Conference Proceedings, Parks For Peace, 1997

Parks for Peace
International Conference on
Transboundary Protected Areas as a Vehicle for
International Co-operation
16-18 September 1997
Somerset West, near Cape Town

South Africa
CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS
Draft of 30 January 1998

Table of Contents
PARKS FOR PEACE - PREFACE .............................................................. V
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPORT ....................................................VII
CONFERENCE REPORT........................................................................... 1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPORT ........................................................................... 1
OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................... 1
PARTICIPATION .............................................................................................................. 2
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 2
PLENARY PRESENTATIONS .......................................................................................... 2
ISSUES RAISED IN PLENARY DISCUSSIONS ............................................................... 7
WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................... 10
RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................... 13
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES............................................................ 15
WELCOME ADDRESS BY DR. Z. PALO JORDAN,................................... 19
OPENING REMARKS BY IUCN DIRECTOR GENERAL, .......................... 23
PAPER PRESENTED AT THE CONFERENCE ......................................... 27
GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION: PHILOSOPHY

AND BEST PRACTICES
BY LARRY HAMILTON, UNITED STATES ............................................................................. 27
LEGAL MECHANISMS TO STRENGTHEN AND SAFEGUARD TRANSBOUNDARY

PROTECTED AREAS
BY CLARE SHINE, FRANCE ............................................................................................... 37
PEACE PARKS IN CENTRAL AMERICA. SUCCESSES & FAILURES IN

IMPLEMENTING MANAGEMENT COOPERATION
BY JOSÉ CASTRO-CHAMERLAIN, COSTA RICA .................................................................. 49
TRANSBOUNDARY COLLABORATION IN THE PROTECTION OF SHARED NATURAL

RESOURCES ALONG THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER
BY JOSÉ CISNEROS, UNITED STATES AND JULIO CARRERA, MEXICO ................................. 61
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings i

PARKS WITHOUT PEACE
BY YEMI KATERERE, ZIMBABWE........................................................................................67
THE GEOPOLITICS OF TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION: AN OVERVIEW

BY GERALD BLAKE, UNITED KINGDOM ..............................................................................75
PARKS AT THE EDGE: THE CASE OF UGANDA

BY RON SEALE, UGANDA ..................................................................................................83
ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE DEAD SEA BASIN AND THEIR SUSTAINABLE

USE: PROBLEMS AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES OF THE BASIN
BY AYMAN RABI, ISRAEL ...................................................................................................89
TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN EUROPE: PROGRESS AND POSSIBILITIES

IN SOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS
BY ROBERT BRUNNER, AUSTRIA .......................................................................................93
TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS ALONG THE FORMER "IRON CURTAIN" IN

EUROPE
BY JAN CEROVSKY, CYECH REPUBLIC ............................................................................117
THE DRAKENSBERG-MALOTI TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREA:

EXPERIENCE AND LESSONS LEARNED
BY TREVOR SANDWITH, SOUTH AFRICA ...........................................................................121
PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICT THE OBJECTIVES AND

ACTIVITIES OF THE PEACE PARKS FOUNDATION
BY JOHN HANKS, SOUTH AFRICA ....................................................................................133
THE IMPACT OF WAR ON PROTECTED AREAS IN CENTRAL AFRICA. CASE STUDY

OF VIRUNGA VOLCANOES REGION
BY SAMSO WERIKHE, UGANDA .......................................................................................155
POTENTIAL FOR THE CREATION OF A PEACE PARK IN THE VIRUNGA VOLCANO

REGION
BY ANNETTE LANJOUW, KENYA AND JOSÉ KALPERS, KENYA ...........................................163
LEBANON - THE ROLE OF THE PROTECTED AREAS PROJECT IN PROMOTING

PEACE
BY FAISAL ABU-IZZEDIN, LEBANON .................................................................................173
PARKS, PEACE AND PROGRESS: A FORUM FOR TRANSBOUNDARY

CONSERVATION IN INDOCHINA
BY THOMAS DILLON, VIETNAM ........................................................................................179
PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICT NIMULE NATIONAL PARK:

A CASE STUDY
BY RAGAB YAGOUB ABDULLAH, QUATAR ..........................................................................195
STATUS OF THE WORLD’S TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS

BY DOROTHY ZBICZ, UNITED STATES AND MICHAEL GREEN, UNITED KINGDOM ............... 201
ii Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

A TRANSFRONTIER RESERVE FOR PEACE AND NATURE ON THE KOREAN
PENINSULA
BY ARTHUR WESTING, UNITED STATES ........................................................................... 234
THE CENTRAL AFRICAN EXPERIENCE IN TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS.

A CASE STUDY OF THE TRI-STATE PROJECT BETWEEN THE CENTRAL AFRICAN
REPUBLIC, CONGO, CAMEROON; AND THE NATIONAL PARKS BETWEEN
CAMEROON AND NIGERIA
BY STEVE GARTLAND, CAMEROON ................................................................................. 242
THE MESO-AMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR: A REGIONAL TOOL FOR

TRANSBOUNDARY CO-OPERATION AND PEACE KEEPING EFFORTS
BY JUAN CARLOS GODOY, PANAMA ............................................................................... 248
ANNEX A: PARTICIPANTS LIST ....................................................................... 254
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings iii

iv Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings
PARKS FOR PEACE - PREFACE
Welcoming participants to the Parks for Peace Conference, the South African Minister of
Environmental Affairs and Tourism, Dr. Pallo Jordan gave the context to the meeting in some well-
chosen words:
"The rivers of Southern Africa are shared by more than one country. Our mountain ranges do
not end abruptly because some 19 Century politician drew a line on a map. The winds, the
oceans, the rain and atmospheric currents do not recognise political frontiers. The earth's
environment is the common property of all humanity and creation, and what takes place in one
country affects not only its neighbours, but many others well beyond its borders".
This broad view of conservation responsibilities has always motivated IUCN’s World Commission
on Protected Areas (WCPA). As a global network, we are uniquely well-placed to bring experts
together from different countries, globally, regionally and across national boundaries. Indeed,
encouraging the development of trans-boundary protected areas has for long been a priority for
WCPA.
But the role which trans-boundary protected areas can play in building security and confidence
between nations has been a neglected topic. So when we were approached by the Parks for
Peace Foundation to arrange an international meeting on this theme, the Commission saw a
unique opportunity to bring together those with a conservation perspective and those with concern
for international peace and understanding. Experts in protected areas, in international law and in
related subjects worked together for three intensive days to examine the particular role which trans-
boundary protected areas can play in building a better relationship between countries, but at the
same time addressing frankly some of the difficulties which often arise.
There was a wealth of information and case studies. There was a special concentration on
Southern Africa, of course, particularly appropriate given the new climate of co-operation between
neighbouring States in this region. We heard from other regions where the climate of understanding
has improved markedly in recent years and now favours co-operation: from Central America and
parts of Europe for example. But case studies were also presented from regions which continue to
suffer from conflict and tension: the Middle East, South East Asia and the Korean Peninsula. And
we heard about the tragic case of protected areas in Central Africa, which have suffered from the
effects of mass population movement following appalling ethnic conflict and the breakdown of civil
order.
These case studies highlighted the potential role of trans-boundary protected areas, sometimes in
defusing the potential for conflict between states, sometimes in confidence building measures after
periods of tension and rivalry. But they also showed the vulnerability of such areas (and indeed of
protected areas in general) during times of war and upheaval.
Our discussions revealed some sharp differences of view from around the world. In Southern
Africa, for example, the term "protected area" was not particularly welcome. Our colleagues from
there asked that the term “trans-frontier conservation areas” be incorporated instead in the
Declaration of Principles. Their understandable concern arose from the reputation which protected
areas have had in the past in the region, as places from which local people are excluded and
unable to gain any benefit from natural resources to which have had traditional access. If there is a
message here for the protected area constituency, it is the importance of developing the full range
of protected area types: not only those which require strict protection but also those whose
objectives recognise scope both for conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.
The conference also identified, as so many discussions on protected areas do these days, the
potential importance of the private sector and the scope for entrepreneurial approaches to
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings v

protected areas management. At the same time the meeting emphasised the need for the
involvement of local and indigenous communities in the management of protected areas. Even
though some protected areas come about through cross-border co-operation between sovereign
Sates, the involvement of local people is no less essential.
The Declaration of Principles which was adopted at the end, and which is reproduced in this report,
summarised the conference conclusions and set forth a collective view about the way forward. It
contains messages for national governments and for the international community. It places
protected areas firmly in the context of peacemaking and building international collaboration
between States. It points towards some considerable success stories but it also identifies the great
need for further work in this area. There is a particular need for best practice guidelines on the
planning and management of transboundary protected areas, and for a code of conduct on the
management of such areas, both in peace time and in times of conflict.
Like protected areas everywhere, transboundary protected areas are needed for conservation of
biodiversity; and they are essential where natural resources requiring protection - such as
endangered ecosystems and species - are shared between countries. But when we left South
Africa, we also took with us a much clearer understanding of the contribution that such places can
play in building peace and understanding between nations. This is a dimension to conservation
which deserves more international attention. WCPA will do its part to ensure a really effective
follow-up to the conclusions and recommendations of the conference.
The notable success of the event was made possible because there were people there from all
parts of the world. On behalf of IUCN and WCPA , I would like to extend my thanks to all those who
helped through sponsorship and financial support, and a particular thanks to the Parks for Peace
Foundation and our South African friends who made our short time in their country not only
productive but enjoyable.
Adrian Phillips
Chair
World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA)
vi Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPORT
This conference has been made possible by the generous support of a number of
organisations and this is gratefully acknowledged here. In particular, IUCN and the
Peace Parks Foundation would like to thank the following for their support:
♦ Italian Government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Cooperation and

Development
♦ UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme
♦ USAID
♦ US National Park Service
♦ United States State Department
♦ World Bank, Environment Department
♦ World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
♦ AVIS Car Rental
♦ Nedbank Limited
♦ SANLAM
♦ South African Airways Corporation
♦ Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Limited
♦ Syfrets Limited
♦ The Lord Charles Hotel
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings vii

viii Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings
Draft
Parks for Peace

CONFERENCE REPORT
Draft of 7 October 1997
Conference Title International Conference on Transboundary

Protected Areas as a Vehicle for International Co-
operation
Convened by IUCN, The World Conservation Union and Peace

Parks Foundation (South Africa)
Conference Date 16-18 September 1997
Location Somerset West, near Cape Town,

South Africa
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPORT
IUCN and Peace Parks Foundation are pleased to acknowledge the generous support
of numerous sponsors, as listed in the opening section of thei publication.
OBJECTIVES
The conference had the following objectives:
1. To review and confirm the important role of transboundary protected areas in conserving
biodiversity and in fostering regional cooperation and security;
2. To learn from practical experience of existing transboundary protected areas, in particular

how they can foster regional co-operation and hence the avoidance of conflict;
3. To promote awareness of the vulnerability of transboundary protected areas in times of

conflict and examine the potential of international agreements to safeguard them.
4. To promote awareness of the value of transboundary protected areas as a means of

building security and confidence after conflict; and
Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 1

5. To examine proposals for the future establishment and management of transboundary
protected areas, especially those priority areas which can contribute to the conservation of
global biodiversity.
PARTICIPATION
Participants who attended this meeting are listed in Annex A (see page 255)
INTRODUCTION
The welcome speech was provided by Dr Pallo Jordan, Minister of Environmental Affairs and
Tourism for South Africa. Dr Jordan welcomed all delegates to the conference and also
passed on a message of welcome from the South African President, Mr Nelson Mandela. In
his speech, Dr Jordan highlighted the significance of the tourism industry, particularly in
Southern Africa, and also noted that the nature tourism component of this industry is
significant, and is likely to increase in the future. The Minister noted that “Peace Parks are
particularly appropriate for our (the Southern African) region which has been racked by wars
and other forms of conflict for the past decades. The Parks will be a token of shared
commitment by the peoples and governments of Southern Africa to strive for peace and to
pursue the option of peaceful resolution of conflict as an intrinsic condition for the welfare and
development of our region”. The Minister further noted that transfrontier initiatives in southern
Africa are in line with the directions established by the Southern African Development
Community (SADC). The Minister noted the changing emphasis of conservation management
in South Africa, with increasing emphasis on the involvement of local communities in the
management of protected areas. Dr Jordan wished delegates well for the conference and
noted that the South African government is looking forward to receiving the report from the
conference, in due course.
David McDowell, IUCN Director General, gave the keynote speech to the conference. Mr
McDowell noted the links between transboundary cooperation and conflict resolution and
suggested that environmental factors are likely to be a primary source of insecurity and conflict
in the 21st Century, as conflicts will increasingly arise over the control and management of
scarce natural resources. He thus suggested that approaches, such as the establishment of
transboundary protected areas, can provide a useful mechanism for encouraging cooperation
between countries and communities. He noted that, with some exceptions, such areas justify
the label “Peace Parks” and that they can potentially reduce stress along historically tense
borders by providing governments with an agenda for mutual action on issues of common
concern. He urged the conference to focus on marine as well as terrestrial protected areas, as
well as the potential for establishing peace parks in the global commons such as Antarctica.
PLENARY PRESENTATIONS
Kathy MacKinnon, from the Environment Division of the World Bank, outlined the experience
of the Bank in supporting transboundary protected area projects. Her presentation noted the
increasing involvement of the World Bank in supporting transboundary initiatives and noted
lessons learnt to date, including:
◊ the need to effectively engage local communities and other stakeholders, from an early
stage of project development;
◊ the need to “build in” mechanisms to ensure financial sustainability of projects;
◊ the need to continuously monitor and evaluate projects and to learn from the experience
thus gained; and
2 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

◊ the need to mainstream protected area and biodiversity projects with national efforts to
ensure sustainable development.
Other factors of success were noted as: the need to have key people in the right positions;
political support; and a long term commitment by the donor and the government.
Larry Hamilton, WCPA Vice Chair for Mountain Protected Areas, outlined guidelines for
effective transboundary cooperation. This presentation highlighted practical “nuts and bolts”
aspects relating to transboundary protected area cooperation. The importance of developing
close working relationships between staff on different sides of the border was emphasised,
such as through staff exchanges as well as the development of joint management
programmes, such as in relation to the management of fire. It was noted that transboundary
protected areas have many political advantages, and these occur at local, national and
regional levels. There are also many environmental benefits, such as enhanced biodiversity
conservation and the protection of important landscape features, from the establishment and
effective management of transboundary protected areas.
Clare Shine, from the IUCN Commission on Environmental Law, outlined legal mechanisms to
strengthen and safeguard transboundary protected areas. It was noted that such areas often
fail to realise their potential benefits, due to reasons such as political and financial constraints.
Such failures are also exacerbated by weak legal and institutional frameworks for protected
area management. The presentation reviewed the international regime applicable to TBPA
establishment and outlined possible legal mechanisms to improve the existing situation. The
main legal rules for the protection of the environment during conflict were outlined and the
possibility of a non-binding code of conduct to reinforce such protection was suggested.
Jose Castro-Chamberlain, environmental consultant from Costa Rica, described the

experience of peace parks in Central America. This paper discussed practical issues
associated with the establishment of a number of areas in Central America, including the La
Amistad International park, located in the border region between Costa Rica and Panama; the
Si-a-Paz initiative relating to protected areas in Nicaragua and Costa Rica and the Trifino Plan,
a regional planning exercise build around the biosphere reserve shared by Guatemala,
Honduras and El Salvador. In relation to the La Amistad International Park, it was noted that
success had particularly been due to a high level of political committment and support, coupled
with the on-ground efforts of managers to establish joint management regimes. The
importance of joint strategic planning in this area has been demonstrated. Also the important
role of international organisations, such as the UNESCO/Man and the Biosphere Programme,
in supporting initiatives was noted.
José Cisneros, superintendent of the US Big Bend National Park, presented a joint paper with
Julio Carrera of Mexico on transboundary cooperation between United States and Mexico.
The paper discussed collaboration between the Big Bend National Park and the Madera del
Carmen Protected Area across the border, and noted that collaboration in this area had been
underway for a significant period of time, dating back to exchanges between the Presidents of
USA and Mexico in the early 1940s. The importance of both formal and informal agreements
to ensure the success of activities in this area was noted, as was the need to “move beyond”
the park boundaries, in relation to transboundary collaborative efforts. The important role of
this joint initiative in supporting economic development in the region was emphasised. The
difference in institutional arrangements and budget between the two partners in this co-
operative exercise (USA/Mexico) was noted as an issue that needs to be considered in relation
to the effective implementation of programmes in this area.

Yemi Katerere, IUCN Regional Director for Southern Africa, outlined a number of issues
relevant to regional cooperation in the Southern African region. It was suggested that the
focus of transboundary collaboration should be broader than protected areas, in view of the
fact that many protected areas are not effectively established and managed in the region, and
often do not provide adequate benefits to local communities. This situation has led to conflicts
over resource use. The need for a new vision of protected areas was suggested, which would
reflect the knowledge and full involvement of local communities, while addressing key issues
of land tenure. It was suggested that any proposals to extend existing protected areas need to
be carefully examined, with examination of questions such as (a) is it affordable?; (b) is there
management capacity?; (c) who benefits?; and (d) who owns the land? The need for
protected areas to be viewed within a holistic approach to landuse planning was noted, as was
the need to develop effective mechanisms for joint management, which effectively involve
local communities.
Gerald Blake from the International Boundaries Research Unit of the University of Durham,
provided an overview of the geopolitics of transboundary cooperation. This paper summarised
some of the ways in which states cooperate along international boundaries and in regions near
these boundaries. The motives for such cooperation vary in relation to the specific context of
the country and may involve: firstly, the need for states to find alternatives to absolute territorial
sovereignty in the form of neutral zones, or, secondly, the need to establish shared
development zones in disputed areas, to enable parties to begin resource exploitation, even
though there may be agreement over the boundary, or, thirdly, the large range of mechanisms
for cooperation between states over resource management. This presentation noted the
rapidly evolving status of national boundaries and raised the implications of globalisation
which, in some cases, are diminishing state power and changing the role and function of
boundaries. It is critical that any assessment of transboundary protected areas take into
account the geopolitics of international boundaries and borderlands.
Ron Seale, from the IUCN Mount Elgon Conservation Development project in Uganda, raised
a number of issues relating to transboundary cooperation, drawing on the Ugandan
experience. The importance of high profile and international status of some protected areas,
such as afforded by World Heritage designation, was suggested as a potential marketing and
promotion tool for transboundary protected areas. However, this should not diminish attention
to other “lesser known” protected areas across boundaries. The need to distinguish between
“peace keeping” and “peace making” roles for transboundary protected areas was noted. It
was suggested that transboundary protected areas are unlikely to be established in areas
where there is currently a conflict.
Ayman Rabi, Executive Director of Ecopeace in Jerusalem, provided an overview of the

ecological resources of the Dead Sea basin in the context of regional cooperation. This
organisation involves a number of countries from the region and aims to protect shared
resources, particularly water and cultural heritage. It was noted that cooperative efforts to
protect biodiversity in this region are proceeding and that the many threats to areas such as
the Dead Sea provide a focus for the efforts of EcoPeace in the region.
Robert Brunner, WCPA member, outlined transboundary cooperation in Europe and

introduced the “Parks for Life Action Plan for Europe”, which identified the need for
transboundary protected areas in a number of countries in Europe. It was noted that the fall of
the “Iron Curtain” in 1989 changed the conditions for transboundary cooperation and that there
are now a number of initiatives in this area. Many of these transboundary protected areas are
providing very successful models of how protected areas can both protect biodiversity and
build cooperation and trust between countries. The importance of involving local people was
emphasised.
Jan Cerovsky, of the Ecopoint Foundation from the Czech Republic, discussed transfrontier
protected areas along the former “Iron Curtain” in Europe. This presentation focused on the

50 remaining and 26 projected bilateral parks in Europe, of which approximately 30% are
situated along the former “Iron Curtain” (a line running from the Barents Sea in the North to the
Mediterranean and Black Sea to the South). This paper outlined experience to date in relation
to transboundary protected areas along both sides of the former “Iron Curtain” and noted their
major contribution to building peaceful and friendly relations between European nations. It
was noted that, since the fall of the “Iron Curtain” in 1989-1990, many new opportunities have
opened up relating both to cooperation between countries and also in relation to nature
conservation.
Trevor Sandwith from the Natal Parks Board, South Africa, outlined transboundary
cooperation initiatives in the Drakenburg’Maloti Mountain region between the Kingdom of
Lesotho and the province of Kwa Zulu-Natal in South Africa. It was noted that there is no
formal recognition of this region as a peace park but that there is a growing de facto realisation
that the two countries have a shared responsibility to conserve biodiversity, as well as to use
this initiative to support community development on both the two sides of the border. The
process of developing this transboundary protected area has brought together a wide range of
people and interests in this region and this process has had a number of “spin off” advantages.
It was noted that this area, although covering two countries, consists of a single ecological
complex and that there are also strong historical and cultural similarities between the two
countries. This has greatly facilitated the establishment of a transboundary protected area in
this region.
John Hanks, Director of the Peace Parks Foundation in South Africa, presented the objectives
of the Foundation and proposals for future activities. His presentation highlighted the
importance of economic development associated with the tourism industry in the region and
the important role that nature based tourism, particularly focused on protected areas, could
play in supporting this vital industry. It was noted that the Peace Parks Foundation was
seeking to facilitate support for existing transfrontier initiatives such as those identified through
SADC. A number of specific proposals in the Southern African region were outlined such as
those between South Africa and Mozambique. It was noted that four principles underlie the
work of the Peace Parks Foundation:
◊ responsibility to the environment;
◊ effective involvement of local communities;
◊ responsibility to respect, invest and develop local cultures; and
◊ responsibility to visitors (safety, security, and health).
Samson Werikhe, from the Uganda Wildlife Authority presented a joint presentation on behalf
of the Governments of Uganda, Rwanda (John Bizimana) and the Democratic Republic of
Congo(Norbert Mushenzi). This presentation discussed the impact of war on protected areas
in these three countries and presented a case study of the Virunga Volcano region. The
impacts of war in this region were noted, as were the issues associated with high population
densities. It was suggested that there was a need for a common strategy for addressing basic
human needs and conservation in this region and that the establishment of a potential peace
park may provide a useful opportunity to achieve this. The potential for addressing this issue
jointly with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees was noted and it was
suggested that a dialogue should be established between UNHCR, IUCN and other relevant
parties.
Annette Lanjouw, of the International Gorilla Conservation Project in Nairobi, presented a joint
paper with José Kalpers, which reinforced the previous presentation in relation to possibilities
for the establishment of a peace park in the Virunga Volcano region. The need for a strategy

which both addresses human needs and conservation of species was noted. The constraints
in establishing such a park were outlined, including the security situation and the extremely
limited resources for the establishment and management of such areas. The potential for
developing and marketing a peace park concept, based around a high profile species such as
the Mountain Gorilla, was put forward. It was noted that such an initiative could benefit
economic development in the region and local communities. The role of the International
Gorilla Conservation Programme was noted, and it was suggested that such an organisation
could, through working with other partners, play an important role in such an area.
Faisal Abu-Izzeddin, Project Manager with the UNDP-IUCN Protected Areas project, outlined
the role of protected areas in promoting peace and national reconciliation in Lebanon. This
project has involved three specific protected areas, each managed by a non-government
organisation. An important aim of this project was to promote national reconciliation after the
civil war in Lebanon. This project has been developing very effectively and has demonstrated
the potential benefits of involving different parties in an area such as conservation.
Thomas Dillon from WWF Indochina, outlined transboundary conservation activities in the
former Indochina. It was noted that joint protected area transboundary initiatives had been
established between Lao PDR and Vietnam and that this is being developed in accordance
with an official Letter of Understanding between the two countries. This project has shown the
benefits of staff exchanges at the local level as well as building political support. It was noted
that the majority of Indochina’s remaining natural forest habitats are distributed along the
international borders of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam and thus a transboundary approach to
conservation is an important element of biodiversity conservation efforts in the region. This
project has established an Indochina Biodiversity Forum which aims to build a dialogue and
spirit of cooperation between the countries in the region as a precursor to effective
conservation.
Ragab Yagoub Abdullah from Sudan outlined experiences in achieving conservation

objectives in areas of conflict, specifically in relation to the Nimule National Park in Sudan. This
National Park is subjected to considerable pressures, including from armed poachers, as well
as a lack of basic infrastructure and resources for protected area management. It was
suggested that even during periods of conflict, simple initiatives at a local level can save an
area from catastrophe and that it is important to make use of available resources and to build
support at the local community level. The advantage of having an objective set of policy
directives for sensitive conservation areas was noted as having the potential to influence the
attitudes of governments, such as Sudan, towards the management of broader ecosystems.
The joint paper by Michael Green and Dorothy Zbicz outlined the status of the world’s
transboundary protected areas. This paper indicated the rapid growth over the past decade of
the number of existing contiguous protected areas on two sides of a national boundary, and
also the growth in the number of agreements covering such areas. It was noted that a survey
of transboundary protected area managers by Dorothy Zbicz is currently underway, under the
auspices of IUCN, and this will provide substantial information in relation to the current status
of transboundary protected areas and the key issues associated with the management of such
areas.
Arthur Westing, environmental consultant from the United States of America, introduced the
possibility of establishing a peace park in the demilitarised zone between North and South
Korea. It was noted that although a war is still technically in progress between the two parties,
both Koreas are formally committed to a peace treaty as well as to ultimate peaceful
reunification. The demilitarised zone has been left relatively undisturbed since the de facto
end of the war in 1953 and has considerable value for biodiversity. This value could potentially
disappear rapidly following reunification due to enormous social pressures for agricultural,
industrial and urban development. The paper thus urgently suggested that North/South

negotiations be initiated to establish, as soon as possible, a Korean Bi-State Reserve for
Peace and Nature. Such an endeavour could make a major contribution to biodiversity
protection as well as facilitating the peace processes and ultimate reunification.
Steve Gartlan from WWF Cameroon, outlined the Central African experience in
transboundary protected areas in relation to the tri-state project between the Central African
Republic, Congo and Cameroon. This presentation highlighted the importance of domestic
stability as a precursor of conservation efforts and note the following lessons:
◊ that military strategic planning plays an important role in determining whether or not a
transboundary area can be established;
◊ that there should be homogeneity on both sides of the border and broad similarity in
economic conditions if the establishment of transboundary protected areas is to be
effective; and
◊ that the lack of resources is a considerable constraint to the effective implementation of

transboundary protected areas.
Juan Carlos Godoy, WCPA Vice Chair for Central America, provided information on the
Central American Biological Corridor. It was noted that this corridor links protected areas in a
number of countries in Central America and that it is proving to be a very effective regional tool
for transboundary cooperation and the conservation of biodiversity. It was noted that this
biological corridor is making a major contribution to building cooperation and trust between
countries in the region, many of which have been involved in conflict over recent decades. It
was noted that this initiative is linked with agreements between Central American countries,
such as the 1989 Central American Convention for Environmental Protection. This has
provided high level “head of state” support for joint conservation efforts in the region. This
example provides an excellent model of regional cooperation on transboundary protected
areas, which is linked to a political process.
ISSUES RAISED IN PLENARY DISCUSSIONS
A number of issues were raised in plenary discussions during the conference. These included:
◊ Transboundary protected area cooperation is not a new concept; the example of the Big
Bend region between Mexico and the United States shows that cooperation has been
underway since early this century.
◊ However, the issue of transboundary cooperation is “shifting gears”. It was noted that the
opportunities for transboundary cooperation are increasingly opening up, aided by the
growing acknowledgement of the existence of contiguous Protected Areas divided by
national boundaries. It was suggested by one of the plenary presenters that Peace Parks
may be a “concept whose time has come”.
◊ There was considerable discussion in relation to the term “peace park” and also the term
“protected area”. The conference discussion on this issue indicated division between
participants from the Southern Africa region and most other regions in the world. It was
noted that, in Southern Africa, the term transfrontier conservation areas is used rather than
transboundary protected areas, and that the use of the terms transfrontier conservation
area denotes broader cooperation beyond the boundaries of formal protected areas. The
conference did not reach agreement on this issue but there was broad agreement that it
was important to focus more on the objectives and outcomes from such areas rather than
concentrating on names and titles.

◊ It was noted that transboundary protected areas serve many functions, of which regional
cooperation and building “bridges” between countries is only one. It is important to have
realistic expectations in relation to the role of transboundary protected areas in contributing
to peace. It is unlikely that they will be the sole determinant in resolving conflicts, for
example. However, it is clear from the examples presented at the conference that they can
provide a useful element of national and regional strategies to foster cooperation between
countries.
◊ A vision of transboundary protected areas was articulated by a number of speakers at the

conference and this vision was of peace parks as bridges to:
• enhanced environmental security, for example by contributing to the more effective

management of shared natural resources, such as outlined in the example of the
Dead Sea by Mr Aymam Rabi from Ecopeace;
• more effective conservation of species and ecosystems, such as more effective

conservation of the Ibex, as a consequence of establishing a transboundary protected
area between France and Italy;
• economic development, such as through the creation of jobs in local communities

through enhanced tourism opportunities such as those prospects outlined in Southern
Africa; and
• better cooperation between countries such as outlined in Central and Eastern Europe
after the fall of the “Iron Curtain”.
◊ However it was noted that this vision would only be realised if transboundary protected
areas are not viewed in isolation from local communities. It was stressed by many speakers
that such areas must benefit local communities and that traditional “western” conservation
concepts, for example of strict nature reserves which exclude human use, must change for
most development countries. It was also noted that protected areas could not be
considered in isolation from surrounding patterns of land use and the model of the Central
American Biological Corridor which links protected areas with other patterns of land use was
noted as an appropriate model.
◊ Support at all levels is required if transboundary protected areas are to be effective. This
applies equally at the political level as well as the level of the local community. It is
important to have high level support such as that through SADC for transfrontier initiatives
in Southern Africa, or for the political support for the Central American biological corridor, if
such efforts are to succeed;
◊ Appropriate mechanisms for transboundary conservation need to be developed and that

these can be both formal (such as the Memorandum of Understanding between States in
Australia) or informal (such as those between Mexico and the United States in relation to
Big Bend). It is important that any mechanisms involve key stakeholders, particularly local
communities, and where appropriate, address issues of State sovereignty. It was
suggested that there was no one model that can be equally applied to all countries and that
there is a need to tailor approaches and responses to the unique circumstances of each
country. As noted by one speaker (Clare Shine): “there is a need to look at flexible
approaches, which do not threaten national sovereignty but look at innovative approaches”.
◊ Partnerships are essential if transboundary protected areas are to be effective and these
partnerships need to be developed both at the level of the local community as well as

between relevant national level decision-makers. More effective partnerships with donors,
such as the World Bank, and the private sector, are also critical if transboundary protected
areas are to be effective.
◊ It was noted that available financial and staff resources are often a limiting factor in relation
to transboundary protected area efforts. As noted by one speaker, “to move from concept
to action requires resources, if these do not exist, action is unlikely”. The need for external
support in many parts of the world was noted as a critical factor but it was further noted that
such support should address the issue of financial sustainability, beyond the life of the
project itself. It is also critical that such support address the causes of biodiversity loss and
not the symptoms. This thus implies that projects relating to conservation need to be clearly
integrated with associated sustainable development activities.
◊ The critical role of the private sector was emphasised repeatedly throughout the conference
and it was agreed that the key issue was not whether the private sector should be engaged
but how to most effectively do this. It was agreed that the involvement of the private sector
is likely to become increasingly important in future years, particularly if current trends of
decreasing public sector funding continue and also that innovative mechanisms for working
in partnership with the private sector need to be explored. A number of example of private
sector involvement from Southern Africa, such as those from the Natal Parks Board, were
noted as having potential applicability in many other parts of the world.
◊ There is a need for mechanisms to respond quickly and effectively in times of humanitarian
disaster situations such as that relating to Virunga. It was agreed that conservation is one
element of such responses and that this will be most effectively addressed when it is
approached in collaboration with others, for example, UNHCR.
◊ Transboundary protected area efforts lend themselves to regional mechanisms for

cooperation, which can be informal, such as those outlined in relation to Indochina, by Tom
Dillon, or formal, such as the regional government agreements between Congo, Uganda
and Rwanda in relation to Central Africa. Where possible, conservation and transboundary
activities should be linked with existing systems and agreements. The increasing trend to
regional programming by donors was also noted and this was a further argument in favour
of emphasising regional approaches to transboundary protected area initiatives.
◊ The importance of close and effective working relationships between the managers of
protected areas on both sides of a national boundary was also emphasised. Successful
transboundary protected areas are often built on a base of local level cooperation and
activity on practical management issues, such as fire management. Mechanisms for
dialogue are an important pre-cursor of transboundary protected area success and it is
important to build on such mechanisms, where they exist.
◊ Joint international designations, such as World Heritage and Man and the Biosphere
Reserve, can assist the effective implementation of transboundary protected area efforts.
An example of this is provided in relation to the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve in Central
America.
◊ The creation of transboundary protected areas has many advantages but it is not, in itself, a
“passport” to jobs and prosperity. It was specifically noted, in relation to tourism, there must
be a focus on desired visitor experiences and a provision of quality experiences for tourists,
if such areas are to be successful and to realise their potential to contribute to regional and
national economic development. It was further noted that marketing, promotion and
effective management are also essential elements of effective transboundary protected
area establishment and management.

WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS
A major part of the conference was working group discussions on four specific issues. Key
issues identified by each working group were as follows:
Working Group 1: Identification of the Role which transboundary protected areas can play in
encouraging international cooperation and resolving disputes
This group defined the central question as: “How to promote biodiversity conservation,
development and sustainable resource management through the creation of transfrontier
protected areas between sovereign states”. It was noted that some members of this working
group were concerned about the use of the term protected area, as it was perceived as being
too narrow. It was suggested that the definition of protected areas should be better explained
and marketed. This working group also noted that it was unrealistic to have transboundary
protected areas as a primary mechanism for resolving disputes, although it was acknowledged
that they can play an important role. The group discussed a number of issues including:
◊ More effective involvement of the private sector. The group recommended that nature
based tourism has high potential for job creation and improving the quality of life and that
the private sector can play a significant contribution to the success of transboundary
protected areas, and should be actively encouraged. Such partnership should be based on
clear guidelines for involvement, which (a) cater to all levels of entrepreneurship; (b) set
limits and rules for development (protection of the resource base must be the first priority);
(c) ensure proper contractual procedures (including EIA, business plans, skill transfer); (d)
establish efficient monitoring procedures (such as auditing of environment and finance); (e)
establish times for regular reassessment and review, particularly to ensure equitable
sharing of benefit; and (f) choose the appropriate level of involvement at national, regional
and local levels. It was suggested that the World Bank, and other donors, could be a useful
source of support for local entrepreneurs.
◊ It was suggested that better promotion of transboundary protected areas models and
concepts was required which would include:
• development of national frameworks to permit and encourage the creation of such

areas;
• endorsement at international and regional levels (e.g. SADC) and local levels;
• full engagement of local communities and explanation of the benefits of

transboundary protected areas; and
• mobilisation of NGO support for transboundary protected areas.
◊ The notion that successful transboundary protected areas will require application of the
“three Cs”: Conservation, Community and Capital.
Working Group 2: Development of best practice guidelines for the establishment and
management of transboundary protected areas to enhance international cooperation in
biodiversity conservation efforts.
This working group agreed that the focus of discussion could include areas with a mosaic of
different land-uses, including areas not formerly gazetted as protected areas. It was
suggested that there was not one single correct model but several, which could achieve

desired results. It was agreed that projects will only succeed if there are clear and tangible
benefits to both sides as a result of the initiative.
The subsequent stage is project preparation which should include a number of elements such
as:
◊ appropriate multi-disciplinary research, leading to relevant information and databases;

◊ identification of common boundaries to establish on-ground status;
◊ identification of stake-holders and effective involvement of these stake holders; and
◊ identification of marketing strategies.
The next stage is implementation. To ensure effective implementation, land use planning must
be coordinated between the transboundary protected area units/ countries. It was considered
important, for example, that wilderness trails in one unit did not end in the parking lots in the
other unit. There needs to be compatibility in respect to policies and practices in relation to
aspects such as:
◊ law enforcement;
◊ tourism; and
◊ fire control.
It is also important that processes are established for the resolution of disputes and conflicts
between parties; ideally these should be included in an operational agreement between the
parties.
The next stage is on-ground management and monitoring and this phase must be
characterised by regular consultation, for example through joint technical meetings and
management committees. Joint management and research programmes should be developed
and a joint management plan developed.
Other elements that were raised by this working group included the need to share resources,
including staff and equipment, between the parties and develop joint professional development
programmes. The importance of establishing good working relations between parties was
emphasised as was the need for accountability and transparency in relation to issues such as
personnel selection.
Working Group 3: Identification of Priority Areas for the establishment of transboundary

protected areas in regions recently affected by conflict, and the incorporation of confidence
building measures into the management of such transboundary protected areas.
This working group agreed that it did not have the necessary background information to make
a judgement in relation to which priority areas around the world should be identified for the
future establishment of transboundary protected areas.
The working group discussed criteria for identifying priority sites and these were identified as:
• environmental/ecological (the level to which the area satisfied the criteria of ecological
significance);

• political and social climate (the extent to which there is an existing spirit of trans-
border cooperation as well as the existence of an enabling political and social climate
which is conducive to the establishment of transboundary protected areas);
• social and economic circumstances (the extent to which the candidate site can
provide a level of social and economic benefits, particularly to local communities);
The working group noted that transboundary protected areas can make a major contribution to
confidence building measures after conflict. However, it is only one of a number of elements
of confidence building.
Several types of political situations lend themselves to the establishment of transboundary

protected areas which enhance their role in serving as confidence building measures. For
example, where two or more states are on good terms, or where a disputed area is already the
basis of an initiative to establish a transboundary protected area.
Although the working group did not identify priority sites around the world, it did urge IUCN to
take every possible action to support high priority transboundary protected areas and a
number of candidate sites were mentioned including:
• the potential initiatives identified by the Peace Parks Foundation (seven initiatives in
Southern Africa);
• La Rutamanya, Yucatan Coral Reef, the Darien Gap and other initiatives in Central
America;
• the contiguous protected areas in Congo/Rwanda/Uganda that are home to the

Mountain Gorilla;
• the Korean Demilitarised Zone;
• the Chaco Proposal in South America;
• the Emerald Triangle in the tri-border region of Indochina;
• the Southern Sudan and adjacent cross borders areas of the Central African
Republic, the Congo and Uganda.
The working group also recommended that IUCN assess the merit of creating an “arm’s length”
body whose primary role would be to research, evaluate, monitor and focus attention to the
special needs of protected areas in times of emergency. IUCN should consider working with
such agencies as WWF, UNHCR and WCMC in such an exercise. A useful model for such a
body might be TRAFFIC.
Working Group 4: Identification of ideas for a draft code of conduct for transboundary
protected areas in peace time or during conflict.
This working group identified a number of elements of a draft code of conduct and key
concepts are outlined below.
Draft Code of Conduct
Purpose

The key purpose should be to provide a clear framework to secure the many benefits of
transboundary protected areas, namely biodiversity conservation, improved economic and
social welfare and maintenance or re-establishment of peace.
◊ a hierarchical treatment was suggested, moving from the international to the local level;
◊ international considerations The obligations under various international treaties and

agreements should be related to the development of a code of conduct, including the CBD,
Ramsar Convention, World Heritage Convention, Man and the Biosphere Programme.
◊ Inter-State mechanisms Mechanisms for collaboration, including informal agreement and

informal processes, need to be developed; they should also be mutually supportive and
give incentives to parties to cooperate.
◊ Hallmarks of a constructive process. It was agreed that elements of a constructive process

should include effective consultation, a designated focal point in each country, and where
necessary, involvement of a neutral party such as an international organisation.
◊ Scale of Application. It was agreed that the code of conduct should apply locally but should
be cross referenced to best practises guidelines.
◊ Armed conflict/occupation. It was agreed that a number of elements relating to this should
be included in the code of conduct, such as the need to avoid locating strategic installations
in or near protected areas and the need to where possible, treat protected areas as
demilitarised zones.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations were discussed and agreed by the conference.
1. IUCN should promote and publicise the conference declaration and other outputs of the
conference;
2. IUCN should quickly produce the proceedings from this conference which will include
recommendations from the workshops and distribute them widely;
3. IUCN should prepare guidelines for the establishment and management of

transboundary protected areas, which will build on the existing management guidelines
and also include confidence building and conflict prevention measures;
4. IUCN should coordinate the development of a code of conduct for protected areas in
peacetime as well as during and after conflicts, using the skills of its protected areas and
environmental law commissions and other relevant expertise;
5. IUCN should examine the potential for the establishment of an “arm’s length” body to
monitor and publicise its protected areas in times of conflict, working closely with
organisations like the UNHCR, WWF, WCMC and ICRC;
6. IUCN should strengthen its relations with the UNHCR particularly in relation to the
proposal from the UNHCR to develop guidelines in relation to environmental aspects of
humanitarian crises;

7. A Southern African Working Group should be established to promote transfrontier
conservation areas within the SADC region. The working group should be convened by
IUCN ROSA in consultation with the SADC technical coordination unit. It was noted that
Peace Parks Foundation has offered assistance to facilitate the process; and
8. The Code of Conduct, once prepared, should be widely disseminated and should be
accompanied by appropriate training to ensure that the code of conduct is appropriately
applied.

DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES
We, the 72 participants of this Conference from 32 countries, are gathered together from
around the world, in the common conviction that transfrontier and transboundary conservation
areas1 can be a vehicle for international co-operation, biodiversity conservation and economic
development.
We are pleased to note that:
♦ in many regions of the world there is a new climate of co-operation between neighbouring
States; and
♦ principles of transboundary resource management and resource sharing for mutual benefit
are beginning to emerge, although many legal, economic and political constraints remain at
both national and international levels.
Based on the wealth of world-wide experience presented at this Conference, we are convinced
that:
♦ a major contribution can be made to international co-operation, regional peace and stability
by the creation of transfrontier conservation areas which promote biodiversity conservation,
sustainable development and management of natural and cultural resources, noting that
such areas can encompass the full range of IUCN protected area management categories;
♦ such areas can be managed co-operatively, across international land or sea boundaries
without compromising national sovereignty;
♦ such areas can bring benefits to local communities and indigenous peoples living in border
areas as well as to national economies through nature-based tourism and co-operative
management of shared resources such as watersheds and fisheries;
♦ such areas also have a vital part to play in the conservation of biodiversity, in particular by
enabling natural systems to be managed as functional ecosystem units, for species
conservation and ecologically sustainable development through bio-regional planning; and
♦ appropriate frameworks for transboundary conservation areas may include a range of

mutually supportive informal and formal mechanisms, from local liaison arrangements to
agreements between States.
The planning and management of transfrontier conservation areas should:
♦ incorporate the full range of appropriate management options for biodiversity conservation
from strict protection to sustainable natural resource management (IUCN protected area
categories I - VI);
♦ fully engage local communities and indigenous peoples and ensure that they derive
tangible, long-term benefits from the establishment and management of transfrontier
conservation areas;
1
The terms Transfrontier and Transboundary Conservation Areas are used interchangeably in different
regions to denote areas which span both international and internal administrative boundaries.
Transfrontier Conservation Areas include, but are not necessarily restricted to, protected areas.

♦ build strategic partnerships between government agencies, NGOs, private sector and local
communities;
♦ be undertaken as part of broader programmes for integrating conservation and sustainable

development; and
♦ further the effective implementation of international and regional instruments for

conservation of biodiversity.
We particularly endorse:
♦ the efforts at establishing and strengthening transboundary protected areas in the following
regions, where a detailed case has been presented to the conference:
♦ Southern Africa;
♦ the habitat of the mountain gorilla on the borders of The Democratic Republic of Congo,
Rwanda and Uganda;
♦ strengthening the protected areas in the Meso-American Biological Corridor;
♦ the forests on the borders of Lao PDR, Cambodia and Vietnam; and
♦ the demilitarised zone in the Korean peninsula,
whilst noting that there are many other areas around the world where similar efforts deserve
support and encouragement, such as the Dead Sea and the Okavango Delta.
We therefore call on:
the international community to encourage States to co-operate in the establishment and

management of transfrontier conservation areas as a means of strengthening international co-
operation, maximising benefits and fostering regional peace and stability through:
♦ encouraging individual governments, including provincial governments where these have

jurisdiction over natural resources, to strengthen collaboration with their neighbours in the
establishment and management of transfrontier conservation areas;
♦ developing and widely distributing guidance on best practices and case studies on
transfrontier conservation initiatives on land and at sea;
♦ supporting a code of conduct to provide a clear enabling framework to secure the

interrelated benefits of transfrontier conservation areas, namely biodiversity conservation,
improved economic and social welfare of local communities and the maintenance and re-
establishment of peaceful conditions;
♦ supporting the development and ultimate adoption of measures to prevent the damaging
impact of military activities on protected areas;
♦ promoting the exchange of expertise, information and other assistance for capacity building
to help establish or strengthen transfrontier conservation areas;
♦ promoting the involvement of the private sector in structured partnerships, which caters for
all levels of entrepreneurship within an appropriate and agreed regulatory framework; and

♦ encouraging international donors and funding agencies to provide additional financial and
technical assistance to support transfrontier conservation areas that meet agreed criteria.

WELCOME ADDRESS BY DR. Z. PALO JORDAN,
MINISTER OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS AND TOURISM
The Chairperson, David Sheppard, The Director General of the World Conservation Union,
David McDowell, The Chairperson and Directors of the Peace Parks Foundation, distinguished
guests, ladies and gentlemen.
I would like to extend a warm welcome to all on behalf of President Nelson Mandela and the
South African Government. I want to extend a particularly warm welcome to the delegates
from beyond South Africa’s frontiers. For the few days you will spend with us make our
country your home. We wish you a pleasant stay and feel assured that South Africa feels very
honoured to be hosting this very important international gathering.
World market trend indicate that tourism is the world’s fastest growing industry, with eco-
tourism or nature-based tourism at the fore-front of this expansion. At the present tourism
accounts for 4.5% of South Africa’s GDP. If we could increase that figure to 10%, the industry
could generate R40 billion annually and create two million jobs. No other industry has such a
potential. The Southern African region has one of the densest biological diversity in the world.
Here in the Western Cape, we have two bio-diversity hot spots, the Hottentots Holland Nature
Reserve and the Table Mountain range, both of which are home to an amazing array of plant
and animal species. Southern Africa, with its untouched natural beauty, has the potential to
become a highly sought after eco-tourism destination with tourism as a significant generator of
the economic development that the whole region so desperately needs.
The Peace Parks are particularly appropriate for our region which has been racked by wars
and other forms of conflict for the past decades. These Parks will be a token of shared
commitment by the peoples and governments of Southern Africa to strive for peace and to
pursue the option of peaceful resolution of conflict as an intrinsic condition for the welfare and
development of our region.
Regional cooperation in transboundary protected areas will be one further step along the path
set by the Southern African Development Community (SADC). South Africa is itself
spearheading exciting new initiatives of transfrontier cooperation such as the Maputo
Development Corridor and the trilateral Lubombo Development Initiative involving cooperation
with Swaziland and Mozambique.
These projects are grounded in the mutual dependence of the countries of this region and the
recognition that the development of one’s neighbours is a condition for one’s own. These
projects will enhance and greatly expand the area of regional cooperation and hopefully will
ward off the threat of violent conflict. Their joint management will provide new arenas of
collaboration which must necessarily help to minimise conflict itself.
Your meeting on our soil at this time affords us the opportunity of obtaining pointers from other
countries’ experience in the fostering of regional cooperation. Our government is therefore
keenly interested in the outcome of your deliberations over the next three days.
As Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism, I could not have recommended a better
venue to make the best impression on international visitors. As a CapeTonian I am certain
that you will agree that I am being completely objective in concurring with Drake that this is the
fairest Cape. After you have had a chance to taste of the delights the Western Cape has to
offer, I am certain you will be persuaded to come back here on holiday.
As Dr. John Hanks will explain to you later South Africa, through the Peace Parks Foundation,
is already firmly committed to the development of seven Transfrontier Conservation Areas on

our borders. We regard these initiatives, which will be undertaken with our colleagues in
Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe, as one of the most
interesting developments unfolding on the sub-continent. These conservation areas will
compliment our other measures to promote regional peace and stability by creating hundreds
of new job opportunities as well as providing a better context for the conservation of some of
Africa’s bio-diversity hot spots.
As you travel through our countryside and take time out to see and experience our beautiful
beaches, I am certain that you will also be struck by the glaring contrasts that reflect the legacy
of our recent past. The Western Cape is but a microcosm of the fundamental problems facing
not only South Africa, but also the other countries in the region. Widespread poverty, in urban
and rural areas, poses a very immediate and palpable threat to the ethic of sustainable use of
our natural resources. Environmental management, conservation and the protection of the
delicate ecological systems to be found in the region becomes that much more difficult when
large numbers of people live on the edge of existence, uncertain of survival into the following
day. These broader issues will have to inform your discussions while not detracting from the
very laudable aim of creating Peace Parks.
In elaborating the concept of Peace Parks it would not be out of place to consider how best we
protect and manage our natural resources as a region. The rivers of Southern Africa are
shared by more than one country. Our mountain ranges do not end abruptly because some
19th Century politician drew a line on a map. The winds, the oceans, the rain and atmospheric
currents do not recognise political frontiers. The earth’s environment is the common property
of all humanity and creation, and what takes place in one country affects not only its
neighbours, but many others well beyond its borders.
Southern Africa is regularly reminded of the fragility of our little green planet by the cruel tricks
that mother nature periodically plays on us. Even as we speak the region is bracing itself for
yet another El Niño phenomenon. Because we have had forewarning the region will be better
prepared for the prospect. It goes without saying that the worst affected will be the poorest
among our people. Addressing the economic plight of our marginalised and poor communities
goes beyond mere charity, but is increasingly a prerequisite for the survival of our biosphere.
South Africa is executing a paradigm shift in our conservation policy which entails drawing
local communities into the management and protection of the conservation estate. We are
promoting a cooperative arrangement between communities in the vicinity of protected areas
and game parks so as to address their needs for land, various resources, employment and
income. In a few pilot projects, in various parts of the country, we are finding ways of restoring
the pride of communities in their natural heritage by giving them access to the substantial
benefits of tourism.
Some elements of these projects are:
♦ paying a percentage of entrance revenues to local communities;

♦ where profits from protected areas are small of non-existent, channelling funds earmarked
for development into needy neighbouring areas;
♦ allowing communities to harvest resources such as fish, grass, thatch, wood and traditional
medicine inside the conservation area;
♦ establishing community reserves;
♦ establishing a range of eco-development projects and attractions, such as cultural villages,
in areas close to conservation areas;
♦ allowing local pastoralists to remain in a conservation area under “contract”;

♦ forming joint management committees between local communities, conservation authorities
and private operators;
♦ channelling funds generated by tourism into development programmes, such as clinics and
schools;
♦ in many cases, conservationists, private operators and NGO’s have made their expertise
and other resources (such as veterinary services, telephones, faxes, photocopying facilities)
available to neighbouring villages.
We are confident that these measures will not only enhance job creation but will also have a
salutory effect on the environment by giving the poor an active interest in its conservation and
sustainable management. Our National Parks Board has already initiated a programme to
impart indigenous lore about conservation and environmental management to the younger
generation. The preservation of such local traditions dovetails well with the National Botanical
Institutes taxonomic work on medicinal plants and herbs.
We trust that the outcome of your conference will be the creation of yet another window of
opportunity for economic development and the empowerment of our historically disadvantaged
communities. The Peace Parks can catalise job creation, the improvement of infrastructure
and education. They must, of course, also provide a haven from the rat race and the
pressures of urban life by being wide open spaces where we can commune with nature, as
simple, uncomplicated human beings.
Ladies and gentlemen, the issues you will be weighing touch some of the most challenging
aspects of my Ministry. The South African government looks forward to receiving a report on
your conference. We know it will offer us much to think about. Let me therefore wish you well
in your deliberations and leave with our best wishes for a very successful conference.
Thank you.

OPENING REMARKS BY IUCN DIRECTOR GENERAL,
DAVID MCDOWELL
May I add to the Minister’s words of welcome a welcome also on behalf of IUCN - The World
Conservation Union. We have a serious issue before us. Let’s engage it seriously - but let’s
at the same time enjoy this chance to think creatively about peace parks - an important
mechanism for seeking peace and conservation.
This will not be difficult in the new South Africa. Minister, we thank you for being with us this
morning. It is not just that this setting is superb. It is not just that South Africa with its many
borders and the imaginative way it is now perceiving them is an appropriate place to be
discussing transboundary peace parks.
More importantly, this country has become a symbol of hope for the world. You still have huge
problems before you. But looking at this country today and thinking back a decade or less, the
evidence of transformation is startlingly clear: you are engaging in the difficult process of
building a new and united nation in a wholly unique and courageous way. We outsiders can
teach you little about conflict resolution; you do it every day in a very African way. We salute
you. We fervently wish you success.
May I add that we were interested to hear this morning of the paradigm shift in your policy by
involving communities in the management and benefits of parks. Experience elsewhere
supports the good sense of such a policy.
IUCN - The World Conservation Union has been glad to be working with the Peace Parks
Foundation of South Africa in bringing you all together. We thank John Hanks and his team
for the way they have thrown themselves wholeheartedly into the venture. We are also glad
that our colleagues in the World Bank and other partners have joined us in helping set up the
conference.
Let me do a brief commercial at this point about IUCN for those of you who do not know us.
We are a curious and very practical hybrid: we draw our membership from governments (over
a hundred) and over seven hundred non-governmental organizations around the globe. We
also have a large group, running over ten thousand worldwide, of hardworking and committed
volunteers organized into six technical networks known as Commissions. This meeting was
organized by one of the more venerable and extensive of these networks, the World
Commission on Protected Areas. The WCPA has been working on the peace parks idea for
some years.
What does the Union stand for? We try to establish links between the environment and
development. We stand for sound science, socially delivered. One of our more upbeat
versions of this is that our product is hope, based on science. We try to match policy and
action. We mobilize ideas and knowledge and know-how and people. We try to be above the
fray - but in it as well. We tend to the sustainable use side of the biodiversity conservation
debate - and we try to help empower communities and influence decision-makers. With all
due modesty, we also think that this unique alliance of governments, NGOs, volunteers and
increasingly other partners and players like the private sector is the wave of the future for
international organizations.
You might well ask what an organization with this sort of make-up and philosophy is doing
dabbling in areas like conflict resolution and mechanisms for improving transboundary
relationships between countries and peoples.

Five quick answers are:
♦ because environmental factors are going to be a primary source of international insecurity

and conflict in the 21st century;
♦ because much of this conflict will arise over the control and management of scarce natural
resources;
♦ because much of the world’s precious biodiversity, including human diversity, lies in the vast
ecosystems through which arbitrary national boundaries wander;
♦ because the usefulness of objective and independent third parties like IUCN in conflict
resolution is proven;
♦ because transboundary protected areas, like several other forms of transboundary
cooperation, usually work. With some exceptions they justify the label “peace parks”.
Let me go personal for a moment. I am by training and experience more a historian and a
diplomat than a conservationist, though I have a growing claim to the latter. I left the sanctuary
of a national Foreign Service because I believe that the challenges of the next century in the
area of international relationships, including security relationships, will derive from factors
which national systems are ill-equipped and too inflexible to confront and cope with. I am a
convinced internationalist - or perhaps multilateralist is a better word. So I have a long-
standing interest in the issues before us.
It has almost become a cliché that environmental stress, and particularly scarcities of
renewable natural resources, leads to conflict inside individual countries and across national
boundaries. There are dozens of books and hundreds of articles on the subject, whole
research centres study the implications - we ourselves are working with the Paris-based OECD
and the Woodrow Wilson Center of the Smithsonian Institution on aspects of the thesis and I
was interested to see that South Africa’s White Paper on Defence has a chapter on the
environment. The reality is that although environmental scarcity is not usually the sole or
exclusive cause of conflict, when it interacts with ethnic, political, economic and/or social
factors the mixture is volatile. In the years ahead population pressures will exacerbate the
shortages, the area of high quality agricultural land and forests will decline, as will plant, animal
and marine species. Widespread environmental degradation will accompany all this.
Heightened conflict, much of it sub-national, will arise - at least in part as a consequence of
resource scarcities. Much of the conflict will occur in the developing world - but the rich
countries will not escape the turmoil, for insecurity and political instability come to affect all.
Reflecting this, it is a sad fact that the United Nations is spending as much on peacekeeping
as on fostering sustainable development - so it is having to devote as much effort to treating
symptoms as to heading off and preventing conflict.
Let me give you one example of what might be called environmental degradation as a major
contributor to conflict.
We are in Africa. Let’s take an African example. Most observers tend to view the tragic
conflict in Rwanda over these past several years as a simple case of tribal animosities getting
out of hand. But Michael Renner in his book Fighting for Survival: Environmental Decline,
Social Conflict, and the New Age of Insecurity sees it differently. The Rwanda apocalypse, he
says, “…. was rooted in a complex web of explosive population growth, severe land
shortages, land degradation and rapidly falling food production, lack of non-agricultural
employment, dwindling export earnings, and the pain of structural economic adjustment”. Of
course tribal conflict was a substantial element - but it is altogether too simplistic to see this as
the sole cause. Environmental pressures triggered the tragedy.
I do not propose to go into the environmental security issue in detail. Its relevance to this
conference is that whether we like it or not most of us here are going to become increasingly

embroiled in the debates and conflicts over environmental degradation and scarcities. We are
natural resource managers. We seek ecological sustainability. Conservation of biodiversity is
a preoccupation. And increasingly we seek to work on an ecosystem-wide basis, striving (with
a mixture of trepidation and arrogance) to help put in place management regimes which do not
touch only on one aspect of a problem or deal with it on one site but cover large marine
systems, whole river basins, vast inland plains, plateaus and mountain systems. So, as the
Minister reminded us earlier, we run constantly up against a rather large constraint: the
physical and biological systems in which we work do not recognize national boundaries.
I read a statistic somewhere which is that over 50 percent of the present national boundaries
of the world were drawn up by six colonial powers. The boundaries wander whimsically over
the face of the globe, the product often of the arbitrary actions of lost and lonely colonial
surveyors with very vague briefs. Occasionally they used physical features to define the
boundaries - drawing their lines down the thalweg (the middle of the navigable channel) of
large rivers, for example. Apart from the fact that such lines tend to be a trifle insecure (the
navigable channel shifts at flood time) they are a nightmare to ecosystem managers because
they split river basins and watersheds precisely down the middle. They are also a nightmare to
social scientists and community leaders and government administrators because they tend
also to split human groups down the middle.
There is little prospect of redrawing such boundaries in the foreseeable future. For reasons
which are perfectly understandable, governments are reluctant to open this can of worms.
Most regional organizations (the Organization of African Unity, for example) are committed to
existing national boundaries. But - as our conference papers illustrate - there are around the
world many instances of transboundary cooperation. Almost all stop short of a surrender of
sovereignty as such but they do affirm that, given a sufficient matching of complementary
interests and some political will, governments will act rationally and cooperate with their
neighbours. That is reassuring.
But this is where you people also come in. Add to your responsibility for helping reduce
environmental stress and insecurity the task of conflict resolver. When I was in New York in
the late ‘eighties I got involved through the Quakers (brilliant conflict resolvers) with the
Harvard Negotiation Project people. You will know of the classic book by Roger Fisher and
William Ury, Getting to Yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. If you have not read it, I
recommend that you do. It’s as relevant to a park manager in Malaysia or Peru as to
community leaders in Siberia - or Natal, I suspect.
If I venture to boil their techniques down to what is most relevant to transboundary conflict
resolution, Fisher and Ury give one basic message: focus on interests, particularly shared
interests and those related to basic human needs. Some of those who wrote papers for this
conference utterly understand this. Juan Castro-Chamberlain puts it succinctly: “Peace parks
.… reduce stress along historically tense borders by providing governments with an agenda for
mutual action on issues of common concern”.
What can this collection of practical field people, scientists, lawyers and academics do to
foster more peace parks? We can, in a studiously neutral way, help governments and
transboundary communities identify what their shared or matching interests are in taking such
a step. Secondly, we can point the way to achieving such agendas of common concern. Our
papers give us lovely examples of shared or complementary interests in conserving
biodiversity and extending wildlife and watershed protection across borders to save scarce
resources. We must identify wider resource management interests. We must pinpoint
potential, social, economic and political benefits. As for what role we play, we should take to
heart the injunction of one author that outsiders may facilitate dialogue or even on occasion

mediate in negotiations designed to produce transboundary peace parks - but they should not
be, indeed cannot be, the leaders in such processes.
You will gather from what I have said that I use the title “peace park” in an inclusive and
general way. To my way of thinking we should not define too specifically what examples of
transboundary cooperation qualify as a peace park. It should not be confined, for example, to
protected areas which were set up essentially to achieve enhanced physical or military security
although it is acknowledged that on occasion establishing such a park is a very acceptable and
sensible way of backing away from border disputes. The term should also cover parks set up
with resource or ecosystem management or community economic welfare objectives in mind,
for example. As Clare Shine puts it: “Whatever the main objective, the potential benefits of
transboundary protected areas are closely inter-related: prospects for peace are most likely to
be strengthened if natural resources are sustainably used and the interests of local
populations are taken fully into account”. Not the least important consideration is that in some
parts of the world groups of indigenous peoples are split and permanently distanced from each
other unless there are some creative cross-border arrangements put in place.
May I at this juncture make a point which those of you who are terrestrial park managers may
occasionally forget? This is that the potential for establishing peace parks in the marine
environment is much greater than on land. As one author, who identifies a whole range of
examples of cooperation at sea puts it: “….. state sovereignty on land is absolute, whereas at
sea it is partial”. The world community’s failure to match in the marine environment the degree
of protection achieved on land might even prove an advantage in this respect: reaching
agreement on shared or jointly managed maritime protected areas may prove easier where
boundaries are less clearly delimited, where there are no existing protected areas and where
living resources are more inclined to be migratory. So let’s not neglect the marine dimension
over these next three days. Indeed let’s have some specific focus on it.
Another (related) dimension which lies perhaps beyond the scope of this meeting (though I
would not be too inhibited by this) is the potential for establishing peace parks in the global
commons. What we have in Antarctica, especially when the Environmental Protocol comes
into force shortly, is coming close to a peace park (though I know some government lawyers
who would argue the toss on this). I put it to you that there are vast areas of the high seas
where some degree of protection will come to be seen as a priority as living marine resources -
not least that source of joy and wonder, coral reefs - contract and dwindle. Some preliminary
thoughts on high seas peace parks would not be out of place.
Let me conclude with a plea to speakers and all participants. We have three precious days
only to learn of the experiences of others, to outline geopolitical, scientific and legal
parameters, and to look to the future. Let’s all be as succinct and to the point as possible.
Let’s show self-discipline in our interventions. In presenting papers let’s remember that the
discussion to follow is at least as important as the formal presentation. We need to free up as
much time as possible for brainstorming. I am looking to some tough chairing, including the
use of time warnings, to help achieve this. And let’s direct most of our thoughts to the future,
to the constructive outputs and guidance we are seeking from this aggregation of experience
and talent!

PAPER PRESENTED AT THE CONFERENCE
GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION:

PHILOSOPHY AND BEST PRACTICES
By: Lawrence S. Hamilton

Vice-Chair (Mountains) WCPA/IUCN
Islands and Highlands, Environmental Consultancy
342 Bittersweet Lane, Charlotte, Vermont 05445 USA;
Tel/fax 802 425-6509; LSx2_Hamilton@together.org
Transboundary cooperation between two or more border-abutting protected areas can be of

many kinds and degrees. It can range from park managers feeling comfortable enough with
each other to pick up the telephone and talk about a problem or opportunity, to a formal
international treaty that endorses cooperation between agencies administering the protected
areas. Hereafter, transboundary cooperation will be referred to as TBC. It is convenient to
use terms that indicate a situation where there are two abutting parks on a common frontier
between two countries as in SIAPAZ (Sistema Internacional de Areas Protegidas Para la Paz)
(Costa Rica/Nicaragua). However this is also meant to include cases where there may be
more than two protected areas or countries, as in Volcanoes (Rwanda), Virunga (Zaire) and
Gorilla (Uganda). There are also conditions for TBC where very independent states or
provinces within a single country are involved as is the case for New South
Wales/Victoria/Australian Capital Territory in the Australian Alps National Parks. Also, the
terms transfrontier, transborder or transboundary may have slightly different shades of
meaning, but will be usually subsumed under the one term "transboundary" for the purpose of
this paper and this conference.
In setting forth some guidelines and best practices for effective TBC, it is appropriate to first of
all briefly review the benefits that can be captured and that make TBC a compelling activity. It
is well to be aware of some of the impediments to effective TBC, and these will be also briefly
reviewed. More detailed development of these two aspects may be found in the publication
"Transborder Protected Area Cooperation" (Hamilton, et al., 1996).
In dealing with the topic of TBC, I will not delve into the benefits of easing any international
tension or outright conflict that derives from establishing or already having nature protection
areas adjoining the frontier. Some of these have been pointed out by McNeil (1990) and
moreover are the focus of several presentations at this conference. Tension over unusual
border situations following wars indeed have been eased, e.g. the Cracow Protocol in 1924
recognized the value of an international park between Poland and Czechoslovakia, which in
fact did not materialize until 1949 in the case of Tatrzanski National Park in the former and
1954 as Tatransky National Park in the latter. But then, because of the previous efforts to
create an international park, collaboration began almost immediately (Vlado Vancura, pers.
comm., 1997). Where relations have been somewhat strained or "cool" between countries,
creation of parks such as the Finnish/Russian Karelia Friendship Park of old growth forest,
promote more friendly interaction between countries. And where there are situations of
hostility or even armed conflict, creation of abutting parks can reduce military presence,
demonstrate the effectiveness of non-military methods of dispute resolution and perhaps lead
to solving of boundary disputes (McNeil, 1990). The SIAPAZ (or Sí-a-Paz) park between
Nicaragua and Costa Rica comes close to this, and is described in another paper in this
conference. It is to be noted that the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea is a
de facto nature reserve some 230 km long and 4 km wide where both plants and animals have
found refuge from warfare. It would make a splendid peace park. Ahn and McGahey (1992)
have described this possibility.
Armed conflict and hostility preclude TBC, and the harvesting of a whole suite of very real

benefits, many of which are summarized below. The benefits are so substantial that they
alone may ease tensions on the border in some cases.
BENEFITS OF TBC
Aside from the value of technical, non-political interaction that promotes greater understanding
and trust, and leads to cooperation in other arenas, it is in th arena of biodiversity conservation
that the benefits are most direct and obvious. For that reason they are listed first in the
following abbreviated listing of benefits.
1. A larger contiguous protected area cooperatively managed reduces the risk of

biodiversity loss (genes, species or ecosystems) from different policies applied on
smaller areas with respect to harvesting levels, enhancement measures and differing
protected status or laws protecting rare species; there is less "island" effect where
biodiversity loss increases naturally; there is more genetic exchange. More viable
populations are maintained in the whole complex of areas. (Ordessa in Spain is 15,600
ha but it abuts the large 206,350 ha Pyrénées Occidentales.)
2. Some landscape features (a mountain, a reef, a lake, a river) shared by two or more
countries virtually compell cooperation in their conservation since it is a single entity in
very many respects, including its biodiversity complement. Mount Kanchenjunga, third
highest in the world, is being considered for trilateral protection and cooperative
management by India, Nepal and China.
3. Promotes ecosystem-based management for plants and animals whose populations

occur both sides of an "artificial" boundary, or for seasonally migratory wildlife species
that cross a jurisdictional boundary (e.g. ibex have summer range in Vanoise National
Park in France, but winter in Italy in Gran Paradiso). The well-being of the species
requires that compatible management be applied in both countries.
4. Reintroduction or natural recolonization of wildlife requiring large habitat range, such as

top carnivores, is more successful it two abutting wild core areas exist and the project
can be done jointly (e.g. wolf moving through protected areas in Alberta Canada into US
protected areas, or reintroduction of bearded vulture in Alpi Marittime and Mercantour
(Italy and France)).
5. Pest species (pathogens, insect pests or alien species) that adversely affect biodiversity
are better responded to by joint action for control or else there is always an adjacent
source of the problem (e.g. wild pig cross-border control in the Australian Alps involving
Victoria, New South Wales and Australian Capital Territory).
6. For rare plant species an ex-situ seed bank and nursery may be needed. Having one
such facility serving two or more areas gives a desired economy by sharing the costs
(e.g.Czech Krkono e/Polish Karkonosze share one on the Czech side).
7. Joint research programs bring the benefits of different perspectives, eliminate

duplication, provide more scientific interchange and opportunities for standardizing
methodologies so that research data and results are more meaningful; where
transboundary Biosphere Reserves exist, research cooperation is the expected
procedure; expensive equipment can be shared (e.g.agreement for research cooperation
in Tatras by Polish Tatrzanski and Slovak Tatransky researchers, or joint studies on fish
otter by Saxonia-Switzerland National Park and Elbe Sandstones Protected Landscape
in Germany/Czech Republic).
8. Wildfire is no respecter of park boundaries, and can be more effectively controlled with a

cooperative surveillance and suppression effort (e.g. a memorandum on fire control
across the USA/Canada border in the Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area/Quetico
Wilderness Provincial Park.
9. Poaching and illegal trade in plants and animals across political boundaries requires a
certain level of joint action to control effectively through common policies, rigorously and
equally applied (e.g. Manas Tiger Reserve/Manas National Park in India and Bhutan). In
law enforcement activities and policies, there needs to be cooperation for effectiveness,
such as joint patrols, sharing of the intelligence database and monitoring methods.
These are being worked on in Makalu-Barun (Nepal) and Qomolangma (China) where
they abut.
10. Nature-based tourism opportunities and resulting benefits are enhanced in several ways:
♦ It is more cost-effective and satisfying for the tourist to be able to visit more than one
park from his or her base, and even to pay one admission fee (e.g. boat trips across
the border on Waterton Lake for Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park; river
rafting between Kluane/Tatshenshini-Alsek/Glacier Bay crossing three jurisdictions
and two countries; boat tours go down the river border in the bilateral Bohemian-
Saxonian Switzerland in Germany and Czech Republic.)
♦ Joint approach in marketing is more likely to attract tour operators as an economy of

scale and provides more of a level playing field when dealing with the tourism industry
(e.g. the Yukon/Alaska Tourism Marketing Strategy for parks in Canada and USA).
♦ Collaboration on such matters as entry fees (not too disparate), tour operator training
and numbers limitations can make for more sustainable and orderly nature tourism.
11. Information and educational materials can be jointly developed and produced at cost
savings, and their use with visitors then promotes a pride of designation in the park
personnel and a regional and cultural image in the visitor. Common maps, logo,
brochures, video material and even joint interpretive outings on both sides of the border
are hallmarks of effective TBC. The best example of all of these in one place is in the
Australian Alps National Parks, and Waterton-Glacier and Hohe Tauern are close
behind.
12. Joint training of park staff can produce economies, and foster exchange of varied
experience of field staff. This applies to law enforcement, park maintenance, fire control,
environmental education and many other management activities (e.g. Hohe Tauern in
three Austrian States in the development of a joint training academy).
13. Improved staff morale seems to go hand-in-hand with transboundary cooperation. This
may be partly through reduction in the feeling of isolation for parks in remote areas. It
also reflects the sharing of experiences with other professionals who grapple with similar
problems. The cultural differences can make for enriching interaction and camaraderie
(e.g. in the regularly held Glacier Bay/Wrangell-St. Elias/Kluane Borderland Managers'
Workshops).
14. There is increased opportunity for staff exchanges at various levels, and this promotes
professional development (e.g. in 1996 15 days of staff exchange by 10 rangers from
Mercantour (France) to Alpi Marittime (Italy) and in 1997 the exchange will work the other
way. Note that this also involves language training, but the benefit is considered to be
sufficient to justify this.)

