Chapter V. Prospective Analysis for Concerted Transboundary Management of Resources in the “W” Park

A. Justification (Reminder)

The problems and threats existing today in and around the WAP park complex are numerous. In each country these are slightly different, sometimes extremely different, depending on the zone in question, owing to different policies governing the management of protected areas. However, all the partners involved agree that the main problem is the ever-increasing pressure on biodiversity (ecosystems and species) and on other natural resources (water and soil in particular).

This increasing pressure can be found in:

1. The illegal occupation and exploitation of protected areas, in particular the intrusion of pastoralists, and the expansion of agriculture, notably in the “W” Park;
2. Poaching;
3. Excessive wood-collecting and unbridled stealing of other forestry produce;
4. Overgrazing;
5. Reduction in pastoral land and the expansion of cultivated areas;
6. Frequent bush fires;
7. The use of hydrological resources for industry or agriculture (e.g., hydro-agricultural dam on the River Mékrou, gold mining in peripheral zones of the River Niger, farming along rivers flowing through the parks, etc.); and
8. Projects for the development of mining resources (e.g., phosphate, gold) existing in and around the parks.

This pressure is often increased because of:

• High demographic growth (over 3 percent per year);
• Poverty among local populations;
• The lack of synchronization in policies and strategies for development and conservation of biodiversity;
• Insufficient knowledge concerning the natural resources and their state of conservation (or their degradation), the lack of warning systems for biological resources that would make it possible to take the appropriate measures for regulating the animal population and/or protection/restoration of natural resources;
• Institutions responsible for the surveillance of the complex having little or no means for operating;
• The insufficient application and/or insufficiency of legal texts and regulations;
• The lack of population involvement in park and biodiversity management [insufficient recognition of rights, responsibilities, role of local people, and lack of appreciation of their knowledge and know-how in NRM (natural resource management)]. This could lead to a differentiated interpretation between administrative authorities and local populations concerning the right of usufruct on the complex’s natural resources and its peripheral zones, stemming from an insufficient understanding of legal texts by one or the other party and/or a refusal to take into account the habits and customs governing forest management; and
• The ever-increasing expansion of agricultural practice, following the introduction of intensive industrial cultivation of cotton, particularly in Benin.

Thus this pressure, for which the causes have been enumerated above, can be expressed as follows:

• The loss of natural habitats for wild bird life in humid zones;
• Reduced open spaces and pastoral lands for wild fauna;
• Natural habitats and ecosystems threatened in their integrity (appearance of pockets of deterioration, even desertification); and
• Increased vulnerability of the growth of spontaneous plant and animals species.

Consequently, if no appropriate measures are taken, the following may ensue:

• Degradation of this unique park complex in West Africa;
• The loss of world patrimony;
• The total extinction of species already noted on the danger list of species threatened with extinction;
• The loss of financial resources for the country and for local populations;
• Local climatic disruptions with possible consequences at the world level; and
• Possible development of social conflict among people within a country or among different countries.

B. Hypotheses

The trends we have defined for transboundary management of protected areas in the “W” Park are based on the following hypotheses:

• Nowadays, 15 years after the signing of the antipoaching agreement in 1984, the need for collaboration does not concern only the policing of game reserves, but also exchanging information on bush fires, collecting ecological data that enables better natural resource management, joint development of tourist attractions or of other activities, and control of any kind of illegal exploitation, particularly illegal grazing associated with transboundary transhumance.
• For Benin, Burkina Faso, and Niger, it is all the more important to collaborate at a regional level for the following reasons: (i) the existence of wild fauna whose migratory area covers the entire continuum of the parks, made up of the “W,” the Arly, and the Pendjari Parks; (ii) the impossibility for each country taken individually to cope with the consequences of demographic growth, migratory movements, and transboundary transhumance on ecosystems and biological diversity in national parks; (iii) the duty of these states to protect and conserve, for as long as is necessary, the protected areas that are considered to be a communal heritage for humanity; (iv) natural resource management shared among the regional organizations (ICCDS, ECOWAS, WAEMU).
• Transboundary management does not exclude national management. On the contrary, it relies on this, since at a local level ecosystems cannot be conserved and used on a long-term basis without the active participation of local populations, and this involvement will not be obtained unless these activities guarantee an income for them.
• Transboundary management assumes that the states accept to gradually let go of a share of their power, to the benefit of other local actors (populations, civilian society, the private sector) and in favor of a supranational institution coordinating and integrating efforts made for the conservation and utilization of mutually shared parks and game reserves.

