distinct cultures, their histories have been long intertwined and affected by common forces. For the past several hundred years, the dominant and competitive forces influencing the subregion have been China, Thailand and Vietnam. Cambodia and Laos have in many ways served as buffers between Thailand and Vietnam. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam comprised French Indochina from the 1880s to 1954 (Vien, 1992). During the French colonial era, the Vietnamese dominated French Indochina's administrative structure and to this day Vietnam still has 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 the international boundaries, migration by Vietnamese into Laos and Cambodia, and exploitation of natural resources across borders. Transboundary conservation is helping to lessen the suspicions of each country’s motives on sensitive issues and contributing to an improved dialogue and trust in the region. War Legacy All three countries were involved in varying levels in the conflict known as the American War in Vietnam 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 damaged during 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 and southern Vietnam, cut its way through the forests constituting the frontiers between these three countries. Massive aerial bombing of that network of roads and trails has left a legacy of unexploded bombs which still lie scattered throughout the transfrontier forests of Indochina. The problem of neutralising unexploded bombs in eastern Cambodia's frontiers is
180 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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 cultivators who live mainly in upland areas. Almost half of the population of Laos is ethnic minority, while Vietnam contains 54 different ethnic groups which constitute 13 percent of the population. The majority 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. The last group of people in Vietnam known to subsist by hunting and gathering, the Ruc migrate throughout a limestone forest 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 contributes to their diet, provides poles for their temporary homes, and its bark is distilled for alcohol. In attempts to sedentarize the Ruc, the Government of Vietnam in 1992 built permanent homes for these people and provided funds for livestock and 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 transboundary dialogue is vital to ensuring successful conservation. The Forum’s 2 field surveys into Phong Nha Nature Reserve have helped gain some insight about the Ruc and the Forum plans to cooperate with the Ruc people in transboundary conservation planning of the area. Data from Canh et.al., 1997a. It is natural, therefore, that the Indochina frontiers, mainly characterized by mountains and high plateaus, 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 areas seeking land. This change is usually associated with deforestation and loss of biodiversity as the shifting cultivation regime is disrupted and the fallow cycle is shortened. The official policy of 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) who inhabit 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 split by international borders in the highlands of both Cambodia and Vietnam. These borders are still considered politically sensitive as various minority groups in Vietnam's central highlands fought alongside South Vietnam and the United States. A government policy encouraging 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 countries in the world (PRB, 1996). This large human population has exacted a heavy toll on Vietnam's natural forest cover; only 10 percent of the country's land area is now covered by good quality original forest (BAP, 1994). Approximately 37 percent of the country is classified as bare lands. In neighboring Laos, human population, estimated at 5 million (PRB, 1996), is considerably lower; extensive shifting cultivation, however, has resulted in heavy loss of forest cover, especially in the north (Chape, 1996). Both Laos and Vietnam suffer from flash floods
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 181

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 forest cover (between 30% and 56% of total land area depending on source of information). The granting of large-scale forest and plantation concessions to foreign companies, however, place Cambodia's forests under immediate threat (World Bank, 1996). Other Natural Features The rugged mountains of the Truong Son Range form much of the international boundary between Laos and Vietnam. The Lao side of the border drains into the Mekong River and the Vietnamese side drains into the Gulf of Tonkin and South China Sea (or East Sea as it is referred to in Vietnam). The mountains extend southwards to form the Kon Tum and Bolovans plateaus which extend from Vietnam into Laos and Cambodia. The relative inaccessibility of these montane areas has been largely responsible for the band of forest that exists along the Lao-Vietnam and Cambodia-Vietnam borders. The forests of Laos, northern Cambodia, and the central highlands of Vietnam also constitute important and significant watersheds of the Mekong river system. The Sekong, Se San and Srepok Rivers originate in the Kon Tum and Bolovans plateaus, and flow through southern Laos 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 these rivers 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. Although Vietnam 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 the fragmented habitat in Vietnam its protected areas are relatively small (Fig. 1). The protected areas in Cambodia and Laos, which have relatively more large forest blocks, are relatively large, and exceed by far, the average size of Asian protected areas (Dinerstein and Wikramanayake, 1993). INDOCHINA TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREA COMPLEXES Opportunities All three countries have natural habitats adjacent to the international borders between these countries that are of high enough biodiversity value to contribute significantly towards a transboundary 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 protected areas gazetted yet. Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam Tri-Border This protected area complex of roughly 8,000 km2 (800,000 hectares) comprises a large part of the Eastern Indochina Moist Forests ecoregion (Wikramanayake et al., in prep) and forms the core 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 335,000 hectares, Cambodia's Virachey National Park is one of the largest protected areas in mainland Southeast Asia and serves as the "biodiversity anchor" or "core protected area" in a larger landscape matrix of other important protected areas, natural habitat linkages, buffer zones,
182 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

community forests, plantations, agricultural areas, settlements, and other land-uses. The other protected 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 planned development processes threaten to make the current and proposed protected areas insular parks. In this event, the indigenous people now living around the parks will lose their traditional resource base and likely view the remaining forests as a potential alternative, posing additional threats to the area's ecological integrity. However, careful land-use planning could create a better conservation landscape for wildlife and natural resources, and also help to maintain a better human environment. Conserving these links would also help to conserve the watersheds of the rivers that feed into the Mekong River, help to stabilize the upland areas, allow maintenance of forests for the local people to collect non-timber forest products, and serve as genetic reservoirs for reseeding the fallow agricultural areas. Northern Annamite Range Several protected areas in both Laos and Vietnam, which still contain extensive old-growth evergreen and semi-evergreen forest, straddle the Northern Annamite Range. These protected areas -- Pu Mat, Vu Quang and Phong Nha in Vietnam and Nam Chuan, Nam Theun Extension, 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-evergreen forests in the north to a large limestone forest in the south (MacKinnon, 1993a; Timmins and Khounboline, 1996; Canh et al., 1997a). These forests also contain several species of plants and animals with very limited distributions, including several species of large mammals that have 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 complex are the hydroelectric dams already built and planned, particularly in Laos. The controversial Nam Theun 2 dam, if built, will abut the western border of Nakai/Nam Theun National Biodiversity Conservation Area (NBCA). Cambodia-Thailand-Laos Tri-Border The forest and wetlands comprising the area where Thailand, Laos, and Cambodian meet (Fig 1) 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 rich in the 1950s, particularly with large ungulates (Wharton, 1957). The continued existence of these mammals cannot be confirmed since that part of Cambodia has been under Khmer Rouge control since the 1970s. Protected areas do not yet exist on either the Lao or Cambodian sides of the border. Additional Constraints Conservation Capacity A significant constraint to conservation activities in Indochina is the lack of trained conservation professionals. Many of the educated people either fled or were killed during the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. Laos and Vietnam were isolated from most of the non-communist world until the late 1980s. Although Vietnam has many well-trained biologists, most lack exposure to contemporary conservation principles and techniques. The majority of the biologists who are engaged in conservation activities are primarily taxonomists trained in the former Soviet bloc countries. A younger cohort of conservation biologists is only now beginning to appear.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

183

The protected areas systems in all three countries were established recently; thus, many have no staff, no infrastructure, no equipment, and lack adequate budgets for proper management of the protected areas. Many of the protected areas and surrounding forests in the three countries are threatened by chronic anthropogenic impacts such as shifting cultivation and hunting, and also from high intensity impacts such as large-scale logging, commercial plantations of cash crops, and road and hydro-electric development (World Bank, 1996; Canh et al., 1997b; Colm, 1997). There is an extensive cross-border trade in wildlife and other forest products involving all three countries that also poses a serious threat to conservation efforts (TRAFFIC, 1993; Woodford et al., 1997). The wildlife trade, in particular, has severely decreased abundances of many species, placing them on the brink of extinction and creating 'empty' forests throughout much of the sub-region (Desai and Vuthy, 1996; Salter, 1993; Olivier and Woodford, 1994). Many of the protected areas, therefore, require active conservation measures if the habitats and the species communities and even populations are to survive. The lack of capacity and trained staff to manage and protect the reserve systems and the absence of dialogue between the neighboring countries that would lead to cooperation in mitigating cross-border threats to conservation remain major constraints to alleviating conservation threats, especially for transboundary conservation. Developing human resources and capacity to address these issues through recruitment and training is a priority, particularly in Cambodia and Laos. Provision of outside technical assistance is limited, however, by the low 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 border areas and this contributes to the difficulties of implementing conservation in these remote areas. This is further compounded by the political sensitivities that have risen through years of conflict, causing disagreements over exact location of borders and suspicions about each other’s motives regarding control of natural resources. This is especially evident in relations between Cambodia and Vietnam. In Cambodia, general instability and lawlessness and land-mines also pose problems to implementing conservation activities. Several border forest areas between Cambodia and Thailand which could be candidates for transboundary conservation attention are presently too dangerous to venture into and the security situation is in flux in other areas, such as Ratanakiri and Mondolkiri Provinces in the northeast. The stark difference in economic and political power between Vietnam and its two smaller neighbors creates an asymmetrical power relationship. Vietnam’s dominance strains open dialogue 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 cooperation regarding land management, few attempts had been made to forge transboundary cooperation before the Indochina Biodiversity Forum, funded by the United Nations Development Programme and implemented by the WWF Indochina Programme, began in July 1995. The most significant previous effort to address the situation was organized by Dr. Arthur Westing under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and resulted in the publication of a book with several detailed papers outlining the issues relevant to the establishment of transfrontier reserves in Indochina (Westing, 1993).

184

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

To conserve these high priority border areas, it was suggested that transboundary conservation in Indochina begin with incremental steps. Preliminary activities such as each country 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 eventual relaxation of border regulations and consequent joint surveys and cooperative law enforcement. Following these recommendations, the Forum began by emphasizing “parallel conservation” as a first step toward formal cooperative activities between neighboring countries. Structure and Role of the Forum The Indochina Biodiversity Forum was developed to establish a forum in which greater levels of technical exchange and discussion on biodiversity conservation issues that require an international rather than national approach could occur. Transboundary conservation as the core subject. Specifically, the mandate of the project is to:

Identify transboundary areas of high conservation potential and priority along the borders between 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 areas or adding extensions to create links between existing protected areas that are close to each 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 within its office in Hanoi. The role of the secretariat is to perform the tasks of coordinating and administering the project activities. These responsibilities include drafting work plans, reporting to donors, coordinating field activities, fund raising, coordinating inputs into a biodiversity information management system, and maintaining communication links with national and international institutions. A permanent project staff of three in Hanoi, including a project manager, technical officer and administrative officer, and one conservation officer in Vientiane, perform these tasks. Two conservation scientists provide technical assistance with project implementation on a consultative basis. Dialogue Perhaps the most vital component of the project involves sponsoring meetings with technical and political officers with the aim of facilitating discussion, information exchange, and coordinated 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-regional meeting (Box 4).

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

185

Box 3. Getting to Know Each Other The first time many of the conservation officials involved with transboundary issues in Indochina met each other, they travelled 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 initial exchange 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 the end of farewell barbecue, all 50 representatives knew each other’s names. The presentations and small group sessions were informative and spawned many recommendations for conservation activities that should occur, including identification of priority transboundary areas. The most important step toward eventual establishment of transboundary protected areas, however, may have been the relationships started between counterparts in neighboring countries. Fifteen months later, a four-day Lao - Vietnam transboundary meeting was held in January 1997. The meeting was the first bilateral meeting between the governments of Laos and Vietnam on conservation issues. As a result of the meeting, the countries are now sharing information and discussing common actions in highly sensitive and biologically 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, 1995 consisting of more than 50 technical and administrative representatives from all four countries. The aim of the meeting, held at Cuc Phoung National Park, Vietnam, was to begin the process of information sharing and to produce recommendations 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 local authorities 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 wildlife investigations/surveys and in monitoring hunting and trade pressures. Information sharing should begin on species, locality information (i.e. news about which projects and which protected areas are being developed), habitats and socio- economic information. Joint international surveys were recommended as one way to promote cooperation and similar methodology similar 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 that capacity 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 which areas to focus its efforts. Information Gathering The dearth of information on the transfrontier forest areas necessitates gathering of additional biological and socio-economic information in these areas. The information is necessary for planning a representational and complementary sub-regional protected areas system. Specifically, identification of what new protected areas should be declared and what type of management interventions should occur is important. Information Management and Exchange

186

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

In order for information necessary for conservation activities to be available in an easy-to-use digital database, the project has adopted a data management program developed by Dr. John MacKinnon, Asian Bureau for Conservation. It is a common link that eventually will enable information management and exchange among the four countries. This program -- Biodiversity Information Management System (BIMS) -- integrates ArcInfo GIS coverages with conventional database files (FoxPro 2.5) to allow monitoring of the status of individual species, habitat types, and protected areas. The software can perform the following functions: process and store records resulting from field surveys; generate lists of known and expected species for any given area; locality lists for any given species, the statistics and status records for protected areas, including staff details; socio-economic information for surrounding and enclaved communities; conservation laws and policies, inter alia. BIMS also contains a number of analytical tools for evaluating species conservation status and gaps in the protected area system of a given country based on the remaining habitat types. Capacity Building A major function of the Project Secretariat is to assist the sub-region with improving its capacity to perform transfrontier conservation. Capacity building will include training conservation staff, providing technical assistance and equipment. The Project Secretariat also serves as a facilitator, catalyst, and broker in seeking funds and technical assistance for conservation projects. Project Implementation and Coordination Many of the projects that are initiated or facilitated by the Project Secretariat run either independently of the Project Secretariat or, if co-funded, in collaboration with the Project Secretariat. All, however, are closely coordinated with the Project Secretariat, which is responsible for ensuring that the projects contribute to the overall context and objectives of a sub-regional conservation strategy. Progress Dialogue Meetings Since the first sub-regional transboundary meeting in Cuc Phoung National Park in 1995, the Project Secretariat has held provincial and bilateral forum meetings. The first Lao-Vietnam Transborder Biodiversity Conservation Seminar was held from 21- 24 January 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 central Laos. 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 was also attended by several international organizations. At the meeting, the participants agreed that the forested area along the Lao-Vietnamese border, within these five provinces is of high biodiversity value, and that conservation efforts to date had been inadequate. The participants recommended that complementary gazettement of protected areas should occur and the following actions be taken:

include issues of biodiversity conservation into the agenda of regular semi-annual meetings among local authorities of the five provinces;