15. The combined professional staffs offer a greater skills pool for finding the expertise
needed to solve a problem on either side of the boundary (e.g.the two Tatras parks in
Poland and Slovakia).
16. Expensive investments in heavy equipment, aircraft rental for patrol and other items used
infrequently may be shared to the end of greater cost savings (e.g. the cooperative fire
management air surveillance and aerial water bombing in the Australian Alps.)
17. Where both sides agree on a priority action or expense, it carries more weight with the
"higher-ups" than if it comes unilaterally from the one park unit (e.g. upgrading Czech
Republic's Elbe Sandstones Protected Landscape to a National Park, to match its
partner across the German border, Saxonian Switzerland National Park.)
18. Similarly, the department or ministry within which the protected area unit is embedded
usually feels a greater responsibility to honor its obligations for support. This may help
where the parks agency is within a forestry ministry that has a timber harvest myopia.
19. Joint proposals from both sides of an international frontier have greater weight with
international designations or donors (e.g. Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park
which became a World Heritage Site in December 1995, and the Czech/Slovak/Austria
international park Morava-Dyje wetlands which secured GEF funding in 1993.)
20. Where a protected area is receiving air pollution damage such as acid rain or heavy
metal deposition, an international leverage may have more effect; similarly if one area is
threatened with an inappropriate development, the joint opposition may carry the day
(e.g. in the proposed copper mine in the Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park because of
its tie to Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elias and Glacier Bay which together became the world's
largest World Heritage Site.)
21. Customs and Immigration officials are more easily encouraged to cooperate by a joint
effort of transboundary parks (e.g. Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park).
22. Search and rescue activities that are part of mountain park management are often much
more efficiently and economically carried out by cooperating protected areas
(e.g.Nepalese helicopter rescues in Qomolangma Nature Reserve of China on Mount
Sagarmatha/Qomolangma).
Note that these benefits must continuously be communicated by park managers to senior
decision and policy makers of the agency and ministry in order to keep their commitment as
there are changes in administration, particularly if there are changes in political philosophy.
Benefits also need to be communicated to local people within or neighbor to the parks.
IMPEDIMENTS TO TBC
No one ever claimed that it was easier to get agreement between two or more distinct entities,
than to take unilateral action. TBC not always smooth sailing. Under some transboundary
situations there can be many inevitable impediments. To a large extent these explain why
there are very many levels or kinds of TBC where protected areas abut a common political
border.
1. Strong nationalism, isolationism, or different political ideologies can make it impossible

for a high level of TBC to prevail. As has been previously stated, open hostility and even
armed conflict precludes any overt level of TBC.
2. The difficult terrain and inaccessibility of most parks is in itself a problem. Lack of access

infrastructure across an international mountain or large river border is often the case, and
makes effective TBC difficult because it limits personal contact (e.g. lack of easy cross-
border access in La Amistad International Park (Costa Rica and Panamá)).
3. Different and occasionally conflicting laws with respect to such things as illegal drug
crops, wildlife harvesting, wildlife trade (one may be a signatory to CITES and one not),
customs and immigration, use of firearms, timber theft, all make cooperative law
enforcement a problem even though cooperative law enforcement seems a most
compelling arena for joint action (e.g. Nyika National Park in Malawi and Zambia).
4. Transboundary parks are usually slower in response to joint emergencies that call for
quick action, unless cooperation is of a very high level, and has been in place for some
time so that response policies have been thoroughly worked out.
5. Religious/cultural differences may result in different attitudes toward nature that have to
be recognized and provide for. These differences run the gamut from attitudes about
killing "pest" animals to different dress codes for tourists visiting both parks.
Religious/cultural differences can cause misunderstandings between park personnel, as
is sometimes the case in Muslim/Buddhist/Hindu interactions, or American/Mexican
interactions.
6. Language barriers may have to be overcome for effective communication. In the

Mercantour (France)/Alpi Marittime (Italy) staff exchange, language training has to be
provided.
7. The same level of political commitment may not exist on both sides of the border, and
this will foster a "weaker partner-dominant partner" situation (e.g. Bavarian Forest in
Germany and umava in Czech Republic).
8. The structure and degree of professionalism existing in the different agencies may make
for difficulty in achieving a real twinning of equal partners (e.g. requirement for rangers
to have some university education on one side but not on the other).
9. If there are differences in designated discretionary authority given to the two (or more)
protected area managers or superintendents, some serious difficulties can keep arising.
10. When two countries are at different stages of economic development there can be some
incompatibility of goals (e.g. strict nature protection versus sustainable development
which might involve grazing use, forest harvesting, hydropower development etc.)
Policies toward roads in protected areas are sometimes quite different. Large scale
tourism or forest production may be given priority in one country and nature protection
may be paramount in the other (Bavarian Forest/ umava).
11. Inconsistency of involvement with international protocols or conventions (Conventions on

Migratory Species, Wetlands of International Importance, and International Trade in
Endangered Species, World Heritage, UNESCO Biosphere Reserve) will prevent their
being used as TBC support (e.g. Venezuela has not approved Biosphere Reserves while
Colombia has).
12. Without clear objectives and enlightened leadership, cooperation can degenerate
somewhat into weak compromise, indecision or inaction.
Fortunately, the difficulties associated with communication between park staff across borders
are being eased by modern technology. Advances in telephone, facsimile transmission, and

electronic communication are all decreasing in the cost. There are still technical difficulties
and sometimes incompatibilities to be worked out. And there is always the persistent problem
of insufficient funds for communication. Having access to each other's radio frequencies and
the increasingly common use of electronic mail will reduce some of the difficulties enumerated
above.
GUIDELINES AND BEST PRACTICES
1. There is some UNIFYING THEME that promotes common values and a mutual vision:
the river itself for the Danube; the Waddenzee; a common animal such as the
endangered Andean bear for abutting parks in Venezuela and Colombia; the panther for
the whole series of linked protected areas (many of them on common borders) in the
MesoAmerican Biotic Corridor for 7 countries; Mount Everest for Qomolangma and
Sagarmatha, and so forth. This in turn produces a cultural icon that binds not only staff
but local people on both sides of the border through pride in the designation. This is
enhanced by having a common name, for example Nyika National Parks. A joint name
that appears repeatedly is the next best thing (Waterton/Glacier International Peace
Park). A common logo such as Hohe Tauern has for the three units, or as the Australian
Alps has developed (even though each park agency retains its own logo as well) are
good examples.
2. Good TBC will result in capturing the economic benefits and unifying effects of joint
development and production of COMMON MATERIALS FOR EDUCATION AND
INFORMATION. These present and interpret the natural and cultural values of the whole
area, across the boundary. A common map, brochures, exhibits and audio-visual
material not only present this holistic view, but give economies of joint production. The
two-language booklets produced by Mercantour and Alpi Marittime such as "Mountains
Without Frontiers" are good examples.
3. These common materials are in turn used in NATURE TOURISM marketing, tour
operator training, concessionaire regulation. Excellent examples of all of these were
visible in the Australian Alps. Noteworthy were the agreed-upon visitor codes published
as common pamphlets for: car-based camping, bushwalking, horse riding, snow
camping, river use, and mountain biking.
4. Common nature and culture INTERPRETATION themes and joint interpretation activities
that cross the border are hallmarks of a high degree of cooperation. This is
demonstrated Waterton/Glacier International Peace Park where there are regular
interpreter exchanges either for the season or on specific days of the week. Also,
interpreters from both parks lead day-long international hikes, with a lunch stop on the
border in which Americans sit in Canada, Canadians sit in the USA and foreign visitors
can sit either side or on the boundary if they wish.
5. A highly visible, high level JOINT ACTIVITY promotes staff goodwill and morale, and
goes well with the public. A good example is the annual joint Park Superintendents' Hike
in Waterton/Glacier. A joint annual field day for the public, or even joint annual staff
picnic seems like a good practice. Alpi Marittime Nature park has an annual event
celebrating the cultural traditions of an ethnic group which is now located mainly across
the border in France.
6. Regular JOINT TECHNICAL MEETINGS, seminars or training programs for information

exchange, development of a transborder spirit, increased staff morale, professional
upgrading and for cooperative develpment of strategies and materials are held. A good
example is the Northern Borderlands Managers' Workshops involving professional staff
from the US National Park Service, Parks Canada, US Forest Service, Alaska State

Parks, British Columbia Parks, Yukon Parks and First Nation Co-managers, who focus
on the large World Heritage Area that crosses all these jurisdictions.
7. JOINT RESEARCH AND MONITORING is a positive and non-threatening activity and

can be a good base on which to build other collaboration. Even when the research is
done by outside organizations or individuals, it is usually more effective when done
without regard to an artificial (political) boundary. Shared research results for park
management are significant and needed benefits. Good examples are in
Tatransky/Tatrzanski National Parks in Slovakia and Poland, and in Krkono
e/Karkonosze in Czech Republic and Poland. The Biosphere Reserve designation
fosters research cooperation both in the core zone and buffer zone, since this UNESCO
program encourages collaborative scientific activity.
8. COMPATIBLE or, preferably, JOINT MANAGEMENT PLANS. While joint management

plans may not be feasible due to the different timing of establishment of the respective
areas (or other factors), they need to be compatible on major issues such as fire
management, pest species control, and management of fauna that cross borders (e.g.
France's Mercantour/Italy's Alpi Marittime for the chamois, ibex, mouflon and wolf).
9. COLLABORATIVE PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT of staff through staff exchange

and joint training programs are very desirable, and develop "ties that bind". Hohe Tauern
has joint training activities that realize economies by using qualified trainers once
instead of three times, in each of the three state jurisdictions, Carinthia, Salzburg and
Tyrol. It has developed a "training academy". Staff exchanges are in place in
Mercantour/Alpi Marittime.
10. It is desirable to have a WRITTEN AGREEMENT ON MUTUAL ASSISTANCE in dealing

with illegal transborder activities such as poaching, drug movements, and timber
trespass, and with emergency situations such as fire suppression and search-and-
rescue. Waterton/Glacier International Peace Park has a written agreement on the latter
two areas of concern, and it is a major item on the US/Mexican border where a joint
Borders 21 Project is working out bi-national collaboration on all of the abutting border
protected areas.
11. Each protected area agency needs to SANCTION TIME ALLOCATION of staff for the
necessary coordination work which inevitably has a substantial amount of discussion and
pre-activity meetings. In view of the benefits, this must not be regarded by higher agency
officials as unproductive wheel-spinning.
12. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND PROTOCOLS are used where possible to

support and foster effective TBC. These include World Heritage designation,
Convention on Migratory Species, Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species, Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Biodiversity Convention,
and Man and the Biosphere Program (especially Biosphere Reserves). These
designations not only give a higher profile and status but another layer of protection as is
the case in Bhutan's Royal Manas National Park and India's Manas Tiger Reserve World
Heritage site.
13. SUPPORT OF AN NGO, preferably one that can work both sides of the border in helping
to develop and maintain a constituency for the joint park. This is well illustrated by the
Rotary Club International in the case of Waterton/Glacier. Rotary conceived the peace
park idea and pushed each government to action. It continues to be active and is
currently attempting to eliminate the swath of cut vegetation that marks the international
border. The Mountain Institute plays a nurturing and training role in Makalu-Barun

(Nepal)/Qomolangma (China), and carries out projects with the traditional people living
within and around the protected areas. It assists in securing donor support for park-
related activities involving local self-help projects. The International Tropical Timber
Organization was instrumental in securing donor funds to help make operational the
Lanjak-Entimau/Bentuang-Karimun protected areas in Sarawak, Malaysia and
Kalimantan, Indonesia. NGOs developed a Danube Charter that was instrumental in the
establishment of the tri-lateral Morava-Dyje wetlands (Czech Republic/Slovakia/Austria).
IUCN and WWF have both played effective roles in assisting border parks, particularly in
developing countries. In these cases there is often technical and financial assistance in
the formulation of management plans. It is an IUCN program activity to promote
transborder protected area establishment and cooperative management. (See for
instance Priority Number 22 of Parks for Life:Action for Protected Areas in Europe; the
stated objective is "to encourage the greater use of transborder protected areas in
Europe and a greater degree of cooperation across frontiers with those that already
exist" (Synge, 1994).
14. While an outside group can do much to keep agency administrators and others higher on
the bureaucratic or political ladder supportive of the transborder park idea and TBC, the
park units themselves must direct attention to this matter. Timely and regular
COMMUNICATION UPWARD to higher decision-makers and other agencies that may
adversely impact the park (e.g. tourism, transportation, energy and mines, forestry,
agriculture) is extremely important. International field days, publicizing successful
cooperative projects, hosting global meetings, appropriate use of newsletters, have been
used toward this end. Many of these are well illustrated in the Australian Alps Liaison
Committee activity.
15. The same communication effort must be carried out when dealing with COMMUNITY
SUPPORT, which needs to be fostered at every opportunity. Benefits of the protected
areas need to be continually explained. Consultation with the community in planning for
new management activities is becoming increasingly the standard park policy. Local
NGOs often play a significant role here, as shown in Makalu-Barun/Qomolangma, and
indigenous community co-management which is gradually taking place in
Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elias.
16. A FORMAL AGREEMENT between the political entities that gives a mandate to
cooperate is needed in addition to a cooperating relationship between cross-border staff,
for personnel change all too often. Poland and Slovakia have such an agreement for the
Tatra Parks, and in Hohe Tauern, the federal government of Austria is signatory to the
agreement between the States of Salzburg, Tyrol and Carinthia. The Australian Alps
national Parks has a comprehensive Memorandum of Understanding, just renewed this
year after 10 successful years in place.
17. Some kind of ADVISORY, COORDINATING, OR OVERSIGHT GROUP has a significant

role to play and can be supportive to the directors or superintendents of the respective
units. (The Australian Alps Liaison Committee performs this function,and does it
extremely well; in the case of Mercantour/Alpi Marittime, the Italian park director is a
voting member of the management and policy board of the park across the border, and
the French director is an ex-officio invitee to the Italian policy committee.)
18. Having FUNDS THAT SUPPORT AND THEREFORE PROMOTE JOINT RESEARCH
OR JOINT MANAGEMENT PROJECTS is extremely desirable. These may come from
outside, as is the case in Krkono e and Karkonosze where GEF funds support
cooperative projects conserving biodiversity; or be provided by the respective agencies
or ministries but earmarked for cooperative activities to be awarded and supervised by
the coordinating body, as is the case for the Australian Alps Liaison Committee (currently

around US$250,000 annually).
19. At the highest level of TBC there needs to be a FULL OR PART-TIME COORDINATOR,
perhaps on a rotating basis as is done by the four agencies in the Australian Alps, for
their full-time Coordinator.
20. For the highest degree of collaboration a formal agreement is necessary, but it alone is
not sufficient. ENTHUSIASTIC, FRIENDLY RELATIONSHIPS between the respective
superintendents or park directors, and staff at all levels must exist, or TBC will founder, in
spite of agreements. This "intangible" is imperative.
I must say that in my travels for WCPA, and dealings with protected area personnel, I have
encountered only friendliness and enthusiasm among staff within the protected area and
across to neighboring protected areas. Park professionals by nature seem well equipped to
promote effective cooperation across all boundaries, whether they be international, interstate,
interagency, or across into the neighboring communities.
LITERATURE CITED
Ahn, J.-Y. and S. McGahey. 1992. Converting the Korean Demilitarized Zone into a Peace
Park. pp 9-12 in Joining Hands for Quality Tourism. Proc. Heritage Interpretation
International, Third Global Congress. Eds. R.S,. Tabata, J. Yamashiro and G. Cherem.
Univ. of Hawai`i Sea Grant Extension Service, Honolulu. 468 pp.
Cerovsky, J. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe.

ECOPOINT Foundation, Prague. 108 pp.
Hamilton, L. S., J. C. Mackay, G. L. Worboys, R. A. Jones and G. B. Manson. 1996.

Transborder Protected Areas Cooperation. Australian Alps Liaison Committee and
IUCN, Canberra. 64 pp.
McNeil, R. J. 1990. International Parks for Peace. pp. 23-38 in Parks on the Borderline:
Experience in Transfrontier Conservation. Ed. By J. Thorsell. IUCN Protected Areas
Programme Series No. 1. Gland.
Synge, H., (Ed.). 1994. Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe. IUCN, Gland.
146 pp.

LEGAL MECHANISMS TO STRENGTHEN AND SAFEGUARD TRANSBOUNDARY
PROTECTED AREAS
Clare Shine
Barrister and consultant
Member, IUCN Commission on Environmental Law
37 rue Erlanger
75016 Paris
France
Introduction
Transboundary protected areas (TBPAs)2 potentially provide a range of important benefits:
♦ reduction of political tension and/or the promotion of peace;

♦ more effective management of natural resources and environments;
♦ promotion of the economic welfare of a region's communities.
♦ the preservation and enhancement of cultural values and, in certain cases, the protection of
transboundary peoples (McNeil).
The motive for creating a TBPA obviously varies in accordance with regional circumstances. Whilst
the term "peace park" has no legal definition, it has generally been applied to transboundary
cooperation where the primary aim is to confirm3, strengthen or re-establish4 good relations with a
neighbouring State(s); to prevent escalation of border disputes; or to safeguard important areas of
biodiversity which are or were military zones5. In most areas, however, the primary purpose of
transboundary cooperation is to improve the management of a shared ecological unit or migratory
species6.
Whatever the main objective, the potential benefits of TBPAs should be seen as closely inter-
related. Prospects for peace are most likely to be strengthened if natural resources are sustainably
used and the interests of local populations are taken fully into account.
As stated in the Conference Concept Paper, many TBPAs fail to realize all of their potential
benefits. Although such failure may be attributed to political, socio-economic or financial problems, it
can be caused or exacerbated by weaknesses in the legal and institutional framework for protected
area management, at national level and/or in the arrangements between neighbouring States.
2
Broadly interpreted to cover areas within IUCN protected area management categories I-VI for which formal
or informal mechanisms for transboundary cooperation have been developed.
3
e.g. the Waterton-Glacier "International Peace Park", established in 1932 by separate Acts of the Canadian
Parliament and the U.S. Congress to establish "an enduring monument of nature to the long-existing
relationship of peace and goodwill between the people of and Governments of Canada and United States".
4
e.g. the San Juan River Watershed between Nicaragua and Costa Rica, where the "Sistema de Areas
Protegidas para la Paz" (international protected area for peace) is being developed in an area subject to
previous military activity as well as to extensive rural migration.
5
e.g. Ecological Bricks for our Common House of Europe initiative (sites along the former Iron Curtain) and
the Demilitarized Zone between North and South Korea.
6
e.g. Spanish/French cooperation in the Pyrenees; establishment of transboundary reserves for the Kouprey
(grey ox) in forests along the Laos, Vietnamese and Kampuchean borders.

As a general rule, the fundamental protected area objectives of perennity and integrity are best met
through comprehensive management instruments which address all types of activity or impact
which could adversely affect the site (de Klemm and Shine). With specific regard to resource-based
conflicts, it is arguable that neighbouring countries which commit themselves to joint consultation
and management arrangements will be better placed to deal with any cross-border problems and to
pursue negotiated solutions.
This short paper summarizes general legal issues and the international regime applicable to TBPA
establishment and management, before describing a range of mechanisms for this purpose. It
outlines the main legal rules for the protection of the general environment during conflicts and
considers possible safeguards for protected areas against hostile military activities. It concludes
with elements for further consideration by this Conference.
2. Legal framework for the establishment and management of transboundary protected

areas
2.1 Issues and obstacles
Legally, there is no difference between a protected area in a border region and any other protected
area in the same country. Both will be subject to the relevant legislation of the country concerned.
Ecologically, however, border regions often have special importance for biological and landscape
diversity, especially where located in inaccessible areas. Since political boundaries between States
have usually been drawn for demographic, geographic or security reasons, they may take no
account of the parameters of an ecological unit: important watersheds or internationally significant
natural areas are often transected by national boundaries. In the absence of an appropriate
management regime for the whole unit, there may be a heightened risk of conflict over use of the
shared resources.
Where protected areas in neighbouring countries are located along the international border, this
border forms the jurisdictional boundary between the management authorities of the areas
concerned (if such authorities exist). It is also the line at which each country's laws cease to be
applicable7. Different parts of one ecosystem unit will therefore be managed by different institutions
in accordance with different legal rules (which may be national or, in a federated country, regional
or cantonal). This is unsatisfactory from a scientific point of view and can lead to duplication of
effort, conflicting management policies, wasted socio-economic opportunities and weak or non-
existent law enforcement.
In management terms, it would be preferable for the whole area to be administered as a single unit
by one institutional body (the highest being a joint international commission established by treaty) in
accordance with a single management plan. The international border would become purely
symbolic, with immigration and customs controls being moved back to the park boundaries and
uniform regulations being applicable throughout the TBPA.
Such an "ideal" will often, though not always8, be politically impossible. A sovereign State exercises
sovereign rights over its national territory and the natural resources under its jurisdiction, subject to
any limitations under customary international law or which it has voluntarily accepted under a treaty.
In border areas of political as well as environmental sensitivity, initiatives to develop joint regimes
may be rejected as an unacceptable relinquishment of sovereign rights over part of the national
territory and an invitation to foreign interference in national affairs.
7
A TBPA is not a legal no-man's land: a country's civil, criminal and other laws continue to apply to those
parts of the protected area which are under its jurisdiction.
8
See McNeil on possible mechanisms for agreed multiple sovereignty in exceptional cases.

Leaving political resistance aside, obstacles to integrated management also arise where there are
significant differences or imbalances between neighbouring countries. These may relate to ethnic
or cultural issues or to economic, legal or institutional systems. Despite the rapid development of
environmental law worldwide, some countries lack modern nature conservation legislation and
many more have inadequately resourced management authorities without clear powers and duties.
Jurisdictional overlaps and poor cross-sectoral coordination remain very common, particularly in
coastal and marine areas and in river ecosystems9. [Conversely, transboundary cooperation will be
facilitated under a coherent legal/institutional framework...]
2.2 International legal regime applicable to transboundary protected areas
TBPAs are a useful tool for the coordinated implementation of treaty obligations or
intergovernmental programmes. Several conservation treaties10 require the Parties concerned to
consult with each other where one Party intends to establish a protected area contiguous to the
frontier of another Party, and to cooperate after the creation of the park or reserve, or in cases
where a protected area was already established before the treaty came into force. A few go further
by requiring the competent authorities of the Parties concerned to consult each other with a view to
reaching agreement on management measures for such areas.
The Conference of the Parties to the Ramsar Convention (1971 Convention on Wetlands of
International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat11) has adopted a proactive role in
encouraging Parties to take joint conservation measures in respect of transboundary wetlands12.
The Ramsar Strategic Plan 1997-2000:
♦ calls for the designation of transfrontier wetlands and the improvement of international
cooperation pursuant to Article 5 of the Convention (Objectives 6 and 7);
♦ urges Parties to identify transfrontier wetlands of international importance, for example in shared
catchment/river basins, and to encourage the preparation and implementation of joint plans for
such sites using a "catchment" approach (Rec.5.3); and
♦ supports twinning of transfrontier wetlands and use of successful cases to illustrate the benefits
of international cooperation (Action 7.12).
The 1972 Convention for the Protection of the World's Cultural and Natural Heritage places a
duty on the international community to protect certain cultural and natural sites of "outstanding
universal value". Of the 506 cultural and natural properties included in the World Heritage List as of
9
It is interesting to note that before Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands agreed to coordinate
management of the Wadden Sea, 80 separate governmental institutions were involved in its management and
protection.
10
The earliest being the 1933 Convention relative to the Preservation of Fauna and Flora in their Natural
State (which covered Africa). Relevant regional conventions include the 1979 Convention on the Conservation
of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats, the 1985 ASEAN Agreement on the Conservation of Nature and
Natural Resources and the Protected Area Protocols to the Regional Seas Conventions concluded for the
Mediterranean, East African and Wider Caribbean Regions under the auspices of UNEP.
11
In March 1997, there were 101 Parties to this Convention and 872 sites included in the List of Wetlands of
International Importance (about 62 million ha).
12
At the Sixth Meeting (Brisbane 1996), the Conference called on the Governments of Bolivia and Peru to
consider the possibility of designating Lake Titicaca (the largest freshwater lake in South America, of vital
importance for the subsistence and development of local communities) as a transfrontier Ramsar site
(Rec.6.17.20) and welcomed the proposed simultaneous designation by France and Germany of a Ramsar
site along the upper reaches of the Rhine (Rec.6.17.23).

October 1996, 107 of these are natural and 19 are mixed cultural/natural sites. Eight sets of
adjacent protected areas are considered to be transboundary World Heritage Sites, with a further
three transfrontier nominations to be decided by the World Heritage Committee in December 1997.
Interestingly, in over a third of these cases, the site on one side of the border was listed first, whilst
the listing of its neighbour followed at a later date (the Talamanca Range in Costa Rica was listed
seven years earlier than La Amistad International Park, Panama in 1990). This illustrates the
catalyst role which international designations can play in TBPA establishment.
The most relevant intergovernmental programme for TBPAs is undoubtedly the Man and the
Biosphere Programme, launched by UNESCO in 1971, under which an international network of
biosphere reserves has been established to promote a balanced relationship between humans and
the biosphere. The Network aims to include representative samples of all ecosystem types in all
biogeographical zones: by 1997, 337 biosphere reserves had been designated in 85 countries13.
Countries propose biosphere reserves for inclusion in this voluntary Network, subject to the
approval of the MAB Council or Bureau. Each reserve remains under the sovereignty of the State
concerned and is subject to national legislation. Clear guidance on their establishment is provided
by the Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves14. Reserves should be
large enough to serve three functions (conservation, development and logistic support) and to use
appropriate zonation comprising three component areas: "a legally constituted core area or areas
devoted to long-term protection", a buffer zone(s) surrounding or contiguous to the core area or
areas, where only activities compatible with the conservation objectives can take place; and an
outer transition area where sustainable resource management practices are promoted and
developed.
Designations under multilateral instruments constitute an important vehicle for international

cooperation in the management of important natural areas. Financial assistance is often targeted at
sites of international importance, increasingly so where these are located in border areas and may
contribute to regional stability15. Listed sites are more likely to attract the support and vigilance of
international NGOs. The relevant Conference of the Parties will usually have powers to make
specific recommendations where a listed site's conservation status is threatened. Lastly, it tends to
be politically and procedurally difficult for a Party which designated a protected area for listing to
delist that site, as such an action would inevitably elicit adverse reaction from other Parties and
public opinion at large.
2.3 Legal mechanisms for effective transboundary cooperation
As the case studies presented during this Conference will show, arrangements for existing TBPAs
can range from informal/personal cooperation through local consultative arrangements to high-level
government declarations or bilateral treaties (Hamilton). It should be emphasized that there is no
correct model since conditions, customs and priorities vary between countries and between regions.
A few general observations can nevertheless be made:
♦ Informal or "grass-roots" liaison is always essential to effective transboundary cooperation. At its

best, it can build familiarity and mutual trust, promote close contact with communities and
support flexible and innovative approaches to local sustainable development. Although its scope
13
The Trifinio Conservation and Development Zone (El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras) is a trilateral
biosphere reserve. Under a Governmental agreement of 1987, the competent national authorities remain in
charge of the management of the areas under their jurisdiction, in accordance with a management plan to be
jointly formulated in a "homogenous way" by the signatories.
14
Adopted by the 28th General Council of UNESCO, November 1995.
15
The World Bank, through the Global Environment Facility, is supporting numerous projects for
transboundary biodiversity conservation throughout eastern Europe and, more recently, in southern Africa.

is necessarily limited to certain operational matters, it can create the basis - and the incentive -
for "upgrading" cooperation at a later date, for example through the development of a
Memorandum of Understanding.
♦ Administrative authorities responsible for managing the protected areas concerned can develop
wide-ranging consultation arrangements or other forms of cooperation. However, their ability to
address planning/strategic matters or to carry out staff exchanges will often be restricted without
a clear legal basis or at least a political decision at Government level16.
♦ Formal agreements provide the strongest legal basis for long-term transboundary cooperation
(and the harmonised implementation of treaty obligations) but are of course conditional upon a
high degree of political goodwill and commitment. They can take the form of joint declarations,
memoranda of agreement or letters of intention etc. between the heads of state of the countries
involved, all of which can make provision for institutional coordination17. It will generally be
necessary to conclude a treaty if detailed rights and obligations are to be laid down18.
Formal TBPA instruments should start from a common conceptual framework, with organising
principles and objectives taken from relevant instruments (e.g. Biosphere Reserve Statutory
Framework) or conservation treaties to which the countries involved are Parties. It will probably be
necessary to amend each country's laws/regulations to incorporate these principles and objectives
and to harmonise area-based rules on conservation, illegal taking and trade, search and rescue,
fire prevention, emergency measures, wardening procedures, border crossing points and so on.
The TBPA should be covered by a common management plan or, if this really is not possible, at
least by clear and agreed management guidelines. Zonation of the whole area should be jointly
determined by the competent authorities, after proper consultation with local populations and user
groups on either side of the border (a strictly protected core zone on one side of the border should
not tail off into a car park on the other side...).
Turning to the institutional framework, the establishment of a single TBPA authority, with legal and
financial autonomy within defined parameters, may be seen as politically unacceptable or as
premature in the early stages of transboundary cooperation. An alternative approach is to establish
regular coordination between the lead agency in each country involved, with responsibility for such
coordination rotating between the agencies at defined intervals19. However, institutional cooperation
of this kind requires that each agency has the necessary mandate to consult with its opposite
number in respect of planning and operational activities. It may also be necessary to develop a
specific financial mechanism to address, for example, the joint funding of shared equipment and
joint programmes.
There is certainly scope for imagination when building coordination mechanisms which can evolve
over time. In the Pyrenees, for example, consultation has moved progressively towards high-level
16
A rare example of an agreement concluded directly between park authorities is the Protocol of Agreement
between the Pfalz Nature Park in Germany and the Parc Naturel Régional des Vosges du Nord in France,
which provides for the exchange of information and for joint programmes for the study and protection of certain
natural habitats.
17
For example, the Common Wadden Sea Secretariat was established in 1987 pursuant to a Joint
Declaration.
18
The 1964 treaty establishing a joint nature park between Luxembourg and the German Land of Rheinland-
Pfalz requires that the total area of forest in the park must not be diminished and establishes a Joint
Commission to which the two Governments must submit their park management plans for information. The
Commission may make recommendations to the Governments on future management programmes and for
the harmonisation of national regulations and other measures.
19
One example is the trilateral cooperation between Congo, Rwanda and Uganda in the Virunga Volcanoes
Region.

representation. French and Spanish protected area directors are now entitled to attend meetings of
the other's management authority on an ex officio basis although, as matters stand, only one has
the right to vote at the other authority's meetings.
3. Legal rules applicable to protected areas during armed conflict
The law of war comprises a complex body of rules, developed over decades in an attempt to strike
a balance between military imperatives and the requirements of humanity20. Whilst its scope has
been broadened to take account of the environmental devastation which modern warfare may
cause (notably in response to the Vietnam and Gulf Wars), there is a general consensus that these
rules, as currently implemented, still do not provide adequately for environmental protection during
armed conflict.
Principle 24 of the (non-binding) 1992 Rio Declaration states that "warfare is inherently destructive
of sustainable development" and requires States to "respect international law providing protection
for the environment in time of armed conflict and co-operate in its further development, as
necessary". High-level deliberations are now under way in various international fora21 on how to
improve the effectiveness of the legal regime. Within this process and with the support of the ICRC
and UNESCO, the International Council of Environmental Law (ICEL) and the IUCN Commission
on Environmental Law have recently focused on the development of special safeguards for
protected areas in times of conflict, as described in 3.3 below.
3.1 Legal protection of the general environment during armed conflict
The customary law of war is anthropocentric (focused on the protection of people and property
rather than of the environment per se). Indirect protection of the environment may be inferred from
the fundamental rule that military action by States should be limited to the objective of weakening
the force of the enemy22, and possibly from other inter-related principles of customary law (military
necessity and humanity; discrimination; unnecessary suffering; proportionality). These broad
principles limit permissible means and methods of warfare but leave military personnel considerable
discretion in their application.
Certain established/emerging general principles of environmental protection (the no-harm principle,

the precautionary principle, the obligation of consultation and notification in respect of
transboundary risks) may also provide a legal basis for environmental protection during armed
conflict23.
With regard to positive law, mention should be made of two modern treaties which specifically
address environmental protection during armed conflict:
Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental

Modification Techniques (ENMOD Convention)
20
It is beyond the scope of this paper to deal with this vast subject in detail. See Tarasofsky for a
comprehensive survey and appraisal of the existing regime.
21
Such as the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the UN General Assembly and the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC).
22
First codified in the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration.
23
The "Martens Clause" (1907 Hague Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land)
provides that until the adoption of specific regulations, inhabitants and belligerents are "under the protection
and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilised
peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of public conscience". It has been argued (e.g. by Sands)
that this Clause could be interpreted as extending to environmental protection objectives, particularly in the
context of current efforts to establish the environment as a civic objective.

The Convention prohibits Parties from engaging in military or any other hostile use of environmental
modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects24 as the means of
destruction, damage or injury to any other State Party (Art.I(1)). However, it applies only to
techniques for changing, "through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes", the dynamics,
composition or structure of the Earth or of outer space (Art II)25, and their effects must exceed a
high threshold of damage. The Convention does not protect the environment per se, applies only
as between Parties and does not extend to collateral damage.
Geneva Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to
the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflict (Additional Protocol I)
The Protocol, with over 120 Parties, is a highly significant development in international humanitarian
law as it incorporates several provisions relating directly to environmental protection. It is not limited
to damage to a State Party: Art.35(3) prohibits methods of warfare intended or expected to cause
widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment (emphasis added), thus
making the environment an object of protection in its own right.
Amongst other relevant measures, the Protocol prohibits attacks on objects indispensable to the
survival of the civilian population (crops, livestock drinking water installations) and on installations
containing dangerous forces (nuclear electrical generating stations, dams, dykes) where this would
cause severe civilian losses, except in defined circumstances,
3.2 Area-specific rules and procedures
The legal regime described above is mainly concerned with widespread, serious environmental
damage and control of weapons of mass destruction. However, one of the questions for this
Conference is the extent to which legal measures can protect environmentally sensitive areas,
particularly in border regions, during armed conflict involving any method of warfare.
There are a limited number of treaty provisions which may be applied to areas of particular
importance, but none have been used to their full potential to date.
The 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed
Conflict, and the Regulations for its execution, establish a comprehensive regime for cultural
property, which includes the marking of property under special protection with a blue and white
emblem. The 1972 World Heritage Convention imposes a duty to refrain from deliberate activities
which may directly or indirectly harm designated sites of other parties (Art VI.3). Although this
wording seems to anticipate conflict situations, the Convention does not create a regime to protect
sites in such circumstances and its limited effectiveness was only too apparent during the
bombardment of the Old City of Dubrovnik (a cultural World Heritage Site).
The 1977 Additional Protocol I establishes two area-specific provisions. "Non-defended localities"
(Art.59) are inhabited areas which may be established unilaterally or by agreement between
belligerents. Localities are immune from attack, provided that the area is not used in any manner
that would support the military effort and that all combatants and mobile military equipment are
evacuated. "Demilitarized zones" (Art.60) have the potential to offer even broader protection to the
area in that they are immune from all military operations, not just attacks. Such zones can only be
24
"Widespread" is interpreted as covering several hundred square kilometres, "long-lasting" as a period of
months or approximately a season, "and severe" as "serious or significant disruption or harm to human life,
natural and economic resources or other assets" (Understanding of the Conference of the Committee of
Disarmament).
25
This probably does not cover setting fire to oilwells but has been declared to include the use of herbicides
(Final Declaration of the Second Review Conference of the Parties to ENMOD, Sept. 1992, UN Doc.
ENMOD/CONF.II/11).

established by agreement amongst Parties but the Protocol specifically provides that such
agreement can be made in peacetime. It has been suggested (Westing) that all World Heritage
Sites should be declared to be "demilitarized zones" under Article 60.
An recent precedent for site-specific protection consists of the unilateral resolutions issued by the
United Nations Security Council to demilitarize a physical area for humanitarian reasons26. These
require Parties and others concerned to treat a specified place and its surroundings as a safe area
which should be free from any armed attack or any other hostile act. The mandate of UNPROFOR
in Bosnia was extended to achieve this goal.
3.3 ICEL/IUCN-CEL Draft for a Convention on the Prohibition of Hostile Military Activities in
Protected Areas ("the Draft")27
The Draft formalises the role of the United Nations in the protection of important natural and cultural
areas by establishing a procedure whereby the UN Security Council could determine, on a case by
case basis, internationally important sites which warrant protection and the specific measures
necessary to implement such a determination.
Under draft Article 2, each Resolution adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN
Charter in response to a situation of armed conflicts must include a list of the "relevant
internationally protected areas, thereby designated as non-target areas in which all hostile military
activities shall not be permitted during the armed conflict in question"28. This protection will
automatically cease if the State Party in whose territory the area is situated maintains military
installations of any kind within [a distance to be defined] of that area or uses that area to carry out
any military activities during an armed conflict (draft Art.3). Expert missions to monitor compliance
must be sent by the UN Security Council/regional arrangement or agency (draft Art.4.1) and may
also be sent by other bodies as part of the United Nations operation, including non-governmental
international organisations (draft Art.4.2). Such missions must report any cases of non-compliance
to the sending body which "shall take necessary actions to ensure effective implementation" of the
Convention (draft Art 4.3).
States Parties are generally required to disseminate the Convention and make provision for its
"study" (draft Art.5)29. The Convention makes provision for review meetings (draft Art.6) and dispute
settlement (draft Art.7).
The mechanism applies to "protected areas", comprehensively defined as "natural or cultural areas
of outstanding international significance from the points of view of ecology, history, art, science,
ethnology, anthropology, or natural beauty, which may include, inter alia, areas designated under
any international agreement or intergovernmental programme which meet these criteria" (draft
Art.1). It is anticipated (Burhenne) that expert advice on the identification of sites could be solicited
26
"Safe areas" were created in Bosnia-Herzegovina under UN Security Council Res. 819, 824, 836 and 844
(1993) and in Rwanda under Res. 925 and 929 (1994).
27
The 1997 World Conservation Congress has endorsed the ICEL/IUCN-CEL initiative (IUCN-WCC Resolution
1.57): the early draft discussed in this paper has been sent out for consultation and will then be revised.
28
This obligation also applies to regional arrangements or agencies which take appropriate actions in the
exercise of their functions under Chapter VIII of the Charter in conformity with the Declaration on the
Enhancement of Cooperation between the United Nations and Regional Arrangements or Agencies in the
Maintenance of International Peace and Security (annexed to UNGA Resolution 49/57 of 9 December 1994)
(draft Art.2.2).
29
As currently drafted, this provision is unclear: ideally, it should be reformulated to refer to study of the
Convention within military training programmes.

from the World Heritage Committee for cultural sites and the IUCN for natural sites. An obvious
starting point would be the existing lists of designated sites under the World Heritage Convention,
Ramsar Convention and relevant regional conventions, together with the UN List of Parks and
Protected Areas and sites included in the Biosphere Reserve Network30.
In conclusion, it should be emphasized that this proposal for a Convention has been developed to
deal with extreme situations, where a national or regional conflict requires intervention at United
Nations level. Without minimizing the undoubted difficulty of enforcing this kind of Resolution, the
proposed mechanism has several useful features.
♦ It would be applicable to non-international as well as international conflicts. It would confer

protection analogous to that for "demilitarized zones" (Art.60, Additional Protocol I) but
unencumbered by the need for agreement between belligerents;
♦ It would impose constraints not only on the attacker (prohibition of "hostile military activities"
(undefined) in the "non-target" area) but also on the territorial State, which may not abuse the
site's protective status by carrying out military activities therein or maintaining military installations
within a given radius. These last provisions are particularly important as they strengthen State
environmental responsibilities and could make an effective contribution to the reduction of
collateral damage.
4. Elements for further consideration
This paper has touched on two weaknesses in the protected area regime:
♦ the poor interface between ordinary legal/institutional frameworks and integrated management
of ecosystem units;
♦ the absence of permanent safeguards for internationally important protected areas (other than
Antarctica) against small- or large-scale conflicts.
Looking to the future, the challenge is to develop a comprehensive yet flexible framework to
safeguard and strengthen transboundary protected areas. Such a mechanism should arguably
address issues related to ongoing peacetime management as well as containing measures
designed to prevent damage in the event of armed conflict.
A framework of this kind might take the form of a non-binding Code of Conduct. Without conflicting
with the work of existing fora, this could build an international consensus for improved protected
area safeguards and contribute to building widespread awareness of the particular importance and
vulnerability of such areas. A Code of this kind could also play a catalyst role by providing detailed
guidance for countries wishing to formalise TBPA agreements.
What might a Code of Conduct contain? It could incorporate "best practice" recommendations
drawn up by this Conference. It should support the elimination of legal rules which undermine
sustainable use of transboundary protected areas and promote the adoption of positive measures
for this purpose. It should set out minimum institutional standards and advocate the creation of
administrative conditions conducive to local participation in the decision-making process. It could
identify preventive measures which concerned countries should take individually or jointly to prevent
the degradation of TBPAs and designate non-confrontational procedures for dispute resolution. It
should contain a detailed list of activities prohibited in TBPAs (preparatory and hostile military
30
As per the Final Report of the Senior Legal Experts on Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage
(convened by IUCN-CEL, ICEL and the World Travel and Tourism Council, December 1992).

actions, siting of facilities etc.). It is recommended that consideration be given to conditionality of
funding, to make financial aid for TBPAs conditional upon compliance with these components.
This kind of initiative may seem ambitious, but the international community has made significant
progress in recent years in developing innovative forms of environmental cooperation (such as the
1994 Lusaka Agreement on Co-operative Enforcement Operations directed at Illegal Trade in Wild
Fauna and Flora, which established an international task force with legal personality to secure its
objectives). At the time of writing, momentum to strengthen international humanitarian law is
accelerating and a convention to ban the production, sale and use of anti-personnel landmines will
hopefully be concluded in Ottawa, Canada before the end of 1997.
This Conference can make an important contribution to this wider global process and thus help
peace parks live up to their name.
Selected bibliography
Arends, A., Cerovsky, J. and Pickova, G., Transboundary Biodiversity Conservation: selected case
studies from Central Europe, Ecopoint Praha, 1995
Burhenne, W.E., 1997, The Prohibition of Hostile Military Activities in Protected Areas, paper
presented to the Elizabeth Haub Colloquium, Wiesbaden, Germany (17-19 April 1997)
Centre international pour la conservation de la montagne (ed.), Pour une protection internationale
du Mont-Blanc, date unknown
de Klemm, Cyrille in collaboration with Shine, Clare, Biological Diversity Conservation and the Law:
Legal Mechanisms for Conserving Species and Ecosystems, IUCN Environmental Policy and
Law Paper No.29, IUCN-The World Conservation Union, 1993
Hamilton, L.S., Mackay, J.C., Worboys, G.L., Jones, R.A. and Manson, G.B., Transborder
Protected Area cooperation, Australian Alps National Parks and IUCN-The World
Conservation Union, 1996
McNeil, R.J., International Parks for Peace, in Thorsell (ed.) 1990

Sands, P., Principles of international environmental law: Volume I (Frameworks, standards and
implementation), Manchester University Press in association with IUCN, Centre for Social and
Economic Research on the Environment and the Foundation for International Environmental
Law and Development, 1995
Tarasofsky, R.G., Legal Protection of the Environment during International Armed Conflict,
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 1993, Vol.XXIV, pp.17-79
Thorsell, J. (ed.), Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Conservation; IUCN

Protected Area Programme Series n°1, Gland, 1990
Weed, T.J, Central America's "Peace Parks" and Regional Conflict Resolution, International
Environmental Affairs, Vol.6, No.2, Spring 1994
Westing, A.H., Environmental Protection from Wartime Damage: The Role of International Law in
Conflict and the Environment, ed. Gleditsch, N.P., Kluwer (1997, in litt.)
Zinke, Alexander, Ecological Bricks for Europe: Integration of Conservation and Sustainable
Development along the former East-West Border, in Protected Area Economics and Policy:

Linking Conservation and Sustainable Development, ed. Munasinghe, M. and McNeely, J,
World Bank and World Conservation Union (IUCN), pp.133-143

PEACE PARKS IN CENTRAL AMERICA. SUCCESSES & FAILURES IN IMPLEMENTING
MANAGEMENT COOPERATION
The La Amistad, SI-A-PAZ/San Juan River Basin

Experiences
Juan J. Castro-Chamberlain
Introduction
The La Amistad, SI-A-Paz, and other efforts to conserve transboundary natural resources and
cultural heritage in Central America have their common origin in the First Central American
Meeting on the Management of Natural & Cultural Resources, held in San Jose, Costa Rica in
December 1974, sponsored by FAO, IUCN, UNESCO and the OAS. Recommendations from
this landmark event alluded to the fact that in the region “there are border areas in which
natural and cultural resources offer characteristics of interest to two or more countries, and,
therefore, should be jointly managed, inasmuch as they constitute ecosystems whose
treatment should be integrated.” (OAS-CI, 1990, IRENA-MIRENEM, 1991)
As stated by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Oscar Arias and James D. Nations of Conservation
International : “The potential benefits of Central America’s peace parks go far beyond their
biological advantages of having larger territories for the endangered animals and plants that
inhabit these areas. Peace parks also bring economic and political benefits. Coordinating
wildlife and watershed protection across borders can save scarce resources for all countries
involved. Peace parks also reduce stress along historically tense borders by providing
governments with an agenda for mutual action on issues of common concern. Moreover, the
most promising aspects of establishing these peace parks in Central America is the movement
to include rural families in the planning and development of the parks and the buffer zones that
surround them. “
The Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development (ALIDES) signed by the
Presidents of the Central American countries and the Prime Minister of Belize in Nicaragua,
on October 12, 1994 refers specifically to Border Development as part of the economic
commitments. Its estates that they: “Consider that sustainable development projects in border
zones of Central America designed to aid the population as a means to reduce marginal
conditions and poverty, promote both the preservation of natural resources and harmonious
relationships between countries. Therefore we support efforts made with regard to border
development”.
Two examples of such areas are the subject of this presentation: La Amistad International
Park, a biosphere reserve an World Heritage Site located in the border region between Costa
Rica and Panama and the SI-A-PAZ initiative in reference to existing and potential protected
areas on the border region between Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
1. The La Amistad International Park , Biosphere Reserve & World Heritage Site
Experience
Introduction:
La Amistad is by now one of the oldest transboundary biodiversity conservation projects in the
Central American Isthmus and thus lessons of experience from it could be of interest to other
such projects in the region or elsewhere in the world.

In the La Amistad Biosphere Reserve Region international cooperation projects were
undertaken between 1989 and 1994 by both governments, Costa Rica and Panama with the
support of the Organization of American States (OAS) , Conservation International (CI) and the
United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) undertaken.
Binational cooperation between Costa Rica and Panama dates back to 1970 when the
Planning and Economic Offices for both countries determined the need to jointly promote the
integrated development of their border zones.
In 1979 Costa Rica and Panama established their first Border Cooperation Agreement for the
purpose of jointly developing investment and technical assistance projects. They also agreed
to undertaking studies in areas of mutual interest. The Presidents issued at this time a Joint
Declaration on the establishment of the La Amistad International Park An agreement specific
to the La Amistad Park is signed by the presidents of both countries in 1982.
Presidential declarations issued both in 1979 and 1982 with reference to the establishment of
the La Amistad International Park emphasized two important arguments: the need to conserve
their joint natural and cultural heritage and to serve as a model for peace and friendship
between neighboring countries.
On the basis of the 1979 agreement both countries established specific agreements in the
areas of: animal and plant sanitation, natural resources and environment, education,
community development, health, infrastructure, marketing and municipal development. They
also considered for mid term planning purposes: technical assistance for agricultural
production, land use feasibility studies, road network, forest conservation, horticultural &
livestock production, small industries and integration of public services. Long term planning
considerations included the agricultural sector, urban development as well as feasibility studies
for the establishment of joint binational enterprises and an International City -the existing city
of Paso Canoas- located across the border between both countries.
The political will to carry out binational cooperation is further reaffirmed in 1992 with the
signing of a new border cooperation agreement which has been ratified by the legislatures in
both countries.
The legal framework of both the 1979 and the 1992 binational cooperation agreements call for
the establishment of Binational Technical Commissions responsible for the follow up, control
and evaluation. During the 1979-1992 period such Commissions were formed for the following
areas: agricultural production, human health, natural resources, transport and cartography,
economics and agroindustry , education, culture and urban development.
These commissions have operated constrained by budgetary allotments in both countries.

The Natural Resources Commission has been in operation since the establishment of the La
Amistad International Park in Costa Rica in 1982 due to both the political will of both countries
and the support of various international organizations such as: the World Fund for Nature,
WWF, the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (IICA), Conservation
International (CI) and the Organization of American States (OAS) .
The La Amistad Regional Characteristics:
The La Amistad International Park consists of approximately 2,000 km2 in each country and
covers the majority of the Talamanca Mountain range rising from sea level to over 3,800 m.
and straddling the border between Costa Rica and Panama, Because of its location and
variations in altitude, the region contains nearly a dozen different Holdridge’s life Zones
(OAS/CI, 1990): Tropical Moist Forest, Tropical Wet Forest, Tropical Wet Forest transition to
Premontane Forest, Premontane Wet Forest, Premontane Wet Forest Forest transition to

Tropical Forest, Premontane Wet Forest transition to Rain Forest, Premontane Rain Forest,
Lower Montane Wet Forest,Lower Montane Rain Forest, Montane Rain Forest, Subalpine Rain
Param, present in both Costa Rica and Panama and Lower Montane Moist Forest and
Montane Wet Forest present only in Panama.
This landscape dominates the region and forms the physical backbone that ties both countries
together. Since approximately 3 million years, according to the Smithsonian Tropical Research
Institute in Panama, when the Central American Isthmus took form, the Talamanca range has
been a land bridge allowing the migration of North and South-American biota. (STRI - Coates,
et.al, 1992) It serves as refuge for a diverse flora and fauna, many of which are rare and
endangered. The high annual rainfall from 2,000 to 7,000 mm, combined with short and steep
watersheds common to the region creates both serious flood hazards as well as a potential for
hydropower generation.
Talamanca has been occupied by human inhabitants for thousands of years (12,000 according
to some authors) and in Costa Rica it holds the majority of the indigenous peoples remaining in
the country, the largest group of which are the Bribri and the Cabecar with as many as 12,000
inhabitants. Panama also has numerous indigenous communities within the region with
60,000 Guaymi, 5,000 Teribe and approximately 500 Bribri inhabitants.
The various management units included in La Amistad Biosphere Reserve in Costa Rica are:
La Amistad International Park Costa Rica Sector, Chirripo National Park, Hitoy Cerere
Biological Reserve, Barbilla Biological Reserve, Rio Macho Forestry Reserve, Tapanti
Wildlife Reserve, Las Tablas Protective Zone,Indigenous Reserves: Ujarras, Salitre,
Cabagra, Talamanca, Taini, Telire and Chirripo and the Robert & Catherine Wilson
Botanical Garden.
The Government of Panama has proposed a biosphere reserve in its sector of the La Amistad
International Park which includes territories in Bocas del Toro and Chiriqui Provinces including:
the La Amistad International Park, the area of the proposed Teribe Indigenous Reserve, Baru
Volcano National Park, the Palo Seco Protective Forest Reserve, part of the Guaimy
indigenous territory, the Bastimentos Island Marine Park, the Fortuna Hydrological Reserve
and the San San wetlands areas.
The Framework for Transboundary Cooperation:
The 1992 Agreement has as its purpose: “to expand, improve and strengthen Costa Rica’s
and Panama’s cooperation in every field, in order to significantly contribute to the
development and improvement of the border region in the social, economic, commercial,
environmental and political areas and to strengthen the process of integration between both
countries “.
“The countries also agreed to the joint implementation of pre-investment and technical
cooperation programs, projects and activities in the border region with reference to the
agricultural, public works and transport, health, natural resources, municipalities, industry,
education, tourism, planning and integrated rural development, as well as any other mutually
agreed upon in the future through the exchange of Diplomatic Notes “.
“The parties to the agreement will establish a Permanent Binational Commission presided by
the Ministers of Planning who are responsible for program, project and activity general
coordination, follow-up and evaluation if such are undertaken under the basis of the
agreement“.

The Management Challenge:
In 1988 because of mounting management problems and conflicts among the many agencies
operating within the Biosphere Reserve in Costa Rica, a coordinating commission was
established with representatives of the major institutions having jurisdiction over land use.
This Commission was presided over by the Ministry of Natural Resources, Energy and Mines
(now the Ministry of Environment and Energy) and included as members the Director of the
Park Service and the Forestry General Directorate, (both part of the Ministry) the National
Parks Foundation, the Executive Director of the National Commission of Indigenous Affairs,
the Resident Director of the Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS) and the General
Coordinator for the Reserve on behalf of the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Although progress has been slow, both countries have taken significant actions to carry
forward with the joint management of the International Park and the adjoining areas that now
conform a biosphere reserve in Costa Rica. As indicated, Panama has also requested
recognition from UNESCO for a biosphere reserve adjoining its sector of the international park.
Among such actions was the preparation of an institutional development strategy for the
biosphere reserve in Costa Rica with its sector of the international park as the core area and a
sustainable development strategy for the establishment and future management of a
biosphere reserve in Panama with its section of the international park as its prime motive and
core area.
Both strategies with reference to the biosphere reserve in the La Amistad region were
consulted in Costa Rica and in Panama with local governments, the private sector and local
organizations as well as with indigenous peoples.
The Role of International Cooperation Agencies
La Amistad has been strongly supported by numerous organizations since its establishment in
1982. Among these CATIE and the OAS have both played a key role in the planning stage.
UNEP has collaborated with OAS in the La Amistad Project. The UNESCO/MAB Program has
collaborated continuously with La Amistad.
Funding for the General Coordinator and for staffing a small planning and management unit
and operating expenses to guide program and project implementation came from the proceeds
of a five year debt-for-nature swap arranged by Conservation International with the Central
Bank and the Ministry of Natural Resources.
The strategic planning exercise undertaken by Costa Rica under the coordination of the
Ministry of Planning and supported by the OAS and CI has resulted after its presentation to the
donor community in 1990, and in subsequent fund raising by the Government in excess of $12
million to respond to the needs identified in the strategy. The integrated nature of the strategy
and its attempt to build consensus at the local level have help in obtaining funding from
international donors.
The Costa Rican Government was able to obtain funds for La Amistad priorities as indicated
in the strategy from a variety of donors including Sweden, Holland, GEF, the MacArthur
Foundation and the joint and binational efforts of CI and MacDonald’s Corporation through the
AMISCONDE Project (a rural development project in an area of the buffer zone of La Amistad
in each country). OAS and UNEP have assisted in identifying some possibilities for forestry
and agroforestry management in the buffer zones of the international park.

Lessons of Experience
After 14 years since the La Amistad International Park was established in Costa Rica during
1982 as part of a binational agreement by the countries of Costa Rica and Panama to protect
and manage a significant forested area across their borders several conclusions can be
drawn:
Sustained Political Commitment:
La Amistad has had since its existence the sustained political will at the highest level of
Government expressed formally through periodic joint Presidential Declarations which form the
basis for government policy in each country with regards to the La Amistad International Park
as well as the transboundary region’s natural and cultural heritage.
Binational Cooperation:
The signing of a Binational Cooperation Agreement between Costa Rica and Panama and its
implementation by both countries has created appropriate channels and procedures for the
countries to relate to one another in terms of objectives of the agreement.
Planning as a Tool for Management and Fund Raising:
The strategic planning efforts of both countries for the conservation of the La Amistad
International Park natural and cultural resources endowment as well as that of adjoining areas
with other management categories, such as biosphere reserve and its component areas, has
proven to be useful both as a tool for management and as an instrument to support fund
raising.
Strategic Planning:
Given the multiplicity of actors involved in the management of a transboundary area, it is of

critical importance that an strategy be designed with the participation of key stakeholders as a
process of conflict resolution for access to ecosystem goods and services. The strategy
should by as wide a participatory exercise as possible with the need to consult the population
in the region. The strategy should be accompanied by:
1) the identifications of priority investment projects and actions as they relate to sustainable
development in the bioregion where the transboundary protected areas are located, such
projects should include among others nature tourism and sustainable use of biodiversity
as well as forestry and agriculture;
2) research, not only in biodiversity but equally important on cultural aspects such as
arqueology and ethno-history as in the case of La Amistad where there was human
occupation for millenia. Research should also include social and economic aspects of
productive activities within the bioregion. Further research is also needed on basic
aspects such as climatology, soil characteristics, sedimentation and other aspects
related to watershed management on an integrated and sustainable basis;
3) training and community participation which should include not only training of
management personnel for protected areas but also training at the regional and local
government level in terms of sustainable development planning and management,
including bioregional management of the trasnboundary protected areas. It should also
include environmental education in the bioregion as well as promotional activities as they
relate to the trasboundary protected area; and

4) management and protection projects on biodiversity, as well as on integrated watershed
management and on the conservation of arqueological and cultural resources within a
bioregional planning context.
International Support:
International support of various kinds has been instrumental in the process of consolidation of
the La Amistad International Park. Many international organizations private and public
organizations and governments and instruments have supported the objectives of the peace
park . Such parties include the UNESCO/MAB Program, the Donner Foundation,
Conservation International, WWF, IUCN, IICA, OAS, UNDP, Spain, Sweden, Holland, as well
as an specific debt for nature swap arranged by CI, and the CI-MacDonalds Corp.
AMISCONDE Project (a sustainable rural development project in buffer zones of the peace
park) as well as more recent support from GEF.
Governmental Budgetary Constraints:
Whilst the countries agree on binational cooperation there is hardly any budget support to go
along with such a commitment and specific Governmental budgetary allotments for this
particular purpose seem to have a fairly low priority.
Regional Biodiversity Management:
The recognition that biodiversity conservation of regional landscapes and entire ecosystems is
of intrinsic importance as well of economic benefit to both countries has created a renewed
interest in the coordinated management of the La Amistad International Park. There is a
growing awareness of ecosystem goods and services and their regional and binational
significance in terms of : the need to conserve forest cover in the upper watershed of rivers
originating in the La Amistad Park for the benefit of providing water for population centers and
for agriculture in the region , as well as for hydropower generation. There is also a greater
sense of natural flood control as the results of deforestation are now increasingly evident.
Management Schemes:
The stakeholders commission formed by the Government in Costa Rica for La Amistad is
probably an adequate mechanism for conflict resolution but follow-up has been left to the Park
Service (now SINAC-National System of Conservation Areas) which has been unable to
negotiate more than partial implementation of strategic planning for the bioregion. One
possible solution is the strenghten local and regional NGO’s for the purpose of supporting
implementation on a regional and multisector basis.
The Costa Rica-Panama intergovernmental agreement for border development is sufficient

basis for the coordination of bioregional management on a binational basis coordinating
actions in each sector of La Amistad and undertaking some truly binational activities.
Regional and Local Support:
There is a need for further involvement of regional and local authorities and organizations and
in this area a more aggressive stance is much needed both on the part of regional and local
forces as well as on the part of Governments. So far the lead role for La Amistad has fallen on
Park Service but the advancement of joint transboundary management purposes and actions
in a bioregional context, far exceeds the resources and capabilities of this organization even
on a coalition with other key regional actors.

In the absence of functioning regional planning schemes such as regional development
corporations as they exist in South-American countries i.e. Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil,
community participation in the only viable solution for the time being.
Non Governmental Organization:
The role of NGO’s on La Amistad transboundary park and biosphere reserve management and
conservation purposes has been undervalued so far. FUNDECOR and NGO supporting the
Central Volcanic Mountain Range conservation area in Costa Rica, also a biosphere reserve. It
has become an key supporter for the protected park core areas of the Reserve, thanks to a
$20 million endowment from USAID and it has proven capable of fund raising trough the Joint
Implementation mechanism, among others.
The existence of a large NGO to support La Amistad seems to be justified but also much
needed are smaller local NGO’s that would have as prime motive the concept of empowering
communities for the management of their resources.
There are a great number of NGO’s in the La Amistad bioregion and some do outstanding
work such as Iriria-Tsochok (caring for the earth in Bribri) that is mostly concerned with
indigenous communities. There are other NGO’s much involved in La Amistad ranging from
IUCN and the Talamanca Biological Corridor Project to small indigenous groups that have
organized themselves to safeguard their traditional knowledge of ethnobotany as well as to
market their arts and crafts.
2. SI-A-PAZ/San Juan River Basin
Introduction
This initiative also originated in the 1974 First Central American Meeting on the Management
of Natural and Cultural Resources which identified the need and desirability as well as the
diminishing opportunity in view of deforestation processes, to conserve significant forested
areas along the borders of adjoining countries in Central America. (IRENA-MIRENEM).
At the Second Central American Meeting on the Management of and Cultural Resources, held
in Guatemala in October 1987, the delegations of Costa Rica and Nicaragua submitted two
preparatory documents calling for international cooperation: “Integrated Management of the
San Juan River Basin in Support of Efforts for Achieving Peace and the Rational Use of
Natural Resources” and the “Proposal for the Creation of a Multiple-use Reserve in the San
Juan River Basin, Nicaragua.
In February of 1988 at the XII General Assembly of the IUCN, held in San Jose, Costa Rica,
the Ministers of Natural Resources of Nicaragua and Costa Rica signed a letter of intent to
facilitate the establishment of an International System of Protected Areas for Peace (SI-A-
PAZ).
In 1989 the countries requested the continued participation of IUCN, which acted to some
extent as broker between the countries, in order to strengthen the binational intentions for
biodiversity conservation which were viewed favorably by the international community. This
initiative was also benefited from being considered in the context of pacification efforts in the
Central American region. The Governments of Sweden, Holland and Norway lent their support
through IUCN to the initiative.
This area has a long history of binational economic relations tied to a riverine economy along
the San Juan River and its hydrological network which is navigable by small water crafts on

both sides of the border (Girot &Niestschmann, 1992). In fact the Costa Rican portion of the
San Juan River Basin was until 50’s almost entirely tied to the Nicaraguan economy as there
were no passable roads to this area from the central highlands of Costa Rica
In August of 1990 at the meeting of the Central American Commission on Environment and
Development (CCAD) the Ministers of Natural Resources established a SI-A-PAZ National
Commission in each country as well as a Binational Coordinating Commission. In December of
1990 both Ministries signed a governmental Agreement between MIRENEM and MARENA on
the SI-A-PAZ Project.
The Presidents of both countries signed in Managua in January of 1991 a Cooperation

Agreement between Governments including a variety of areas of mutual interest including
environmental concerns. Other areas in the agreement are: security, borders and immigration,
environment and health, finance, economy and trade, education, culture and tourism.
A meeting with donors was organized in 1991 by the Ministries of Natural Resources and
supported by the regional IUCN Office for Central America, (ORCA) including a portfolio of
projects for the SI-A-PAZ initiative.
The SI-A-PAZ/San Juan River Basin Regional Characteristics:
Whilst there are a great number of protected areas within the San Juan River Basin of
unquestionable interest to biodiversity conservation only some of them are in the border area
between the two countries. According to the more recent, 1996, Environmental Management
and Sustainable Development Project undertaken by the countries with the assistance of OAS
and UNEP there are in the San Juan basin a total of 51 protected areas in different categories
and sizes, 33 in Costa Rica and 18 in Nicaragua.
According to the Action Plan generated by the countries in 1991 with the help of IUCN there
are four of Holdridge’s Life Zones found in the region: Humid Tropical, Very Humid, Pluvial and
Piedmont Forests and four transitional zones located in two altitudinal plains (Piedmont and
Lowlands). These zones are defined by median annual biotemperature and namely rainfall
which ranges from 1,800 to 5,500 annually. These bioclimatic conditions and the diversity of
soil types have produced a great ecological wealth and a wide variety of plant species and
associations such as tropical humid forest, swamp vegetation, marsh vegetation and specific
associations in coastal areas.
Fauna is also very diverse as a result of it being associated with lake Nicaragua as well as the
San Juan River and their tributaries and with coastal and humid tropical ecosystems.
Nicaragua or Cocibolga lake is the largest fresh water body in tropical America with 8,000 km2.
San Juan River draining the lake flows towards the Caribbean Sea with a flow of 1,562
m3/second. It is estimated that 85% of the run-off that enters the lower half of the San Juan
comes from Costa Rican territory. This, the Action Plan points out: “illustrates the importance
of joint management of these natural and water resources by Costa Rica and Nicaragua”.
(IRENA-MINAE, 1991)
The cross border wetlands in the region are deemed by the plan: “as a cornerstone of the
binational component of SI-A-PAZ as the goal is to connect the protected area of Caño
Negro -in Costa Rica- with humid soils of the Los Guatusos Reserve in the Southern coast of
Lake Nicaragua, and marilla groves of Tortuguero and Barra de Colorado -in Costa Rica- and
the Indio Maiz Reserve...” in Nicaragua.
According to the OAS and UNEP technical cooperation there are 1,067,952 inhabitants in the
San Juan River Basin, 779,339 in Nicaragua or 73 % of the population in the region and
288,613 inhabitants in Costa Rica with 27 % of the population in the region.

Since SI-A-PAZ presented its strategy a donors meeting in San Jose, Costa Rica in 1991 there
have been important changes in land use in both countries. Such factors are being considered
by the in the preparation on an environmental management and sustainable development plan
under way for the San Juan River Basin undertaken by the countries with the support of the
OAS and PNUMA.
The Framework for Transboundary Cooperation:
Whilst the SI-A-PAZ project itself generated a series of intergovernmental working

arrangements for the initiative these were probable ahead of a more general binational
cooperation agreement. Even today, although the Presidents of the two countries have agreed
a wider collaboration in many fields this arrangement has not become legislation approved by
both nor is there a working secretariat for follow up on the agreement. This non-withstanding,
the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of both countries maintain periodic binational meetings to
which other sectorial organizations are invited on an as needed basis.
The more recent technical cooperation project undertaken by MARENA and MINAE with the
participation of OAS and UNEP for the Environmental Management and Sustainable
Development of the San Juan River Basin has benefited from binational cooperation by both
countries over the last five years, since the SI-A-PAZ Action Plan was presented. This project
has resulted on a binational request to GEF for a project centered on the need to jointly
manage and monitor the hydrological system which has important components within the
national territories of each country merging on their border with each other.
The Role of International Cooperation Agencies:
The role of international cooperation has been critical to the SI-A-PAZ initiative notably the
proactive intervention of the IUCN regional office for Middle-America, OMA (formerly ORCA).
Sweden, Holland and Norway also lent their financial support to the -SI-A-PAZ initiative.
OAS and UNEP have as mentioned been collaborating with both Governments on an
Environmental Management Plan for the entire San Juan River basin, of which biodiversity is
but one very significant component.
Lessons of Experience:
According to an evaluation mission which reviewed SI-A-PAZ in 1992 the initiative proved
useful in achieving a healthy level of coordination between both countries for the purposes of
binational coordination. Whoever, several factors seem to have dampened the possibilities of
greater success, the strong push to banana production in Costa Rica in close proximity to the
Tortuguero Park was viewed by some as detrimental to regional conservation efforts
This mission also pointed to the fact that donors viewed Nicaragua more favorably then Costa
Rica and thus more help was availed to this country which probably discouraged Costa Rica in
terms of the potential benefits on a binational basis.
Also to be noted, is the fact that the San Juan basin has a considerable number of protected
areas tied to both countries but areas in Costa Rica close to the border are few and small as
compared to the areas in Nicaragua along the San Juan Rive such as the Indio-Maiz Reserve-
which may be a factor accounting for a greater donor willingness to assist Nicaragua.
The Central American Regional Context and Support

The idea of a Biological Corridor in Central America has added regional relevance to projects
such as La Amistad and SI-A-PAZ/San Juan River Basin and which contained some of the key
building blocks of such a corridor (Carr, Boza). This idea in turn has received the support of the
Central-American Alliance for Sustainable Development (ALIDES) a regional accord between
the Presidents of Central America nations and also support from the Central American
Environmental Commission (CCAD)
Central American countries have strengthen their regional cooperation through the signing of
the Central American Biodiversity Treaty in June of 1992 just before the UNCED Convention at
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Conclusions
Peace Parks:
International transfrontier protected areas along borders can contribute to the reduction of
border tensions. Commonalities in management problems on both sides of the border can
lead to advantages in binational collaboration and coordination for the achievement of
common purposes i.e. binational training for fire control; linkage of radio communications
between park personnel on either side of the border; joint park guard patrols of areas of both
countries; preparation of project proposals for funding by donors on a binational basis.
The Peace Parks idea as proposed by the 1974 Central American Meeting on the
Management of Natural and Cultural Resources has received further support beyond
biodiversity conservation interests by the pacification process in Central America and by the
interest of the vice-presidential Forum for Central America in border development projects.
The idea of protecting a biological corridor through Central America assuring and in some
cases restoring connectivity between remaining forest areas in the region has gained
momentum and support by the countries themselves and by international organizations. This
idea is of special importance to assure the survival of several indigenous groups through
Central America that live in close association with forested areas along borders. The peace
parks mentioned in the document are key blocks of the corridor itself and without their
management and conservation there is little possibility of the continued exchange and
evolution of neotropical and neoartic biota through the isthmus.
Planning as a process:
The existence of a coordinating unit is often a necessity at the outset of bioregional planning in
order to reduce interagency competition for the control of resources, to involve the local
population, and to serve as centralized authority for the receipt and distribution of technical
assistance and project development funds. But planning can not be done by a committee.
Iteration must be part of any participatory planning process so that the objectives can be
focused. (Castro et. al, 1995)
Financing:
Financing is a critical issue both in the planning stage and for implementation of biodiversity
conservation requirements including investment needs for conservation “outside the gates” in
the context of bioregional development. For implementation a foundation may be a valuable
mechanism for coordinating and stabilizing financial planning and management. A coalition of
national, regional and local organizations may also be mechanism that needs to the explored
in the absence of regional development authorities. (as they exist in larger South American
countries such as Colombia, Brazil and Venezuela among others).