C. The concept of transboundary management: The case of the “W” Park

Managing protected areas is a permanent concern for the institutions that are responsible for them. Generally speaking, management involves protection through laying down rules and surveillance, through development and enhancement with a view to allowing the protected area to comply with characteristics as defined by several authors cited by Seidou Amadou (2000): surface level in space, representation of diversity of life forms and geomorphologic diversity, the existence of linking and migratory corridors, the degree of disturbance of milieu, level of accessibility, compatibility of proposed developments with the objectives laid down for conservation and use, and contiguity of areas as far as biosphere reserves and added value is concerned.

However, over and above these technical aspects, management covers other dimensions that have a direct influence on the protected area, such as legitimacy and legality, a well-balanced territorial development, institutional and organizational aspects, recognition of local people’s rights, role distribution and responsibilities involved in management, and fair distribution of income among those concerned.

Taking all these different aspects of transboundary management into account is already difficult at a national level. It is even more difficult at an international level, as can be seen in the case of the “W” Park—originally a complete entity that has become dislocated with the gaining of independence.

Consequently, it is highly likely that we could switch directly from a situation in which there is little or no collaboration to a situation of transboundary management in the “W” Park, which would mean a certain degree of integration for those administrative structures responsible for park administration.

Thus we should rather favor and further encourage the current approach to transboundary collaboration in the “W” Park, with a view to setting up an efficient transboundary management system, for which these countries are not yet entirely ready. When we say transboundary collaboration, we mean a certain number of concerted measures that should be taken in order to better protect, guard, develop, and improve this protected area that straddles the borders of three countries.

This does not mean reverting to the management system used during the colonial era, at least from an organizational and institutional point of view, the system having been based on principles of devolution and subsidiarity at federal, territorial, and local levels.

The most important thing is to define those areas for which transboundary collaboration must be either mandatory or high priority. One of the major aspects is to combine the transboundary approach with the participative approach (involving local populations) in the management of protected areas, and the natural resources within these. For the “W” Park, acknowledgement of its identity in the ethno-linguistic distribution and the existence of a rich historical past in common should be able to be used as a tool to smooth out any possible difficulties.

D. Advantages and opportunities involved in rational and effective transboundary management

The advantages and opportunities involved when adopting transboundary management methods have been developed in full in the preceding chapters. There are many advantages, and these have to do with economy of scale and rationality in action taken, with the exchanging of scientific and ecological information, and doubtless with keeping the peace socially and integrating the countries in one single political space.

• In fact, one should bear in mind that today, the entire park complex made up of the “W,” Arly, and Pendjari parks is subject to unprecedented pressure as far as pastoral lands are concerned, for which the transhumant pastoralists are partly responsible. Currently the WAP complex has become a place of importance for national as well as transboundary transhumance. It should be remembered that transhumance is a migratory strategy destined to cope with the increasing impoverishment of the Sahelian lands, this being the result not only of an increase in the number of head of cattle, but also of the expansion of agricultural practices. In the park region, this phenomenon is recent (dating back less than 20 years), but it has become one of the prime social and economic preoccupations for the survival of the WAP Complex. The situation is a source of recurrent conflict between cultivators and pastoralists on the one hand, and between park administrators and cultivators on the other, both nationally and transnationally. The result of this situation is the degradation of natural habitats for wild fauna in pastoral lands, since the ever-increasing number of cattle accentuates the fragility of the land and the danger of soil erosion. The problem is of crucial importance for saving the integrity of the ecosystem and the conservation of biological diversity.

  As such, given the extent and the transboundary character of the problem, none of the countries taken individually is capable of assuming the control and the organization of transhumance as practiced at the moment in the jointly shared peripheral zones of the complex of protected areas in the “W,” Arly, and Pendjari parks. It is all the more urgent that the states collaborate and cooperate with each other since the transhumance corridors used by pastoralists are international, and the fight for reserving space between cultivators and animal farmers is often a source of conflict between natives and non-natives.

• Given that the problems arising within the protected areas are often similar from one country to the other, and given that the national frontiers are easily crossed, the states concerned could better handle these problems if they joined forces. On the other hand, when protective measures are taken in an isolated manner by one country alone, these measures suffer from the lack of similar action taken in the other countries, owing to the lack of coordination at the regional level.

  For this reason it is important to encourage joint or concerted efforts, motivated by a strategy in common, for these have a much better chance of leading to positive results that will last. Among these can be noted:

  • More effective control of illegal hunting on both sides of borders;
  • Better management of transhumance;
  • A more peaceful environment for wild fauna; and
  • Well-harmonized regulations for fishing and the marketing of wild animal species.

