| A. Historical background and overview of transboundary management in the “W” Park | |
|
B. Summary of the clauses written into the agreements and the programs for cooperation |
A. Historical background and overview of transboundary management in the “W” Park
In order to better grasp the justifications for and the background concerning the “W” Park, we have considered it necessary to provide a retrospective look at the park’s history, starting in the colonial era and up to as far as today, with special emphasis being placed on events having occurred over the past 15 years.
1. Prior to 1984
Since being declared a zone of refuge in 1926, the “W” Park, in the eyes of colonial federal administration based in Dakar, was an entity governed in accordance with French colonial law. Thus, even if park management was very much decentralized, on principle, overall organizational coherence was ensured at the federal level by the administrative and forestry authorities.
After 1960, this regional centralized system of management was replaced by a national system organized by sector. Decisions concerning policies, legislation, regulations, and management of protected areas were made and defined by each country individually, without consulting the others, and from a purely national viewpoint, even if certain officials were probably led to exchanging their views and experiences made during meetings. This lack of official consultation lasted until 1984, at which point certain moves were made to set up a system of collaboration for the management of the protected areas of the “W” Park on the River Niger.
2. After 1984
At the origin of the setting up of transboundary collaboration for park management was a joint venture initiated by Benin and the Republic of Upper Volta (currently Burkina Faso), both of which had in common on one side or other of its frontier, parks and game reserves that were part of a continuum: the “W” National Park covering three countries; the wildlife reserves of Kourtiaga, Arly, Pama, and Madjaori for Burkina Faso; and the national park and game reserves of Pendjari and Atakora for Benin. One result of this initiative was the signing of an agreement on July 12, 1984, to combat poaching. This agreement was only signed by Niger in 1986, and implemented from January 1, 1986.
At this time, as noted by Heringa (1988), relations among the organizational bodies responsible for park conservation remained mostly local and personal, in particular between officials in Tapoa (Niger) and Tapoa-Djerma (Burkina Faso), and between those in Kompa (Benin) and Niger. Occasionally, officials from one country were invited to meetings organized in neighboring countries.
The main reasons that justified the ratification of an agreement to combat poaching were as follows: (i) each country had problems in monitoring, safeguarding, and trying to stop poachers who, having broken the law, tended to take refuge in a neighboring country; (ii) the state of degradation of natural wild fauna habitats; (iii) the recognition that conservation of living natural resources was a question that could only be resolved through cooperation and the assuming of responsibilities at an international level; (iv) the problem of how to manage and preserve their contiguous parks and wildlife reserves without undermining any one State’s sovereign right to use its own natural resources; and (v) the concern for preserving genetic diversity, ecosystems, and landscape for the benefit of cultural and socioeconomic development both now and in the future.
However, it should be noted that this agreement limits the efforts made for collaboration and cooperation as far as the prosecution of poachers by forestry officials of member states on a neighboring territory is concerned.
Running parallel to the efforts made by Benin and Burkina Faso, another initiative was taken within the framework of the FAO Program for the fight against animal trypanosomiasis in Africa (FAO 1985). The aim of this program was to free the zone in the valley of the River Niger of the disease, with a view to using the area for animal farming. Since the area concerned also covered protected areas situated in Benin, Niger and Burkina Faso, it was necessary to verify how cattle and wild fauna interacted among one another. Thus a case study was called for, to be carried out by Mr. Heringa (1988) on “the value of national parks and wild animal reserves in Benin, Niger and Burkina, and their relation with the development of the valley of the River Niger.” This case study highlighted in particular (i) the ecological and scientific value of protected areas, (ii) the nutritional and economic value of wild game, and (iii) the need to set up a joint management committee for the complex, one that would be part of the Council of Alliance. Unfortunately, these interesting proposals were to remain in abeyance, inasmuch as they were part of a case study required for a project whose main interest was in the development of the River Niger valley, and not so much in the valorization of wild fauna.
However, in 1987, in light of the obvious weaknesses observed in regional cooperation, delegations from Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger, and the European Communities Commission (one of the main financing bodies for the zone at that time), decided to draw up and put into operation a common regional strategy for conservation through a “Development Project for contiguous protected areas and for the protection of the environment in Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger”. The first feasibility study for this project was carried out in 1988 [Commission des Communautés européennes (European Communities Commission) 1988].