The reality of inter-agency conflicts:
High level political support is fundamental for moving the concept of an international
transboundary peace park and overcoming the tendency of sectorial agencies to subdivide
park planning and management functions into areas covered by the specific mandates of each
agency.
The bioregional conservation approach:
Management of protected transboundary areas in a regional planning context has gained

some notoriety as a means to achieve biodiversity conservation goals of mutual interest to
neighboring countries and as a means to involve regional population as well as institutions in
conflict resolution regarding protected areas.
The role of international cooperation:
As analyzed in both cases presented the role of international cooperation has been
instrumental in facilitating the planning process of an international protected area and its area
of influence.
International cooperation has also been instrumental in advancing the creation of potential
protected areas on border regions and in funding and bringing others as cofinancers of the
planning and even the implementation process.
International cooperation should be a facilitator of dialogue between the countries for obtaining
the objectives of the trasboundary protected area but in should not be the lead agency in the
process.
Bibliography
Arias, O & Nations, J.D. A Call for Central American Peace Parks In: Poverty, Natural
Resources, and Public Policy in Central America by Sheldon Annis. Washington, D.C.
Overseas Development Council. pp. 43-58.
Boza, M.A. Middle America Biodiversity & Development Paseo Pantera WCS/CCC-
COSEFORMA/GTZ 1994. 240 pp. (Original in Spanish)
Carr, A.C.III Sovereignity and Mutualism: The Political Ecology of the Central American
Biotic Corridor In: Conservation Corridors in the Central American Region. Sept. 17-
20, 1993. Heredia, Costa Rica. Tropical Conservation & Development , Inc. A. Vega Ed.
pp. 11-21.
Carr,M.M., Lambert, D.E. & Zwick, P.D. Mapping of a Continuing Biological Corridor
Potential in Central America Paseo Pantera Project Report. Univ. of Fla. 42 pp.
Castro, J.J. et . al. The La Amistad Biosphere Reserve In: Conservation of Biodiversity and
the New Regional Planning, OAS-IUCN Richard E. Saunier. Ed. pp.113-126. 1996.
CCAD-IICA. Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development. San Jose, Costa
Rica. 1994. 63 pp. (Spanish Version)
Coates, A.G. Closure of the Isthmus of Panama: the near-shore marine record of Costa
Rica & western Panama. In: Geological Society of America Bulletin, vol. 104, p.814-
828. July, 1992.

Girot, P.A. & Nietschmann, B. The Rio San Juan, The Geopolitics and Ecopolitics of the
Rio San Juan In: National Geographic Research & Exploration 8(1):53-63. 1992.
IRENA-MIRENEM. Conceptual Framework and Plan of Action for the Development of the
International System of Protected Areas for Peace SI-A-PAZ Managua-San Jose.
Oct. 1991. 202 pp.
Thosell, J.W. (Ed) Parks on the Borderline: Experiences in Conservation IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland, Cambridge, UK. 1988. 98 pp.
OAS. The Development of Border Regions in Central America. Washington, 1994. 81 pp.
(Original in Spanish)
OAS-CI Strategy for the Institutional Development of the La Amistad Biosphere Technical
Cooperation Report to the Ministry of Natural Resources Energy & Mines and the
Ministry of National Planning & Economic Policy. Costa Rica. June , 1990. 174 pp.
(Original in Spanish)
OAS-CI Strategy for the Institutional Development of the La Amistad Biosphere Summary
Report to the Ministry of Natural Resources Energy & Mines and the Ministry of National
Planning & Economic Policy. Costa Rica. 1990. 17 pp.
OAS-UNEP. Integrated Assessment of the San Juan River Basin & Guidelines for an
Environmental Action Plan Environmental Management & Sustainable Development
Project: Costa Rica-MINAE/Nicaragua-MARENA. August 1996. Unpublished Technical
Cooperation Report . 196 pp. (Original in Spanish).
Miller Kenton R. Balancing the Scales: Guidelines for Increasing Biodiversity’s Chances
Through Bioregional management World Resources Institute. Feb. 1996. 73 pp.

TRANSBOUNDARY COLLABORATION IN THE PROTECTION OF SHARED NATURAL
RESOURCES ALONG THE UNITED STATES-MEXICO BORDER
EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK
By: José Cisneros and Julio Carrera
A Historic Perspective
The United States (U.S.) - Mexico border has long been a source of conflict and controversy in
the history of both countries. Originally a part of Mexico since the days of the Spanish
Conquest of the New World, it was surrendered to the U.S. in 1848 in accordance with the
terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Feb. 1848) which ended the two year U.S.-Mexico
War. The Treaty established the present border between the two countries. Mexico gave up
two-fifths of its territories.
Conflicts along the border were renewed during the turbulent years of the Mexican Revolution
during the early 1900’s when raids across the border were fairly common along the New
Mexico and Texas line.
Immigration from Mexico to the U.S., both legal and illegal, has created new conflicts along the
border to this day. To many citizens of Mexico, the border is still home; the political boundary
being just that. Many have relatives in the several cities and towns along the U.S. side.
However, the U.S. today is spending millions of dollars trying to close the border to illegal
immigration. Some states have enacted laws prohibiting illegal aliens from accessing human
services, such as schools and medical assistance. This has met with both strong support and
objection from many quarters on both sides of the border.
In recent years, two totally disparate issues have further exacerbated the problems between
the two countries. Traffickers in illegal drugs have found some areas of the remote 2,000 mile
border easily accessible for their trade. Both countries have traded accusations about their
efforts to combat the drug traffic. As a result, both governments have expended considerable
energy and funding to deal with a problem which affects many Americans.
On the other end of the spectrum, a controversial government effort to encourage trade across
the border has, in the minds of some, sent scarce American jobs across the border into
Mexico. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 has, in fact, opened the
border to freer trade between the U.S. and Mexico. And depending on the credibility of the
source, it has either not affected jobs in the U.S. or has encouraged U.S. companies to move
their operations across the border where they enjoy cheaper labor and less government
regulation.
Therefore, 150 years after the U.S.-Mexico War, the border continues to be a constant irritant
to some. These see Mexico as the source of many of the social problems in the U.S. This is
often manifested along the border; a border which is often a land onto itself, neither wholly
American nor wholly Mexican. And this view is often shared by some in Mexico who still
remember back 150 years ago. This is best epitomized by a famous saying, whose author has
never been confirmed, “poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United States.”
Big Bend Establishment
It was amidst the backdrop of this history of the border that Big Bend National Park came to be
in 1935. The area began to attract national attention beginning with the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) commissioned navigation of the lower Rio Grande in 1899. Led by Robert T.

Hill, the written accounts of his conquest of the tortuous course of the canyons of the Big Bend
brought national attention to the region. A second USGS expedition in 1902 to map the region
focused additional attention on the Big Bend. Others, such as J.O. Langford whose mineral
baths were located in the eastern end of today’s Big Bend National Park, promoted the
recuperative value of the West Texas desert. The area was gaining notoriety as a tourist and
outdoor recreation area.
It took a West Texan, however, to give the area the support it needed to progress beyond just
a tourist attraction. Everett Ewing Townsend had patrolled the region in 1894 on horseback for
the U.S. Customs Service. In the 1930’s, he was elected to the state house of
representatives. On March 2, 1933, he introduced a bill to establish the Texas Canyons State
Park. On October 27, 1933, the bill was enacted into law. The park was simply named Big
Bend State Park.
The efforts to create the state park attracted the attention of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s
New Deal program. The President had responded to the Depression with a federally planned
economy to put people back to work. One of the features of the New Deal was the Civilian
Conservation Corps (CCC), established to link work relief to the conservation of natural
resources. The proposed development of Big Bend State Park conformed perfectly with the
goals of the CCC program. In May 1933, President Roosevelt approved the location of four
CCC camps in West Texas, one in the Big Bend. With the arrival of the CCC and its proposal
to make internal improvements to the new state park, local support to establish Big Bend as a
national park began. It was led by Everett Ewing Townsend himself. In early 1934, the
National Park Service (NPS) responded to the call and began an investigation of the area.
The first report gave the area the resounding endorsement that it “gives promise of becoming
one of the noted scenic spectacles of the U.S.” After overcoming objections of whether there
was enough federal land to establish a facility worthy of national park status and of sufficiency
of water to service the park, the NPS authorized an official investigation of Big Bend State
Park in mid-1934 to determine what improvement would be needed to make the proposed
national park operational.
On Feb. 5, 1935, the Secretary of Interior concurred with the NPS recommendation that Big
Bend was worthy of national park status. In March 1935, legislation was introduced in the U.S.
House of Representatives to convert Big Bend State Park to a federal preserve. Similar
legislation was introduced in the U. S. Senate. On June 20, 1935, Congress authorized Big
Bend National Park.
The International Park Idea
The intriguing idea of creating an international park with Mexico had arisen during discussion
of boundaries for the national park. In his presentation before the Senate for his bill creating
Big Bend National Park, Senator Morris Sheppard stressed the international potential of the
park. In a letter to President Roosevelt dated February 16, 1935, Sheppard argued that a joint
effort on the part of both governments to establish an “international peace park” in Big Bend
that was similar to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park on the U.S.-Canada border
would do much to improve relations between the two countries. The President forwarded
Sheppard’s letter to the Secretary of Interior who responded favorably to the idea, saying that
if Congress authorized Big Bend National Park, Mexico should be invited to participate in an
international park effort. The idea of improving relations with Mexico through the creation of an
international park conformed to President Roosevelt’s central diplomatic policy toward all of
Latin America - his “Good Neighbor Policy.”
With the authorization of Big Bend National Park, the American government extended an
invitation to Mexico to discuss the possibilities of an international effort. The first meeting took
place in El Paso, Texas on November 24, 1935, and resulted in a joint resolution to undertake

a formal investigation of the proposed project. Four months later, the Roosevelt administration
appointed a commission to conduct its part of the study. Mexico appointed a similar
commission. The two commissions made a joint tour of Big Bend in February 1936. The tour
was cut short by a fatal automobile accident which took the lives of two of the National Park
Service representatives.
Discussions, however, continued for the remainder of the decade (Figure 1 & 1a). However,
the outbreak of World War II prevented any further negotiations. After the war, the U.S. tried
to revive the idea, but Mexico appeared to have lost interest. On October 24, 1944, President
Roosevelt wrote Mexican President Manuel Avila Camacho and once again proposed the idea
of adjoining parks in the Big Bend region. On November 30, 1944, President Camacho
responded favorably to the proposal (Figure 2). On June 18, 1945, M.R. Tillotson, Regional
Director of the National Park Service in Santa Fe, New Mexico, broadcast a talk in Mexico
supporting the international park (Figure 3). In his talk, Mr. Tillotson stressed the common
relations the international park would exemplify - not only in the world of business and
economics, but also in cultural relationships and common aims along the line of continental
solidarity.
On April 18, 1946, President Truman wrote President Camacho to inquire about the results of
the investigations the Mexican government was to make on Big Bend International Park and to
urge establishment of the park.
A series of meetings, commissions, and further discussions ensued in the years to follow. The
sought-after designation of adjoining parks in Mexico, however, was not to happen until almost
40 years later.
The Establishment of Mexican Protected Areas
On November 7, 1994, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari finally did what others
before him could not do and established two protected areas for the flora and fauna in the
states of Coahuila and Chihuahua across the border from Big Bend National Park: Maderas
del Carmen and Cañon de Santa Elena (Figure 4).
While the designation category of protected areas for the flora and fauna is considered to fall
short of a “national park,” it is accepted as a beginning and the best under the circumstances.
As the Mexican administration began its development of management plans for the areas, the
60- year old idea of an international park surfaced once more. The idea was still intriguing to
many in both countries.
The International Park Idea Revisited
In July 1996, a U.S./Mexico party traveled to Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park at the
invitation of the Superintendents of Big Bend National Park and Glacier National Park.
The group was impressed with the international peace park designation and with the
collaboration between the two parks. They came away with the idea that such a relation was
possible among the three protected areas in the Big Bend region.
In February 1997, representatives of SEMARNAP, Mexico’s Secretariat for the Environment,

Natural Resources and Fisheries, submitted to representatives of the U.S. Department of the
Interior, a Proposal for the Establishment of Protected Natural Areas of Bi-National
Ecosystems-Mexico-United States-Protected Areas for Flora and Fauna Maderas del
Carmen/Cañon de Santa Elena-Big Bend National Park. The proposal recognized that

because of the dynamic relationship between Mexico and the U.S., the environmental
cooperation along the border was an example of the efforts taking place between the two
governments to develop methods for mutual understanding to solve common problems. It
recognized that since the 1930’s there had been repeated proposals between Mexico and the
U.S. to establish bilateral agreements that led to the coordination of activities tending toward
conservation and the consolidation of ecosystems that integrated protected areas from both
countries. It recognized the strides Mexico had achieved in developing a regulatory and
administrative infrastructure to regulate the creation and operation of protected areas. It
pointed out the fact that Mexico has four natural protected areas along its northern border; the
two aforementioned areas plus one in Baja California and one in Sonora. It proposed the
negotiation of a bilateral document to form binational protected areas that would coordinate
the efforts of the two governments to maintain the balance of the policies of conservation,
preservation and maintenance of the areas. It further proposed that a pilot project could start
in the Big Bend/Maderas/Cañon region. In essence, Mexico was finally responding to the 60-
year old request to join in the establishment of a joint park with the U.S. in the Big Bend region.
The proposal was received with some surprise by the U.S. since it was a unilateral effort to an
old binational idea. Nonetheless, it was most welcomed and efforts ensued to understand and
respond to its intent.
The proposal was soon revealed to have lacked diplomatic clearance and suggestions were
made that it be redirected through diplomatic channels. It soon re-emerged in the form of a
Diplomatic Note (Note).
The Note added a number of references to existing legal instruments attesting to the long
history of cooperation between resource managers on the U.S.-Mexico border. It reiterated
the proposal to establish the binational protected areas mentioned in the previous proposal. It
also added a number of actions of cooperation which the two countries could carry out in the
context of the binational protected natural areas. These included:
♦ harmonization and complimentarity of policies leading to the conservation of the contiguous

protected areas
♦ exchange of expertise among personnel of the two countries
♦ implementation of environmental education for the communities living on both sides of the
border
♦ expansion of the body of scientific knowledge about the protected areas through
cooperation in research projects
♦ establishment of a swift communication network to respond to environmental emergencies,
particularly fires
♦ cooperation in inspection and surveillance in order to prevent and control illegal ecology-
related activities
The Note was reviewed in the Department of Interior (DOI), and revisions were suggested. Of
special interest among the proposed revision was the deletion by DOI of all reference to the
formulation of a bilateral legal instrument to regulate the establishment of binational protected
areas by the DOI. In its place was inserted “the initiation of a process to promote and enhance
cooperation in existing natural protected areas and consider new opportunities for cooperation
through the creation of binational protected areas. The concern in the DOI was political since
establishing a binational protected area in the U.S. would require an act of the U.S. Congress.
It should be noted that a meeting in Mexico City of Presidents Clinton and Zedillo provided the
impetus for developing the instrument of cooperation. It was suggested that the two might be
the signatories for the agreement. That meeting was scheduled for early May, 1997.

The Note surfaced in Mexico City as a Letter of Intent (Letter) to be entered into by the DOI-
USA and SEMARNAP-Mexico. The respective Secretaries were to be signatories to the
instrument (Figure 5).
The initial proposal to establish a binational protected natural resource area in the Big Bend
region had completed its bureaucratic transformation and ended as an agreement to
cooperate in the management of our respective resources. The Letter mentioned the long
history of cooperation in environmental and natural resource matters between the two
countries. It took account of the sovereign right and responsibilities of the two countries over
the management and rational use of their natural resources; a key issue to be discussed
further.
The Letter omitted any and all references to the creation or establishment of binational
protected areas. It simply marked the two agencies’ plan to expand cooperative activities in
the conservation of contiguous natural protected areas in the border zone and to
consider new opportunities for cooperation in the protection of natural protected areas
on the U.S.-Mexico border. The Letter expands the scope of cooperation to include state
and local agencies as well as encouraging voluntary participation by the communities and
social organizations interested in protecting the riches of the areas. It did leave intact the six
actions of cooperation contained in the Note.
It had taken Mexico 60 years to finally respond to the American invitation to join in the
establishment of an international park in the Big Bend region by establishing their own
protected areas across the border. Mexico had done not only that but had moved quickly with
a proposal to bind them to Big Bend National Park as a binational protected area. It is
interesting to note that the word “international” had now disappeared from the terminology of
the proposal.
It appears that once high administrative officials on both sides of the border became involved
in the crafting of an agreement, that political concerns over binational or joint areas straddling
political borders surfaced. This is noted in the Letter’s preamble which speaks to the
sovereign rights and responsibilities of the two countries over the management and rational
use of their natural resources. The Letter was, in fact, signed during the Presidents’ meeting
in Mexico City on May 5, 1997. It was signed by the two respective Secretaries of Interior and
SEMARNAP.
Issues and Obstacles to Binational Park Status
Much has changed in the political arena in recent years. President Roosevelt’s personal
proposal to his Mexican counterpart to establish an international park along their borders might
never happen today.
There exists in the U.S. today serious concerns over sovereignty matters. This has been most
evident in questions about management of national parks and other such protected areas
which have been given overlay designations as biosphere reserves and World Heritage Sites.
These designations are meant to draw attention to the significant world class resources of
such areas, all in accord with the World Heritage Convention and the Man and the Biosphere
Program. However, some people have seen these designations as surrendering American
sovereignty of those areas to the United Nations or some world government. Some members
of Congress have been urged to enact legislation rescinding such designations. It can be
assumed that establishment of binational protected areas might fall prey to these concerns
unless careful and deliberate advance planning and political consultation is taken.

Other issues must also be considered. For example, current border problems of drug
trafficking and illegal immigration have intensified in all areas of the border. These are often
depicted as “wars on drugs” and “wars to maintain the sovereignty of our borders.”
The ongoing debate over the NAFTA aftermath concerning the loss of American jobs to
Mexico continues to foster ill feelings in some quarters. In other quarters, concerns for the
environmental impacts of American plants situated across the border in Mexico surface despite
the various side agreements to the NAFTA to control or limit such impacts.
In addition, on-the-ground issues of jurisdiction and enforcement of immigration and custom

laws present problems to the free travel between areas. It is interesting to note that the initial
international park proposal envisioned an International Free Zone permitting access to both
parks with customs and immigration stations pulled back to the perimeter boundaries.
Another and more significant issue would be the disparate body of laws and regulations
governing each individual area. U.S. National Park Service areas are governed by not only
their enabling acts, but by the myriad of environmental laws established over the years to
protect natural and cultural resources. In the 81 years since the creation of the NPS in 1916,
the agency has developed an enormous body of policies and management regulations which
must be adhered to in the management of parks. The NPS is a tightly regulated agency within
the Department of Interior.
In this particular initiative, Mexico is just beginning to develop an infrastructure to establish and
administer protected areas - both cultural and natural. Their policies are evolving. Funding for
managing and operating their areas is significantly less than in the U.S. How would these
disparities be addressed in the management of binational protected areas?
Conclusion
Despite the omission of any reference to binational protected areas, the Letter has to be
recognized as a step forward in the management of contiguous areas across the border. The
two countries share a most unusual common border, the Rio Grande. The political boundary
runs along the deepest part of the river channel. River users meander back and forth between
the U.S. and Mexico during the course of their trip. Regular stops are located on the most
convenient side-without regard of which country provides it. Concerns over river flow and
water quality affect both countries. Protection of wildlife, such as bears and beaver, has to be
a collaborative effort since the animals do not observe the political boundary. The same
applies for such endangered species as the peregrine falcon which feeds and nests on both
sides of the river. These and many other transboundary issues must be addressed as steps
are taken to implement the Letter.

PARKS WITHOUT PEACE
By: Yemi Katerere
IUCN-ROSA HARARE
While the focus of this conference is the planning and management of interstate protected
areas, it is important for Southern Africa that the emerging trends of interstate natural resource
management and their impacts on communities are not overshadowed by the interests of
central governments and big business. The opportunities that both formal (protected area)
and informal (community) interstate natural resource management can offer in the form of
enhanced benefits, biodiversity conservation through equitable and sustainable use, fostering
regional co-operation and conflict management are immense.
This paper is intended to highlight the limitations of discussing interstate natural resource
management with a bias on protected areas. Its focus is southern Africa. Protected areas are
important biodiversity and gene conservation areas as well as the major attraction for non-
consumptive tourism. A pre-occupation with Parks as the major approach to management of
interstate natural resources at the exclusion of community initiatives and community rights can
only serve to reinforce the notion that the state is not part of the overall solution to resource
scarcities at the local level or that interstate resource management efforts are not an integral
component of local economies. Failure to recognise community interstate natural resource
management efforts as legitimate forms of economic activity can only fuel increasing land and
resource-based conflicts between managers of protected areas and other resource users,
particularly local communities.
The non-participatory manner in which many protected areas were and continue to be
established through, for instance, the forced removal of people and the introduction of alien
administrative and legislative systems has only served to fuel land and resource-based
conflicts. People were and are denied access to resources in the form of grazing and hunting
rights, collection of medicinal plants, fuelwood, water and thatching grass. The process of
implementing these control mechanisms often means marginalisation or under-valuation of
traditional natural resource management systems. Some of the conflicts around protected
areas have been in the form of “illegal” settlement, “illegal” hunting and “illegal” harvesting of
timber and non-timber products as well as physical harassment of tourists.
The parks should not be viewed as a symbol of peace in the eyes of governments alone. They
must offer real peace for local people to address poverty and achieve prosperity. The people
of this region have paid a high price for the peace we now enjoy and they need to be
supported to develop equitable and sustainable resource management practices. The parks
are one such vehicle to a better life for many rural people who depend on natural resources for
their livelihood. The parks should be a bridge to respect local culture and traditional
knowledge, food security and economic development of the region’s people. Hence the
militaristic approach to enforcement of park laws needs to be ameliorated by sanity and
appropriate incentives for all stakeholders to have a unity of objectives.
IUCN classifies protected areas into six categories as follows:
1. National Parks and Equivalent Reserves. These are protected natural and scenic areas of
national and international significance for spiritual, scientific, educational, recreational and
tourism purposes. These are generally areas of restricted access.
2. Scientific Reserves and Wilderness Areas. Areas free of human intervention. Intended to
preserve the national environment in an undisturbed state.

3. Natural Monument. Outstanding natural or cultural features of specific scientific or
educational significance. This category can include waterfalls, caves, craters and sand
dunes. These areas are to be protected and preserved.
4. Habitat and Wildlife Management Areas. These areas which include forests, lakes and
grasslands are identified specifically for manipulative management. Objectives of these
areas are breeding, education, scientific research or observation.
5. Protected Land/Sea Scapes. These areas tend to be extensive and have complex
planning and management techniques and there is an effort to integrate human settlement
with sustainable environmental management. In some instances this category may include
parks, scientific reserves, monuments and wildlife management areas. The objective of this
category is to provide for harmonious interaction between nature and human culture and
hence public economic, scientific, spiritual, recreational and tourism needs.
6. Managed Resource Protected Areas
The six categories are useful for a unified approach to protected area management and can
facilitate coordinated interstate resource management. However, all the categories have a
degree of exclusion with little or no provision for a link with people except for the Protected
Land/Sea Scapes category and Managed Resource Protected Area.
For some of these categories there is clearly a role for local communities to be involved. For
instance, experience elsewhere with Natural Monuments indicates that local people may be
the most effective managers of these areas, and in order to maintain them locals should be
given the right to define rules of inclusion and exclusion (Mohamed-Katerere 1997). Similarly,
experience with national parks indicates that sustainable management may be impossible if
local people are excluded. In Australia the government has entered into contracts with
aboriginal people giving them rights in the parks. In Uganda a pilot agreement has been
worked out between Uganda National Parks and community bordering the Bwindi
Impenetrable Forest - one of the most famous and valuable national parks in Uganda. This
model has been extended to include the private sector. In South Africa, Ngala Game Reserve
is managed by a private group, Conservation Corporation (Borrini-Feyerrabend, 1996).
In addition, this region has valuable experiences in community based natural resource
management (CBNRM) initiatives which have demonstrated that communities, if supported,
have the capacity to manage their local resources and derive direct and indirect benefits.
Various CBNRM initiatives presently being implemented are:
♦ Communal Areas Management Programme for Indigenous Resources (Campfire) in

Zimbabwe
♦ Living in Finite Environments (LIFE) in Namibia
♦ Natural Resources Management Programme (NRMP) in Botswana
♦ The Administrative Design Programme (ADMADE) in Zambia
♦ Tchuma-Tchato Programme in Tete province of Mozambique
♦ The Tanzania National Parks has established Community Conservation Co-ordinating
Committees as institutional fora for community participation
These initiatives offer extensive and diverse experiences of working with communities and
provide insight into the opportunities that exist for partnership with the private sector,
government and NGOS. The experiences from regional community initiatives offer insights into
models for regional co-operation.

This meeting must seek to break new ground. We should develop a new vision for protected
areas that reflects the rich diversity of human activity in the region and not one that is
preservationist. The model of excluding people from being involved in or from deriving any
benefits from management of protected areas has become too politically convenient and
lucrative to be changed. Yet in the long run this model will prove to be unworkable. Interest
groups with powerful lobbying resources are well placed to influence governments in the name
of investments and employment generation against the apparently powerless communities and
small-scale entrepreneurs.
Recognising that it is politically correct to be seen to involve and consult local communities, the
governments and the private sector often make reference to the fact that communities will be
involved in natural resource-based enterprises. This rhetoric is not always backed by actions
because the policy and institutional framework to support community based natural resources
management is weak and consultation is superficial. The challenge at this conference has to
be finding an approach that promotes broad based partnerships amongst all stakeholders.
1. Existing Interstate Land Use Categories
Along boundaries of countries in the region one finds a variety of relationships between the
different land use categories as shown in Table 1. Hence, interstate resource management
issues should not just be considered around protected areas as this will not address the
broader regional goal of sustainable natural resource management and economic
development. Given the complex land use arrangements along boundaries and the
dependence of local communities on the natural resource base for their livelihoods, the
concept of “transboundary” resource management must be extended to cover all the land use
systems as indicated in Table 1.
Table 1. Existing Interstate Relationships by Landuse Category
Community Private land Protected

Area Area
Community Area X XX XX
Private land XX X XX
Protected Area XX XX X
More importantly, the process of establishing new interstate protected areas or expanding
existing ones requires that all stakeholders on both sides of the boundary are consulted and
participate so that roles and responsibilities are clarified including distribution of benefits. It
should be appreciated that this approach needs to be applied even in situations where a given
country seeks to gazette a protected area on its own border. This is particularly important
considering that in many border situations both humans and animals have traditionally
migrated across or straddled political boundaries.
The establishment of a protected area by one country along an international border has cross
border implications which require prior consultation and negotiation and that interested
stakeholders should have access to information. They should also be given adequate time to
discuss and assess the information. The success of interstate resource management and
creation of new protected areas requires prior informed consent otherwise affected people are
likely to resist.
The implications of these complex land use interactions along borders present tremendous
challenges for policy makers, legislators, entrepreneurs, the private sector and NGOs which I
return to throughout the presentation.

2. Land Tenure
The land question remains one of the most emotional and contentious regional issues
confronting many governments. The issue is no longer about tenure and rights over resources,
but greater access to land. In some countries there are demands for land redistribution while in
others it is demands for restitution for ancestral land expropriated under colonial rule. Some of
the existing protected areas are part of the disputed land, the benefits of which many of the
displaced people do not enjoy. Any proposals to extend the land under protected areas must
respond to real concerns about meaningful and transparent consultation of all stakeholders
and whether governments have the financial and management capacity to manage an
expanded Parks area. The question is in whose interest are the protected areas being
established, who is to benefit and how? Is it possible to define protected areas to acknowledge
people’s cultural heritage?
The expansion of interstate protected areas will in some situations require establishment of
corridors for animal migration. Where the establishment of corridors necessitates the relocation
of some local residents then appropriate compensation mechanisms need to be worked out.
3. Social and Cultural Considerations
In discussing interstate resource management, the cultural and social relationships of border
communities need to be understood and contextualised. In many instances border
communities belong to the same ethnic group with a common language, experiences, vision
and aspirations, and might even fall under the same traditional ruler. The Lozi people of
Western Zambia and the Caprivi strip in Namibia and Botswana and the Shangani in
Mozambique and Zimbabwe are excellent examples to name just a few. An understanding of
the local level situation is necessary when considering legislation and regulations governing
the movement of goods, services and people between two countries.
Southern Africa is a region ravaged by more than two decades of both liberation and civil wars.
These wars have had their toll on the region’s population and resources. Many communities
were displaced from their homes and forced into exile as political or economic refugees. The
return to peace presents major challenges for those returning and seeking to re-establish
themselves. There are situations such as in Mozambique where local communities are living
inside as well as along protected area boundaries. The needs and the development of these
communities have to be reconciled with the objectives of protected area management. The
wars have also resulted in a high incidence of female headed households and the breakdown
of social and institutional structures responsible for natural resource management.
The establishment of protected areas along boundaries can have serious implications
particularly for border communities who get separated and must thereafter respect different
national legislation governing access to and trade in natural resources. The parks could also
become physical barriers to direct access to relatives in a neighbouring country.
4. Food Security and Protected Areas
The big question is the extent to which governments recognise protected areas as
economically viable forms of land use. This is a fundamental principle given the competing
demands for land and the varied production potentials of different pieces of land in the region.
If the full economic potential of the land is to be realised then a holistic approach to land use
planning is required. Such an approach has to address the issue of food security and how this
might be achieved without converting all land to crop production. The potential contribution of
protected areas to food security needs to be clearly articulated so that they are not seen as
“locking” up land or other resources from other land uses. For maximum benefits to be realised

from the land then land use decisions need to be taken on smaller units of land at the local
level. This thinking has major implications for proposals to extend the present land under
protected areas.
Some of the region’s richest protected areas such as Kruger National Park, Hwange National
Park, Gonarezhou National Park, Lakes Malawi and Kariba, and Chobe National Park are all
located along the borders. Their potential to contribute to regional food security can be
substantial.
5. Protected Areas and Neighbours
In addition, communities sharing common boundaries with protected areas have high
opportunity costs in terms of foregone benefits or damage to crops and often loss of lives.
Where a protected park is found only on one side of the international border, those on the
other side have no mechanisms for compensation to loss of property, food, or lives from
problem animals and do not derive any benefits from the protected park. There are numerous
complaints by communities in Zimbabwe’s Chiredzi District of livestock deaths caused by
predators from Kruger National Park in South Africa. Considerable potential exists for
developing approaches which focus on the sharing of resources and benefits between
protected areas and their neighbours, including collaborative management of certain locally
important resources which may occur within protected areas.
6. Harmonisation of Laws and Policies
For border communities, interstate resources are invariably governed by different national
laws, policies and regulations. As might be expected, there is very little harmonisation of
legislation, procedures, policies and regulations between countries in the region. This lack of
institutional harmonisation around use and management of natural resources between two
countries often results in unequal access to resources between communities of two
neighbouring countries. One government might have less stringent regulations thereby
facilitating greater access to natural resources and benefits to its border communities than its
neighbour. The end result can be a flourishing community on the one side and an
impoverished one on the other. This can precipitate conflicts and tensions between
communities. Further, where a community perceives that a government is retarding its
potential for development in comparison to a community of the same tradition and culture in a
neighbouring country, it might have less incentives to engage in sustainable methods of
natural resource management.
Examples of this situation are found in fishing communities living adjacent to protected areas
which require fishing permits against set quotas. Their counterparts living across a river in an
adjacent communal area separated from the protected area by an international boundary have
less stringent controls over artisanal fishing and do not need to purchase fishing permits.
The entire concept of interstate resource management requires a thorough examination of
existing institutional arrangements and capacities. At the national level there are Joint
Permanent Commissions designed to handle bi-lateral matters. However, this model does not
always lend itself to resolving local level interstate resource management concerns. For
instances there needs to be cross border institutional mechanisms to enable local authorities
and communities to prepare joint plans to deal with issues of fire management, problem animal
control, illegal hunting, enforcement of local by-laws and conflict management.
If there are proposals to expand interstate resource management then there needs to be
effective institutional arrangements in place to cope with such a trend. This means that existing
and any proposed new institutions must be supported and strengthened so as to be able to

respond to the administrative, technical, financial, legislative and skills requirements of the new
vision.
7. Trade
Along the international boundaries, there are numerous tensions around trade in natural
resources. Communities along borders have for a long time engaged in managing and using
their natural resources with no restrictions on movement of goods and services across borders.
With the establishment of nation states and a growing sense of nationalism communities that
once coexisted are divided and are expected to respect international boundaries and
bureaucratic systems that govern the movement of people and goods across borders. What
was once routine movement of goods and services is now subjected to export and import
control regulations rendering many long established local trade practices “illegal”. Yet these
trade practices are long standing and constitute an integral part of the local economy and
cannot be explained away by classifying them as “illegal.”
Trade in goods and services along international boundaries should not be governed only by
complicated systems which intimidate local communities. We need appropriate, harmonised
systems that are user friendly and that do not criminalise locally based interstate trade.
8. Benefit Generation and Sharing of Costs and Benefits
The involvement of local people in the management of protected areas must be accompanied
by acceptable methods of benefit and cost sharing by participating groups or individuals.
The success of CBNRM in the region is due, amongst other factors, to the recognition that
those participating in the management of natural resources should derive benefits. The
present models of benefit sharing range from cash payments directly to individual households
to investments in community projects such as clinics, schools and roads. Benefits of natural
resources management initiatives accrue from income and use or spiritual values from the
following:
♦ income from non-consumptive tourism
♦ income from consumptive use (hunting, fishing, ranching, trade in live animals)
♦ access to sacred groves
♦ harvesting for local use and food (medicines, construction, honey, protein, fruits)
♦ harvesting for commercial purposes (timber)
♦ ecosystem integrity (watershed management)
The costs of expanding protected areas other than the direct costs include the loss of income
or other benefits (spiritual, food) from alternative forms of land use or exclusion from benefits
previously available. (World Bank, 1996). These need to be carefully considered for existing
and planned protected areas.
The distribution of benefits and costs is affected by a number of factors such as the nature
business partnerships and how dividends form profits are shared, the procedures for granting
concessions, hunting licences, setting and collecting licence fees and quota setting. In many
instances communities complain that they are not consulted when quotas are set. These
issues need to be addressed through transparent processes and policies governing them must
be reviewed regularly with the participation of all stakeholders.
Within the context of the interstate resource management debate, the question is how benefits
and costs might be transferred across political boundaries. How does a community in one
country derive benefits from an adjacent park in a neighbouring country? Currently there is no

formal mechanism to enable the transfer of benefits or costs. Botswana and Namibia offer an
excellent example of a situation where communities in Namibia share a common border with a
protected area on the Botswana side. The same is true for Mozambican communities and
Gonarezhou National Park in Zimbabwe. Further, where communities have suffered losses
due to their proximity to a protected area, they have not received any compensation. This
situation is fuelling tensions as communal residents suffer losses due to their proximity to a
protected area in a neighbouring country. In the end communal people might resort to “illegal”
hunting, arson, cutting of game fences in protected areas as well as disruption of tourism
activities as a means of securing some benefits or protest. Such actions have serious
diplomatic implications and can also fuel conflicts.
This issue has to be debated openly so that peace is not confined only to the parks. It is thus
important that this conference not restrict its discussions on how interstate protected areas can
enhance tourism for big business, but also how local entrepreneurs can be supported. For the
quality of life of local communities to improve, innovative models of generating benefits on
both sides of the border for all forms of land use interactions need to be explored.
Partnerships between big business and individual entrepreneurs or community agencies
should be mutually beneficial and should result in the transfer of skills and sharing of financial
benefits.
To encourage the extension and consolidation of existing transboundary areas and the
development of new protected areas in the region is likely to increase cross border conflicts
unless innovative ways of resource and benefits sharing are devised. We have to avoid
creating an elitist view of transboundary protected areas.
9. Where to Next?
If the region is to use its natural resource endowment as a vehicle to promote regional co-
operation, then there has to be a serious commitment to addressing local community issues
and respecting community rights to resources and benefits. With increasing population,
pressures on the natural resource base will escalate and so will conflicts between parks and
local communities. This means promoting dialogue with rural communities and their
institutions. There are several models of working with communities in the region which should
be analysed and supported.
9.1 Protected Area Outreach and Partnership
The conference should consider developing a protected area outreach and partnership
programme which is more than the distribution of free meat and conservation education. Such
a programme must recognise the interests of neighbours who border such protected areas
which includes conflict resolution, benefit sharing arrangements and the need for consultation.
Further, the concept of interstate resource management must be expanded beyond the
protected parks to include communities and private land. More importantly the approach to
interstate resource management must be inclusive of all countries in the region and not just
between one country and its neighbours.
9.2 Collaborative Management Arrangements
Collaborative management is a partnership to jointly manage a resource on land that is owned

by the state or some other owner. The partnership has negotiated rights and responsibilities
with the following characteristics:

♦ identifies in the park important community resources that are collected “illegally” for freer
use; and
♦ defines rights and responsibilities of all stakeholders to use resources sustainably and
achieve conservation and development objectives (Barrow, 1977)
9.3 Developing support systems for Communities
A concerted effort needs to be made with regard to developing appropriate support systems to
empower communities to manage resources sustainably. This involves capacity enhancement
including promotion of entrepreneurship.
10. Conclusion
If the above issues are not addressed then the Parks will forever be sites of war and not
peace.
11. References
Borrini-Feyerabend, G. 1996. Collaborative Management of Protected Areas: Tailoring The

Approach To The Context. Issues in Social Policy, IUCN, Gland (Switzerland).
World Bank. 1996. Mozambique Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional
Strengthening Project. Report No. 15534-MOZ
Mohamed-Katerere, J. 1997. Developing Wildlife Law in Pakistan: Legislative Approaches and

Options for Sustainable Use. Discussion Paper.
Barrow, E.G. C. 1997. Campfire and Conservancies in Zimbabwe - Now and to The Future.
Paper Prepared for Zimbabwe National CAMPFIRE and Conservancies Policy Review
Workshop, Harare, February, 1997.

THE GEOPOLITICS OF TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION: AN OVERVIEW
By: G.H. Blake

International Boundaries Research Unit
University of Durham, U.K.
Introduction.
It is hardly surprising that transboundary cooperation of one kind or another is a growing

feature of international relations in the modern world. As food, raw materials, and recreational
space become scarcer in the face of rising populations states are seeking resources in regions
which are both geographically and politically marginal. Resource exploitation and
environmental protection in borderland areas cannot be properly undertaken without some
reference to the neighbouring state, while resources which straddle the international boundary
clearly cannot be safely utilised without neighbourly co-operation. Against this background it is
notable that the number of international land boundaries has increased markedly in recent
years from about 280 in the late 1980s to 315 or so in 1997. There are also approximately
420 potential maritime boundaries between coastal states worldwide, one third of which have
been formally agreed. Each year up to half a dozen more maritime boundary treaties are
signed by neighbouring states. In addition, it is often forgotten that coastal states which enjoy
access to ocean space up to 200 nautical miles offshore are obliged to determine a boundary
with the international seabed beyond under the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea.
The Convention obliges the coastal state to cooperate in the management of straddling and
migratory fish stocks across this boundary.(1)
Transboundary co-operation takes place at national, regional, and local levels. The nature and
extent of such co-operation varies massively between states, the most important factor being
their political - historical relationship. Most transboundary co-operation is defined by inter-
government agreements, although borderland peoples all over the world find ways to
collaborate with each other without official sanction, especially in less developed countries.
These activities lie beyond the scope of this overview, although they may become a significant
consideration when national parks are being established in border regions. Table 1 gives
some examples of the kinds of transboundary co-operation at national, regional and local
levels, although they all clearly overlap. The important point to note is that transboundary
cooperation is commonplace in the modern world and states cannot operate as closed
systems. Indeed, some observers argue that we are moving inexorably towards a “borderless
world” in the twenty first century, but this viewpoint needs to be examined quite critically.
Table 1: Transboundary collaboration

at national, regional and local levels.
National Regional Local

Postal services River basins Crossing points
Flight paths Hydrocarbons Smuggling
Trade Fisheries Access roads
Defence Transit routes Border maintenance
Health Pollution control Groundwater
It is true that the power of the state appears to be diminishing as “globalisation” gains
momentum. International boundaries have clearly lost a lot of their nineteenth century
functions. Governments can no longer control the flow of ideas and information in the
cyberspace age, while capital and technology can cross frontiers with increasing rapidity.
Economic power seems to be with the big banks and multinationals and national security and

effective environmental management often involves collaboration with other states. In recent
decades large regional political and economic associations have emerged such as the
European Union, the North American Free Trade Area and the Association of South East
Asian Nations. These have all markedly reduced the barrier effect of international boundaries
for certain states, but they do not imply their imminent disappearance. On the contrary in
some parts of the world borders are becoming less penetrable. There are calls from right -
wing politicians for more effective controls on refugees, illegal migrants, drugs, cheap goods
and the like. Nor are Governments behaving as though their borders were about to vanish.
On land, thanks to the Global Positioning System (GPS) many boundaries are being re-
surveyed and accurately demarcated for the first time at considerable cost.(2) At sea there is
intense interest in maritime boundary delimitation. Thus there is plenty of evidence that
international boundaries, for better or worse, will remain as potent as ever emotionally and
practically. While their functions may be changing they remain the sensitive interface between
neighbouring states, and must be approached with proper understanding of their historic
origins and contemporary status.
Boundary status
Most international land boundaries pass through four phases in their evolution, although not
every boundary will be subject to each phase. Allocation of territory between rival powers was
largely a nineteenth century phenomenon when imperial spheres of influence were defined.
Delimitation occurs when states agree to survey their boundary in detail prior to a formal treaty.
Demarcation follows delimitation, but not in every case, when the agreed boundary is
permanently marked by pillars, fences or markers of some kind. After demarcation, boundary
management can be properly undertaken, although it is often neglected. A well-managed
boundary will be amply documented, clearly visible, carefully maintained and monitored. It will
give borderland dwellers a sense of security while allowing access to the other side without
undue hindrance. The least well-managed boundaries are likely to create the biggest
headaches when it comes to transboundary projects. It is thus important to establish as
accurately as possible a geopolitical profile of the boundary and its adjacent borderlands.
Approximately two thirds of the world’s 315 land boundaries have been formally delimited and
are unlikely to give rise to serious political differences between states.(3) Among those which
have not been formally delimited perhaps half are seriously contested, although many of these
disputes are dormant. It is almost impossible to say what proportion of the world’s 266,000 km
of land boundaries are demarcated. More than half follow physical features such as
watersheds, mountain peaks, rivers and streams, and approximately one fifth are straight lines
which disregard physical geography. Most of these are identified on the ground, although
often quite crudely (for example by large painted oil drums). In some areas geography makes
demarcation impossible as in swamps, and shifting sand dunes.
The absence of a boundary agreement does not imply a dispute. There are many examples of
peaceful boundaries where there is no agreement and no dispute. Similarly, contested
boundaries do not inevitably lead to armed conflict. Indeed, given that so many international
boundaries were drawn by the imperial powers with scant regard for human or physical
geography it is perhaps surprising there are not more border wars. One reason is that states
have recourse to several possible conflict resolution strategies if bilateral negotiations fail.
They may seek the mediation of a third party, or arbitration by a regional organisation such as
the Arab League, or they may decide to take the case before the International Court of Justice
in the Hague or some other international legal tribunal such as the Law of the Sea Tribunal in
Hamburg. In addition, there are an emerging range of interim arrangements for the political
management of space which provide effective alternatives to conflict. These are discussed
below.
Cooperation in the aftermath of conflict

Special territorial arrangements for international cooperation may be made in the aftermath of
conflict, some of which have proved to be surprisingly successful. Some of these are
agreements between the parties to the conflict, but in most cases a third party such as the
U.N. is instrumental in making the arrangements. Neutral Zones may be established either
where territory is in dispute, or to provide a security zone between two potentially conflicting
states. They are often so small that they tend to be overlooked on maps. The neutral zone
between Gibraltar and Spain can be traced to the mid-eighteenth century, but its status is one
of the bones of contention between Britain and Spain to this day. Other neutral zones have
been more acceptable such as those between Saudi Arabia and Iraq (1923-1981) and Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait (1923-1966). The latter is of particular interest because the oil resources of
the former neutral zone are still jointly exploited, although the territory has been equally divided
between the parties since 1966.
Buffer zones are usually designed to operate less permanently than neutral zones. They tend
to emerge at the end of armed conflict between parties, and may be controlled by a third party
such as the U.N. The buffer zone created in the Golan region between Syrian and Israeli
forces in 1974 is still in existence, monitored by the U.N. A substantial buffer zone has
separated the Turkish and Greek communities in Cyprus since 1974, also monitored by U.N.
forces. Demilitarised Zones are less in vogue than in the period after World War I, but they
remain a potentially useful device. Under U.N. Resolution 687 of April 1991 a demilitarised
zone was established along the Kuwait-Iraq boundary, extending 10 kilometres into Iraq, and
five kilometres into Kuwait. From 1923 until 1936 the Turkish Straits were demilitarised and
placed under an International Straits Commission. For this reason the Turkish Straits were
sometimes described as being an international zone during this period. Tangier and its
hinterland at the entrance to the Strait of Gibraltar were also demilitarised and governed by an
international administration (chiefly French and British) from 1923 until Moroccan
independence in 1956.(4)
More recently, unusual territorial arrangements have been made following international conflict
during the Iraq-Kuwait war of 1990-91 and civil war in former Yugoslavia from 1991-95. In the
former a safe haven was established for the protection of the Kurdish population of northern
Iraq with the assistance of U.S. and British forces. A no-fly zone for Iraqi aircraft was declared
along the 38th parallel as part of the strategy to protect the Kurds. In former Yugoslavia the
Dayton peace agreement of December 1995 provided for a zone of separation from which the
warring factions would be excluded. This zone, which is only half a mile or so wide was
patrolled by IFOR and later SFOR international forces to help with the transition to peace.
These examples are not directly applicable to the parks for peace idea because they were
implemented in the aftermath of conflict. Nevertheless they are a reminder that alternatives to
absolute state sovereignty have been tried quite widely with satisfactory results. There is no
standard model, as will be seen in sections 4 and 5 below. States can make arrangements in
their borderlands to suit themselves. Clearly the role of a third party such as the U.N. may be
crucial in initiating and implementing collaboration, but such assistance must be sufficiently
flexible to suit the borderlands in question.
International transboundary cooperation offshore
The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea which was concluded in 1982 and entered into
force in 1994 sets out as far as possible guidelines for the orderly conduct of international
relations at sea. Coastal states are entitled to a territorial sea of 12 nautical miles and an
Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of 200 nautical miles measured from baselines around the
coast (comprising low water mark or straight baselines drawn across bays, estuaries, and
highly indented coasts etc.). States are obliged to allow the innocent passage of ships of

other states through their territorial seas and EEZs. States also have the right to lay pipelines
and cables within the EEZ of another state, and to overfly the EEZ without seeking coastal
state permission as in the territorial sea. All this assumes a measure of cooperation between
states which land sovereignty does not impose because state sovereignty on land is absolute
whereas at sea it is partial. If states do not declare an EEZ they may alternatively claim
continental shelf rights (which in certain geophysical circumstances may extend beyond 200
nautical miles). Continental shelf rights give states the exclusive ownership of the resources of
their continental shelf, but not of the living resources of the waters above the shelf.
Maritime boundary drawing is still not very far advanced. There are perhaps 420 maritimes
boundaries to be delimited, of which about 150 have so far been formally agreed. Because
valuable resources may be at stake, notably hydrocarbons and fish, and because of the sheer
complexity of maritime boundary drawing, both technical and legal, a number of states have
reached deadlock in their negotiations. Accordingly, maritime boundary makers have
sometimes sought alternatives to the continuation of deadlock over the allocation of seabed.
There are 15 agreements involving shared maritime space of one kind or another. Overall,
perhaps 10 per cent of maritime boundary agreements include some provision for shared
space. The earliest was between Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in 1958. Such agreements could
multiply in future as the advantages of joint zones are more widely appreciated. It is not
difficult to think of areas of the oceans where such zones might provide the first step towards
better inter-state relations, for example, between Greece and Turkey in the Aegean, and
between claimants to the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea.
Maritime joint zones take many forms but all represent compromise solutions to problems of
disputed sovereignty. They vary considerably in size, the largest being the 1974 Japan-South
Korea joint zone of 29,092 square nautical miles. In some joint zone agreements the
international boundary line is formally agreed, but a zone is delimited where joint resource
exploitation is permitted. In others there is no boundary agreement and only a joint zone.
The purpose of joint zones may be for the exploitation of hydrocarbon resources or living
resources; it might also include such activities as joint scientific research. While the intention
in most cases appears to be to return eventually to the question of boundary delimitation, the
compromise arrangements appear to work so well that there is no rush to settle. The 1974
Joint Development Agreement between Japan and the Republic of Korea shelved the
question of delimitation for 50 years, but efforts to settle the boundary are continuing. The
temporary agreement over a disputed area of the Barents Sea reached by the Soviet Union
and Norway in 1978, initially for a period of one year, has been renewed annually ever since.
The United Kingdom-Argentina Joint Declaration of September 1995 is a remarkable example

of what can be achieved. Having fought an ugly war in 1982 over the sovereignty of the
Falkland/Malvinas Islands, the 1995 agreement designates a special area in which the parties
will develop hydrocarbon resources jointly. The Declaration makes it clear that there is no
change in the claims of the United Kingdom and Argentina to the islands. Both states were
however so eager to begin oil exploration in the area that they agreed to cooperate while
leaving the sovereignty question unresolved.(5) The agreement has done much to improve
relations between Britain and Argentina.
Shared zones for purposes of resource exploitation are still uncommon on land, but they do
occur. In 1925 the Treaty of Svalbard gave equal rights of access to the resources of
Spitzbergen to all 40 signatories, although the island was under Norwegian sovereignty. More
recently in 1988 the Yemen Arab Republic (north) and the Peoples’ Democratic Republic of
Yemen (south) agreed on a joint development zone in a border region where oil was known to
exist on both sides. The two states united in 1989 and the zone became redundant.
The management of transboundary resources

The most obvious resources which may require transboundary cooperation are oil, gas,
minerals, groundwater and surface water on land, and oil, gas and fisheries at sea.
Borderland resources may also include historic or cultural sites, flora and fauna, and timber for
example but this brief review will concentrate on those resources most frequently subject to
international agreements - hydrocarbons, freshwater, and fish. These also happen to be the
most difficult to manage because they all move across international boundaries. There is a
considerable volume of literature on transboundary resource management but much
uncertainty still surrounds the legal position, and relatively little practical progress has been
achieved in relation to what needs to be done. Nico Shchriver has written a masterly guide to
the complex principles of international law relating to the management of natural resources(6).
While the state clearly enjoys permanent sovereignty over its resources, there is a clear duty to
manage those resources responsibly. Moreover, states have an obligation to cooperate in the
solution of transboundary and global environmental problems, and they must not use
resources in any way which may prove harmful to another state, which implies an obligation to
cooperate to ensure optimum use of shared resources. Since the early 1970s shared
resources have featured on the agenda of U.N. agencies such as UNEP and certain principles
have been proposed for the management and use of shared environmental resources (not
defined), but not for economic resources.
Hydrocarbons
When a petroleum reservoir extends across an international boundary there is a risk that one
state will extract more than its fair share of the oil or gas, because petroleum may be induced
to flow from one side of the boundary to the other. One solution to this problem now
commonly adopted is unitisation whereby the parties agree on terms to develop the deposit as
a unit. The most important aspect is the apportionment of petroleum production based on
tricky technical calculations of the total reserves and the proportions thereof which lie on either
side of the line.(6). Alternatively the parties may agree to joint exploitation of a petroleum
reservoir by a single company or consortium, with revenues shared equally or in some agreed
proportion. As mentioned above, there are already 15 joint maritime agreements in operation,
10 of which have lasted for more than 15 years. There is no standard agreement for such
zones although the British Institute for International and Comparative Law has produced a
model agreement, which to date does not appear to have been used(7). Table 2 lists the joint
maritime agreements. There can be little doubt that common zones will increase in number in
future, although they are not always easy to work, and most are still regarded as an interim
arrangement pending a boundary agreement if none already exists.
Table 2 Joint maritime agreements
Argentina - United Kingdom 1995

Argentina - Uruguay 1974
Australia - Indonesia 1991
Australia - Papua New Guinea 1985
Bahrain - Saudi Arabia 1958
Colombia - Dominican Republic 1979
France - Spain 1975
Iceland - Norway 1981
Japan - Republic of Korea 1978
Kuwait - Saudi Arabia 1966
Malaysia - Thailand 1991
Norway - USSR 1978
Malaysia - Vietnam 1992 (signed)
Qatar - United Arab Emirates 1969

Saudi Arabia - Sudan 1975
Freshwater
Problems of shared water resources are in many ways more difficult than those associated
with hydrocarbons; they are certainly more numerous. Worldwide over 240 river basins are
shared between two or more states and five are shared between seven or more states.
Although there are over 2,000 bilateral agreements covering navigation, research, fishing,
flood control, water quotas etc these are very few integrated river basin projects. Since 1970
the U.N. International Law Commission has been trying to develop and codify the law of non-
navigational uses of international watercourses, but the task is not yet complete. One principle
of international water law which is clear is that the use of water by one country must not impair
the rights and interests of another country or countries.(8) There are many cases where this
principle is disregarded, not least in the Middle East and considerable international tension
exists as a result. The same principle of international law is applicable to groundwater,
although there are no detailed conventions dealing specifically with groundwater. It took a
group of experts seven years to draft a treaty in respect of groundwater in the Mexico-United
States borderlands, such is the complexity of the subject. Water resources could be the cause
of serious international conflict in future if states are unable to cooperate over their
management.
Fisheries
Coastal states have the exclusive right to the exploitation of living resources within their
Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) under the 1982 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea. In
respect of migrating species however there is an obligation to cooperate with neighbouring
states both within the EEZ and in the high seas beyond to conserve and manage such
resources, (Articles 117 and 118). Such cooperation may be direct with other states or
through an international organisation, typically a regional fisheries body. There are a number
of difficulties associated with these provisions especially the compatibility of the conservation
measures a coastal state might implement within the EEZ, and the behaviour of foreign fleets
immediately beyond which have less interest in conservation in spite of the obligation to
cooperate. The legal position was clarified by the 1995 U.N. Convention on Straddling
Stocks, but many practical problems remain.
Conclusion
There is already a considerable degree of transboundary collaboration, and there are strong
incentives for this to develop further in future, especially the growing competition for more
resources. There is no standard model for any of the categories of cooperation examined.
This is an encouraging feature of transboundary cooperation, suggesting an element of
flexibility and ingenuity which should facilitate future arrangements. Two ingredients seem to
be essential if cooperative ventures are to be successful; a powerful incentive to cooperate,
and careful groundwork to ensure that the right place and the best arrangements have been
chosen. In this context the characteristics of the boundary in question deserve careful
investigation. The role of a third party such as the U.N. in helping to initiate cooperation is
clearly very helpful, but may not always be necessary.
References
(1) United Nations (1983) The Law of the Sea, London: Croom Helm (published in cooperation
with the United Nations).

(2) Adler, R. (1995) Positioning and Mapping International Land Boundaries, Boundary and
Territory Briefing, Volume 2, Number 1, Durham: International Boundaries Research
Unit.
(3) Biger, G, (1995) (ed.) The Encyclopaedia of International Boundaries, New York: Facts on
File Inc.
(4) Blake, G.H. (1992) ‘Territorial Alternatives’, Boundary Bulletin, Number 3: Durham:
International Boundaries Research Unit, 9.12.
(5) Armstrong, P. and V. Forbes (1997) The Falkland Islands and Their Adjacent Maritime
Areas. Maritime Briefing Series Vol 2 No 3. International Boundaries Research Unit,
Durham.
(6) Swarbrick R.E. (1995) “Oil and gas reservoirs across ownership boundaries: the technical
basis for apportioning reserves” in G.H. Blake et al. (eds) The Peaceful Management
of Transboundary Resources. Graham and Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff 41-50.
(7a) British Institute of International and Comparative Law (1989) Joint Development of
Offshore Oil and Gas: A Model Agreement for States for Joint Development with
Explanatory Commentary, London: British Institute of International and Comparative
Law.
(7b) Fox, H. (1990) (ed.) Joint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas, Volume II, London,
British Institute of International and Comparative Law.
(8) D.A. Caponera (1995) “Shared waters in international law” in G.H. Blake et al. (eds) The
Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources. Graham and
Trotman/Martinus Nijhoff, 121-126.

PARKS AT THE EDGE: THE CASE OF UGANDA
By: Ronald G. Seale

Park Planning Advisor
Mt. Elgon Conservation and Development Project
IUCN, Mbale, Uganda
Frontier parks, the subject of this conference, are perhaps of greater relative importance in
Uganda than they are in any other country in the world. Of Uganda's ten national parks, no
less than seven lie along international frontiers. Even more remarkable, all seven of those
Uganda national parks are contiguous with protected areas on the other side of their
respective international frontiers. In a sense, therefore, the theme of this conference has
potentially more significance for Uganda than it has for any other country.
Before looking more closely at the case of Uganda, however, it first may be instructive to
consider two general factors. Around the world, it is not uncommon to find that national parks
and other protected areas lie on international frontiers. The two general factors that may be at
work here are as follows:
1: The "Culture Hearth" Factor
If national boundaries evolve "logically", and come to enclose over time, the territory occupied
by a "national group", it follows that the lands further removed from that core area or culture
hearth will tend to have been subjected over time to relatively less severe pressures on
resources than will the core area. If those peripheral areas have in fact experienced less
resource pressures, then it is also likely that the natural systems of those areas will have been
less disturbed. Relatively undisturbed lands are good candidates for protected area status.
2: The Mountain Factor:
The character of the terrain, not considered under Factor #1, is the major consideration in
Factor #2. In general , rugged mountain areas tend to be less intensively developed and less
densely populated than, for example, extensive lowland areas such as fertile alluvial plains.
These less populated and less developed mountain areas thus frequently become frontiers
between more densely populated lower lying lands.
Mountainous lands, however, also tend to be biologically rich, because within relatively small
areas, one often finds a great variety of habitats and ecological niches, that reflect the effects
of altitudinal range on life forms. Such ecologically varied areas are particularly desirable from
the point of view of conservation of natural values within protected areas.
Neither of the above two factors should be pushed too far, however. Geopolitics is far from an
exact science. Particular caution is required in applying such thinking on frontiers to the
African context. International frontiers on this continent are especially capricious, or one might
even say, "Caprivious". As is well known, the current position of African frontiers often reflects
more the vagaries of the 19th century imperial "scramble for Africa", than it does the evolution
over centuries of frontiers between long established socio-political entities.
These qualifiers notwithstanding, however, both of the factors outlined above appear to have
been at work in Uganda. Certainly with seven of Uganda's ten national parks located on the
international boundaries of its periphery, Factor #1 would seem to have some applicability to
the Uganda case.
With respect to Factor #2 concerning mountainous areas, the international boundaries of six of

the seven Uganda national parks on frontiers, are associated with very mountainous terrain.
The nationally and internationally significant ecological values of those six parks are directly
associated with mountainous terrain located either within the parks themselves or immediately
adjacent to them.
The obvious conclusion, then, is that in the case of Uganda, national parks on its international
frontiers are very significant in relation to that country's total national park system. That point
having been established, the more important question then is "What is the significance of
Uganda's frontier parks vis-a vis the themes that have been set out for this conference?"
Accordingly, I shall look at Uganda's frontier national parks with respect both to the current
situation and to the potential for future action. More specifically,
A) To what extent have Uganda's frontier parks figured in cooperative regional conservation
initiatives, and what can be anticipated in future with respect to such initiatives?
B) To what extent have Uganda's frontier parks contributed to the improvement of relations
with neighbouring states, during and after periods of conflict, and what can be anticipated in
future in this regard?
C) What potential transboundary cooperative initiatives should be highlighted in the Uganda

context, with a view to supporting achievement of objectives relating both to conservation
and to regional security and cooperation?
In responding to these questions, it is convenient to group into four clusters, Uganda's seven
frontier parks that border four different countries. The groups are defined partially, but not
completely, by the respective bordering countries.
A The Gorilla Parks
Bwindi Impenetrable National Park and Mgahinga Gorilla National Park adjoin respectively, the
Parc National des Virungas in the Congo and the Parc National des Volcans in Rwanda. The
four parks in these three countries are in fact all contiguous. Together these parks sustain the
entire known population of mountain gorillas.
At one time or another over the past 20 years, parks in all three countries have enjoyed
remarkable success as ecotourism destinations. These parks have provided high quality
visitor experiences for which visitors have been willing to pay very high prices and from which
the countries and specific communities concerned have reaped very considerable benefits.
Unfortunately, over the same period that gorilla tourism has blossomed, the region in which the
gorilla parks lie has experienced serious political and social instability, accompanied by human
tragedy on a scale scarcely parallelled anywhere else in the world during that time. Rwanda
today is attempting to rebuild in the aftermath of horrific genocidal conflict earlier in the 1990's.
Uganda has now enjoyed a decade of relative peace and security after enduring 15 years of
dictatorship, civil war, torture, murder, and mayhem from 1971 to 1986. The Congo's worst
period of civil war was experienced even earlier than Uganda's troubles. However, the past
decade in Congo has been characterized by general economic decline and relatively
ineffective political control from the centre, culminating in the recent struggle that brought down
the long established Mobutu regime.
The general levels of instability and strife in the three countries over the past generation have
naturally been reflected in the levels of tourism success enjoyed by their respective gorilla
parks. International tourism is known, after all, to respond quickly and massively to situation of
instability and insecurity.

The Congo was the first to demonstrate what could be achieved with perhaps the most
outstanding example in the world, of a strictly controlled ecotourism operation oriented to a
very small upscale market. Congo was succeeded by Rwanda as the leader in gorilla tourism.
Then when disaster overtook Rwanda in the early 1990's, the rapidly recovering Uganda was
in a position to assume a primary role in gorilla tourism offerings.
Given the severity of civil strife and the attendant levels of human suffering in this small region
of Africa in the past two decades, it is remarkable that the mountain gorilla population has not
suffered more than it has during this period. In contrast, the wildlife populations of Uganda's
best known savannah parks suffered catastrophic declines during the worst period of civil strife
in the 1970's and early 1980's. However, the mountain gorillas appear to have been relatively
little affected by the social and security crises swirling around them. Equally remarkably,
though the primary points of tourism contact have shifted over the years, the tourism volumes
within what is one rather small region have been maintained to a surprising degree.
That tourism levels within the three country region have held up, despite the strife and tragedy
experienced, would seem to evidence two points:
♦ The fundamental appeal of gorilla tourism for a small but significant niche market of
international tourists is unquestioned.
♦ The importance of tourism benefits relating to gorilla observation is widely recognized by

people and communities in the region. This in turn results in the protection of the gorillas
themselves and in the persistence of associated tourism activities under extremely trying
circumstances.
These points augur well for the future, and particularly for transboundary cooperation in the
management of protected areas in the three countries sharing the region that is home to the
mountain gorillas. There have been limited cooperative management initiatives to date, but
that limited level is nonetheless remarkable. There would seem to be a base upon which to
build, both at the national agency level, and at the district, community, and field operational
levels.
It is important that those involved in gorilla tourism in the three countries perceive themselves
to be jointly responsible for managing a rare, vulnerable, and valuable resource, rather than
that they perceive themselves to be in direct competition with each other. Given the levels of
bookings and the fact that would-be visitors are prepared to make travel commitments many
months in advance, it would seem that international demand for gorilla tourism products is
more than adequate to satisfy interests in all three countries, at the restricted levels that are
consistent with protection of the wildlife resource.
B: The Rwenzori/Virunga System:
Three Uganda parks are included in this system. They are Rwenzori National Park, Semuliki
National Park, and Queen Elizabeth National Park. All three border Parc National des
Virungas in the Congo, to the north of the area that is home to the mountain gorillas.
There is considerable potential benefit to be gained in these parks from cooperation at the
operational level of protected area management. The level of potential benefit is perhaps
greatest in the case of Semuliki National Park. The Semliki River is part of the upper drainage
of the Albert Nile. For part of its course, the Semliki River forms the boundary between
Semuliki National Park and Parc National des Virungas. There has been very little meaningful
contact to date between the respective park staffs on the ground. Effective resource

management would certainly benefit from such contact.
In the long term, there is considerable potential for provision of provision of ecotourism
opportunities that focus on the Semuliki River and on the biological wealth of the Congo/Itari
Forest. This forest permits the ranges of many species of flora and fauna that are typical of
West and Central Africa to extend into Uganda. For the present, however, visitor numbers to
the Semuliki/Virungas area remain at very low levels, in large part due to difficulties relating to
access, particularly on the Congo side.
Development of ecotourism potential in this region in the long term would seem to depend in
part upon the level of success achieved in future in grouping several destinations into
attractive packages. The appeal of such packages for international long-haul tourism can be
clearly seen in other regions of Africa, such as northern Tanzania and northwestern
Zimbabwe/northeastern Botswana. Thus whereas it would be very difficult to promote
Semuliki National Park on its own to international tourism markets, a package that included
Semuliki, Rwenzori, the Virungas, and other ecotourism destinations in that region would
potentially have very considerable appeal.
Here too there is an important place for Queen Elizabeth National Park. Linkages with the
Virungas for resource management purposes would seem to be less important than they are
for Semuliki for example. However, as a relatively high profile anchor for ecotourism packages
that include other destinations in Uganda, Congo, and Rwanda, Queen Elizabeth National
Park can potentially play a critical role. With its extensive areas of savannah, its populations
of large mammals, and its diverse scenic landscapes, Queen Elizabeth can provide an
outstanding regional complement, both for the gorilla parks to the south and for the
Rwenzori/Virungas/ Semuliki area to the north.
C Kidepo Valley:
Kidepo Valley National Park is in the extreme northeastern corner of Uganda, lying along the
Sudan border. In northern Uganda, and more particularly in northwestern Uganda, the
conditions of peace and security enjoyed in the rest of the country have yet to be achieved.
Relations between Uganda and Sudan are seriously strained. In the meantime, wildlife
populations in northern Uganda have declined greatly in the past 20 years, in large part
because of civil unrest.
The Kidepo region also remains relatively remote. In the foreseeable future, it seems unlikely
that the security issue in northern Uganda will be satisfactorily resolved. If, however, peace
and security could be achieved, there are significant potential benefits to be gained in Uganda
and Sudan with respect to cooperative initiatives relating to both conservation and tourism
development. Such cooperative initiatives could in fact be the basis around which a general
improvement in Uganda - Sudan relationships could be attained.
D Mount Elgon
Mount Elgon is a major massif lying on the border of east central Uganda and northwestern
Kenya. There are adjoining Mount Elgon National Parks in the two countries. In contrast to
the situation in the Kidepo region, the international climate along the Uganda - Kenya border
has markedly improved within the past three years. Relations between the two countries had
been frosty for almost 20 years, since the Amin era and the collapse of the East African
Community. The border station on the north side of Mount Elgon recently re-opened to permit
cross-border travel on the Kapchorwa - Kitale route for the first time in well over ten years.
The outlook for continuing improvement of Uganda - Kenya relations is fairly bright. This
improvement is taking place within the broader context of efforts to revive in some new form,

the former East African Community that included Tanzania as well as Uganda and Kenya.
The improved international climate bodes well for the two Mount Elgon National Parks. Illegal
border crossings in both directions, by cattle raiders and other smugglers, have long posed
problems for national park management on both sides of the border. Recent instances of
cooperation between law enforcement agencies in the two countries are likely to be followed
by meaningful and continuing contact between the two national park operations.
The prospects for mutually beneficial contacts between the two Mount Elgon National Parks
are also enhanced by major planning and development projects in progress on both sides of
the border. On the Uganda side, Mount Elgon has been the focus of an integrated
conservation and development initiative since 1987. Funding for this Mount Elgon
Conservation and Development Project is provided by the Government of Norway, with
IUCN/The World Conservation Union providing technical and administrative support.
Within the past few months, there have been efforts to initiate a somewhat similar integrated
conservation and development project on the Kenya side of Mount Elgon. The Government of
The Netherlands has expressed interest in supporting such a project, and it appears that IUCN
would again provide technical and administrative support. If the proposed Kenya project does
indeed go ahead, particularly with the involvement of IUCN as a common player in two
somewhat similar projects, we would have here an excellent opportunity for cooperation
between adjacent protected areas on the Kenya - Uganda border. There is potential for fruitful
cooperative efforts in planning, development, and operations that would benefit visitors,
tourism interests, park managers, and the respective resources themselves.
Such cooperation between park agencies would thus be reflected both in strengthened
resource management and in enhanced tourism benefits. Eastern Uganda and northwestern
Kenya have benefitted relatively little from tourism activity to date. Kenya's primary ecotourism
destinations are Masai Mara, Nakuru/Naivasha, and the Mount Kenya/Aberdares area.
Uganda's primary tourism destinations meanwhile are in the western part of the country, in
particular Queen Elizabeth National Park and the gorilla parks of Bwindi and Mgahinga.
Transboundary cooperation centring on Mount Elgon could be the basis for establishment of a
new ecotourism circuit in a region that has thus far attracted few international tourists.
Together with the two Mount Elgon National Parks, that new circuit could take in such
complementary attractions as the Kakamega Forest, Saiwa Swamp National Park, and the
Cherangani Hills on the Kenya side, together with the Pian - Upe Game Reserve north of
Mount Elgon on the Uganda side.
Such a circuit would include extremely diverse landscapes and ecosystems, together with
outstanding opportunities for wildlife viewing, mountain trekking, and forest and swamp walks.
Moreover, the entire circuit would be within an area that currently receives very few tourists,
relative to the large numbers now visiting destinations such as Masai Mara and the Aberdares
in Kenya or Queen Elizabeth and the gorilla parks in Uganda. In the long term, pending the
restoration of peace and stability in the area to the north, this Mount Elgon circuit could even
include Kidepo Valley National Park.
Summary and Conclusions
Two general factors are suggested in an attempt to account for the disproportionately large
number of national parks that lie along international frontiers. Both the culture hearth and the
mountain factor appear to apply to at least some degree in the case of Uganda.
The recent history of the mountain gorilla region that is shared by Uganda and two other
countries suggests that even in periods of severe civil strife and human tragedy, protected
areas and their wildlife populations can survive, if the benefits of the protected areas are clear

and significant for local populations. It would appear that in the mountain gorilla region, local
populations have come to regard the great apes as their gorillas, as a wildlife resource in
which local people take pride. In such a situation, it would seem that the national parks that
sustain the gorillas could well be the focal point of international cooperative initiatives. Those
initiatives could enable neighbouring countries to begin to rebuild shattered societies, to the
benefit both of the residents and of the wildlife populations of the parks in question.
In addition to parks in the mountain gorilla region, national parks in two other parts of Uganda
have the potential within the short to medium term, to be the bases of international cooperative
conservation initiatives. One of these areas includes Rwenzori and Semuliki National Parks,
while the other centres on Mount Elgon National Park in Uganda and the neighbouring Mount
Elgon National Park in Kenya. Each of these initiatives could serve to advance the cause of
conservation and the cause of improved regional security and cooperation. Thus national
parks in three different sectors of Uganda's international frontier would seem to provide good
examples of the important themes that this conference is intended to explore.

ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE DEAD SEA BASIN AND THEIR SUSTAINABLE USE:
PROBLEMS AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE COUNTRIES OF THE BASIN
By: Ayman Rabi
1. Background
Dead Sea basin is one part of the great rift valley extending from Africa in the south to Turkey
in the north. It is the lowest part on earth with elevation varies from -250 m (bsl) In the north to
-420 m (bsl) in the south at the vicinity of the Dead Sea. Structurally, the Basin can be
considered one of the most significant features in the world. The north – south developed
faulting system has created a sharp and high escarpments on both sides of a narrow valley
strip. The elevation of the mountain ridges in both sides of the valley goes up to 1500 m in the
east and 1000 m in the western ridges. Nonetheless, the narrow strip confined between the
mountain ridges has become the most fertile lands in the region as a result of the sediment
loads accumulated by the surface water flows. Today, the Basin forms good portion of the
food basket of Jordan, Israel and Palestine.
The Basin enjoys a Subtropical – Mediterranean weather conditions in the north (in the
mountains), where rainfall might reach 600 mm/year and almost Desert conditions in the south,
where rainfall is less than 50 mm/year. This unique nature of the basin has rendered it as one
of the most, environmentally, significant areas, especially for north - south bird migration, in the
world.
Growing demand on the basins very limited natural resources, by various riparian countries,
has potentially made it one of the most politically fragile areas in the world.
2. Natural Resources
2.1 Water Resources
Jordan River system including Lake Tiberias are the major water sources of the basin. Other
side valleys, springs and seepage from groundwater aquifers are also important contributors to
the overall water balance of the basin. The estimated total surface water available at the Basin
is 1,330 Mcm/year. Of which 125 Mcm reaches the Dead Sea and the rest is being used by
some of the riparian countries upstream as will be explained later.
2.2 Flora and Fauna
One of the significance of the basin is it brings together both south and north diversities.
There are some European plants found in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, the most southerly
place in the world where they are found. Many African plants are also found the most northerly
place in the world where they are found. In addition, there are a number of fauna species
such as Leopard, Ibex, Gazelle, Egyptian Vulture and other endemic fish species in the
surrounding streams.
More important, the basin is one of the important bird migration paths. Bird-life International
has identified Mujib basin in the east, as an important wet land area, for bird migration.
2.3 Medicinal Value
Dead Sea waters are very rich with mineral content. Salt concentration in the Dead Sea waters
is nearly ten times more than the water of the oceans. The black mud of the Dead Sea is being

extracted and manufactured in the form of various treatment and care products. Moreover, the
Sulphate content of the mud and water of the Sea attracting many people from all over the
world, particularly from Europe, to visit the Dead Sea for treatment of some skin problems.
3. Cultural Heritage
The basin is rich in its cultural and historic heritage. It is the place where the oldest written
evidence of the Bible were found (Qumran). It had been the refuge for many ancient
civilizations who enjoyed the silence and bareness of desert environment. King Herod had
built his palace at the heart of this silence. Jericho, one of the most oldest cities in the world,
was continuously settled is located in the northern shores of the sea.
4. Threats and Consequences
4.1 The Shrinking Sea
Over exploitation of water from the upper Jordan River system has reduced substantially the
inflow to the Dead Sea. Figure 1, illustrates the quantities of the water abstracted by each
country upstream.
Figure 1: Upstream Water Use Per Country

(Mcm/Year) Israel
Jordan
210 20
S y ria
620 Lebanon
270
This water abstraction have caused a serious reduction in the water quantities which,
historically, used to flow to the Lower Jordan River and to the Dead Sea. Thus, The water the
Dead Sea level has continuously dropped in the same ratio of this reduction. Figure 2,
illustrates the decline of the flow of the Lower Jordan.
F ig u r e 2 : J o r d a n R iv e r F lo w B e tw e e n 1 9 0 0 a n d
1 9 8 5 (B illio n C u b i c M e ter P e r Y e a r )
1.4
1.2
Flow (Bcm/year)
1
0.8
Series1
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
Year

It can be easily noticed that in the late fifties there has been a major change in the rivers
hydrograph. This change is being referred to the major diversion works which took place
during that time upstream.
In addition to that evaporation ponds created for industrial extraction of potash, phosphorous
and other minerals such as bromide have been contributing substantially to the loss of this
very unique resources. It has been reported that in 1995, almost 200 mcm of the Dead Sea
water (brine) was pumped by the Arab Potash company, Harza (1996).
4.2 Proposed Development
As a result of peace treaties signed between Jordanians-Israelis and Palestinian-Israelis, a

number of proposed projects have come out, by each entity, to develop their part of the basin.
The following are some examples:
1. Tourism: Some 50.000 new hotel rooms are being proposed to be built around the Dead
Sea shores. Yet, no consideration were given to the carrying capacity of this highly sensitive
ecosystem and no regional master plan exists to define this issue. (Figure 4).
2. Industry: More mineral extraction will continue over the coming decade. Under the Montreal
Protocol, of which both Jordan and Israel are signatories, Israel will have to phase out bromine
production by 2000 AD. However, Jordan was classified as a developing country, they are
allowed until 2010 AD. As a result a joint venture between the two operating industries is being
formed in order to continue producing the Bromine in the Jordanian side. This would simply
mean that more pressure on the available water quantities will be placed. Moreover, the
product (Bromine) is one of the substances contributing to the depletion of the ozone layer.
Figure 4, shows the existing evaporation ponds for both industries.
3. Transportation: An international highway is being proposed to run from the Gulf of Aqaba
in the south and continue up to Lebanon in the North. This highway is proposed to run parallel
to the sea shores which means that it will destroy the cliffs and will jeopardize the narrow path
which indigenous species are using to travel in the basin.
4. Water Schemes: New diversion canals and dams are being proposed which will place
more pressure on the quantities reaching the sea. Hence, will further interrupt the water
balance and will faster the shrinkage of the Dead Sea.
Concluding Remarks,
Dead Sea the lowest part on earth;
Should it be the lowest part for peace on earth?

Should it be protected and declared as a world heritage site?
Up to us environmentalists to cooperate together and lobby hardly to insure the sustainability

of this unique source and other sources in the globe.
It is also up to the governments of the region, who already started peace and doing some
progress to implement peace. However, they need much more cooperative efforts to maintain
peace and to insure the preservation of the natural and cultural assets for future generation.
Moreover, Parks for Peace indicates that there is a lot more potential to further the peace
among people. One of the significant potentials is the military and security Zones which are

already preserved along the borders between various countries. They can be converted into a
preserved natural areas where both people of the two countries can enjoy its beauty and meet
together to further peace and to build confidence.

TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN EUROPE: PROGRESS AND POSSIBILITIES IN
SOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS
By: Dipl.-Ing. Robert Brunner
General:
The ”Parks for Life – Action plan for Europe”, published by FNNPE and IUCN in 1994,
mentions 29 priority projects designed to fill the gaps and enhance the prospects for protected
areas in Europe.
The Austrian Federal Ministry of the Environment, Youth, and Family Affairs has approved a
financial support for a basic project on ”Transboundary Protected Areas – problems, future
aspects, and international criterias. Since ”Parks for Life” is a programmatic document of IUCN
and FNNPE, both institutions have been involved in the preparation of the research.
Since different studies on this subject have been worked out in the last 10 years, which
provide a wide range of ideas in transboundary protected area cooperation and
recommendations, this study should concentrate on following subjects: harmonizing of recent
protected areas masterplans in neighbouring countries definition of potential transboundary
protected areas modelling different types of cooperation contributions to a better cooperation
in the most valuable cultural and natural European landscapes.
TEMPORARY STATUS
Remarks
The work on the study is still in progress. The following report can only show the concepts and
the first results.
Data collection
The description of transboundary protected areas should contain all categories of protected
areas, including important large-scale cultural landscapes (this was the demand of FNNPE).
The data collection was done on different levels:
♦ excerpts of literature
♦ personal contacts
♦ written information, provided by administrations, ministries, WCPA-members, NGOs.
The data collection is not completed until now. There is a lack in the information from western
and southern European countries.
Problems occur in the valuation of proposed transboundary protected areas. The information
available about intensity and type of future cooperation is rather poor.
Literature
The second step was an interpretation of the literature and studies. A list of studies and
publications is included in the appendix. It is mainly about nature protected areas, first of all
National Parks. Information about transboundary cultural landscapes was very poor.

Working group
A working group has been installed to accompany the research. The members of this working
group are:
Ms. Marija Zupancic-Vicar, Slovenia, in behalf of WCPA (IUCN)
Ms. Marie-Odile Guth, Director of Parc National Le Mercantour, France, in behalf of the
Federation of Nature and National Parks in Europe (FNNPE)
Mr. Jan Cerovsky, Czech Republic, in behalf of IUCN
Collection of addresses
For further analyses of protected areas an address file was designed. This might be important
for further steps. It is rather difficult to find contacts for transboundary projects.
Questionnaire
To comprehend the experiences of the administrations in transboundary protected areas a

questionnaire has been worked out (see annex) and sent to more than 130 administration
offices. This questionnaire was evaluated with regard to experiences, advantages, suggestions
for the improvement and problems in transboundary protected areas.
It is the basis for the definition of future criterias for the designation and evaluation of
Case studies
A limited number of transboundary areas was selected for detailed case studies. This will also
help to evaluate the results of the interpretation of the questionnaires.
THEORY…
Transboundary cooperation in protected areas occurs in different fields and on different levels.
In the moment, legally sanctioned or written agreements are rather exceptions, while good
personal contacts play an important role. On the other hand there are no official common
international standards in transboundary cooperation.
There are different recommendations in other fields of international tasks in nature protection,
like IUCN-guidelines for protected areas management categories. To improve the international
cooperation, to define common goals, and to support the better understanding of neighbouring
protected areas a official document might be helpful to define a common standard of
international cooperation in protected areas
♦ to assimilate the protected areas system on both sides of the border

♦ to improve the management system
♦ to establish an exchange program of the personal
♦ to assist regular meetings of the area administrations on an official level

…AND REALITY
More than 80 transboundary cooperations or proposed cooperation exist in Europe. About 60

are bilateral, 20 are tri- or multi-lateral (at least more than 180 single protected areas are
involved). Some of them arise in the area of the former Iron Curtain in the mid of Europe.
Nevertheless there is still a lack of information from Bulgaria, Greece, Italy, and Croatia and
from states of the former USSR.
Administration
Due to the differences in nature protection competence and administrative systems, despite
the sovereignty of each country, there is no chance to install common administrations.
Nevertheless, administrative bodies might be created, which allow partners from the
neighbouring administration to participate in decisions in common tasks on a very high and
official level.
Protected area systems
The fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 changed the conditions for transboundary cooperations
quite well. But recent social-economic development also endangers some last refuges of
threatened species. Only common attempts to protect large areas or corridors might lead to a
sufficient result in nature protection. A system of core zones, transition zones and special
reserves might reduce the impacts on the local population and local economy and might lead
to a easier acceptance of a protected area system.
The Spanish-French Pyreneen mountains are a good example. The well known National Parks
Les Pyrenees and Ordesa – Monte Perdido represent just a small part of the whole system of
protected areas, which exists on both sides of the border. Nature parks, hunting reserves,
riverine areas and transition zones complete the protection of this sensitive and various
ecosystems.
Although the maps of Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Poland show a dense system of
protected areas along their borders.
Management in protected areas
But wide varieties of protected areas are just one thing. The other one is the accordance of the
management or master plans. There might be a majority for the designation of protected areas
of the same level on both sides of the border (park to park, nature reserve to nature reserve
and so on). I would suggest to attach more importance to the accordance of the management
of the areas. Core zones should meet core zones, strict reserves should meet strict reserves.
The subjects and the level of protection in this different zones have to coincide on both sides
and are more important than the name of the area.
Language problems
The wide variety of languages in Europe rises to an other important problem. Involving local
people in the daily work of protecting the nature might be difficult but necessary. Some park
administrations pointed out, that people hardly speak of ”their park”. As long it is the park of
the others, there is still some work to do.
On the FNNPE conference in Bled (SLO) 1995 I suggested, that information about nature
protection in border areas should always be presented in the language of the neighbouring
country and/or in one of the important languages too. This is still not the rule.

But not only written information gives a chance for better understanding. Exchange of
personal, language training courses and transborder guided tours might be other good ideas.
FINAL REPORT
The final report, which will be finished by the end of October contains interpretation of
literature available:
♦ list of protected areas in Europe

♦ results of the interrogation of transboundary protected areas administrations
♦ about five case studies
♦ criterias for transboundary protected areas
-. suggestions for the improvement of cooperation
-. recommendations for the designation of transboundary protected areas in close
cooperation with the established administration or the representatives of projects
LITERATURE
ANDRIENKO T.L. and STETSENKO M.P.(1996), Transboundary Protected Areas in Ukraine.

In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha
BIBELRIETHER H. und R. SCHREIBER Hg. (1990), Die Nationalparke in Europa. Frankfurt
BOARD OF POLISH NATIONAL PARKS (1996), National Parks in Poland. Warszawa-

Bialwieza
BUNDESMINISTERIUM FÜR UMWELT, JUGEND UND FAMILIE (1997), Naturschutz

[inter]national. Internationale Naturschutzprojekte in Österreich. Wien
BURELL TH. (1988), Transfrontier Parks in Europe. Vortrag anläßlich der Europarc-Tagung
1988
CEROVSKI J. (1996), Parks for Life Priority Project 22 ‘Support to Transfontier Areas‘. In:
Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha
CEROVSKY J. Ed. (1996), Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha
CHRANENA UZEMI PRIRODY CESKE REPUBLIKY (o.J.), 1:500.000
CHRANENE UZEMIA PRIRODY SLOVENSKEJ REPUBLIKY (1996), Mapa v miereke

1:500.000. Bratislava
CNPPA (1990), Promoting Effective Management of Transfrontier Parks and Reserves:

Guidelines. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfontier Conservation. Gland
and Cambridge
DANISH NATIONAL FOREST AND NATURE AGENCY (o.J.), The Danish Contributiion to a
Trilateral Danish, German and Dutch Management Plan for the Wadden Sea Area,
Copenhagen
DEUTSCHE NATIONALPARKE (1991), In: Nationalpark – Sonderausgabe, Nr. 71, 2/91.

Grafenau

DEUTSCHE NATURPARKE (1992), In: Nationalpark – Sonderausgabe, Nr. 76, 3/92. Grafenau
DIREKTION DES NATIONALPARKES FERTÖ HANSAG (o.J.), Landschaftsschutzgebiet

Köszeg. Sarrod
ECOPOINT (1995), Trandboundary Biodiversity Conservation. Selected Case Studies from

Central Europe. Prahe 1995
EKOLOGIA BRATISLAVA (1992), National Parks and Protected Landscape Areas of Slovakia.
Bratislava
EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Aggtelek National Park
Directorate. Budapest
EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Bükk National Park
Directorate. Budapest
EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Körös-Maros Nature

Conservation Directorate. Budapest
EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Middle-Trans-danubian

Nature Conservation Directorate. Budapest
EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Nationalpark-direktion

Hortobagy. Budapest
EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (1996), Nationalpark-direktion

Kiskunsag. Budapest
EUROPEAN CENTER FOR NATURE CONSERVATION, Hg. (1996), Nationalpark-direktion

Donau-Drau. Budapest
FERTÖ HANSAG NEMZETI PARK (o.J.), Nationalpark Fertö-Hansag. Sarrod
FLOUSEK J. (1996), Cooperation in Biodiversity Conservation in the Czech and Polish

Krkonose National Parks and Biosphere Reserve. In: Transborder Protected Area
Cooperation. Canberra
HAMILTON L. and J. THORSELL (1996), Mountains Transborder Parks in Europe. In:

HAMILTON L. et al. (1996), Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. Canberra
HENTSCHEL W. and J. STEIN (1996), Experience from the Bohemian-Saxonian Switzerland.

HUNGARIAN NATIONAL AUTHORITY FOR NATURE CONSERVATION Hg. (o.J.), Nature

Conservation Management of Grasslands in Hungary. Budapest
POORE D. (Ed.) (1992), Guidelines for Mountain Protected Areas. (= IUCN Protected Areas
Programme Series No. 2. Gland and Cambridge

KASHEVAROV B. (1996), Comparative Analysis of Biodiversity in the Finnish_Russian
Friendship Nature Reserve. In: Transboundary Protected Areas in Europe. Praha
KREMSER H. (1996), Hohe Tauern National Park. In: Transborder Protected Area
KULESHOVA L.V., ZABELINA N.M. and ISAEVA-PETROVA L.S. (1996), Transboundary

Protected Areas in Russia: The Present Situation and Prospects of Development. In:
LE MERCANTOUR PARC NATIONAL (o.J.), Aims of Research in a Transboundary

Cooparation: Mercantour (France) – Alpi Marittime (Italy). Nice
LE MERCANTOUR PARC NATIONAL (o.J.), Document de travail. Charte entre le “Parc

national du Mercantour” et le “Parco naturale delle Alpi Maritime”. Nice
McNEELY, J. HARRISON ana P. DINGWALL (Ed.) (1994), Prtecting Nature. Regional Reviews
of Protected Areas. Gland and Cambridge
McMEIL R. (1990), International Parks for Peace. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience in
Transfontier Conservation. Gland and Cambridge
MIHALIC D. and M. SYROTEUK (1996), Waterton Glacier International Peace Park. In:
Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. Canberra
MILOSEVIC J. (1996), Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas in Serbia.

MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT OF THE CZECH REPUBLIK (1991), Frontier Parks in

Czechoslovakia. Praha
MINISTRY OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIK (1995), Nature Protection

in Slovakia. Bratislava
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIK (1994), Act No. 287/1994 on Nature and
Landscape Protection. Bratislava
NATIONALPARKKOMMISSION DER IUCN (1994), Parke für das Leben: Aktionsplan für
Schutzgebiete in Europa. Gland und Cambridge
ÖKOLOGISCHE BAUSTEINE (1990), In: Politische Ökologie, Sonderheft 2. München
OKOLOW C. (1994), Bialowieza National Park and Biosphere Reserve. In: Biodiversity
Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas. Bieszczady-Tatry
OKOLOW C. (1995), Bialowieza National Park. In: Parki Narodowe i Rezerwaty Przyrody. Tom
14, Nr. 1
ÖSTERREICHISCHE RAUMORDNUNGSKONFERENZ Hg. (1988), Naturschutzrechtliche
Festlegungen in Österreich. Wien
POLSKA AGENCJA PROMOCJI TURYSTYKI (1994), Nationalparks in Polen.
ROSSI P. (1990), Rapport sur la Collaboration entre Parc Naturel de L´Argentera at Parc
National du Mercantour. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfontier
Conservation. Gland and Cambridge

ROSSI P. (1996), Argentera Nature Park: scientifif Research, Management and Transfrontier
Cooperation. In: Parks, Vol 6 No 1, Newbury
ROSSI P. (1996), Maritime Alps/Mercantour Parks. In: Transborder Protected Area

THARKOV S. (1996), The Finnish-Russian Friendship Zapovednik: Legislative Basis. In:

THORSELL J.W. Ed. (1990), Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfontier Conservation
(= IUCN Protected Area Programme Series No. 1). Gland and Cambridge
THORSELL J.W. and J. HARRISON (1990), Parks that Promote Peace: A Global Inventory of
Transfrontier Nature Reserves. In: Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfontier
Conservation. Gland and Cambridge
VEREIN NATURPARK SÜDEIFEL (o.J.), Naturparke und ihr Potential für die Entwicklung des
ländlichen Raumes am Beispiel des Naturparks Südeifel und Deutsch-Luxemburgischen
Naturparks.

TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN EUROPE: PROGRESS AND POSSIBILITIES IN
SOLVING ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS AND SOCIAL CONFLICTS
The ”Parks for Life – Action plan for Europe”, published by FNNPE and IUCN in 1994 mentions
29 priority projects designed to fill the gaps and enhance the prospects for protected areas in
Europe.
More than 80 transboundary cooperations or proposed cooperation exist in Europe. Some of

them arise in the area of the former Iron Curtain in the mid of Europe.
Transboundary cooperation in protected areas occurs in different fields and on different levels.
In the moment, legally sanctioned or written agreements are rather exceptions, while good
personal contacts play an important role. On the other hand there are no common international
standards in transboundary cooperation.
The Austrian ministry for the Environment supports a study on ”Transboundary Protected
Areas – Problems, future aspects, and international criterias”.
The main goals of the reserach on transboundary cooperation in Europe are:
♦ The presentation of the value of transborder protected cooperation for the European
landscapes.
♦ The development of cooperation models on the basis of existing neighbouring or

♦ The extension of guidelines for transboundary cooperation.
♦ To outline criterias for the development of transboundary protected areas.
♦ The fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 changed the conditions for transboundary cooperations
quite well. But social-economic development also endangers some last refuges of
threatened species. Only common attempts to protect large areas or corridors might lead to
a sufficient result in nature protection.
♦ The wide variety of languages in Europe rises to an important problem. Involving local
people in the daily work of protecting the nature might be difficult but necessary. Some
park administrations pointed out, that people hardly speak of ”their park”. As long it is the
park of the others, there is still some work to do.

No. Name Country Counterpart I Country I Counterpart II Country II
AL 01 National Park Prespa Lake Albania National Park Prespa Lake Greece National Parks Galichica - Republic of
Lake Ohrid, Pelister Macedonia
AL 02 National Park Thethi Albania Proposed National Park Yugoslavia
Prokletije Mountains (Montenegro)
AL 03 Nature Reserve Skhoder Lake Albania National Park Skadar Lake Yugoslavia
(Montenegro)
A 01 International Ramsar- Austria International Ramsar Czech International Ramsar Slovakia
Management March-Thaya- Management Morava-Dyje Republik Management Morava-Dyje
Region
A 02 National Park Neusiedler See- Austria National Park Fertö to Hungary
Seewinkel
A 03 Nature Park Geschriebenstein Austria Nature Park Irottkö Hungary
A 04 Proposed Nature Protected Area Austria Proposed Nature Protected Italy Proposed Nature Slovenia
(INTERREG II Programm) - Area South Eastern Protected Area South
Schutzgebiet Südöstliche Limestone Alps (INTERREG Eastern Limestone Alps
Kalkalpen II) (INTERREG II)
A 05 Proposed Protected Area Austria Proposed Protected Area Czech Proposed Protected Area Germany
(Biosphere Reserve) Bayerischer (Biosphere Reserve) Region Republik (Biosphere Reserve)
Wald, Böhmerwald, Sumava narodniho parku Bavarsky les, Dreiländerregion
Böhmerwald, Sumava Böhmerwald
A 06 Proposed Protected Area Austria Protected Area Lebensraum Germany
Lebensraum Salzach Auen Salzach Auen
A 07 Proposed Strict Nature Reserve Austria Protected Area Trebonsko Czech
Lainsitzniederung Republik
A 08 Proposed Trilateral Nature Park Austria Proposed Trilateral Nature Hungary Proposed Trilateral Nature Slovenia
Raab-Örseg-Goricko Park Raab-Örseg-Goricko Park Raab-Örseg-Goricko


A 09 Protected Landscape Area Austria Protected Landscape Area Slovakia Protected Area Zahorie Slovakia
Donau-March Male Karpaty
A 10 Protected Landscape Area Mur Austria Proposed Protected Area Croatia Proposed Protected Area Hungary,
(proposed Biosphere Reserve) Mura-Drava Mura-Drava Slovenia
A 11 Strict Nature Reserve (Proposed Austria National Park Berchtesgaden Germany
National Park) Kalkhochalpen
A 12 Strict Nature Reserve (Proposed Austria National Park Podyji Czech
National Park) Thayatal Republik
A 13 Strict Nature Reserve Unterer Inn Austria Strict Nature Reserve Unterer Germany
Inn
BR 01 National Park Belovezhskaya Belarus National Park Bialowieza Poland
Pushcha
BR 02 National Park Pripiatsky Belarus Nature Reserve Polessky Ukraine
BR 03 Protected Managed Area Belarus National Park Polesie Poland National Park Shatsk Ukraine
Vygonoschanske
B 01 Nature Park Belgium- Belgium Nature Park Belgium- Netherlands
Netherlands Netherlands De Zoom-
Kalmthout
B 02 Nature Park Hautes Fagnes - Belgium Nature Park Hautes Fagnes - Germany
Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany
B 03 Nature Park Plaines de l'Escaut Belgium Nature Park Scarpe-Escaut France
B 04 Nature Park Vallee de l'Attert - Belgium Nature Park Haute Sure - Luxemburg
Haute Sure Vallee de l' Attert
BiH 01 National Park Sutjeska Bosnia - National Park Durmitor Yugoslavia National Park Tara Yugoslavia
Hercegovina (Montenegro) (Montenegro)
HR 01 National Park Kopacki rit Croatia Proposed Mura-Drava Croatia National Park Duna-Drava Hungary
Protected Area (Proposed
Biosphere Reserve)
HR 02 National Park Risnjak Croatia Proposed Regional Nature Slovenia Proposed Nature Park Slovenia
Park Nostranjski Koveski
HR 03 Proposed Protected Area Croatia Protected Landscape Area Austria Proposed Protected Area Hungary,
(Biosphere Reserve) Mura-Drava Mur (proposed Biosphere Mura-Drava Slovenia
Reserve)
HR 04 Proposed Protected Area Mura- Croatia National Park Kopacki rit Croatia National Park Duna-Drava Hungary
Drava (Proposed Biosphere
Reserve)
CZ 01 International Ramsar Czech International Ramsar- Austria International Ramsar Slovakia
Management Morava-Dyje Republik Management March-Thaya- Management Morava-Dyje
Region
CZ 02 National Park Krkonose Czech Protected Landscape Area Czech National Park Karkonosze Poland
Republik Iser Mountains Republik
CZ 03 National Park Podyji Czech Strict Nature Reserve Austria
Republik (Proposed National Park)
Thayatal
CZ 04 National Park Sumava, Protected Czech National Park Bayerischer Germany
Landscape Sumava Republik Wald, Nature Park
Bayerischer Wald
CZ 05 Proposed Protected Area Czech Proposed Protected Area Austria Proposed Protected Area Germany
(Biosphere Reserve) Region Republik (Biosphere Reserve) (Biosphere Reserve)
narodniho parku Bavarsky les, Bayerischer Wald, Dreiländerregion
Böhmerwald, Sumava Böhmerwald, Sumava Böhmerwald
CZ 06 Protected Landscape Area Czech Landscape Park Zywiecki Poland Protected Landscape Slovakia
Beskidy Republik Area Kysuce
CZ 07 Protected Landscape Area Bile Czech Protected Landscape Area Slovakia
Karpaty Republik Biele Karpaty

CZ 08 Protected Landscape Area Czech Protected Landscape Area Czech National Park Gory Poland
Broumovsko Republik Orlicke Hory Republik Stolowe
CZ 09 Protected Landscape Area Iser Czech National Park Krkonose Czech National Park Karkonosze Poland
Mountains Republik Republik
CZ 10 Protected Landscape Area Czech Protected Landscape Area Czech National Park Gory Poland
Orlicke Hory Republik Broumovsko Republik Stolowe
CZ 11 Protected Landscape Area Czech Proposed Strict Nature Austria
Trebonsko Republik Reserve Lainsitzniederung
CZ 12 Protected Landscape Labske Czech National Park Sächsische Germany
piskovce Republik Schweiz
CZ 13 Protected Landscape Luzicke Czech Proposed Protected Germany
Hory (Lausitanian Mountains) Republik Landscape Area Zittauer
Gebirge
DK 01 Trilateral Protected Area Denmark Trilateral Protected Area Germany Trilateral Protected Area Netherlands
Wadden Sea Wadden Sea Wadden Sea
EE 01 Proposed Strict Nature Reserve Estonia Nature Reserve Northern Latvia
Wetland Area Nigula Complex Vidzeme
SF 01 National Park Itäinen Finland Strict Nature Reserve Finnish Russian
Suomenlathi Gulf Federation
SF 02 National Park Lemmenjoki, Finland National Park Ovre Anarjokka Norway
Pyörisjarvi, Pulju and
Hammastunturi Wilderness Area
SF 03 National Park Oulanka, Strict Finland National Park Paanajärvi, Russian
Nature Reserve Sukerijärvi Proposed Sieppiuntury Federation
Uplands Regional Park
SF 04 National Park Urho Kekkonen Finland Strict Nature Reserve Russian
Laplandskiy Federation
SF 05 Nature Reserve Malla Finland Proposed National Park Norway Proposed Protected Area Sweden
Treriksroysa Palsta
SF 06 Nature Reserves Elimussalo, Finland Strict Nature Reserve Russian
Lentua, Iso-Palonen and Kostumuksha Federation
Maariansarkat, Juortanansalo-
Lapinsue Mire Reserve,
Ulvinsalo Strict Nature Reserve
SF 07 Wilderness Area Käsivarsi Finland National Park Reisa , Norway
Protected Landscape Area
Raisdoutterhaldi, Proposed
National Park Guoatteloubbal
SF 08 Wilderness Area Vätsäri Finland National Park Pasvik, Nature Norway Nature Reserve Pasvik Russian
Reserve Pasvik Zapovednik Federation
F 01 National Park Le Mercantour France Nature Park Alpi Marittime Italy
F 02 National Park Les Pyrenees France National Park Ordesa/Monte Spain
Perdido
F 03 National Park Vanoise France National Park Gran Paradiso Italy
F 04 Nature Park Plaine Scarpe et de France Nature Park Plaines de Belgium
l'Escaut l'Escaut
F 05 Nature Park Vosges du Nord France Nature Park Pfälzerwald Germany
F 06 Proposed National Park Bouches France Proposed National Park d'ell Italy
de Bonifacio Archipelago della Maddalena
F 07 Proposed National Park Mont France Proposed National Park Mont Italy Proposed National Park Switzerland
Blanc Blanc Mont Blanc
D 01 National Park Bayerischer Wald, Germany National Park Sumava, Czech
Nature Park Bayerischer Wald Protected Landscape Sumava Republik
D 02 National Park Berchtesgaden Germany Strict Nature Reserve Austria
(Proposed National Park)
Kalkhochalpen

D 03 National Park Odertal Germany Landscape Park Dolina Poland

Dolney Odry
D 04 National Park Sächsische Germany Protected Landscape Labske Czech
Schweiz piskovce Republik
D 05 Nature Park German-Netherland Germany Nature Park German- Netherlands
Maas-Schwalm-Mette Netherland Maas-Schwalm-
Mette
D 06 Nature Park Hautes Fagnes - Germany Nature Park Hautes Fagnes - Belgium
Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany Venn - Eifel Belgium-Germany
D 07 Nature Park Luxemburg- Germany Nature Park Luxemburg- Luxemburg
Germany (Nature Park Südeifel) Germany (Nature Park
Südeifel)
D 08 Nature Park Pfälzerwald Germany Nature Park Vosges du Nord France
D 09 Proposed Nature Park Usedom Germany National Park Wolinski Poland
D 10 Proposed Protected Area Germany Proposed Protected Area Austria Proposed Protected Area Czech
(Biosphere Reserve) Bayerischer (Biosphere Reserve) (Biosphere Reserve) Republik
Wald, Böhmerwald, Sumava Bayerischer Wald, Region narodniho parku
Böhmerwald, Sumava Bavarsky les,
Böhmerwald, Sumava
D 11 Proposed Protected Area Germany Protected Area Lebensraum Austria
Lebensraum Salzach Auen Salzach Auen
D 12 Proposed Protected Landscape Germany Protected Landscape Luzicke Czech
Area Zittauer Gebirge Hory Republik
D 13 Strict Nature Reserve Unterer Inn Germany Strict Nature Reserve Unterer Austria
Inn
D 14 Trilateral Protected Area Germany Trilateral Protected Area Denmark Trilateral Protected Area Netherlands
GR 01 Doya Lake Greece Dojran Ez. (Lake) Republic of
Macedonia
GR 02 National Park and Ramsar Site Greece National Park Prespa Lake Albania National Parks Galichica - Republic of
Prespa Lake Lake Ohrid, Pelister Macedonia
H 01 National Park Aggtelek Hungary Protected Landscape Area Slovakia
Slovensky kras (Proposed
National Park)
H 02 National Park Duna-Drava Hungary National Park Kopacki rit Croatia Proposed Mura-Drava Croatia
Protected Area (Proposed
Biosphere Reserve)
H 03 National Park Fertö to Hungary National Park Neusiedler See- Austria
Seewinkel
H 04 Nature Park Irottkö Hungary Nature Park Geschriebenstein Austria
H 05 Proposed protected area Körös- Hungary Proposed Protected Area Yugoslavia
er Körös er
H 06 Proposed Protected Area Mura- Hungary Protected Landscape Area Austria Proposed Protected Area Croatia,
Drava Mur (proposed Biosphere Mura-Drava Slovenia
Reserve)
H 07 Proposed Trilateral Nature Park Hungary Proposed Trilateral Nature Austria Proposed Trilateral Nature Slovenia
H 08 Protected Area Karancs-Madves Hungary Protected Area Cerova Slovakia
vrchovina
I 01 National Park Gran Paradiso Italy National Park Vanoise France
I 02 National Park Stelvio Italy National Park Swiss Switzerland
I 03 Nature Park Alpi Marittime Italy National Park Le Mercantour France
I 04 Proposed National Park d'ell Italy Proposed National Park France
Archipelago della Maddalena Bouches de Bonifacio
I 05 Proposed National Park Mont Italy Proposed National Park Mont France Proposed National Park Switzerland

I 06 Proposed Nature Protected Area Italy Proposed Nature Protected Austria Proposed Nature Slovenia
South Eastern Limestone Alps Area (INTERREG II Protected Area South
Programm) - Schutzgebiet Eastern Limestone Alps
Südöstliche Kalkalpen (INTERREG II)
I 07 Proposed Protected Landscape Italy Proposed Regional Park Slovenia
Karst Kraski
I 08 Regional Park Alpi Giulie Italy National Park Triglav Slovenia
LET 01 Nature Reserve Northern Latvia Proposed transborder Strict Estonia
Complex Vidzeme Nature Reserve Wetland Area
Nigula
LIT 01 Proposed National Park Kursiu Lithuania Proposed National Park Russian
nerija Kurshskaja kosa Federation
L 01 Nature Park Haute Sure - Vallee Luxemburg Nature Park Vallee de l' Attert Belgium
de l' Attert - Haute Sure
L 02 Nature Park Luxemburg- Luxemburg Nature Park Luxemburg- Germany
Germany (Nature Park Südeifel) Germany (Nature Park
Südeifel)
NL 01 Nature Park Belgium- Netherlands Nature Park Belgium- Belgium
Netherlands De Zoom-Kalmthout Netherlands
NL 02 Nature Park German-Netherland Netherlands Nature Park German- Germany
Maas-Schwalm-Mette Netherland Maas-Schwalm-
Mette
NL 03 Trilateral Protected Area Netherlands Trilateral Protected Area Denmark Trilateral Protected Area Germany
N 01 National Park Ovre Anarjokka Norway National Park Lemmenjoki, Finland
Pyörisjarvi, Pulju and
Hammastunturi Wilderness
Area
N 02 National Park Ovre Dividalen Norway Proposed Tavvavuoma Sweden
National Park
N 03 National Park Pasvik, Nature Norway Wilderness Area Vätsäri Finland Nature Reserve Pasvik Russian
Reserve Pasvik Zapovednik Federation
N 04 National Park Rago, Proposed Norway National Parks Sarek, Sweden
National Park Tysfjord Padjelante, Stora Sjöfallet;
Hellemobotn Nature Reserve Sjaunja
N 05 National Park Reisa , Protected Norway Wilderness Area Käsivarsi Finland
Landscape Area
Raisdoutterhaldi, Proposed
National Park Guoatteloubbal
N 06 National Parks Femundsmarka, Norway Nature Reserve Rogens, Sweden
Gutulia Nature Reserve Langfjallet
(Proposed National Park
Rogen-Langfjället)
N 07 Proposed National Park Norway National Parks Vadvetjakka, Sweden
Sjördalen-Isdalen Abisko, Proposed National
Park Kirunafjallen
N 08 Proposed National Park Norway Nature Reserve Malla Finland Proposed Protected Area Sweden
Treriksroysa Palsta
N 09 Protected Area Spitzbergen Norway Proposed Strict Nature Russian
Reserve Zemlja Fransa-Iosifa Federation
N 10 Strict Nature Reserve Norway National Park Tresticklan Sweden
Lundsneset
PL 01 Landscape Park Dolina Dolney Poland National Park Odertal Germany
Odry
PL 02 Landscape Park Zywiecki Poland Protected Landscape Area Czech Protected Landscape Slovakia
Beskidy Republik Area Kysuce
PL 03 National Park Babia Gora Poland Protected Landscape Area Slovakia
Horna Orava
PL 04 National Park Bialowieza Poland National Park Belovezhskaya Belarus
Pushcha

PL 05 National Park Gory Stolowe Poland Protected Landscape Area Czech Protected Landscape Czech
Broumovsko Republik Area Orlicke Hory Republik
PL 06 National Park Karkonosze Poland National Park Krkonose Czech Protected Landscape Czech
Republik Area Iser Mountains Republik
PL 07 National Park Pieniny Poland National Park Pieninsky Slovakia
PL 08 National Park Polesie Poland Protected Managed Area Belarus National Park Shatsk Ukraine
Vygonoschanske
PL 09 National Park Roztzczanski Poland Protected Landscape Area Ukraine
Roztochya
PL 10 National Park Tatrzansky Poland National Park Tatra (TANAP) Slovakia
PL 11 National Park Wolinski Poland Proposed Nature Park Germany
Usedom
PL 12 National Parks Bieszczady, Poland Protected Landscape Area Slovakia National Park Karpatsky Ukraine
Magura Vychodne Karpaty
P 01 National Park Peneda Geres Portugal Nature Park Baixa-Lima-Serra Spain
do Xeres
P 02 Nature Reserve (Reserva Portugal Nature Reserve (Reserva Portugal Natural Landscape Spain
Natural) da Ria Formosa Natural) da Sapal de Castro Marismos de Isla Christina
Marim e Vila Real de Sto.
Antonio
P 03 Nature Reserve (Reserva Portugal Nature Reserve (Reserva Portugal Natural Landscape Spain
Natural) da Sapal de Castro Natural) da Ria Formosa Marismos de Isla Christina
Marim e Vila Real de Sto.
Antonio
MA 01 Dojran Ez. (Lake) Republic of Doya Lake Greece
Macedonia
MA 02 National Parks Galichica - Lake Republic of National Park Prespa Lake Albania National Park Prespa Greece
Ohrid, Pelister Macedonia Lake
MA 03 National Park Mavrovo Republic of National Park Shara Yugoslavia
Macedonia Mountains (Montenegro)
MA 04 National Parks Pelister, Galichica Republic of National Park Prespa Lake Albania National Park Prespa Greece
- Lake Ohrid Macedonia Lake
RO 01 Biosphere Reserve Danube Romania Biosphere Reserve Danube Ukraine
Delta Delta
RO 02 Strict Nature Reserve Cazanele Romania National Park Derdap Yugoslavia
RUS 01 National Park Paanajärvi, Russian National Park Oulanka, Strict Finland
Proposed Sieppiuntury Uplands Federation Nature Reserve Sukerijärvi
Regional Park
RUS 02 Nature Reserve Pasvik Russian Wilderness Area Vätsäri Finland National Park Pasvik, Norway
Zapovednik Federation Nature Reserve Pasvik
RUS 03 Proposed National Park Russian Proposed National Park Lithuania
Kurshskaja kosa Federation Kursiu nerija
RUS 04 Proposed Protected Area Kerch Russian Proposed Protected Areas Ukraine
Peninsula Federation Taman Peninsula
RUS 05 Proposed Protected Areas Russian Proposed Regional Ukraine
Steppe (Belgorod - Kharkov - Federation Landscape Park (National
Region) Park) Pechenizke Pole
RUS 06 Proposed Strict Nature Reserve Russian Protected Area Spitzbergen Norway
Zemlja Fransa-Iosifa Federation
RUS 07 Strict Nature Reserve Russian Protected Area Ukraine
(Zapovednik) Bryanskiy les Federation Starogutovskiy and Stara
Huta
RUS 08 Strict Nature Reserve Finnish Russian National Park Itäinen Finland
Gulf Federation Suomenlathi
RUS 09 Strict Nature Reserve Russian Nature Reserves Elimussalo, Finland
Kostumuksha Federation Lentua, Iso-Palonen and
Maariansarkat, Juortanansalo-
Lapinsue Mire Reserve,
Ulvinsalo Strict Nature
Reserve

RUS 10 Strict Nature Reserve Russian National Park Urho Kekkonen Finland
Laplandskiy Federation
SK 01 International Ramsar Slovakia International Ramsar- Austria International Ramsar Czech
Management Morava-Dyje Management March-Thaya- Management Morava-Dyje Republik
Region
SK 02 National Park Pieninsky Slovakia National Park Pieniny Poland
SK 03 National Park Tatra (TANAP) Slovakia National Park Tatrzansky Poland
SK 04 Protected Area Cerova vrchovina Slovakia Protected Area Karancs- Hungary
Madves
SK 05 Protected Area Zahorie Slovakia Protected Landscape Area Austria Protected Landscape Slovakia
Donau-March Area Male Karpaty
SK 06 Protected Landscape Area Biele Slovakia Protected Landscape Area Czech
Karpaty Bile Karpaty Republik
SK 07 Protected Landscape Area Slovakia National Park Babia Gora Poland
Horna Orava
SK 08 Protected Landscape Area Slovakia Protected Landscape Area Czech Landscape Park Zywiecki Poland
Kysuce Beskidy Republik
SK 09 Protected Landscape Area Male Slovakia Protected Landscape Area Austria Protected Area Zahorie Slovakia
Karpaty Donau-March
SK 10 Protected Landscape Area Slovakia National Park Aggtelek Hungary
Slovensky kras (Proposed
National Park)
SK 11 Protected Landscape Area Slovakia National Parks Bieszczady, Poland National Park Karpatsky Ukraine
Vychodne Karpaty Magura
SLO 01 National Park Triglav Slovenia Regional Park Alpi Giulie Italy
SLO 02 Proposed Nature Park Koveski Slovenia National Park Risnjak Croatia Proposed Regional Slovenia
Nature Park Nostranjski
SLO 03 Proposed Nature Protected Area Slovenia Proposed Nature Protected Austria Proposed Nature Italy
South Eastern Limestone Alps Area (INTERREG II Protected Area South
Programm) - Schutzgebiet Eastern Limestone Alps
Südöstliche Kalkalpen (INTERREG II)
SLO 04 Proposed Protected Area Mura- Slovenia Protected Landscape Area Austria Proposed Protected Area Croatia,
Drava Mur (proposed Biosphere Mura-Drava Hungary
Reserve)
SLO 05 Proposed Regional Nature Park Slovenia National Park Risnjak Croatia Proposed Nature Park Slovenia
Nostranjski Koveski
SLO 06 Proposed Regional Park Kraski Slovenia Proposed Protected Italy
Landscape Karst
SLO 07 Proposed Trilateral Nature Park Slovenia Proposed Trilateral Nature Austria Proposed Trilateral Nature Hungary
E 01 National Park Ordesa/Monte Spain National Park Les Pyrenees France
Perdido
E 02 Natural Landscape Marismos de Spain Nature Reserve (Reserva Portugal Nature Reserve (Reserva Portugal
Isla Christina Natural) da Ria Formosa Natural) da Sapal de
Castro Marim e Vila Real
de Sto. Antonio
E 03 Nature Park Baixa-Lima-Serra do Spain National Park Peneda Geres Portugal
Xures
S 01 Nature Reserve Rogens, Nature Sweden National Parks Norway
Reserve Langfjallet (Proposed Femundsmarka, Gutulia
National Park Rogen-Langfjället)
S 02 National Park Tresticklan Sweden Strict Nature Reserve Norway
Lundsneset
S 03 National Parks Sarek, Sweden National Park Rago, Proposed Norway
Padjelante, Stora Sjöfallet; National Park Tysfjord
Nature Reserve Sjaunja Hellemobotn

S 04 National Parks Vadvetjakka, Sweden Proposed National Park Norway

Abisko, Proposed National Park Sjördalen-Isdalen
Kirunafjallen
S 05 Proposed National Park Sweden National Park Ovre Dividalen Norway
Tavvavuoma
S 06 Proposed Protected Area Palsta Sweden Nature Reserve Malla Finland Proposed unspecified Norway
Protected Area
CH 01 National Park Swiss Switzerland National Park Stelvio Italy
CH 02 Proposed National Park Mont Switzerland Proposed National Park Mont France Proposed National Park Italy
UKR 01 Biosphere Reserve Danube Ukraine Biosphere Reserve Danube Romania
Delta Delta
UKR 02 National Park Karpatsky Ukraine National Parks Bieszczady, Poland Protected Landscape Slovakia
Magura Area Vychodne Karpaty
UKR 03 National Park Shatsk Ukraine Protected Managed Area Belarus National Park Polesie Poland
Vygonoschanske
UKR 04 Nature Reserve Polessky Ukraine National Park Pripiatsky Belarus
UKR 05 Proposed Protected Area Taman Ukraine Proposed Protected Areas Russian
Peninsula Kerch Peninsula Federation
UKR 06 Proposed Regional Landscape Ukraine Proposed Protected Areas Russian
Park (National Park) Pechenizke Steppe (Belgorod - Kharkov - Federation
Pole Region)
UKR 07 Protected Area Starogutovskiy Ukraine Strict Nature Reserve Russian
and Stara Huta (Zapovednik) Bryanskiy les Federation
UKR 08 Protected Landscape Area Ukraine National Park Roztzczanski Poland
Roztochya
YU 01 National Park Derdap Yugoslavia Strict Nature Reserve Romania
Cazanele
YU 02 Proposed Protected Area Körös Yugoslavia Proposed protected area Hungary
er Körös-er
YU 03 National Park Durmitor Yugoslavia National Park Sutjeska Bosnia - National Park Tara Yugoslavia
(Montenegro) Hercegovina (Montenegro)
YU 04 National Park Shara Mountains Yugoslavia National Park Mavrovo Republic of
(Montenegro) Macedonia
YU 05 National Park Skadar Lake Yugoslavia Nature Reserve Skhoder Lake Albania
(Montenegro)
YU 06 National Park Tara Yugoslavia National Park Sutjeska Bosnia - National Park Durmitor Yugoslavia
(Montenegro) Hercegovina (Montenegro)
YU 07 Proposed National Park Yugoslavia National Park Thethi Albania
Prokletije Mountains (Montenegro)

TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS ALONG THE FORMER "IRON CURTAIN" IN
EUROPE
By: Jan Cerovsky

Prague, Czech Republic
INTRODUCTION
Among the 50 existing and 26 projected bilateral parks in Europe (according to a recent-study
by Brunner 1997), 22 - e.g. nearly 29% - are situated along a line running from the Barents sea
in the north to the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea in the south. This string
accompanies a very sad line, now fortunately eradicated by history from the surface of the
Earth: the former "Iron Curtain". Transfrontier protected areas are one of the priorities of the
IUCN'S "Parks for Life: Action for Protected Areas in Europe" (IUCN 1994). Transfrontier
protected areas crossing the former Iron Curtain are a priority of the European transfrontier
parks project. The objective of this paper is to offer a closer look at those parks on both sides
of the former Iron Curtain, considering their unneglectable importance for peaceful and
friendly relations between different European nations.
THE PHENOMENON OF THE IRON CURTAIN
The term "Iron Curtain" was first used by Sir Winston Churchill in his famous speech in Fulton
in March 1946. The term indicated the beginning of the "Cold War", the start of a post-war
barrier building between the western democratic world and the eastern "socialist" block from
the initiative of the latter one. Whatever fictitious this term had been, only after a few years to
follow its invention it has become a harsh reality of a sophisticated fence on the ground.
The Iron Curtain as a Political Phenomenon
Surely, the Iron Curtain in the first place was a political provision, a result of the Cold War 1947
- 1953, and the following continuous crisis - or a series of crises in East - West relations. The
fence should, under a false pretension of the "defence against the imperialistic spies and
intruders "keep the people of the countries under communist rule definitely closed in their
"socialist paradise". When you came to my country, Czechoslovakia at that time, in the fifties
or during the following decades by train, you would have to pass through a corridor in a barbed
wire fence dominated by a watch tower with a machine-gun post, while staring at a big poster
"Welcome in the World of Freedom". Perversely enough, the monster of the Iron Curtain was
misused by the politicians - sometimes, unfortunately, from both sides of it - to feed the old
enmities from the past between neighboring nations (Czechs-Germans; Czechs-Austrians;
Russians-Finns; Bulgarians-Turks etc.). It even was producing hate between two parts of one
nation with the unfortunate fate of being divided. (Do not forget that the Iron Curtain separated
the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic!) This ghostly
expression of a deeply inhuman international hostility has disappeared with the political
changes of 1989/1990.
The Physical Implementation of the Iron Curtain
As already mentioned above, the Iron Curtain was a real continuous fence, sometimes even
two or more lines of fence. The construction was a very sophisticated one: barbed wire, wires
with a constant supply of electric current, between the rows of a narrow long patch of bare soil,
sometimes with explosive mines or at least signal rockets. Guards regularly walking along the
barrier or patrolling with their machine guns on chains of watch towers. Countless tragedies,
most of them fatal, did happen in those obscure places in those dark days.

Moreover, the fence was expanded by a more or less extended forbidden zone on its eastern
part. In some "forbidden zones" military areas were established concentrating East European
armed forces against (or rather for?) an attack in the expected war conflict with the West.
Socio-economic Follow-ups of the Iron Curtain
Certainly, the Iron Curtain was also a barrier in economic, ideological and cultural contacts. In
this paper, as the reader has already noticed, the major attention is paid to the "on the ground"
physical aspects of the phenomenon. The lands on the Eastern side of the Iron Curtain -
forbidden zone - were mostly "inhabited" by the troops maybe with some limited and controlled
access of the foresters, woodcutters and farmers only. There was, by no means, no industry
active in the area, and the agricultural and forestry management was strongly restricted. With
the access granted to a limited number of persons only, the presence or development of any
form of tourism was out of question. The lands could be regarded, to a considerable extent, as
derelict ones. But also the zone on the western side of the Iron Curtain laid out of the main
development streams. It somehow was "on the end of the world", underdeveloped, maybe
attractive for the naturalists, nature friends and some lonely hikers.
The Impact of the Iron Curtain on the Nature and the Landscape
The existence of the sophisticated fence was naturally a certain barrier to the free movement
of wildlife across the borderline. (In spite of this, the wolves, when reintroduced in the late
seventies and early eighties into the Bavarian forest on the German side of the Iron Curtain,
they managed to cross the frontier - through the fence! - to the Czech side, certainly more
quite and acceptable for them. It sounds like a bad joke, that they were especially severly
pursuited on the Czech side by hunters, being considered almost as a kind of a "imperialistic
class enemy". Neither the shooting at the borderline and in the military zones was favorable to
wild animals. Generally, however - be it paradoxical as it may be or not - the impact of the
physical Iron Curtain and all connected characteristics. has been a predominantly positive one
for the nature and landscape from the point of view of their conservation. The situation lasting
for 40 years led to an impressive restoration of ecosystems.
With the depopulation of the forbidden zone and a considerable fading out of human
commercial impacts, the landscape and the nature experienced an unusual come-back to self-
regulating natural processes, such as succession, water self-clearing and others. This was
strongly supported by the total underdevelopment of deteriorating influences, fully underway in
the countries' interior: the environmental pollution from local industrial, communal, agricultural
and other sources; the environmental intoxication due to overuse of pesticides and fertilizers;
the large-scale drainage, water stream canalization and other interventions in the hydrological
balance of the landscape. The result of all this has been a remarkable restoration of the
biological diversity at all the three levels - genetic, taxonomic (species) and ecosystem, and
subsequently also the landscape diversity. There neither were admitted any mining and
quarrying activities in the forbidden zone on the eastern side of the fence.
I even dare to say that the existence of the Iron Curtain has enhanced - by the fact of the
"underdevelopment" - the natural and landscape values on the western side of it. The Bavarian
Forest probably never would become the Germany's first National Park, if not situated in the
remote corner of Bavaria close to the Iron Curtain.
The Interior Implications of the Iron Curtain
The Iron Curtain, however, has not been such a simple phenomenon, as it might seem from
the above lines. Two types can be pointed out in this connection: I call them a) the Shifting Iron
Curtain, and b) the Interior (or Second) Iron Curtain. Both have a considerable importance and
impact on nature conservation, protected areas in particular. Before the construction of the
Berlin Wall (1961) most of the refugees from Czechoslovakia fled to the West via Eastern
Germany to West Berlin. Therefore in the mid-fifties the Iron Curtain was also established
along the Czechoslovak frontier with the German Democratic Republic. It contributed its deal
to the remoteness and relative intact stage of what now is being developed as a Czech-
German bilateral park in the Elbe Sandstones - the "Bohemian Saxonian Switzerland".
As already indicated above, the Iron Curtain divided before 1989 the Eastern and Western
Germany. Probably the best example of the bilateral "national" (across the lands' borders)
National Park is the Harz, a middle-mountain in Central Germany, once located direct on the
Iron Curtain.
The tensions on the western Yugoslav border were released by the considerable liberation of
Belgrade after the quarrel with Moscow in 1948. Thus also the transfrontier cooperation in
nature conservation and contacts in frontier areas generally got easier between Austria and
Italy on one, Slovenia on the other side, the Iron Curtain shifting further to the East - to the
Hungarian, Rumanian and Bulgarian frontier.
Even during the times of a relative mutual confidence within the Eastern Bloc, the Soviet Union
nevertheless maintained an "Interior Iron Curtain" on its western frontier with its socialist
neighbour friends. Due to this, for example, the unique Carpathian forests in the present
western Ukraine remained preserved giving birth to the first trilateral Biosphere Reserve - the
present Polish-Slovak-Ukrainian Carpathian Biosphere Reserve. Nevertheless, in some of its
parts the "Interior Iron Curtain" still remains. The Polish managers of the bilateral Bialowieza
National Park (also Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site) still complain of the existence
of a fence through the protected complex built by the Belorussian partner and preventing a
fully free exchange of wildlife in this jewel of European transfrontier parks.
THE COOPERATION IN NATURE CONSERVATION ACROSS THE FORMER IRON CURTAIN
Before the Fall
In spite of the seemingly hermetic isolation between the Eastern and Western Europe, ways
always could have been found to establish contacts, exchange information and prepare a
closer collaboration for the "coming better days". Even on the eastern side of the Iron Curtain
protected areas were established, in some cases (Czech Republic in the Sumava - Bohemian
Forest, and Podyji - Thaya River Valley) even pioneering such efforts before relevant action on
the western side. The cooperation was prepared by scientists and conservationists mainly
through international organisations: IUCN - The World Conservation Union has played a role of
a special importance here.
The intensity of the contacts of course varied according to the instantaneous thaws and
freezings in the East-West relations . May I be permitted to present one personal experience.
When the "Prague Spring" was approaching, I was instrumental in leading the first talks with
the Bavarian conservationists and politicians about a potential future cooperation in the
Bavarian/Bohemian forest. In 1966 I showed a Czech nature conservation exhibition in the
Bavarian town of Regensburg - by the way, famous by its historical cultural and religious
contacts with Bohemia. One day I was asked to guide through the exhibit a group of the
"Sudetenlands-mannschaft" - the organisation of the Germans native in the Bohemian Forest
and after 1945 expelled from my country. This experience convinced me (and gave the
necessary strength) that love to native countryside and genuine interest in its protection are in
the position to overcome even the political injustice and heal the wounds of wrath.
Our conservationist friends in Hungary were developing a long time ago, deep in the "Cold
War" times, friendly relations with their Austrian colleagues, particularly in the area of the
greatest Central European steppe lake - Neusiedler See/Fertti-to. The lake, divided artificially
by the state frontier between Austria and Hungary, is now a bilateral National Park and

Biosphere Reserve. According to the statements by the managers of the both parks, this fact
is meaningfully contributing to the mutual understanding and friendship between the Austrian
and the Hungarian nations. A historic excellence: the area of the Ferto/Neusiedler See was
the first place where the Iron Curtain was abolished, the fence removed. This did happen
already in the Spring of 1989 - and for nature conservation reasons.
After the Fall
After the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989 - 1990, there have been opened new opportunities
which before the people hardly could even dream about. The already existing frontier
protected areas started, after the removal of the fence, in a new political climate and with many
sympathizers among broad general public the process of mutual coordination and integration
between the adjacent partner areas. Protected areas of lower category have been upgraded
(mostly from the IUCN Category V to Category II). New frontier parks are being projected to fill
in the existing gaps. In the early nineties the initiative "Ecological Bricks for Our Common
House Europe" was formed. It has identified 26 potential sites for protected areas, most of
them along the former Iron Curtain. Even when the "Ecological Bricks" initiative has not turned
into a special organisation or foundation, leaving the implementation to the Governments
concerned and their specialized authorities and agencies, the appeal has been well accepted
attracting important support, both moral and material. The efforts by IUCN and the
cooperating FNNPE (Federation of Nature and National Parks of Europe), particularly the
"Parks for Life" exercise has been already mentioned above. Within these activities
implementing the relevant priority project, two meetings on transfrontier protected areas
deserve to be mentioned, convened and organized by the ECOPOINT Foundation in the
Czech Republic, just one of the former "Iron Curtain countries" (Arends, Cerovsky, Pickova
1995; Cerovsky 1996) . The forthcoming European meeting of the IUCN WCPA on the
German Isle of Ruegen, will devote one of its working sessions to the issue. The IUCN action
programme for protected areas in Europe is entitled "Parks for Life". This means a real
concern in the real life, in people. Frontier parks along the former Iron Curtain have a highly
important task to bring closer, through the enjoyment of unspoilt, well looked for natural
environment, neighboring nations not always living in peace and good mutual relations, for
more than forty years separated by political, ideological and socio-economic barriers and even
by real fences. It is a noble task, and despite various difficulties, the frontier parks along the
former Iron Curtain have entered a good path to promote peace and friendship through
transfrontier nature conservation.
THE DRAKENSBERG-MALOTI TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREA: EXPERIENCE
AND LESSONS LEARNED
By: T.S. Sandwith

Natal Parks Board, South Africa
INTRODUCTION
The Drakensberg-Maloti mountain region epitomises the need for long-term commitment to the
development and establishment of transfrontier conservation areas. There has, as yet been
no formal recognition of this region as a peace park, but there is a growing de facto realisation
of the joint responsibility of the two countries to give effect to the objectives of heritage
conservation, both natural and cultural, and the role that this unique resource can play in
community development and enterprise. At the same time, the process has brought together
the diversity and respective strengths of the peoples who make up this complex region, in an
enduring association. By sketching briefly the attributes of this project, and the process which
is still very much in the development phases, it is hoped that the observations and lessons
learned will contribute to the objectives of determining the role, opportunities and difficulties in
using transboundary protected areas for peace and international cooperation.
OVERVIEW OF STUDY AREA
The Drakensberg-Maloti mountain region extends over a distance of almost 300 km along the
international frontier between the Kingdom of Lesotho and the Province of KwaZulu-Natal in
South Africa, and covers an area of approximately 5000 km2. It links three of the nine
provinces of South Africa, namely KwaZulu-Natal, the Free State and the Eastern Cape, which
completely surround Lesotho. Rising to 3482 m in the eastern mountain region of Lesotho, the
alpine, sub-alpine and montane regions form a component of the Great Escarpment which
separates the central plateau from the Eastern seaboard of southern Africa. The most
significant physiographic feature of southern Africa, the Drakensberg-Maloti mountains are
also the principal source of water for the sub-region, and underpin the economies of both
South Africa and Lesotho. The mountain region, in comparison with other African mountain
areas, has been spared the large scale degradation of transforming land- uses, and has been
retained in a virtually pristine condition, both through effective protected area management, as
well as benign and sustainable land-use practices. This situation is unlikely to persist in the
long term because of the pressures which face the region, especially for development and
agriculture. Although there are political and language differences across this boundary, the
region consists of a single ecological complex, and there are also many strong social
relationships, including historical and cultural similarities, kinship ties and common land-use
practices and opportunities.
The political insularity of the past has given way to a more open exchange, and the exploration
of common development and tourism relationships. Despite this, it remains surprising how
little real knowledge and understanding there is between the peoples of two neighbouring
countries. The Drakensberg-Maloti region, which is shared by the two countries, provides a
strategic arena for cooperation and development around a programme which is supported in
equal measure by Lesotho and South Africa.
KEY BIODIVERSITY CHARACTERISTICS
The Drakensberg-Maloti mountain region is one of outstanding natural beauty and a

recognised centre of diversity and endemism. The biological importance of the area is
described by Bainbridge and Motsamai (1995) and Bourn (1995). The principal vegetation
type is Austral Afro-alpine vegetation which is floristically distinct from mountainous areas to
the north (Killick, 1990). It is species rich, containing at least 2153 plant species, 295 bird

species, 60 mammal species, 49 species of reptiles and 26 species of amphibians. It is also
distinct, with a high degree of plant, bird and invertebrate endemism estimated at 30% for
plants (Hilliard and Burtt, 1987) and a significant proportion of the fauna. It ranks as one of
seven recognised biodiversity hotspots in Southern Africa, namely the Eastern Mountains and
as an Endemic Bird Area. The South African Red Data List of Plants, indicates 109 taxa which
occur in the region. (R. Scott-Shaw, pres. comm.)
Two main high altitude vegetation complexes occur, namely the Alti-Mountain biome from
2500- 3480m a.s.l. and the Afro-Mountain Grassland biome from 1700m - 2500m a.s.l. (Killick,
1990)
The water catchment status of the area is dependent upon the extensive wetlands which occur
in the Alpine Zone. The wetlands are distinct, both structurally and floristically from all other
wetland systems in Southern Africa (Schwabe, 1989). The wetlands provide a vital
hydrological function, ensuring the delivery of water of a high quality throughout the year, and
are the habitat for a range of endemic plants and animals, such as the endemic Maloti minnow
(Pseudobarbus quahlambae), the rock catfish (Austroglanis sclateri), the Drakensberg frog
(Rana dracomontana) and the endemic submerged water-plant Aponogeton ranunculiformis.
The Natal Drakensberg Park has been designated as a Wetland of International Importance
under the Ramsar Convention, and there is no doubt that the adjacent areas in Lesotho would
also qualify.
In addition, preparatory work on a nomination proposal for listing the area as a World Heritage
site has indicated that it would meet the criteria of outstanding universal value for inscription as
both a Cultural property and Natural property.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The Drakensberg-Maloti region was seasonally occupied by Late Stone Age hunter- gatherers
(San) over the last 8000 years until their decimation in the late nineteenth century following the
establishment of white settlements in the Colony of Natal. A study conducted by Wahl, et al.,
(1 997) recorded 600 sites containing a total of 35000 individual images, representing one of
the richest occurrences of rock art in the world. Apart from paintings which record actual
events or observations, the images convey themes of great cultural and spiritual significance.
Of great interest is the protection of this rock art heritage within the context of the very
landscape which the artists inhabited.
On the basis of the rock art alone, the area is considered worthy of World Heritage status, and
the nomination proposal is likely to be submitted both as a natural and cultural property. There
are also many sites in Lesotho which were occupied and painted by San hunter-gatherers,
drawing a strong cultural linkage with the South African component. The Drakensberg-Maloti
programme has created an opportunity for the two countries to commemorate the occupation
of the region at a time which predates artificial international boundaries.
CORE PROTECTED AREAS
The Drakensberg-Maloti Transfrontier Conservation Area contains a number of statutorily

protected areas making up the Natal Drakensberg Park in South Africa, and the Sehlabathebe
National Park in Lesotho. There are extensive opportunities to expand the system of protected
areas to represent the major components of biodiversity in the mountain region. A component
of Phase 1A of the Lesotho Highlands Water Project is the identification and development of
four protected areas. This work is currently underway, and will include the necessary staff and
institutional capacity-building to ensure the long-term success of this component.
In South Africa, there are important components of the Drakensberg catchment area which
currently fall outside of the Natal Drakensberg Park, but where there is an opportunity to
acquire or manage land and create linkages. In particular the southerly extension of the
Drakensberg mountain range is a key area for addition to the park (Scotcher, et al., 1982).
The land is in private ownership, but its status has been under question, both in terms of the
previous process to consolidate the boundaries of the former Transkei homeland, and the
current process of determining provincial boundaries. Similarly, there are socio-economic
constraints on the effective management of the Okhahlamba communal land area in the
upper catchment of the Thukela River, and the land is subject to certain unsustainable land-
use practices including the illegal cultivation of Cannabis (Masson, 1991; A'Bear, et al., 1987).
In Lesotho, there is a need to identify further sites which need formal protection in protected
areas, such as in the southern mountains. The range management model was introduced in
Lesotho owing to concern about the siltation of the major reservoirs of the Lesotho Highlands
Water Project (Quinlan and Morris, 1994). It was proposed that the grasslands of the eastern
mountain catchments above 2750 m a.s.l. should be proclaimed as a Managed Resource
Area, conforming with the IUCN protected area categories (IUCN, 1994). Legislation has been
introduced to enable this process, but there remains a need to facilitate the participation of
local communities and land-users (Natural Resources Institute, 1996).
The biosphere reserve model provides the most promising and appropriate vehicle for
ensuring that management of this unique region takes place within a framework of common
objectives, and provides for the integration of statutorily proclaimed protected areas with
managed resource areas and buffer zones. It is highly unlikely that the majority of the eastern
mountain region in Lesotho can be contained within formal protected areas, and the most likely
possibility is for a managed resource area which incorporates the Range Management model.
In South Africa, there is considerable sensitivity surrounding the allocation of land, and
particularly as a result of the discriminatory legislation of the past. The Restitution of Land
Rights Act (No. 22 of 1994) makes provision for the restitution of land to people who were
dispossessed through discriminatory laws, and the Provision of Certain Land for Settlement
Act (No. 126 of 1993) enables the allocation of land to landless peoples. There is a perception
that protected areas are likely candidates for land re-allocation. In the case of the Drakensberg
catchment area, there are significant disadvantages to this approach, notably the fragility of
the mountain ecosystem and its importance for water production. The alternative approach is
to ensure that the use of the land for water production, for nature conservation, sustainable
tourism and resource use provides long term benefits. The Drakensberg-Maloti transfrontier
park provides a challenging example for the implementation of an integrated conservation and
development programme in a unique and internationally significant region. The alternative is a
downward spiral of degradation which would have adverse impacts on the whole sub-region.
AREAS OF CONFLICT
Historical conflict. The marginal agricultural land of the Natal Drakensberg and Lesotho
occupied a geographically central, but fairly insignificant position in the scramble for land in
Southern Africa which took place in the nineteenth century. The distribution of people in and
around the mountain kingdom and the establishment of the modern state of Lesotho, however,
is a direct result of this process.
The consolidation of Sotho-speaking people into Basotholand had resulted partially from the
aggression from Zululand which had a dispersive effect on retreating tribes, and the settlement
of land in the Orange Free State by the Voortrekkers. Zulu aggression had also resulted in the
displacement of the amaHlubi from Zululand and their forced settlement in the foothills of the
Drakensberg where the colonial government in Natal hoped that they would form a buffer
between the San (Bushmen) and the colonists (Wright, J.B. 1971). Other fragments of the
amaHlubi had scattered as far as Thaba Nchu where they were absorbed by the Basotho.
This set the stage for a conflict which had effects which persist to the present day.