• Given the fact that the ecosystems continue across borders, and that there is a permanent migratory movement of wild fauna, the attraction for tourists would be enhanced if the organized circuits were not confined to one national territory. If a regional circuit was organized, this would allow not only for better cooperation among park administrations, but also for increasing income from tourism for each country.
• Ecologically speaking, with the experience of 40 years’ national management, it is easy to note the insufficient technical and scientific data collection, and the difficulties encountered in drawing up and implementing an overall plan for development that takes into account the natural habitats and natural resources within the park. Since these weaknesses are essentially of an institutional and organizational nature, park administrations, if they combined forces and resources (material and human), would be able to set up a single information system to include harmonized strategies and plans of action, which would in turn increase their effectivity and efficiency in administrating and developing the “W” Park.

Opportunities that favor cooperation exist, and these can make things easier for effectively setting up a transboundary management system. These opportunities are:

• A certain similarity among the national management systems.
• A certain convergence in trends concerning environmental policies, proof of this being found in the fact that each of the three countries has adhered to different international conventions such as (i) the Ramsar Convention on damp zones; (ii) the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD); (iii) the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC); (iv) the Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD); (v) The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); and so on.

In application of CBD, each country has drawn its conclusions on biological diversity, and has elaborated a national strategy for its conservation (1998–99 for Benin, 1999 for Niger and Burkina Faso). In 1994, Benin’s government approved a strategic plan for the conservation and management of its protected areas. This plan, drawn up with the assistance of IUCN, stresses the decentralization of responsibilities and a greater participation by local populations in the management of protected areas. The government of Burkina Faso has set up a long-term policy for managing natural resources and implicating local populations, even though it still has not put this plan into action. In Niger, several laws pertaining to decentralized management of natural resources have been updated and adopted. Among these can be noted texts in the application of the rural code, laws governing hunting, laws relating to the environment, texts on environmental impact case studies, etc. Niger has also just adopted a National Plan for the Environment for Sustainable Development.

• The possible valorization of the ecosystem in light of its ecological and cultural value.
• The willingness of administrators and commissioners in the parks of the three countries in question to collaborate in all domains.
• The emergence of national institutions whose chief mission is to administrate protected areas in Burkina Faso and Benin.
• The existence of a Group of Specialists in the use of wild species in West Africa within IUCN, whose actions could reinforce transboundary cooperation, in particular through their activities in favor of:

  • Adapting conservation policies and legislation;
  • Restoring degraded areas;
  • Harmonizing policies and management tools in favor of long-term utilization;
  • Improving knowledge of natural resources and defining principles for long-term utilization; and
  • Developing joint research programs on wild animal species.

E. Major constraints for an efficient transboundary management system in the “W” Park

The constraints involved for effective transboundary management, or at least for adopting a concerted transboundary approach, are numerous, and have already been discussed above (Section C-3 in Chapter IV). Related to these constraints is the political willingness and ability to cooperate closely and on a long-term basis in a certain number of domains relating to park management—as well as the park administration’s capacity to ensure efficient national management, and to play its part in adopting a regional approach and setting up a sustainable mechanism that guarantees dialogue and cooperation.

Furthermore, the lack of territorial development plans in the countries concerned makes monitoring and supervision of anthropic activities difficult, and this has a negative effect on the state of natural resources. In the case of Niger, to this should also be added the lack of a plan for the development of pastoral lands, which would have made it easier to control migratory movements and transhumance from the north to the south of the country.

To these constraints must also be added the system of coercive management imposed on protected areas, for which the only recognized values are esthetic, leisure, scientific, and sometimes cultural. This coercive system does not only keep the autochthons out of the protected areas, but denies them any positive knowledge as far as natural resource management is concerned. Nowadays, this exclusive system is criticized from all sides, but in reality we are still a long way from achieving maximal, and not paternalistic, community participation.

There are still more constraints just as important that can annihilate all efforts made to further the management of contiguous protected areas. These are:

• The extreme poverty of the expanding population, which puts an ever-increasing pressure on natural resources;
• A differentiated economic growth in the three countries that encourages migratory movements from one part to another;
• Recurrent droughts that threaten the current demographic balance;
• The refusal of principles of subsidiarity, and the assertion of the State’s sovereignty within its frontiers;
• Difficulties encountered in mobilizing financial resources; and
• The lack of a stable structure or institution for coordinating and combining efforts.

F. Measures to be taken for setting up transboundary management of the “W” Park

Transboundary management requires that all the parties involved agree on, accept, and coordinate measures in all domains: monitoring and surveillance, development, collecting and circulation of information, educating and sensitizing the population, and valorization. These measures are already contained within the regional plans programmed and described above.