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

187

ensure that the management boards of the nature reserves and national parks in the border region actively implement cooperation activities and regularly provide information on conservation 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 of each country. Later, the Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister signed a decree embodying the major points of the agreement. Biological Surveys and Inventories Biological surveys have been either initiated or coordinated by the Secretariat in priority transboundary 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 the Lao-Vietnam border. The surveys, which involved biological and socio-economic experts from various Vietnamese institutions, were conducted during the late dry season of 1996 and early dry 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 the area and to assess the feasibility of enlarging Phong Nha Nature Reserve to include the adjoining Ke Bang forest, a change that would triple the size of the protected area and alter the boundaries to meet Hin Namno NBCA in Laos. Together the two protected areas will comprise 200,000 hectares of limestone forest which are rich in botanical diversity and will provide protected habitat for populations of two endangered primates, 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). These protected areas also harbor several other endangered species (Canh, et al. 1997a; Timmins and Khounboline, 1996). If extended, the protected areas will connect through the Hin Namno NBCA to Nam Theun NBCA and, therefore, also to the Nam Theun extension, Nam Chuan, Vu Quang, and Pu Mat; an overall contiguous transboundary protected area complex of approximately 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 area should be designated was conducted in Vietnam's western Quang Binh Province. The
188 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

compilation and analysis of the survey results have convinced the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to recommend the Government of Vietnam to gazette a new 100,000 ha protected area called Song Thanh/Dakpring on the Lao border. The boundaries of this protected area are still under preparation, but in all likelihood it will abut the proposed southern extension of Laos' Xe Sap NBCA. The proposed protected area will include the southern range of the recently discovered Saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis), the Giant muntjac (Megamuntiacus vuquangensis), the newly identified Truong Son muntjac (Muntiacus truongsonensis), and several other endangered species. Central Plateau Area Two biological surveys were conducted in 1996 and 1997 in the extensive forests of Cambodia's Mondulkiri and Ratanakiri Provinces; one was focussed primarily on large mammals (Desai and Vuthy, 1996), and the other was a feasibility and needs assessment survey 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) was cancelled 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 one Cambodian wildlife biologist, the first such collaboration between the two countries. The dry dipterocarp forests surveyed represent some of the best habitat for endangered large mammals in Indochina, including tiger, elephants, and wild cattle such as banteng, gaur, and one 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 to ascertain the areas of highest densities of endangered large mammals for conservation management planning in these connecting forests shared by Vietnam and Cambodia. That survey found the largest population of banteng in Indochina, but it also revealed a rapid and disturbing 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 a team consisting of Lao and Vietnamese researchers, and in collaboration with both WWF’s Indochina Biodiversity Forum and the Wildlife Conservation Society. Capacity Building The sub-regional project has also concentrated on providing training. In Cambodia, the project has provided training in field research skills to help conservation staff develop the ability to collect data relevant to transfrontier conservation and to introduce the Ministry of Environment staff to basic protected area management. Training has included visits to functioning protected areas in Thailand. In Vietnam, the project has focused on training relevant to using the BIMS system, such as mapping skills and database management, and on introducing new approaches to conservation in Vietnam, such as training a core of resource persons in participatory management skills and conducting training for protected areas managers and relevant provincial 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,
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 189

protected area planning, and participatory techniques for working with communities near conservation areas. Thailand will continue to serve as a base of technical resources which can be drawn on for assistance in building capacity in Indochina, in particular, using its institutions for training. Besides training, the project has attempted to build capacity to implement transfrontier conservation by assisting with design of projects in priority transfrontier areas and by assisting with 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 the 200,000 hectare limestone forest straddling the Lao - Vietnam border as the “Monkey World” as it contains what may be the largest populations of red-shanked Duoc langur and Ha Tinh langur, two endangered primates endemic to Indochina. Representatives to the Lao-Vietnam Transboundary Meeting in January 1997 recommended that these limestone forests, which also comprise Hin Namno NBCA in Laos, serve as the first field test for transborder cooperation between the two countries. Consequently, the Forum will sponsor a joint team of Lao and Vietnamese researchers to survey Hin Namno in the next dry season (March, April 1998) and a district-to-district dialogue meeting will be held afterwards 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 much attention from central government in either country. Bringing the local authorities together for the first time to discuss their joint border sparked recognition of the commonalties along this international border and the importance of the shared natural resources. Project documents have been written and funding confirmed for two transfrontier areas. The Forum has prepared an extensive project document management planning and conservation activities at Virachey National Park, Cambodia, and a project design was prepared for conservation 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 Kong protected areas in Attapu Province, Laos. These projects will run independently of the Sub-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 four countries. Many of the materials have been in the form of posters, which seem to be the most effective and widely distributed visual media in the remote areas where radio and TV are usually not available. In Thailand, an identification booklet for wild bovine was produced since the transfrontier trade of the endangered gaur and banteng, in particular, is occurring at alarming rates (Srikosamatara et al., 1992). In Vietnam, the forum is becoming involved in environmental education for middle school children in the province of Ha Tinh where Vu Quang Nature Reserve is located. CONCLUSION The recent opening of Indochina to the international community has invigorated conservation throughout the sub-region and revealed its astonishing potential for establishment of transfrontier protected areas. Given the constraints that exist, however, it is clear that more time will be required to establish transfrontier protected area complexes that embody concepts of complementary management and information sharing across borders.

190

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

The Forum project has been able to act as a catalyst to generate interest and initiate a dialogue in Indochina that is leading toward coordinated conservation of the rich forests along its borders. The fact that neighboring countries now are taking steps to add extensions and link disjointed border protected areas is a significant step forward. Another major achievement is the agreement to address more fully the issue of illegal wildlife trade across borders. Scientific cooperation such as the joint Vietnam/Cambodia field survey during the dry season of 1997 and the planned Laos/Vietnam field survey for dry season 1998 are a third indicator of progress. Protected areas establishment and management has been incorporated into the development plans even at the provincial and district levels. In Cambodia and Laos, the Forum has begun helping to identify boundaries and build capacity for managing provincial protected areas. The Forum will also help the provincial and district authorities develop management plans for these protected areas and buffer zones, and seek funds to implement the management plans. Biological surveys, including bilateral participation, have begun to identify possible links between border protected areas. Designation of one of the protected areas complexes as a World Heritage Site, an action presently under consideration (N. Ishwaran, UNESCO, pers. comm, 1997), would likely catalyze more dialogue and a degree of cooperation necessary for ensuring a well-managed site. The recent admission of Vietnam and Laos into the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) could also serve as a powerful force for promoting transboundary conservation. According to one definition, border parks have three main functions, which are promotion of peace, improvement of resource management, and preservation of cultural values (McNeil, 1993). These are worthy objectives for the transboundary protected areas system in Indochina to aspire to accomplish. Currently, the dialogue on transboundary conservation is dominated by technical officers from the local and central governments. These officials focus primarily on improvement of resource management and secondarily on issues of poverty eradication through development activities. Preservation of cultural values, particularly for minority peoples, with the exception of Cambodia’s Ratanakiri Province, is not a major issue. In Laos and Vietnam, more attention is given to how these minorities can change their cultural values and become more like the majority ethnic group. Promotion of peace is not an overt topic of conversation, but could be a natural outcome of improved natural resource management along the borders. The Forum facilitated the process of establishing a dialogue that has resulted in identifying priority conservation areas along the national borders. Although transboundary conservation in Indochina is still a long way from transborder reserves managed as single administrative units, transboundary conservation advocates in this sub-region must proceed with caution, balancing the urgency of conservation needs with the realities of the moment. Vigorous efforts to accelerate the process of joint management of border parks could create concerns about loss of national pride or sovereignty. Transboundary conservation does not inherently include joint management between countries, and expectations for transboundary conservation as envisioned 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 the process of cooperation and dialogue, making progress in transboundary conservation that may help achieve this end. With most of Indochina’s border conservation areas along the Ho Chi Minh Trail, it is fitting that this symbol of regional conflict could unite Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam in an effort to conserve one of the most biologically significant forest areas in Asia. References

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

191

Baird, I.G. 1995a. A Rapid Study of Fish and Fisheries; and Livelihoods and Natural Resources Along the Sesan River. Livelihoods and Natural Resources Study. Oxfam UK&I and Novib. Ratanakiri, Cambodia. Baird, I.G. 1995b. Investigations of the Xe Kaman and Xe Xou Rivers, with Special Reference to Freshwater Fish and River Ecology; and a Review of the Potential Social and Environmental Impacts of Large Dam Projects Being Considered for These Rivers in Attapu Province, Southern Lao PDR. Report prepared for Protected Area Division of the Department of Forestry, Lao PDR. WCS Report. Vientiane, Lao PDR. Biodiversity Action Plan For Vietnam (BAP). 1994. Published by the Government of the Socialist 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 in Dak Lak Province, Vietnam. WWF/UNDP Indochina Biodiversity Forum Project and IUCN Species Survival Commission. Hanoi, Vietnam. Chape, S. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation, Protected Areas and the Development Imperative in 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 Eastern Cambodia: 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 Prioritize Investments in Biodiversity in the Indo-Pacific Region. Conservation Biology. 7:53-65. Dinerstein, E., E.D. Wikramanayake, and M. Forney. 1995. Conserving the Reservoirs and Remnants of Tropical Moist Forest in the Indo-Pacific Region. In: “Ecology, Conservation and 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 Priority Areas 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 the Vu 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 Conservation Significance of the Rediscovery of Sus bucculentus (Mammalia, Suidae). Nature. In Press.

192

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

MacKinnon, J.R. 1993 a. Draft Border Protected Area System Plan for Vietnam/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 in Transfrontier Conservation”. Thorsell, J.W (ed.). IUCN. Cambridge, United Kingdom. Olivier, R. and E. Woodford. 1994. Aerial Survey for Kouprey in Cambodia. IUCN Species Survival 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 Tierkunds Dresden 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, Lao PDR. 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 and Between 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 Hin Namno 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 the Dong Khanthung Area, Champassak Province, Lao PDR. WCS/CPAWM Report. Vientiane, Lao PDR. TRAFFIC Southeast Asia. 1993. Wildlife Trade Between the Southern Lao PDR Provinces of Champassak, Sekong, and Attapeu, and Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Field Report No. 3. Tuoc, D., V.V. Dung, S. Dawson, P. Arctander and J. MacKinnon. 1994. Introduction of a New Large Mammal Species in Vietnam. Technical Report, Ministry of Forestry, Vietnam (in Vietnamese). 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 for Peace and Nature. In: “Transfrontier Reserves For Peace and Nature: A Contribution to Human Security”.Westing, A.H (ed). UNEP publication. Nairobi, Kenya.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

193

Wharton, C. 1957. Man, Fire and Cattle in North Cambodia. An Ecological Study of the Kouprey Novibos sauveli. In: “Proceedings of the Annual Tall Timbers Forest Ecology Conference” 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 Approach to Setting Priorities for Conservation of Wild Tigers, Panthera tigris. Conservation Biology. In Press. Wikramanayake E.D., E. Dinerstein, P. Hedao, D. Olson, P. Hurley, and L. Horowitz. A Conservation Assessment of Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific Region. WWFUS 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 a Socialist 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. 15777KH. Woodford, E., T. Huong, and V. Long. 1997. An Assessment of the Wildlife Trade in Gia Lai Province, Vietnam: Structure, Processes, Law Enforcement. Report of WWF/UNDP Indochina Biodiversity Forum Project. Hanoi, Vietnam. Acknowledgments The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) provides financial support to the Indochina Biodiversity Forum and the MacArthur Foundation has supported many of WWF's transboundary conservation activities in the sub-region. The project has also advanced considerably in a short time because of the efforts and support of government agencies in Laos, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia: in particular the Center for Protected Areas and Watershed 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 the Royal Forest Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Thailand. The project had its beginings from Dr. John Mackinnon's vision and has benefitted from his advice. We warmly thank them all.

194

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICT NIMULE NATIONAL PARK: A CASE STUDY By: Rajab Yagoub Abdulla formerly 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 of effective initiatives at a local level can be often taken with regard to the management of the general environment as well as of specific wildlife populations, the morale and performances of conservation staff, the war refugees, and the military and administrative personnel from both sides of the borders. The described experiences suggest that negative effects of the isolation of wildlife management staff and the difficulties to effectively update directives from the headquarters, could be concretely counterbalanced by international coordinative efforts. Such endeavour should complement common sense and experience based initiatives at a local level, with a view to ensuring that the identification and updating of local management priorities fit in the broader context of ecosystemic, often transnational, priorities. Given favourable conditions, collaborative initiatives taken at local level, including with authorities across the boundary, might yield some results, but can 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 given international 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 Congress and, with it, for the opportunity to meet on conservation issues with friends and colleagues of international standard in the most conducive and welcoming atmosphere created by the headquarters 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 poorly known and yet extremely interesting protected area of my beloved Sudan. A country which emerges as one of the most diverse environmentally as well as for being characterized, at a global scale, by most impressive wildlife populations and species richness levels, and yet, also because of a lengthy and ravaging war, is virtually absent from present day conservation debates 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 may contribute as a vivid case study, to the development and refining of present methodological and policy frameworks. And this is because I fully share with the Organizers the believe that a number of effective conservation options which are offered to the management of protected areas across boundaries may only be accessible today through international support and/or coordination, and that this particularly applies when facing the demanding task of dealing with conflict 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 effective conservation options can and should be considered at an international level. Although the first hand personal experiences which I shall refer to, are of several years ago, I have kept in close contact with the local realities and I believe that the message they convey is worth strong consideration currently. And this is not only because the discussed problems and potential are up to date, but
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 195

also because besides Nimule they also apply to other important National Parks and protected areas in the Region. Today I live out of my Country and in an urban environment and, I must confess, together with the cry of the fish eagle and the rumbling of elephants, I also miss the intermittent sounds of heavy firearms shooting at night in the Park. Jointly with many sometimes daunting events, they all make up unforgettable memories of a most rewarding experience during my work, from 1987 to 1989, as research 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 the Uganda border spanning an area of 41.000 hectares. It was gazetted as game reserve in 1935 and upgraded 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 riverine woodland. Viewed from the top of the hills on the eastern part, the Park has natural scenic beauty including the view of an imposingly wide White Nile (here called Bahr-el-Jebel 'the sea coming from the 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 monomodal rainy season (stretching from March to November) and a quite severe dry season, contrast the general climatic pattern which otherwise fits equatorial standards, with relatively reduced temperature 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 fact that the Park is also marking a climatic limit with its northern relatively dryer border areas and reflect in 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 where General Gordon Pasha held court and read names inscribed on a stone at its foot), was originally gazetted as a National Park for the protection of the White Rhino. A species which, however, was sadly exterminated during the seventeen years (1955-1972) civil war. Before the retreat of the wildlife 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, uganda kob, baboon, vervet monkey, water buck, oribi, grey duiker, warthog, as well as of birds such as cormorants, crowned crane, secretary bird, fish eagle, kori bustard, emerged as the more common highlights of the park. And, particularly the first five of the above mentioned species where frequently recorded moving across the borders (Yagoub Abdulla, 1984). The Park falls, formally, under the administration of the Directorate of Wildlife Conservation and National Park Forces with headquarters in Juba; and is managed, normally, by wildlife conservation personnel including four officers and thirty game scouts. Generally, beside being poached inside the Park, animals are also killed outside its boundaries when they cross into Uganda or move into nearby natives cultivations. The most affected are elephants for their particular lean on sugar cane and sorghum. DISCUSSION As the duration of warfare operations was extending, the ordinary burden of park management activities was aggravated in terms of additional control of poaching and encroachment of people into the Park for firewood and grass for thatch. Many people from the surrounding areas had, in fact, flown their rural homes to take refuge in Nimule Town. Great pressure was put on the Park by armed poachers entering from Uganda as well as from Sudanese organized forces and militia men.