The relationship of the amaHlubi and their leader Langalibalele with the colonial administration
was tense, and the amaHlubi resisted settlement in the Drakensberg for which they were
sanctioned by the colonial government. In their capacity as a buffer between the San and
white farmers, they were themselves subjected to cattle raids by the San raiders. Following
their failure to comply with regulations pertaining to the registration of firearms and rumours
that Langalibalele intended to seek a safe refuge for his people and their cattle in
Basotholand, the colonial government undertook a military campaign to cordon off the
amaHlubi and prevent the retreat of the "rebels" into Lesotho. This resulted in an unfortunate
incident at the summit the Drakensberg north of the Bushman's River pass, where there were
casualties on both sides (Brookes and Webb, 1965).
The incident provoked outrage among the colonists, and the government's reaction was to
outlaw the tribe, depose and imprison their chief, and confiscate their cattle and land. In
addition, the colonial government's agent in Basotholand put pressure on Basotho chiefs to
demonstrate their loyalty and assist in the apprehension of Langalibalele. The subsequent
betrayal and capture of Langalibalele in Lesotho resulted in the responsible chief earning an
unfortunate reputation for faithlessness among African people in the sub-continent (Guest,
1976). There were also repercussions following the then Bishop of Natal's criticism of the
manner in which Langalibalele had been treated which contributed to schism within the
Anglican church and highlighted the racial segregation of the colonial administration. The
episode also resulted in the Iandlessness of the amaHlubi and amaSwazi tribes, which to this
day has not been resolved and places pressure on the Natal Drakensberg Park.
Perhaps the most tragic consequence of these conflicts over land and resources was the
complete elimination of the San people, the oldest known inhabitants of KwaZulu-Natal , from
the Drakensberg-Maloti region. Virtually all that remains is the rich record of rock art in the
sandstone shelters, which in many instances records faithfully the arrival and activities of the
new landowners.
Apartheid policies and isolation. Ironically, it was these same segregationist policies which
the South African government entrenched in law, perpetuating a system where black tribes
were confined 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 in the Natal Drakensberg are among the most poverty-
stricken in present day KwaZulu- Natal, and their situation adjacent to the comparatively well-
managed protected areas heightens the contrast. In addition, competition for resources and
power has been deeply divisive, and mitigates against a structured reconstruction and
development programme.
Political relationships. Strategically situated within South Africa, Lesotho has since its
independence in 1966, been burdened by the sometimes overbearing economic and political
power of her larger neighbour. Although a destination for refugees from the apartheid policies,
Lesotho was obliged to cooperate with South Africa economically (Legum and Drysdale,
1969), and the official policy was one of "peaceful co-existence". The years of conflict around
achieving a new political dispensation in South Africa were reflected in the internal politics of
Lesotho, with a division between those for and against collaboration with South Africa. In
1985, accusations that Lesotho was being used as a base for the African National Congress,
led to a raid on Maseru in which six ANC refugees and three Basotho were killed, and the
imposition of an economic blockade of Lesotho by South Africa. The action brought an
already unstable political situation in Lesotho to a head, resulting in the collapse of the
government and agreement between South Africa and the new Military Council that neither
country would allow its territory to be used for attacks on the other (Legum, 1987). This paved
the way for the signing of the Lesotho Highlands Water Treaty in 1986, 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. Cross-border friction remains, however, over the persistent problem of stock theft
and an unresolved claim to conquered territory in the Free State. The growing involvement of
the two countries in the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) has led to greater
interaction and collaboration at many levels (Brown, 1997).
Illegal activities. The international border remains a focus for certain illegal activities including
drug smuggling and stock theft. These activities have rendered certain areas as virtually
ungovernable, and have affected the viability of traditional farming practices.
KEY THREATS
In the absence of a comprehensive management programme for the Drakensberg- Maloti

region, there are a number of key threats which will contribute to a reduction in biodiversity and
productivity of the region.
The protected areas are threatened by:
♦ Alien invasive plants. In many areas, and particularly the river valleys, there has been
extensive encroachment by alien species which have displaced the indigenous communities
of plants and animals. Wattles, including Acacia meamsii and Acacia dealbata, pines
(mainly Pinus patula) and the American bramble (Rubus cuneifolius) are the principal alien
species threatening natural ecosystems. A unique programme, known as the Working for
Water programme, has been introduced by the Department of Water Affairs and Forestry,
to eradicate alien plants in designated areas, provide employment opportunities and
improve water production potential.
♦ Land invasions and land claims. There have been a number of land invasions where
cattle have been driven into the Natal Drakensberg Park, in response to the generally slow
response of government to deal with land claims in adjacent areas. No formal land claims
have been registered. There is a perception, though, that the protected area should directly
benefit local communities.
♦ Inappropriate development in adjacent areas. There are development pressures for

holiday resorts and associated infrastructure adjacent to the protected areas. Of concern
are proposals to introduce casino developments and cableways in some areas. These
have the potential to generate direct impacts on the park and the communities which live
nearby.
♦ Changing land-use practices. Much of the area adjacent to the Natal Drakensberg Park
has been used for extensive grazing, which is generally compatible with the objectives of
maintaining a natural landscape character and water production potential. Recent
changes in the economics of farming have promoted a move towards increasing
commercial plantation forestry, which affects landscape quality and water production, as
well as providing a source of wind-blown alien seeds.
In the communal areas of KwaZulu-Natal, the principal threats are:
♦ Population pressure and poverty. The Okhahlamba area is typical of many rural
communal land areas, where people were settled on marginal land far from social services.
The generally poor production and increasing population is indicated by high levels of
malnutrition and ill-health, and place increasing pressure on the natural resource base.
♦ Unsustainable resource use. The principal agricultural activity is rough grazing of cattle
on communal land areas, which in the absence of any form of pasture management has
resulted in extensive sheet and gulley erosion and the siltation of streams and rivers. In
addition, there has been extensive harvesting of firewood and collection of medicinal plants.

♦ Illegal activities. Stock theft and illegal cultivation of Cannabis have created a spiral of
conflict and degradation, mitigating against a stable settlement and land-use pattern, and
increasing pressure on land particularly at higher altitudes, and transport routes between
KwaZulu-Natal and Lesotho.
♦ Political conflict. Many areas are characterised by a society in transition, with tensions
between traditional authority structures and components of the community where political
support is derived from emergent development structures. There is a danger of introducing
governance structures which might be regarded as being in competition with existing
structures, and it is consequently difficult to negotiate agreements with credible leaders.
♦ Lack of an agreed land-use plan. Despite many previous attempts to introduce land-use
planning in the region, the areas which previously formed part of the KwaZulu homeland do
not have any agreed land-use plans. In addition, the land-use planning and development
control policies of the former Natal Provincial Administration did not take account of the
adjacent communal land areas.
In the eastern mountain region of Lesotho, there are similar threats which can be summarised
as follows:
♦ Poor representation of biodiversity in protected areas. Protected areas in Lesotho

cover less that 0.35% of the country's surface area, and there is currently only one
protected area, namely the Sehlabathebe National Park.
♦ Biodiversity depletion. The potential for agricultural production in Lesotho is severely

constrained with less than 15% of the land considered arable. Pressure on fuelwood
resources for energy, and on wetland systems in the highlands for stock grazing has
resulted in extensive soil erosion and wetland degradation.
♦ Development pressure. The construction of major reservoirs as part of the Lesotho

Highlands Water Project has inundated valuable grazing and scarce agricultural land in river
valleys, despite creating other entrepreneurial opportunities, especially in remote areas.
There have also been positive and negative social impacts arising from the construction of
major dams. The improved access to the highland region has also resulted in new
pressures being brought to bear, such as off-road vehicles accessing the high mountain
areas, impacting directly on paths and transport routes, and introducing a threat to the
quality of the core wilderness areas.
In general, the threats to the sub-region are interrelated, arising mainly from competition for
scarce resources by rapidly increasing populations. Solutions to these problems will likewise
have to be integrated within a single framework, where the opportunities and constraints are
balanced and trade-offs recognised and managed. Of prime importance is the lack of
institutions which can ensure that the development of the region can take place in an orderly
and rational matter, supported by the communities which depend on it.
KEY INTERVENTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES
The key opportunity and challenge for the Drakensberg-Maloti transfrontier conservation area
is to intervene and avoid the degradation which otherwise result, and to achieve sustainable
development in accordance with the objectives of Agenda 21 Chapter 13: Managing fragile
ecosystems: Sustainable mountain development. In addition, there is the opportunity to
achieve reconciliation and cooperative development between the two countries, and to dispel
some of the earlier tensions. In the view of the Drakensberg-Maloti roleplayers, these
interventions and opportunities include the following:
♦ Seek formal recognition of the transfrontier conservation area including Sehlabathebe

National Park and the Natal Drakensberg Park, and identify further areas suitable for
proclamation as national parks and nature reserves
The two existing parks are contiguous, and it is necessary to consider how the numerous
common management issues and problems can be jointly addressed. This will require the
development of joint or complementary management plans and the structuring of
management agreements and instruments of international cooperation. The designation of
a transfrontier Peace Park is feasible and desirable. In addition, there are numerous
additions which can be made to the protected areas, through purchase or negotiation.
♦ Recognise, protect and manage cultural resources to commemorate the occupation of

the area by the San people
The occupation of the transfrontier conservation area provides a historical link between the
two countries, and the opportunity to develop a joint cultural resource management and
interpretation programme to commemorate these early inhabitants of the region. Apart from
technical cooperation, the cultural resources provide a unique heritage and attraction for
visitors to the region.
♦ Seek international recognition for components to form a World Heritage Site, Wetlands
of International Importance (Ramsar sites) and Biosphere Reserves
The cultural and natural heritage of the transfrontier conservation area are of outstanding
universal value, and likely to comply fully with the criteria for designation as a transfrontier
World Heritage and Ramsar Site. In addition, the surrounding Managed Resource Areas
complement the core protected areas and accord with the requirements of a Biosphere
Reserve, accommodating the development needs and opportunities of local communities in
each country.
♦ Institute integrated land-use planning, management plans and programmed
The successful integration of livestock management, agriculture, nature conservation,

ecotourism and community development requires the analysis of the land-use opportunities
and constraints of the region, the identification of common and complementary objectives,
and the preparation of a comprehensive land-use plan. In addition, strategic environmental
assessments of proposals should be conducted, and decision-making guidelines adopted
by a joint management authority.
♦ Expand and develop an integrated community conservation and development

programme
Harmonious and coordinated sustainable development can only be achieved if consultation

and participation by interested and affected parties is extensive, inclusive and appropriate.

Building upon existing structures and within the context of an integrated land-use plan, the
identification of a participatory framework, participatory planning and conflict resolution
would lead to the establishment of local protected area advisory structures, the facilitation of
community development and entrepreneurial opportunities.
♦ Facilitate an ecotourism planning and development programme
The internationally renowned resource base will support the expansion and development of
new economic opportunities based on tourism. The Roof of Africa route, recently agreed by
the two countries, will define a unique mountain region and provide access to unparalleled
development opportunities. A comprehensive programme is required to analyse the tourism
resource base, develop an agreed protected area zonation which will provide a spectrum of
recreational opportunities, undertake conceptual planning for the development of identified
visitor facilities, conclude the necessary feasibility studies, and to construct and commission
and market tourism developments.
♦ Restore damaged or degraded areas
A number of management programmed are required for the restoration and rehabilitation of
degraded sites. These are likely to include an alien plant programme, akin to the Working
for Water campaign being facilitated by the South African Department of Water Affairs and
Forestry, where alien plant removal is coupled with water production objectives and
maximising employment opportunities; a soil erosion reclamation programme, in those
areas where agricultural activities have had impacts, or where roads and paths have been
eroded; and the removal of inappropriate infrastructure, e.g. fences and buildings. o
Provide key infrastructure At present, much of the area is inaccessible, and there are many
deficiencies in facilities for nature conservation management. To ensure the effective
management, control and use of the area, there is a requirement for new roads and the
upgrading of existing roads, as well as electricity, fencing, potable water, waste
management, telecommunications and information systems management. The extent of
infrastructure required needs to be evaluated.
COLLABORATION AND COOPERATION BETWEEN LESOTHO AND SOUTH AFRICA

REGARDING THE DRAKENSBERG-MALOTI PROGRAMME
The most significant international agreement between the two countries is the Lesotho
Highlands Water Project. This is a multilaterally funded project, which includes the
construction of dams in the Lesotho highlands, the diversion of water to the industrial
heartland of South Africa and the generation of electricity. The economic development of the
water-poor South Africa has, through this process become fundamentally linked to the
sustainability of water production from the Lesotho highlands. A component of this programme
is the undertaking to develop certain nature conservation areas for biodiversity protection and
tourism.
The Drakensberg-Maloti Programme 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 programme was largely funded by South Africa
through the Range Management Division of the Ministry of Agriculture in Lesotho and the Natal
Parks Board in South Africa. It continued until 1993 when funding was withdrawn, and at a
stage when most of the baseline information had been collected, but where land-use planning
and implementation strategies had not been formulated or applied. Since that time, the Natal
Parks Board and the National Environmental Secretariat of Lesotho have been interacting with
a range of role-players to maintain the initial momentum of the project, and to secure further
funding for the work which is required to implement the programme. A delegation of the
Lesotho Cabinet met with the Board in 1994 to request the continued involvement by the
Board.
Various presentations have been made to international organisations such as the World Bank,
the European Union and Development Bank of South Africa. In addition, representatives of
the UNDP and ODA have participated in workshops and discussions on possible involvement
in the programme.
At a workshop held in January 1995 involving all role-players, key areas for consideration and
further action were identified, including:
(i) the need for extensive consultation with communities in the areas which would fall within
the scope of the programme;
(ii) the need for co-ordination of the programme
(iii) the need for the development of proposals for the South African component of the
programme
(iv) the need for an holistic integrated approach to the land-use planning of the region
Financial assistance was received from the European Community towards the identification,
preparation and testing of a programme of conservation and protection measures for the
Lesotho component of the Drakensberg-Maloti region. Further assistance has been provided
for the preparation and testing of a tentative integrated natural resources management plan for
a pilot area of approximately 1000 km2 to commence in 1998, to be followed by
comprehensive support for the programme in Lesotho.
In addition, the National Environmental Secretariat of Lesotho has, together with the UNDP
submitted proposals for the funding of a similar project in the southern mountains of Lesotho.
Despite these significant achievements over many years, the objective of a comprehensive
development programme spanning the transfrontier conservation area and addressing similar
issues in both countries has not been achieved. This requires the collaboration not only of the
respective countries, but necessitates the cooperative support of potential funding and
financing agencies, and a comprehensive programme of coordinated implementation. It is the
belief of the principal roleplayers in South Africa and Lesotho that the necessary foundation
has been laid, and that there is the desire and will to forge ahead.
10. CONSTRAINTS
There are certain constraints and preconditions which require to be met, including:
♦ Establishment of instruments of international cooperation
A number of legal and political instruments are required to give effect to this programme,
including a bilateral agreement between South Africa and Lesotho, and at least a
Memorandum of Understanding between the respective government agencies with the
responsibility for the management of the area.
♦ Institution of a programme steering committee and panel of experts.
At an early stage, it will be necessary to identify the relevant agencies, staff and expertise
required to implement the program me. These will include the National Environmental
Secretariat of Lesotho, the Natal Parks Board, government ministries and departments in
Lesotho and South Africa, and a range of experts in the fields of rural sociology, resource
economics, range and livestock ecology, nature conservation, ecotourism planning,

community conservation, land-use planning, civil engineering and architecture. A
programme coordinator is a key requirement.
♦ Securing funding for the preparatory and implementation phases
Despite the general agreement that the programme is worthwhile and well- considered, the
single most significant constraint has been the availability of funding or affordable financing
for the preparatory and implementation phases. Neither the Natal Parks Board nor the
National Environmental Secretariat of Lesotho has the mandate or the funding to engage in
a multilateral development programme of this magnitude. Yet the capacity exists to support
the programme, provided that funding for coordination, specialist technical assistance, and
financing of key projects can be found. Dealing with the different objectives and funding
parameters of the major roleplayers has proven to be an enormous challenge, but there are
real advantages of a comprehensive programme which can draw on a suite of funding and
financing options around a common set of objectives.
KEY DIRECTIONS
At this stage in the development of the Drakensberg-Maloti programme, there are a number of
key findings, lessons and directions of the past 15 years: These include:
♦ Long-term commitment. Despite the evident logic of pursuing a transfrontier conservation

programme, it is necessary to understand that the process of building trust and confidence
is a slow one, and one which can be overshadowed by political or economic circumstances
far removed from the technical aspects of cooperation.
♦ The need for guidance and institutional support. There is clearly a need to provide
guidance and institutional support to the technical role-players who do not necessarily have
the background or opportunity to deal with the political aspects.
♦ A recognition of the relative capacities of relevant agencies. Ideally, the roleplayers
should be matched in terms of their capability to participate as partners in the development
process. In the case of Lesotho and South Africa, the process has been marked by the
development of capacity and expertise in different ways in each country. Whereas South
African roleplayers possessed technical expertise and capacity, the Lesotho counterparts
have had access to international support and involvement. These strengths can now be
combined in a collaborative programme. In addition, the capacity of communities to
participate is likely to be a key feature of the future programme.
♦ Political and administrative support. The changing political situation in both Lesotho and
South Africa has frustrated efforts to achieve real progress, since agreements which are
reached at one point in the process, can be set aside or marginalised by political changes.
In addition, the competency of provincial agencies to interact with neighbouring territories
requires definition. There is a need for structures which can withstand these changes, and
ensure that technical cooperation continues at the most appropriate level. This is one role
which an external funding agency can provide, although many agencies are themselves
clearly influenced by political circumstances.
♦ Overall coordination. Without a dedicated project team, and a vehicle for steering project
development and implementation, progress can be severely constrained. Several models
have been suggested including a bilateral steering committee and project coordinator, but a
more efficient and effective development company model, which would enable investment
and loan- funding may be more appropriate.
♦ Funding. Without adequate funding, it is unlikely that the development possibilities of
transfrontier conservation areas can be unlocked. However, this is not to suggest that
programmed should be net receivers of funds. Funding intervention is required, especially in
the early stages to generate commitment and confidence in the programme, and to attract
interest from investors in the development synergy and raised profile which can result. A
cautionary note is advised though, in that pure conservation and land management
objectives are likely to require state funding. The cost can be largely offset by the suite of
benefits which can be derived from development opportunities, and it remains a function of
government to provide support for infrastructure and services. The nature of the
comprehensive development programme and the impetus and profile of the international
cooperative agreement can serve to focus and sustain efforts in this regard.
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Despite the unresolved status of the Drakensberg-Maloti programme, it is believed that both in
terms of the intrinsic value of the biodiversity of this unique mountain region, and the
development needs of the respective communities on either side of the international boundary,
that there is a remarkable opportunity afforded by the Peace Parks model. Rather than simply
joining two formal protected areas across an international boundary, there is the opportunity to
use the protected areas as the focus of an integrated conservation and development
programme in some of the most remote and undeveloped regions of South Africa and
Lesotho, and to restore a sense of mutual cooperation and the resolution of long-standing
conflicts which have characterised this troubled region. There is also a unique opportunity to
commemorate the existence of the earliest inhabitants of the region, through the collaborative
management of the mountain region which provided both the inspiration and the palette for
one of the richest collections of rock art in the world.
REFERENCES
A'Bear, D. R., Davis, R. S., Krone, A. G., McCormack, J. B., Totman, D.T. and A.J. von Riesen.
1987. A proposed structure plan for the Upper Tugela Location and adjacent black
occupied areas. Unpublished report. 87 pp. + appendices.
Bainbridge, W.R. and B. Motsamai. 1995. Project motivation document. Greater

Drakensberg- Maloti Mountain Region: Community development and conservation
programme. Lesotho National Environmental Secretariat, Maseru and Planning Division,
Natal Parks Board, Pietermaritzburg. 45 pp.
Bourn, D. 1995. Conceptual framework for biodiversity management in Lesotho. Mission

Report TSSI -LES/94/01 /T. FAO, Rome. 42 pp.
Brookes, E.H. and C. de B. Webb. 1965. A history of Natal. University of Natal Press,
Pietermaritzburg.
Brown, R. 1997. Recent history. In: Africa south of the Sahara. Europa publishers, London.
26th edition. p 528-532.
Guest, W.R. 1976. Langalibalele: The crisis in Natal 1873-1875. Department of History and
Political Science Research monograph 2. University of Natal, Durban.
Hilliard, O.M. and B.L. Burtt. 1987. The botany of the southern Natal Drakensberg. Natal
Botanic Gardens and CTP Book Printers, Cape Town.
IUCN 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories. IUCN Commission on
National Parks and Protected Areas and World Conservation Monitoring Centre,
Cambridge.

Killick, D.J.B. 1990. Field guide to the Flora of the Natal Drakensberg. Jonathan Ball and A.D.
Donker Publishers, Johannesburg.
Legum, C. (Ed.). 1975. Africa Contemporary Record: Annual survey and documents 1974-
1975. London: Rex Conings, p371-384.
Legum, C. and J. Drysdale (eds. ). 1969. Africa Contemporary Record: Annual survey and
documents 1968-1969. London: Africa Research P280-285.
Masson, J. 1991. The Amangwane Tribal Ward: Okhahlamba Magisterial District. An

environmental assessment. Unpublished report. Bureau of Natural Resources:
KwaZulu Government Service. 61 pp. + appendices.
Mazel, A. 1989. The Stone Age peoples of Natal. In: Duminy, A. and B. Guest. (1 989). Natal
and Zululand: from earliest times to 1910. University of Natal Press. Pietermaritzburg.
Natural Resources Institute. 1996. Outline project proposal for European Union funding for the
Drakensberg-Maloti Mountains Conservation Programme. Unpublished report, Natural
Resources Institute, United Kingdom.
Schwabe, C. 1989. The assessment, planning and management of wetlands in the Maluti
Drakensberg mountain catchment. I.N.R investigation Report No 38. Pietermaritzburg
Institute of Natural Resources.
Scotcher, J.S. B, Rowe-Rowe, D.T. and R.J. Cooke. 1982. Report on a boundary survey of
the proposed Nature Reserve, East Griqualand. Unpublished report, Natal Parks Board.
Wahl, E. J., Mazei, A.D. and S.E. Roberts. 1997. Cultural resource management plan for the
Natal Drakensberg Park. Discussion document for public workshop. Unpublished report,
Natal Parks Board.
Wright, J.B. 1971. Bushman raiders of the Drakensberg, 1840- 1870: a study of their conflict
with stock-keeping peoples in Natal. University of Natal Press, Pietermaritzburg.
PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICT
THE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE PEACE PARKS FOUNDATION
By: J Hanks, Peace Parks Foundation, P.O.Box 227, Somerset West 7129, South Africa
Telephone: 27(0)21 855 3564; Fax 27(0)21 855 3958: E-mail
AFRICAN NATIONALISM AND ARMED CONFLICT
The history of the African continent over the last forty years has been dominated by the growth
of African nationalism. Armed campaigns to take control of the state have contributed to the
withdrawal of colonial governments and also to the overthrow of repressive regimes. In some
cases, this has opened the way to a peaceful settlement, but in others it has left a legacy of
political violence and even of civil war and a collapse of state authority and social order.
Protected natural areas have all too often been severely disrupted by military actions, with a
concomitant loss of biological diversity (Westing, 1992). Some of the civil wars have been
exacerbated by external interventions, and have left many people dead, in exile, or exposed to
famine (Williams, 1997). In southern Africa, Angola, Mozambique, and to a lesser extent
Zimbabwe and Namibia experienced several years of savage conflict, a guerilla war which
had, and still has, a profound effect on economic relations with bordering countries, and on
internal post-independent economies. For example, Mozambique's economy since its
independence from Portugal in June 1975, has suffered not only the damaging effects of
nearly 17 years of war, but also drought, floods, famine, the displacement of millions of people
and a severe scarcity of foreign exchange and of skilled workers. As a consequence,
Mozambique became one of the poorest countries in the world, heavily reliant on foreign
credits. The vast majority of Mozambicans live below the poverty line, and social indicators are
among the lowest in Sub-Saharan Africa. In 1995, according to estimates from the World
Bank, the country's gross national product (GNP) was US$1,513m, equivalent to only $88 per
head (Cravinho, 1997).
In February 1990, President de Klerk released Nelson Mandela and lifted the ban on the
African National Congress of South Africa, and by the end of that year most of the remnants of
apartheid (racial segregation) had been formally repealed. By the end of June 1991, the last
remaining legislative pillars of apartheid had been repealed, and the legal revolution was
complete. The election of Mandela as President of South Africa in April 1994 undoubtedly
marked the culmination of the African drive for independence, and brought a new level of
peace to South Africa and a desire for co-operation between South Africa and its immediate
neighbours, namely Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. In
1997, this part of the sub-continent has arguably become one of the most peaceful regions in
Africa, with great potential for regional co-operation on transboundary protected areas.
However, the establishment of trust and mutual respect did not come automatically with
political settlements, and the legacy of South Africa's past policy of destabilizing its neighbours
can still be felt today.
The Southern African Development Community
In 1995, South Africa became a member of the Southern African Development Community
(SADC), joining Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia,
Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The aims of the Treaty establishing SADC are
particularly relevant to the objectives of the Peace Parks Foundation31, and to the objectives of
the Parks for Peace Conference, and are follows:
31
The Peace Parks Foundation has approached the Inland Fisheries, Wildlife and Forestry Sector of
SADC with a request that the activities of the Foundation are approved and accepted by SADC.

♦ deeper economic co-operation and integration, on the basis of balance, equality and mutual
benefit, providing for cross-border investment and trade, and freer movement of factors of
production, goods and services across national boundaries;
♦ common economic, political social values and systems, enhancing enterprise

competitiveness, democracy and good governance, respect for the rule of law and human
rights, popular participation, and the alleviation of poverty; and
♦ strengthened regional solidarity, peace and security, in order for the people of the region to
live and work in harmony.
The origin of the Peace Parks Foundation
On 7 May 1990, Anton Rupert, the President of WWF South Africa (then called the Southern
African Nature Foundation) had a meeting in Maputo with Mozambique's President Joaquim
Chissano to discuss the possibility of a permanent link being established between some of the
protected areas in southern Mozambique and their adjacent counterparts in South Africa,
Swaziland and Zimbabwe. The concept of transborder protected area co-operation through the
establishment of "peace parks" was not a new one. The World Conservation Union (IUCN)
had long been promoting their establishment because of the many potential benefits
associated with them (Hamilton et al., 1996; Westing, 1993). In 1988, IUCN's Commission on
National Parks and Protected Areas had identified at least 70 protected areas in 65 countries
which straddle national frontiers (Thorsell, 1990). As a result of Rupert's meeting, WWF South
Africa was requested to carry out the relevant feasibility study, which was completed and
submitted to the Government of Mozambique in September 1991 (Tinley and van Riet, 1991).
The report was discussed by the Mozambique Council of Ministers, who recommended that
further studies were required to assess fully the political, socio-economic and ecological
aspects of the feasibility study. The Government of Mozambique then requested the Global
Environment Facility (GEF) of the World Bank to provide assistance for the project, which was
granted. The first mission was fielded in 1991, and in June 1996 the Bank released its
recommendations in a report entitled Mozambique: Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and
Institutional Strengthening Project (World Bank, 1996).
The report suggested an important conceptual shift away from the idea of strictly protected
national parks towards greater emphasis on multiple resource use by local communities by
introducing the Transfrontier Conservation Area (TFCA) concept. In short, TFCAs were
defined as relatively large areas, which straddle frontiers between two or more countries and
cover large-scale natural systems encompassing one or more protected areas. Very often
both human and animal populations traditionally migrated across or straddled the political
boundaries concerned. In essence, TFCAs extend far beyond designated protected areas,
and can incorporate such innovative approaches as biosphere reserves and a wide range of
community based natural resource management programmes (World Bank, 1996). (The Peace
Parks Foundation subsequently adopted this new paradigm.)
As a result of the political constraints prevalent in southern Africa at the time of the initiation of
the GEF funded programme in Mozambique, only limited attention could be given to the
development of formal links between the three main participating countries i.e. Mozambique,
Zimbabwe and South Africa, and unfortunately this persisted throughout the duration of the
study. Two years after the election of Nelson Mandela, South Africa was experiencing a rapid
and significant growth in its nature-based tourism industry, but very few of the benefits
associated with this growth were being made available to Mozambique. These concerns
prompted Anton Rupert to request another meeting with President Chissano, and this was held
on 27 May 1996. At this meeting, Rupert emphasized the significant economic benefits that
could accrue to Mozambique if the proposed TFCAs were implemented. The Maputo
discussions were followed by a Transfrontier Park Initiative meeting in the Kruger National
Park on 8 August 1996 under the joint Chairmanship of Mozambique's Minister of Transport
and Communications, Paulo Muxanga, and South Africa's Minister of Transport, Mac Maharaj,
where it was agreed that the two countries, together with Zimbabwe and Swaziland, should co-
operate to realize the economic benefits of the proposed TFCAs.
Towards the end of 1996, it became clear to WWF South Africa that interest in the peace park
concept was not only growing within the country, but also in the neighbouring states. For the
first time, southern Africa was being seen as a tourist destination, not just South Africa or other
countries on their own, and an integral part of this vision was the development of TFCAs or
peace parks involving all of South Africa's neighbouring countries (de Villiers, 1994; Pinnock,
1996). The Executive Committee of WWF South Africa came to the conclusion that unless a
separate body was set up to co-ordinate and drive the process of TFCA establishment and
funding, these areas would not receive the attention that was required to make them a reality
on the ground. Accordingly, the Peace Parks Foundation was established on 1 February 1997
with an initial grant of Rand 1.2 million (US$ 260,000) from Anton Rupert to facilitate the
establishment of TFCAs in southern Africa.
Objectives of the Peace Parks Foundation
The Peace Parks Foundation has been constituted and established in South Africa as an
Association incorporated under Section 21 i.e. a company "not for gain". It has virtually all the
powers of a normal company, but cannot have shareholders, and no profits can be paid to
supporting members. The Foundation is managed by a Board of Directors under the
Chairmanship of Anton Rupert, and has four Honorary Patrons, namely President Nelson
Mandela of South Africa, President Sam Nujoma of Namibia, President Bakili Muluzi of Malawi
and His Majesty King Letsie III of Lesotho. Invitations to become a Patron have also been
extended to the Heads of State in Botswana, Mozambique, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. The
overall objective of the Foundation is to facilitate the development of a regional international
partnership to promote job creation and biodiversity conservation involving Botswana, Lesotho,
Mozambique, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, and Zimbabwe. Specific objectives include
the following:
Raise and allocate funds to projects (essentially of a capital nature) which will further the
establishment and management of TFCAs. These projects will have been approved and
recommended to the Foundation by the relevant conservation agencies responsible for
managing the TFCAs.
Assist with the identification of land to be acquired for the development of the TFCAs, taking
into account the rights and circumstances of communities living on such land. The Foundation
will then:
♦ Purchase the land for leasing to the various conservation agencies, or
♦ Negotiate with private landowners and residents of communal lands for leasing on a
contractual basis.
♦ Negotiate loans to the TFCA conservation agencies for approved projects.
♦ Negotiate with governments and semi-government bodies with regards to political and land
tenure/ legal issues associated with TFCAs.
♦ Promote the development of TFCAs on a commercial basis (including private sector

development) as and when appropriate within the parameters imposed by environmental
and conservation practices and principles, and whenever possible and practical, involving
local communities.

♦ Promote the case for TFCAs nationally and internationally in terms of their economic
viability, ecological sustainability, and their contribution to the conservation of global
biodiversity. Every effort will be made to promote the recognition of TFCAs as World
Heritage sites if applicable. Special attention will be given to promoting broad-based
education programmes for residents in or adjacent to the TFCAs.
Following discussions with South Africa's National Parks Board and Natal Parks Board and
with conservation agencies in neighbouring countries, seven potential TFCAs have been
identified for initial support by the Foundation (Map 1). In the text that follows, the first six are
listed from the west to the east of the region, ending with the Drakensberg/Maloti TFCA to the
south.
Transfrontier Conservation Areas supported by the Peace Parks Foundation
1. Richtersveld / Ai-Ais TFCA. This proposed TFCA spans some of the most spectacular
scenery of the arid and desert environments of southern Africa, incorporating the Fish River
Canyon (often equated to the Grand Canyon in the USA) and the Ai-Ais hot springs. It is
6,222 km2 in extent of which about 1,902 km2 (31%) are in South Africa, and the remainder
(69%) in Namibia (Map 2). It comprises the Richtersveld National Park in South Africa, which
was proclaimed in 1991 as South Africa's only fully contractual National Park, and the Ai-Ais
Nature Reserve in Namibia which was proclaimed in 198632. Dissected by the Orange River,
which forms the border between the two countries, the TFCA is one of the most diverse parts
of the species-rich Succulent Karoo biome, partly the result of two different rainfall systems
and climatic zones. The list of Red Data Book and endemic plant species is impressive,
making the TFCA one of the most species-rich arid zones in the world, an undisputed hotspot
of biodiversity. Many of the species of fauna found in the area are adapted to withstand the
harsh, arid climate (between 15 and 300 mm of rain each year, and summer temperatures well
over 40oC). Fifty-six species of mammals have been recorded, including eight Red Data Book
species. There are at least 194 species of birds, 23 of which are endemic to southern Africa.
The TFCA is particularly noted for its herpetofauna, the diverse microhabitats of the area being
populated by a large variety of lizards (35 species) and snakes (16 species) (Acocks, 1988;
Gelderblom et al., 1997; National Parks Board, 1996; Powrie, 1992; van Jaarsveld, 1981).
The Namibian conservation authorities have been approached informally by the South African
National Parks Board on the subject of the formal establishment of the proposed TFCA, but no
agreement or joint management plan exists. The Peace Parks Foundation subsequently met
with Namibia's Minister of Environment and Tourism on 18 July 1997 to facilitate the
development of the TFCA. The Minister reiterated Namibia's strong support for the initiative. A
formal liaison committee needs to be established between the two countries to advance the
process, and to address one of the main challenges associated with the implementation of the
TFCA, namely the rehabilitation of the diamond mining areas on both sides of the Orange
River.
The TFCA has limited visitor facilities. In the Richtersveld National Park, there are five
unserviced campsites and three guesthouses. The Ai-Ais Hot Springs and the Fish River
Canyon has much more extensive tourist accommodation facilities. The whole of the TFCA is
closed to visitors during the hot summer months (November to March). The opening of the
TFCA would greatly facilitate movement from the Richtersveld to the Fish River Canyon and
Hot Springs, but there is a limited potential for a significant increase in tourist numbers.
32
The Richtersveld was declared a Contractual National Park in terms of section 2B(I)(B) of the National
Parks Act 57 of 1976. The declaration followed an agreement between the National Parks Board (NPB),
the Minister of Environment Affairs, and the local inhabitants, in terms of which the NPB manages the
land as a national park in accordance with a management plan agreed to by all the parties for a
minimum period of 30 years. The area will continue to be used by 26 semi-nomadic pastoralists and their
stock.
2. Gariep TFCA. This is the least developed of all the seven proposed TFCAs, and is still at
the concept stage. As with the Richtersveld/ Ai-Ais, the area is also centered along a stretch
of the Orange River which forms the international boundary between South Africa and
Namibia. The proposed TFCA is 2,774 km2 in extent, of which 2,007 km2 (72%) are in South
Africa, and a further 767 km2 (28%) in Namibia (Map 3). It comprises an arid area
characterized by broken terrain with deep sandy dry river gorges flowing down to the Orange
River from both sides. The river itself has unique clusters of islands in several places, creating
a similar effect as found in river deltas. These islands support untouched stands of riverine
bush, a representative of the Orange River Nama Karoo vegetation type, only 1.5% of which is
presently conserved. Inland on the South African side are relatively untransformed areas of
typical Namaqualand Broken Veld, with a unique "forest" of Aloe dichotoma. The proposed
TFCA has the potential to be a major new sanctuary for the conservation of the black
rhinoceros (Acocks, 1988; Bezuidenhout, 1997; Gelderblom et al., 1997).
Unlike all of the other proposed TFCAs, land on both sides of the border is privately owned,
and at present has no conservation status. The Namibian conservation authorities have
accepted the concept, but no formal discussions have taken place. In the first six months of
1997, irrigation development for the production of table grapes has extended into the heart of
the proposed TFCA, causing significant land transformations, and this will necessitate a
revision of the proposed boundaries. The Peace Parks Foundation is waiting for advice on this
matter from the National Parks Board before any further action is taken.
Kalahari TFCA. In contrast to Gariep, this is the furthest advanced of the seven TFCAs, and
should be formally ratified by Botswana and South Africa early in 1998. The proposed TFCA
is 37,991 km2 in extent, of which 9,591 km2 (27%) are in South Africa with the remainder in
Botswana (Map 4). This TFCA has been de facto in existence since 1948 through a verbal
agreement between South Africa and Botswana, and is comprised of the Kalahari Gemsbok
National Park in South Africa (proclaimed in 1931), and the Gemsbok National Park in
Botswana (proclaimed in 1971), and subsequently extended to incorporate the Mabuasehube
Game Reserve. The area represents an increasingly rare phenomenon in Africa, namely a
large ecosystem relatively free of human influence. The 60 mammalian species recorded
include large herds of ungulates, (springbok, gemsbok and blue wildebeest, and to a lesser
extent hartebeest and eland). These ungulates support many carnivores and the TFCA has
built up a deserved reputation as one on the best places in southern Africa to see cheetah and
prides of lion. Leopard, spotted hyaena and brown hyaena are also well represented. A total
of 264 bird species have been recorded, including many species endemic to the arid south
west region of southern Africa. Shrubby Kalahari Dune Bushveld predominates, with the
Thorny Kalahari Dune Bushveld dominating along the Nossob and Auob Rivers (Acocks, 1988;
Eloff, 1984; Gelderblom et al., 1997; Main, 1987; Mills & Haagner, 1989; NPB (South Africa)
and DWNP (Botswana), 1997).
In June 1992 representatives from the South African National Parks Board and the
Department of Wildlife and National Parks of Botswana set up a joint management committee
(Transfrontier Management Committee) to address the formalization of the verbal agreement,
and to produce a management plan that would set out the framework for the joint management
of the area as a single ecological unit. The TFCA has been formally named as the Kalahari
Transfrontier Park, and the Kalahari Transfrontier Park Management Plan was reviewed and
approved by the two conservation agencies early in 1997. The Plan provides a basis for co-
operative tourism ventures33, and proposes the sharing of entrance fees equally by both
countries. An integral feature of the new agreement is that each country will provide and
33
The Development Strategies section of the Plan deals at length with allowable forms of tourism and
the proposed zoning system for the park, which indicate the degree of protection accorded. Each zone
has its own management and development policies.

maintain its own tourism facilities and infrastructure, giving particular attention to developing
and involving neighbouring communities (NPB (South Africa) and DWNP(Botswana), 1997).
The Transfrontier Management Committee is in the process of establishing a Section 21
company "The Kalahari Transfrontier Park Company" to manage and control the financial
aspects of the programme.
There are three rest camp on the South African side of the TFCA run by the National Parks
Board, each with chalets and camping facilities. At present, only camping facilities are
available on the Botswana side of the border. The Management plan recognizes the
importance of expanding visitor facilities, but the capacities for each of the zones and the siting
of new camps has still not been decided.
Dongola / Limpopo Valley TFCA. This proposed TFCA is 4,872 km2 in extent, of which 2,561
km2 (53%) is in South Africa, 1,350 km2 (28%) is in Botswana, and 960 km2 (19%) is in
Zimbabwe (Map 5). The TFCA is centered at the confluence of the Limpopo and Shashe
Rivers. It is made up of a complex mosaic of land ownership, including land owned by the
state, National Parks Board and private landowners in South Africa, privately owned land in
Botswana (including the Tuli Block Game Reserve and cattle/game ranches), and a mixture of
communal lands, privately owned stock and game farming operations and a government
owned safari area in Zimbabwe. In South Africa, after a long and often acrimonious debate
dating back to 1944 (Carruthers, 1992), an agreement that paved the way for the proclamation
of a national park in the vicinity of the Limpopo–Shashe confluence was signed on 9 June
1995 between the central government, the Northern Province and the National Parks Board.
The government-owned Tuli Safari Circle in Zimbabwe was gazetted in 1963. The TFCA has
excellent potential as a "big five" conservation area. Viable populations of lion, leopard, and
cheetah still occur, and the population of 600 elephants in Botswana is the largest population
on private land in Africa. Ungulates already present include eland, impala, blue wildebeest,
zebra, Sharpe's grysbok, and steenbok, and there is suitable habitat for both black and white
rhino. No detailed information is available on birds, reptiles and amphibians found specifically
within the TFCA, although the area around the confluence of the two rivers is known to have a
great diversity of birdlife. Three main vegetation communities are recognized in the region: the
riparian fringe occurs along the main rivers and their tributaries, the Acacia-Salvadora
community occurs on the Limpopo flats and vlei areas, and the mixed western mopane veld
occurs on ridges and flats south of the riparian fringe and flood plains. Twenty-six Red Data
Book plant species have been recorded in the area. The proposed TFCA also has numerous
archaeological sites dating from the early Stone Age, including Mapungubwe Hill, a site of
major importance in Sub-Saharan Africa and the most remarkable Iron Age site in the country
(Gelderblom et al., 1997; Robinson, 1995).
The Peace Parks Foundation has been involved in working with the National Parks Board of
South Africa and with the private landowners to establish an agreed South African position on
landownership issues related to the proposed TFCA. In August 1997, the Foundation assisted
the Board with the purchase of a farm adjacent to the Limpopo River for incorporation in the
TFCA. Most of the private landowners on the Botswana side have indicated their willingness to
participate in the TFCA, and they have the support of Botswana's Department of Wildlife and
National Parks. Prospects appear equally as encouraging in Zimbabwe. The National Parks
Board of South Africa has had preliminary discussions on the implementation of the TFCA with
their counterparts from the two neighbouring countries, but no formal agreements have been
concluded, and no joint development plan exists. The Board is actively involved in establishing
a core area for the proposed TFCA on the South Africa side of the border, which it will own
and manage as a Schedule 1 National Park. A major constraint to the movement of animals in
the area is the presence of the veterinary cordon fence and an electrified military barrier on the
South African side of the Limpopo River, and this needs to be addressed urgently.
The Dongola/Limpopo TFCA with its wealth of wildlife and scenery and its cultural/historical
assets has the potential to become a major new southern African tourist destination. Existing
tourist facilities are mainly restricted to a small number of privately run lodges in Botswana
(which already attract about 20,000 visitors each year), and an even smaller number within
South Africa. In Zimbabwe, the Tuli Circle Safari Area in Zimbabwe is used extensively for
hunting by permit. The proposed national park on the South African side of the TFCA could
attract 30,000 additional visitors per year. All three counties have potential for private sector
investment in ecotourism development.
Kruger / Banhine – Zinave / Gonarezhou TFCA. This is the largest of the seven proposed
TFCAs. It is 95,712 km2 in extent, of which 69,208 km2 (72%) is in Mozambique, 19,458 km2
(21%) in South Africa, and 7,019 km2 (7%) in Zimbabwe, and it will create one of the most
substantial and impressive conservation areas in the world (Map 6). With more species of big
game than any other tract of land of equivalent size, the TFCA has the potential to become
one of Africa's premier ecotourism destinations. The South African side will incorporate Africa's
first national park, the Kruger National Park, which was proclaimed on 31 May 1926, and a
number of privately owned areas on the western boundary of the park. Zimbabwe's portion of
the TFCA will include a small area of communal land and the Gonarezhou National Park,
which was proclaimed as a reserve in 1968 and obtained national parks status in 1972. In
Mozambique the TFCA will incorporate the Coutada 16 Wildlife Utilization Area immediately
adjacent to the Kruger National Park, the Zinave National Park, which was originally
proclaimed as a safari hunting area in 1962 and as a national park in 1972, Banhine National
Park which was established in 1972, and a large area of state owned communal land with a
relatively low population density34. Kruger National Park alone is one of the major areas of
vertebrate diversity in southern Africa, with 147 species of mammals, 505 species of birds, 51
fish, 35 amphibians, and 119 reptiles. Several of these are Red Data Book species. The
Gonarezhou National Park has a similarly diverse vertebrate fauna, although the total number
of species and of individuals is lower. Elephants and several species of ungulates used to
move freely between South Africa, Mozambique and Zimbabwe before fences divided the
area. Unfortunately, the many years of civil war in Mozambique coupled with recurrent
droughts and a serious lack of management capacity has resulted in the decimation or even
complete elimination of most of the large and medium-sized mammals from Zinave and
Banhine National Parks and from the intermediate areas. The extent of the decline is difficult
to determine because no systematic surveys have been carried out in this part of Mozambique
for over 20 years. The plant life of the proposed TFCA is equally as diverse, varying from
tropical to subtropical with some temperate forms occurring at higher altitudes. Nearly 2,000
species of vascular plants have been collected in the Kruger National Park alone. The
proposed TFCA is also of great cultural-historical value, as underlined by the recent discovery
of archeological sites at Thulamela Hill in the Kruger National Park from the gold and ivory
culture which prevailed from about 1200 to 1640 AD (Branch, 1988; Carruthers, 1995;
Gelderblom et al., 1997; Greyling & Huntley, 1984; Jacana Education and the National Parks
Board, 1996; Nel, 1996; Sinclair & Whyte, 1991).
As described at the start of this paper, discussions between South Africa and Mozambique at
a variety of levels have been taking place since 1990. A Transfrontier Committee was
established in 1997 involving representatives from the conservation agencies from the two
countries, but no formal agreement is in place. The Peace Parks Foundation has been asked
to join the Committee. Some preliminary discussions have taken place between conservation
agencies in Zimbabwe and representatives of the National Parks Board of South Africa and
the Peace Parks Foundation, but once again no formal agreement is in place. The Global
Environment Facility (GEF) Trust Fund has granted US$ 5 million to Mozambique for the
"Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional Strengthening Project". There is a
total commitment to this TFCA from all the relevant South African and Mozambican authorities,
34
Recent aerial observations suggest that the human settlements in the area are sparse with limited
slash and burn agriculture taking place. An estimated 7,800 people are settled along the Limpopo River
in or immediately adjacent to Coutada 16 (World Bank, 1996).

and considerable progress should be made with the initial phases of the project in 1998. On
the Mozambique side of the border priority activities must address the problems of increasing
human encroachment into the area, ongoing poaching, a lack of staff, funds and capacity to
rehabilitate and restock the existing designated protected areas, and deforestation for
fuelwood collection and charcoal production. Existing settlements will be incorporated into the
TFCA, and no attempt will be made to force people to relocate to other areas. Rather, every
effort will be made to develop outreach programmes to offer people opportunities to work with
conservation and/or tourism development activities. In South Africa, the Makuleke people
have lodged a land claim for land between the Luvuvhu and Limpopo Rivers from which they
were removed in 1969 to make this area part of the Kruger National Park. This justifiable claim
needs urgent attention, and must be handled with a great deal of sensitivity.
There is already an extensive and well developed tourism infrastructure within the Kruger
National Park, with 25 rest camps of various sizes providing 4,056 beds as well as 405
caravan/camping sites. These are complemented by the more "upmarket" accommodation
provided in the numerous private conservation areas adjoining the park. Facilities generally
are far less developed in Gonarezhou, with just one rest camp providing 21 beds, and a small
number of camping sites. In Mozambique, Coutada 16 has a small tourist camp operated by a
private contractor. There are no facilities in Zinave or in Banhine National Parks, and access
is difficult. There is great potential for commercial tourism development on the Mozambique
side of the TFCA, but this will not succeed unless coupled with a significant effort to make
progress with the priority activities mentioned above.
Maputaland TFCA. This proposed TFCA straddles the border between South Africa,
Mozambique and Swaziland. It is situated on a low-lying coastal plain between the Lebombo
Hills in the west and the Indian Ocean in the east, and offers a unique combination of big
game, extensive wetlands and coastal areas. The TFCA is 4,195 km2 in extent, of which 317
km2 (8%) is in Swaziland, 2,783 km2 (66%) is in Mozambique, and 1,095 km2 (26%) is in South
Africa (Map 7). In Swaziland, the King holds all the land in trust for the nation. The proposed
TFCA will eventually incorporate Hlane National Park, and the Mlawula, Simunye and Mbuluzi
Nature Reserves, a small section of Sisa Ranch and Malahleni dispersal area, all of which are
in the process of being incorporated into a new conservancy. The Maputo Elephant Reserve
in Mozambique was established in 1932, and was subsequently increased in size in 1969. All
the remainder of the land in the country is state owned communal land, with a relatively low
population density. Approximately 8,000 people live between the Maputo River and the coast.
In South Africa, the Ndumu Game Reserve was established in 1924, and the Tembe Elephant
Reserve in 1983. The consolidated area will be particularly important for elephant
conservation. Tembe (90 – 100 elephants) and Maputo Elephant Reserve (approximately 200
elephants) are the only indigenous populations remaining on the coastal plains of southern
Mozambique and KwaZulu-Natal (South Africa) in protected areas, and the two areas would be
linked together. The 102 species of mammals include both black and white rhino, and other
Red Data Book mammals include samango monkey, suni and red duiker. Unfortunately,
severe poaching has reduced or even eliminated several species of large mammals from the
Mozambican side. Of the more than 427 bird species found in the area, four species and 43
subspecies are endemic to the Maputaland Centre of Endemism. In the Ndumu Game Reserve
alone, 416 bird species have been recorded. The 112 species of reptiles include the
loggerhead and leatherback turtles, which nest along the extensive beaches. The vegetation
of Maputaland falls within the savanna biome, and consists primarily of Subhumid Lowveld
Bushveld and Natal Lowveld Bushveld, with limited Coastal Bushveld–Grassland, a complex
mosaic of savanna, sand forest, grassland, dune forest, floodplain, pan systems and swamp
communities. The conservation of these sand forests and their associated fauna in particular is
important, as this habitat type is very limited in extent. The world's largest remaining area of
sand forest (5 km wide and 20 km long) lies to the north of Ndumu Game Reserve in
Mozambique. This area alone has tremendous potential for tourism because of its rich birdlife.
The proposed TFCA is one of the most striking areas of biodiversity in the world. It contains
an exceptionally high number of species of fauna and flora, and is a zone of sharp transition,
representing the southernmost extent of the East African flora and fauna, and the
northernmost extent of many of the southern African species. It also contains many endemics
spread over the whole taxonomic spectrum. The proposed TFCA is the core of the
Maputaland centre of endemism, which was recently recognized as the only centre of plant
diversity in Mozambique35. The TFCA also has a strong cultural history. In Swaziland, near
the proposed TFCA, archeologists have made several interesting discoveries, including a very
rare record of modern man dating back 110,000 years, as well as many Early and Middle
Stone Age remains (Acocks, 1988; Bruton & Cooper, 1980; Gelderblom et al., 1997; Mountain,
1990; van Wyk, 1996; World Bank, 1996).
As with the Kruger TFCA, discussions at a variety of levels on the Maputaland TFCA involving
South Africa, Mozambique and Swaziland have been taking place since 1990. The GEF
allocation of US$ 5 million will also cover developments in Mozambique for this TFCA as well.
In November 1996, the Council of Ministers of Mozambique granted a major tourism
development concession to Blanchard-Mozambique Enterprises (BME) to develop an area of
2,300 km2 from Inhaca Island south to the Mozambique – South Africa border. This area
includes all the land to the east of the Maputo River up to the coast and also the Maputo
Elephant Reserve. BME has made a commitment to make available over US$ 800 million for a
variety of enterprises in the region. This concession is by far the most significant private sector
investment in a protected area anywhere in Africa. A Joint Management Committee has been
established to co-ordinate the activities of the BME project with other initiatives. It is not clear
at this stage how this programme will be co-ordinated with the Lubombo Spatial Development
Initiative, which was set up in 1997 by a Trilateral Ministerial Committee to develop a range of
transnational and national projects (including "cross-border conservation areas") within the
proposed TFCA. The Peace Parks Foundation has already committed R69,100
(approximately US$ 15,000) for the funding of salaries for a senior ranger and eight game
scouts for one year in the Maputo Elephant Reserve, (a project it is carrying out with the
assistance of the Endangered Wildlife Trust's Mozambique's office) and will give priority to
other requests from the Mozambique Government for this area. On 9 July 1997, the Peace
Parks Foundation convened a meeting in Swaziland to introduce the concept of TFCAs in
general, and to discuss Swaziland's involvement in the Maputo TFCA in particular. The
meeting was unanimous in its support for the TFCA, and agreed to set up a committee to
further the establishment of the proposed conservancy in the area. An important component of
the development of the TFCA, which needs further attention, is the whole process of
community consultation and involvement. Although a number of workshops have been held to
inform local communities of progress, a great deal more needs to be done. The additional
priority activities mentioned earlier for the Kruger TFCA also apply to the Maputaland TFCA.
To these must be added the construction of an electric fence extending from the western
boundary of the Maputo Elephant Reserve to the western boundary of the Tembe Elephant
Reserve.
The extraordinary biodiversity of this TFCA, coupled with its magnificent scenery, makes this
area yet another potentially significant new southern African tourist destination. Existing tourist
facilities are concentrated on the South African side of the border. Ndumu Game Reserve has
a good network of roads, seven three-bed cottages, and a small luxury lodge. Tembe
Elephant Reserve has adequate roads and three tented camps. In Swaziland, Hlane National
Park has good roads, one small camp offering rustic accommodation and a more modern
camp with three self-contained cottages. Two camping sites are available in the Mlawula
Nature Reserve. In the Maputo Elephant Reserve, access is at present restricted to 4x4
vehicles. There are many opportunities throughout this TFCA for private sector investment in
the tourism industry.
35
International centres of plant diversity are selected globally as first order sites, which if conserved will
safeguard the greatest number of plant species (van Wyk, 1994).

Drakensberg / Maloti TFCA. The Drakensberg is the highest region in South Africa. The
proposed TFCA is 8,113km2 in extent, of which 5,170 km2 (64%) is in Lesotho and 2,943 km2
(36%) is in South Africa (Map 8). It will contain the largest and most important high altitude
protected area in the subcontinent, supporting unique montane and subalpine ecosystems.
The area has spectacular scenery, as well as being an important centre of endemism for
montane plant species. The high altitude streams, oxbow lakes and wetlands, coupled with the
high annual rainfall (800 mm at lower altitude to 2,000 mm near the escarpment) make a
major contribution to the provision of water for the urban and industrial complexes in the South
African provinces of Gauteng and Mpumalanga, and this will be further enhanced through the
Lesotho Highlands Water Project which is presently under construction in Lesotho. On the
South African side of the border, a number of provincial nature reserves have been combined
together with state forests, wilderness areas and nature reserves proclaimed in terms of the
Forest Act to form the Natal Drakensberg Park. This is now being managed by the Natal
Parks Board as a statutory protected area, incorporating Giants Castle Game Reserve, Royal
Natal National Park, Loteni Nature Reserve, Vergelegen Nature Reserve, Rugged Glen Nature
Reserve, and the state forests at Cathedral Peak, Monks Cowl, Highmoor, Mkhomazi, Cobham
and Garden Castle. The continuity of the protected area on the South African side of the
border between the Royal Natal National Park and Cathedral Peak is broken by the
amaNgwane Tribal Area. However, several members of the resident local community have
already expressed interest in having the Tribal Area developed for a variety of ecotourism
progammes which would be compatible with the activities within the Natal Drakensberg Park.
On the Lesotho side, the Sehlabathebe National Park ranks as a schedule IV protected area in
terms of IUCN protected area categories. Portions of the alpine belt of Lesotho have been
earmarked as a Managed Resource Area in terms of the Managed Resource Order No.18 of
1993. The proposed TFCA is home to a variety of ungulates, including bushbuck, eland,
reedbuck, mountain reedbuck, grey rhebok, klipspringer, and oribi although numbers are
generally low. About 246 species of birds have been recorded, of which 14 are listed in the
Red Data Book. The Tsoelikana River harbours the highly threatened Maloti/Drakensberg
minnow Oreodaimon zuathlambae which was thought to be extinct. The vegetation of the
TFCA falls within the grassland biome, and consists mainly of Alti Mountain Grassland with
some Moist Upland Grassland in the lower-lying areas. An estimated 30% of the plant species
within this biome are endemic to the Drakensberg. There are also several areas of
Afromontane forest in the sheltered valleys. Both sides of the border contain important
archaeological sites in the form of some outstanding examples of San cave paintings and
artefacts. With the combination of these exceptional natural and cultural features, the whole
TFCA deserves nomination as a World Heritage Site. The entire Natal Drakensberg Park has
already been accepted for listing under the Ramsar Convention as a wetland of international
importance. The harsh climatic conditions have deterred permanent settlement within the
TFCA with the exception of a few recent isolated exceptions, although the Lesotho side is
used in the summer months for grazing. (Acocks, 1988; Bainbridge and Motsami, 1995;
Gelderblom et al., 1997; Hilland and Burtt, 1987; IUCN, 1990; Smith, 1997).
The establishment of the TFCA has been under negotiation since 1982, and the negotiations
are ongoing. Initially these took place under the aegis of an Intergovernmental Liaison
Committee. This was halted in 1993 after the election in Lesotho, but was continued in 1996
by the Natal Parks Board working closely with the National Environmental Secretariat of
Lesotho. In the same year, the Natural Resources Institute of UK's Overseas Development
Administration prepared and submitted a proposal for European Union funding for a major
conservation programme in a 1,000 km2 pilot area of the TFCA within Lesotho (Natural
Resources Institute, 1996). Expected key outputs will be comprehensive strategies for
livestock husbandry, natural resource conservation, ecotourism, environmental education and
extension, and sustainable land use. ECU 2 million was subsequently granted from the Lome
III Indicative Programme. In July 1997 a representative of the Peace Parks Foundation
attended a meeting in Maseru with representatives of the Natal Parks Board and the National
Environment Secretariat, where it was agreed that a formal Project Steering Committee should
be established to drive the initiative forward. One of the primary goals of the Steering
Committee would be the establishment of a Section 21 company for the TFCA.
The South African side of the border has an extensive network of accommodation facilities,
with the best developed being in the Royal Natal National Park and the Giant's Castle Game
Reserve. All the reserves have campsites and self-catering chalets. The higher mountains
have a number of caves that are used by overnight hikers and mountaineers. In Lesotho,
limited accommodation is available only at the Sehlabathebe National Park.
The Peace Parks Foundation's fundraising strategy
During the initial stages of the growth and development of the Foundation, funds will be raised
by the following three main methods. 1. Membership of the Peace Parks Club. The
Foundation has launched a Peace Parks Club, and His Royal Highness Prince Bernhard of the
Netherlands has accepted the appointment as the President of the Club. A package of travel
and accommodation benefits is available for Club members for a period of ten years on receipt
of a one-off payment (Peace Parks Club, 1997). One thousand individuals are being invited to
become Individual Founder Members (US$ 5,000 each), together with 100 Corporate Founder
Members (US$ 50,000 each). 2. Grants from bilateral and multilateral aid agencies. 3. Grants
and donations from individuals, corporations, Trusts and Foundations.
REFERENCES
Acocks,J.P.H.(1988) Veld types of South Africa. Memoirs of the Botanical Survey of South
Africa 57:1-146.
Bainbridge,W.R. and Motsami,B. (1995) Project motivation document. Greater Drakensberg-

Maloti Mountain Region: Community Development and Conservation Programme.
Lesotho National Environment Secretariat, Maseru, and Planning Division, Natal Parks
Board, Pietermaritzburg. 45pp.
Bezuidenhout,H.(1997) Preliminary report on the vegetation of the possible transfrontier

Onseepkans area. Unpublished report of the National Parks Board's Research &
Development Section, Kimberley. 3pp.
Branch,W.R.(1988) South African Red Data Book–Reptiles and Amphibians. S.Afr. Nat. Sci.
Prog. Report No.151. FRD, Pretoria. 241 pp.
Bruton,M.N. and Cooper,K.H. (1980) Studies on the ecology of Maputaland. Rhodes

University, Grahamstown.
Carruthers,J.(1992) The Dongola Wild Life Sanctuary: 'psychological blunder, economic folly
and political monstrosity' or 'more valuable than rubies and gold'. Kleio XXIV:82–100.
Carruthers,J.(1995) The Kruger National Park. A social and political history. University of Natal
Press, Pietermaritzburg.
Cravinho, J.G. (1997) Economy of Mozambique. In: Africa South of the Sahara 1997.pp 664-
670. Europa Publications, London.
de Villiers,N.N. (1994) The Open Africa Initiative. OAI, Claremont.
Eloff,F. (1984) The Kalahari ecosystem. Koedoe supplement: 11-20

Gelderblom,C.,van Wilgen,B.W. and Rossouw,N.(1997) Proposed Transfrontier Conservation
Areas. Maps and preliminary data sheets. Prepared for the Peace Parks Foundation by
the CSIR Division of Water, Environment and Forestry Technology, Stellenbosch. 50 pp.
Greyling,T. and Huntley,B.J. (1984) Directory of southern African conservation areas.

S.Afr.Nat.Sci.Prog. Report No. 98. FRD, Pretoria.
Hilland,O.M. and Burtt,B.L. (1987) The botany of the Southern Natal Drakensberg. Annals of
Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens, Vol. 15.
Hamilton,L.S., Mackay,J.C., Worboys,G.L., Jones,R.A. and Manson,G.B. (1996) Transborder

Protected Areas Cooperation. Australian Alps Liaison Committee and IUCN, Canberra.
64 pp.
IUCN (1990) 1990 United Nations list of national parks and protected areas. World
Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland. 275 pp.
Jacana Education and National Parks Board. (1966) Kruger Park. Visitors map. Jacana
Education, Johannesburg. 11pp.
Main,M. (1987) Kalahari:life's variety in dune and delta. Southern Book Publishers,
Johannesburg.
Mills,M.G.L. and Haagner,C. (1989) Guide to the Kalahari Gemsbok National Park. Southern
Book Publishers, Johannesburg.
Mountain,A. (1990) Paradise under pressure:St Lucia, Kosi Bay, Sodwana, Lake Sibaya,
Maputaland. Southern Book Publishers, Johannesburg.
National Parks Board (1996) Richtersveld National Park. Proposal/Nomination. A World

Heritage Site. National Parks Board, Pretoria. 13pp.
National Parks Board (South Africa) and Department of Wildlife and National Parks
(Botswana) (1997) Kalahari Transfrontier Park Management Plan. NPB, South Africa and
DWNP, Botswana.
Natural Resources Institute (1996) Outline project proposal for the European Union funding for
the Drakensberg-Maloti Mountains conservation progamme. Overseas Development
Administration, London.
Nel,M. (1996) Kruger land claim. South Africa's premier national park faces a major challenge.
African Wildlife 50(6):6-7.
Peace Parks Club (1997) A special invitation to join the Peace Parks Club. Peace Parks
Foundation, Somerset West. 15 pp.
Pinnock,D.(1996) Superparks. The impossible dream ? Getaway 8(8): 88-97.
Powrie,L.W. (1992) How alert are those Richtersveld plants ? Veld & Flora 78(1):14-17.
Robinson,G.A.(1995) Dongola National Park. Towards transfrontier conservation in southern

Africa. National Parks Board, Pretoria. 23 pp.
Sinclair,I. and Whyte,I. (1991) Field guide to the birds of the Kruger National Park. Struik, Cape
Town.
Smith,F.H. (1997) Some factors to consider in the conservation of the Drakensberg Water
Catchment Area of KwaZulu-Natal. South African Journal of Environmental Law and
Policy. 4(1) :91-111.
Thorsell,J.W. Ed. (1990) Parks on the borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Conservation.

IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Tinley,K.L. and van Riet,W.F.(1991) Conceptual proposals for Kruger/Banhine: A Transfrontier

Natural Resource Area. Prepared for SANF. 13 pp and 4 maps.
van Jaarsveld,E. (1991) A preliminary report on the vegetation of the Richtersveld with specific
reference to the trees and shrubs of the area. Trees in South Africa 33:58-85.
van Wyk,A.E. (1994) Maputaland-Pondoland Region. South Africa, Swaziland and

Mozambique. In: Centres of Plant Diversity. A guide and strategy for their conservation.
Davis,S.D., Heywood,V.H. and Hamilton,A.C. (Eds.) IUCN Publication Unit, Cambridge.
van Wyk, A.E. (1996) Biodiversity of the Maputaland Centre. In: The biodiversity of African
plants. van der Mensen et al. (Eds.) Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands.
Westing,A.H. (1992) Protected natural areas and the military. Environmental Conservation
19:343-348.
Westing,A.H. (1993) Building confidence with tansfrontier reserves: the global potential. In:
Transfrontier Reserves for peace and nature: a contribution to human security.
Westing,A.H. (Ed.) UNEP, Nairobi.
Williams,G. (1997) Africa in retrospect and prospect. In: Africa South of the Sahara 1997.pp
3-10. Europa Publications, London.
World Bank (1996) Mozambique. Transfrontier Conservation Areas Pilot and Institutional
Strengthening Project. Report No.15534-MOZ , Agriculture and Environment Division,
Southern Africa Department, The World Bank. 17 pp, with maps and appendices.

THE IMPACT OF WAR ON PROTECTED AREAS IN CENTRAL AFRICA. CASE STUDY OF
VIRUNGA VOLCANOES REGION
By: Samson E.W. Werikhe, Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA)

Norbert Mushenzi, Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN)
Jean Bizimana, Office Rwandais des Tourisme et Parcs Nationaux (ORTPN)
BACKGROUND
The area referred to as Virunga Volcanoes Region (VVR) is that part in Central Africa covered
by three protected areas in three countries. These protected areas, currently managed as
national parks are: Parc National des Volcans (PNV, 160 km2) in Rwanda, Parc National des
Virungas (PNVi, 240 km2) in Democratic Republic of Congo) and Mgahinga Gorilla National
Park (MGNP, 33.7 km2). Parc National des Virungas was Africa's first national park gazetted in
1925 and it was later reclassified as a World Heritage Site because of its internationally
recognized unique natural and cultural sites. Straddling the international boundaries of the
three countries, the Virunga Volcanoes Region has no physical demarcation along the borders
and free ranging animals within the area are transient between the different neighbouring
countries.
Of notable significance, the region harbors the rare and endangered mountain gorilla, Gorilla
gorilla beringei whose total population worldwide is approximately 600 animals. Slightly less
than 50% of these are within the Virunga Volcanoes Region (Butynski, T.M., S.E. Werikhe and
J. Kalina, 1990). The other population is found in Bwindi Impenetrable National Park, Uganda.
For a long time, only the Virunga Volcanoes portions of Rwanda and Congo were managed
under national parks. The Ugandan portion was until 1991 managed as a Forest - and Game
Reserve (Werikhe, 1991). Creation of MGNP six years ago elevated its level of protection and
matched it with the other two national parks in the region. This was a significant breakthrough
in support of conservation and it now seems certain that the three countries recognize the
importance and urgent need to safeguard the mountain gorilla and its habitat.
The Virunga Volcanoes Region protects a large number of plant and animal species endemic
to the Albertine Rift. This marked biological diversity with a high level of endemism is related to
the long natural evolution and tormented geological and volcanic history during the Plio-
Pleistocene era (d'Huart, 1989).
Human population density in the region is considerably high. At a population density averaging
300 people/km2, there is enormous pressure onto these protected areas for livelihood needs
especially fertile land for agriculture, fuel wood, construction wood, coffee plantations, food
and lots of other forest products. The conservation policies in place have therefore, been
designed to address the above pressures but also ensure a balanced situation with the
adjacent people for enhanced protection and continued existence of the resource.
The region is well known for its very high tourism potential exhibited by presence of mountain
gorillas, other taxa and impressive scenery. Some groups of gorillas have been habituated to
human presence and are currently viewed by tourists, fetching a fair amount of revenue to the
three countries. The substantial amounts of money generated from tourism are used by the
Rwanda, Congo and Uganda's Wildlife institutions of Office Rwandais du Tourisme et Parcs
Nationaux (ORTPN), Institut Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature (ICCN), and Uganda
Wildlife Authority (UWA), respectively to manage conservation activities in the Virunga
Volcanoes.
During the late 1990, a civil war was waged onto the Rwanda Government and this is reported
to have started from the Mutara Region, Rwanda. Launching war from the Mutara was

deleterious to conservation because of its location in the Virunga Volcanoes Region. Over the
years, the war advanced slowly into deeper regions of Rwanda until 1994 when the Rwandese
Patriotic Front took over power. This saw over 700,000 refugees fleeing Rwanda to North Kivu
District, Eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo for sanctuary.
The effects of this war on conservation in the region were directly felt for about seven years
since the war broke. They were most seriously felt when refugees camped in or near protected
areas and utilized resources therein with impunity. Other negative effects felt included loss of
lives of protected area staff, destruction of wildlife species and their habitat, breakdown in
communication, destruction of infrastructure, halt on tourism activities, and above all,
complete degeneration in staff work effectiveness due to insecurity.
IMPACT OF THE WAR ON PARC NATIONAL DES VIRUNGAS, DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

OF CONGO.
Refugee Problem
In July 1994 a mass exodus of Rwandese refugees took place to Uganda and Democratic
Republic of Congo. Congo took in the largest number of the refugees who were given asylum
in the region of North and South Kivu near Parc National des Virungas. The refugee crisis
aggravated conflicts over land tenure and heightened inter-ethnic tensions within Congo.
The presence of over 700,000 refugees who were temporarily resettled in five refugee camps
on the borders of Parc National des Virungas was a disaster to conservation. Foremost, this
settlement contravened the United Nations High Commission for Refugees' (UNHCR) policy
against establishment of refugee camps on the borders of protected areas (Lanjouw,
Cummings and Miller, 1995). The minimum distance should not be less than 150 km away
from the nearest protected area boundary. However, the situation with these refugees was
incredibly pathetic and large numbers were perishing on a daily basis. The UNHCR, acting
against its own policy, was forced to establish refugee camps in the neighborhood of Africa's
oldest national park.
The presence of refugees on the PNVi's boundary resulted into;
♦ Destruction of more than 150 km2 of the forest cover of the park, and deterioration of the
aesthetic value of the landscape. The refugees specialized in the trading of charcoal,
firewood and wild game and all these were from the PNVi. Over 50 % of the bamboo on
Mt. Mikeno was cut for manufacture of mats, fans, baskets, and for construction purposes.
♦ Reduction of the available firewood supply from plantations and village-based forest
reserves which act as buffer areas to the PNVi, thus leaving the park very vulnerable to
fuelwood removal.
♦ Massacre of the wildlife in PNVi. Exact information on species and numbers affected is yet
to be collected but some information shows that large mammals like hippopotamus,
elephant and gorillas were killed. The number of nylon and metallic snares seized by the
ICCN guards went from 913 in 1994 to 2795 in 1995, and the number of machetes went
from 1,588 to 4,078.
♦ Decrease of the livestock in North Kivu, causing the drop in availability of animal protein for
the human population. This then drove an increased number of people into the national
park to poach. The unplanned presence of the army in the area did compound the problem
of poaching and other forms of illegal utilization.
Decline in Tourism.

There was a marked decline in tourism over the years due to the high level of insecurity and
presence of refugees in the area. Six Italian tourists were unfortunately murdered in cold
blood and no additional visitors could risk their lives to visit the region.
Lawlessness.
There was absolutely no rule of law. Park authorities and the legislation were never respected
and taken seriously. There was a general feeling of lawlessness and disrespect for park
authorities especially rangers. The situation was seen as an opportunity to freely and illegally
utilize park's resources which had been under strict control previously. No courts of law were
available and hence no legal proceedings could be implemented to convict wrong doers. The
poachers responsible for killing the gorillas in 1995 were set free and these went back to their
villages.
General insecurity.
General insecurity in the area led to suspension of all externally funded conservation projects.
Areas like those near the Congo-Rwanda border where the Ndungutse Group of gorillas was
living could not be accessed by guides. With the exclusion of projects, there was no adequate
funding to fully cover conservation costs even the overheads. As a result, there were virtually
no conservation activities implemented. Yet the security situation needed an active and hard-
line intervention which was initially supported by GTZ. Seven teams of guards had to patrol
day and night in the vicinity of the gorilla groups. The system was very costly and required
considerable physical efforts and logistics.
IMPACT OF THE WAR ON VOLCANOES NATIONAL PARK , RWANDA.
Volcanoes National Park in Rwanda was an area of great interest to the Rwandese Army
because this was an area highly suspected to be a hide-out for the Rwandese Patriotic Front.
There were considerable defensive arrangements with use of gun fire put in the park and its
surroundings in an effort to scare off or repulse the enemy. Very similar to what happened in
PNVi, the impacts were as follows:
Loss of human life.
Many people were killed as a result of gunfire and of these, some were the national park's
personnel involved in conservation and protection activities.
Increased Poaching.
Surveillance patrols were limited to certain parts of the park because elsewhere, it was too
dangerous to reach. Dangerous places were heavily mined and infiltrated with large forces of
militia. Almost all conservation and protection activities were brought to halt thus paving way
for poachers. Animals poached included buffalo, bushbuck, and duiker. Bamboo and
fuelwood removal was very rampant. Areas close to the border with Congo were avoided by
the park's anti-poaching unit and such areas suffered great loss of wildlife species to
poachers. The number of snares collected increased two-fold and much of this was attributed
to the presence of refugees in neighbouring Congo. Two gorillas were reported trapped in
snares and these were promptly rescued by veterinarians of the Karisoke Research Centre.
Lack of respect for park authorities and legislation.
There was overall neglect of law protecting the national park. The problem of illegal utilization
reached high levels when park staff were denied use of arms during patrols. The local people
moved into the park to remove forest products and apportioned a chunk of land for cultivation.

