There has, however, been increasing recognition of the transboundary impacts of resource management in these three countries. The nature conservation authorities have increasingly come to terms with the need to collaborate more closely on a common approach to the protected areas and adjacent areas to ensure sustainability and increase the environmental viability and cost effectiveness of management. As described in Section 3.2.1, elephants are unevenly distributed among the three countries—as a result of human pressures with direct consequences on the natural habitat in Niger and on the attractiveness of the parks in Benin and Burkina Faso for tourism. The three countries have come to agreement on legislation and measures to reduce poaching.

Infrastructure, government services, parks management, legislation and local administration vary significantly for each national park and the adjacent areas. For example, Burkina Faso has hunting areas licensed to private operators but has failed to successfully share benefits with local communities. The result has been disaffection and disagreements in these communities on the value of conservation. The government has reinstated pre-existing local rights to seasonal fishing in rivers in the park. In strong contrast, the services in Niger have barred all fishing and only recently authorized some hunting licenses for birds and other small game. State officials responsible for the environment have met to agree on common positions that would avoid divergent practices among the three park areas that negatively affect the others.

The principal issues in this case, and the risks and opportunities associated with each are summarized in Table A.2.1. If one begins with some of the natural resource management issues, e.g., the competition for water and forage resources among wildlife, transhumant pastoralists and local communities, it quickly becomes apparent that there are social, economic, institutional and political impacts. Some of these can be addressed by national efforts in each of the countries—e.g., by ensuring the equitable flow of benefits at a local level. However, the risks and opportunities have transboundary impacts, and there is no means of separating all of these issues or of dealing with them in a country-specific manner. The matrix therefore reflects an interactive set of issues across sectors, and the imperative for both national and transboundary management actions either to avoid or mitigate an impact, or to create or enhance an opportunity. In the example of “W” Park, there is a real requirement to build the respective national capacities for natural resource management, and to undertake the planning for a strategic program to do this. At the same time, the issues resonate across the boundaries, and there would be a significant advantage in undertaking these activities collectively, which would build confidence and enhance cooperative management for some of the more difficult conflicts that have a transboundary nature.

After almost two decades of frequent contacts, consultations and regional meetings, the three countries have agreed on a regional program to improve “W” Park management. The European Union will provide external financing for the effort, which covers a broad field of issues from scientific research and information sharing to infrastructure and diversification of economic activities. Agreement on the program has been the result of considerable negotiation and the growing awareness in both government and civil society of the risks of no coordinated action, both in terms of growing conflicts over natural resources and the resources’ quality and availability.

In addition, the region is in the process of becoming a focal point for the application of international conventions to protected areas and biodiversity. The three national parks are in the process of becoming simultaneously transboundary sites for the Man and the Biosphere, Ramsar, and World Heritage Conventions. Responding to the opportunities and responsibilities that result from these classifications, with the accompanying regulation and monitoring, will constitute a force for more rigorous, complementary management mechanisms and measures.

The marginal agricultural land of the Natal Drakensberg and Lesotho occupied a geographically central, but politically marginal, position in the scramble for land in Southern Africa that took place in the nineteenth century. The distribution of people in and around the original mountain kingdom and the state of Lesotho is, however, crucial to these resources. The mountain ecosystem is fragile and the settlement of people in the higher reaches has had devastating consequences for both people and the environment. In South Africa, the policies of the apartheid government restricted certain communities 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 adjacent to the mountains are among the most poverty-stricken in present day KwaZulu-Natal. In Lesotho, a pattern of transhumant livestock production has placed pressure on the grazing resources at high altitude during the summer months, especially through the injudicious use of fire, which respects no boundaries. Growing land hunger and a lack of alternative employment or economic opportunity have resulted in more permanent settlement and cultivation of high-altitude wetlands, a major threat to sustaining the quantity and quality of water production, as well as a direct threat to the area’s globally significant biodiversity.

The changing political and economic relations between Lesotho and South Africa have had important impacts on joint natural resource management. Totally surrounded by South Africa, Lesotho has been heavily influenced by South Africa since independence in 1966. Although a destination for refugees from the apartheid policies, Lesotho cooperated with South Africa economically, and the official policy was one of peaceful coexistence during this period. The years of conflict within South Africa were reflected in the internal politics of Lesotho, with a division between those for and against collaboration with South Africa. A political standoff between the countries, which led to an economic blockade by South Africa in 1986, resulted ultimately in greater cooperation and the signing of the Lesotho Highlands Water Treaty, 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. The growing involvement of the two countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) has led to greater interaction and collaboration at many levels. Friction remains, however, over persistent problems of livestock theft, drug smuggling and unresolved land claims. These activities have rendered certain areas difficult to govern, and have affected the viability of traditional farming practices on both sides of the border.