196

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Besides the security situation, the Park management had to face the lack of logistic supplies because 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 logistic support could be directly supplied by the Headquarters, with which the only means of contact was a radio 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 and significantly reduce the incidence of poaching and other illegal activities. We, eventually, decided to focus on control of poaching as a priority, and directed virtually all the available meager resources to the scouts stationed in the innermost parts of the Park. Anti poaching operations and intensive patrols were carried out from two tented camps which were supplied with food purchased with money collected from fees for fishing licenses and park entry. Salaries, with usual delays of up to four months, were secured from Nimule traders who had agents in Juba who, in turn, could be paid by the Headquarters. In the framework of anti-poaching operations and patrol activities, the Park Management established contacts and held meetings on poaching by Ugandan nationals in the Park, with neighbouring government authorities in Uganda. These authorities were very cooperative and responsive and some poachers were arrested at their homes in Uganda and their weapons were confiscated. Additional problems aroused when soldiers of the Sudanese organized forces stationed in Nimule Town, started receiving their salaries with some months delay and demanded wildlife meat for their base sustainment. We held a number of, not always easy, meetings and personal contacts with their leaders. With their cooperation we eventually managed to restrain the soldiers' poaching activities. Also during war times life continues, and we felt that even without normal logistic support and specific directives, we could ensure law enforcement on civilian natives by involving the chief’s court, and we even arranged some conservation enlightenment talks in schools and with other local leaders. Although my original responsibility was to conduct research, I was engaged in organizing and leading the anti-poaching operations and patrols. With preplanned maneuvers, sometimes for five days on foot, I was able to arrest many Ugandan and Sudanese poachers and seize their weapons, but, above all, I could ensure visibility to the conservation authority's presence in an atmosphere of otherwise general administrative disarray. On the other hand, the very same patrol operations, were providing the opportunity to conduct survey at least on large mammals and major park management problems. Despite the insecurity situation, poachers activities and lack of research equipment's and facilities, I was able to train the game scouts and, with their help, to collect distribution/density data and general habitat information. These efforts enabled us, in more than a few occasions, to take sometimes hard but realistic decisions, and to formulate recommendations on what were at a local level the park’s management priorities given the limitations imposed by the war. But besides the mentioned operational contributions, let me offer an additional consideration on some, maybe less obvious but equally significant outputs of the described experiences. I am here referring to the strong feelings which were generated in me by the tremendous responsibility I was faced with, but also by the potentials which I had access to as a wildlife manager cut off by warfare activities, when dealing with the task of leading wildlife personnel. These were often young and motivated scouts who had been de jure turned into military forces. Our efforts ensured that de facto they were concretely reminded of their conservation mandate, preserving their professional dignity,
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 197

and even strengthening their morale and the feeling that any conservation perspective of the Park was vitally depending on their individual contribution and initiative. The recrudescence of warfare activities and the duration of insecurity conditions have had destructive impacts on the majority of game species in the Park and caused migration of many animal into Uganda. The survival of such game depends now on the protection which may be provided by the SPLA, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, as well as the Uganda Wildlife Conservation Authority. In the absence of the Sudanese wildlife conservation forces in the Park, the entry of poachers into the park from Uganda could only be controlled through the cooperation of Uganda wildlife Authority by establishing game posts in the proximity of the border. This is not only aiming at controlling people's entry into the park, but also at preventing killing of elephants and other species when they cross the border into Uganda. The IUCN and other organizations cooperating at an international level in the management and conservation of protected areas and biodiversity are called upon to encourage and support such action which will help protect the Park's wildlife for post war conservation and development. The present perspectives to control poaching from Ugandans inside the park and safeguard the movement of animals across the border into Uganda, depend on the cooperation of Ugandan authorities on actions including the arrest of poachers, collection of illegal firearms and control at least of peoples inhabiting in the Park's neighbourhoods. This cooperation can be achieved in the framework of mutual agreements between Uganda and the Sudan to create and protect a relatively narrow buffer zone on the Uganda side. Such an action could also account most effectively for the periodical impact of flushes of warfare activities inside the Park. Expectedly, there is the superficial tendency to believe that when dealing with conflict realities it is always a matter of complexities and/or actions which are out of reach in absence of a wealth of means and additional support. Besides, the generally sub-chronic instability conditions which more frequently characterize conflicts relevant to our discussion, are wrongly dealt with in the same manner as the often only short lived peaks in warfare activities where only emergency action might be conceivable. This makes a lot of planning necessary to influence, before it is to late, the human behavioural adaptations and distributional responses to security realities. The movement and resettlement of refugees can for example be influenced by proper coordination of the environmental conservation organizations with those organization that supply food aid, but this needs concertation and policy development at an international level. Often, however, during periods of conflict, also simple initiatives at a local level can save an area from the catastrophe. What, on the other hand, cannot be realistically achieved handicraftly, is to establish a framework for a dynamic rationalization of the number of the very same simple but effective actions. A general coordinative management framework should consider, guidelines for identifying and updating prioritary actions, at a local level, aiming at facing emerging conflicts, but also post conflict realities. 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 the human population, a wealth of weapons among the civilian and a notable increase in the demand of wildlife resources. Specifically relevant to Nimule National Park, I wish to appeal to IUCN to actively engage in involving current international conservation momentum to act through the Ugandan authorities and the Sudan Government, but also through the SPLA. A set of objective policy directives for sensitive conservation areas, could influence its attitude toward the management of the broader ecosystemic resources which, de facto, it controls over a large part of the national territory. And this particularly applies to the White Nile Basin, realm of one of the two world largest congregation of wild ungulates.
198 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Finally, with regard to the potential for acting from opportunistically more appropriate sides of the borders, it might be worth underscoring that (Fig. 1, and Map 3.3 in IUCN/UNEP 1986) besides Nimule National Park, several other important Sudan protected areas are located along international 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 with Ethiopia; Kidepo G.R. adjacent to Kidepo Valley N.P. in Uganda, Bire Kpatuos G.R. and Bangangai G.R. on the borders with the Democratic Republic of Congo near Garamba N.P. (also abutting the Sudan borders); and Radon N.P. (Biosphere Reserve) on the borders with the Central African Republic. 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 Equatorial Sudan. 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 and Cambridge, UK. xix + 1034 pp. Yagoub Abdulla, R. 1984. Larger mammal census and management problems in Nimule National Park (Sudan). Unpublished report to the Ministry of Wildlife and National Parks, Southern Region, The Sudan. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to the IUCN for inviting me and sponsoring my participation to an extremely interesting and challenging Conference. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr Alfredo Guillet from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for nominating and recommending me to the Conference, as well as for constructive comments to the paper. Caption to Fig. 1: Fig 1. From IUCN/UNEP 1987.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

199

200

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

STATUS OF THE WORLD’S TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS By: Dorothy C. Zbicz , Duke University Nicholas School of the Environment, Box 90328, Durham, NC 27511, USA and Michael J. B. Green, World Conservation Monitoring Centre 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, U.K.

1.

INTRODUCTION

Protected areas that adjoin across international boundaries, referred to in this paper as transfrontier protected areas, provide intriguing possibilities for promoting biodiversity conservation across politically-severed ecosystems and species' home ranges, as well as transfrontier collaborative management which may ultimately contribute to international peace. Since 1932, when Waterton/Glacier was jointly declared the first international peace park by Canada and the United States 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 held in 1988 during the First Global Conference on Tourism - A Vital Force for Peace. A total of 70 cases involving 68 countries was identified where established or proposed protected areas met across international boundaries. (Thorsell and Harrison, 1990). The purpose of this paper is to examine progress since the 1988 Border Parks Workshop and assess the present extent of transfrontier protected areas. No attempt is made here to examine the level of collaborative management between protected areas that abut on international boundaries; this is the subject of ongoing research by the first author, for which the identification of all transfrontier protected areas in the world was the necessary first stage.

2.

METHODOLOGY

The process of compiling a comprehensive list of transfrontier protected areas began three years ago with the list of border parks compiled by Thorsell and Harrison (1990). The list was updated with other information from various sources and from the many individuals at Duke University working in protected areas around the world. Further input was provided by protected area professionals attending the 1996 IUCN World Conservation Congress in Montreal. In the spring of 1997, the first author spent several weeks at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) in Cambridge, UK working with staff to verify this compiled list with the Centre’s Protected Areas Database 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 was also 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 by hundreds 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 are assigned to one of six IUCN protected area management categories (I-VI).

Most of the identified transfrontier protected areas are actually part of larger conglomerates of protected areas, referred to in this paper as transfrontier protected areas complexes. This
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).
38

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

201

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 of individual protected areas is much more than double the number of complexes. It should be noted, however, that not all protected areas within a complex necessarily adjoin an international boundary. Transfrontier protected areas complexes were mapped using WCMC's Biodiversity Map Library. 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 all transfrontier protected areas due to a lack of both digital and georeferenced data in some cases. Potential transfrontier protected areas were also identified on the basis of established protected areas adjoining proposed protected areas across an international boundary. This list of potential transfrontier protected areas is likely to be incomplete as data on proposed protected areas are much less comprehensive than data for established protected areas. For this reason the list is not presented here, but summary data derived from it are used to indicate the 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 are distributed among 98 countries and comprise 415 individual protected areas. The total number of legally designated areas is higher (487) because a number of these have not been assigned to IUCN categories for various reasons. As shown in the accompanying maps, it has been possible to map 382 of the 415 protected areas, based on their digitized boundaries or known geographic coordinates. From the available information, we know that transfrontier protected areas complexes cover at least 1,127,934 km2, this being the total area of the 382 protected areas (Table 1). Such complexes represent nearly 10% of the world's network of 13.2 million km2 of protected areas or nearly 1% of the total area of all countries in the world (Green and Paine, in press). This highlights the global significance of transfrontier protected areas complexes in terms of their extensiveness, quite apart from their potential importance for collaborative management across international boundaries and ultimately for contributing to international peace. Table 1 Summary of available information on mapped transfrontier protected areas complexes Point locations (i.e. geographic coordinates) 142 226,124 53 Polygons (i.e. digitized boundaries) 240 901,810 64 Total 382 1,127,934 98

Transfrontier protected areas complexes No. protected areas Total area (km2) No. countries

A further 85 potential transfrontier protected areas complexes were identified. These are distributed among 14 countries additional to the 98 with established complexes. Potential transfrontier 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 been tremendous growth in the number of transfrontier protected areas complexes since 1988, particularly over the last three years. The number of complexes comprising established transfrontier protected areas has more than doubled, from 59 to 136. Furthermore, the number of complexes straddling the boundaries of three countries has increased from two in 1988 to 23 in 1997, with a further seven potential complexes identified. In one case, the proposed Mura-Drava complex, four countries (Austria, Croatia, Hungary and Slovenia) are involved.
202 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

While some of this growth reflects changing political situations, as with the emergence of the Newly Independent States from the former Soviet Union, much of it represents genuine efforts to establish a common agenda for conserving biological diversity that straddles international boundaries. Table 2 Regional growth of transfrontier protected areas complexes since 1988 No. complexes No. protecte d areas 1997 36 80 126 104 69 415 No. proposed complexes 1988 0 0 3 2 6 11 1997 4 15 41 13 12 85 No. complexes with three countries 1997 0 5 6 9 3 23

Regions

N. America C. & S. America Europe Africa Asia TOTAL

1988 5 7 20 20 7 59

1997 8 24 45 34 25 136

The regional distribution of transfrontier protected areas complexes is summarised in Table 2 for 1988 and 1997. In general, such complexes are distributed fairly evenly throughout the different regions, becoming more evenly spread during the last decade due to an increase in the percentage of complexes in Central and South America (Figure 1). The increase in Central and South America partly reflects the establishment of several transfrontier protected areas since the cessation of armed conflicts in the region. While North America contains only 6% of the world's total number of complexes, it should be appreciated that these occur along only two international boundaries.

1988 (N=59) Asia 12%

North America 8%

1997 (N=136) C/S America 12% Asia 18%

North America 6% C/S America 18%

Africa 34%

Europe 34%

Africa 25%

Europe 33%

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, which represents nearly half of the 224 countries and dependent territories in the world. The International Boundaries Research Unit, University of Durham, UK, maintains a global database of international boundaries, which includes at present 309 international boundaries (M. Pratt, pers. comm., 1997). Some 112 (36%) of these international boundaries have transfrontier protected areas complexes located along them and an additional 47 international boundaries contain potential complexes. It should 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.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

203

Conversely, 38 of the 112 international boundaries are straddled by more than one protected areas complex (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 with respect to international boundaries is shown in Table 3. The number of international land boundaries has increased considerably in recent decades, from about 280 in the late 1980s to some 315 in 1997 (Blake, these proceedings), leading to increased opportunities for transfrontier protected areas complexes. In Europe, for example, the number of such complexes has doubled since 1988 (Table 2), partly due to the increased number of boundaries resulting from dissolution of the former USSR in 1991. Moreover, most of the proposed complexes in Europe (Table 3) lie along these new political boundaries in former eastern Europe or USSR. Table 3 Regional distribution of protected areas complexes straddling international boundaries Number of international boundaries with: 1 transfrontier protected areas complex N. America C. & S. America Europe Africa Asia TOTAL * Not included in Column 2 2 21 33 34 22 112 1 potential transfrontier protected areas complex* 1 6 28 9 3 47 > 1 transfrontier protected areas complex 2 8 12 11 5 38

Region

4.

PARKS FOR PEACE

Some 136 cases exist around the world where the boundaries of two or more contiguous protected areas straddle 112 international boundaries. These transfrontier protected areas complexes provide real opportunities for co-operative management across international boundaries 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 peace parks to date had probably had little independent effect on international relations, transfrontier environmental cooperation has the potential to develop into an independent variable influencing world politics. Experience in Europe during the past twenty years has demonstrated the important role of cooperative resource management at the local, transfrontier level in leading to greater European economic, social and political integration. Brock (1991) suggests that environmental cooperation may have a direct effect on regional politics by helping to internalize norms, establish regional identities and interests, operationalize routine international communication, and marginalize the acceptability of the use of force. Simply establishing international peace parks is unlikely to bring an end to border hostilities, but such initiatives may help to promote communication and cooperation as an early part of the peace process, building confidence and ultimately improving transfrontier relations. Where transfrontier relations are already cordial, they can be enhanced by focusing on biodiversity conservation objectives within adjoining protected areas. In the past decade, many countries have begun to explore the potential for promoting transfrontier protected areas as models of international cooperation. Examples include: Laos/Cambodia/ Thailand, Ecuador/Peru, La Amistad between Costa Rica and Panama, Sí-a-Paz between Costa Rica and Nicaragua, Turkey/Greece, Bosnia/ Serbia-Montenegro, Papua New Guinea/ Indonesia, Jordan/ Israel, South Africa/ Mozambique and the demilitarized zone between North and South
204 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Korea. The extent to which transfrontier protected areas may serve the twin objectives of conserving biodiversity and promoting peace across international boundaries was the subject of a conference in 1993 (Westing, 1993). At a more recent workshop in 1995, the experience gained by managers from transfrontier mountain protected areas was reviewed, and common elements for effective transfrontier cooperation identified (Hamilton et al., 1996). In many more cases, however, the extent of transfrontier cooperation between adjoining protected areas has not yet been examined on a global scale. The next step is to assess the levels of cooperation that exist within existing transfrontier protected areas complexes. This is already underway by the first author by means of a questionnaire survey involving managers of all transfrontier protected areas in the world. This survey will provide the basis for identifying the conditions under which transfrontier cooperation is practicable and the factors which are most likely to encourage or inhibit it.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

205

206

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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 IUCN Category (i.e. unassigned), provided that there is at least one established protected area adjacent to another either side of an international boundary.