Agricultural encroachment occurred on the lower slopes of the Park where there is a prime
habitat for mountain gorillas and other taxa.
Lack of coordination with counterparts on Uganda and Congo portions.
Before the war, wildlife authorities in Rwanda, Congo and Uganda were implementing local
initiatives aimed at coordinating conservation activities in the region. These included
communication of information on park infringements, planning and networking meetings to
map out strategies for future implementation, organizing combined antipoaching patrols,
regional meetings, etc. In essence, conservation activities were moving effectively though
informally, and with the onset of the International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP),
most of these got strengthened up in implementation.
The war definitely removed opportunities for networking and all on-going and planned activities
were frustrated. Regional meetings attended by IGCP National Representatives were
supposed to be held quarterly. It was not until 1995 when it was possible to hold the first
regional meeting. The meeting was held in Kisoro, Uganda on 31 August 1995 and all
representatives from the three countries attended. Due to the continued conflict, the next
meeting was held in March 1997 in Kigali and the Congo representatives could not easily
make it in time. All subsequent regional meetings with effect from April 1997 have been held
without much ado.
Destruction of infrastructure.
The war caused a lot of confusion and anarchy characteristic of looting of infrastructure and
equipment both inside and outside of the park. These included the well equipped Karisoke
Research Centre, the National Park Headquarters, the Visitor's Centre, housing quarters for
staff, vehicles, radios, and uniforms.
Impacts on Tourism and loss of income
Tourism in the region is based on gorilla viewing. The heavily sounding, threatening and lethal
military artillery caused gorillas to flee and scatter in areas other than their home ranges. It
became difficult to monitor movements of tourist groups after inevitably abandoning their
traditional home ranges. This meant that gorilla trekking for tourism purposes was excluded.
Tourism based on gorilla viewing started in 1984. By 1990 when the war broke, tourist
numbers had risen by 50% thus doubling the amount of revenue to the country. The war
eroded all these opportunities.
Impact of war on the Mgahinga Gorilla National Park, Uganda
In Uganda's MGNP, lots of military shells were projected into this park as well as mining almost
all the areas. As mentioned above, this was a move acting on suspicion that the Rwanda
Patriotic Front was camped in the Park. As a result;
♦ One law enforcement ranger of MGNP lost his whole leg to a land mine.
♦ Tourism development activities were suspended due to insecurity and tourists ceased
coming. At the time when MGNP was reclassified as a national park (1991), there was
already a habituated group of gorillas (Nyakagezi/Faida) visiting MGNP from Congo.
Werikhe (1991) reports that this group spent approximately 42% in MGNP and this was
before the protection level was improved. Uganda expected to begin implementing tourism
on this group immediately but was delayed until 1995.

♦ The intensity and seriousness in patrols declined. The patrols were now conducted only in
parts of the morning and afternoon/evening along the Park's boundary yet previously they
were carried out both during the day and night and in almost all areas of the Park. Land
mines were placed in strategic places of Rugezi Swamp, Kabiranyuma Swamp, and along
the international border line. These swamps are prime to wildlife and the local people in the
neighbourhood as a source of water especially during the dry season.
Destruction of wildlife species
One gorilla, 3 buffaloes, 1 bushbuck,and 1 golden monkey were killed as a result of gunfire.
Elephants fled and went deep into PNVi due to the destructive noise and disturbance caused
by heavy artillery. The tops of Sabinyo, Gahinga and Mhavura were shelled destroying an
amount of alpine vegetation and unknown animal species. The alpine flora on tops of the
volcanoes is highly endemic and rare, typical of the Albertine Rift biodiversity.
Infrastructure
The park's offices and radio communication were destroyed. Park authorities had to rent
alternative accommodation beyond Kisoro Town at Mutolere. This was far from the national
park, making it difficult to implement park management activities.
Refugees
Unlike in the PNVi, refugees did not cause much destruction in MGNP. However, about 5,000
of these crossed MGNP on their way to Congo and Kisoro for asylum. On their way, they
camped in the park and in the process, used quite an amount of fuelwood and probably
poached animals for food.
Future of Conservation in the Virunga Volcanoes Region
Over the years, conservation in the Virunga Volcanoes Region (VVR) has faced challenging
problems, most which, if not all, hinge on the high population pressure and demand for
livelihood needs. The loss of huge amounts of forest land to agricultural encroachment, illegal
utilization of forest products, poaching and habitat destruction have left just a small percentage
of the original abundant resources which must now be actively controlled to ensure their
continued existence. Until 1991, only the MGNP (Uganda portion of the Region) was not
managed as a national park. The concern of various conservationists worldwide and
government authorities enabled for this additional portion be reclassified as a national park
thus increasing the protection level of the entire Virunga Volcanoes Region in totality. This
was seen as a tremendous step ahead in the evolution of the protection process of the VVR
since the declaration of its first portion as a national park seven decades ago.
Individual governments' and donor interventions have been implemented in support for
conservation in the region. Informal regional initiatives at field staff level in the three countries
have shown good progress and with the onset of the IGCP later in 1991 which has been
providing technical and logistic support, the regional approach has been emphasized realizing
the great potential it has. Before the war interruptions set in, conservation activities like
tourism based on gorilla viewing were flourishing. Increase in tourism activities brought in
more revenue and for example in Uganda where park revenue is shared with communities,
local people adjacent to the protected areas seem to have began appreciating the total value
and importance of conservation based on biodiversity resources.
Infrastructural development, training, employment opportunities, tangible and intangible

ecological, socio-economic and cultural benefits cannot be overemphasized. The foregoing
indicate that the war has sunk many conservation opportunities and efforts that had been

invested over the years whose recovery depends solely on the nature of resources affected.
The Virunga Resource is precious and sensitive, and could be extirpated very easily if the
three countries responsible do not decide on a common strategy. At this time, potential threats
include; a) each country can formulate her own policies however inappropriate they may apply
to other portions of the region, b) the region has a high level of endemism and houses one of
the world's endangered species (the mountain gorilla) whose home range does not recognize
the existing boundaries and could be wiped out at the hands of man anytime, c) the region is
surrounded by a fast expanding human population with a correspondingly increasing demand
for livelihood needs thus putting the Region under pressure of exploitation and, d) there is no
formal international convention, treaty or agreement in the region requiring the three states to
become members to implement one legislation for better protection of the resources. It is not
too late yet. The three countries can map out a strategy that will ensure long-term existence of
resources in this Region.
The effects of the recent wars upon conservation in the area are still fresh and a great loss
too. Cost of the recovery programme will be enormous yet not everything lost may be
recovered. The nature resource-based capital lost in terms of individual wildlife species and
related revenue should be an eye-opener to the relevant authorities to protect the Region more
adequately than before for posterity. According to Mackinnon, J., K. Mackinnon, G. Child and
J. Thorsell (1986), there is no foolproof management prescription to protect parks under
circumstances of warfare. However, we need public support and a more condensed
international linkage if we must protect this region.
We recommend that the three countries manage the Region as an international or peace
park. The strengths of this recommendation are;
♦ the Region harbors a unique and extremely important which straddles across three
international borders,
♦ the individual country's conservation policies differ and however slightly, this poses a
problem of lack of common conservation strategy,
♦ the area which has potential as an international/ a peace park is only 420 km2. This is
small enough to be managed but also draws immediate attention as it can all disappear
soon,
♦ the ecological, socio-economic, cultural and ethnic set up in the area is more or less uniform
across the borders,
♦ there are opportunities for utilizing gorilla permits across countries as habituated gorillas
move between Rwanda and Congo and between Congo and Uganda. Currently, Tour
Operators in Uganda take tourists to Rwanda and Congo when all gorilla permits in Uganda
are fully booked,
♦ currently, conservation and management activities are regionally focused under the
auspices of the International Gorilla Conservation Programme (IGCP),
♦ all protected areas in the Region are national parks.
REFERENCES
Butynski, T.M., S.E Werikhe and J. Kalina. 1990. Status, Distribution and Conservation of the
Mountain Gorilla in the Gorilla Game Reserve, Uganda. Primate Conservation 11: 31 -
41.

d'Huart, J.P. 1989. Bases for the Development of a Coordinated Management of contiguous
Protected Areas in Zaire and Uganda. AGRICONSULTING.
Lanjouw, A., G. Cummings and J. Miller. 1995. Gorilla Problems and activities in North Kivu,
Eastern Zaire. African Primates 1: 44 - 46.
Mackinnon, J., K. Mackinnon, G. Child and J. Thorsell. 1986. Managing Protected Areas in
the Tropics. IUCN, GLAND, SWITZERLAND.
Werikhe, S.E.W. 1991. An Ecological Survey of the Gorilla Game Reserve, South-West
Uganda. M Sc Thesis, Makerere University, Kampala.

POTENTIAL FOR THE CREATION OF A PEACE PARK IN THE VIRUNGA VOLCANO
REGION
By: Annette Lanjouw36 and José Kalpers37
Introduction
The presentation by Werikhe et al. (Session 3) stressed the value of the Virunga Volcano
region in terms of biodiversity and demonstrated the variety and level of the threats to these
ecosystems. As described in their paper, the two main types of threats affecting the region are:
♦ on the one hand, a very high human population density (to the order of 300 to 400 people
per km2) with a high growth rate (the rate of population growth in the Great Lakes region
averages at 3.1%) (May, 1996), leading to considerable pressure on natural habitats and to
harvesting resources from the forest (poaching, collection of wood and bamboo, water and
secondary products);
♦ to these problems, which have existed for many years, one must now add the effects of the
recent crisis, of which the first manifestations occurred during the war between the
Rwandan Patriotic Front and the army of the ex-Rwandan government in 1990. The
situation then evolved with the presence of hundreds of thousands of refugees
concentrated in camps in the Democratic Republic of Congo (ex-Zaïre, DRC), and then
finally with the civil war in DRC. Werikhe et al. have described the details of this crisis
during their exposé.
Faced with the multitude of problems encountered in the region, it is important to recognise
that conservationists were forced to limit themselves to a “reactive” attitude, able only to follow
events as they developed and intervening only there where security conditions allowed and
when finances, however modest, were available (Thorsell, 1991). At no point was it possible to
realistically predict events and plan activities according to pre-established scenarios, for
example (d’Huart, 1992).
It is possible, however, that the moment has come to look at more innovative approaches,
based upon novel solutions that can be tested in the field (Simons, 1988). These approaches
can specifically look at some of the difficulties associated with transfrontier co-operation
between the countries sharing the Virunga massif: Rwanda, Uganda and DRC. This paper
proposes to consider one of the possible approaches, namely the establishment of a “Peace
Park” in the Virunga volcanoes.
History of transfrontier co-operation in the region
With the initiation of the Mountain Gorilla Project (formed by the African Wildlife Foundation
and other conservation organisations) in 1979 (Vedder & Weber, 1990), contacts were
established between the authorities in Rwanda and Uganda, although generally on an informal
basis. Later, activities were also initiated in DRC (activities implemented by the Frankfurt
Zoological Society and the World Wide Fund for Nature-WWF) and bilateral commissions
(primarily between Rwanda and Uganda and between Rwanda and DRC) were held on an ad
hoc basis. They generally dealt with aspects linked to the development of regional tourism,
36
Regional Coordinator, International Gorilla Conservation Programme. Address: c/o AWF, P.O.Box
48177, Nairobi, Kenya. Email: alanjouw@awfke.org
37
Technical Associate, International Gorilla Conservation Programme. Current address: Service
d'Ethologie, Université de Liège, Quai Van Beneden, 22, B-4020 Liège, Belgium. Email:
100657.707@compuserve.com

however, or specific problems linked to the visits by tourists to gorilla groups that tended to
move along and across the frontier zone between Rwanda and DRC.
It was only in 1989 that the conservation of afromontane forest ecosystems became the
subject of a regional forum, with the organisation of the first seminar-workshop on the
conservation of afromontane forests, held at Cyangugu in Rwanda. Subsequently, other
conferences were organised at Bujumbura (Burundi) in 1992 and at Mbarara (Uganda) in
1994. These workshops provided the opportunity for the different countries with afromontane
forests to forge links and for some to initiate, or reinforce contacts with the objective of
improving the management of transfrontier protected areas (ex.: Kibira-Nyungwe, Virunga
massif, Mount Elgon, Ruwenzori massif). Although they provided the opportunity to formally
bring together protected area managers and national authorities of a number of African
countries, the conferences were organised sporadically. Follow-up between the different
sessions of the workshops was generally superficial, limited to the drafting of workshop-reports
for each session and the organisation of the next workshop, without monitoring and
supervision of the implementation of recommendations.
In 1991, the coalition of three organisations that financed the Mountain Gorilla Project in
Rwanda (the African Wildlife Foundation, Fauna and Flora International and the World Wide
Fund for Nature-WWF) decided to start the International Gorilla Conservation Programme
(IGCP). The goal of the programme is to ensure the protection and long term conservation of
mountain gorillas and their habitat, the medium- and high altitude forests of Rwanda, Uganda
and DRC. IGCP works towards this goal in close collaboration with the protected area
authorities in the three countries (IGCP, 1996).
To date, IGCP has had to work in particularly difficult circumstances as its conception
coincided with the beginning of the “Great Lakes crisis”. Nevertheless, at a regional level, a
number of achievements have been made:
♦ organisation and facilitation of bilateral and trilateral meetings between the protected area
managers of the 4 national parks included in the programme (Mgahinga Gorilla National
Park, Volcanoes National Park, Virunga National Park and Bwindi Impenetrable National
Park);
♦ development of a communication network and system for regular information exchange

between the three countries involved;
♦ organisation and facilitation of the first joint patrols between the field-based staff in Rwanda
and DRC;
♦ development of a number of independent, but common activities in the three countries:

these include the development and monitoring of tourism, the initiation of a training and
ecological monitoring programme.
Value of a Peace Park in the Virungas
The creation of a peace park in the Virungas would serve a dual purpose, at the level of
biodiversity conservation and at the political-diplomatic level.
For the conservation of biodiversity
A peace park enables a homogeneous and concerted approach to management and

conservation of the transfrontier zone

Although the three protected areas concerned form part of the same forest block, it has
become apparent in the past that their management is based on principles that are sometimes
very different. We will not enter into the details of these differences, but the principal ones are
identified here: protection/surveillance systems (anti-poaching patrols, amongst others);
tourism programmes (especially with respect to the utilisation of “alternative” attractions, or, in
other words, attractions other than the visits to the gorillas); community-based conservation
approaches, etc.
A peace park would provide a mechanism whereby these differences could be minimised in
order to arrive at a uniform management system that could be applied in the three sites. This
could include, for example, the elaboration of integrated conservation plans serving as overall
strategies for the conservation of these ecosystems or species (Oates, 1996), or the
development of plans focusing on certain flagship species (such as the gorilla). The advantage
of such an approach is to weaken the “virtual barriers” separating the three national parks and
to arrive at a common approach to management. If only for the long-term conservation of the
population of mountain gorillas in the Virunga massif, the concept of a peace park has a great
deal of merit. The recent conclusions of Sarmiento et al.(1996), suggesting that the mountain
gorilla is to be found only in the Virunga volcanoes, still reinforce the significance of a
concerted approach between the three countries.
By merit of its prestige and institutional foundation, a peace park constitutes a pole of
attraction for the outside world
For several decades, the mountain gorilla has attracted the attention of the international
community: the work of pioneers such as Schaller (1963) and Fossey (1983) have drawn the
attention of the conservation community, by emphasising the extreme vulnerability of this great
ape and close relative to humans. Since then, a number of conservation initiatives have been
launched in the region. These initiatives were not always co-ordinated between the different
external partners responsible for implementation, nor even between the authorities in the three
countries that were beneficiaries of the support.
The creation of a peace park in the Virungas would add to the traditional renown of the
mountain gorilla the prestige of an original and creative initiative such as a transfrontier
conservation zone. Such a double attraction would draw the attention of external donors and
render other sources of potential funding available.
A peace park authorises the development of true regional tourism
Ecotourism, and especially “gorilla tourism”, has been a very important component of the
conservation of mountain gorillas for more than ten years. It would be fair to say that due, in
part, to the visits to habituated families of gorillas by tourists, conservationists in the region
have managed to protect the Virunga massif and its population of mountain gorillas. This
biological resource has been given a significant economic connotation. Although tourism to
gorillas has been developed in all three countries, the demand at times exceeds the available
places and not all visitors can be satisfied. This sometimes leads to considerable pressures
being placed on the resource, emanating from both the private sector (tour operators) and
even some official authorities (Aveling, 1991; Stewart, 1992). A peace park would be of value
in enabling the development of regional tourism circuits bringing together the three countries,
based on a diversification of ecotourism attractions. One of the consequences of such a
concerted strategy would be to “dilute” the pressure on natural resources from tourism by
dividing the demand more equitably between the three countries.
Objectives at a political and diplomatic level

A peace park would intensify the contacts between the three national protected area
authorities
Contacts developed under the aegis of a peace park represent a remarkable opportunity for
the intensification of regional co-operation in the field of biodiversity conservation. This will also
facilitate the harmonisation of conservation policies, not only for the three national parks
concerned, but at a national level in each of the three countries. It would therefore be possible
to speak of three networks of protected areas that would benefit from the new dynamics.
A peace park is a tool for political stabilisation in the region
After the more than 6 years of civil strife that have ravaged the Great Lakes region, the
creation of a peace park would represent a positive action by the three concerned countries, a
symbol of their respective desire to take the path of conflict resolution. Far from pretending to
be a solution to the crisis that has enveloped this region of Central Africa, a peace park
represents a “cornerstone in the building of long-term peace” and its value, albeit only
symbolic, must not be underestimated.
Existing and potential constraints (feasibility)
Existing constraints
Communication problems
The three countries included do not share the same official language (in Rwanda and DRC,
the official language is French, whereas in Uganda it is English). This constraint, however,
should not be insurmountable given that: a) the populations bordering the national parks
concerned speak the same language group (Kinyarwanda and Rukiga), and b) Rwanda has
recently become bilingual, utilising both French and English.
Different administration systems
Due to their shared colonial past, official institutions in DRC and Rwanda operate on the basis
of similar administrative and bureaucratic systems. In Uganda, on the other hand, the official
administration is based on the Anglo-Saxon system. These differences could have potentially
negative repercussions on efforts at harmonising management approaches in the three
protected areas included in a peace park.
Relative importance of the three protected areas at a national level
The Volcanoes National Park is an extremely important site in Rwanda, both in terms of
conservation of biodiversity as well as in terms of national economy. At the opposite extreme,
Mgahinga Gorilla National Park is only considered a “minor” national park for Uganda, whereas
Bwindi Impenetrable National Park is central in terms of both biodiversity conservation and
2
economic development. The Mikeno sector (ca. 250 km ) of the Virunga National Park in DRC
represents only a tiny portion of a very large protected area covering about 8,000 km2, but is
nevertheless very important in bringing in substantial tourism revenues. The differences in
relative importance, although they may appear insignificant, could also have a negative impact
on the degree to which the different governments are willing to invest in the creation of a
peace park.
Potential constraints
Diplomatic context

Although diplomatic relations between the three countries concerned are currently excellent,
the recent past has demonstrated that tensions have existed and that they can seriously
undermine the climate of confidence existing at a regional level. It is always possible that a
deterioration of diplomatic relations could occur that would slow the process of development or
effective functioning of a peace park.
Administrative constraints with respect to border crossings and security
This is a classical constraint in a network of transfrontier protected areas (Blake, 1993). It is

intensified in this case by the fact that the region is only recently coming out of a period of civil
war where the Virunga massif served as an entry point and passage way for groups of armed
forces. Security is currently still a problem, as the forest is being used by armed forces and
militias. Therefore border crossings have to be thoroughly checked, complicating ease of
passage and making relaxation of immigration formalities for effective co-management
impossible
Legislative and institutional framework
Institutional framework
In each of the three countries, management and conservation of protected areas is the
responsibility of parastatal organisations falling under the jurisdiction of ministerial
departments. Werikhe et al. have described the three protected area authorities and we will
not enter into the details. The fact that we are dealing with comparable field management
structures is already a strength in fostering transfrontier collaboration between the three
countries. Each of the three organisations has a relatively high level of functional autonomy,
which can lead to the adoption of common initiatives. As a first step, this can include the
rapprochement between the managers of the three national parks, and the implementation of
common activities (see below).
Legislative framework
Status of the three constituents of the Virunga Massif
Although each of the three protected areas has the status of a national park (IUCN
classification, category II), international recognition differs between the sites: the Virunga
National Park is a World Heritage Site, the Volcanoes National Park is part of the Man and the
Biosphere Programme (UNESCO), whereas the Mgahinga Gorilla National Park has no
internationally recognised status. These differences constitute a challenge to the
harmonisation of management approaches in the three sites, and priority should be given to
the inclusion of Rwanda to the World Heritage Convention.
Role of international conventions
A number of treaties and conventions exist that could significantly contribute to the
establishment of a regional structure such as a peace park:
♦ Firstly, there exist a series of general agreements providing guidelines for co-operative
relations between nation states, such as the Charter of the United Nations (San Francisco,
1945), the United Nations General Assembly Declaration of Principles of International Law
concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations (New York, 1970), or the Declaration of the United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm, 1972). These agreements stimulate
signatory nations to deal with differences between themselves in a peaceful manner and
underline the necessity for co-operation between nations.

♦ In addition, there exist a number of agreements that specifically deal with the conservation
of nature and the environment, such as the United Nations General Assembly World
Charter for Nature (New York, 1982), the Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro,
1992), the United Nations Declaration on Environment and Development (Rio de Janeiro,
1992), or the World Heritage Convention. The latter convention could play a critical role,
were a similar status to be accorded to the three national parks, by allowing for a uniformity
in approach to management and international context.
At a regional level
Outside of a number of general bilateral agreements, mechanisms for regional co-operation

between the three countries concerned have already been established. These mechanisms
include components for the environment and for tourism: a) the Economic Community of the
Great Lakes Countries (CEPGL) includes DRC, Burundi, and Rwanda. CEPGL was
established in 1976 and recognises the role of environmental protection in sustainable
development and the regional nature of many of the environmental issues for the Great Lakes
region; b) the Organisation of the Kagera Basin (OBK) includes Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania
and Uganda, and promotes industrial and economic co-operation in the region; c) the
Preferential Trade Area (PTA) was a regional organisation that included Burundi, Kenya,
Rwanda, Tanzania and DRC, with the objective of promoting preferential trade between its
member countries. This PTA has now merged with southern African States into the COMESA
(Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa).
Proposed strategy for the creation of a peace park in the Virungas
This section proposes a series of steps for the creation of a single management structure for
the three constituents of the Virunga conservation area. Some of these steps can overlap in
timing, some needing to be started in the early phases to be finalised at a later date.
Designation and endorsement of a facilitator
The creation of a peace park must involve a neutral body, able to play the role of catalyst and
facilitator throughout the preparatory process and establishment of the park, following the
model developed for the Indochina reserve for peace and nature (Westing, 1993). Such a
neutral body could be a non-governmental organisation (ex.: IUCN/WCPA), an operational
programme in the field (ex: IGCP) or a United Nations agency (ex: UNEP, or one of its
dependant structures such as GEF).
A number of activities have already been implemented in at least two of the three countries
concerned. These activities were initiated independently and supported by the same external
partners: IGCP has been involved for many years in tourism development, day-to-day
management and administration by the protected area authorities, training of field-based
personnel and ecological monitoring. More recently, the Morris Animal Foundation has
provided a framework for health monitoring and veterinary support in the Virunga massif and
the Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund is proposing to develop a community-based conservation
programme. The merit of these different activities is that they are building a solid foundation in
each of the three countries, which can then be fused into an extensive regional programme
when the appropriate moment arrives.
Informal contacts
Informal contacts can be initiated before an official facilitator is designated. For example,
activities implemented by IGCP since 1991 have paved the way for the development of regular
collaboration between the Office Rwandais du Tourisme et des Parcs Nationaux, the Institut

Congolais pour la Conservation de la Nature and the Uganda Wildlife Authority. Such informal
contacts between the official protected area authorities in the respective countries can be
made at both local and central administration level (in other words, at the headquarters level in
the respective capital cities).
Equally, it is at this stage that attempts can be made to harmonise the status of the three
protected areas: steps can be taken to have the three sites recognised by the World Heritage
Convention, and contacts can be taken with the MAB programme (UNESCO) and with the
IUCN.
Initiate joint activities
As soon as conditions permit, efforts should be made towards the development of regional
activities that involve two (bilateral collaboration) or three countries. Collaborative activities can
thus be extended to include the following aspects:
♦ planning and development of integrated conservation strategies, harmonising the activities

developed in the 3 countries
♦ joint patrols for surveillance
♦ implementation of an ecological monitoring programme
♦ development of a communication network
♦ development of an integrated tourism strategy
♦ allowing free passage to tourists and field-based personnel across borders
♦ implementation of a common regional training strategy
♦ development of a common methodology for data analysis
♦ implementation of similar community-based conservation strategies
Some of these activities have already been initiated, notably under the auspices of IGCP:
training strategy, ecological monitoring programme and joint patrols.
Extending discussions to other authorities/departments
Although the protected area authorities have a great deal of autonomy in each of the three
countries, it will be necessary to extend the discussions on the development of a peace park to
other authorities in the three concerned countries. These authorities will include the Ministries
responsible for the environment and protected areas, the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, the
presidential offices, legislative bodies (such as parliament), etc.
Given that in many cases these same authorities will be involved in the ratification of
international conventions and treaties, it is at this stage that the harmonisation of the status of
the three protected areas will be finalised: signature by Rwanda of the World Heritage
Convention, inclusion of the PNV and MGNP as World Heritage sites, inclusion of PNVi and
MGNP in the MAB programme.
Signature of a “Memorandum of understanding”
A preliminary document will be proposed for signature by the three governments involved,
based on the model utilised for the creation of a peace park in Indochina. The objective is to
draft and have a interim “memorandum of understanding” signed between the governments
(Westing, 1993), that will pave the way for the actual agreement establishing a peace park in
the Virungas. This MOU will describe the parties and endorser, define the peace park and list

the interim steps that will lead to the formal agreement, subject to ratification by the legislative
bodies of the three countries.
Preparation of a formal agreement
This is the most important, and most delicate step in that it will influence the stability of the
entire process. The three steps to envisage include: a) drafting of a formal agreement; b)
identification of funding mechanisms; and, c) setting up of the structures for a peace park.
The agreement will outline in its preamble the legislative background of the peace park, define
its purpose, describe the parties and the endorsing partner, and define the peace park and its
structures (being a commission or another mechanism) and modes of operation.
Funding
Adequate financing may well be the most difficult aspect in the development and effective
functioning of a peace park (Dennis and Spergel, 1993). It is possible, however, to envisage
that the creation of such a park would attract the curiosity and attention of the international
community and would thus increase funding possibilities. Three principal types of funding can
be envisaged, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive:
1. “Classical” funding, where bilateral or multilateral donors make funds available for the
development of a regional programme. Various examples of regional programmes exist in
Central Africa: the ECOFAC project, financed by the European Union, or the CARPE
project, financed by USAID. The advantage of such funding is that relatively large sums can
become available as soon as they are attributed to a programme. The disadvantage is that
they are generally slow to be implemented and the administration of management
procedures and the disbursement of funds tend to be complicated and slow. In addition,
such support falls under the approach of a “project”, limited in time and submitted to political
considerations linked to both the donor and the beneficiary nation.
2. Funding through a “Trust Fund”: financing conservation through a trust fund has been tried
in a number of African countries (Dillenbeck, 1994), most notably in the Bwindi
Impenetrable National Park and the Mgahinga Gorilla National Park (through the Bwindi and
Mgahinga Forests Conservation Trust Fund). The advantage of such a formula is to provide
long-term financing, at least in theory. It would be possible to envisage the creation of a
single regional trust that would provide a guaranteed source of funding even in times of
instability, as long as the funds are invested outside of the zone considered. Such a trust
would be more reliable than a national trust fund, as it would be less open to external
influences (Dennis and Spergel, 1993), but it would be more likely to be confronted with
technical problems linked to the financial modalities of its implementation. One could also
envisage the establishment of three individual national trusts with a common management
and co-ordination system for the three countries (coinciding with the peace park structures).
The inconvenience of trust funds is the generally lengthy process of establishment, as well
as the difficulty of the management and administration of one or more trusts. In order for
such a funding mechanism to be immediately effective, it is necessary that a sufficient
amount of capital is invested so that the interest generated can finance activities.
3. Establishment of an international or local non-governmental organisation that can serve as

a basis for the management of a peace park and for centralising sources of funding. The
example of IGCP is suggestive: the core funds of this programme enabled it to assist the
three national parks of the Virunga Massif throughout the long years of civil war and strife
that have plagued the region. At the same time, outside sources of funding enabled the
programme to support rehabilitation activities (WWF and UNHCR funds for Rwanda and
DRC, for example) and development activities (for example USAID funds in Uganda). The

advantage of such a system is that it is very flexible and can react rapidly when necessary.
The disadvantage is that it is difficult to plan activities for more than a few years at a time
and the absence of any guaranteed long-term funding.
Conclusions
The Great Lakes Region is barely coming out of several long years of civil strife and
difficulties. Security problems continue to plague the Virunga massif, suggesting that the
establishment of a peace park must be considered a long term objective for the moment. The
complexity of such a structure implies, however, that the preparations must be started now,
initiating activities that will pave the way for the future. An excellent climate of confidence
already exists between the three protected area authorities involved. This confidence has been
amply demonstrated by the joint presentation given today by representatives of the three
countries. We also recognise that one of the primary premises for the establishment of a
peace park is precisely this mutual confidence, where each of the partners is completely
committed to co-operation and openness.
We therefore find ourselves at the first step of a long process that will probably take a number
of years to reach its goal. At the end of this process the entire region will hopefully be able to
enjoy the effects of recovered peace and stability while at the same time maintaining and
protecting the outstanding ecosystems of the Virunga massif.
Bibliography
Aveling, R. (1991). Gorilla tourism - possibilities and pitfalls. Unpublished report, African
Wildlife Foundation, Nairobi.
Blake, G.H. (1993). Transfrontier collaboration: a worldwide survey. in: Westing, A.H.ed.,
Transfrontier reserves for peace and nature: a contribution to human security. UNEP,
Nairobi: 35-48.
d'Huart, J.P. (1992). Armed Conflicts and Protected Areas in Central Africa. IVth World
Congress of National Parks & Protected Areas (Caracas), 11 pp.
Dennis, J.V. & B.A. Spergel (1993). Protected natural areas: the financial challenge. in:
Westing, A.H.ed., Transfrontier reserves for peace and nature: a contribution to human
security. UNEP, Nairobi: 59-65.
Dillenbeck, M. (1994). National Environmental Funds: a new mechanism for conservation

finance. Parks 4(2): 39-46.
Fossey, D. (1983). Gorillas in the mist. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
Holowesko, L. (1995). The Bahamas National Trust: an option for protected area management.
Parks 5(3): 20- 25.
IGCP (1996). International Gorilla Conservation Programme 1995, Annual Update. Gorilla
Conservation News 10: 17-18.
May, J.F. (1996). Pression démographique et politiques de population au Rwanda, 1962-1994.

Population et Sociétés, 319: 1-4.
Oates, J.F. (1996). African Primates. Status survey and conservation action plan. IUCN,
Gland, Switzerland.

Sarmiento, E.E. & T.M. Butynski (1996). Present problem in gorilla taxonomy. Gorilla Journal
12: 5-7.
Schaller, G.B. (1963). The Mountain Gorilla: ecology and behavior. University of Chicago
Press, Chicago.
Simons, P. (1988). Conservation parks for peace. New Scientist, 117(1599): 23.
Stewart, K.J. (1992). Gorilla tourism: problems of control. Gorilla Conservation News 6: 15-16
Thorsell, J. (1991). Protected areas in the combat zone. IUCN Bulletin 22(3): 22-23.
Vedder, A. & Weber, W. (1990). The Mountain Gorilla Project (Volcanoes National Park). in:
Living with Wildlife: Wildlife Resource Management with Local Participation in Africa,
World Bank Technical Paper n° 130 (ed. A. Kiss), World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Weber, W. (1993). Primate conservation and ecotourism in Africa. Pp. 129-150, in C.S. Potter,
J.I. Cohen, D. Janezewski, eds. Perspectives on Biodiversity: Case studies of Genetic
Resource Conservation and Development. AAAS.
Westing, A.H. (1993). From hope to reality: establishing an indochina tri-state reserve for
peace and nature. in: Westing, A.H.ed., Transfrontier reserves for peace and nature: a
contribution to human security. UNEP, Nairobi: 99-102.

LEBANON - THE ROLE OF THE PROTECTED AREAS PROJECT IN PROMOTING PEACE
By: Faisal Abu-Izzeddin

Project Manager
Protected Areas Project
Ministry of Environment, Lebanon
INTRODUCTION
Lebanon has an estimated population of about 3.5 million and an annual population growth of
2%. About 65% of the total population is concentrated in eight principal urban areas. It has
traditionally been a haven for Arab capital and has acted as an open route for trade between
east and west. Before 1974 it enjoyed a long period of rapid economic growth and financial
stability.
Lebanon is a small country in area, 10,450 sq. km., and represents a typical eastern
Mediterranean climate with two mountain ranges running from north to south creating a
number of varied and rich habitats. All the habitats and the species they harbour are at risk
because of the lack of proper enforcement of existing laws that protect forests and their
wildlife.
In fact, the issue of over-exploitation of natural resources in Lebanon is thousands of years

old, and the urgent need to conserve the remaining forests and wildlife is a vital part of the
future of the country if it is to promote national reconciliation, maintain its ecological balance,
achieve sustainable development, and regain its tourist attraction to visitors from around the
world.
Today less than 5% of Lebanon has a forest cover compared to 15% or more at the turn of the
century. Records dating back to 2500 BC indicate that forests covered most of Mount
Lebanon. Numerous ancient inscriptions are full of references to the "cedar forests" and their
diversity of flora and fauna. A good example of this was the visit by the Roman Emperor
Hadrian to Lebanon almost two thousand years ago. He was shocked to find that most of the
cedars and pines had been cut, and he ordered that stone inscriptions be placed around the
remaining forests declaring them as "imperial domain". It may well be one of the first written
conservation laws in the history of mankind.
The exact loss of species as a result of the destruction of these forests may never be known,
however, it is clear that their absence robbed the country of much of its intrinsic beauty and left
Lebanon with a landscape that is quickly turning into a desert. However, despite this loss of
biodiversity Lebanon continues to have thousands of species of flowering plants many of
which are endemic, hundreds of species of birds that migrate over Lebanon, numerous
species of mammals, reptiles, insects, fish and molluscs.
The massive building boom that sprang up after the recent civil war is accelerating the rate of
environmental destruction across the country. Contractors demand and receive access to
diminishing water supplies, concrete, stone and sand with little or no regard to the
environment. Factories pump their poisonous wastes into the sea, noxious fumes fill the air,
garbage is dumped along the coast, trees are cut for firewood and charcoal, livestock graze
eroding slopes, and migrating birds continue to be shot in the thousands.
TWO DECADES OF WAR
From 1974 to 1990 Lebanon suffered a violent and bloody civil war which resulted in
tremendous loss of human lives, massive destruction of property, reduction of productive
capacity, and fragmentation and weakening of the central authority. In economic terms

Lebanon's gross domestic product dropped from US$ 2,250 in 1974 to US$ 825 in 1990. As
an example, tourism was considered an important source of revenue for the country, but as a
result of the security situation it was drastically reduced.
In the absence of effective government institutions during the war, the task of speaking out
against the deteriorating environmental conditions was left up to concerned citizens, on all
sides of the conflict. They established a number of NGOs for conservation of the environment
and distinguished themselves by operating under dangerous war time conditions. Their
activities led to increased awareness and the enactment of a number of important laws and
decrees. The most active of these NGOs were the Society for Protection of Nature in Lebanon
(SPNL), Friends of Nature (FON), Environmental Protection Committee (EPC), and Green Line
(GL).
It is important to note that the twenty years separating the 1972 UN Conference on the Human
Environment and the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development witnessed very
significant advances in dealing with global environmental issues. Unfortunately for Lebanon,
those same two decades witnessed the destructive civil war that threatened its very survival.
Now that stability has been restored, Lebanon is faced with many environmental difficulties
and is looking to the global community for help in dealing with them.
Fortunately, Lebanon has entered a number of agreements and legal obligations relating to
the environment. It ratified the World Heritage Convention on 3 Feb.1983, the Convention for
the Protection of the Mediterranean Sea against Pollution on 18 May 1983. Lebanon signed
the Convention on Biological Diversity on 12 June 1993 at the time of the UN Conference on
Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro and ratified it in 1994.
It was shortly before the Rio Conference that Lebanon enacted Law No 216 of 2 April 1993
which created the Ministry of Environment (MOE) and entrusted it with the task of proposing
legislation, co-ordination and oversight on matters relating to the environment. Shortly after its
establishment the MOE identified conservation of biodiversity as one of its areas of priority,
and requested the UNDP Office in Lebanon to prepare a study for the establishment of
protected areas for possible financing by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) through the
United Nations Development Programme. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) was
commissioned to prepare the Project Proposal which, after review by all the parties, was
approved by the GEF Council as Project Document LEB/95/G31/A/1G/99 and awarded $2.5
million over a period of five years.
THE PROTECTED AREAS PROJECT
Project LEB/95/G31/A/1G/99 - Strengthening of National Capacity and Grassroots In-Situ

Conservation for Sustainable Biodiversity Protection, commonly known as the Protected Areas
Project, commenced its work on 15 November, 1996 and is located at the Ministry of
Environment. The Project is focusing its resources on establishing and managing three
demonstration nature reserves in active partnership with the Ministry of Environment, NGOs
and scientific institutions.
Although there are dozens of important areas in Lebanon that should be managed as nature
reserves only three were selected for inclusion in the Project, Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve, Horsh
Ehden Reserve, and Palm Islands Reserve on the grounds of their legislative standing,
location and level of biodiversity.
To achieve the Project's major objectives of biodiversity conservation and capacity building the
following major activities already being implemented:

1. Conserving endemic and endangered wildlife and their habitats by establishing a co-
ordinated system of protected areas, beginning with Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve, Horsh Ehden
Reserve, and Palm Islands Reserve, and through this process introducing wildlife
conservation as an integral part of sustainable human development.
2. Creating an institutional capacity for the NGOs directly responsible for the management and
protection of the reserves, wherein each nature reserve is provided with its own
management team, management plan and continuous on-the-job training of staff.
3. Strengthening institutional capacity of Government agencies to regulate and oversee the

overall management of the reserves, and of scientific institutions to study the natural
resources and monitor the conservation efforts at these reserves and elsewhere.
4. Gathering, analysing and storing an accurate body of information that include species
surveys, socio-economic studies and monitoring programmes that utilise GIS/GPS mapping
systems to analyse results, and list, quantify and locate flora and fauna within the reserves.
5. Mounting an effective Awareness Campaign utilising a series of video introductions and

slide presentations designed to highlight the importance of biodiversity conservation,
support fund raising activities, and alert government and public sectors to the urgent need
for protecting wildlife.
6. Strengthening national reconciliation by bringing people and institutions together from

different regions for the protection of nature.
THE NATURE RESERVES
Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve
Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve represents a mountainous ecosystem on the slopes of the central
portion of the Mt. Lebanon chain. The eastern slope faces the southern Bekaa valley and
overlooks the Ammik swamp. The western slope faces the Shouf region of Mount Lebanon. It
is made up of a series of peaks parallel to the sea and their altitude varies from 1200 to 2000
meters. Al-Shouf Cedar Reserve has the largest self propagating stand of Cedars and is
located at the southern-most limit of this tree's growing range. It is one of the last remaining
areas in Lebanon where larger mammals such as the wolf and wild boar can still be found, and
where the ibex and mountain gazelle can be reintroduced.
A protected area in the Shouf region will be an asset to the community because a) the park is
situated in the higher cedar zone and is not inhabited by anyone and therefore poses no threat
to the inhabitants or their farming activities, b) the villagers will become active participants in
the planning and management of the park through their local NGO, the Al-Shouf Cedar
Society.
Horsh Ehden Reserve
Horsh Ehden Reserve represents a mountainous ecosystem on the elevated slopes of the
northern Mt. Lebanon chain (1300-1950 meters o.s.l) in the Governorate of North Lebanon.
The area is 280 hectares, however more communal contiguous land that is owned by the
municipality could be added at a later date to expand the forest to 700 hectares. During the
last hundred years the terrain was inaccessible which spared the forest from heavy logging.
The inhabitants of the town of Ehden are summer residents who traditionally maintain winter
homes in the town of Zgharta near the coast. It is predominantly a residential community with
shops and services to cater to the residents and vacationing tourists.

Palm Islands Reserve
The Palm Islands represent an eastern Mediterranean marine island ecosystem and is made
up of the Palm, Sanani and Ramkine Islands. The islands and surrounding water constitute an
integrated natural marine basin with a surface area of 5 km2 off the coast of the city of El-
Mina, which is the harbour section of the city of Tripoli. The Islands are important bird resting
and nesting areas for migrating and indigenous birds; and are rich in wild flowers.
As a result of the uncontrolled use of these islands the wildlife, both flora and fauna, have
suffered tremendously. People have also been adversely affected, particularly the fishermen.
Increased tourism to and around the islands will provide the fishermen with added income as
they ferry people back and forth under the guidance of the park rangers responsible for the
islands.
PROMOTING PEACE IN LEBANON
National reconciliation is an intangible, but nonetheless real, component of the Protected

Areas Project. It is a difficult parameter to measure when it is considered on its own. However,
its impact can be partly measured by studying the progress of a number of Project activities
and estimating their effect on national reconciliation and hence peace in Lebanon.
1. Visiting the Reserves
The fragmentation of the country during the civil war prohibited the movement of men, women
and especially children, from one area to another. As a result an entire "war generation" of
Lebanese do not know each other and are not familiar with many regions of their country.
Mending the fragmentation of the country by bringing people together from all the different
areas of Lebanon and reintroducing them to their natural heritage through properly organized
and guided tours in the nature reserves will be the Project's primary contribution to national
reconciliation.
2. Appointing Local NGOs
Appointing local NGOs to plan, protect and manage the nature reserves was a calculated
move designed to promote national reconciliation by diffusing tensions and minimising
unwanted friction between opposing factions in Lebanon. This safeguard was incorporated
early into the project to ensure that management practices are fully compatible with local
political, social and religious institutions.
3. Bringing Institutions Together
National reconciliation will be enhanced by bringing institutions together so that Government,

NGOs and scientific institutions will work together to establish a network of nature reserves
that are surveyed, studied and monitored according to internationally recognised standards.
This is the first time that such a wide array of people will work together for the conservation of
nature.
4. Allowing Ideas and Solutions to Interact
By approaching the problem of national reconciliation from the perspective of people,

communities and institutions, and by allowing ideas and solutions to be brought together on
many different levels through the a peaceful activities of nature conservation, the chances of a
successful outcome are enhanced. Any other approach could arouse animosities that lead to
conflicts.

5. Upgrading the Role of Women
Women constitute the largest segment of active conservationists in Lebanon today and they,
more than men, deplore the destruction of all living resources in the country. Their major
contribution to the educational, public awareness and field research components of this
conservation project cannot be exaggerated, nor for that matter their role in promoting peace.
6. Increasing International Financial Support
International recognition and financial support for Lebanon from the developed nations of the
world can help a great deal in furthering national reconciliation. This is possible if Lebanon
chooses to provide safe shelters for all birds, both migrants and residents, and the government
supports efforts to impose a five year hunting moratorium throughout Lebanon. The global
impact of protecting the migrant birds would be immediate. It would be felt in Europe, Asia and
Africa where their numbers will increase. The benefit of this to Lebanon would be the gratitude
of many nations in the world who would consider with favour the financial requests from
Lebanon.
TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREAS
The advantages of transboundary protected areas for Lebanon cannot be denied, especially
when it impacts positively on conservation of biodiversity. The desirability of transboundary
protected areas was raised during a working meeting of the Syrian Minister of State for the
Environment and the Lebanese Minister of Environment, and their respective staff, in
Damascus on 9 March 1997. After the issue was introduced, a discussion followed that
reviewed the desirability of such a venture. A decision was reached that cooperation and
studies are needed for establishment of such transboundary protected areas. The subject was
again raised, and its potential confirmed, during a follow-up meeting of the two Ministers in
Beirut on 13 June 1997.
At this point in time it is not practical to expect that either Syria or Lebanon are ready to
establish transboundary protected areas. The meetings of the Ministers allowed us to
introduce the subject, not only to the Ministers but to their staff as well. The subject will enter
the realm of implementation when each of these two countries has its own functional network
of protected areas. Lebanon is now on its way to establishing such a system of parks and
reserves, and Syria is in the early stages of doing the same.

PARKS, PEACE AND PROGRESS: A FORUM FOR TRANSBOUNDARY CONSERVATION IN
INDOCHINA
By: Thomas C. Dillon † and Eric D. Wikramanayake †‡
† WWF-Indochina Program
116 Yet Kieu Street; Hanoi, Vietnam
Email: wwfvn@netnam.org.vn
‡ ConservationScience Program
WWF-US
1250, Twenty-Fourth Street, NW; Washington D.C. 20037
INTRODUCTION
In July 1997, three years after finding the largest muntjac species--the giant muntjac--in the
forests of Vietnam, possibly the smallest of the muntjacs was discovered. Scientists are calling
the new species the Truong Son muntjac (Giao et al., in review) after the area along the
Vietnam-Lao border where it was found. This is the fifth new large mammal species scientists
have described from the forests of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia during the past five years
(Box 1), attesting to the biological richness of these forested habitats. The natural habitats in
these countries, however, have become fragmented, or are becoming increasingly so; a cause
for concern about the long-term survival of the forests and the faunal assemblages they
harbor.
With much of Indochina’s remaining blocks of natural forest dissected by international borders
(Dinerstein et al., 1995), a transboundary approach to conservation is an essential aspect of
biodiversity protection in Indochina. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam have established several
protected areas close to or along the borders with their neighboring countries (MacKinnon,
1993a). In many instances, however, these protected areas can be greatly augmented and
their effectiveness enhanced by complementary protection on the opposite side of the
respective international border and by coordinated planning between the countries. Larger,
transborder conservation complexes would especially be better suited to support viable
populations of the wide-ranging, larger animal species that require expansive habitats
(Wikramanayake et al., in press) and such parallel gazettement would lessen the management
burden of each country as well (MacKinnon, 1993b).
Box 1. New Mammal Discoveries in Indochina
The species-rich border forests of Indochina are largely unexplored scientifically, and several new species
discoveries and rediscoveries have been made over the past few years, most noteworthy being several species of
large mammals: saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis) (Dung et. al., 1994), giant muntjac (Megamuntiacus vuquangensis)
(Tuoc, et.al, 1994), Truong Son muntjac (Muntiacus truongsonensis) (Giao et. al., in review), Pseudonovibos spiralis
(Peter and Feiler, 1994), and Indochinese warty pig (Sus bucculentus) (Groves et al., in press). Many more species
very likely await scientific discovery. These finds help confirm that Indochina's forests, particularly along the
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam borders, are of global conservation priority (Wikramanayake et al., in prep).
Indochina's recent steps towards transboundary cooperation are positive developments that
could lead to enhanced biodiversity and natural resource protection as well as increased
political stability in the sub-region. Effective conservation of many of Indochina’s forest biomes
depends upon coordinated planning and cooperation between Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.
Due to social conflicts, the necessary potential for transboundary conservation cooperation did
not exist until recently. To facilitate and catalyze the emerging dialogue, the Indochina
Biodiversity Forum project (the Forum) was conceived (UNDP, 1993).

Three areas were identified as having the greatest potential to form transboundary protected
areas complexes in the Forum’s first sub-regional meeting in November 1995. The complexes
are: the Northern Annamite Range, which contains several protected areas in both Laos and
Vietnam that protect more than 1,000,000 hectares of habitats ranging from wet and dry
evergreen and semi-evergreen forests in the north to a large limestone forest in the south; the
Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam Tri-Border area, which comprises a protected areas complex of more
than 800,000 hectares; and the Cambodia-Thailand-Laos Tri-Border area which consists of the
forest and wetlands where Thailand, Laos, and Cambodia meet. These complexes require
some extensions and additions to the existing protected areas to create links to and connect
proximate, protected areas.
This paper provides a broad overview of the context and issues relevant to transboundary
conservation in Indochina, outlines the structure and approach the Forum has taken to
address the issue in this sub-region, and comments on the future of the transboundary
protected areas and their potential for enhancing peace and stability.
INDOCHINA IN CONTEXT
To understand the constraints, pitfalls, and opportunities for transboundary conservation in

Indochina, it is important to understand the socio-political setting and the natural features that
present conservation opportunities.
Political Features
At times the term "Indochina" is used geographically to refer to all mainland Southeast Asian
countries located between India and China (not including peninsular Malaysia). More often,
however, the use of the term refers to the countries of Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.
Although the three countries do not share a common language and have quite distinct
cultures, their histories have been long intertwined and affected by common forces.
For the past several hundred years, the dominant and competitive forces influencing the
subregion have been China, Thailand and Vietnam. Cambodia and Laos have in many ways
served as buffers between Thailand and Vietnam. Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam comprised
French Indochina from the 1880s to 1954 (Vien, 1992). During the French colonial era, the
Vietnamese dominated French Indochina's administrative structure and to this day Vietnam still
has a powerful influence on the politics and economics of its two smaller neighbors.
Today, disagreements exist regarding various border issues, such as exact location of the
international boundaries, migration by Vietnamese into Laos and Cambodia, and exploitation
of natural resources across borders. Transboundary conservation is helping to lessen the
suspicions of each country’s motives on sensitive issues and contributing to an improved
dialogue and trust in the region.
War Legacy
All three countries were involved in varying levels in the conflict known as the American War in
Vietnam and the Vietnam War in the United States, destroying vast amounts of natural areas.
In Vietnam alone, it is estimated that up to 2 million hectares of land may have been damaged
during the war (World Bank, 1995). During the war, the many veins of the Ho Chi Minh Trail,
the famous supply route stretching from northern Vietnam to the war front in central and
southern Vietnam, cut its way through the forests constituting the frontiers between these
three countries. Massive aerial bombing of that network of roads and trails has left a legacy of
unexploded bombs which still lie scattered throughout the transfrontier forests of Indochina.
The problem of neutralising unexploded bombs in eastern Cambodia's frontiers is

compounded by the existence of millions of land mines strewn throughout western Cambodia,
most of which were lain in the civil warfare of the 1980s.
Indochina's Minority Peoples
In all three countries, the minority peoples are, for the most part, traditionally shifting cultivators
who live mainly in upland areas. Almost half of the population of Laos is ethnic minority, while
Vietnam contains 54 different ethnic groups which constitute 13 percent of the population. The
majority ethnic group in each respective country, are traditionally lowland wet rice agriculturists.
Box 2. Community Participation
In 1960 the Ruc (zook) consisted of approximately 500 people. By 1996 their population had dwindled to 285. The
last group of people in Vietnam known to subsist by hunting and gathering, the Ruc migrate throughout a limestone
forest shared both by Vietnam and Laos - not bounded by the political frontier.
The Ruc are dependent on harvesting forest products such as the Doac tree (Arenca pinnata). The tree contributes
to their diet, provides poles for their temporary homes, and its bark is distilled for alcohol. In attempts to sedentarize
the Ruc, the Government of Vietnam in 1992 built permanent homes for these people and provided funds for livestock
and rice cultivation. But the Ruc returned to their nomadic life in the forest soon after.
Understanding better the relationship of the Ruc to the forest and including their views into the transboundary
dialogue is vital to ensuring successful conservation. The Forum’s 2 field surveys into Phong Nha Nature Reserve
have helped gain some insight about the Ruc and the Forum plans to cooperate with the Ruc people in
transboundary conservation planning of the area.
Data from Canh et.al., 1997a.
It is natural, therefore, that the Indochina frontiers, mainly characterized by mountains and high
plateaus, are populated primarily by minority peoples. This situation is changing in some areas,
most notably in the central highlands of Vietnam, as lowlanders migrate into upland areas
seeking land. This change is usually associated with deforestation and loss of biodiversity as
the shifting cultivation regime is disrupted and the fallow cycle is shortened. The official policy
of Laos is to resettle all upland peoples to lowland areas and teach them paddy (wet rice)
agriculture by the year 2000.
Some of the minority groups migrate across the borders, such as the Ruc peoples (Box 2) who
inhabit the limestone forests shared by Vietnam’s western Quang Binh Province and Laos'
eastern Khammouane Province (Canh et al., 1997a). Other groups, such as the Jarai, are split
by international borders in the highlands of both Cambodia and Vietnam.
These borders are still considered politically sensitive as various minority groups in Vietnam's
central highlands fought alongside South Vietnam and the United States. A government policy
encouraging migration into the central highlands by the Vietnamese ethnic majority (the Kinh)
has ensured political allegiance to Hanoi.
Demographics and Natural Forest Cover
With approximately 77 million people, Vietnam is one of the most densely populated countries
in the world (PRB, 1996). This large human population has exacted a heavy toll on Vietnam's
natural forest cover; only 10 percent of the country's land area is now covered by good quality
original forest (BAP, 1994). Approximately 37 percent of the country is classified as bare
lands. In neighboring Laos, human population, estimated at 5 million (PRB, 1996), is
considerably lower; extensive shifting cultivation, however, has resulted in heavy loss of forest
cover, especially in the north (Chape, 1996). Both Laos and Vietnam suffer from flash floods

during the monsoons as a result of deforestation reducing the forest sponge effect of the area.
(MacKinnon, 1993a).
Cambodia, with a population of 11 million (PRB, 1996), still retains much of its natural forest
cover (between 30% and 56% of total land area depending on source of information). The
granting of large-scale forest and plantation concessions to foreign companies, however, place
Cambodia's forests under immediate threat (World Bank, 1996).
Other Natural Features
The rugged mountains of the Truong Son Range form much of the international boundary
between Laos and Vietnam. The Lao side of the border drains into the Mekong River and the
Vietnamese side drains into the Gulf of Tonkin and South China Sea (or East Sea as it is
referred to in Vietnam). The mountains extend southwards to form the Kon Tum and Bolovans
plateaus which extend from Vietnam into Laos and Cambodia. The relative inaccessibility of
these montane areas has been largely responsible for the band of forest that exists along the
Lao-Vietnam and Cambodia-Vietnam borders.
The forests of Laos, northern Cambodia, and the central highlands of Vietnam also constitute
important and significant watersheds of the Mekong river system. The Sekong, Se San and
Srepok Rivers originate in the Kon Tum and Bolovans plateaus, and flow through southern
Laos and northern Cambodia, contributing about 15% to 20% of the Mekong River’s flow
(Baird, 1995a). Several ambitious hydro-electric schemes have been planned for all these
rivers and their significant tributaries. These dams are expected to displace minority peoples,
flood biodiversity-rich lowland forest, and degrade fisheries (Baird, 1995b; Colm, 1997).
Protected Area Systems
In 1993, both Laos and Cambodia established extensive protected areas systems. Although
Vietnam established its first post-colonial protected area, Cuc Phuong National Park, in 1962,
most of its protected areas were gazetted in the 1980s and 1990s. But because of the
fragmented habitat in Vietnam its protected areas are relatively small (Fig. 1). The protected
areas in Cambodia and Laos, which have relatively more large forest blocks, are relatively
large, and exceed by far, the average size of Asian protected areas (Dinerstein and
Wikramanayake, 1993).
INDOCHINA TRANSBOUNDARY PROTECTED AREA COMPLEXES
Opportunities
All three countries have natural habitats adjacent to the international borders between these
countries that are of high enough biodiversity value to contribute significantly towards a
transboundary conservation system (Fig. 1). There are two primary clusters of protected areas.
A third potential area contains ideal habitat near the borders but does not have protected
areas gazetted yet.
Cambodia-Laos-Vietnam Tri-Border
This protected area complex of roughly 8,000 km2 (800,000 hectares) comprises a large part of
the Eastern Indochina Moist Forests ecoregion (Wikramanayake et al., in prep) and forms the
core of the highest priority Tiger Conservation Unit (TCU) in Indochina (Dinerstein at al., 1997).
It also is one of Indochina's main floristic biodiversity centers (Schmid, 1993) At 335,000
hectares, Cambodia's Virachey National Park is one of the largest protected areas in mainland
Southeast Asia and serves as the "biodiversity anchor" or "core protected area" in a larger
landscape matrix of other important protected areas, natural habitat linkages, buffer zones,

community forests, plantations, agricultural areas, settlements, and other land-uses. The other
protected areas are Mom Ray in Vietnam, and Laos’s Nam Khong and Dong Amphan.
Although the tri-border area contains some of Southeast Asia's largest forested landscapes,
large logging concessions, planned oil palm plantations, hydro-schemes, and other planned
development processes threaten to make the current and proposed protected areas insular
parks. In this event, the indigenous people now living around the parks will lose their
traditional resource base and likely view the remaining forests as a potential alternative, posing
additional threats to the area's ecological integrity.
However, careful land-use planning could create a better conservation landscape for wildlife
and natural resources, and also help to maintain a better human environment. Conserving
these links would also help to conserve the watersheds of the rivers that feed into the Mekong
River, help to stabilize the upland areas, allow maintenance of forests for the local people to
collect non-timber forest products, and serve as genetic reservoirs for reseeding the fallow
agricultural areas.
Northern Annamite Range
Several protected areas in both Laos and Vietnam, which still contain extensive old-growth
evergreen and semi-evergreen forest, straddle the Northern Annamite Range. These
protected areas -- Pu Mat, Vu Quang and Phong Nha in Vietnam and Nam Chuan, Nam Theun
Extension, Nam Theun/Nakai and Hin Namno in Laos -- include approximately 10,000 km2
(1,000,000 hectares) of habitat ranging from wet and dry evergreen and semi-evergreen
forests in the north to a large limestone forest in the south (MacKinnon, 1993a; Timmins and
Khounboline, 1996; Canh et al., 1997a). These forests also contain several species of plants
and animals with very limited distributions, including several species of large mammals that
have been discovered over the past five years (Dung et al., 1994; Tuoc et al., 1994; Groves et.
al., In Press; Giao et al., In Press). A significant factor affecting this transboundary complex
are the hydroelectric dams already built and planned, particularly in Laos. The controversial
Nam Theun 2 dam, if built, will abut the western border of Nakai/Nam Theun National
Biodiversity Conservation Area (NBCA).
Cambodia-Thailand-Laos Tri-Border
The forest and wetlands comprising the area where Thailand, Laos, and Cambodian meet (Fig
1) is known to be particularly rich in wildlife on the Lao side in southern Champasak Province
(Timmins and Vongkhamhang, 1996). It is known that the Cambodian side was still wildlife rich
in the 1950s, particularly with large ungulates (Wharton, 1957). The continued existence of
these mammals cannot be confirmed since that part of Cambodia has been under Khmer
Rouge control since the 1970s. Protected areas do not yet exist on either the Lao or
Cambodian sides of the border.
Additional Constraints
Conservation Capacity
A significant constraint to conservation activities in Indochina is the lack of trained conservation

professionals. Many of the educated people either fled or were killed during the Khmer Rouge
regime in Cambodia. Laos and Vietnam were isolated from most of the non-communist world
until the late 1980s. Although Vietnam has many well-trained biologists, most lack exposure to
contemporary conservation principles and techniques. The majority of the biologists who are
engaged in conservation activities are primarily taxonomists trained in the former Soviet bloc
countries. A younger cohort of conservation biologists is only now beginning to appear.

The protected areas systems in all three countries were established recently; thus, many have
no staff, no infrastructure, no equipment, and lack adequate budgets for proper management
of the protected areas. Many of the protected areas and surrounding forests in the three
countries are threatened by chronic anthropogenic impacts such as shifting cultivation and
hunting, and also from high intensity impacts such as large-scale logging, commercial
plantations of cash crops, and road and hydro-electric development (World Bank, 1996; Canh
et al., 1997b; Colm, 1997).
There is an extensive cross-border trade in wildlife and other forest products involving all three
countries that also poses a serious threat to conservation efforts (TRAFFIC, 1993; Woodford
et al., 1997). The wildlife trade, in particular, has severely decreased abundances of many
species, placing them on the brink of extinction and creating 'empty' forests throughout much
of the sub-region (Desai and Vuthy, 1996; Salter, 1993; Olivier and Woodford, 1994). Many
of the protected areas, therefore, require active conservation measures if the habitats and the
species communities and even populations are to survive.
The lack of capacity and trained staff to manage and protect the reserve systems and the
absence of dialogue between the neighboring countries that would lead to cooperation in
mitigating cross-border threats to conservation remain major constraints to alleviating
conservation threats, especially for transboundary conservation. Developing human resources
and capacity to address these issues through recruitment and training is a priority, particularly
in Cambodia and Laos. Provision of outside technical assistance is limited, however, by the
low capacity of the conservation institutions to absorb training and other technical inputs.
Politics
As with many countries, central governments in Indochina have the least control of the border
areas and this contributes to the difficulties of implementing conservation in these remote
areas. This is further compounded by the political sensitivities that have risen through years of
conflict, causing disagreements over exact location of borders and suspicions about each
other’s motives regarding control of natural resources. This is especially evident in relations
between Cambodia and Vietnam.
In Cambodia, general instability and lawlessness and land-mines also pose problems to
implementing conservation activities. Several border forest areas between Cambodia and
Thailand which could be candidates for transboundary conservation attention are presently too
dangerous to venture into and the security situation is in flux in other areas, such as Ratanakiri
and Mondolkiri Provinces in the northeast.
The stark difference in economic and political power between Vietnam and its two smaller
neighbors creates an asymmetrical power relationship. Vietnam’s dominance strains open
dialogue and cooperation on natural resource management and conservation.
THE INDOCHINA BIODIVERSITY FORUM
With biodiversity conservation in Indochina at a fledging stage and little history of cooperation
regarding land management, few attempts had been made to forge transboundary cooperation
before the Indochina Biodiversity Forum, funded by the United Nations Development
Programme and implemented by the WWF Indochina Programme, began in July 1995. The
most significant previous effort to address the situation was organized by Dr. Arthur Westing
under the auspices of the United Nations Environment Programme and resulted in the
publication of a book with several detailed papers outlining the issues relevant to the
establishment of transfrontier reserves in Indochina (Westing, 1993).

To conserve these high priority border areas, it was suggested that transboundary
conservation in Indochina begin with incremental steps. Preliminary activities such as each
country independently managing complementary protected areas with abutting boundaries,
dialogue between protected area managers, information exchange, and staff exchanges
(MacKinnon, 1993b) were recommended. These activities were expected to lead to eventual
relaxation of border regulations and consequent joint surveys and cooperative law
enforcement. Following these recommendations, the Forum began by emphasizing “parallel
conservation” as a first step toward formal cooperative activities between neighboring
countries.
Structure and Role of the Forum
The Indochina Biodiversity Forum was developed to establish a forum in which greater levels
of technical exchange and discussion on biodiversity conservation issues that require an
international rather than national approach could occur. Transboundary conservation as the
core subject. Specifically, the mandate of the project is to:
♦ Identify transboundary areas of high conservation potential and priority along the borders
between Cambodia, Laos, Thailand and Vietnam;
♦ Help design a transboundary protected areas system along the international borders of
Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam by identifying complementary cross-border protected areas
or adding extensions to create links between existing protected areas that are close to
each other;
♦ Facilitate exchange of information for biodiversity conservation among conservation

personnel in the four countries;
♦ Provide training for conservation staff to develop capacity in the conservation sectors;
♦ Provide a forum for discussion and solving transboundary issues of conservation

relevance.
Project Administration
In order to administer and coordinate the project, WWF established a Project Secretariat within
its office in Hanoi. The role of the secretariat is to perform the tasks of coordinating and
administering the project activities. These responsibilities include drafting work plans, reporting
to donors, coordinating field activities, fund raising, coordinating inputs into a biodiversity
information management system, and maintaining communication links with national and
international institutions. A permanent project staff of three in Hanoi, including a project
manager, technical officer and administrative officer, and one conservation officer in Vientiane,
perform these tasks. Two conservation scientists provide technical assistance with project
implementation on a consultative basis.
Dialogue
Perhaps the most vital component of the project involves sponsoring meetings with technical
and political officers with the aim of facilitating discussion, information exchange, and
coordinated conservation planning. These meetings are held on both a sub-regional basis
(Box 3), involving all four countries working with the project and on a bilateral or trilateral level,
following the recommendations made by the workshop participants during the first sub-regional
meeting (Box 4).

