|
This section of Module 3 started with a brief exploration of the the different terminology and approaches in use with respect to transboundary resource management. This examined the definitions of Transfrontier/Transboundary Conservation/Protected Areas and how they are distinguished from Transboundary Management Areas.
Dr Maano Ramutsindela provided a critical assessment of the rationale behind the establishment of Transboundary Protected Areas (TBPAs). He examined the various arguments for the establishment of transboundary protected areas and outlined elements of a critique of the current approaches to establishing TBPAs. Elements of this critique included:
 |
How the objectives for the establishment of TBPAs were framed and whose interests they came to represent
|
|
The tension between the levels of foreign investment required and the amount of control which could be retained over local resources by host communities
|
|
The extent to which transboundary initiatives could reinforce regional power relations and skewed benefit sharing under the guise of 'win-win' solutions
|
Participants developed an analysis of anticipated challenges and benefits in establishing transboundary resource management areas examining how well the ecological rationale of TBNRM articulates with social and livelihood realities and identifiying particular social, ecologicial, institutional, economic, political and legal challenges posed by TBNRM.
This activity was reinforced by Dr Prosper Matondi who examined the challenge of securing tenure within the context of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park (GLTP) which sets out to integrate nearly 70,000 sq km of land in south western Mozambique, 10.645 km of land including the Save and Limpopo districts of Zimbabwe including Gonarezhou and 22,147 sq km of land in South Africa made up of the Kruger and Makuleke areas.
He provided background on the establishment of the Park, critically examining the establishment process - including the MoU, international treaty and proposed management plan. He analysed the potential impacts on the resource rights and livelihoods of people living in the park area and the implications of moving people outside of the park boundaries. He examined the very different tenure situations pertaining to the three countries, including the conflict over land rights in Zimbabwe where people from three communities have occupied a section of the Gonarezhou park and the challenges that these presented. He highlighted the equity issues and policy lessons that have emerged from the GLTP experience thus far.
|
|
|
|
Dr Maano Ramutsindela critiques TBNRM initiatives
|
Kulthoum Omari conceptualising a planning and participation process for TBNRM
|
Dr Prosper Matondi comparing ZIMOZA and GLTP transboundary initiatives
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Barbara Tapela examining decentralisation in the context of multilateral agreements
|
|
Participants analysed the proposed Lubombo Transboundary Conservation Area in the light of the issues raised in the previous sessions. They identified the various actors involved in or affected by transboundary initiatives, profiled their different interests and identified potential conflicts of interest that could arise. Participants also assessed the adequacy of proposed processes of 'community consultation' and the challenges that this presented at the scale of a transboundary initiative. In a follow up activity participants set out to conceptualise a planning and participation process for establishing a transboundary management area.
Dr Matondi concluded his sessions with a comparative assessment of progress and challenges in the ZIMOZA and GLTP transboundary resource management initiatives. He argued that the ZIMOZA initiative facilitated by IUCN ROSA involving Guruve District in Zimbabwe, Mogae and Zumbu Districts in Mozambique and Luangwa District in Zambia was a slower, more bottom up approach that had put the interests of local communities and resource users at the centre of the process unlike the GLTP where private companies and governments had played a much more central role . In the ZIMOZA case the focus was on the sustainable utilisation of all natural resources as opposed to specific resources in the GLTP. In the ZIMOZA case the agreement did not derogate the provisions of domestic laws of the participating countries whereas in the GLTP a treaty overrode domestic legislation.
Barbara Tapela concluded the focus on TBNRM with a session examining decentralisation in the context of multilateral agreements and a case study of the Makuleke living on the western Boundary of the Kruger Park.
|