Countries North America Canada/

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category II IV II IV II Ib V II V Ib II II II VI II II Ib IV

612 Kluane National Park & Preserve 18707 Kluane Wildlife Sanctuary 7406 Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park/ 13038 1005 35387 22490 1010 22485 35382 626 21193 973 100967 100672 100673 101594 Tongass National Forest Wrangell-St Elias National Park Wrangell-St Elias Wilderness Area Wrangell-St Elias National Preserve Glacier Bay National Park Glacier Bay National Preserve Glacier Bay Wilderness Area Waterton Lakes National Park Akamina Kishinena Provincial Park Flathead Provincial Forest Reserve/ Glacier National Park Flathead National Forest Ivvavik National Park Vuntut National Park Old Crow Flats Special Management Area/

US

Canada/

US Canada/

US

2904 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

207

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

208

Countries Canada/ US

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category II Ib VI II II II II II II Ib VI II

66395 Quetico Wilderness Provincial Park Neguaguon Lake Indigenous Reserve/ 21322 100955 988 4185 18646 101678 65159 979 21389 101431 101457 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Area Superior National Forest Voyageurs National Park Cathedral Provincial Park E. C. Manning Provincial Park Skagit Valley Recreation Area Cultus Lake Provincial Park/ N. Cascades National Park Pasayten Wilderness National Forest Sierra de Maderas del Carmen Protection Area Cañón de Santa Elena Protection Area/

Canada/

US Mexico/ US Mexico/ US Mexico/ US

976 Big Bend National Park 34862 Sierra de los Ajos Buenos Aires la Púrica National Forest Reserve/ 100881 Coronado National Forest 32971 El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar National 18091 Biological Reserve Sierra del Pinacate Refugio 13771 35472 Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge 35977 Cabeza Prieta Wilderness Area 1020 Organ Pipe Cactus Wilderness Area Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Tohono O’odham Reservation

VI IV IV Ib Ib III

Countries Latin America Belize/ Guatemala/

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category IV II n/a Ia II VI II VI VI VI

20224 Rio Bravo Conservation Area Private Reserve 61957 Aguas Turbia National Park/ 26621 Maya Biosphere Reserve 30604 Mirador -Río Azul National Park 102817 Naachtún - Dos Lagunas Protected Biotope/ 19570 20230 3314 116297 28850 Calakmul Biological Reserve Chiquibul National Park Columbia River Forest Reserve Vaca Forest Reserve Maya Mountains Forest Reserve/

Mexico Belize/

Guatemala Costa Rica/

Complejo III - Reserva de Biosfera Montañas Mayas Chiquibul 167 Tortuguero National Park 30599 Tortuguero Protected Zone 12493 Barro del Colorado National Wildlife Reserve/ 30628 Río Indio-Maíz Biological Reserve 20220 San Juan Delta Biological Reserve 142 Los Katios National Park/ 236 102255 2553 12491 2552 17185 102253 19402 Darién National Park Punta Patiño Nature Reserve La Amistad International Park Las Tablas Protected Zone/ La Amistad International Park Palo Seco Lagunas de Volcán Gandoca y Manzanillo National Wildife Refuge/

II VI IV Ia Pr II II II VI II VI IV IV II

Nicaragua Colombia/ Panama Costa Rica/ Panama

Costa Rica/ Panama

16787 Isla Bastimentos Marine National Park Humedal de San San Pond Sac

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

209

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

210

Countries El Salvador/ Guatemala/ Honduras El Salvador/ Honduras/ Nicaragua Guatemala/ Mexico Honduras/

WCMC Code

Designated Areas Biosphere

IUCN Category IV n/a II Pr IV II II Ia III Pr II Pr VI II Ia II II Ib II II

9638 Montecristo National Park/ 102815 Fraternidad o Trifinio National Reserve/ 18804 Montecristo Trifinio National Park Proposed/ 40996 Río Negro Biological Reserve/ 12652 Estero Real Natural Reserve Lacandón National Park/ 14305 67671 41014 41045 41013 41034 Montes Azules Biological Reserve Bonompak National Monument Río Plátano National Park Tawasha Indigenous Reserve Patuca National Park Río Coco Natural Monument/

Nicaragua Argentina/ Brazil/ Paraguay Argentina/ Chile

2650 Bosawas National Reserve 15 Iguazú National Park 61817 Iguazú Strict Nature Reserve/ 60 Iguaçu National Park/ M.S. Bertoni Reserve 97490 Nahuel Huapi National Park 97523 Nahuel Huapi Strict Nature Reserve/ 90 Puyehue National Park 88 Vincente Perez Rosales National Park

Countries Argentina/

WCMC Code 7 61820 2497 30844 16875 91 10706 9418 6 4329

Designated Areas Lanín National Park Lanin Strict Nature Reserve Lanín Natural Monument Complejo Islote Lobos Chañy Forest Reserve/ Villarrica National Park Villarica National Reserve Huerqueque National Park Los Glaciares National Park Los Glaciares Strict Nature Reserve/

IUCN Category II Ia II IV VI II IV II II Ia II II II IV VI Ia VI VI IV II IV II IV II IV II III III
211

Chile

Argentina/ Chile Argentina/ Chile Bolivia/ Brazil

9414 Bernardo O’Higgins National Park 89 Torres del Paine National Park 16873 Copahue -Caviahue Provincial Park/ 111 Ñuble Reseserva Nacional 20049 Iténez Reserva Fiscal/ 5126 41090 34028 36 94112 30043 33 20030 20035 Guaporé Federal Biological Reserve Baixo Sao Miguel State Extractive Forest Pedras Negras State Extractive Forest Eduardo Abaroa National Reserve/ Llicancabur National Park Los Flamencos National Reserve Sajama National Park Sajama Integrated Management Area Altamachi Vicuña Reserve/

Bolivia/ Chile Bolivia/

Chile Bolivia/ Peru

86 Lauca National Park 9435 Las Vicuñas National Reserve 98183 Madidi National Park/ 7460 Pampas de Heath National Sanctuary Bahua-Sonene National Park Tambopata Candamo Reserved Zone

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

212

Countries Brazil/ Suriname Brazil/ Venezuela Colombia/ Ecuador/ Peru Colombia/ Venezuela

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category VI IV II II

101760 Tucumaque Forest Reserve/ 276 Sipaliwini Nature Reserve 54 Pico da Neblina National Park/ 4367 Serranía de La Neblina National Park 9400 La Paya National Park/ 2499 Cuyabeño Reserva Faunistica/ 98245 Guepí National Park 144 Tamá Natural National Park/ 322 101129 30640 19993 El Tamá National Park Cerro Machado- El Silencio San Antonio- Ureña Protected Zone Catatumbo-Bari National Park/

II
VI Un II II VI V II II II V

Colombia/ Ecuador/ Venezuela

186 Yasuni/ 318 Perijá National Park 20068 Región Lago de Maracaibo -Sierra de Peri Protected Zone Prespa Lake National Park/ 674 Prespes National Park/ 2516 1056 102736 103578 Galichica National Park Pelister National Park Thayatal Protected Landscape Area Thayatal Nature Reserve/

Europe Albania/ Greece/ Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Austria/ Czech Republic II II II V IV II V

30721 Podyjí National Park 4280 Podyji Protected Landscape Area

Countries Austria/

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category V V V Pr V II II V Pr IV II IV II V II II V V Un IV V V II II

Lainsitzniederung Strict Nature Reserve 102882 Blockheide Eibenstein Nature Park 5425 Blockheide Eibenstein Nature Reserve Northern Waldviertel Area/ 2558 Trebonsko Protected Landscape Area Bayerischer Wald, Böhmerwald, Sumava National Park/ 4282 26059 Šumava CHKO Protected Landscape Area 26059 Šumava National Park Sumaveská Raselinisté/ 67870 64659 Bayerischer Wald Nature Park Deïlanderregion Böhmerwald Biosphere Reserve 31402 Kalkhochalpen Nature Reserve/ 688 1218 62709 102857 9566 18769 31412 68341 1220 31408 Berchtesgaden National Park Neusiedlersee Nature Reserve Neusiedlersee - Seewinkel National Park Neusiedler See und Umgebung Protected Landscape Area/ Fertö Hansag National Park Donau-Auen National Park Donau-March Protected Landscape Area Auen Protected Landscape Area Marchaven-Marchegg NSG Nature Reserve Untere Marchauen Nature Reserve/

Czech Republic Austria/ Czech Republic/

Germany

Austria/ Germany Austria/

Hungary Austria/

Slovakia

Belarus/ Poland

19034 Slovakia Zahorie CHKO Protected Landscape 12155 Area Male Karpaty Protected Landscape Area 1985 Belovezhskaya Puscha National Park/ 854 Bialowieski National Park

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

213

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

214

Countries Belarus/ Ukraine Belgium/ Germany Bosnia-Herzegovina/ Yugoslavia (Montenegro) Croatia/ Hungary

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category Ib Ia V V II II II Ia V IV V V V V

1644 Pripiatsky National Park/ 1749 Polessky Nature Reserve 18950 Hautes Fagnes Eifel Nature Park/ 6971 Nordeifel Nature Park 1055 Sutjeska National Park/ 15596 1051 15605 15602 Tara National Park Durmitor National Park Kopacki Rit Special Reserve Kopacki Rit Nature Park/

Czech Republic/ Germany Czech Republic/ Germany Czech Republic/ Poland Czech Republic/ Poland/ Slovakia Czech Republic/ Slovakia

9683 Mohacsi Tortenelmi Emlekhely Nature 100798 Conservation Area Duna-Drava National Park 4275 Protected Landscape Area Labské Pískovce/ 32666 Sächsische Schweiz National Park 11800 Sächsische Schweiz Protected Landscape Area 61421 Luzicke Hory PLA 20920 Zittauer Gebirge PLA 645 Krkonoše National Park Protected Landscape Area Iser Mountains/ 852 Karkonoski National Park 4267 Beskydy Protected Landscape Area/ 12270 Zywiecki Park Krajobrazowy/ 11812 Protected Landscape Area Kysuce CHKO 12154 Protected Landscape Area White Carpathians/ 12159 Biele Karpaty Protected Landscape Area

V V II V V V V V

Countries Denmark/

WCMC Code 92491 5762 17703 64575 4380 1541 33391 32669 11837 30116 82256

Designated Areas Waddensea Nature Reserve Vadehavet Wildlife Reserve Vadehavet Conservation Area Vadehavet National Nature Area/ Rantumbecken Nature Reserve Nord-Sylt Nature Reserve Hosteinische Schweiz Nature Park Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer National Park Niedersaohsisones Wattenmeer National Park Dollart Nature Reserve Nordfriesisches Wattenmeer Nature Reserve/

IUCN Category IV V IV IV IV V V V IV IV n/a II II IV II V IV II Ia II II IV Ia

Germany/

Netherlands

Finland/ Norway Finland/ Norway Finland/ Norway/ Russian Federation Finland/ Russian Federation Finland/ Russian Federation

64617 12754 Dollard Nature Reserve Waddensea Area Biosphere Reserve 654 Lemmenjoki National Park/ 822 Ovre Annarjakka National Park Kasivarsi Wilderness Area/

12297 Reisa National Park Raisdoutterhaldi Protected Landscape Area Vätsäri Wilderness Area/ 832 Ovre Pasvik National Park & Reserve/ 62446 Pasvik Zapovednikovednik 656 Oulanka National Park/ 68351 Paanajärvi 2561 Urho Kekkonen National Park/ 1700 Laplandskiy Zapovednik

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

215

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

216

Countries Finland/

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category

Friendship Nature Reserve, Kainou Park Elimussalo Nature Reserve Lehtua Nature Reserve 1523 Ulvinsalo Strict Nature Reserve 102007 Juortansalo-Lapinuo Protected Mire 102041 Lososuo-Saarijarvi Protected Mire Iso-Palonen & Maariansarkat Nature Reserve/ 13988 Kostomukskiy Zapovednik 40928 Perameri National Park/ 30811 1397 106872 6307 Haparanda Archipelago National Park Haparanda-Sandskar Nature Reserve Haparanda Skärgård National Park Vosges du Nord Regional Nature Park/

Ia IV IV Ia II Pr IV II V II V V II V II II II V V II V

Russian Federation Finland/ Sweden

France/ Germany France/ Italy France/ Italy France/ Spain Hungary/ Slovakia Hungary/ Slovakia

81245 Pfälzerwald Nature Park 661 Vanoise National Park 10350 Vanoise National Park Buffer Zone/ 718 Gran Paradiso National Park 664 Mercantour National Park/ 14618 Maritime Alps National Park 662 Pyrenees Occidentales National Park 703151 Pyrennes Occidentales National Park BZ/ 893 Ordessa y Monte Perdido National Park 13652 Aggtelék National Park/ 4376 Slovenský Kras CHKO Protected Landscape Area 30853 Karancs-Madves Protected Area 680 Bükki National Park/ 14146 Protected Landscape Area Cerová Vrchovina

Countries Italy/ Slovenia Italy/ Switzerland Lithuania/ Russian Federation Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia/ Yugoslavia (Serbia) Norway/ Sweden

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category Un II V Ia II II II II

15346 Foresta Di Tarvisio Nature Reserve Regional Park Alpi Guilie/ 2517 Triglavski National Park 717 Stelvio National Park/ 915 Suisse National Park 31552 Kursiu Nerija National Park/ 68348 Kurshaskayja Kosa National Park 1050 Mavrovo National Park/ Shara Mountains National Park 829 Rago National Park Pr. Tysfjord Hellembotn National Park/ 905 906 3998 30818 826 9906 833 Padjelanta National Park Sarek National Park Stora Sjõfallet National Park Sjaunja Nature Reserve Femundsmarka National Park Femundsmarka Protected Landscape Area Gutulia National Park/

II II II V Pr II V II IV Pr Ia II II II V Ia

Norway/

Sweden Norway/ Sweden Poland/ Slovakia Poland/ Slovakia

10401 Rogen Nature Reserve 30816 Rogen-Langfjallet National Park 125857 Lunddsneset Nature Reserve/ 30821 Tresticklan National Park 848 Tatrzanski National Park/ 1975 Tatranský National Park 106887 Babiogorski National Park/ 12160 Horná Orava CHKO Protected Landscape Area 14115 Babia Hora National Nature Reserve

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

217

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

218

Countries Poland/ Slovakia Poland/

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category II II II n/a n/a V Ia II

857 Pieninski National Park/ 646 Pieninski National Park 851 Bieszcadski National Park Magura National Park 67746 E. Carpathian - E Beskeid? Biosphere Reserve/ 67750 E. Carpathians Biosphere Reserve 12157 Vychodne Karpaty CHKO Protected Landscape Area/ 1990 National Biosphere Reserve, 1745 Karpatskiy Zapovednik Karpatskiy National Nature Park 860 Peneda-Geres National Park/ 71215 28791 31702 31703 Baixa-Lima-Serra do Xures Natural Park Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve Rosca-Buhaiova National Reserve Letea Nature Reserve/

Slovakia/ Ukraine

Portugal/ Spain Romania/

II V n/a Ia Ia Ia IV V VI IV II IV IV VI II

Ukraine Romania/ Yugoslavia Africa Angola/ Namibia Angola/ Namibia/ Zambia

4814 Dunaiskie Plavni Nature Zapovednik. 11150 Cazanele Forest Reserve/ 2522 Djerdap National Park 347 Iona National Park 2251 Mocamedes Parital Reserve/ 885 Skeleton Coast Game Park 4493 Mucusso National Park Luiana Partial Reserve/ 7442 W. Caprivi Game Reserve/ 30052 Mamili National Park

Countries Angola/ Zambia

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category IV II VI II VI VI IV IV IV IV II II IV II II Un II IV VI VI VI IV IV