Box 3. Getting to Know Each Other
The first time many of the conservation officials involved with transboundary issues in Indochina met each other, they
travelled down a long and muddy road in the monsoon season to the middle of Vietnam’s Cuc Phuong National Park,
deep in the middle of the forest. This was the location of the first Sub-regional Biodiversity Forum. The initial
exchange of business cards was the first time many of the officials had contact information for each other. Later,
officials from neighboring countries exchanged maps showing forest status and location of protected areas. By the
end of farewell barbecue, all 50 representatives knew each other’s names.
The presentations and small group sessions were informative and spawned many recommendations for conservation
activities that should occur, including identification of priority transboundary areas. The most important step toward
eventual establishment of transboundary protected areas, however, may have been the relationships started
between counterparts in neighboring countries.
Fifteen months later, a four-day Lao - Vietnam transboundary meeting was held in January 1997. The meeting was
the first bilateral meeting between the governments of Laos and Vietnam on conservation issues. As a result of the
meeting, the countries are now sharing information and discussing common actions in highly sensitive and
biologically rich areas on a regular basis.
Box 4. The First Meeting
The first significant dialogue pursued by the Project Secretariat was a sub- regional meeting in November, 1995
consisting of more than 50 technical and administrative representatives from all four countries. The aim of the
meeting, held at Cuc Phoung National Park, Vietnam, was to begin the process of information sharing and to produce
recommendations that could set a course for the project.
Recommendations from the sub-regional meeting were:
♦ International meetings on transboundary conservation should be held at the bilateral level involving local
authorities from relevant border areas and staff of border protected areas to the fullest extent possible.
♦ Provincial contact across borders was considered to be especially useful for issues such as wildlife
investigations/surveys and in monitoring hunting and trade pressures.
♦ Information sharing should begin on species, locality information (i.e. news about which projects and which
protected areas are being developed), habitats and socio- economic information.
♦ Joint international surveys were recommended as one way to promote cooperation and similar methodology
similar survey techniques by teams on both sides of any international border.
♦ It was recognized that the capacity to conserve transfrontier areas was lacking and that assisting to build that
capacity should be a high priority for the sub-region.
The transfrontier protected areas complexes were prioritized by each country, giving the project an indication of which
areas to focus its efforts.
Information Gathering
The dearth of information on the transfrontier forest areas necessitates gathering of additional
biological and socio-economic information in these areas. The information is necessary for
planning a representational and complementary sub-regional protected areas system.
Specifically, identification of what new protected areas should be declared and what type of
management interventions should occur is important.
Information Management and Exchange

In order for information necessary for conservation activities to be available in an easy-to-use
digital database, the project has adopted a data management program developed by Dr. John
MacKinnon, Asian Bureau for Conservation. It is a common link that eventually will enable
information management and exchange among the four countries. This program -- Biodiversity
Information Management System (BIMS) -- integrates ArcInfo GIS coverages with conventional
database files (FoxPro 2.5) to allow monitoring of the status of individual species, habitat
types, and protected areas.
The software can perform the following functions: process and store records resulting from
field surveys; generate lists of known and expected species for any given area; locality lists for
any given species, the statistics and status records for protected areas, including staff details;
socio-economic information for surrounding and enclaved communities; conservation laws and
policies, inter alia. BIMS also contains a number of analytical tools for evaluating species
conservation status and gaps in the protected area system of a given country based on the
remaining habitat types.
Capacity Building
A major function of the Project Secretariat is to assist the sub-region with improving its
capacity to perform transfrontier conservation. Capacity building will include training
conservation staff, providing technical assistance and equipment. The Project Secretariat also
serves as a facilitator, catalyst, and broker in seeking funds and technical assistance for
conservation projects.
Project Implementation and Coordination
Many of the projects that are initiated or facilitated by the Project Secretariat run either
independently of the Project Secretariat or, if co-funded, in collaboration with the Project
Secretariat. All, however, are closely coordinated with the Project Secretariat, which is
responsible for ensuring that the projects contribute to the overall context and objectives of a
sub-regional conservation strategy.
Progress
Dialogue Meetings
Since the first sub-regional transboundary meeting in Cuc Phoung National Park in 1995, the
Project Secretariat has held provincial and bilateral forum meetings.
The first Lao-Vietnam Transborder Biodiversity Conservation Seminar was held from 21- 24
January 1997 in North-central Vietnam. The meeting focused on five provinces -- Nghe An,
Ha Tinh and Quang Binh in central Vietnam and Bolykamxai and Khammouane in central
Laos. These five provinces abut each other. More than 100 delegates from the district,
provincial, and central governments of the two countries participated in the seminar, which was
also attended by several international organizations.
At the meeting, the participants agreed that the forested area along the Lao-Vietnamese
border, within these five provinces is of high biodiversity value, and that conservation efforts to
date had been inadequate. The participants recommended that complementary gazettement
of protected areas should occur and the following actions be taken:
♦ include issues of biodiversity conservation into the agenda of regular semi-annual meetings
among local authorities of the five provinces;

♦ ensure that the management boards of the nature reserves and national parks in the border
region actively implement cooperation activities and regularly provide information on
conservation status to one another;
♦ implement public information campaigns concentrating on these areas of high biodiversity

shared by the two countries;
♦ establish a joint Vietnam - Laos field survey team;
♦ prepare cooperative plans to develop ecotourism in the border region;
♦ prepare a proposal for a cluster of protected areas in the border region to be designated as
natural and cultural World Heritage Site;
♦ prepare plans to immediately prevent illegal exploitation, transborder transport, and trade of
animals and plants according to the laws of each country; and
♦ hold a second Lao - Vietnam Transboundary Conservation Seminar in 1998 in Laos.
The document containing the points outlined above was signed by the lead representatives of
each country. Later, the Vietnamese Deputy Prime Minister signed a decree embodying the
major points of the agreement.
Biological Surveys and Inventories
Biological surveys have been either initiated or coordinated by the Secretariat in priority
transboundary areas in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam.
Limestone Forests of Central Laos - Vietnam
Two multi-disciplinary surveys were conducted in Vietnam’s Quang Binh Province, along the
Lao-Vietnam border. The surveys, which involved biological and socio-economic experts from
various Vietnamese institutions, were conducted during the late dry season of 1996 and early
dry season of 1996/1997 in the extensive limestone forests of Vietnam's Quang Binh Province.
The objectives of the surveys were to collect information on the relative species richness of the
area and to assess the feasibility of enlarging Phong Nha Nature Reserve to include the
adjoining Ke Bang forest, a change that would triple the size of the protected area and alter
the boundaries to meet Hin Namno NBCA in Laos.
Together the two protected areas will comprise 200,000 hectares of limestone forest which are
rich in botanical diversity and will provide protected habitat for populations of two endangered
primates, the red-shanked duoc langur (Pygathrix n. nemaeus) and the Ha Tinh langur
(Trachpithecus f. hatinhensis), which are endemic to Indochina (Canh et al., 1997a). These
protected areas also harbor several other endangered species (Canh, et al. 1997a; Timmins
and Khounboline, 1996). If extended, the protected areas will connect through the Hin Namno
NBCA to Nam Theun NBCA and, therefore, also to the Nam Theun extension, Nam Chuan, Vu
Quang, and Pu Mat; an overall contiguous transboundary protected area complex of
approximately one million hectares (Fig. 1).
Wet Evergreen Forests of Central Laos - Vietnam
In the dry season of 1997 (May, June) a feasibility survey for whether a new protected area
should be designated was conducted in Vietnam's western Quang Binh Province. The

compilation and analysis of the survey results have convinced the Ministry of Agriculture and
Rural Development to recommend the Government of Vietnam to gazette a new 100,000 ha
protected area called Song Thanh/Dakpring on the Lao border. The boundaries of this
protected area are still under preparation, but in all likelihood it will abut the proposed southern
extension of Laos' Xe Sap NBCA. The proposed protected area will include the southern range
of the recently discovered Saola (Pseudoryx nghetinhensis), the Giant muntjac
(Megamuntiacus vuquangensis), the newly identified Truong Son muntjac (Muntiacus
truongsonensis), and several other endangered species.
Central Plateau Area
Two biological surveys were conducted in 1996 and 1997 in the extensive forests of
Cambodia's Mondulkiri and Ratanakiri Provinces; one was focussed primarily on large
mammals (Desai and Vuthy, 1996), and the other was a feasibility and needs assessment
survey to prepare a management plan proposal for Virachey National Park and its buffer zone
(Fig. 1). A third large mammal survey in Mondulkiri Province (eastern Cambodia) was
cancelled because a group of Khmer Rouge suddenly moved into the area.
A large mammal survey was conducted across from Mondulkiri in Vietnam's Dac Lac Province,
the southern section of the central plateau. The Vietnamese survey team included one
Cambodian wildlife biologist, the first such collaboration between the two countries. The dry
dipterocarp forests surveyed represent some of the best habitat for endangered large
mammals in Indochina, including tiger, elephants, and wild cattle such as banteng, gaur, and
one of the most severely endangered large mammals in the world, the kouprey.
The purpose of these surveys, conducted in the dry seasons of 1996 and 1997, was to
ascertain the areas of highest densities of endangered large mammals for conservation
management planning in these connecting forests shared by Vietnam and Cambodia. That
survey found the largest population of banteng in Indochina, but it also revealed a rapid and
disturbing decline in these large mammal populations since the early 1990s (Canh et al.,
1997b)
Another Planned Joint Survey
Among the various areas proposed for survey work in the 1997-98 dry season
(December-June) is Hin Namno NBCA in Laos (Fig. 1). The survey will be conducted by a
team consisting of Lao and Vietnamese researchers, and in collaboration with both WWF’s
Indochina Biodiversity Forum and the Wildlife Conservation Society.
Capacity Building
The sub-regional project has also concentrated on providing training. In Cambodia, the project
has provided training in field research skills to help conservation staff develop the ability to
collect data relevant to transfrontier conservation and to introduce the Ministry of Environment
staff to basic protected area management. Training has included visits to functioning protected
areas in Thailand.
In Vietnam, the project has focused on training relevant to using the BIMS system, such as
mapping skills and database management, and on introducing new approaches to
conservation in Vietnam, such as training a core of resource persons in participatory
management skills and conducting training for protected areas managers and relevant
provincial officials.
BIMS training has also been the focus of training in Laos and Thailand. In Laos, however,
training activities will be expanded to include skills in basic surveying and orienteering,

protected area planning, and participatory techniques for working with communities near
conservation areas. Thailand will continue to serve as a base of technical resources which
can be drawn on for assistance in building capacity in Indochina, in particular, using its
institutions for training.
Besides training, the project has attempted to build capacity to implement transfrontier
conservation by assisting with design of projects in priority transfrontier areas and by assisting
with environmental awareness campaigns.
Box 5. The First Model Transboundary Site: The Monkey World
Dr. Le Xuan Canh, leader of the Forum’s two surveys of Vietnam’s Phong Nha Nature Reserve, described the
200,000 hectare limestone forest straddling the Lao - Vietnam border as the “Monkey World” as it contains what may
be the largest populations of red-shanked Duoc langur and Ha Tinh langur, two endangered primates endemic to
Indochina.
Representatives to the Lao-Vietnam Transboundary Meeting in January 1997 recommended that these limestone
forests, which also comprise Hin Namno NBCA in Laos, serve as the first field test for transborder cooperation
between the two countries. Consequently, the Forum will sponsor a joint team of Lao and Vietnamese researchers to
survey Hin Namno in the next dry season (March, April 1998) and a district-to-district dialogue meeting will be held
afterwards concerning how best to conserve these special forests and the endangered species inhabiting them.
Previous to the bilateral meeting and the two surveys sponsored by the Forum, these forests did not receive much
attention from central government in either country. Bringing the local authorities together for the first time to discuss
their joint border sparked recognition of the commonalties along this international border and the importance of the
shared natural resources.
Project documents have been written and funding confirmed for two transfrontier areas. The
Forum has prepared an extensive project document management planning and conservation
activities at Virachey National Park, Cambodia, and a project design was prepared for
conservation activities along the Phong Nha/Ke Bang - Hin Namno transfrontier area (Box 5).
Other areas to be considered for project design include Dong Amphan and Nam Kong
protected areas in Attapu Province, Laos. These projects will run independently of the
Sub-regional Forum but in close coordination with the Project Secretariat.
Conservation Awareness
The Sub-regional Project is involved with production of awareness materials in all four
countries. Many of the materials have been in the form of posters, which seem to be the most
effective and widely distributed visual media in the remote areas where radio and TV are
usually not available. In Thailand, an identification booklet for wild bovine was produced since
the transfrontier trade of the endangered gaur and banteng, in particular, is occurring at
alarming rates (Srikosamatara et al., 1992). In Vietnam, the forum is becoming involved in
environmental education for middle school children in the province of Ha Tinh where Vu
Quang Nature Reserve is located.
CONCLUSION
The recent opening of Indochina to the international community has invigorated conservation
throughout the sub-region and revealed its astonishing potential for establishment of
transfrontier protected areas. Given the constraints that exist, however, it is clear that more
time will be required to establish transfrontier protected area complexes that embody concepts
of complementary management and information sharing across borders.

The Forum project has been able to act as a catalyst to generate interest and initiate a
dialogue in Indochina that is leading toward coordinated conservation of the rich forests along
its borders. The fact that neighboring countries now are taking steps to add extensions and link
disjointed border protected areas is a significant step forward. Another major achievement is
the agreement to address more fully the issue of illegal wildlife trade across borders. Scientific
cooperation such as the joint Vietnam/Cambodia field survey during the dry season of 1997
and the planned Laos/Vietnam field survey for dry season 1998 are a third indicator of
progress.
Protected areas establishment and management has been incorporated into the development
plans even at the provincial and district levels. In Cambodia and Laos, the Forum has begun
helping to identify boundaries and build capacity for managing provincial protected areas. The
Forum will also help the provincial and district authorities develop management plans for these
protected areas and buffer zones, and seek funds to implement the management plans.
Biological surveys, including bilateral participation, have begun to identify possible links
between border protected areas. Designation of one of the protected areas complexes as a
World Heritage Site, an action presently under consideration (N. Ishwaran, UNESCO, pers.
comm, 1997), would likely catalyze more dialogue and a degree of cooperation necessary for
ensuring a well-managed site. The recent admission of Vietnam and Laos into the Association
of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) could also serve as a powerful force for promoting
transboundary conservation.
According to one definition, border parks have three main functions, which are promotion of
peace, improvement of resource management, and preservation of cultural values (McNeil,
1993). These are worthy objectives for the transboundary protected areas system in Indochina
to aspire to accomplish. Currently, the dialogue on transboundary conservation is dominated
by technical officers from the local and central governments. These officials focus primarily on
improvement of resource management and secondarily on issues of poverty eradication
through development activities. Preservation of cultural values, particularly for minority
peoples, with the exception of Cambodia’s Ratanakiri Province, is not a major issue. In Laos
and Vietnam, more attention is given to how these minorities can change their cultural values
and become more like the majority ethnic group. Promotion of peace is not an overt topic of
conversation, but could be a natural outcome of improved natural resource management along
the borders.
The Forum facilitated the process of establishing a dialogue that has resulted in identifying
priority conservation areas along the national borders. Although transboundary conservation in
Indochina is still a long way from transborder reserves managed as single administrative units,
transboundary conservation advocates in this sub-region must proceed with caution, balancing
the urgency of conservation needs with the realities of the moment. Vigorous efforts to
accelerate the process of joint management of border parks could create concerns about loss
of national pride or sovereignty. Transboundary conservation does not inherently include joint
management between countries, and expectations for transboundary conservation as
envisioned by Westing (Westing, 1993) must be a long-term goal.
Although a true 'peace park' may be far in the future, the Forum has succeeded in initiating the
process of cooperation and dialogue, making progress in transboundary conservation that may
help achieve this end. With most of Indochina’s border conservation areas along the Ho Chi
Minh Trail, it is fitting that this symbol of regional conflict could unite Cambodia, Laos, and
Vietnam in an effort to conserve one of the most biologically significant forest areas in Asia.
References

Baird, I.G. 1995a. A Rapid Study of Fish and Fisheries; and Livelihoods and Natural
Resources Along the Sesan River. Livelihoods and Natural Resources Study. Oxfam
UK&I and Novib. Ratanakiri, Cambodia.
Baird, I.G. 1995b. Investigations of the Xe Kaman and Xe Xou Rivers, with Special Reference
to Freshwater Fish and River Ecology; and a Review of the Potential Social and
Environmental Impacts of Large Dam Projects Being Considered for These Rivers in
Attapu Province, Southern Lao PDR. Report prepared for Protected Area Division of the
Department of Forestry, Lao PDR. WCS Report. Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Biodiversity Action Plan For Vietnam (BAP). 1994. Published by the Government of the
Socialist Republic of Vietnam.
Canh, L., T. La, D. Dap, H. Cuc, N. Dao, N. Chinh, N. Dung, P. Nhat, N. Tu, N. Thang, T.
Hien. 1997a. A Report on 2 Field Surveys of Phong Nha - Ke Bang Forest, Central,
Vietnam. WWF/UNDP Indochina Biodiversity Forum Project. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Canh, L., P. Anh, J. Duckworth, V. Thanh, L. Vuthy. 1997b. A Survey of Large Mammals in
Dak Lak Province, Vietnam. WWF/UNDP Indochina Biodiversity Forum Project and
IUCN Species Survival Commission. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Chape, S. 1996. Biodiversity Conservation, Protected Areas and the Development Imperative
in Lao PDR: Forging the links. IUCN. Vientiane, Lao PDR.
Colm, S. 1997. Land Rights: The challenge for Ratanakiri’s Indigenous Communities.
Watershed. 3:1: 29-38. Bangkok, Thailand.
Desai, A.A. and L.Vuthy. 1996. Status and Distribution of Large Mammals in Eastern
Cambodia: Results of the First Foot Surveys in Modulkiri and Rattanakiri Provinces.
IUCN/FFI/WWF Large Mammal Conservation Project. Phnom Penh, Cambodia.
Dinerstein, E. and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1993. Beyond "Hotspots": How to Prioritize

Investments in Biodiversity in the Indo-Pacific Region. Conservation Biology. 7:53-65.
Dinerstein, E., E.D. Wikramanayake, and M. Forney. 1995. Conserving the Reservoirs and
Remnants of Tropical Moist Forest in the Indo-Pacific Region. In: “Ecology, Conservation
and Management of Southeast Asian Rainforests”. pp. 140-175. R.B.Primack and T.E.
Lovejoy, ed. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Dinerstein, E., E.D. Wikramanayake, J. Robinson, U. Karanth, A. Rabinowitz, D. Olson, T.

Mathew, P. Hedao, and M. Connor. 1997. A Framework for Identifying High Priority
Areas and Actions for the Conservation of Tigers in the Wild. WWF-US Report.
Washington DC, USA.
Dung, V.V., P. M.Giao, N. Chinh, and J. MacKinnon. 1994. Discovery and Conservation of the
Vu Quang Ox Pseudoryx nghetinhensis in Vietnam. Oryx. 28:1: 16-21.
Giao, P.M., D. Touc, V.V. Dung, E.D. Wikramanayake, G. Amato. P. Arctander, and J.
MacKinnon. Description of Muntiacus truongsonensis, a New Species of muntjac
(Artiodactyla: Muntiacidae) from Central Vietnam, and its Conservation Significance.
Animal Conservation. In Review.
Groves, C. P., G. Schaller, K. Khounboline, and G. Amato, G. Phylogenetic and Conservation

Significance of the Rediscovery of Sus bucculentus (Mammalia, Suidae). Nature. In
Press.

MacKinnon, J.R. 1993 a. Draft Border Protected Area System Plan for
Vietnam/Lao/Cambodia/ Thailand Sub-region. Appendix to UNDP Project Document:
RAS/93/102 Sub-Regional Biodiversity Component.
MacKinnon, J.R. 1993b. An Indochina Tri-state Reserve: The Practical Challenges. In:
“Transfrontier Reserves For Peace and Nature: A Contribution to Human Security”.
Westing, A.H (ed.). UNEP publication. Nairobi, Kenya.
McNeil, R.J. 1993. International Parks For Peace. In: “Parks on the Borderline: Experience in
Transfrontier Conservation”. Thorsell, J.W (ed.). IUCN. Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Olivier, R. and E. Woodford. 1994. Aerial Survey for Kouprey in Cambodia. IUCN Species
Survival Commission. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Peter, W.P. and A. Feiler. 1994. Horner von einer unbekannten Bovidenart aus Vietnam
(Mammalia:Ruminantia). Faunistische Abhandlungen Staatliches Muesum for Tierkunds
Dresden 19(4):144-148.
Population Reference Bureau (PRB). 1996. World Population Data Sheet. Washington DC.
USA.
Salter, R.E. (compiler). 1993. Wildlife in Lao PDR.. A Status Report. IUCN. Vientiane, Lao
PDR.
Schmid, M.1993. Vietnam, Kampuchea and Laos. In "Floristic Inventory of Tropical Countries".
Campbell, D.J. & H.D. Hammond (eds.). NYBG and WWF. Pgs 85-89.
Srikosamatara, S., B. Siripholdej, and V. Suteethorn. 1992. Wildlife Trade in Lao PDR and
Between Lao PDR and Thailand. Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society. Bangkok.
40:1-47.
Timmins, R.J. and K. Khounboline. 1996. A Preliminary Wildlife and Habitat Survey of Hin
Namno National Biodiversity Conservation Area, Khammouane Province, Lao PDR.
WCS/CPAWM Report. Vientiane.
Timmins, R.J. and C. Vongkhamheng. 1996. A Preliminary Wildlife and Habitat Survey of the
Dong Khanthung Area, Champassak Province, Lao PDR. WCS/CPAWM Report.
Vientiane, Lao PDR.
TRAFFIC Southeast Asia. 1993. Wildlife Trade Between the Southern Lao PDR Provinces of
Champassak, Sekong, and Attapeu, and Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Field Report
No. 3.
Tuoc, D., V.V. Dung, S. Dawson, P. Arctander and J. MacKinnon. 1994. Introduction of a New
Large Mammal Species in Vietnam. Technical Report, Ministry of Forestry, Vietnam (in
Vietnamese). Hanoi, Vietnam.
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). 1993. UNDP Project Document:

RAS/93/102 Sub-Regional Biodiversity Conservation Component.
Vien, Nguyen Khac. 1992. Vietnam: A Long History. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Westing, A.H. 1993. From Hope to Reality: Establishing an Indochina Tri-state Reserve for
Peace and Nature. In: “Transfrontier Reserves For Peace and Nature: A Contribution to
Human Security”.Westing, A.H (ed). UNEP publication. Nairobi, Kenya.

Wharton, C. 1957. Man, Fire and Cattle in North Cambodia. An Ecological Study of the
Kouprey Novibos sauveli. In: “Proceedings of the Annual Tall Timbers Forest Ecology
Conference” 6:23-65.
Wikramanayake, E.D., E. Dinerstein, J. G. Robinson, U. Karanth, A. Rabinowitz, D. Olson, T.

Mathew, P. Hedao, M. Conner, G. Hemley, and D. Bolze. An Ecology-Based Approach
to Setting Priorities for Conservation of Wild Tigers, Panthera tigris. Conservation
Biology. In Press.
Wikramanayake E.D., E. Dinerstein, P. Hedao, D. Olson, P. Hurley, and L. Horowitz. A

Conservation Assessment of Terrestrial Ecoregions of the Indo-Pacific Region. WWF-
US Conservation Science Program, Washington DC, USA. In Prep.
World Bank. 1995. Agriculture and Environment Operations Division. Country Department I.
East Asia and Pacific Region. Vietnam Environmental Program and Policy Priorities for a
Socialist Economy in Transition. Report No. 13200-VN.
World Bank. 1996. Agriculculture and Environment Operations Divison. Country Department I.
East Asia and Pacific Region. Cambodia Forest Policy Assessment. Report No. 15777-
KH.
Woodford, E., T. Huong, and V. Long. 1997. An Assessment of the Wildlife Trade in Gia Lai
Province, Vietnam: Structure, Processes, Law Enforcement. Report of WWF/UNDP
Indochina Biodiversity Forum Project. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Acknowledgments
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) provides financial support to the
Indochina Biodiversity Forum and the MacArthur Foundation has supported many of WWF's
transboundary conservation activities in the sub-region. The project has also advanced
considerably in a short time because of the efforts and support of government agencies in
Laos, Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia: in particular the Center for Protected Areas and
Watershed Management, Department of Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,
Government of Lao P.D.R.; National Environment Agency, Ministry of Science, Technology,
and Environment, Government of Vietnam; Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development,
Government of Vietnam; Ministry of Environment, Royal Government of Cambodia; and the
Royal Forest Department, Ministry of Agriculture, Royal Government of Thailand. The project
had its beginings from Dr. John Mackinnon's vision and has benefitted from his advice. We
warmly thank them all.

PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICT
NIMULE NATIONAL PARK: A CASE STUDY
By: Rajab Yagoub Abdulla

formerly Research Officer in Nimule National Park, the Sudan
SUMMARY
First hand management experiences in a protected area along international borders, during conflict,
indicate that within the limitations imposed by security and logistical constraints, a number of
effective initiatives at a local level can be often taken with regard to the management of the general
environment as well as of specific wildlife populations, the morale and performances of
conservation staff, the war refugees, and the military and administrative personnel from both sides
of the borders. The described experiences suggest that negative effects of the isolation of wildlife
management staff and the difficulties to effectively update directives from the headquarters, could
be concretely counterbalanced by international coordinative efforts. Such endeavour should
complement common sense and experience based initiatives at a local level, with a view to
ensuring that the identification and updating of local management priorities fit in the broader context
of ecosystemic, often transnational, priorities. Given favourable conditions, collaborative initiatives
taken at local level, including with authorities across the boundary, might yield some results, but
can only buy time for the implementation of agreement frameworks set up at an international level.
The contention is also put forward that the above considerations may parallely apply to given
international conservation priorities in some, currently overlooked, conflict areas.
INTRODUCTION AND STUDY AREA
First I wish to thank the IUCN for having invited me and sponsored my participation to this Congress
and, with it, for the opportunity to meet on conservation issues with friends and colleagues of
international standard in the most conducive and welcoming atmosphere created by the
headquarters of the Peace Parks Foundation in Somerset West.
But let me also express my gratitude for two, more specific additional reasons:
♦ the first, is the opportunity to discuss about conservation problems and perspectives of a poorly
known and yet extremely interesting protected area of my beloved Sudan. A country which
emerges as one of the most diverse environmentally as well as for being characterized, at a
global scale, by most impressive wildlife populations and species richness levels, and yet, also
because of a lengthy and ravaging war, is virtually absent from present day conservation
debates and international environmental fora.
♦ The second reason spans, maybe, a smaller scope, but an equal spirit and involvement from my
side: the hope that, within the goals of this Congress, my modest personal experiences may
contribute as a vivid case study, to the development and refining of present methodological and
policy frameworks. And this is because I fully share with the Organizers the believe that a
number of effective conservation options which are offered to the management of protected
areas across boundaries may only be accessible today through international support and/or
coordination, and that this particularly applies when facing the demanding task of dealing with
conflict or post conflict realities.
Moving to the specific National Park I am going to focus in my talk, I also wish to suggest that while,
sadly, there is little future for some of the local wildlife populations, a number of effective
conservation options can and should be considered at an international level. Although the first hand
personal experiences which I shall refer to, are of several years ago, I have kept in close contact
with the local realities and I believe that the message they convey is worth strong consideration
currently. And this is not only because the discussed problems and potential are up to date, but

also because besides Nimule they also apply to other important National Parks and protected areas
in the Region.
Today I live out of my Country and in an urban environment and, I must confess, together with the
cry of the fish eagle and the rumbling of elephants, I also miss the intermittent sounds of heavy
firearms shooting at night in the Park. Jointly with many sometimes daunting events, they all make
up unforgettable memories of a most rewarding experience during my work, from 1987 to 1989, as
research officer and assistant park warden in Nimule National Park, Southern Sudan.
Nimule National Park (Fig. 1) is situated in the extreme south of the Sudan as an enclave along the
Uganda border spanning an area of 41.000 hectares. It was gazetted as game reserve in 1935 and
upgraded to National Park in 1954.
Biogeographically, the Park falls in the "East African Woodland/Savanna Province" (Guillet & Moll,
1992; IUCN/UNEP, 1987) and contains bushed grasslands, wooded grasslands and riverine
woodland. Viewed from the top of the hills on the eastern part, the Park has natural scenic beauty
including the view of an imposingly wide White Nile (here called Bahr-el-Jebel 'the sea coming from
the mountains') entering the Sudan in narrow rocky gorges forming the massive Fula rapids.
The markedly dichotomous rainfall pattern with a relatively long and somewhat heavy monomodal
rainy season (stretching from March to November) and a quite severe dry season, contrast the
general climatic pattern which otherwise fits equatorial standards, with relatively reduced
temperature fluctuations (with a maximum of 29°C in November and a minimum of 24°C in July).
The implications of the described climatic and physiognomic patterns, are compounded by the fact
that the Park is also marking a climatic limit with its northern relatively dryer border areas and reflect
in somewhat dynamic utilization patterns by game, particularly elephants (Guillet, 1990; Guillet &
Moll, 1992), which move to and from Uganda and the Sudan.
The area, which also includes some major historical site (such as the big old Tamarind tree where
General Gordon Pasha held court and read names inscribed on a stone at its foot), was originally
gazetted as a National Park for the protection of the White Rhino. A species which, however, was
sadly exterminated during the seventeen years (1955-1972) civil war. Before the retreat of the
wildlife forces from the Park in 1989 (as the area was taken over by non-governmental troops),
notable populations of elephant (over 1000 were recorded in a 1987 census), of hippo, uganda
kob, baboon, vervet monkey, water buck, oribi, grey duiker, warthog, as well as of birds such as
cormorants, crowned crane, secretary bird, fish eagle, kori bustard, emerged as the more common
highlights of the park. And, particularly the first five of the above mentioned species where
frequently recorded moving across the borders (Yagoub Abdulla, 1984).
The Park falls, formally, under the administration of the Directorate of Wildlife Conservation and
National Park Forces with headquarters in Juba; and is managed, normally, by wildlife conservation
personnel including four officers and thirty game scouts. Generally, beside being poached inside
the Park, animals are also killed outside its boundaries when they cross into Uganda or move into
nearby natives cultivations. The most affected are elephants for their particular lean on sugar cane
and sorghum.
DISCUSSION
As the duration of warfare operations was extending, the ordinary burden of park management
activities was aggravated in terms of additional control of poaching and encroachment of people
into the Park for firewood and grass for thatch. Many people from the surrounding areas had, in
fact, flown their rural homes to take refuge in Nimule Town. Great pressure was put on the Park by
armed poachers entering from Uganda as well as from Sudanese organized forces and militia men.

Besides the security situation, the Park management had to face the lack of logistic supplies
because the road connecting the Headquarters in Juba to Nimule was cut off by warfare activities.
As a result, no salaries, supplies of ammunition, firearms, uniforms, or any other form of logistic
support could be directly supplied by the Headquarters, with which the only means of contact was a
radio telephone set. The Park was left with only one small Suzuki car, but soon the stocks of fuel,
lubricants or spare parts were depleted.
Despite all these difficulties, the staff have for long been able to assure management continuity and
significantly reduce the incidence of poaching and other illegal activities. We, eventually, decided to
focus on control of poaching as a priority, and directed virtually all the available meager resources
to the scouts stationed in the innermost parts of the Park. Anti poaching operations and intensive
patrols were carried out from two tented camps which were supplied with food purchased with
money collected from fees for fishing licenses and park entry. Salaries, with usual delays of up to
four months, were secured from Nimule traders who had agents in Juba who, in turn, could be paid
by the Headquarters.
In the framework of anti-poaching operations and patrol activities, the Park Management
established contacts and held meetings on poaching by Ugandan nationals in the Park, with
neighbouring government authorities in Uganda. These authorities were very cooperative and
responsive and some poachers were arrested at their homes in Uganda and their weapons were
confiscated.
Additional problems aroused when soldiers of the Sudanese organized forces stationed in Nimule
Town, started receiving their salaries with some months delay and demanded wildlife meat for their
base sustainment. We held a number of, not always easy, meetings and personal contacts with
their leaders. With their cooperation we eventually managed to restrain the soldiers' poaching
activities.
Also during war times life continues, and we felt that even without normal logistic support and
specific directives, we could ensure law enforcement on civilian natives by involving the chief’s
court, and we even arranged some conservation enlightenment talks in schools and with other local
leaders.
Although my original responsibility was to conduct research, I was engaged in organizing and
leading the anti-poaching operations and patrols. With preplanned maneuvers, sometimes for five
days on foot, I was able to arrest many Ugandan and Sudanese poachers and seize their
weapons, but, above all, I could ensure visibility to the conservation authority's presence in an
atmosphere of otherwise general administrative disarray.
On the other hand, the very same patrol operations, were providing the opportunity to conduct
survey at least on large mammals and major park management problems.
Despite the insecurity situation, poachers activities and lack of research equipment's and facilities, I
was able to train the game scouts and, with their help, to collect distribution/density data and
general habitat information. These efforts enabled us, in more than a few occasions, to take
sometimes hard but realistic decisions, and to formulate recommendations on what were at a local
level the park’s management priorities given the limitations imposed by the war.
But besides the mentioned operational contributions, let me offer an additional consideration on
some, maybe less obvious but equally significant outputs of the described experiences. I am here
referring to the strong feelings which were generated in me by the tremendous responsibility I was
faced with, but also by the potentials which I had access to as a wildlife manager cut off by warfare
activities, when dealing with the task of leading wildlife personnel. These were often young and
motivated scouts who had been de jure turned into military forces. Our efforts ensured that de facto
they were concretely reminded of their conservation mandate, preserving their professional dignity,

and even strengthening their morale and the feeling that any conservation perspective of the Park
was vitally depending on their individual contribution and initiative.
The recrudescence of warfare activities and the duration of insecurity conditions have had
destructive impacts on the majority of game species in the Park and caused migration of many
animal into Uganda. The survival of such game depends now on the protection which may be
provided by the SPLA, the Sudan People's Liberation Army, as well as the Uganda Wildlife
Conservation Authority. In the absence of the Sudanese wildlife conservation forces in the Park, the
entry of poachers into the park from Uganda could only be controlled through the cooperation of
Uganda wildlife Authority by establishing game posts in the proximity of the border. This is not only
aiming at controlling people's entry into the park, but also at preventing killing of elephants and
other species when they cross the border into Uganda. The IUCN and other organizations
cooperating at an international level in the management and conservation of protected areas and
biodiversity are called upon to encourage and support such action which will help protect the Park's
wildlife for post war conservation and development.
The present perspectives to control poaching from Ugandans inside the park and safeguard the
movement of animals across the border into Uganda, depend on the cooperation of Ugandan
authorities on actions including the arrest of poachers, collection of illegal firearms and control at
least of peoples inhabiting in the Park's neighbourhoods. This cooperation can be achieved in the
framework of mutual agreements between Uganda and the Sudan to create and protect a relatively
narrow buffer zone on the Uganda side. Such an action could also account most effectively for the
periodical impact of flushes of warfare activities inside the Park.
Expectedly, there is the superficial tendency to believe that when dealing with conflict realities it is
always a matter of complexities and/or actions which are out of reach in absence of a wealth of
means and additional support. Besides, the generally sub-chronic instability conditions which more
frequently characterize conflicts relevant to our discussion, are wrongly dealt with in the same
manner as the often only short lived peaks in warfare activities where only emergency action might
be conceivable. This makes a lot of planning necessary to influence, before it is to late, the human
behavioural adaptations and distributional responses to security realities. The movement and
resettlement of refugees can for example be influenced by proper coordination of the
environmental conservation organizations with those organization that supply food aid, but this
needs concertation and policy development at an international level.
Often, however, during periods of conflict, also simple initiatives at a local level can save an area
from the catastrophe. What, on the other hand, cannot be realistically achieved handicraftly, is to
establish a framework for a dynamic rationalization of the number of the very same simple but
effective actions.
A general coordinative management framework should consider, guidelines for identifying and
updating prioritary actions, at a local level, aiming at facing emerging conflicts, but also post conflict
realities. This specifically applies to the human adaptations to the above mentioned sub-chronic,
lengthy war induced instability conditions. Though only erratically punctuated by warfare episodes,
such conditions are equally characterized by the impact of unchecked resettlement patterns of the
human population, a wealth of weapons among the civilian and a notable increase in the demand
of wildlife resources.
Specifically relevant to Nimule National Park, I wish to appeal to IUCN to actively engage in
involving current international conservation momentum to act through the Ugandan authorities and
the Sudan Government, but also through the SPLA. A set of objective policy directives for sensitive
conservation areas, could influence its attitude toward the management of the broader ecosystemic
resources which, de facto, it controls over a large part of the national territory. And this particularly
applies to the White Nile Basin, realm of one of the two world largest congregation of wild
ungulates.

Finally, with regard to the potential for acting from opportunistically more appropriate sides of the
borders, it might be worth underscoring that (Fig. 1, and Map 3.3 in IUCN/UNEP 1986) besides
Nimule National Park, several other important Sudan protected areas are located along
international borders which should be explored for transboundary management and cooperation.
These include: Boma N.P., Dinder N.P. (Biosphere Reserve) and Rahad G.R. on the borders with
Ethiopia; Kidepo G.R. adjacent to Kidepo Valley N.P. in Uganda, Bire Kpatuos G.R. and Bangangai
G.R. on the borders with the Democratic Republic of Congo near Garamba N.P. (also abutting the
Sudan borders); and Radon N.P. (Biosphere Reserve) on the borders with the Central African
Republic.
REFERENCES
Guillet, A. 1990. Ivory smuggling in Sudan. Swara 13 (1): 31-33.
Guillet, A. & Moll, E.J. 1992. Structural and biogeographical patterns of vegetation in Equatorial
Sudan. I: Terrestrial communities. Coenoses 7(2): 61-73.
IUCN/UNEP 1986. Review of the Protected Areas System in the Afrotropical Realm. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. xviii + 259 pp.
IUCN/UNEP 1987. The IUCN Afrotropical Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and
Cambridge, UK. xix + 1034 pp.
Yagoub Abdulla, R. 1984. Larger mammal census and management problems in Nimule National
Park (Sudan). Unpublished report to the Ministry of Wildlife and National Parks, Southern
Region, The Sudan.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am grateful to the IUCN for inviting me and sponsoring my participation to an extremely interesting
and challenging Conference. I would like to express my sincere thanks to Dr Alfredo Guillet from
the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for nominating and recommending me to the Conference, as
well as for constructive comments to the paper.
Caption to Fig. 1:
Fig 1. From IUCN/UNEP 1987.

STATUS OF THE WORLD’S TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS
By: Dorothy C. Zbicz , Duke University

Nicholas School of the Environment, Box 90328, Durham, NC 27511, USA
and
Michael J. B. Green, World Conservation Monitoring Centre
219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge CB3 0DL, U.K.
1. INTRODUCTION
Protected areas that adjoin across international boundaries, referred to in this paper as transfrontier
protected areas, provide intriguing possibilities for promoting biodiversity conservation across
politically-severed ecosystems and species' home ranges, as well as transfrontier collaborative
management which may ultimately contribute to international peace. Since 1932, when
Waterton/Glacier was jointly declared the first international peace park by Canada and the United
States of America, the concept has gained increasingly widespread recognition and application,
particularly in the last decade.
The first review of transfrontier protected areas was presented to the Border Parks Workshop held
in 1988 during the First Global Conference on Tourism - A Vital Force for Peace. A total of 70 cases
involving 68 countries was identified where established or proposed protected areas met across
international boundaries. (Thorsell and Harrison, 1990). The purpose of this paper is to examine
progress since the 1988 Border Parks Workshop and assess the present extent of transfrontier
protected areas. No attempt is made here to examine the level of collaborative management
between protected areas that abut on international boundaries; this is the subject of ongoing
research by the first author, for which the identification of all transfrontier protected areas in the
world was the necessary first stage.
2. METHODOLOGY
The process of compiling a comprehensive list of transfrontier protected areas began three years
ago with the list of border parks compiled by Thorsell and Harrison (1990). The list was updated
with other information from various sources and from the many individuals at Duke University
working in protected areas around the world. Further input was provided by protected area
professionals attending the 1996 IUCN World Conservation Congress in Montreal. In the spring of
1997, the first author spent several weeks at the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) in
Cambridge, UK working with staff to verify this compiled list with the Centre’s Protected Areas
Database and its Biodiversity Map Library, an ARC.INFO-based Geographic Information System.
She then took the list to IUCN Headquarters, Switzerland where, due to fortunate timing, she was
also able to solicit feedback from the World Commission on Protected Areas Steering Committee,
including its vice chairs from the different regions of the world. Finally, the list was verified by
hundreds of protected area managers around the world, through electronic mail, fax and mail.
The following criteria were used for listing complexes of transfrontier protected areas:
♦ sites must adjoin across one or more international boundaries; and

♦ sites must qualify as protected areas, based on the IUCN (1994) definition38. Such sites are
assigned to one of six IUCN protected area management categories (I-VI).
Most of the identified transfrontier protected areas are actually part of larger conglomerates of
protected areas, referred to in this paper as transfrontier protected areas complexes. This
38A protected area is an area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity,
and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means (IUCN, 1994).

concept of complexes is useful for determining the area of contiguous habitat that is protected.
Since each complex usually contains more than two protected areas, the total number of
individual protected areas is much more than double the number of complexes. It should be
noted, however, that not all protected areas within a complex necessarily adjoin an
international boundary.
Transfrontier protected areas complexes were mapped using WCMC's Biodiversity Map
Library. In the absence of digitized information for the boundaries of some protected areas,
their locations were marked by a single georeferenced point. It was not possible to map all
transfrontier protected areas due to a lack of both digital and georeferenced data in some
cases.
Potential transfrontier protected areas were also identified on the basis of established
protected areas adjoining proposed protected areas across an international boundary. This list
of potential transfrontier protected areas is likely to be incomplete as data on proposed
protected areas are much less comprehensive than data for established protected areas. For
this reason the list is not presented here, but summary data derived from it are used to indicate
the scale of future opportunities for promoting the international peace park concept.
3. STATUS OF TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS COMPLEXES
3.1 EXTENT
A total of 136 transfrontier protected areas complexes were identified (Annex 1). These are
distributed among 98 countries and comprise 415 individual protected areas. The total number of
legally designated areas is higher (487) because a number of these have not been assigned to
IUCN categories for various reasons. As shown in the accompanying maps, it has been possible to
map 382 of the 415 protected areas, based on their digitized boundaries or known geographic
coordinates. From the available information, we know that transfrontier protected areas complexes
cover at least 1,127,934 km2, this being the total area of the 382 protected areas (Table 1). Such
complexes represent nearly 10% of the world's network of 13.2 million km2 of protected areas or
nearly 1% of the total area of all countries in the world (Green and Paine, in press). This highlights
the global significance of transfrontier protected areas complexes in terms of their extensiveness,
quite apart from their potential importance for collaborative management across international
boundaries and ultimately for contributing to international peace.
Table 1 Summary of available information on mapped transfrontier protected areas complexes

Transfrontier protected areas Point locations Polygons Total
complexes (i.e. geographic (i.e. digitized
coordinates) boundaries)
No. protected areas 142 240 382
Total area (km2) 226,124 901,810 1,127,934
No. countries 53 64 98
A further 85 potential transfrontier protected areas complexes were identified. These are
distributed among 14 countries additional to the 98 with established complexes. Potential
transfrontier protected areas complexes have not been listed or mapped.
3.2 GROWTH
Comparison with the first survey by Thorsell and Harrison (1990) shows that there has been
tremendous growth in the number of transfrontier protected areas complexes since 1988,
particularly over the last three years. The number of complexes comprising established
transfrontier protected areas has more than doubled, from 59 to 136. Furthermore, the number
of complexes straddling the boundaries of three countries has increased from two in 1988 to
23 in 1997, with a further seven potential complexes identified. In one case, the proposed
Mura-Drava complex, four countries (Austria, Croatia, Hungary and Slovenia) are involved.

While some of this growth reflects changing political situations, as with the emergence of the
Newly Independent States from the former Soviet Union, much of it represents genuine efforts
to establish a common agenda for conserving biological diversity that straddles international
boundaries.
Table 2 Regional growth of transfrontier protected areas complexes since 1988

Regions No. complexes No. No. proposed No.
protecte complexes complexes
d areas with three
countries
1988 1997 1997 1988 1997 1997
N. America 5 8 36 0 4 0
C. & S. 7 24 80 0 15 5
America
Europe 20 45 126 3 41 6
Africa 20 34 104 2 13 9
Asia 7 25 69 6 12 3
TOTAL 59 136 415 11 85 23
The regional distribution of transfrontier protected areas complexes is summarised in Table 2 for
1988 and 1997. In general, such complexes are distributed fairly evenly throughout the different
regions, becoming more evenly spread during the last decade due to an increase in the percentage
of complexes in Central and South America (Figure 1). The increase in Central and South America
partly reflects the establishment of several transfrontier protected areas since the cessation of
armed conflicts in the region. While North America contains only 6% of the world's total number of
complexes, it should be appreciated that these occur along only two international boundaries.
1988 (N=59) North 1997 (N=136) North

America America
Asia
8% Asia 6%
12% C/S C/S
18%
America America
12% 18%
Africa Africa
34% 25%
Europe Europe
34% 33%
Figure 1 Regional distribution of transfrontier protected areas complexes in 1988 and 1997
3.3 INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES
As considered in Section 3.1, 98 countries have transfrontier protected areas complexes, which
represents nearly half of the 224 countries and dependent territories in the world. The International
Boundaries Research Unit, University of Durham, UK, maintains a global database of international
boundaries, which includes at present 309 international boundaries (M. Pratt, pers. comm., 1997).
Some 112 (36%) of these international boundaries have transfrontier protected areas complexes
located along them and an additional 47 international boundaries contain potential complexes. It
should be noted that there is not a 1:1 ratio between international boundaries and complexes.
There are 23 complexes involving three countries and, therefore, three international boundaries.

Conversely, 38 of the 112 international boundaries are straddled by more than one protected areas
complex (24 have two complexes, nine have three, three have four and two have five complexes).
The regional distribution of existing and potential transfrontier protected areas complexes with
respect to international boundaries is shown in Table 3. The number of international land
boundaries has increased considerably in recent decades, from about 280 in the late 1980s to
some 315 in 1997 (Blake, these proceedings), leading to increased opportunities for transfrontier
protected areas complexes. In Europe, for example, the number of such complexes has doubled
since 1988 (Table 2), partly due to the increased number of boundaries resulting from dissolution of
the former USSR in 1991. Moreover, most of the proposed complexes in Europe (Table 3) lie along
these new political boundaries in former eastern Europe or USSR.
Table 3 Regional distribution of protected areas complexes straddling international

boundaries
Region Number of international boundaries with:
1 transfrontier 1 potential > 1 transfrontier
protected areas transfrontier protected areas
complex protected areas complex
complex*
N. America 2 1 2
C. & S. 21 6 8
America
Europe 33 28 12
Africa 34 9 11
Asia 22 3 5
TOTAL 112 47 38
* Not included in Column 2
4. PARKS FOR PEACE
Some 136 cases exist around the world where the boundaries of two or more contiguous
protected areas straddle 112 international boundaries. These transfrontier protected areas
complexes provide real opportunities for co-operative management across international
boundaries in the interests of biodiversity conservation. In the broader political framework,
such cooperation contributes to political stability between neighbouring countries.
In a 1991 article from the Journal of Peace Research, Brock concluded that although peace
parks to date had probably had little independent effect on international relations, transfrontier
environmental cooperation has the potential to develop into an independent variable
influencing world politics. Experience in Europe during the past twenty years has demonstrated
the important role of cooperative resource management at the local, transfrontier level in
leading to greater European economic, social and political integration. Brock (1991) suggests
that environmental cooperation may have a direct effect on regional politics by helping to
internalize norms, establish regional identities and interests, operationalize routine
international communication, and marginalize the acceptability of the use of force. Simply
establishing international peace parks is unlikely to bring an end to border hostilities, but such
initiatives may help to promote communication and cooperation as an early part of the peace
process, building confidence and ultimately improving transfrontier relations. Where
transfrontier relations are already cordial, they can be enhanced by focusing on biodiversity
conservation objectives within adjoining protected areas.
In the past decade, many countries have begun to explore the potential for promoting transfrontier
protected areas as models of international cooperation. Examples include: Laos/Cambodia/
Thailand, Ecuador/Peru, La Amistad between Costa Rica and Panama, Sí-a-Paz between Costa
Rica and Nicaragua, Turkey/Greece, Bosnia/ Serbia-Montenegro, Papua New Guinea/ Indonesia,
Jordan/ Israel, South Africa/ Mozambique and the demilitarized zone between North and South

Korea. The extent to which transfrontier protected areas may serve the twin objectives of
conserving biodiversity and promoting peace across international boundaries was the subject of a
conference in 1993 (Westing, 1993). At a more recent workshop in 1995, the experience gained by
managers from transfrontier mountain protected areas was reviewed, and common elements for
effective transfrontier cooperation identified (Hamilton et al., 1996).
In many more cases, however, the extent of transfrontier cooperation between adjoining
protected areas has not yet been examined on a global scale. The next step is to assess the
levels of cooperation that exist within existing transfrontier protected areas complexes. This is
already underway by the first author by means of a questionnaire survey involving managers
of all transfrontier protected areas in the world. This survey will provide the basis for identifying
the conditions under which transfrontier cooperation is practicable and the factors which are
most likely to encourage or inhibit it.

Annex 1
List of Transfrontier Protected Areas Complexes
Note: Complexes may include proposed protected areas and areas designated under national legislation that have not been assigned an IUCN
Category (i.e. unassigned), provided that there is at least one established protected area adjacent to another either side of an international boundary.
Countries WCMC Code Designated Areas IUCN Category

North America
Canada/ 612 Kluane National Park & Preserve II
18707 Kluane Wildlife Sanctuary IV
7406 Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park/ II
US 13038 Tongass National Forest IV
1005 Wrangell-St Elias National Park II
35387 Wrangell-St Elias Wilderness Area Ib
22490 Wrangell-St Elias National Preserve V
1010 Glacier Bay National Park II
22485 Glacier Bay National Preserve V
35382 Glacier Bay Wilderness Area Ib
Canada/ 626 Waterton Lakes National Park II
21193 Akamina Kishinena Provincial Park II
Flathead Provincial Forest Reserve/
US 973 Glacier National Park II
100967 Flathead National Forest VI
Canada/ 100672 Ivvavik National Park II
100673 Vuntut National Park II
101594 Old Crow Flats Special Management Area/ Ib
US 2904 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge IV


Canada/ 66395 Quetico Wilderness Provincial Park II
Neguaguon Lake Indigenous Reserve/
US 21322 Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Area Ib
100955 Superior National Forest VI
988 Voyageurs National Park II
Canada/ 4185 Cathedral Provincial Park II
18646 E. C. Manning Provincial Park II
101678 Skagit Valley Recreation Area II
65159 Cultus Lake Provincial Park/ II
US 979 N. Cascades National Park II
21389 Pasayten Wilderness National Forest Ib
Mexico/ 101431 Sierra de Maderas del Carmen Protection Area
101457 Cañón de Santa Elena Protection Area/ VI
US 976 Big Bend National Park II
Mexico/ 34862 Sierra de los Ajos Buenos Aires la Púrica
National Forest Reserve/
US 100881
Coronado National Forest
Mexico/ 32971 El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar National VI
18091 Biological Reserve IV
Sierra del Pinacate Refugio
US 13771 IV
35472 Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge Ib
35977 Cabeza Prieta Wilderness Area Ib
1020 Organ Pipe Cactus Wilderness Area III
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
Tohono O’odham Reservation
Latin America
Belize/ 20224 Rio Bravo Conservation Area Private Reserve IV
61957 Aguas Turbia National Park/ II
Guatemala/ 26621 Maya Biosphere Reserve n/a
30604 Mirador -Río Azul National Park Ia
102817 Naachtún - Dos Lagunas Protected Biotope/ II
Mexico 19570 Calakmul Biological Reserve VI
Belize/ 20230 Chiquibul National Park II
3314 Columbia River Forest Reserve VI
116297 Vaca Forest Reserve VI
28850 Maya Mountains Forest Reserve/ VI
Guatemala Complejo III - Reserva de Biosfera Montañas
Mayas Chiquibul
Costa Rica/ 167 Tortuguero National Park II
30599 Tortuguero Protected Zone VI
12493 Barro del Colorado National Wildlife Reserve/ IV
Nicaragua 30628 Río Indio-Maíz Biological Reserve Ia
20220 San Juan Delta Biological Reserve Pr
Colombia/ 142 Los Katios National Park/ II
Panama 236 Darién National Park II
102255 Punta Patiño Nature Reserve
Costa Rica/ 2553 La Amistad International Park II
12491 Las Tablas Protected Zone/ VI
Panama 2552 La Amistad International Park II
17185 Palo Seco VI
102253 Lagunas de Volcán IV
Costa Rica/ 19402 Gandoca y Manzanillo National Wildife Refuge/ IV
Panama 16787 Isla Bastimentos Marine National Park II
Humedal de San San Pond Sac


El Salvador/ 9638 Montecristo National Park/ IV
Guatemala/ 102815 Fraternidad o Trifinio National Biosphere n/a
Reserve/
Honduras 18804 II
Montecristo Trifinio National Park
El Salvador/ Proposed/ Pr
Honduras/ 40996 Río Negro Biological Reserve/ IV
Nicaragua 12652 Estero Real Natural Reserve II
Guatemala/ Lacandón National Park/ II
Mexico 14305 Montes Azules Biological Reserve Ia
67671 Bonompak National Monument III
Honduras/ 41014 Río Plátano National Park Pr
41045 Tawasha Indigenous Reserve
41013 Patuca National Park II
41034 Río Coco Natural Monument/ Pr
Nicaragua 2650 Bosawas National Reserve VI
Argentina/ 15 Iguazú National Park II
61817 Iguazú Strict Nature Reserve/ Ia
Brazil/ 60 Iguaçu National Park/ II
Paraguay M.S. Bertoni Reserve
Argentina/ 97490 Nahuel Huapi National Park II
97523 Nahuel Huapi Strict Nature Reserve/ Ib
Chile 90 Puyehue National Park II
88 Vincente Perez Rosales National Park II
Argentina/ 7 Lanín National Park II
61820 Lanin Strict Nature Reserve Ia
2497 Lanín Natural Monument II
30844 Complejo Islote Lobos IV
16875 Chañy Forest Reserve/ VI
Chile 91 Villarrica National Park II
10706 Villarica National Reserve IV
9418 Huerqueque National Park II
Argentina/ 6 Los Glaciares National Park II
4329 Los Glaciares Strict Nature Reserve/ Ia
Chile 9414 Bernardo O’Higgins National Park II
89 Torres del Paine National Park II
Argentina/ 16873 Copahue -Caviahue Provincial Park/ II
Chile 111 Ñuble Reseserva Nacional IV
Bolivia/ 20049 Iténez Reserva Fiscal/ VI
Brazil 5126 Guaporé Federal Biological Reserve Ia
41090 Baixo Sao Miguel State Extractive Forest VI
34028 Pedras Negras State Extractive Forest VI
Bolivia/ 36 Eduardo Abaroa National Reserve/ IV
Chile 94112 Llicancabur National Park II
30043 Los Flamencos National Reserve IV
Bolivia/ 33 Sajama National Park II
20030 Sajama Integrated Management Area
20035 Altamachi Vicuña Reserve/ IV
Chile 86 Lauca National Park II
9435 Las Vicuñas National Reserve IV
Bolivia/ 98183 Madidi National Park/ II
Peru 7460 Pampas de Heath National Sanctuary III
Bahua-Sonene National Park
Tambopata Candamo Reserved Zone III


Brazil/ 101760 Tucumaque Forest Reserve/ VI
Suriname 276 Sipaliwini Nature Reserve IV
Brazil/ 54 Pico da Neblina National Park/ II
Venezuela 4367 Serranía de La Neblina National Park II
Colombia/ 9400 La Paya National Park/ II
Ecuador/ 2499 Cuyabeño Reserva Faunistica/ VI
Peru 98245 Guepí National Park Un
Colombia/ 144 Tamá Natural National Park/ II
Venezuela 322 El Tamá National Park II
101129 Cerro Machado- El Silencio VI
30640 San Antonio- Ureña Protected Zone V
Colombia/ 19993 Catatumbo-Bari National Park/ II
Ecuador/ 186 Yasuni/ II
Venezuela 318 Perijá National Park II
20068 Región Lago de Maracaibo -Sierra de Peri V
Protected Zone
Europe
Albania/ Prespa Lake National Park/
Greece/ 674 Prespes National Park/ II
Former Yugoslav Republic of 2516 Galichica National Park II
Macedonia 1056 Pelister National Park II
Austria/ 102736 Thayatal Protected Landscape Area V
103578 Thayatal Nature Reserve/ IV
Czech Republic 30721 Podyjí National Park II
4280 Podyji Protected Landscape Area V
Austria/ Lainsitzniederung Strict Nature Reserve
102882 Blockheide Eibenstein Nature Park V
5425 Blockheide Eibenstein Nature Reserve V
Northern Waldviertel Area/
Czech Republic 2558 Trebonsko Protected Landscape Area V
Austria/ Bayerischer Wald, Böhmerwald, Sumava Pr
National Park/
Czech Republic/ 4282 V
26059 Šumava CHKO Protected Landscape Area II
26059 Šumava National Park II
Sumaveská Raselinisté/
Germany 67870 V
64659 Bayerischer Wald Nature Park Deïlanderregion Pr
Böhmerwald Biosphere Reserve
Austria/ 31402 Kalkhochalpen Nature Reserve/ IV
Germany 688 Berchtesgaden National Park II
Austria/ 1218 Neusiedlersee Nature Reserve IV
62709 Neusiedlersee - Seewinkel National Park II
102857 Neusiedler See und Umgebung Protected V
Landscape Area/
II
Hungary 9566 Fertö Hansag National Park
Austria/ 18769 Donau-Auen National Park II
31412 Donau-March Protected Landscape Area V
68341 Auen Protected Landscape Area V
1220 Marchaven-Marchegg NSG Nature Reserve Un
31408 Untere Marchauen Nature Reserve/ IV
Slovakia 19034 Slovakia Zahorie CHKO Protected Landscape V
12155 Area V
Male Karpaty Protected Landscape Area
Belarus/ 1985 Belovezhskaya Puscha National Park/ II
Poland 854 Bialowieski National Park II


Belarus/ 1644 Pripiatsky National Park/ Ib
Ukraine 1749 Polessky Nature Reserve Ia
Belgium/ 18950 Hautes Fagnes Eifel Nature Park/ V
Germany 6971 Nordeifel Nature Park V
Bosnia-Herzegovina/ 1055 Sutjeska National Park/ II
Yugoslavia (Montenegro) 15596 Tara National Park II
1051 Durmitor National Park II
Croatia/ 15605 Kopacki Rit Special Reserve Ia
15602 Kopacki Rit Nature Park/ V
Hungary 9683 Mohacsi Tortenelmi Emlekhely Nature IV
100798 Conservation Area V
Duna-Drava National Park
Czech Republic/ 4275 Protected Landscape Area Labské Pískovce/ V
Germany 32666 Sächsische Schweiz National Park V
11800 Sächsische Schweiz Protected Landscape Area V
Czech Republic/ 61421 Luzicke Hory PLA
Germany 20920 Zittauer Gebirge PLA V

Czech Republic/ 645 Krkonoše National Park V
Protected Landscape Area Iser Mountains/
Poland 852 Karkonoski National Park II
Czech Republic/ 4267 Beskydy Protected Landscape Area/ V
Poland/ 12270 Zywiecki Park Krajobrazowy/ V
Slovakia 11812 Protected Landscape Area Kysuce CHKO V
Czech Republic/ 12154 Protected Landscape Area White Carpathians/ V
Slovakia 12159 Biele Karpaty Protected Landscape Area V
Denmark/ 92491 Waddensea Nature Reserve
5762 Vadehavet Wildlife Reserve IV
17703 Vadehavet Conservation Area V
64575 Vadehavet National Nature Area/ IV
Germany/ 4380 Rantumbecken Nature Reserve IV
1541 Nord-Sylt Nature Reserve IV
33391 Hosteinische Schweiz Nature Park V
32669 Schleswig-Holsteinisches Wattenmeer National V
11837 Park V
30116 Niedersaohsisones Wattenmeer National Park IV
82256 Dollart Nature Reserve IV
Nordfriesisches Wattenmeer Nature Reserve/
Netherlands 64617
12754 Dollard Nature Reserve n/a
Waddensea Area Biosphere Reserve
Finland/ 654 Lemmenjoki National Park/ II
Norway 822 Ovre Annarjakka National Park II
Finland/ Kasivarsi Wilderness Area/ IV
Norway 12297 Reisa National Park II
Raisdoutterhaldi Protected Landscape Area V
Finland/ Vätsäri Wilderness Area/ IV
Norway/ 832 Ovre Pasvik National Park & Reserve/ II
Russian Federation 62446 Pasvik Zapovednikovednik Ia
Finland/ 656 Oulanka National Park/ II
Russian Federation 68351 Paanajärvi II
Finland/ 2561 Urho Kekkonen National Park/ IV
Russian Federation 1700 Laplandskiy Zapovednik Ia


Finland/ Friendship Nature Reserve, Kainou Park
Elimussalo Nature Reserve
Lehtua Nature Reserve
1523 Ulvinsalo Strict Nature Reserve Ia
102007 Juortansalo-Lapinuo Protected Mire IV
102041 Lososuo-Saarijarvi Protected Mire IV
Iso-Palonen & Maariansarkat Nature Reserve/
Russian Federation 13988 Kostomukskiy Zapovednik Ia
Finland/ 40928 Perameri National Park/ II
Sweden 30811 Haparanda Archipelago National Park Pr
1397 Haparanda-Sandskar Nature Reserve IV
106872 Haparanda Skärgård National Park II
France/ 6307 Vosges du Nord Regional Nature Park/ V
Germany 81245 Pfälzerwald Nature Park
France/ 661 Vanoise National Park II
10350 Vanoise National Park Buffer Zone/ V
Italy
718 Gran Paradiso National Park V
France/ 664 Mercantour National Park/ II
Italy 14618 Maritime Alps National Park V
France/ 662 Pyrenees Occidentales National Park II
703151 Pyrennes Occidentales National Park BZ/
Spain 893 Ordessa y Monte Perdido National Park II
Hungary/ 13652 Aggtelék National Park/ II
Slovakia 4376 Slovenský Kras CHKO Protected Landscape V
Area
Hungary/ 30853 Karancs-Madves Protected Area V
680 Bükki National Park/ II
Slovakia 14146 Protected Landscape Area Cerová Vrchovina V
Italy/ 15346 Foresta Di Tarvisio Nature Reserve Un
Regional Park Alpi Guilie/
Slovenia 2517 Triglavski National Park II
Italy/ 717 Stelvio National Park/ V
Switzerland 915 Suisse National Park Ia
Lithuania/ 31552 Kursiu Nerija National Park/ II
Russian Federation 68348 Kurshaskayja Kosa National Park II
Former Yugoslav Republic of 1050 Mavrovo National Park/ II
Macedonia/
II
Yugoslavia (Serbia) Shara Mountains National Park
Norway/ 829 Rago National Park II
Pr. Tysfjord Hellembotn National Park/
Sweden 905 Padjelanta National Park II
906 Sarek National Park II
3998 Stora Sjõfallet National Park V
30818 Sjaunja Nature Reserve Pr
Norway/ 826 Femundsmarka National Park II
9906 Femundsmarka Protected Landscape Area V
833 Gutulia National Park/ II
Sweden 10401 Rogen Nature Reserve IV
30816 Rogen-Langfjallet National Park Pr
Norway/ 125857 Lunddsneset Nature Reserve/ Ia
Sweden 30821 Tresticklan National Park
Poland/ 848 Tatrzanski National Park/ II
Slovakia 1975 Tatranský National Park II
Poland/ 106887 Babiogorski National Park/ II
Slovakia 12160 Horná Orava CHKO Protected Landscape Area V
14115 Babia Hora National Nature Reserve Ia


Poland/ 857 Pieninski National Park/ II
Slovakia 646 Pieninski National Park II
Poland/ 851 Bieszcadski National Park II
Magura National Park
67746 E. Carpathian - E Beskeid? Biosphere Reserve/ n/a
Slovakia/ 67750 E. Carpathians Biosphere Reserve n/a
12157 Vychodne Karpaty CHKO Protected Landscape V
Area/
Ukraine 1990 Ia
1745 Karpatskiy National Biosphere Reserve, II
Zapovednik
Karpatskiy National Nature Park
Portugal/ 860 Peneda-Geres National Park/ II
Spain 71215 Baixa-Lima-Serra do Xures Natural Park V
Romania/ 28791 Danube Delta Biosphere Reserve n/a
31702 Rosca-Buhaiova National Reserve Ia
31703 Letea Nature Reserve/ Ia
Ukraine 4814 Dunaiskie Plavni Nature Zapovednik. Ia
Romania/ 11150 Cazanele Forest Reserve/ IV
Yugoslavia 2522 Djerdap National Park V
Africa
Angola/ 347 Iona National Park VI
2251 Mocamedes Parital Reserve/ IV
Namibia 885 Skeleton Coast Game Park II
Angola/ 4493 Mucusso National Park IV
Luiana Partial Reserve/ IV
Namibia/ 7442 W. Caprivi Game Reserve/ VI
Zambia 30052 Mamili National Park II
Angola/ 4493 Luiana Partial Reserve/ IV
Zambia 1087 Sioma Ngweze National Park II
4081 West Zambezi Game Management Area VI
Liuwa Plain National Park
Benin/ 597 Boucle de la Pendjari National Park II
2253 Pendjari Hunting Zone VI
2254 Atakora Hunting Zone/ VI
Burkina Faso 3228 Pama Partial Faunal Reserve IV
3226 Arly Total Faunal Reserve IV
9264 Arly Partial Faunal Reserve IV
4488 Kourtiagou Partial Faunal Reserve IV
Benin/ 12201 “W” du Benin National Park/ II
Burkina Faso/ 1048 “W” du Burkina Faso National Park II
4488 Kourtiagou Partial Faunal Reserve/ IV
Niger 818 “W” du Niger National Park II
Botswana/ 7508 Gemsbok National Park/ II
Namibia/ 97586 Kalahari Private Reserve/ Un
South Africa 874 Kalahari Gemsbok National Park II
Botswana/ Northern Tuli Game Reserve/
South Africa/ 21174 Vhembe-Dongola Nature Reserve/ IV
Zimbabwe 3059 Tuli Safari Area VI
Burkina Faso/ 13746 Komoé-Leraba Classified Forest/ VI
Côte d’Ivoire Warigué Classified Forest VI

Burundi/ 9161 Kibira National Park/ IV
Rwanda 9148 Nyungwe Forest Reserve IV


Cameroon/ Lake Lobeke/ Pr
Central African Republic/ 31458 Dzanga-Ndoki National Park II
31459 Dzanga Sangha Forest Special Reserve/ VI
Republic of Congo 72332 Nouabalé Ndoki National Park II
Cameroon/ 20058 Korup National Park/ II
Nigeria 20299 Cross River National Park II
Central African Republic/ 2261 Yata-Ngaya Faunal Reserve/ IV
Sudan 5090 Radom National Park II
Côte d’Ivoire/ 1295 Mont Nimba Strict Nature Reserve/ Ia
Guinea/ 29067 Mont Nimba Strict Nature Reserve/ Ia
Liberia 9176 E. Nimba National Forest Un
20175 W. Nimba National Forest Un
Gambia/ 2290 Niomi National Park/ II
Senegal 866 Delta (Iles) du Saloum National Park II
Guinea/ 29069 Badiar National Park II
29409 Badiar-Sud Classified Forest/ Un
Senegal 865 Niokola Koba National Park II
Kenya/ 1297 Maasai Mara National Park/ II
Tanzania 7437 Maswa Game Reserve IV
916 Serengeti National Park II
918 Ngorongoro Crater Conservation Area VI
Kenya/ 2417 Boni National Reserve/ VI
Somalia 13715 Juba Left Controlled Hunting Area Un
872 Lag Badana National Park Pr.
13710 Bushbush Game Reserve VI
13714 Bushbush Controlled Hunting Area
Kenya/ 19564 Tsavo West National Park/ II
Tanzania 1402 Mkomazi Game Reserve IV
7433 Umba Game Reserve IV
Kenya/ 758 Amboseli National Park II
7633 Loitokitok Forest Reserve/ Un
Tanzania 922 Kilimanjaro National Park II
31593 Kilimanjaro Game Reserve IV
Kitenden Corridor Pr
Kenya/ 760 Mount Elgon National Park/ II
Uganda 9179 Sebei Controlled Hunting Area VI
Malawi/ 779 Nyika National Park/ II
Zambia 1102 Nyika National Park II
Malawi/ 4648 Vwaza Marsh Wildlife Reserve/ IV
Zambia 4102 Musalangu Game Management Area VI
Lundezi Forest Reserve
Malawi/ 780 Kasungu National Park/ II
Zambia 1088 N Luangwa National Park II
1086 S Luangwa National Park II
1100 Luambe National Park II
1091 Lukusuzi National Park II
Mauritania/ 9310 Diawling National Park/ II
Senegal 867 Djoudj National Park II
11653 Gueumbeul Special Faunal Reserve IV
Mozambique/ 4652 Maputo Game Reserve/ IV
South Africa/ 116329 Ndumu Game Reserve II
39758 Tembe Elephant Park Reserve/ IV
Swaziland Hlane National Park, Mlawula Nature Reserve IV


Mozambique/ 20295 Limpopo Valley Wildlife Utilization Area VI
800 Zinhave National Park II
799 Banhine National Park/ II
South Africa/ 873 Kruger National Park/ II
Zimbabwe 1104 Gonarezhou National Park II
Mabalauta
Namibia/ 8785 Ai-Ais Hot Springs Game Park II
Fish River Canyon/
South Africa 30851 Richtersveld National Park II
Rwanda/ 863 Volcans National Park/ II
Uganda/ 18436 Mgahinga Gorilla National Park II

18437 Bwindi Impenetrable Forest National Park/ II
Zaïre 1081 Virunga National Park II
20331 Rutshuru Hunting Zone VI
Sudan/ 904 Nimule National Park/ II
7933/
Uganda Otze- Dufile Wildlife Sanctuary IV
31275
64700 Otze Forest Forest Reserve Un
3276 Mount Kei White Rhino Sanctuary IV
Sudan/ 1369 Kidepo Game Reserve/ VI
Uganda 958 Kidepo Valley National Park II
Sudan/ 10737 Lantoto National Park/ Pr.
Democratic Republic of the 1083 Garamba National Park II
Congo (Zaïre) 20036 Mondo Misso Hunting Zone VI
Uganda/ 18438 Rwenzori Mountains II
9184 Semluiki Controlled Hunting Area VI
Semuliki National Park
1446 Kyambura Game Reserve/ II
Zaïre 1081 Virunga National Park IV
Zambia/ 7692 Lower Zambezi National Park/ II
Zimbabwe 2531 Mana Pools National Park II
2524 Charara Safari Area VI
Sapi , Chewore, Dande Special Areas VI
Zambia/ 2347 Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park III
62183 Victoria Falls National Monument/ III
Zimbabwe 1993 Victoria Falls National Park III
2530 Zambezi National Park II
Asia
Bangladesh/ 4478 Sundarbans W. Wildlife Sanctuary/ IV
India 9960 Sundarbans National Park/
Ia
Bhutan/ 7996 Royal Manas/ II
India 1818 Manas Sanctuary IV
9232 Buxa Tiger Reserve IV
62663 Buxa National Park Un
Brunei Darussalam/ 39641 Labi Hills Protection Forest Reserve Ia
18035 Labi Hills Recreation Area V
32948 Sungei Ingei Conservation Area Ia
3937 Ensengi Forest Reserve/ Un
Malaysia 3790 Gading Forest Reserve
787 Gunung Mulu National Park II
Cambodia/ 12249 Preh Vihear Protected Landscape/ V
Thailand Yod Dome Wildlife Sanctuary IV
1415 Phanom Dong Rak Wildlife Sanctuary IV


Cambodia/ 68862 Virachey National Park/ II
Laos/ 18872 Dong Ampham Nature Reserve VI
Nam Kong Nature Reserve Pr
Altopeu/ Pr
Viet Nam 12171 Mom Ray Nature Reserve IV
China/ 95461 Jingpo Lake Nature Reserve II
95460 Mudan Peak Nature Reserve VI
96016 Changbai Mountains Biosphere Reserve/ n/a
N. Korea/ 17908 Paekdu Mountain Nature Protection Area/ IV
Russian Federation 1726 Kedrovaya Pad Zapovednik Ia
China/ 96064 Dalai Lake Nature Reserve/ IV
Mongolia/ 93538 Mongul Daguur Strict Protected Area/ Ib
Russian Federation 62684 Daurskiy Zapovednik Ia
China (Tibet)/ 95785 Zhu Feng Nature Reserve Ib
95784 Jiang Cun Nature Reserve/ VI
Nepal 804 Sagarmatha National Park II
803 Langtang National Park II
26606 Makalu-Barun National Park II
26605 Makalu-Barun Conservation Area IV
China/ 96118 Ta Shi Ku Er Gan Nature Reserve/ Ib
Pakistan 836 Khunjerab National Park II
China/ 95476 Xing Kai Lake Nature Reserve/ VI
Russian Federation 62691 Khankaiskiy Zapovednik. Ia
China/ Hunhe Nature Reserve IV
95471 Hong River Nature Reserve/ IV
Russian Federation 1715 Bol’shekhekhtsizskiy Zapovednik Ia
China (Guangxi)/ 95872 Gu Long Mountain Shui Yuan Lin VI
95618 Xia Lei Shui Yuan Lin Nature Reserve/ VI
Viet Nam 10360 Trungkhanh IV
China/ 99776 Guan Yin Mountain Nature Reserve
95742 Fen Shui Ling Peak Nature Reserve/ VI
Viet Nam 10357 Hoang Lien Son #2 IV
India/ 1807 Katarniaghat Sanctuary IV
691 Dudhwa National Park/ II
Nepal 1308 Royal Bardia National Park II
India/ 4578 Valmiki Sanctuary IV
12414 Sohagibarwa Sanctuary IV
4543 Udaipur Sanctuary/ IV
Nepal 805 Royal Chitwan National Park II
India/ 19683 Kachchh Desert Sanctuary/ IV
Pakistan 6684 Rann of Kutch Wildlife Sanctuary IV
Indonesia (Kalimantan)/ 8673 Gunung Bentang Karimum National Park/ II
Malaysia (Sarawak) 1300 Lanjak Entimau Wildlife Sanctuary IV
12250 Batang Ai National Park II
Indonesia/ 29966 Wasur National Park/ II
Papua New Guinea 4200 Tonda Wildlife Management Area VI
4202 Maza Wildlife Management Area VI
Kyrgyz Republic/ 1675 Besharalsky Zapovednik./ Ia
Uzbekistan 1761 Ugam-Chatkal National Park Ia
Laos/ 18893 Phou Xiang Thong National biodiversity VI
Conservation Area/
Thailand 39518 II
Pha Taem National Park
Laos/ 61496 Nam Et National Biodiversity Conservation Area/ VI
Viet Nam 10363 Sop Cop Nature Reserve IV


Laos/ 12182 Phou Dene Dinh National Biodiversity VI
Conservation Area/
Viet Nam 10362 IV
Muong Nhe Nature Reserve
Malaysia (Sabah)/ 793 Pulau Penya Park/ II
Philippines 14758 Turtle Island Marine Sanctuary IV
Mongolia/ 93566 Uvs Nuur Basin Strict Protected Area/ Ia
Russia 67722 Ubsunurskaya Kotlovina Ia
Mongolia/ 93579 Khovsgul Nuur National C Park/ II
Russia 68356 Turkinskiy National Park II
Key to IUCN category field:

Pr proposed protected area
n/a not applicable (as in the case of internationally designated sites, such as biosphere reserves)
Un unassigned (not assigned to a category because the designation/site does not meet IUCN’s definition of a protected area)
blank category not yet assigned (often due to inadequate information)
REFERENCES
Blake, G.H. (these proceedings). The geopolitics of transboundary cooperation: an overview.
Brock, L. (1991). “Peace through Parks: The Environment on the Peace Research Agenda.”
Journal of Peace Research 28(4): 407-423
Green, M.J.B. and Paine, J. (in press). State of the World’s Protected Areas at the End of the
Twentieth Century. In: Protected Areas in the 21st Century: from Islands to Networks, World
Commission on Protected Areas. IUCN, Gland , Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.
Hamilton, L. S., Mackay, J. C., Worboys, G. L., Jones, R. A. and Manson, G. B. (Ed.) (1996).
Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. Canberra, Australia, Australian Alps National
Parks and IUCN.
IUCN (1994). Guidelines for Protected Area Management Categories. Commission on National
Parks and Protected Areas with the assistance of the World Conservation Monitoring
Centre. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. x + 261pp.
Pratt, M. (1997). Electronic mail list-serve “int-boundaries”, 17 October 1997. International
Boundaries Research Unit, University of Durham, Durham, UK.
Thorsell, J. and Harrison, J. (1990). Parks That Promote Peace: A Global Inventory of
Transfrontier Nature Reserves. Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfrontier
Conservation. J. Thorsell (Ed.). IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK. Pp. 4-
21.
Westing, A. H. (1993). Building Confidence with Transfrontier Reserves: The Global Potential.
Transfrontier Reserves for Peace and Nature: A Contribution to Human Security. A. H.
Westing. (Ed.). UNEP, Nairobi, Pp. 1-15.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the hundreds of protected area managers who obligingly
responded to requests for information on transfrontier protected areas. Members of the WCMC
Protected Areas Unit, namely James Paine, Samuel Kanyamibwa, Isabel Ripa Juliá, Javier
Beltrán and Balzhan Zhimbiev, contributed their knowledge and expertise. Vicky Fletcher and
Oliver Jarratt matched listed transfrontier protected areas with database records, Simon Blyth
ably prepared a poster map for this Conference at very short notice, and Victoria Freeman
provided secretarial and other support. Members of the Protected Areas Programme at IUCN
Headquarters shared their expertise and provided various support, which is greatly
appreciated. The study has also benefited from the comments and suggestions of the World
Commission on Protected Areas Steering Committee, numerous researchers at Duke
University, and many participants at the IUCN World Conservation Congress.

