This is a brief section, consolidating earlier parts of the Regional Overview and allowing easier comparisons with the other regional overviews within Africa. From the foregoing analysis and the accompanying case studies, we make the following conclusions on TBNRM in Eastern Africa:
(a) There are significant transboundary natural ecosystems across national borders in most parts of eastern Africa that could benefit through TBNRM.
(b) In many of these sites there are already the beginnings of TBNRM processes, mostly through informal mechanisms, including at community or local levels.
(c) Despite acceptance of the principles behind the ecosystem approach and a generalized agreement on the benefits of TBNRM, there has been little formal process to support TBNRM in the region. Long-existing peace parks have no formal transboundary protocols.
(d) Policy and legal documentation discuss regional cooperation in generalized terms, with little or no mention of TBNRM. This is in sectoral policy and law as well as in broader processes such as National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plans.
(e) TBNRM processes are still driven by the natural resource sectors. Conflicts and/or complex investment processes have not attracted opportunity-seeking investment as in Southern Africa—although cross-border tourism could be a major incentive in the future.
(f) TBNRM is on the agenda of newer regional institutions—in particular the East African Community, with strongly worded environmental articles in the recently approved Treaty. However, other regional institutions (e.g., IGAD) are less strong in this regard. Continuing cross-border conflicts over much of the Horn prevent effective TBNRM.
(g) In addition to TBNRM across international borders, there are several instances of internal “intra-state” institutional boundaries that impact adversely on resource conservation and sustainable use effectiveness. These cases (e.g., Kilimanjaro and other major mountains, Awash National Park) epitomize the antithesis of the ecosystem approach, which is the classic confrontational sectoral approach. Here each sector works independently at the horizontal level, and at a vertical level there is little or no feedback or empowerment.
(h) There is sufficient material to allow a more detailed set of case study analyses, and more lessons are there to be learned and assimilated. Valuable lessons ensue from intra-state examples, especially on the role of communities and the need for capacity building and networking for adequate community involvement. Political empowerment is important at all levels.
(i) It should be reiterated that there is a need to support the concepts of TBNRM and to build capacity to develop and implement TBNRM policies and processes in the Eastern Africa region. This enabling environment could easily catalyze a significant increase in real TBNRM programming—leading to the establishment of real TBNRM Areas.
(j) While new TBNRM processes cannot solve cross-border conflict, the existence of strong TBNRM protocols can prevent further conflict.