4493 Luiana Partial Reserve/ 1087 Sioma Ngweze National Park 4081 West Zambezi Game Management Area Liuwa Plain National Park 597 Boucle de la Pendjari National Park 2253 Pendjari Hunting Zone 2254 Atakora Hunting Zone/ 3228 3226 9264 4488 12201 Pama Partial Faunal Reserve Arly Total Faunal Reserve Arly Partial Faunal Reserve Kourtiagou Partial Faunal Reserve “W” du Benin National Park/

Benin/

Burkina Faso

Benin/ Burkina Faso/ Niger Botswana/ Namibia/ South Africa Botswana/ South Africa/ Zimbabwe Burkina Faso/ Côte d’Ivoire Burundi/ Rwanda

1048 “W” du Burkina Faso National Park 4488 Kourtiagou Partial Faunal Reserve/ 818 “W” du Niger National Park 7508 Gemsbok National Park/ 97586 Kalahari Private Reserve/ 874 Kalahari Gemsbok National Park Northern Tuli Game Reserve/ 21174 Vhembe-Dongola Nature Reserve/ 3059 Tuli Safari Area 13746 Komoé-Leraba Classified Forest/ Warigué Classified Forest 9161 Kibira National Park/ 9148 Nyungwe Forest Reserve

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

219

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

220

Countries Cameroon/ Central African Republic/ Republic of Congo Cameroon/ Nigeria Central African Republic/ Sudan Côte d’Ivoire/ Guinea/ Liberia Gambia/ Senegal Guinea/ Senegal Kenya/ Tanzania

WCMC Code Lake Lobeke/

Designated Areas

IUCN Category Pr II VI II II II IV II Ia Ia Un Un II II II Un II II IV II VI VI Un Pr. VI

31458 Dzanga-Ndoki National Park 31459 Dzanga Sangha Forest Special Reserve/ 72332 Nouabalé Ndoki National Park 20058 Korup National Park/ 20299 Cross River National Park 2261 Yata-Ngaya Faunal Reserve/ 5090 Radom National Park 1295 Mont Nimba Strict Nature Reserve/ 29067 Mont Nimba Strict Nature Reserve/ 9176 E. Nimba National Forest 20175 W. Nimba National Forest 2290 Niomi National Park/ 866 Delta (Iles) du Saloum National Park 29069 Badiar National Park 29409 Badiar-Sud Classified Forest/ 865 Niokola Koba National Park 1297 Maasai Mara National Park/ 7437 916 918 2417 13715 872 13710 13714 Maswa Game Reserve Serengeti National Park Ngorongoro Crater Conservation Area Boni National Reserve/ Juba Left Controlled Hunting Area Lag Badana National Park Bushbush Game Reserve Bushbush Controlled Hunting Area

Kenya/ Somalia

Countries Kenya/ Tanzania Kenya/ Tanzania

WCMC Code 1402 7433 758 7633

Designated Areas Mkomazi Game Reserve Umba Game Reserve Amboseli National Park Loitokitok Forest Reserve/

IUCN Category II IV IV II Un II IV Pr II VI II II IV VI II II II II II II II IV IV II IV IV

19564 Tsavo West National Park/

Kenya/ Uganda Malawi/ Zambia Malawi/ Zambia Malawi/ Zambia

922 Kilimanjaro National Park 31593 Kilimanjaro Game Reserve Kitenden Corridor 760 Mount Elgon National Park/ 9179 Sebei Controlled Hunting Area 779 Nyika National Park/ 1102 Nyika National Park 4648 Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve/ 4102 Musalangu Game Management Area Lundezi Forest Reserve 780 Kasungu National Park/ 1088 1086 1100 1091 9310 N Luangwa National Park S Luangwa National Park Luambe National Park Lukusuzi National Park Diawling National Park/

Mauritania/ Senegal Mozambique/ South Africa/ Swaziland

867 Djoudj National Park 11653 Gueumbeul Special Faunal Reserve 4652 Maputo Game Reserve/ 116329 Ndumu Game Reserve 39758 Tembe Elephant Park Reserve/ Hlane National Park, Mlawula Nature Reserve

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

221

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

222

Countries Mozambique/

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category VI II II II II II II II II II II VI II IV Un IV VI II Pr. II VI II VI II IV

20295 Limpopo Valley Wildlife Utilization Area 800 Zinhave National Park 799 Banhine National Park/ 873 Kruger National Park/ 1104 Gonarezhou National Park Mabalauta 8785 Ai-Ais Hot Springs Game Park Fish River Canyon/ 30851 Richtersveld National Park 863 Volcans National Park/ 18436 Mgahinga Gorilla National Park 18437 Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park/ 1081 20331 904 7933/ 31275 64700 3276 1369 Virunga National Park Rutshuru Hunting Zone Nimule National Park/ Otze- Dufile Wildlife Sanctuary Otze Forest Forest Reserve Mount Kei White Rhino Sanctuary Kidepo Game Reserve/

South Africa/ Zimbabwe Namibia/ South Africa Rwanda/ Uganda/ Zaïre Sudan/ Uganda

Sudan/ Uganda Sudan/ Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaïre) Uganda/

958 Kidepo Valley National Park 10737 Lantoto National Park/ 1083 20036 18438 9184 Garamba National Park Mondo Misso Hunting Zone Rwenzori Mountains Semluiki Controlled Hunting Area Semuliki National Park 1446 Kyambura Game Reserve/ 1081 Virunga National Park

Zaïre

Countries Zambia/ Zimbabwe

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category II II VI VI III III III II IV Ia II IV IV Un Ia V Ia Un II V IV IV

7692 Lower Zambezi National Park/ 2531 Mana Pools National Park 2524 Charara Safari Area Sapi , Chewore, Dande Special Areas 2347 Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park 62183 Victoria Falls National Monument/ 1993 Victoria Falls National Park 2530 Zambezi National Park 4478 Sundarbans W. Wildlife Sanctuary/ 9960 Sundarbans National Park/ 7996 Royal Manas/ 1818 9232 62663 39641 18035 32948 3937 Manas Sanctuary Buxa Tiger Reserve Buxa National Park Labi Hills Protection Forest Reserve Labi Hills Recreation Area Sungei Ingei Conservation Area Ensengi Forest Reserve/

Zambia/ Zimbabwe Asia Bangladesh/ India Bhutan/ India

Brunei Darussalam/

Malaysia Cambodia/ Thailand

3790 Gading Forest Reserve 787 Gunung Mulu National Park 12249 Preh Vihear Protected Landscape/ Yod Dome Wildlife Sanctuary 1415 Phanom Dong Rak Wildlife Sanctuary

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

223

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

224

Countries Cambodia/ Laos/

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category II VI Pr Pr IV II VI n/a IV Ia IV Ib Ia Ib VI II II II IV Ib II VI Ia IV IV Ia

68862 Virachey National Park/ 18872 Dong Ampham Nature Reserve Nam Kong Nature Reserve Altopeu/ 12171 95461 95460 96016 Mom Ray Nature Reserve Jingpo Lake Nature Reserve Mudan Peak Nature Reserve Changbai Mountains Biosphere Reserve/

Viet Nam China/

N. Korea/ Russian Federation China/ Mongolia/ Russian Federation China (Tibet)/ Nepal

17908 Paekdu Mountain Nature Protection Area/ 1726 Kedrovaya Pad Zapovednik 96064 Dalai Lake Nature Reserve/ 93538 Mongul Daguur Strict Protected Area/ 62684 Daurskiy Zapovednik 95785 Zhu Feng Nature Reserve 95784 Jiang Cun Nature Reserve/ 804 803 26606 26605 96118 Sagarmatha National Park Langtang National Park Makalu-Barun National Park Makalu-Barun Conservation Area Ta Shi Ku Er Gan Nature Reserve/

China/ Pakistan China/ Russian Federation China/ Russian Federation

836 Khunjerab National Park 95476 Xing Kai Lake Nature Reserve/ 62691 Khankaiskiy Zapovednik. Hunhe Nature Reserve 95471 Hong River Nature Reserve/ 1715 Bol’shekhekhtsizskiy Zapovednik

Countries China (Guangxi)/ Viet Nam China/ Viet Nam India/ Nepal India/

WCMC Code

Designated Areas

IUCN Category VI VI IV VI IV IV II II IV IV IV II IV IV II IV II II VI VI Ia Ia VI II VI IV

95872 Gu Long Mountain Shui Yuan Lin 95618 Xia Lei Shui Yuan Lin Nature Reserve/ 10360 Trungkhanh 99776 Guan Yin Mountain Nature Reserve 95742 Fen Shui Ling Peak Nature Reserve/ 10357 Hoang Lien Son #2 1807 Katarniaghat Sanctuary 691 Dudhwa National Park/ 1308 4578 12414 4543 Royal Bardia National Park Valmiki Sanctuary Sohagibarwa Sanctuary Udaipur Sanctuary/

Nepal India/ Pakistan Indonesia (Kalimantan)/ Malaysia (Sarawak) Indonesia/ Papua New Guinea Kyrgyz Republic/ Uzbekistan Laos/ Thailand Laos/ Viet Nam

805 Royal Chitwan National Park 19683 Kachchh Desert Sanctuary/ 6684 Rann of Kutch Wildlife Sanctuary 8673 Gunung Bentang Karimum National Park/ 1300 Lanjak Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary 12250 Batang Ai National Park 29966 Wasur National Park/ 4200 Tonda Wildlife Management Area 4202 Maza Wildlife Management Area 1675 Besharalsky Zapovednik./ 1761 Ugam-Chatkal National Park 18893 Phou Xiang Thong National biodiversity Conservation Area/ 39518 Pha Taem National Park 61496 Nam Et National Biodiversity Conservation Area/ 10363 Sop Cop Nature Reserve

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

225

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

226

Countries Laos/ Viet Nam Malaysia (Sabah)/ Philippines Mongolia/ Russia Mongolia/ Russia

WCMC Code

Designated Areas Biodiversity

IUCN Category VI IV II IV Ia Ia II II

12182 Phou Dene Dinh National Conservation Area/ 10362 Muong Nhe Nature Reserve 793 Pulau Penya Park/ 14758 Turtle Island Marine Sanctuary 93566 Uvs Nuur Basin Strict Protected Area/ 67722 Ubsunurskaya Kotlovina 93579 Khovsgul Nuur National C Park/ 68356 Turkinskiy National Park

Key to IUCN category field: Pr proposed protected area n/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 the Twentieth Century. In: Protected Areas in the 21st Century: from Islands to Networks, World Commission 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 National Parks and IUCN. IUCN (1994). Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas with the assistance of the World Conservation Monitoring Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x + 261pp. Pratt, M. (1997). Electronic mail list-serve “int-boundaries”, 17 October 1997. International Boundaries Research Unit, University of Durham, Durham, UK. Thorsell, J. and Harrison, J. (1990). Parks That Promote Peace: A Global Inventory of Transfrontier Nature Reserves. Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Conservation. J. Thorsell (Ed.). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Pp. 421. 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 obligingly responded to requests for information on transfrontier protected areas. Members of the WCMC Protected Areas Unit, namely James Paine, Samuel Kanyamibwa, Isabel Ripa Juliá, Javier Beltrán and Balzhan Zhimbiev, contributed their knowledge and expertise. Vicky Fletcher and Oliver Jarratt matched listed transfrontier protected areas with database records, Simon Blyth ably prepared a poster map for this Conference at very short notice, and Victoria Freeman provided secretarial and other support. Members of the Protected Areas Programme at IUCN Headquarters shared their expertise and provided various support, which is greatly appreciated. The study has also benefited from the comments and suggestions of the World Commission on Protected Areas Steering Committee, numerous researchers at Duke University, and many participants at the IUCN World Conservation Congress.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

227

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

228

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

229

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

230

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

231

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

232

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

233

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's Republic 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 Military Demarcation Line separating the two states - as established by the Military Armistice Agreement of 27 July 1953 - is surrounded by a demilitarized zone (DMZ) 4 km in width (with 2 km on either side 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 ultimate peaceful reunification - and negotiations of a desultory nature towards those ends have been occurring on and off for several decades now. The process began with a South-North Joint Communiqué of 4 July 1972, by which the two Koreas pledged to achieve unification through independent efforts and peaceful means, and to carry out exchanges in many areas. Even more to the point, a detailed ‘Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression and Exchanges and Cooperation between the South and the North' of 13 December 1991 reaffirms the earlier Joint Communiqué 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 and carry out cooperation in diverse fields, including the environment (see its Article 16). The DMZ has been left relatively undisturbed ever since the end of the war, the primary human interference having been occasional circumscribed forest fires deliberately set for military purposes. 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 said to 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, pp 43-54; 1994, pp 124-125) (see Note 2). The environment throughout the rest of the peninsula, it must be added, is widely degraded and otherwise abused, not surprising in view of the human population 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 of flora 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 north and south, for agricultural, industrial, and urban development (Kim, 1997; Matthiessen, 1996). I and others have thus been urgently suggesting for some years now that North-South negotiations be initiated on a priority basis so as to establish, as soon as possible, a Korean Bi-state Reserve for Peace and Nature (Kim, 1997; Westing, 1993, pp 8-9). Then the two states could begin to deal cooperatively with a precious common natural heritage of that ecogeographical region: the species-rich ecosystems that straddle the north-south divide. Such an endeavor would serve not only to contribute to the very necessary expansion of areas devoted to biodiversity protection on the peninsula [with a biota that includes a number of species threatened with extinction), but would, 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 a largely low wetland toward the western end of the Demarcation Line, about 60 km northeast of
234 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Panmunjom, important inter alia as a wintering ground for migratory birds; and the other largely a mountainous 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 they extend beyond the DMZ itself and into the two existing civilian control zones (Westing, 1993, pp 8-9). This would leave up to 73% of the combined DMZ and civilian control zones for the development 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 wintering ground for a number of waterfowl (Scott, 1989, pp 98-99, 105-109). Indeed, it is crucial to the survival 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; IUCN Vulnerable). Other threatened bird species that could benefit from this site include the Chinese egret (Egretta eulophotes; IUCN Vulnerable), the black-faced spoonbill (Platalea minor; IUCN Endangered], the white-tailed sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla; IUCN Vulnerable), and possibly also the hooded crane (Grus monacha; IUCN Vulnerable) (MIA, 1987b, pp 397-398]. Mammals threatened with extinction in this area include the grey wolf (Canis lupus; IUCN Vulnerable] and the Siberian musk deer (Moschus moschiferus; IUCN Endangered) (ML/l, 1987b, pp 387 & 395396) (see Note 5). The eastern dry upland site I propose is important for a number of threatened mammalian species, including the Asiatic black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus: IUCN Vulnerable), the Siberian musk 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 area appear again to include the red-crowned crane (MIA, 1987a, p. 551) (see Note 5). In creating the eastern site. consideration must be given to thereby joining, at least by protected corridors, two already existing national reserves, one on each side of the DMZ: North Korea's Kumgang Mountain National Park (44 000 ha; IUCN II; ca 30 km northwest of the DMZ) and South Korea's Sorak 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 would be 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 portion of the DMZ as a nature reserve, although at the moment their positions on the matter are unfortunately quite at odds. North Korea approached the United Nations Secretary-General in early 1991, requesting that he explore the possibility of a DMZ-centered nature reserve, a step soon thereafter supported in like manner by South Korea. The task was given over to the United Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] (Nairobi), which then appointed me to visit both Seoul and Pyongyang in order to initiate appropriate arrangements. My mission to Seoul transpired in December 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 civilian control zone for some years prior to 1991 (e.g., MIA, 1987a; 1987b; NUB, 1989), and quickly (in mid 1991) followed up on the new initiative by establishing an inter-agency task force comprised of high-level representatives of eight relevant bodies, both political and technical, to explore the matter diplomatically, to carry out further ecological surveys of the border region, and to recommend specific sites (see Note 6). The Government, in recognizing the potential for a DMZ reserve to serve as a political tension-easing, confidence-building, and conflict-prevention measure between North and South, in December 1991 indicated its readiness to meet on this matter with representatives of the North, with no objection to having UNEP serve in a facilitating role. In December 1994, the Government of South Korea contacted me to reinforce that offer, this time emphasizing its desire to have either UNEP or the United Nations Development Programme