1. Environmental policies and legislation and the institutional framework

At this level, the harmonization of policies and legislation for the management of protected areas and the conservation of biodiversity are essential, and states must commit themselves at a political level. This supposes:

• The drawing-up of a regional ecosystem development plan that includes or takes into account territorial schemes or development plans;
• A comparative analysis of legal texts and regulations applicable to protected areas with a view to extracting any possible contradictions; and
• Organizing periodic meetings between decision makers and technicians responsible for park management.

  At this level, it is necessary to organize ministerial meetings at least once every two years, and to extend the current mandates held by the Advisory Committee and the Technical Follow-up Committee already envisaged in the regional project financed by the European Union.

  Since Niger assumes the presidency of these two committees, it is up to them to take the necessary steps for this institutional body to be progressively formalized within the framework of integrated management of transboundary protected areas and their peripheral zones.

  Furthermore, and in accordance with clauses laid down in the two regional projects—the one financed by the European Union and the one submitted to GEF—it is the regional office of IUCN that is responsible for ensuring the dialogue among the three countries, that is, to encourage and organize meetings every six months. As well as Niger and IUCN, it would appear that WAEMU, within the framework of its efforts for economic integration, and the Inter-State Committee for the Combat against Drought in the Sahel (ICCDS), within the framework of the implementation of the International Convention to Combat Desertification will also play the role of organizer for certain meetings and scientific, technical, and even political activities, that might strengthen and consolidate the process already underway for setting up a transboundary system for managing natural resources shared over the neighboring states.

• Other commitments include involving other national and regional bodies that share concerns with the park complex and make the public aware of the various issues. This can take place at different levels:

  (i) Political and technical decision makers locally in the area: administrative authorities, local deputies, and those responsible for institutions, technical services, and development projects;
  (ii) Customary authorities, leaders of opinion, socio-professional organizations, private operators, populations in peripheral zones, and itinerant populations; and
  (iii) Children in schools and outside schools, through an educational program for the environment.

  Involving people at the ground level can be done locally through development operations and in the entire process of management of protected areas: development, monitoring, surveillance, exploitations, and valorization.

2. Aspects concerning the monitoring and surveillance of the ecosystem

As far as monitoring and surveillance are concerned, it is necessary to reinforce the current system by increasing the number of staff, and by a judicious distribution of control posts linked by radio, regardless of the country of origin. Running parallel to this, efforts will be made to involve local communities by setting up a community system for monitoring and surveillance of the ecosystem on the periphery of the protected areas. This surveillance system could be used for alerting on the degradation of ecosystems and natural resources caused by third parties, particularly in the zones straddling the borders. Furthermore, as it is already the case in Burkina Faso, special concessionary operations for game reserves could be granted to communities or private operators.

3. Scientific and technical aspects and the conservation of biodiversity

It is essential to set up a network for organizing the collection and the exchange of data among scientists in the countries concerned in order to:

• Carry out complementary studies on research on the dynamics of ecosystems and the main species of fauna and flora in the park complex;
• Better understand the socioeconomic, anthropologic, and cultural environment in the peripheral transboundary zones;
• Carry out an inventory of methods and techniques (useful or harmful) used by local populations in the park complex for exploiting biological diversity;
• Analyze the real or potential impact of commercial and industrial investments on biological diversity and natural resources; and
• Set up a geographical and ecological information system for the whole of the complex of contiguous protected areas.

4. Aspects concerning the development and conservation of biodiversity

In addition to the traditional developments set into operation (bush fires, tracks, salt marshes, water supply points), special attention should be paid to recognizing, limiting, and developing through passages, open spaces, and old or new pastoral lands used by itinerant animals. Running parallel to this, an assessment of the degradation of the different ecosystems should be made, both in the interior and around the park. This knowledge will make it possible to establish a development plan that all the countries involved will consider themselves obliged to respect as best they can.

However, it is a good idea to include the population and make it aware of the importance of biodiversity conservation, and to do this, a program of environmental information, education, and communication should accompany this development plan.

5. Aspects concerning the enhancement and development of the ecosystem and its natural resources

Making the most of the park complex and its peripheral zones may be envisaged through the development of tourism (visual tourism, educational tourism), the development of animal resources (hunting for sport, subsistence or commercial hunting), and development projects making the most of natural resources (apiculture, intensification of agriculture…). Local populations should be more and more involved in this process of enhancement and development of the ecosystems. In order to achieve this, the creation of new game reserves would be a valuable asset.

6. Financial aspects

A long-term mechanism for mobilizing financial resources such as a trust fund for conservation and management at a regional level should be set up; this could also yield positive results for the transboundary park management.