In theory, the end result of this study was to be a highly ambitious project involving a system of organization and management reflecting the determination of the parties involved; these met up in Natitingou (Benin) in 1987, to set up a real system of transboundary management for the “W” Park. Those responsible for the project and parties involved had envisaged a Regional Directorate based in Niamey—it would be autonomous in management and decision making, and within it technical and administrative services would be combined. This directorate was to coordinate three sub-regional directorates (one per country). Each was to be organized into different services; provide intermediary, local infrastructures; and establish local agencies responsible for observation, consultation, carrying out research, and taking action and inflicting punishment, as specified in one of the recommendations made at the meeting in Natitingou. On top of this cumbersome organizational structure, the feasibility study had also suggested that the project be run by a Regional Management team reuniting 45 members, out of whom 27 would be scientific, technical, or administrative experts. Furthermore, the project was to have included several spheres of activity: (i) redefinition of the status and the limits of protected areas, (ii) control of poaching, (iii) development of tourism, (iv) working to prevent the exploitation of wild animals, v) ecological research and follow-up, (vi) integration of protected areas, (vii) administrating and running the project, (viii) human resources, and (ix) training.
This undertaking was to have called upon huge financial investments both for infrastructures and logistics, and the resources to be found (material, human, and financial) were substantial. Thus it was not surprising that discussions held in order to reach a consensus of opinion concerning which action was to be taken were particularly protracted. Between 1989 and 1992, the end result of these discussions was the reorganization of the project, which, instead of creating a regional directorate plus the sub-regional directorates, was to have been made up of an easy-to-manage coordination unit plus three national components, whose activities were to be supervised by an Advisory Committee and a Technical Follow-up Committee.
In 1993, the financial costs of the project were updated in light of new adjustments. The financial proposal to be submitted to the European Union was drawn up in 1996 [Commission européenne (European Commission) 1996], and completed in 1997 [Commission européenne (European Commission) 1998a], following the conclusions finalized at the meeting held on February 4 and 5, 1997 in Kompienga (Burkina Faso). Ministers of Environment from the countries concerned all participated in this meeting, and they took a definite stance as regards each country’s responsibilities, and how these should be distributed. It was in particular decided that the Head Office for the project would be in Ouagadougou instead of Niamey. The town of Ouagadougou was chosen not so much because it better fulfilled certain technical requirements (existence of urban commodities situated close to the “W” Park), but mainly because it was also the town where the Head Office of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) was located. WAEMU works in favor of African integration for eight countries in the area, including the countries involved, and it had already expressed interest in the project. Thus, WAEMU was identified as the center for the coordination unit, and the Commissioner responsible for the Department of Rural Development and the Environment was to play a role in overseeing the setting up of the project. Project coordination was entrusted to Benin, and Niger was to assume the presidency of the two committees set up within the framework of the project.
Thus, after many long years of discussion and negotiation between the fund provider and the countries on the one hand, and among the countries on the other, an initial financial agreement was concluded among the interested parties in 1997, and a convention (Convention No 6135/REG) was signed on July 13, 1999, for the starting up of the project. The name of this project had in the meantime been changed into the “Conservation and Rational Development of contiguous protected areas in Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger, and peripheral zones.” In April 2000, the project was officially launched after a Ministerial meeting held in Tapoa.
The implementation of this program, which has just been started up with the opening of a central management unit based in Ouagadougou, will be the real point of departure for an integrated system of management for the “W” Park and the other contiguous protected areas in the three countries. This collaboration will be still further reinforced by the initiative taken by IUCN, in relation with the three states and with the support of UNDP, for the setting up of a community-based biodiversity conservation system in the buffer transboundary zones of the “W” Park, the Arly Park, and the Pendjari Park. For this project, a request for funds in order to carry out the feasibility study has been submitted to GEF via UNDP.
It must be said that in the setting-up process of this joint transboundary project for natural resource management in the protected areas of “W,” the discussions held at a political level (Ministerial meetings)—in particular in November 1987 in Natitingou (Benin), in 1989 in la Tapoa (Niger), in February 1997 in Kompienga (Burkina Faso), and in April 2000 in la Tapoa (Niger)—have made it possible to lay the foundations of a regional policy for conservation of biodiversity within the framework of the said project.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the Ministers for the Environment from the three countries involved (Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger) who met in Tapoa (Niger) on April 24, 2000, decided to initiate the necessary procedures for having the transboundary complex of “W” classified simultaneously as a Biosphere Reserve, a Ramsar site, and a Site of Natural World Patrimony. This proves that coordination and harmonization is essential for ensuring the conservation of biodiversity in the “W.”