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

235

[UNDP] [New York) play a key catalytic role. And in August 1997, the director of the UNEP regional office for Asia and the Pacific [UNEP/ROAP] (Bangkok), informed me that South Korea continues to have a positive reaction to establishing a transfrontier reserve. North Korea, after its early 1991 initiative, followed later that year by discussions between its Environment Protection Bureau and UNEP, has essentially withdrawn into silence on the matter despite many subsequent exploratory moves on the part of UNEP (through me, through UNEP/ROAP, and via other avenues] plus further ones by UNDP. I was informed in mid May of 1992 by the Government of North Korea that a committee had just been formed for cooperation with South Korea on environmental and other matters; and in late May that the issue of turning the DMZ into a peaceful and natural park would follow smoothly upon implementation of the Agreement on Reconciliation mentioned earlier. But despite its consummation a few months earlier (in December 1991, entering into force in February 1992), nothing of substance in that regard seems to have occurred since. Indeed, as recently as July 1997 I was informed by the UNDP resident representative in Pyongyang (UNDP/DPRK) that he continues to raise the issue from time to time, but that the Government is not as yet the least bit interested in reviving the matter. And the director of UNEP/ROAP has raised the issue in Pyongyang no less than twice during 1997 with both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the General Bureau of Environment Protection and Land Administration (and has additionally done so with North Korea's representative in Bangkok) - only to be decisively informed that the Government does not wish to pursue the subject at this time. NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS Thus, despite the continuing low-key efforts by both UNEP and UNDP, formal progress toward a DMZ-associated nature reserve is languishing at the moment owing to North Korea's reticence to re-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 coequals in the negotiations - and this may provide the justification and impetus for a re-awakened interest by North Korea. In the meantime, two USA-based non-governmental organizations stand out 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 protected areas for the red-crowned and white-naped cranes in and near the DMZ and elsewhere along their ranges (Archibald, 1975; Matthiessen, 1996: Zimmerman, 1981). The Foundation has carried out study tours of the DMZ on various occasions over the past two decades. Most recently, in 1995 it petitioned the South Korean National Unification Board to facilitate cooperation between the two Koreas on crane research and conservation under the auspices of the Foundation. Moreover, the Foundation, which has been working in collaboration with the [South] Korean Association for Bird Protection, was instrumental in having South Korea establish a 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 Ke Chung Kim, and directed by him since then. is actively attempting to convince the two Koreas to establish 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 a means 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 to conserving their own natural environments and to joining with the community of nations to further

236

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

global environmental aims. Nonetheless, it is clear that both have a long way to go, North Korea more so than South Korea. Regrettably, neither of the two Koreas is as yet a party to the 1977 Protocol on International Armed Conflicts (UNTS #17512), so important because - as one of its basic rules - this widely adopted instrument draws protection of the environment during wartime into the orbit of international humanitarian law (see especially its Article 35.3). Furthermore, neither country is as yet 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-personnel land mines. North Korea has a Ministry of Forestry, a General Bureau of Environment Protection and Land Administration (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) (which commits its parties to consultation with respect to any transfrontier wetland [see its Article 5]), to the 1972 World Heritage Convention (UNTS #15511), or to the 1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES] (UNTS #14537] - three of the keystone treaties in global environmental cooperation. On the other hand, it is good to be able to point out that North Korea did become a party to the highly apropos 1992 Biological Diversity Convention (UNTS #30619] in 1994 - as did South Korea - which, inter alia, commits all of its parties both to establishing, as appropriate, a system of protected areas (see its Article 8a) and to cooperating among themselves (see its Article 5). South Korea has a Ministry of Environment, a National Parks Authority. a Forestry Administration, 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 the 1973 Convention on Trade in Endangered Species in 1993, and [as noted earlier) to the 1992 Biological Diversity Convention in 1994. However, (as with North Korea) it is not as yet a party to the 1971 Wetlands Convention. As a welcome note, South Korea is making a point to publicize its growing commitment to the environment (Kang, 1997). And more directly to the subject, in addressing 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 would cooperate with each other to protect and preserve the DMZ, turning it into a zone for peace and ecological integrity. Moreover, since 4 July 1997 there has been before the South Korean National Assembly proposed legislation to establish a nature reserve that includes the DMZ. A political impediment to establishing the proposed transfrontier reserve prior to the consummation of a peace treaty is that it would perforce include a portion of the DMZ, a zone that was (as noted earlier] created by the 1953 Military Armistice Agreement (see its Article 1). The parties 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 a position 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, in practice, if the two Koreas were to agree on the use of a portion of the DMZ for environmental protection, as is being envisioned here, I feel confident that acquiescence by the two other parties to the Agreement would come as a matter of course, especially so inasmuch as the newest peace negotiations for the first time formally involve both Koreas. A technical impediment to establishing the proposed transfrontier reserve is that the immediate surroundings of the DMZ - and the DMZ itself to some greater or lesser extent - are heavily mined. Clearing operations are not only exceedingly difficult, expensive, and dangerous, but at the same time can be most environmentally disruptive (Westing, 1985).

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

237

In closing, it is abundantly clear that the possibility of a Korean hi-state reserve for peace and nature has been received most favorably by the Government of South Korea; and has also received the careful attention of the Government of North Korea. Despite the sensitive nature of any negotiations between the two Koreas - or perhaps because of this - a confidence-building and conflict-prevention measure that involves something as benign, as mutually beneficial, and as apolitical as biodiversity and related nature protection would be most important to initiate, and would then seem to have a reasonable chance of succeeding in due course. Clearly, the project is well worth pursuing as one of the most valuable opportunities in the world for a new transfrontier protected area. It would be making a critical contribution to the environmental security - and thus also to the comprehensive human security - of the long troublesome Korean peninsula. 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 Korean demilitarized 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.
238 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

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 Korean w/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 Korean w/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 global security. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme, 127 pp: pp 1-15. Westing, A.H. 1998. Establishment and management of transfrontier reserves for conflict prevention and confidence building. In preparation. Zimmerman, D.R. 1981. Fragile victory for beauty on an old Asian battleground.
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 239

Smithsonian, Washington, 12(7) :56-65. NOTES * Invited paper, International Conference of the World Conservation Union [IUCN] plus Peace Parks Foundation on ‘Transboundary protected Areas as a Vehicle for International Cooperation', Somerset West (Cape Town), South Africa, 16-18 September 1997. The author, a forest ecologist, is with Westing Associates in Environment, Security, & Education, RFD 2, Box 330H, Putney, VT 05346, USA, westing@together.net. He is most pleased to acknowledge the receipt of useful information or suggestions from George W, Archibald, Seek-Young Choi, Ke Chung Kim, Yoon-Yul Kim, Christian Lemaire, Masa Nagai, Yu Bo Sun, Carol E. Westing, and Suvit Yodmani. 1. The eastern portion of the South Korean civilian control zone (CCZ) [the portion in Kangwon Province) has an area of 104 850 ha (MIA, 1987a, p. 243) and the western portion (the portion in Kyonggi Province) 29 000 ha (MIA, 1987b, p. 183), for a total of 133 850 ha. At a length of 246 km, the average width of this zone is thus 5.4 km. With the assumption that there is a CCZ of similar size to the north of the DMZ, then the combined area of the DMZ (4 km x 246 km = 98 400 ha) 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 a combined area of 57 890 ha (0.5% of the country) (IUCN, 1994, p. 124). South Korea, which is 9 848 000 ha in size, has 28 registered nature reserves with a combined area of 693 798 ha (7% of the country) (IUCN, 1994, p. 125). Thus, the Korean peninsula as a whole is 21902000 ha in size and 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, including a number of endemic ones (KOIS, 1990, p. 24), of which more than 1000 can be found in the DMZ and/or associated civilian control zones (CCZs) (Kim, 1997; MIA, 1987a, p. 341; 1987b, pp 241 & 253]; more than 75 species of mammals (KOIS, 1990, p. 30], of which perhaps half or more are in the DMZ and/or CCZs (Kim, 1997; MIA, 1987a, p. 507; 1987b, p. 387); more than 320 species of birds (KOIS, 1990, p. 30), of which more than 50 are in the DMZ and/or CCZs; and more than 130 species of freshwater fish (KOIS, 1990, p. 30), of which more than 80 are in the DMZ 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 biotic resources)(in Korean). Seoul: Minumsa, 1994. 4. The DMZ plus its associated civilian control zones have an area of perhaps 366 100 ha (see Note 1). If the two proposed reserves were 50000 ha each, then together they would represent 27% of the combined DMZ and civilian control zones. If the two recommended reserves were, in fact, established, then this would expand the portion of North Korea under protection to 107890 ha (to 1% of the country); that of South Korea to 743 798 ha (to 8% of the country); and that of the 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 now benefit 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; IUCN Rare). Moreover, there are a number of plant species found in the DMZ and/or associated civilian control 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 was comprised of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [presiding), Forestry Administration, Forestry Research Institute, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of National Defense,
240 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

National Unification Board, Ministry of Internal Affairs, and National Security Planning Board. It should 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 the ecosystems of its civilian control zone.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

241

THE CENTRAL AFRICAN EXPERIENCE IN TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS. A CASE STUDY 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 in the 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 in Africa abut or adjoin national boundaries. Regional, trans-national and internal civil conflicts seem 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 the colonial era but vigorously defended by present nation states. It should be noted in passing that the existence of conflict per se is not necessarily incompatible with habitat conservation and there is much evidence to show (Richards, 1966) that large areas of West African forests have retained their ecological integrity because of the existence of disputes in which neither side was able to achieve hegemony over the resource base: it should not be automatically assumed that conflict and conservation are inherently incompatible. There is no doubt, however that for rational management of trans-boundary protected areas, a non-conflict context is desirable. However, in much of sub-Saharan Africa the impediments to this are considerable. This case study raises some of these issues and attempts to establish some criteria which should be in place before such trans-boundary management is attempted. Cameroon provides a potentially valuable case study because of experiences incurred during the creation of a protected area system and also because of actual armed conflict in the immediate vicinity of a transboundary protected area. In the south-east of the country three new protected areas are in the process of creation (Boumba-Bek (249,920 ha), Nki (181,568 ha) and Lake Lobeke (206,528 ha); the proposed protected area of Lake Lobeke has a common boundary of c.27 kilometers with the Dzangha-Sangha Dense Forest Reserve of the Central African Republic and (depending on the ultimate size and limits of the Lac Lobeke Reserve), a similar boundary with 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 of Cameroon with Nigeria, and opposite the Cross River National Park and shares a joint boundary of some 14 kilometers with it. Two other Cameroon savanna national parks lie very close to international boundaries; Faro (less than 8km from the Nigerian border) and Waza (less than 5km); furthermore, two other parks have boundaries with Tchad; Boubanjidah has a 34 kilometer boundary 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 in Central Africa and is exceptionally diverse biologically, partly because of the existence of Pleistocene refugia and partly because of an exceptionally varied landscape including the highest mountain in West Africa (and only active volcano), Mount Cameroon, which exceeds 4,000m in height. 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 square kilometer; in contrast in much of the south-east, the human population density is below 1 person per square kilometer. Cameroon is bordered to the west by Nigeria, a country with twice the land area and a human population of over 100 million. Relations between Cameroon and Nigeria are tense, partly because 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. Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

242

troops are engaged in a protracted and ongoing armed conflict. The Bakassi peninsula lies less than 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 are francophone 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 human populations and relations between them and Cameroon have been generally friendly over the past few years. However, civil disturbance in neighboring countries over the last decade has had consequences in Cameroon with influxes of refugees. Also, as in all civil conflicts, firearms become readily available and are then used in poaching wildlife. The north-east sector of the Boubanjidah National Park in Cameroon has been for several years occupied by armed Tchandian factions with significant negative effects on the wildlife of the park. The northern section of the park has been inaccessible to tourists for several years. The continued civil unrest in the Central African Republic (mainly confined to the capital, Bangui) has had little discernible effect on Cameroon. To the south, Cameroon is bordered by Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and Congo. These are all members of the CFA franc zone and are francophone apart from Equatorial Guinea 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 and south 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/Cameroonian border essentially dividing Bantu and semi-Bantu ethnic affiliations, furthermore there is also a clear linguistic and cultural divide. 1. The Pre-conflict situation. The Korup National Park was created by Presidential Decree on 30th October, 1986. Much of the land had previously been occupied by the Korup Forest Reserve, which had been established by the British Colonial Administration in the early 1930s. The process of negotiation and gazettement was a lengthy one. However, it was evident from the outset that the former President of the Republic, Ahmadou Ahidjo was taking a keen personal interest. No questions were asked about the security aspects of a national park on the boundary with Nigeria; the President’s concerns were institutional, and his approval was finally given in principle for the park to be created as long as the then Federal University was involved, and that it was used for field studies. The judicial process for setting up a protected area is set out clearly in the legislation. Official notice must be posted on the doors of local government premises, and public meetings held. At this early stage, rarely in public, but often in private, opposition to the idea of creating a protected area in the Korup region was expressed by officials of the security forces, from individual agents of the Special Branch who attended public meetings, and who reported back through the hierarchy to the Minister in charge of Security. The security forces did not wish to see the creation of a people-free area, which they saw as a vacuum, right against the boundary with their populous neighbor, Nigeria. Part of the reason for slowness in the process of the gazettement was opposition from the security services. Things came to a head in 1986 when ODA offered funding as long as the park was officially gazetted. With the active assistance of influential people from the area who were close to the center of Government, and after apparently detailed scrutiny 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 partnership with the British Overseas Development Administration. Both WWF-UK and ODA had significant interests in Nigeria, and after the successful gazettement of Korup in Cameroon, moves were soon began to attempt the creation of a similar project Nigeria. By June 1988, WWF had finished its preliminary survey of the Oban Group Forest Reserve in Cross River State of Nigeria and concluded that setting up a national park there, adjacent to Korup, would be both desirable and feasible. The initiative stemmed partly from a wish to increase the size of the conservation unit in an area of high biodiversity, partly to access European Community (EC) funds which are available
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 243