A TRANSFRONTIER RESERVE FOR PEACE AND NATURE ON THE KOREAN PENINSULA
By: Arthur H. Westing
BACKGROUND
The Korean War of 1950-1953 left the Korean peninsula divided into the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea [North Korea] and the Republic of Korea [South Korea] (Sullivan & Foss,
1987). That war (my war, as it happens) is still technically in progress, and the 246 h Military
Demarcation Line separating the two states - as established by the Military Armistice Agreement
of 27 July 1953 - is surrounded by a demilitarized zone (DMZ) 4 km in width (with 2 km on either
side of the line), and thus with an area of 98400 ha (Kirkbride, 1985).
Both Koreas are formally committed to consummating a peace treaty, as well as to ultimate
peaceful reunification - and negotiations of a desultory nature towards those ends have been
occurring on and off for several decades now. The process began with a South-North Joint
Communiqué of 4 July 1972, by which the two Koreas pledged to achieve unification through
independent efforts and peaceful means, and to carry out exchanges in many areas. Even more
to the point, a detailed ‘Agreement on Reconciliation, Non-aggression and Exchanges and
Cooperation between the South and the North' of 13 December 1991 reaffirms the earlier Joint
Communiqué and goes on to proclaim that a South-North Joint Military Committee shall, inter alia,
carry out peaceful uses of the DMZ (see its Article 12); and that the two parties shall plan and
carry out cooperation in diverse fields, including the environment (see its
Article 16).
The DMZ has been left relatively undisturbed ever since the end of the war, the primary human
interference having been occasional circumscribed forest fires deliberately set for military
purposes. To the south of the DMZ there is an additional civilian control zone of varying width,
averaging 5.4 km, that has also remained relatively undeveloped and only modestly disturbed,
although some agriculture is permitted in this informal zone; a similar civilian control zone is said
to exist to the north of the DMZ (see Note 1]. At present, South Korea as a whole has about 7%
of its national area under nature protection, and North Korea only about 0.5% (IUCN. 1992, pp
43-54; 1994, pp 124-125) (see Note 2). The environment throughout the rest of the peninsula, it
must be added, is widely degraded and otherwise abused, not surprising in view of the human
population pressures in both Koreas and the rapid rate of economic development in South Korea
(Kim & Oever, 1992). However, the DMZ plus its associated civilian control zones now support -
that is, provide a most important refuge for - a substantial fraction of the numerous species of
flora and fauna indigenous to the Korean peninsula (see Note 3).
The DMZ itself is now a flourishing de facto nature reserve, a status that could, however,
disappear rapidly following reunification owing to the truly enormous social pressures, both north
and south, for agricultural, industrial, and urban development (Kim, 1997; Matthiessen, 1996). I
and others have thus been urgently suggesting for some years now that North-South negotiations
be initiated on a priority basis so as to establish, as soon as possible, a Korean Bi-state Reserve
for Peace and Nature (Kim, 1997; Westing, 1993, pp 8-9). Then the two states could begin to
deal cooperatively with a precious common natural heritage of that ecogeographical region: the
species-rich ecosystems that straddle the north-south divide. Such an endeavor would serve not
only to contribute to the very necessary expansion of areas devoted to biodiversity protection on
the peninsula [with a biota that includes a number of species threatened with extinction), but
would, I should hope, at the same time facilitate the still desultory peace process and - thereby -
ultimate reunification and conflict prevention (Cumings, 1992; Sullivan & Foss, 1987; Westing,
1998).
Specifically what I am suggesting is the establishment of two distinct transfrontier zones: one a
largely low wetland toward the western end of the Demarcation Line, about 60 km northeast of

Panmunjom, important inter alia as a wintering ground for migratory birds; and the other largely a
mountainous temperate-forest upland about 50 km southwest of the eastern terminus of the DMZ.
I would suggest that each of these reserves be a minimum of 50000 ha in size, and that they
extend beyond the DMZ itself and into the two existing civilian control zones (Westing, 1993, pp
8-9). This would leave up to 73% of the combined DMZ and civilian control zones for the
development so ardently desired (not to say, expected) on both sides of the Line (see Note 4].
The western wet lowland site I propose is important as a migratory staging area or wintering
ground for a number of waterfowl (Scott, 1989, pp 98-99, 105-109). Indeed, it is crucial to the
survival of two majestic bird species (Archibald, 1975; Higuchi et al., 1996; Matthiessen, 1996;
MM, 1987b, pp 397-398; Zimmerman, 1981): the red-crowned (or Manchuria or Japanese) crane
(Grus japonensis; IUCN Vulnerable) and the white-naped (or gray) crane (Grus vipio; IUCN
Vulnerable). Other threatened bird species that could benefit from this site include the Chinese
egret (Egretta eulophotes; IUCN Vulnerable), the black-faced spoonbill (Platalea minor; IUCN
Endangered], the white-tailed sea eagle (Haliaeetus albicilla; IUCN Vulnerable), and possibly also
the hooded crane (Grus monacha; IUCN Vulnerable) (MIA, 1987b, pp 397-398]. Mammals
threatened with extinction in this area include the grey wolf (Canis lupus; IUCN Vulnerable] and
the Siberian musk deer (Moschus moschiferus; IUCN Endangered) (ML/l, 1987b, pp 387 & 395-
396) (see Note 5).
The eastern dry upland site I propose is important for a number of threatened mammalian
species, including the Asiatic black bear (Selenarctos thibetanus: IUCN Vulnerable), the Siberian
musk deer, the grey wolf, and ever so possibly (if any remain there) the tiger (Panthera tigris:
IUCN Endangered] (MIA, 1987a, p. 507) (see Note 5). Birds threatened with extinction in the area
appear again to include the red-crowned crane (MIA, 1987a, p. 551) (see Note 5). In creating the
eastern site. consideration must be given to thereby joining, at least by protected corridors, two
already existing national reserves, one on each side of the DMZ: North Korea's Kumgang
Mountain National Park (44 000 ha; IUCN II; ca 30 km northwest of the DMZ) and South Korea's
Sorak Mountain National Park (37 000 ha; IUCN V; ca 40 km southeast of the DMZ) (McGahey,
1991; Kim, 1997). A generally north-south ridge-line complex of reserves of that magnitude would
be especially beneficial to large mammals and other wildlife.
TRANSFRONTIER POSITIONS OF THE TWO KOREAS
Both Koreas have at one time or another supported the notion of setting aside at least a portion
of the DMZ as a nature reserve, although at the moment their positions on the matter are
unfortunately quite at odds. North Korea approached the United Nations Secretary-General in
early 1991, requesting that he explore the possibility of a DMZ-centered nature reserve, a step
soon thereafter supported in like manner by South Korea. The task was given over to the United
Nations Environment Programme [UNEP] (Nairobi), which then appointed me to visit both Seoul
and Pyongyang in order to initiate appropriate arrangements. My mission to Seoul transpired in
December 1991, but my visit to Pyongyang was in the eleventh hour postponed indefinitely.
South Korea had already been systematically studying the environmental status of its civilian
control zone for some years prior to 1991 (e.g., MIA, 1987a; 1987b; NUB, 1989), and quickly (in
mid 1991) followed up on the new initiative by establishing an inter-agency task force comprised
of high-level representatives of eight relevant bodies, both political and technical, to explore the
matter diplomatically, to carry out further ecological surveys of the border region, and to
recommend specific sites (see Note 6). The Government, in recognizing the potential for a DMZ
reserve to serve as a political tension-easing, confidence-building, and conflict-prevention
measure between North and South, in December 1991 indicated its readiness to meet on this
matter with representatives of the North, with no objection to having UNEP serve in a facilitating
role. In December 1994, the Government of South Korea contacted me to reinforce that offer, this
time emphasizing its desire to have either UNEP or the United Nations Development Programme

[UNDP] [New York) play a key catalytic role. And in August 1997, the director of the UNEP
regional office for Asia and the Pacific [UNEP/ROAP] (Bangkok), informed me that South Korea
continues to have a positive reaction to establishing a transfrontier reserve.
North Korea, after its early 1991 initiative, followed later that year by discussions between its
Environment Protection Bureau and UNEP, has essentially withdrawn into silence on the matter
despite many subsequent exploratory moves on the part of UNEP (through me, through
UNEP/ROAP, and via other avenues] plus further ones by UNDP. I was informed in mid May of
1992 by the Government of North Korea that a committee had just been formed for cooperation
with South Korea on environmental and other matters; and in late May that the issue of turning
the DMZ into a peaceful and natural park would follow smoothly upon implementation of the
Agreement on Reconciliation mentioned earlier. But despite its consummation a few months
earlier (in December 1991, entering into force in February 1992), nothing of substance in that
regard seems to have occurred since. Indeed, as recently as July 1997 I was informed by the
UNDP resident representative in Pyongyang (UNDP/DPRK) that he continues to raise the issue
from time to time, but that the Government is not as yet the least bit interested in reviving the
matter. And the director of UNEP/ROAP has raised the issue in Pyongyang no less than twice
during 1997 with both the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the General Bureau of Environment
Protection and Land Administration (and has additionally done so with North Korea's
representative in Bangkok) - only to be decisively informed that the Government does not wish to
pursue the subject at this time.
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
Thus, despite the continuing low-key efforts by both UNEP and UNDP, formal progress toward a
DMZ-associated nature reserve is languishing at the moment owing to North Korea's reticence to
re-open the matter. However, peace talks are once again in the process of being resuscitated -
for the first time with North Korea, South Korea, the USA, and China all formally involved as co-
equals in the negotiations - and this may provide the justification and impetus for a re-awakened
interest by North Korea. In the meantime, two USA-based non-governmental organizations stand
out in their efforts to keep the matter alive.
The International Crane Foundation (Baraboo, WI, USA), co-founded in 1973 by George W.
Archibald, and directed by him since then, has long been active in trying to establish protected
areas for the red-crowned and white-naped cranes in and near the DMZ and elsewhere along
their ranges (Archibald, 1975; Matthiessen, 1996: Zimmerman, 1981). The Foundation has
carried out study tours of the DMZ on various occasions over the past two decades. Most
recently, in 1995 it petitioned the South Korean National Unification Board to facilitate
cooperation between the two Koreas on crane research and conservation under the auspices of
the Foundation. Moreover, the Foundation, which has been working in collaboration with the
[South] Korean Association for Bird Protection, was instrumental in having South Korea establish
a crane refuge in the Han River estuary near the western terminus of the DMZ (Zimmerman,
1981, p. 62).
The Korea Peace Bioreserves System Project (University Park, PA, USA), founded in 1994 bv Ke
Chung Kim, and directed by him since then. is actively attempting to convince the two Koreas to
establish within the DMZ a system if bioreserves enjoying varying levels of restrictiveness
(Hocknell, 1996, pp 68-70: Kim. 1997]. One of the aims of the Project is to foster eco-tourism as a
means of making the reserves more palatable to people in the area.
FUTURE PROSPECTS
So what does the future look like? Both Koreas are more or less strongly committed to
conserving their own natural environments and to joining with the community of nations to further

global environmental aims. Nonetheless, it is clear that both have a long way to go, North Korea
more so than South Korea.
Regrettably, neither of the two Koreas is as yet a party to the 1977 Protocol on International
Armed Conflicts (UNTS #17512), so important because - as one of its basic rules - this widely
adopted instrument draws protection of the environment during wartime into the orbit of
international humanitarian law (see especially its Article 35.3). Furthermore, neither country is as
yet a party to Protocol II of the 1980 Inhumane Conventional Weapon Convention (UNTS
#22495), which imposes restrictions on the use of the environmental scourge of anti-personnel
land mines.
North Korea has a Ministry of Forestry, a General Bureau of Environment Protection and Land
Administration (the former Environment Protection Bureau), and a Natural Conservation Union,
but as yet no non-governmental environmental organizations (IUCN, 1992, pp 43-46). Moreover,
it is not as yet a party to the 1971 Wetlands (Ramsar) Convention (UNTS #14583) (which
commits its parties to consultation with respect to any transfrontier wetland [see its Article 5]), to
the 1972 World Heritage Convention (UNTS #15511), or to the 1973 Convention on International
Trade in Endangered Species (CITES] (UNTS #14537] - three of the keystone treaties in global
environmental cooperation. On the other hand, it is good to be able to point out that North Korea
did become a party to the highly apropos 1992 Biological Diversity Convention (UNTS #30619] in
1994 - as did South Korea - which, inter alia, commits all of its parties both to establishing, as
appropriate, a system of protected areas (see its Article 8a) and to cooperating among
themselves (see its Article 5).
South Korea has a Ministry of Environment, a National Parks Authority. a Forestry

Administration, plus various relevant non-governmental organizations (IUCN, 1992, pp 47-54).
Moreover, South Korea became a party to the 1972 World Heritage Convention in 1988, to the
1973 Convention on Trade in Endangered Species in 1993, and [as noted earlier) to the 1992
Biological Diversity Convention in 1994. However, (as with North Korea) it is not as yet a party to
the 1971 Wetlands Convention. As a welcome note, South Korea is making a point to publicize its
growing commitment to the environment (Kang, 1997). And more directly to the subject, in
addressing the 19th Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly on 23 June 1997,
the President of South Korea specifically expressed his hope that the two Koreas would
cooperate with each other to protect and preserve the DMZ, turning it into a zone for peace and
ecological integrity. Moreover, since 4 July 1997 there has been before the South Korean
National Assembly proposed legislation to establish a nature reserve that includes the DMZ.
A political impediment to establishing the proposed transfrontier reserve prior to the

consummation of a peace treaty is that it would perforce include a portion of the DMZ, a zone that
was (as noted earlier] created by the 1953 Military Armistice Agreement (see its Article 1). The
parties to this Agreement are the United Nations Command (with the USA speaking on its behalf),
North Korea, and China. Thus, formally speaking, it is only these three parties that are now in a
position to decide the disposition of the DMZ. That makes it somewhat awkward for South Korea,
not a party to the Agreement, to pursue negotiations that involve the DMZ. On the other hand, in
practice, if the two Koreas were to agree on the use of a portion of the DMZ for environmental
protection, as is being envisioned here, I feel confident that acquiescence by the two other parties
to the Agreement would come as a matter of course, especially so inasmuch as the newest
peace negotiations for the first time formally involve both Koreas.
A technical impediment to establishing the proposed transfrontier reserve is that the immediate
surroundings of the DMZ - and the DMZ itself to some greater or lesser extent - are heavily
mined. Clearing operations are not only exceedingly difficult, expensive, and dangerous, but at
the same time can be most environmentally disruptive (Westing, 1985).

In closing, it is abundantly clear that the possibility of a Korean hi-state reserve for peace and
nature has been received most favorably by the Government of South Korea; and has also
received the careful attention of the Government of North Korea. Despite the sensitive nature of
any negotiations between the two Koreas - or perhaps because of this - a confidence-building
and conflict-prevention measure that involves something as benign, as mutually beneficial, and
as apolitical as biodiversity and related nature protection would be most important to initiate, and
would then seem to have a reasonable chance of succeeding in due course. Clearly, the project
is well worth pursuing as one of the most valuable opportunities in the world for a new
transfrontier protected area. It would be making a critical contribution to the environmental
security - and thus also to the comprehensive human security - of the long troublesome Korean
peninsula.
REFERENCES
Archibald, G. 1975.
Cranes over Panmunjom: how Korea's demilitarized zone became a lush wildlife sanctuary.
International Wildlife, Vienna, VA, USA, 5(5) :18-21.
Cumings, B. 1992.
Spring thaw for Korea's cold war?
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Chicago, 48(3):14-23.
Higuchi, H., et al. 1996.

Satellite tracking of white-naped crane migration and the importance of the Korean
demilitarized zone.
Conservation Biology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 10:806-812.
Hocknell, P. 1996.
Partitioned states, divided resources: North/South Korea and cases for comparison.
IBRU (International Boundaries Research Unit) Boundary & Security Bulletin, Durham, UK,
1996:65-71.
IUCN. 1992.
Protected areas of the world: a review of national systems. II. Palaearctic.
Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union (IUCN), 556 pp.
IUCN. 1993.
1994 IUCN red list of threatened animals.
IUCN. 1994.
1993 United Nations list of national parks and protected areas.
Kang, Hyon-Wook. 1997.

For life on earth.
Our Planet, Nairobi, 9(1):36.
Kim, Ke Chung. 1997.

Preserving biodiversity in Korea's demilitarized zone.
Science, Washington, 278:242-243.
Kim, Ock-Kyung, & Oever, P. van den. 1992.

Demographic transition and patterns of natural-resources use in the Republic of Korea.
Ambio, Stockholm, 21:56-62.

Kirkbride, W.A. 1985.
Panmunjom: facts about the Korean DMZ.
Seoul: Hollym, 80 pp.
KOIS. 1990.
Handbook of Korea. 8th ed.
Seoul: Korean Overseas Information Service, 574 DD.
Matthiessen, P. 1996.
Accidental sanctuary.
Audubon, New York, 98(4) :44-55,106-107.
McGahey, S. 1991.
Korean tourism industry's ultimate challenge.
Travel Trade Journal, Seoul, 5(11):55-59.
MIA. 1987a.
Report on the environmental study of near DMZ, Korea: Kangwondo area (in Korean
w/English abstracts).
Seoul: Ministry of Internal Affairs, Kangwon Province, 694 pp.
MIA. 1987b.
Report on the environmental study of near DMZ, Korea: Kyonggido area (in Korean
w/English abstracts).
Seoul: Ministry of Internal Affairs, Kyonggi Province, 553 pp.
NUB. 1989.
Study of natural ecosystems in DMZ (in Korean).
Seoul: National Unification Board, 131 pp.
Scott, D.A. (ed.). 1989.

Directory of Asian wetlands.
Gland, Switzerland: World Conservation Union [IUCN], 1181 pp.
Sullivan, J., & Foss, R. (eds). 1987.

Two Koreas: one future?
Lanham, MD, USA: University Press of America, 167 pp. pp 1-16.
Westing, A.H. 1985.

Explosive remnants of war: an overview.
In: Westing, A.H. (ed.). Explosive remnants of war: mitigating the environmental effects.
London: Taylor & Francis, 141 pp:
Westing, A.H. 1993.

Building confidence with transfrontier reserves: the global potential.
In: Westing, A.H. (ed.). Transfrontier reserves for peace and nature: a contribution to global
security. Nairobi: United Nations Environment Programme, 127 pp: pp 1-15.
Westing, A.H. 1998.

Establishment and management of transfrontier reserves for conflict prevention and
confidence building. In preparation.
Zimmerman, D.R. 1981.

Fragile victory for beauty on an old Asian battleground.

Smithsonian, Washington, 12(7) :56-65.
NOTES
* Invited paper, International Conference of the World Conservation Union [IUCN] plus Peace
Parks Foundation on ‘Transboundary protected Areas as a Vehicle for International Co-
operation', Somerset West (Cape Town), South Africa, 16-18 September 1997. The author, a
forest ecologist, is with Westing Associates in Environment, Security, & Education, RFD 2, Box
330H, Putney, VT 05346, USA, westing@together.net. He is most pleased to acknowledge the
receipt of useful information or suggestions from George W, Archibald, Seek-Young Choi, Ke
Chung Kim, Yoon-Yul Kim, Christian Lemaire, Masa Nagai, Yu Bo Sun, Carol E. Westing, and
Suvit Yodmani.
1. The eastern portion of the South Korean civilian control zone (CCZ) [the portion in Kangwon
Province) has an area of 104 850 ha (MIA, 1987a, p. 243) and the western portion (the portion in
Kyonggi Province) 29 000 ha (MIA, 1987b, p. 183), for a total of 133 850 ha. At a length of 246
km, the average width of this zone is thus 5.4 km. With the assumption that there is a CCZ of
similar size to the north of the DMZ, then the combined area of the DMZ (4 km x 246 km = 98 400
ha) plus the two associated CCZs comes to 366 100 ha.
2. North Korea, which is 12054000 ha in size, has two registered nature reserves with a
combined area of 57 890 ha (0.5% of the country) (IUCN, 1994, p. 124). South Korea, which is 9
848 000 ha in size, has 28 registered nature reserves with a combined area of 693 798 ha (7% of
the country) (IUCN, 1994, p. 125). Thus, the Korean peninsula as a whole is 21902000 ha in size
and has 30 nature reserves that total 751688 ha (3% of the peninsula).
3. The Korean peninsula supports more than 3000 species of higher (vascular) plants, including
a number of endemic ones (KOIS, 1990, p. 24), of which more than 1000 can be found in the
DMZ and/or associated civilian control zones (CCZs) (Kim, 1997; MIA, 1987a, p. 341; 1987b, pp
241 & 253]; more than 75 species of mammals (KOIS, 1990, p. 30], of which perhaps half or
more are in the DMZ and/or CCZs (Kim, 1997; MIA, 1987a, p. 507; 1987b, p. 387); more than 320
species of birds (KOIS, 1990, p. 30), of which more than 50 are in the DMZ and/or CCZs; and
more than 130 species of freshwater fish (KOIS, 1990, p. 30), of which more than 80 are in the
DMZ and/or CCZs (Kim, 1997). An authoritative source for biodiversity data. not available to me.
is (Biodiversity Korea 2000: a strategy to save, study, and sustainable use Korea's biotic
resources)(in Korean). Seoul: Minumsa, 1994.
4. The DMZ plus its associated civilian control zones have an area of perhaps 366 100 ha (see
Note 1). If the two proposed reserves were 50000 ha each, then together they would represent
27% of the combined DMZ and civilian control zones. If the two recommended reserves were, in
fact, established, then this would expand the portion of North Korea under protection to 107890
ha (to 1% of the country); that of South Korea to 743 798 ha (to 8% of the country); and that of
the two Koreas together to 85 1688 ha (to 4% of the peninsula).
5. Further animal species of the Korean peninsula threatened with extinction that perhaps now
benefit from the protected status of the DMZ, in either eastern or western portions, include (IUCN,
1993; KOIS, 1990, pp 30-31): the crested ibis (Nipponia nippon; IUCN Endangered); fairy pitta
(Pitta nympha; IUCN Rare); great bustard (Otis tarda; IUCN Rare); cinereous (or black) vulture
(Aegypius monachus; IUCN Vulnerable); and Steller's sea eagle (Haliaeetus pelagicus; IUCN
Rare). Moreover, there are a number of plant species found in the DMZ and/or associated civilian
control zones that are threatened with extinction, both in the eastern (MIA, 1987a, pp 341 & 386]
and western (MIA, 1987b, p. 253) portions.
6. The South Korean inter-agency DMZ-reserve task force established in mid 1991 was
comprised of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs [presiding), Forestry
Administration, Forestry Research Institute, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of National Defense,

National Unification Board, Ministry of Internal Affairs, and National Security Planning Board. It
should also be noted that in April 1997 the Ministry of Environment received from the [South]
Korean National Commission for UNESCO a report it had requested on preserving the
ecosystems of its civilian control zone.

THE CENTRAL AFRICAN EXPERIENCE IN TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS. A CASE
STUDY OF THE TRI-STATE PROJECT BETWEEN THE CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC,
CONGO, CAMEROON; AND THE NATIONAL PARKS BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA.
By: Steve Gartlan,

WWF Representative for Cameroon39
The principal theme of this conference is the possible role of transboundary protected areas in
the resolution of local and regional conflicts and in improving relationships between countries.
The importance of the theme lies in the fact that a very high proportion of protected areas in
Africa abut or adjoin national boundaries. Regional, trans-national and internal civil conflicts
seem endemic in much of sub-Saharan Africa. The causes are various; inter-ethnic rivalry,
disputes over resources and the existence of artificial national boundaries inherited from the
colonial era but vigorously defended by present nation states. It should be noted in passing that
the existence of conflict per se is not necessarily incompatible with habitat conservation and there
is much evidence to show (Richards, 1966) that large areas of West African forests have retained
their ecological integrity because of the existence of disputes in which neither side was able to
achieve hegemony over the resource base: it should not be automatically assumed that conflict
and conservation are inherently incompatible. There is no doubt, however that for rational
management of trans-boundary protected areas, a non-conflict context is desirable. However, in
much of sub-Saharan Africa the impediments to this are considerable. This case study raises
some of these issues and attempts to establish some criteria which should be in place before
such trans-boundary management is attempted.
Cameroon provides a potentially valuable case study because of experiences incurred during the
creation of a protected area system and also because of actual armed conflict in the immediate
vicinity of a transboundary protected area. In the south-east of the country three new protected
areas are in the process of creation (Boumba-Bek (249,920 ha), Nki (181,568 ha) and Lake
Lobeke (206,528 ha); the proposed protected area of Lake Lobeke has a common boundary of
c.27 kilometers with the Dzangha-Sangha Dense Forest Reserve of the Central African Republic
and (depending on the ultimate size and limits of the Lac Lobeke Reserve), a similar boundary
with the Nouabale-Ndoki National Park of the Congo. In addition, the Korup National Park,
(125,900 ha) created by Presidential Decree in 1986, lies against the south-western boundary of
Cameroon with Nigeria, and opposite the Cross River National Park and shares a joint boundary
of some 14 kilometers with it. Two other Cameroon savanna national parks lie very close to
international boundaries; Faro (less than 8km from the Nigerian border) and Waza (less than
5km); furthermore, two other parks have boundaries with Tchad; Boubanjidah has a 34 kilometer
boundary with the Tchad Republic, and Kalamaloue lies on the western bank of the Chari river,
separating Cameroon and Tchad, with Tchad on the eastern bank.
The Republic of Cameroon covers almost 475,000 square kilometers in area. It is located in
Central Africa and is exceptionally diverse biologically, partly because of the existence of
Pleistocene refugia and partly because of an exceptionally varied landscape including the highest
mountain in West Africa (and only active volcano), Mount Cameroon, which exceeds 4,000m in
height. Cameroon has a human population of about 15 million and a growth rate of some 3%.
The human population density of the country is very unevenly distributed; some agricultural areas
(near Waza National Park, for example, have populations exceeding 100 persons per square
kilometer; in contrast in much of the south-east, the human population density is below 1 person
per square kilometer.
Cameroon is bordered to the west by Nigeria, a country with twice the land area and a human
population of over 100 million. Relations between Cameroon and Nigeria are tense, partly
because of the continued impasse over the Bakassi peninsula where Cameroonian and Nigerian
39
The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily of WWF.

troops are engaged in a protracted and ongoing armed conflict. The Bakassi peninsula lies less
than 40 kilometers south of the southern boundary of Korup National Park. To the east,
Cameroon is bordered by Chad, the Central African Republic and Congo. All these are
francophone countries and all are members of the same customs and economic union (UDEAC)
and share a common currency, the CFA franc. These countries have relatively low human
populations and relations between them and Cameroon have been generally friendly over the
past few years. However, civil disturbance in neighboring countries over the last decade has had
consequences in Cameroon with influxes of refugees. Also, as in all civil conflicts, firearms
become readily available and are then used in poaching wildlife. The north-east sector of the
Boubanjidah National Park in Cameroon has been for several years occupied by armed
Tchandian factions with significant negative effects on the wildlife of the park. The northern
section of the park has been inaccessible to tourists for several years. The continued civil unrest
in the Central African Republic (mainly confined to the capital, Bangui) has had little discernible
effect on Cameroon. To the south, Cameroon is bordered by Equatorial Guinea, Gabon and
Congo. These are all members of the CFA franc zone and are francophone apart from Equatorial
Guinea where Spanish is the official language. Relations with these countries is generally good,
apart from occasional problems with Gabon. The countries bordering Cameroon to the east and
south are ethnically similar with people of similar tribal affinities both sides of the border.
However, in the case of Nigeria there is a clear ethnic difference with the Nigerian/Cameroonian
border essentially dividing Bantu and semi-Bantu ethnic affiliations, furthermore there is also a
clear linguistic and cultural divide.
1. The Pre-conflict situation.
The Korup National Park was created by Presidential Decree on 30th October, 1986. Much of
the land had previously been occupied by the Korup Forest Reserve, which had been established
by the British Colonial Administration in the early 1930s. The process of negotiation and
gazettement was a lengthy one. However, it was evident from the outset that the former
President of the Republic, Ahmadou Ahidjo was taking a keen personal interest. No questions
were asked about the security aspects of a national park on the boundary with Nigeria; the
President’s concerns were institutional, and his approval was finally given in principle for the park
to be created as long as the then Federal University was involved, and that it was used for field
studies.
The judicial process for setting up a protected area is set out clearly in the legislation. Official
notice must be posted on the doors of local government premises, and public meetings held. At
this early stage, rarely in public, but often in private, opposition to the idea of creating a protected
area in the Korup region was expressed by officials of the security forces, from individual agents
of the Special Branch who attended public meetings, and who reported back through the
hierarchy to the Minister in charge of Security. The security forces did not wish to see the
creation of a people-free area, which they saw as a vacuum, right against the boundary with their
populous neighbor, Nigeria. Part of the reason for slowness in the process of the gazettement
was opposition from the security services. Things came to a head in 1986 when ODA offered
funding as long as the park was officially gazetted. With the active assistance of influential
people from the area who were close to the center of Government, and after apparently detailed
scrutiny of the texts by the new President, Paul Biya, the park was created in 1986.
The prime mover in the creation of the Korup National Park was WWF-UK through its partnership
with the British Overseas Development Administration. Both WWF-UK and ODA had significant
interests in Nigeria, and after the successful gazettement of Korup in Cameroon, moves were
soon began to attempt the creation of a similar project Nigeria. By June 1988, WWF had finished
its preliminary survey of the Oban Group Forest Reserve in Cross River State of Nigeria and
concluded that setting up a national park there, adjacent to Korup, would be both desirable and
feasible. The initiative stemmed partly from a wish to increase the size of the conservation unit in
an area of high biodiversity, partly to access European Community (EC) funds which are available

for transfrontier projects and partly because of an affinity for Nigeria on the part of a key
individual within WWF-UK. Funding was located and the Cross River National Park was
established in 1991 by Federal Decree 36. It should be emphasized that while there were
extensive interactions with the Governments of both Cameroon and Nigeria during the period
prior to the gazettement, there was no attempt to promote the idea of a transnational park to
either government. While within WWF there was the feeling that this was an important step, it
was largely because of the securing of a large block of forest; for conservation purposes and not
for any other motive. The projects had different managers, and although there were occasional
meetings between Nigerian and Cameroonian project staffs, they operated and continue to
operate as independent, separate projects.
The situation regarding the proposed trinational parks of Cameroon, Central Africa and Congo
was rather different. During the early and mid-80s, field studies were being carried out by in the
region and its biological value began to become apparent. A proposal for the creation of the tri-
national protected area in Central Africa, Cameroon and Congo was drawn up by WWF-US and
New York Zoological Society and submitted to USAID in 1991. Funding failed to materialize, but
extensive contacts were made with the various governments. In CAR and Congo the idea of a tri-
national park was welcomed and steps begun towards gazettement of the areas. In Cameroon,
however, the situation was different. There was opposition from the outset to the idea of a tri-
national park. The opposition stemmed to come from the fact that the process was seen to be
flawed. To begin to create a trinational area would have required, so it was thought, extensive
international lobbying and agreements. It was thought more practical to start with the
gazettement of the individual units within the respective countries, and then, at a later stage,
discuss joint management strategies and collaboration. Because of this opposition, the
movement towards creation of the protected areas was much slower in Cameroon. Both Dzanga-
Sangha and Nouabale-Ndoki have been officially gazetted; the former in 1990 and the latter in
1994. Lake Lobeke and the other proposed protected areas have still to be officially gazetted.
I think it is useful here to examine the military and demographic context. Nigeria, the most
populous nation in Africa with a population of over 100 million, and also one of the most densely
populated. The population is particularly dense along the coast and in the south-east of the
country. The town of Calabar is an ancient and major trading post and was an important
embarkation point for the slave trade. The adjacent area of Cameroon, in contrast, is remote
(there was at the time no road connecting it to the rest of Cameroon), and with a very low human
population density. The Nigerians are also great traders. All along the western border of Nigeria,
there is a network of paths where traders head-load all manner of goods; illicit gin, bushmeat,
dried fish, medicines, gasoline, radios, television sets and recently illegal drugs. The villages on
the border have strong strategic position and smuggling is a lucrative way of life. While the
people of the west of the park have strong ethnic ties with Nigeria (Korup people), the people in
the east of the park have little (Bantu: semi-Bantu divide). The Cameroon side of the border is
remote with low human population density and people make their money principally by trapping
and farming. In Nigeria, the area is accessible, has high human population density and people
make their money by trading, furthermore, the ethnic affinities are not close.
2. During conflict
The Bakassi Peninsula lies some 40 kilometers south of the Korup National Park. In Christmas,
1995, after a series of incidents involving Cameroonian gendarmes and Nigerian military, the
Nigerian army invaded what had been, until that point, part of Cameroon. They are still there
almost three years later and there are frequent skirmishes. The noise of shell-fire is clearly
audible from Mundemba, the headquarters of the Korup National Park. When a military
emergency was declared, the whole area of the Ndian Division was affected by military actions.
It was decided by the military that the construction of a road to the village of Ikassa from
Mundemba was important and construction was begun without reference to the Ministry of the
Environment and Forests, which has jurisdiction over the National Park; only when the Korup

Project brought this to the attention of MINEF, were they aware of what was going on. This road
cuts through the southern portion of the national park and isolates some 9 km2 from the rest of
the national park. The military presence has resulted in an increase in hunting within the
protected area. Park activities are also inhibited because of military rules that are in place. This
case has been forwarded to the International Court of Justice in the Hague for jurisdiction, but in
the meantime, hostilities continue.
3. Post-conflict period
There is little data on the post-conflict period. The Bakassi conflict continues. A major effect of
armed conflict in a region is the persistence of firearms afterwards. The Korup National Park is
close to the Ibo heartland of south-east Nigeria that comprised the break-away Republic of Biafra
in 1965 Biafra has come and gone, but guns from this civil conflict were still being used for
poaching in Korup almost 25 years later.
4. Lessons to be learned.
a) The emergent function of promoting peace by the creation of trans-frontier protected areas is
essentially an institutional one to be negotiated and agreed between the highest levels of
government. This emergent function is additional to the functions of conservation and habitat
protection and the interface will be at government rather than at grass roots level. It is therefore
necessary that the institutional conservation measures (gazettement, management plans, staff
and infrastructure, effective budgets) are in place on both sides of the border. The first priority is
to ensure that there are efficiently managed protected areas both sides of the border; the
emergent functions can be negotiated and implemented at a later stage.
b) Military and strategic considerations play an important role in determining the viability or
otherwise of trans-border protected areas. In many sub-Saharan African countries the military
voice is exceptionally powerful and defense considerations outweigh other priorities. If national
security is threatened, there is little doubt that, international agreements notwithstanding, the
protected areas will be invaded if the military believes that access is necessary. Similarly, the
military view is often opposed to the creation of no-go protected areas against national
boundaries, as these are seen as an invitation to invasion.
c) There should be homogeneity on both sides of the border. It is important that economic
conditions on both sides are roughly similar (if there is economic imbalance, there will be
infiltration from low to high). It is important that population pressures on both sides are roughly
similar. If population pressure on one side of the border is high and on the other is low, there will
be infiltration from high to low. Cameroon (13 million) feels very threatened by the size of Nigeria
(100 million). Similarly, there should be comparability of way of life between the two sides. If one
side of the border are producers (farmers, trappers) and the others are traders; the traders will
invade and will become involved in commerce in the producing side. There should be ethnic and
cultural homogeneity. French-speaking Cameroon distrusts English-speaking Nigeria; the semi-
Bantus distrust the Bantus.
d) The protected areas must provide approximately equal economic benefits to local populations
on both sides of the border. Each individual unit of a trans-boundary protected area should meet
the criteria for protected status without taking the other unit into account. Both units should have
a similar conservation status (an ecologically rich zone adjacent to an ecologically impoverished
zone should be avoided). Both units should have appropriate and approximately similar levels of
institutional development (legal status, management plans, staff and infrastructure, budgets).
Laws, regulations, charges and fines should be consistent on both sides of the border.

e) Trans-national protected areas should not be created in regions where land-use conflicts are
likely to develop (demographic trends, presence of reserves of oil, gold or diamonds, etc).
References:
Carroll, R.W. & W. Weber (1991). An integrated plan for regional forest conservation and
management in Southeastern Cameroon, Southwestern Central African Republic and
Northern Congo. Proposal submitted to USAID, Washington.
Harrison, M. & P. Agland, (1987). Southeast Cameroon: A Proposal for Three New Rainforest
Reserves. Report for Secretary of State for Tourism, Yaoundé, Cameroon.
Caldecott, J. (1991). The Cross River National Park Project, Nigeria: Operational Experience
During the Start-up Phase. Internal WWF Report, 39pp.
Brandon, K.E. & M. Wells (1992). Planning for People and Parks: Design dilemmas. World
Development, 20 (4), 557-570.
Richards, Paul (1966) Forest indigenous peoples: concept, critique and cases. Proceedings of
the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 104B, 349-365.

THE MESO-AMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR: A REGIONAL TOOL FOR
TRANSBOUNDARY CO-OPERATION AND PEACE KEEPING EFFORTS
By: Juan Carlos Godoy

WCPA Regional Vice-Chair for Central America
General Information
Meso-America have been defined as a region that comprise the five southern states of Mexico
(Campeche, Chiapas, Quintana Roo, Yucatán y Tabasco) plus the seven Central American
countries: Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica and Panama.
Meso-America is located between 8 and 23 degrees North Latitude, therefore considered as part
of the intertropical zone. It is a region of high climatic, cultural and biological diversity which cover
an extension of 768,990 km2, representing the 0,51% of the world’s terrestrial surface, but
containing 8% of the global biodiversity.
The extraordinary biological diversity of Meso-America and the presence of a high number of
endemic plant and animal species have been long recognised . Some data can give an idea of
this biological richness: Panama contain more species of birds -929- than Canada and the
United States of America together; in Belize, with only 22,965Km2, more than 150 species of
mammals, 540 species of birds and 152 amphibians and reptiles have been identified; Costa
Rica, with the size of Denmark, have more than 55 biotic units; in Nicaragua is possible to find
more than 800 species of orchids divided in 150 genus, particularly in the highlands of the
northern part of the country; and in Guatemala 70% of the vascular plants in the mountains are
endemic. These are only examples that justified why Meso-America is considered as a
megabiodiversity region.
Population and Economic Growth
Central American reported in 1993 a population of 29,9 million inhabitants, as a result of a

population growth rate of over 3% per year. It have been estimated that for the year 2030 the
total population in Central America will doubled. According to UNDP in 1991 from the total
population of the region, 10,2% were indigenous peoples; more than 20 different ethnic groups in
a number of settlements are living in areas that form part of the Central American Protected
Areas System (CAPAS).
The majority of the population is leaving in conditions of extreme poverty, which is the
fundamental reason for many of the army conflicts that took place in recent years. The Index of
Human Development increased in the period between 1970-1985, and as a general tendency
decreased between 1985 and 1990, with the exception of Costa Rica, where this index maintain
an increasing rate. However, between 1990-1993 it have been noted an improvement on this
index, with the exception of Nicaragua.
Ecosystems, Threats and Protected Areas
An assessment done by the World Bank and WWF on the importance of terrestrial ecoregions in
Latin America and the Caribbean stressed the urgent need to take conservation measures to
protected key ecoregions of high biodiversity from fragmentation mainly due to population growth
and economic development. There are 33 ecoregions in Meso-America from which 11 are
considered to be in a critical state, and the same number of ecoregions (11) are threatened to be
lost in the future.
In the last 30 years, 461 protected areas have been declared in Meso-America. Belize is the
country with the higher proportion of national territory covered by protected areas (31%), followed

by Guatemala (27%), Costa Rica and Panama (24%); Honduras, Nicaragua, Mexico and El
Salvador (2%), that altogether represents over 18 million hectares. However, at least 270 areas
are small, with less than 10,000 hectares, half of them are lacking field staff, for only 55 areas
management plan have been prepared, and very few (40) are having research programmes.
Some “privileged” protected areas counts with an adequate infrastructure to achieve effective
conservation and to ensure the production of services and benefits that can contribute to the
development of the region. In addition, only some ecoregions are well represented in the
CAPAS, and in some cases representation can only be achieved by protecting fragments of
natural areas that remains as part of the land dedicated to development activities.
The Challenge of Avoiding Fragmentation
Despite all the work and efforts done at the national and regional levels to develop the CAPAS,
still biodiversity in Central America is severely threatened due to several factors, including
deforestation at a rate of 400,000ha/year, which means that there is a lost of 50ha of forest
every hour. Poverty, land ownership, lack of adequate incentives in the forest sector, the use of
inadequate technologies, lack of economic incentives for conservation, inappropriate agricultural
practices, insufficient assessment of the economic values of biodiversity and the lack of a
comprehensive legal and institutional framework for protection and restoration of landscapes, are
some factors influencing environmental degradation.
There are other elements that represent a threat to protected areas and biodiversity: projects for
tourism development in coastal and marine areas, lack of institutional co-ordination, crops and
traffic of drugs, illegal extraction of plants and animals, mining and oil prospecting and
exploitation. All these activities increase habitats fragmentation and biodiversity lost. At the
regional level the lack of common policies, inadequate exchange of information and expertise,
and the low level of regional integration are strong limitations for an efficient co-ordination
towards biodiversity conservation and sustainable development.
Towards Regional Integration
As a result of the peace and democratisation process in Meso-America, joint efforts and initiatives
have been develop to promote regional integration to make better use of common strengths,
aiming to overcome political, economic and social problems which could help countries in the
region to reach a better quality of life for theirs citizens. In the context of these efforts, the
governments of Meso-America considered as a key factor the establishment of co-operation
mechanisms in lookinf for viable solutions that allow to reverse the negative trend on the use of
natural resources.
Each country have developed institutional efforts to conserve and to sustainable use natural
resources within their jurisdiction. However, the Presidents of Central American countries signed
in December 1989 the Central American Convention for Environmental Protection , by which the
Central American Council for Environment and Development (CACED) was established, which
comprised representatives from each country.
Furthermore, as part of the process of regional integration within the scope of the protection of
natural resources, on 5 June of 1992, the Presidents of the region signed the Convention for the
Conservation of Biological Diversity and the Protection of Priority Natural Areas, which main
objective is the conservation of terrestrial and coastal-marine biodiversity for the present and
future generations. This agreement consider that conservation of biological diversity can only be
addressed as a joint effort and therefore require regional and international co-operation to
support national actions. As part of this agreement it was created the Central American Council
for Protected Areas (CACPA), as the regional institutional entity to co-ordinate regional actions
and to harmonise policies related to the development of a Regional System of Protected Areas.

In the period between September and October 1994, the Central American Alliance for
Sustainable Development (CAASD) was created, conceived as an integrated strategy for
sustainable development in the region, and as a mechanism to enhance co-ordination of
interests, development initiatives, shared responsibilities and common rights. A key principle of
CAASD is to respect and sustainable use the biodiversity on Earth “To protect and conserve the
biodiversity of all species of plants and animals, other organisms, the inter-specific genetic
populations, and the variety of ecosystems”. Also established as one of its key commitments the
need to develop the Central American Biological Corridor as a tool to enhance the system of
protected areas in each country.
Regional co-operation
Under the umbrella of these initiative for regional co-operation, and using priorities determined at
national and local levels, a number of international co-operation agencies are supporting the
implementation of key actions, related to sustainable forestry, community management of natural
resources, in-situ conservation of biodiversity, and development of ecotourism projects. There is
a growing commitment and interest from the international donors community to support regional
efforts on rural development, biodiversity conservation and management of natural resources.
According to the available information 16 regional projects are underway, including tri-national
and bi-national projects, which represent and investment of USD$37 millions.
In addition to the regional projects, there are national projects that are on the process of
negotiation with international agencies, as well as others that have been already funded and
under implementation. These national projects are supporting in-country efforts on rural
development, biodiversity conservation and management of natural resources. A number of
these national projects are under the leadership of international NGOs such as WWF, TNC and
IUCN, and others are supported by USAID, the Dutch Co-operation, EU, GTZ, DANIDA and
recently the GEF.
Regional Strategy for Biodiversity Conservation
On the basis of the technical information (assessment of global and regional context,
geographical scope and national priorities) prepared in 1996 for the Central American Council for
Environment and Development, and after a long process of review and discussions supported by
UNDP, in 1996 the conceptual framework for the Central American Biological Corridor was
approved by the Ministers of Environment and Natural Resources of Central American countries
in February 1997. This framework consider the regional biological corridor as “an innovative
framework to implement the principles of sustainable development between the society and the
environment, concentrating the efforts on natural and man-made ecosystems at regional scale for
inter-generations periods”. The Central American Biological Corridor have been defined as “a
system of well consolidated and organised territorial planing, formed by natural areas under
especial management and administrative arrangements (core and buffer zones, areas of multiple
use of natural resources and areas of interconnections among them) that offer a wide range of
environmental services and products for the society of Central American and for that of the whole
World; which also offers and opportunity to reach concerted positions on social and
environmental issues, therefore promoting investments on conservation and sustainable use for
biodiversity and natural resources in order to improve the quality of life for the people in the
region”.
The development of the Central American Biological Corridor (CABC) require a long-term
Strategic Programme that can enhance and consolidate on-going initiatives that are promoting
alternative ways to respond to local social and economic needs while optimising the sustainable
use of biodiversity and natural resources under agreed economic, social and ecological criteria.

The CABC is seen by GEF, GTZ and DANIDA as an important tool to articulate land use planning
with biodiversity conservation at regional and national levels, thus they are supporting its
implementation. In addition the CABC can provide a framework to orient international co-
operation on rural development and natural resources management on the basis of agreed
regional and national priorities.
The Strategic Plan for the CABC is focused on the need to get the necessary political support
and commitment to promote bioregional planning and biodiversity conservation through the
consolidation of the Central American System of Protected Areas, providing alternative options
for sustainable use of natural resources in buffer zones as well as promoting landscape
restoration in the surrounding land, helping to build up “bridges” between existing protected
areas. This Strategic Plan should be a flexible framework to: a) identify gaps for the protection of
key ecosystems; b) promote new opportunities at the national and local levels to support
sustainable development initiatives; c) provide technical elements for the discussion on the
capacity of natural and semi-natural ecosystems to support economic development; d) develop a
monitoring system to provide relevant and updated information for decision makers; e) promote
alternative financial mechanisms to fund biodiversity conservation; and f) maximise the co-
ordination of programmes and projects to make more efficient their contribution to biodiversity
conservation and sustainable development.
Considerable amount of work have been done already: at the present there are technical
assessments for each country of the region, that give a first geographical approximation of the
Central American Biological Corridor. Most recently the coastal and marine part of the Biological
Corridor have been discussed and endorsed by the Presidents of Mexico, Guatemala, Belize and
Honduras by the Declaration of Tulum, which reflects the political will to co-operate for the
conservation and management of the Great Barrier Reef of Meso-America.
The CABC should promote the use of different tools, at different scales and using different
capacities in helping the countries to fulfil the political, economic and social objectives of the
Central American Alliance for Sustainable Development. All individual institutions, organisations,
projects or programmes need to contribute to the overall regional effort. The CABC will also have
direct link with the Central American Environmental Fund to orient investments that contribute to
the development of the CABC.
In addition to promote regional co-ordination, the CABC consider as a key principle that only
strengthening the capacity of local and national actors is possible to build up and consolidate the
regional corridor, and that the overall local and national experience and lessons learned would
feed the necessary elements to approach the regional problems from a realistic perspective. The
actions promoted by the CABC should preserve the basic natural systems to keep open options
for the development of the region, it should promote the rational management of watersheds and
the restoration of degraded lands, as well as to optimise the long-term use of agro-ecosystems.
To support this ambitious effort the Presidents of the region, meeting at the XIX Central American
Summit in July 1997, agreed to respond to the challenge of developing the CABC using all
possible mechanisms: regional agencies, governmental institutions, local authorities, indigenous
peoples and farmers organisations, the private sector, agricultural exporter enterprises , and
NGOs dealing with conservation issues.
The CABC will have a direct relation with those national and regional projects that are helping to
systematise, demonstrate and exchange lessons learned that have the potential to contribute to
the ecological, social and economic basis of a long-tern democratisation and peace process in
the region.
Therefore the CABC is an unique opportunity to strategically mobilise the interests of the 7
countries of the region that, despite to be small states, have a gigantic willingness to develop in a

co-ordinated and jointly manner, a regional system of protected areas supported by an
ecologically friendly land use system, that altogether can provide a wide range of products and
environmental services that are required to a post-war era in the region, therefore helping to
achieve sustainable development in Central and Meso-America.
REFERENCES
CCAD. 1992. Convenio Centroamericano de Biodiversidad y Areas Silvestres Protegidas.

Guatemala. CCAD-UICN. 13pp.
CCAD. 1994. Alianza Centroamericana para el Desarrollo Sostenible. Guatemala. 28pp.
GARCIA,R. et al. 1996. Informe Técnico Regional de la Asistencia Preparatoria para el Corredor
Biológico Mesoamericano. UNDP-CCAD.
GODOY, J.C. 1997. Marco Conceptual del Corredor Biológico Mesoamericano.
McCARTHY, R. et al. 1997. Buscando Respuestas: Nuevos arreglos para la gestión de áreas
protegidas y el Corredor Biológico en Centroamerica. UICN-CCAD-WCPA-PFA. 62pp.

ANNEX A: PARTICIPANTS LIST

Parks for Peace
List of Participants
A Dr Jan BOJO
Senior Environmental Economist
Mr Faisal ABU-IZZEDIN
Environment Group - Africa Region
Project Manager
The World Bank
Protected Areas Project
1818 H Street, NW
Ministry of Environment
Washington DC 20433
PO Box 113-5474
UNITED STATES
Beirut
Tel: ++1 202 473 4429
LEBANON
Fax: ++1 202 473 8185
Tel/Fax: ++9611 418910
Email: jbojo@worldbank.org
Email: faisal@moe.gov.lb
Ms Michele BOWE
Ms Fiona ARCHER
Project Leader
Programme Manager
International Collaboration PNG - Indonesia
Department of Land Affairs
Jl. Seruni No 4
GTZ
Naikoten I, Kupang
6 Highstead Flats
PO Box 1123 Pos Oebobo
3 Highstead Road
Kupang NTT 85000
Rondebosch 770
INDONESIA
SOUTH AFRICA
Tel: ++62 0380 23494
Tel: ++ 27 21 689 5202
++62 0380 32976 home
Fax: ++ 27 21 686 4724
Email: archer@iafrica.com Mr Robert BRUNNER
Consultant
B Kirchengasse 39/13
Mr Jean BIZIMANA A-1070 Vienna
Chef de Service Tourisme et Parcs Nationaux AUSTRIA
Office Rwandais de Tourisme et des Parcs Tel: ++43 1 5228696
Nationaux Fax: ++43 1 5228696
B.P. 905 C
Kigali
RWANDA Mr. Julio CARRERA
Fax: ++250 83574 Universidad Autónoma Agraria
Apto Postal 486
Mr Gerald BLAKE
Saltillo Coahuila
International Boundaries Research Unit
Mexico 25000
Mountjoy Research Centre
MEXICO
Suite 3P
Fax: ++ 52 84 105714
University of Durham
++52 84 144 997 Home
UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: ++44 1913 747701
Fax: ++44 1913 747702
Email: ibru@durham.ac.uk

Mr Juan. J. CASTRO-CHAMBERLAIN Stefan COETZEE
Environmental Management Consultant Director Finance & Administration
Apdo. 1515-1000, Peace Parks Foundation
San Jose 29 Magnolia Street
COSTA RICA Somerset West 7129,
Tel: ++506 236 9555 SOUTH AFRICA
Fax: ++506 221 3168 Tel: ++27 21 855 3564
Email: jantillo@cariari.ucr.ac.cr Fax: ++27 21 855 3966
Dr Jan CEROVSKY Email: scoetzee@parks.org.za
Ecopoint Foundation D
c/o AOPK
Mr Thomas DILLON
PO Box 85
WWF—VIETNAM
13023
Indochina Programme Office
Praque 8
116 Yet Kieu Street
CZECH REPUBLIC
International P.O. Box 151
Tel: ++420 2 6975938
Hanoi
Fax: ++420 2 6975938
VIETNAM
++420 2 6970012.
Tel: ++844 8220 640
Mr William CHADZA Fax: ++844 8220 642
National Headquarters Email: wwfvn@netnam.org.vn
PO Box 1429
Blantyre F
MALAWI Ms. Josiane FALLA
Tel: ++ 265 643 428/643 502 Environmental Consultant
Fax ++265 643 765 UNHCR
Email: wsm@unima.wn.apc.org c/o So Goma
Dr E. CHONQUICA CP 2500
IUCN-MOZAMBIQUE 1211 Genève 2
Armando Tivang Rd 971 SWITZERLAND
MAPUTO Rue Jean Prevot No. 58
Tel: ++258 1 492815 4620 Fleron
Fax: ++258 1 490812 BELIQUE
José CISNEROS Tel: ++1 407 7265027/8/9/30
Big Bend National Park Fax: ++1 407 7265026
PO Box 129 Email: codgo@unhcr.ch
Big Bend National Park Mr Francois FALLOUX
TX 79834, Senior Environmental Advisor
UNITED STATES Environmental Group
Tel: ++ 915 477 2251ext 101 Africa Region
Fax: ++ 915 477 2357 The World Bank
Email: jose_cisneros@nps.gov 1818 H Street NW
Washington DC 20433
UNITED STATES
Tel: ++ 1 202 473 5562
Fax: ++1 202 4738185
Email: ffalloux@worldbank.org
G

Mr Steve GARTLAN Dr. Michael GREEN
WWF –CAMEROON World Conservation Monitoring Centre - WCMC
B.P. 6776 219 Huntingdon Road
Yaounde, Cambridge CB3 0DL
CAMEROON UNITED KINGDOM
Tel: ++237 214241 Tel: ++44 1223 277314
Fax: ++237 214240 Fax: ++ 44 1223 277136
Email: sgartlan@wwfnet.org Dr Alfredo GUILLET
Mr Howard GEACH Ministry of Foreign Affairs - Directorate General
Blanchard Sodetur for Development Cooperation
Av. Martires de Moeda No. 580 Via Contarini 25
Torres Vermelitas, Bloco 25, andar 19°, Apt. 192 Rome 00194
Mamputo ITALY
MOZAMBIQUE Tel: ++39 6 36914615/4166
Tel: 258 1 496405 direct no 3691 4166
Fax: ++ 258 1 492246 Fax: ++39 6 3240585
Dr Isdore GWASHURE
27 Cotswold Drive Saxonwold Chairman
Johannesburg 2196 Zimbabwe Tourism Authority
SOUTH AFRICA Box CY 1211
Tel: ++27 11 442 3174 Harare
++27 11 4425199 home ZIMBABWE
Fax: ++ 27 11 4425199 Tel: ++263 737 944
Mr Juan Carlos GODOY Fax: ++ 263 4 734 769
PFA/FUNDESCA H
Los Angeles,
Ms. Philippa HADEN
calle 62 oeste,
Land Use Options Adviser Department of Land
casa No 12
Affairs
Ciudad Panama
184 Tahob Mare 87
PANAMA
Pretoria
Tel: ++507-2368186
SOUTH AFRICA
Fax: ++507-2696966
Tel: ++27 12 3128273
Email: jcgodoy@sinfo.net
Fax: ++27 12 3236015
Mr Fergus O’GORMAN
Dr Anthony HALL-MARTIN
Director
Director: Research & Development
National Conservation Education Centre
National Parks Board
Knocksink Wood National Nature Res.
PO Box 787
Knocksink Wood, Enneskerry
Pretoria 0001
Co. Wicklow
SOUTH AFRICA
IRELAND
Tel: ++27 12 3439770
Tel: ++ 353 1 2866609
Fax: ++27 12 3432832
Fax: ++353 1 2866610
Email: mariaanM@parks.sa.co.za
Email: conserve@indigo.ie

Prof. Larry HAMILTON K
Islands & Highlands Environmental Consultancy
Mr José KALPERS
342 Bittersweet Lane
Technocal Associate
Charlotte, Vermont 05445
International Gorilla Conservation Programme
UNITED STATES
P.O. Box 48177
Tel: ++1 802 4256509
Nairobi
Fax: ++1 802 4256509
Email: LSX2-hamilton@together.org KENYA
Tel: .++ 254 2 710367
Mrs Linda HAMILTON Fax: ++ 254 2 710372
Accompanying Prof Hamilton Email: 100657.707@compuserve.com
UNITED STATES
Mr Yemi KATERE
Dr John HANKS Regional Director
Executive Director IUCN-ROSA
Peace Parks Foundation 6 Lanark Road
P.O. Box 227 Belgravia
Somerset West 7129 Harare
SOUTH AFRICA ZIMBABWE
Tel: ++27 21 855 3564 Tel: ++263 4 705714
Fax: ++27 21 855 3958
Email: jhanks@ppf.org.za L
Mr Derek de la HARPE Ms Annette LANJOUW
Price Waterhouse Regional Coordinator
Wildlife, Tourism and Environmental Consulting International Gorilla Conservation Programme
Unit P.O. Box 48177
PO Box 453 Nairobi
Harare KENYA
ZIMBABWE Tel: ++254 2 710367
Tel: ++263 4 757 610 Fax: ++254 2 710372
Fax: ++ 263 4 752 584 Email: alanjouw@awfke.org
Email: derekpw@harare.iafrica.com
Dr John LEDGER
Dr George HUGHES
Chief Director Director
Endangered Wildlife Trust
Natal Parks Board
Provate Bag 11
PO Box 662
Parkview 2122
Pietermarityburg 3200
SOUTH AFRICA
SOUTH AFRICA
Tel: ++27 11 4861102
Tel ++27 331 471 961
Fax: ++27 11 4861506
Fax ++27 331 472 977
Email: ewtsa@global.co.za
Email: ghughes@npb.co.za
Mr Leonel LEITE LOPES
J
Grupo de Trabalho Ambiental
Dr Z. Pallo JORDAN MOZAMBIQUE
Minister of Environmental Tel: ++ 258 1 493 102
Affairs and Tourism Fax: ++258 1 493 3049
Pretoria
SOUTH AFRICA
Fax: ++27 21 21453216

Dr M. LINDEQUE Mr. Willas MAKOMBE
Deputy Director Acting Director
Ministry of Environment and Tourism Department of National Parks and Wild Life
Private Bag 13346 Management
Windhoek Harare
NAMIBIA ZIMBABWE
Fax: ++264 61 232057 Fax: ++ 263 4 724 914
M Mr Taperandava MAVENEKE
Campfire Association
Dr Ian MACDONALD
Box 4027
Chief Executive
Harare
WWF – SA
ZIMBABWE
PO Box 456
Tel: ++263 4 747429/30
Stellenbosch
Fax: ++263 4 795150
SOUTH AFRICA
Tel: ++ 27 21 887 2801 Mr David MCDOWELL
Fax: ++ 27 21 887 9517 Director General
IUCN-HQ
Ms Kathy MACKINNON
Rue Mauverney 28
Biodiversity Specialist
1196 Gland
The World Bank
SWITZERLAND
1818 H Street
Tel: ++41 22 9990295
Washington D.C. 20433
Fax: ++41 22 9990029
UNITED STATES
Tel: ++ 1 202 458 4682 Mr. Lota MELAMARI
Fax: ++ 1 202 522 3256 Director General
Email: kmackinnon@ worldbank.org Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA)
AICC Building, room 618,
Mr. Alfonso MADOPE
Kilimanjaro Wing
National Director
PO Box 3134
DNFFB
Arusha
Box 1406
TANZANIA
Maputo
Tel: ++255 57 3471
MOZAMBIQUE
++255 57 4082
Tel ++258 1 460036/96
Fax: ++255 57 8216
Fax: ++258 1 460060/479
++255 57 4075
Mr S. L. MAMBA Email: tantpa@habari.co.tz
Chief Executive Officer
Mr Benjamin MIBENGE
Swaziland National Trust Commission
Wildlife Society
PO Box 100
Box 30255
Lobamba, H 107
Lusaka
SWAZILAND
ZAMBIA
Tel: ++268 61151
Tel: ++260 1 254226
Fax: ++268 61875
Fax: ++260 1 254226
Email: staff@Swazimus.org.sz
(or IUCN Zambia Office)
Email: wcsz@zamnet.zm

Dr Simon MUNTHALI R
Head
Mr Ayman RABI
SADC WSTCU
Executive Director
Box 30131
ECOPEACE
Lilongwe 3
PO Box 55302
MALAWI
Jerusalem 97400
Tel: ++265 723505/676
ISRAEL
Fax: ++265 723089
Tel: ++972 2 6260841/3
Mr Norbert MUSHENZI Fax: ++972 2 6260840
Directeur Provincial Email: ecopeace@netvision.net.il
Institute Congolais pour la Conservation de la Dr Robbie ROBINSON
Nature PO Box 339
c/o IGCP, Box 28 UNHCR Newlands 7725
Goma SOUTH AFRICA
CONGO Tel: ++27 21 612557
Fax: ++ 1 407 726 5026 Fax: ++27 21 6830683
N Mr Pedro ROSABAL
Mr Daniel NJAGA Programme Officer
Biodiversity Officer Programme on Protected Areas
Kenya Wildlife Service IUCN-HQ
PO Box 40241 Rue Mauverney 28
Nairobi 1196 Gland
KENYA SWITZERLAND
Tel: ++ 254 2 501 081/2 Tel: ++41 22 9990163
Fax: ++254 2 505 866/501 866 Fax: ++41 22 9990015
Email: kws@users.africaonline.co.ke Email: pmr@hq.iucn.org
Dr. Peter NOVELLIE Dr Karen ROSS
Chief Executive Conservation International
National Parks Board Okavango Program
PO Box 448
P Maun
Mr David PEACOCK BOTSWANA
Department of Wildlife & National Parks Tel: ++267 660017
PO Box 131 Fax: ++267 661 798
Gaborone E Mail: ci-botswana@conservation.org
BOTSWANA S
Tel: ++ 267 371405/353010
Fax: ++267 312354 Mr Trevor SANDWITH
Chief Planner
Mr Adrian PHILLIPS
Natal Parks Board
Chair WCPA
Pietermaritzburg 3200
2 the Old Rectory
SOUTH AFRICA
Dumbleton near Evesham
Tel: ++27 331 471 961
Gloucestershire WR11 6TG
Fax: ++21 331 471 173
UNITED KINGDOM
Email: trevors@npb.co.za
Tel: ++44 1386 882094
Fax: ++44 1386 882094
Email: adrianp@wcpa.demon.co.uk

Dr Arno SCKEYDE Dr Elizabeth SODERSTROM
Project Officer USAID
Southern Africa Division Regional Centre for Southern Africa PO Box 2427
GTZ Gaborone 2170
Dag Hammarskjöld-Weg 1-5 BOTSWANA
Postfach 51 80 Tel: ++267 324449
65725 Eschborn Fax: ++267 324404
GERMANY Email: esoderstrom@usaid.gov
Tel: +49 61 96 79-1507 Dr Bartolemeu SOTO
Telex: 4 07 501-0 gtz d Transfrontier Project Co-ordinator
Fax: ++ 49 61 96 79-7177 Box 1406
Email: arno.sckeyde@gtz.de Maputo
Mr Ron SEALE MOZAMBIQUE
Park Planning Advisor Tel: ++258 1 460036/96
Mt Elgon Conservation and Development Project Fax: ++258 1 460060/479
Mbale
T
UGANDA
Fax: ++256 41 342298 Mr Ted STEYN
Chairman
Mr David SHEPPARD
Northern Tuli Game Reserve Landowners’
Head
Association
Programme on Protected Areas
PO Box 593
IUCN-HQ
Kelvin, Johannesburg 2054
SWITZERLAND
SOUTH AFRICA
Tel: ++41 22 9990162
Fax: ++27 11 8043918
Fax: ++41 22 9990015
Email: das@hq.iucn.org Mr Clive STOCKIL
Chairman/Provate Safari Operator
Ms Clare SHINE
Save Valley Conservancy
Barrister and Consultant
P.O.Box 160
IUCN Commission on Environmental Law
Chiredzi
37 rue Erlanger
ZIMBABWE
75016 Paris
Tel: ++263 31 7241
FRANCE
Fax: ++263 31 7244
Tel: ++331 46519011
Fax: ++331 46519011 Ms March TURNBILL
Peace Parks Foundation
Dr Victor SIAMUDAALA
P.O. Box 227
National Parks & Wildlife Service
Somerset West
Private Bag 1
7129, SOUTH AFRICA
Chilanga
Tel: ++ 27 21 855 3564
ZAMBIA
Fax: ++ 27 21 855 3958
Tel. ++260 1 278323
Email: mturnbill@ppf.org.za
Fax. ++260 1 27 8439

V W
Mr J. D. VILAKATI Mr Samson WERIKHE
Director of Environment EIA and Research Coordinator
Ministry of Natural Resources and Energy Uganda Wildlife Authority
PO Box 57 P.O. Box 3530
Mbabane Kampala
SWAZILAND UGANDA
Tel: ++268 46244-7 Tel ++256 41 346 288
Fax: ++268 42436 Fax ++256 41 257 945
Gert van der VEER Mr Arthur H WESTING
Member of the Board of Directors Westing Associates
Peace Parks Foundation RFD 2, Box 330H,
13 van der Stel Street Putney, VT 05346
1709 Florida UNITED STATES
SOUTH AFRICA Tel: ++1 802 3872152
Tel: ++27 11 672 7130 Fax: ++1 802 3874001
Fax: ++27 11 672 7130 Email: westing@together.net
Email: vdveerg@iafrica.com
Y
Mr Rod de VLETTER
Mr Ragab YAGOUB ABDULLAH
World Bank
PO Box 920
PO Box 4053
Doha
Maputo
QUATAR
MOZAMBIQUE
Tel: ++ 974 330270 / 400491
Tel: ++258 1 492841
Fax ++974 411806
Fax: ++258 1 492893
Email: rvletter@worldbank.org
Mr Vongphet VENE
Deputy Director
Centre for Protected Areas & Watershed
Management
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
Vientiane,
LAO P.D.R.
Tel: ++856 21 217 161
Fax: ++ 856 21 215 004

Conference Proceedings, Parks For Peace, 1997

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Conference Proceedings, Parks For Peace, 1997

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Parks for Peace

16-18 September 1997

Somerset West, near Cape Town

Draft of 30 January 1998

PARKS FOR PEACE - PREFACE .............................................................. V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPORT ....................................................VII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SUPPORT ........................................................................... 1

PLENARY PRESENTATIONS .......................................................................................... 2

ISSUES RAISED IN PLENARY DISCUSSIONS ............................................................... 7

WORKING GROUP DISCUSSIONS ............................................................................... 10

WELCOME ADDRESS BY DR. Z. PALO JORDAN,................................... 19

OPENING REMARKS BY IUCN DIRECTOR GENERAL, .......................... 23

PAPER PRESENTED AT THE CONFERENCE ......................................... 27

GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION: PHILOSOPHY

LEGAL MECHANISMS TO STRENGTHEN AND SAFEGUARD TRANSBOUNDARY

PEACE PARKS IN CENTRAL AMERICA. SUCCESSES & FAILURES IN

TRANSBOUNDARY COLLABORATION IN THE PROTECTION OF SHARED NATURAL

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings i

THE GEOPOLITICS OF TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION: AN OVERVIEW

PARKS AT THE EDGE: THE CASE OF UGANDA

ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE DEAD SEA BASIN AND THEIR SUSTAINABLE

TRANSBOUNDARY COOPERATION IN EUROPE: PROGRESS AND POSSIBILITIES

TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS ALONG THE FORMER "IRON CURTAIN" IN

THE DRAKENSBERG-MALOTI TRANSFRONTIER CONSERVATION AREA:

PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICT THE OBJECTIVES AND

THE IMPACT OF WAR ON PROTECTED AREAS IN CENTRAL AFRICA. CASE STUDY

POTENTIAL FOR THE CREATION OF A PEACE PARK IN THE VIRUNGA VOLCANO

LEBANON - THE ROLE OF THE PROTECTED AREAS PROJECT IN PROMOTING

PARKS, PEACE AND PROGRESS: A FORUM FOR TRANSBOUNDARY

PROTECTED AREAS DURING AND AFTER CONFLICT NIMULE NATIONAL PARK:

STATUS OF THE WORLD’S TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS

ii Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

THE CENTRAL AFRICAN EXPERIENCE IN TRANSFRONTIER PROTECTED AREAS.

THE MESO-AMERICAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR: A REGIONAL TOOL FOR

ANNEX A: PARTICIPANTS LIST ....................................................................... 254

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings iii

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings v

vi Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings

♦ Italian Government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department of Cooperation and

♦ UNESCO Man and the Biosphere Programme

♦ US National Park Service

♦ United States State Department

♦ World Bank, Environment Department

♦ World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

♦ AVIS Car Rental

♦ South African Airways Corporation

♦ Stellenbosch Farmers’ Winery Limited

♦ The Lord Charles Hotel

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings vii

Parks for Peace

Draft of 7 October 1997

Conference Title International Conference on Transboundary

Convened by IUCN, The World Conservation Union and Peace

Conference Date 16-18 September 1997

Location Somerset West, near Cape Town,

The conference had the following objectives:

2. To learn from practical experience of existing transboundary protected areas, in particular

3. To promote awareness of the vulnerability of transboundary protected areas in times of

4. To promote awareness of the value of transboundary protected areas as a means of

Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings 1

◊ the need to “build in” mechanisms to ensure financial sustainability of projects;

2 Parks for Peace Conference Proceedings