B. Summary of the clauses written into the agreements and the programs for cooperation
1. Before 1984
As specified above, during the period of French colonial administration, the main responsibilities for the conservation of biological diversity in the “W” Park were held by the federal government of French West Africa and its associated services based in Dakar, but management (development, surveillance, protection) was in the hands of territorial administrative services, and in particular those of the local forestry commissions. The vertical organizational system of the forestry commissions within the FWA federal administrative system did nothing—or at the most very little—to encourage exchange of opinions, or horizontal cooperation among the colonies, to ensure the effective management of the “W” Park and its peripheral areas. Furthermore, in the different texts adopted locally, and in practice, the park’s uniqueness was never highlighted, as though no one knew of, or accepted it. In fact, during the colonial period, the only occasion when the uniqueness of the park was acknowledged was for scientific studies or for touristic activities.
When the French colonies gained their independence, the situation hardly improved at all. Each government busied itself with the problems and worries concerning its specific sector of park, and was generally indifferent to what was going on in the rest of the complex. As has already been said, this situation lasted until 1984, at which date the antipoaching agreement was signed.
2. The antipoaching agreement of 1984
The agreement itself included a certain number of interesting proposals as far as transboundary park management was concerned. Among those, the following are worthy of note:
3. The regional conservation program for contiguous protected areas in the “W” Park financed by the European Union
The program’s overall objective is to invert the process of degradation of natural resources, and to preserve biodiversity within the regional complex to the benefit of the local populations, in particular those populations living close to the protected areas and their zones of influence. More specifically, the aim is to (i) develop natural resources in order to reap greater profits from their long-term exploitation, and (ii) set up a means of distributing profits among the public sector, the private sector, and the local populations in the protected areas, trying to ensure that this is done in all fairness.
The project aims to achieve the following results:
In fact, in addition to the specific investments made in each country for reinforcing their means of monitoring, surveillance, development of tourist activities, research, and ecological follow-up, the project will involve taking a certain number of initiatives that will strengthen the transboundary management system in the “W” Park. These are as follows:
Over and above the activities to be undertaken, the system of organization and management for the project should also gradually encourage improved transboundary park management. Thus it is for a good reason that the parties involved have put WAEMU in an important position by including it on the committee responsible for recruiting the main experts, as well as on the Project Advisory Committee, and by choosing to set up the center of coordination on its premises [Commission européenne (European Commission) 1998b] (see Chapter 3, Section A). Furthermore, all the activities of a transboundary nature will be assumed by the project coordination management, in particular those concerning (i) harmonization of policies and legislation on conservation of biodiversity in national parks, wildlife reserves, and their zones of influence; (ii) harmonization of legislation within the three countries for conservation and development of the transboundary national park complex; (iii) setting up of a regional development plan; (iv) coordination of applied research conducted in all three countries; (v) setting up of an information center and a system providing geographical information on the protected areas; (vi) coordination of research on transhumance in the “W” Park and its adjacent wildlife reserves; and so on.
4. The regional project for conservation of biodiversity in IUCN’s WAP complex
“Community-based conservation of biodiversity in transboundary buffer zones in the ‘W,’ Arly, and Pendjari Parks” is a long-term regional program that involves Benin, Burkina Faso, and Niger. Initiated by IUCN and the states concerned, the project is to be submitted to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) via UNDP. The program would make it possible to:
Close collaboration is planned between the “Regional Program for Parks and Wildlife Reserves,” financed by the European Union and this program, submitted to GEF. This collaboration will be facilitated by the fact that IUCN and those national administrations involved will be part of the two projects, and that the European Union project will be used as a basis for the GEF project. The complementary nature of the two projects will be reinforced through the fact that in the new project, certain activities that up until now have been hardly taken into account, or not at all, such as community management of transboundary pastoral lands on the periphery of the park complex, the follow-up of ecosystem dynamics and of populations of animal species threatened with extinction, etc., will be included.
5. Joint undertaking to have the complex simultaneously recognized as a site hosting different conventions
The commitment made by the State in April 2000 is still in its early days, and the contents of the project have not yet been clearly defined in order to emphasize the concerted and coordinated efforts made in favor of biodiversity in “W.”