for transfrontier projects and partly because of an affinity for Nigeria on the part of a key individual within WWF-UK. Funding was located and the Cross River National Park was established in 1991 by Federal Decree 36. It should be emphasized that while there were extensive interactions with the Governments of both Cameroon and Nigeria during the period prior to the gazettement, there was no attempt to promote the idea of a transnational park to either government. While within WWF there was the feeling that this was an important step, it was largely because of the securing of a large block of forest; for conservation purposes and not for any other motive. The projects had different managers, and although there were occasional meetings between Nigerian and Cameroonian project staffs, they operated and continue to operate as independent, separate projects. The situation regarding the proposed trinational parks of Cameroon, Central Africa and Congo was rather different. During the early and mid-80s, field studies were being carried out by in the region and its biological value began to become apparent. A proposal for the creation of the trinational protected area in Central Africa, Cameroon and Congo was drawn up by WWF-US and New York Zoological Society and submitted to USAID in 1991. Funding failed to materialize, but extensive contacts were made with the various governments. In CAR and Congo the idea of a trinational 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 trinational park. The opposition stemmed to come from the fact that the process was seen to be flawed. To begin to create a trinational area would have required, so it was thought, extensive international lobbying and agreements. It was thought more practical to start with the gazettement of the individual units within the respective countries, and then, at a later stage, discuss joint management strategies and collaboration. Because of this opposition, the movement towards creation of the protected areas was much slower in Cameroon. Both DzangaSangha and Nouabale-Ndoki have been officially gazetted; the former in 1990 and the latter in 1994. 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 most populous nation in Africa with a population of over 100 million, and also one of the most densely populated. The population is particularly dense along the coast and in the south-east of the country. The town of Calabar is an ancient and major trading post and was an important embarkation 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 human population 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 on the border have strong strategic position and smuggling is a lucrative way of life. While the people of the west of the park have strong ethnic ties with Nigeria (Korup people), the people in the east of the park have little (Bantu: semi-Bantu divide). The Cameroon side of the border is remote with low human population density and people make their money principally by trapping and farming. In Nigeria, the area is accessible, has high human population density and people make 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, the Nigerian army invaded what had been, until that point, part of Cameroon. They are still there almost three years later and there are frequent skirmishes. The noise of shell-fire is clearly audible from Mundemba, the headquarters of the Korup National Park. When a military emergency 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 from Mundemba was important and construction was begun without reference to the Ministry of the Environment and Forests, which has jurisdiction over the National Park; only when the Korup
244 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Project brought this to the attention of MINEF, were they aware of what was going on. This road cuts through the southern portion of the national park and isolates some 9 km2 from the rest of the national park. The military presence has resulted in an increase in hunting within the protected area. Park activities are also inhibited because of military rules that are in place. This case has been forwarded to the International Court of Justice in the Hague for jurisdiction, but in the meantime, hostilities continue. 3. Post-conflict period There is little data on the post-conflict period. The Bakassi conflict continues. A major effect of armed conflict in a region is the persistence of firearms afterwards. The Korup National Park is close to the Ibo heartland of south-east Nigeria that comprised the break-away Republic of Biafra in 1965 Biafra has come and gone, but guns from this civil conflict were still being used for poaching 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 is essentially an institutional one to be negotiated and agreed between the highest levels of government. This emergent function is additional to the functions of conservation and habitat protection and the interface will be at government rather than at grass roots level. It is therefore necessary that the institutional conservation measures (gazettement, management plans, staff and infrastructure, effective budgets) are in place on both sides of the border. The first priority is to ensure that there are efficiently managed protected areas both sides of the border; the emergent functions can be negotiated and implemented at a later stage. b) Military and strategic considerations play an important role in determining the viability or otherwise of trans-border protected areas. In many sub-Saharan African countries the military voice is exceptionally powerful and defense considerations outweigh other priorities. If national security is threatened, there is little doubt that, international agreements notwithstanding, the protected areas will be invaded if the military believes that access is necessary. Similarly, the military view is often opposed to the creation of no-go protected areas against national boundaries, as these are seen as an invitation to invasion. c) There should be homogeneity on both sides of the border. It is important that economic conditions on both sides are roughly similar (if there is economic imbalance, there will be infiltration from low to high). It is important that population pressures on both sides are roughly similar. If population pressure on one side of the border is high and on the other is low, there will be 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 one side of the border are producers (farmers, trappers) and the others are traders; the traders will invade and will become involved in commerce in the producing side. There should be ethnic and cultural homogeneity. French-speaking Cameroon distrusts English-speaking Nigeria; the semiBantus distrust the Bantus. d) The protected areas must provide approximately equal economic benefits to local populations on both sides of the border. Each individual unit of a trans-boundary protected area should meet the criteria for protected status without taking the other unit into account. Both units should have a similar conservation status (an ecologically rich zone adjacent to an ecologically impoverished zone should be avoided). Both units should have appropriate and approximately similar levels of institutional development (legal status, management plans, staff and infrastructure, budgets). Laws, regulations, charges and fines should be consistent on both sides of the border.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

245

e) Trans-national protected areas should not be created in regions where land-use conflicts are likely 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 and management in Southeastern Cameroon, Southwestern Central African Republic and Northern Congo. Proposal submitted to USAID, Washington. Harrison, M. & P. Agland, (1987). Southeast Cameroon: A Proposal for Three New Rainforest Reserves. Report for Secretary of State for Tourism, Yaoundé, Cameroon. Caldecott, J. (1991). The Cross River National Park Project, Nigeria: Operational Experience During the Start-up Phase. Internal WWF Report, 39pp. Brandon, K.E. & M. Wells (1992). Planning for People and Parks: Design dilemmas. World Development, 20 (4), 557-570. Richards, Paul (1966) Forest indigenous peoples: concept, critique and cases. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 104B, 349-365.

246

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

247

THE MESO-AMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR: A REGIONAL TOOL FOR TRANSBOUNDARY CO-OPERATION AND PEACE KEEPING EFFORTS By: Juan Carlos Godoy WCPA 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 American countries: Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama. Meso-America is located between 8 and 23 degrees North Latitude, therefore considered as part of the intertropical zone. It is a region of high climatic, cultural and biological diversity which cover an extension of 768,990 km2, representing the 0,51% of the world’s terrestrial surface, but containing 8% of the global biodiversity. The extraordinary biological diversity of Meso-America and the presence of a high number of endemic plant and animal species have been long recognised . Some data can give an idea of this biological richness: Panama contain more species of birds -929- than Canada and the United States of America together; in Belize, with only 22,965Km2, more than 150 species of mammals, 540 species of birds and 152 amphibians and reptiles have been identified; Costa Rica, with the size of Denmark, have more than 55 biotic units; in Nicaragua is possible to find more than 800 species of orchids divided in 150 genus, particularly in the highlands of the northern part of the country; and in Guatemala 70% of the vascular plants in the mountains are endemic. These are only examples that justified why Meso-America is considered as a megabiodiversity region. Population and Economic Growth Central American reported in 1993 a population of 29,9 million inhabitants, as a result of a population growth rate of over 3% per year. It have been estimated that for the year 2030 the total population in Central America will doubled. According to UNDP in 1991 from the total population of the region, 10,2% were indigenous peoples; more than 20 different ethnic groups in a number of settlements are living in areas that form part of the Central American Protected Areas System (CAPAS). The majority of the population is leaving in conditions of extreme poverty, which is the fundamental reason for many of the army conflicts that took place in recent years. The Index of Human Development increased in the period between 1970-1985, and as a general tendency decreased between 1985 and 1990, with the exception of Costa Rica, where this index maintain an increasing rate. However, between 1990-1993 it have been noted an improvement on this index, 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 in Latin America and the Caribbean stressed the urgent need to take conservation measures to protected key ecoregions of high biodiversity from fragmentation mainly due to population growth and economic development. There are 33 ecoregions in Meso-America from which 11 are considered to be in a critical state, and the same number of ecoregions (11) are threatened to be lost in the future. In the last 30 years, 461 protected areas have been declared in Meso-America. Belize is the country with the higher proportion of national territory covered by protected areas (31%), followed

248

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

by Guatemala (27%), Costa Rica and Panama (24%); Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico and El Salvador (2%), that altogether represents over 18 million hectares. However, at least 270 areas are small, with less than 10,000 hectares, half of them are lacking field staff, for only 55 areas management plan have been prepared, and very few (40) are having research programmes. Some “privileged” protected areas counts with an adequate infrastructure to achieve effective conservation and to ensure the production of services and benefits that can contribute to the development of the region. In addition, only some ecoregions are well represented in the CAPAS, and in some cases representation can only be achieved by protecting fragments of natural 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, including deforestation at a rate of 400,000ha/year, which means that there is a lost of 50ha of forest every hour. Poverty, land ownership, lack of adequate incentives in the forest sector, the use of inadequate technologies, lack of economic incentives for conservation, inappropriate agricultural practices, insufficient assessment of the economic values of biodiversity and the lack of a comprehensive legal and institutional framework for protection and restoration of landscapes, are some factors influencing environmental degradation. There are other elements that represent a threat to protected areas and biodiversity: projects for tourism development in coastal and marine areas, lack of institutional co-ordination, crops and traffic of drugs, illegal extraction of plants and animals, mining and oil prospecting and exploitation. All these activities increase habitats fragmentation and biodiversity lost. At the regional 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-ordination towards biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Towards Regional Integration As a result of the peace and democratisation process in Meso-America, joint efforts and initiatives have 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 the region to reach a better quality of life for theirs citizens. In the context of these efforts, the governments of Meso-America considered as a key factor the establishment of co-operation mechanisms in lookinf for viable solutions that allow to reverse the negative trend on the use of natural resources. Each country have developed institutional efforts to conserve and to sustainable use natural resources within their jurisdiction. However, the Presidents of Central American countries signed in December 1989 the Central American Convention for Environmental Protection , by which the Central American Council for Environment and Development (CACED) was established, which comprised representatives from each country. Furthermore, as part of the process of regional integration within the scope of the protection of natural resources, on 5 June of 1992, the Presidents of the region signed the Convention for the Conservation of Biological Diversity and the Protection of Priority Natural Areas, which main objective is the conservation of terrestrial and coastal-marine biodiversity for the present and future generations. This agreement consider that conservation of biological diversity can only be addressed as a joint effort and therefore require regional and international co-operation to support national actions. As part of this agreement it was created the Central American Council for Protected Areas (CACPA), as the regional institutional entity to co-ordinate regional actions and to harmonise policies related to the development of a Regional System of Protected Areas.

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

249

In the period between September and October 1994, the Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development (CAASD) was created, conceived as an integrated strategy for sustainable development in the region, and as a mechanism to enhance co-ordination of interests, development initiatives, shared responsibilities and common rights. A key principle of CAASD is to respect and sustainable use the biodiversity on Earth “To protect and conserve the biodiversity of all species of plants and animals, other organisms, the inter-specific genetic populations, and the variety of ecosystems”. Also established as one of its key commitments the need to develop the Central American Biological Corridor as a tool to enhance the system of protected areas in each country. Regional co-operation Under the umbrella of these initiative for regional co-operation, and using priorities determined at national and local levels, a number of international co-operation agencies are supporting the implementation of key actions, related to sustainable forestry, community management of natural resources, in-situ conservation of biodiversity, and development of ecotourism projects. There is a growing commitment and interest from the international donors community to support regional efforts on rural development, biodiversity conservation and management of natural resources. According to the available information 16 regional projects are underway, including tri-national and 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 of negotiation with international agencies, as well as others that have been already funded and under implementation. These national projects are supporting in-country efforts on rural development, biodiversity conservation and management of natural resources. A number of these national projects are under the leadership of international NGOs such as WWF, TNC and IUCN, and others are supported by USAID, the Dutch Co-operation, EU, GTZ, DANIDA and recently 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 for Environment and Development, and after a long process of review and discussions supported by UNDP, in 1996 the conceptual framework for the Central American Biological Corridor was approved by the Ministers of Environment and Natural Resources of Central American countries in February 1997. This framework consider the regional biological corridor as “an innovative framework to implement the principles of sustainable development between the society and the environment, concentrating the efforts on natural and man-made ecosystems at regional scale for inter-generations periods”. The Central American Biological Corridor have been defined as “a system of well consolidated and organised territorial planing, formed by natural areas under especial management and administrative arrangements (core and buffer zones, areas of multiple use of natural resources and areas of interconnections among them) that offer a wide range of environmental services and products for the society of Central American and for that of the whole World; which also offers and opportunity to reach concerted positions on social and environmental issues, therefore promoting investments on conservation and sustainable use for biodiversity and natural resources in order to improve the quality of life for the people in the region”. The development of the Central American Biological Corridor (CABC) require a long-term Strategic Programme that can enhance and consolidate on-going initiatives that are promoting alternative ways to respond to local social and economic needs while optimising the sustainable use of biodiversity and natural resources under agreed economic, social and ecological criteria.

250

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

The CABC is seen by GEF, GTZ and DANIDA as an important tool to articulate land use planning with biodiversity conservation at regional and national levels, thus they are supporting its implementation. In addition the CABC can provide a framework to orient international cooperation on rural development and natural resources management on the basis of agreed regional and national priorities. The Strategic Plan for the CABC is focused on the need to get the necessary political support and commitment to promote bioregional planning and biodiversity conservation through the consolidation of the Central American System of Protected Areas, providing alternative options for sustainable use of natural resources in buffer zones as well as promoting landscape restoration in the surrounding land, helping to build up “bridges” between existing protected areas. This Strategic Plan should be a flexible framework to: a) identify gaps for the protection of key ecosystems; b) promote new opportunities at the national and local levels to support sustainable development initiatives; c) provide technical elements for the discussion on the capacity of natural and semi-natural ecosystems to support economic development; d) develop a monitoring system to provide relevant and updated information for decision makers; e) promote alternative financial mechanisms to fund biodiversity conservation; and f) maximise the coordination of programmes and projects to make more efficient their contribution to biodiversity conservation and sustainable development. Considerable amount of work have been done already: at the present there are technical assessments for each country of the region, that give a first geographical approximation of the Central American Biological Corridor. Most recently the coastal and marine part of the Biological Corridor have been discussed and endorsed by the Presidents of Mexico, Guatemala, Belize and Honduras by the Declaration of Tulum, which reflects the political will to co-operate for the conservation and management of the Great Barrier Reef of Meso-America. The CABC should promote the use of different tools, at different scales and using different capacities in helping the countries to fulfil the political, economic and social objectives of the Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development. All individual institutions, organisations, projects or programmes need to contribute to the overall regional effort. The CABC will also have direct link with the Central American Environmental Fund to orient investments that contribute to the development of the CABC. In addition to promote regional co-ordination, the CABC consider as a key principle that only strengthening the capacity of local and national actors is possible to build up and consolidate the regional corridor, and that the overall local and national experience and lessons learned would feed the necessary elements to approach the regional problems from a realistic perspective. The actions promoted by the CABC should preserve the basic natural systems to keep open options for the development of the region, it should promote the rational management of watersheds and the 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 American Summit in July 1997, agreed to respond to the challenge of developing the CABC using all possible mechanisms: regional agencies, governmental institutions, local authorities, indigenous peoples and farmers organisations, the private sector, agricultural exporter enterprises , and NGOs dealing with conservation issues. The CABC will have a direct relation with those national and regional projects that are helping to systematise, demonstrate and exchange lessons learned that have the potential to contribute to the ecological, social and economic basis of a long-tern democratisation and peace process in the region. Therefore the CABC is an unique opportunity to strategically mobilise the interests of the 7 countries of the region that, despite to be small states, have a gigantic willingness to develop in a
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 251

co-ordinated and jointly manner, a regional system of protected areas supported by an ecologically friendly land use system, that altogether can provide a wide range of products and environmental services that are required to a post-war era in the region, therefore helping to achieve 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 Corredor Biológico 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 áreas protegidas y el Corredor Biológico en Centroamerica. UICN-CCAD-WCPA-PFA. 62pp.