Economic ties and exchange, as well as the exploration of common development and tourism relationships, have grown in recent years. One example of the new relationship is the Drakensberg-Maloti Programme, which 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 program continued until 1993 when funding was withdrawn at a stage when most of the necessary baseline information had been collected, but without subsequently developing land-use planning and implementation strategies. Since that time, the authorities in each country have consulted with a range of role players including international donor organizations to maintain the initial momentum of the program. This has culminated in the preparation of a comprehensive proposal for a transfrontier conservation and development program supported by the Global Environment Facility, and the signing of a bilateral Memorandum of Understanding committing each country to a cooperative program to plan and develop this region strategically.

As with most large-scale conservation and development programs, there is an interplay of issues here (summarized in Table A.2.2). The recognition of the shared biological and cultural resources and the risk of their degradation initiated the transboundary discussions. From the point of view of biodiversity conservation and resource management, the program promotes the concept of a transboundary protected area with a potential for development as a transboundary World Heritage Site. It also envisages ecosystem linkages across the boundary to ensure that priority conservation areas effectively represent globally significant biodiversity. Although major parts of this program could be undertaken at a national level, the areas of richest biodiversity and the underlying ecosystem are inherently transboundary in nature.

It is, however, the broader regional economic development agenda that is the major driving force for the program. From a natural resource management perspective, the only viable alternative to continued degradation of natural resources is to develop economic alternatives to subsistence agriculture. Large tracts of the area are under communal land tenure, but with a relatively recent history of exploitation. There is an urgent need to understand the degree to which this ecosystem can sustain livelihoods and to exchange lessons between the countries on range management, local governance for natural resource management, and co-management agreements. The involvement of local communities in the management of existing protected areas (and the establishment of new ones), as well as in the implementation of effective management programs to counter the threats of alien plant invasives and soil erosion, is crucial.

The International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP) has been working in the Virunga-Bwindi region in Central Africa since 1991. The program is conducted by a coalition of three international NGOs: the African Wildlife Foundation (AWF), Fauna and Flora International (FFI) and World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF). IGCP’s mission is the conservation of mountain gorillas and regional afromontane forests shared by the three countries. While much of its work is done in support of the three protected area authorities, it has a mandate from the authorities to work on transboundary issues that pertain to gorilla conservation.

Prior to the arrival of IGCP, the four parks were managed as separate entities by the national protected area authorities. Very high human population density, human encroachment, poaching, deforestation and civil unrest threaten the forest habitats, and these threats come from all sides and across the borders. It has been recognized that only by addressing these threats from all sides can the habitat be effectively protected.

Table A.2.3 summarizes the issues involved in considering this transboundary program. The perilous state of the gorilla populations has catalyzed intervention and, to some extent, the focus on gorillas and the expansion of related tourism have resulted in strengthened capacity for nature conservation. The transboundary program has identified a range of social, economic and political as well as institutional factors that must be addressed simultaneously with the natural resource management ones. Politically, the area is highly unstable, with two countries at war with the third—thus creating an extremely difficult context for collaborative programs. In addition, the large-scale movement of refugees has had enormous deleterious consequences for biodiversity and natural resources. In this situation, the ability of the program to operate nationally, while maintaining a transboundary perspective, has ensured that cooperation developed among the three protected area authorities is not completely lost. Indeed, the trust and understanding built among the three administrations for the parks is one seed to nurture as a basis for a lasting peace in the region.

IGCP has worked with the national protected area authorities toward transboundary regional conservation using a number of different strategies to establish non-conflictual management practices for full collaboration. The choice of strategies has been based on the needs, opportunities and constraints in the region. The fact that the incentives and benefits, along with the costs of effective management, are comparable in the three countries has meant that strong synergy and similar approaches could be developed for the overall program. The emphasis has been on effective conservation at the field level, building gradually toward the recognition and institutionalization of these approaches into formal mechanisms and agreements at political levels.