252

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

253

ANNEX A: PARTICIPANTS LIST

254

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

255

Parks for Peace
List of Participants
A Mr Faisal ABU-IZZEDIN Project Manager Protected Areas Project Ministry of Environment PO Box 113-5474 Beirut LEBANON Tel/Fax: ++9611 418910 Email: faisal@moe.gov.lb Ms Fiona ARCHER Programme Manager Department of Land Affairs GTZ 6 Highstead Flats 3 Highstead Road Rondebosch 770 SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++ 27 21 689 5202 Fax: ++ 27 21 686 4724 Email: archer@iafrica.com B Mr Jean BIZIMANA Chef de Service Tourisme et Parcs Nationaux Office Rwandais de Tourisme et des Parcs Nationaux B.P. 905 Kigali RWANDA Fax: ++250 83574 Mr Gerald BLAKE International Boundaries Research Unit Mountjoy Research Centre Suite 3P University of Durham UNITED KINGDOM Tel: ++44 1913 747701 Fax: ++44 1913 747702 Email: ibru@durham.ac.uk Dr Jan BOJO Senior Environmental Economist Environment Group - Africa Region The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington DC 20433 UNITED STATES Tel: ++1 202 473 4429 Fax: ++1 202 473 8185 Email: jbojo@worldbank.org Ms Michele BOWE Project Leader International Collaboration PNG - Indonesia Jl. Seruni No 4 Naikoten I, Kupang PO Box 1123 Pos Oebobo Kupang NTT 85000 INDONESIA Tel: ++62 0380 23494 ++62 0380 32976 home Mr Robert BRUNNER Consultant Kirchengasse 39/13 A-1070 Vienna AUSTRIA Tel: ++43 1 5228696 Fax: ++43 1 5228696 C Mr. Julio CARRERA Universidad Autónoma Agraria Apto Postal 486 Saltillo Coahuila Mexico 25000 MEXICO Fax: ++ 52 84 105714 ++52 84 144 997 Home

256

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Mr Juan. J. CASTRO-CHAMBERLAIN Environmental Management Consultant Apdo. 1515-1000, San Jose COSTA RICA Tel: ++506 236 9555 Fax: ++506 221 3168 Email: jantillo@cariari.ucr.ac.cr Dr Jan CEROVSKY Ecopoint Foundation c/o AOPK PO Box 85 13023 Praque 8 CZECH REPUBLIC Tel: ++420 2 6975938 Fax: ++420 2 6975938 ++420 2 6970012. Mr William CHADZA National Headquarters PO Box 1429 Blantyre MALAWI Tel: ++ 265 643 428/643 502 Fax ++265 643 765 Email: wsm@unima.wn.apc.org Dr E. CHONQUICA IUCN-MOZAMBIQUE Armando Tivang Rd 971 MAPUTO Tel: ++258 1 492815 Fax: ++258 1 490812 José CISNEROS Big Bend National Park PO Box 129 Big Bend National Park TX 79834, UNITED STATES Tel: ++ 915 477 2251ext 101 Fax: ++ 915 477 2357 Email: jose_cisneros@nps.gov

Stefan COETZEE Director Finance & Administration Peace Parks Foundation 29 Magnolia Street Somerset West 7129, SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++27 21 855 3564 Fax: ++27 21 855 3966 Email: scoetzee@parks.org.za D Mr Thomas DILLON WWF—VIETNAM Indochina Programme Office 116 Yet Kieu Street International P.O. Box 151 Hanoi VIETNAM Tel: ++844 8220 640 Fax: ++844 8220 642 Email: wwfvn@netnam.org.vn F Ms. Josiane FALLA Environmental Consultant UNHCR c/o So Goma CP 2500 1211 Genève 2 SWITZERLAND Rue Jean Prevot No. 58 4620 Fleron BELIQUE Tel: ++1 407 7265027/8/9/30 Fax: ++1 407 7265026 Email: codgo@unhcr.ch Mr Francois FALLOUX Senior Environmental Advisor Environmental Group Africa Region The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 UNITED STATES Tel: ++ 1 202 473 5562 Fax: ++1 202 4738185 Email: ffalloux@worldbank.org G

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

257

Mr Steve GARTLAN WWF –CAMEROON B.P. 6776 Yaounde, CAMEROON Tel: ++237 214241 Fax: ++237 214240 Email: sgartlan@wwfnet.org Mr Howard GEACH Blanchard Sodetur Av. Martires de Moeda No. 580 Torres Vermelitas, Bloco 25, andar 19°, Apt. 192 Mamputo MOZAMBIQUE Tel: 258 1 496405 Fax: ++ 258 1 492246 27 Cotswold Drive Saxonwold Johannesburg 2196 SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++27 11 442 3174 ++27 11 4425199 home Fax: ++ 27 11 4425199 Mr Juan Carlos GODOY PFA/FUNDESCA Los Angeles, calle 62 oeste, casa No 12 Ciudad Panama PANAMA Tel: ++507-2368186 Fax: ++507-2696966 Email: jcgodoy@sinfo.net Mr Fergus O’GORMAN Director National Conservation Education Centre Knocksink Wood National Nature Res. Knocksink Wood, Enneskerry Co. Wicklow IRELAND Tel: ++ 353 1 2866609 Fax: ++353 1 2866610 Email: conserve@indigo.ie

Dr. Michael GREEN World Conservation Monitoring Centre - WCMC 219 Huntingdon Road Cambridge CB3 0DL UNITED KINGDOM Tel: ++44 1223 277314 Fax: ++ 44 1223 277136 Dr Alfredo GUILLET Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Directorate General for Development Cooperation Via Contarini 25 Rome 00194 ITALY Tel: ++39 6 36914615/4166 direct no 3691 4166 Fax: ++39 6 3240585 Dr Isdore GWASHURE Chairman Zimbabwe Tourism Authority Box CY 1211 Harare ZIMBABWE Tel: ++263 737 944 Fax: ++ 263 4 734 769 H Ms. Philippa HADEN Land Use Options Adviser Department of Land Affairs 184 Tahob Mare 87 Pretoria SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++27 12 3128273 Fax: ++27 12 3236015 Dr Anthony HALL-MARTIN Director: Research & Development National Parks Board PO Box 787 Pretoria 0001 SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++27 12 3439770 Fax: ++27 12 3432832 Email: mariaanM@parks.sa.co.za

258

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Prof. Larry HAMILTON Islands & Highlands Environmental Consultancy 342 Bittersweet Lane Charlotte, Vermont 05445 UNITED STATES Tel: ++1 802 4256509 Fax: ++1 802 4256509 Email: LSX2-hamilton@together.org Mrs Linda HAMILTON Accompanying Prof Hamilton UNITED STATES Dr John HANKS Executive Director Peace Parks Foundation P.O. Box 227 Somerset West 7129 SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++27 21 855 3564 Fax: ++27 21 855 3958 Email: jhanks@ppf.org.za Mr Derek de la HARPE Price Waterhouse Wildlife, Tourism and Environmental Consulting Unit PO Box 453 Harare ZIMBABWE Tel: ++263 4 757 610 Fax: ++ 263 4 752 584 Email: derekpw@harare.iafrica.com Dr George HUGHES Chief Director Natal Parks Board PO Box 662 Pietermarityburg 3200 SOUTH AFRICA Tel ++27 331 471 961 Fax ++27 331 472 977 Email: ghughes@npb.co.za J Dr Z. Pallo JORDAN Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism Pretoria SOUTH AFRICA Fax: ++27 21 21453216

K Mr José KALPERS Technocal Associate International Gorilla Conservation Programme P.O. Box 48177 Nairobi KENYA Tel: .++ 254 2 710367 Fax: ++ 254 2 710372 Email: 100657.707@compuserve.com Mr Yemi KATERE Regional Director IUCN-ROSA 6 Lanark Road Belgravia Harare ZIMBABWE Tel: ++263 4 705714 L Ms Annette LANJOUW Regional Coordinator International Gorilla Conservation Programme P.O. Box 48177 Nairobi KENYA Tel: ++254 2 710367 Fax: ++254 2 710372 Email: alanjouw@awfke.org Dr John LEDGER Director Endangered Wildlife Trust Provate Bag 11 Parkview 2122 SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++27 11 4861102 Fax: ++27 11 4861506 Email: ewtsa@global.co.za Mr Leonel LEITE LOPES Grupo de Trabalho Ambiental MOZAMBIQUE Tel: ++ 258 1 493 102 Fax: ++258 1 493 3049

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

259

Dr M. LINDEQUE Deputy Director Ministry of Environment and Tourism Private Bag 13346 Windhoek NAMIBIA Fax: ++264 61 232057 M Dr Ian MACDONALD Chief Executive WWF – SA PO Box 456 Stellenbosch SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++ 27 21 887 2801 Fax: ++ 27 21 887 9517 Ms Kathy MACKINNON Biodiversity Specialist The World Bank 1818 H Street Washington D.C. 20433 UNITED STATES Tel: ++ 1 202 458 4682 Fax: ++ 1 202 522 3256 Email: kmackinnon@ worldbank.org Mr. Alfonso MADOPE National Director DNFFB Box 1406 Maputo MOZAMBIQUE Tel ++258 1 460036/96 Fax: ++258 1 460060/479 Mr S. L. MAMBA Chief Executive Officer Swaziland National Trust Commission PO Box 100 Lobamba, H 107 SWAZILAND Tel: ++268 61151 Fax: ++268 61875 Email: staff@Swazimus.org.sz

Mr. Willas MAKOMBE Acting Director Department of National Parks and Wild Life Management Harare ZIMBABWE Fax: ++ 263 4 724 914 Mr Taperandava MAVENEKE Campfire Association Box 4027 Harare ZIMBABWE Tel: ++263 4 747429/30 Fax: ++263 4 795150 Mr David MCDOWELL Director General IUCN-HQ Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland SWITZERLAND Tel: ++41 22 9990295 Fax: ++41 22 9990029 Mr. Lota MELAMARI Director General Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) AICC Building, room 618, Kilimanjaro Wing PO Box 3134 Arusha TANZANIA Tel: ++255 57 3471 ++255 57 4082 Fax: ++255 57 8216 ++255 57 4075 Email: tantpa@habari.co.tz Mr Benjamin MIBENGE Wildlife Society Box 30255 Lusaka ZAMBIA Tel: ++260 1 254226 Fax: ++260 1 254226 (or IUCN Zambia Office) Email: wcsz@zamnet.zm

260

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

Dr Simon MUNTHALI Head SADC WSTCU Box 30131 Lilongwe 3 MALAWI Tel: ++265 723505/676 Fax: ++265 723089 Mr Norbert MUSHENZI Directeur Provincial Institute Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature c/o IGCP, Box 28 UNHCR Goma CONGO Fax: ++ 1 407 726 5026 N Mr Daniel NJAGA Biodiversity Officer Kenya Wildlife Service PO Box 40241 Nairobi KENYA Tel: ++ 254 2 501 081/2 Fax: ++254 2 505 866/501 866 Email: kws@users.africaonline.co.ke Dr. Peter NOVELLIE Chief Executive National Parks Board P Mr David PEACOCK Department of Wildlife & National Parks PO Box 131 Gaborone BOTSWANA Tel: ++ 267 371405/353010 Fax: ++267 312354 Mr Adrian PHILLIPS Chair WCPA 2 the Old Rectory Dumbleton near Evesham Gloucestershire WR11 6TG UNITED KINGDOM Tel: ++44 1386 882094 Fax: ++44 1386 882094 Email: adrianp@wcpa.demon.co.uk

R Mr Ayman RABI Executive Director ECOPEACE PO Box 55302 Jerusalem 97400 ISRAEL Tel: ++972 2 6260841/3 Fax: ++972 2 6260840 Email: ecopeace@netvision.net.il Dr Robbie ROBINSON PO Box 339 Newlands 7725 SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++27 21 612557 Fax: ++27 21 6830683 Mr Pedro ROSABAL Programme Officer Programme on Protected Areas IUCN-HQ Rue Mauverney 28 1196 Gland SWITZERLAND Tel: ++41 22 9990163 Fax: ++41 22 9990015 Email: pmr@hq.iucn.org Dr Karen ROSS Conservation International Okavango Program PO Box 448 Maun BOTSWANA Tel: ++267 660017 Fax: ++267 661 798 E Mail: ci-botswana@conservation.org S Mr Trevor SANDWITH Chief Planner Natal Parks Board Pietermaritzburg 3200 SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++27 331 471 961 Fax: ++21 331 471 173 Email: trevors@npb.co.za

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

261

Dr Arno SCKEYDE Project Officer Southern Africa Division GTZ Dag Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5 Postfach 51 80 65725 Eschborn GERMANY Tel: +49 61 96 79-1507 Telex: 4 07 501-0 gtz d Fax: ++ 49 61 96 79-7177 Email: arno.sckeyde@gtz.de Mr Ron SEALE Park Planning Advisor Mt Elgon Conservation and Development Project Mbale UGANDA Fax: ++256 41 342298 Mr David SHEPPARD Head Programme on Protected Areas IUCN-HQ SWITZERLAND Tel: ++41 22 9990162 Fax: ++41 22 9990015 Email: das@hq.iucn.org Ms Clare SHINE Barrister and Consultant IUCN Commission on Environmental Law 37 rue Erlanger 75016 Paris FRANCE Tel: ++331 46519011 Fax: ++331 46519011 Dr Victor SIAMUDAALA National Parks & Wildlife Service Private Bag 1 Chilanga ZAMBIA Tel. ++260 1 278323 Fax. ++260 1 27 8439

Dr Elizabeth SODERSTROM USAID Regional Centre for Southern Africa PO Box 2427 Gaborone 2170 BOTSWANA Tel: ++267 324449 Fax: ++267 324404 Email: esoderstrom@usaid.gov Dr Bartolemeu SOTO Transfrontier Project Co-ordinator Box 1406 Maputo MOZAMBIQUE Tel: ++258 1 460036/96 Fax: ++258 1 460060/479 T Mr Ted STEYN Chairman Northern Tuli Game Reserve Landowners’ Association PO Box 593 Kelvin, Johannesburg 2054 SOUTH AFRICA Fax: ++27 11 8043918 Mr Clive STOCKIL Chairman/Provate Safari Operator Save Valley Conservancy P.O.Box 160 Chiredzi ZIMBABWE Tel: ++263 31 7241 Fax: ++263 31 7244 Ms March TURNBILL Peace Parks Foundation P.O. Box 227 Somerset West 7129, SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++ 27 21 855 3564 Fax: ++ 27 21 855 3958 Email: mturnbill@ppf.org.za

262

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

V Mr J. D. VILAKATI Director of Environment Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy PO Box 57 Mbabane SWAZILAND Tel: ++268 46244-7 Fax: ++268 42436 Gert van der VEER Member of the Board of Directors Peace Parks Foundation 13 van der Stel Street 1709 Florida SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++27 11 672 7130 Fax: ++27 11 672 7130 Email: vdveerg@iafrica.com Mr Rod de VLETTER World Bank PO Box 4053 Maputo MOZAMBIQUE Tel: ++258 1 492841 Fax: ++258 1 492893 Email: rvletter@worldbank.org Mr Vongphet VENE Deputy Director Centre for Protected Areas & Watershed Management Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Vientiane, LAO P.D.R. Tel: ++856 21 217 161 Fax: ++ 856 21 215 004

W Mr Samson WERIKHE EIA and Research Coordinator Uganda Wildlife Authority P.O. Box 3530 Kampala UGANDA Tel ++256 41 346 288 Fax ++256 41 257 945 Mr Arthur H WESTING Westing Associates RFD 2, Box 330H, Putney, VT 05346 UNITED STATES Tel: ++1 802 3872152 Fax: ++1 802 3874001 Email: westing@together.net Y Mr Ragab YAGOUB ABDULLAH PO Box 920 Doha QUATAR Tel: ++ 974 330270 / 400491 Fax ++974 411806

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

263

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful