The Evolution and Progression of Transfrontier Conservation Areas in the Southern African Development Community

The establishment of TFCAs is a complex and time-consuming process, requiring intensive and extensive advocacy and facilitation work in all participating countries, with each having a sense of ownership of the whole process. Decisions impacting at a national level must arise from within the sovereign states, and such entities as the National Technical Committees must seek to coordinate action rather than dictate it. Because of the sensitivities involved in the complex array of institutional agreements and changes required when two or more countries attempt to harmonize legislation and protocols, close attention will always be given to show respect for national sovereignty, the rights of resident communities and for existing national legal systems. The institutional arrangements outlined later in this chapter describe the processes involved.

Every effort is made to avoid the perception of top-down planning without consultation, which was realised through national and TFCA Integrated Development Planning (IDP) processes. For example, consultative planning processes were undertaken in all the country based components of the Kavango-Zambezi (KAZA) TFCA (namely Angola, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia and Zimbabwe), where stakeholders from all levels, ranging from national to village level, were included in the discussions and review of the IDPs for these components (PPF 2008; Government of the Republic of Angola KAZA TFCA Inter-Ministerial Commission 2010; Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority 2010; Ministry of Environment and Tourism 2012; Ministry of Environment, Wildlife and Tourism 2013).

Similar consultative interactions were being utilised for the preparations of the IDPs for the Kavango-Zambezi, the Greater Mapungubwe TFCA (see GMTFCA TTC 2010) and the Malawi Zambia TFCA. Country based meetings have been facilitated in each country, involving traditional leaders, NGOs, civil society structures, officials from all spheres of government, and private sector operators. Stakeholders were involved in both the setting of objectives and in the reviewing of the actions required to attain these objectives.

In many cases, these were initiated by PPF to facilitate national, provincial and district governments, private sector, traditional structures and development partners to develop a shared vision on a national and TFCA level. There can be no ‘blueprint’ for action – each TFCA will have its own set of requirements, and the regional differences in TFCA practices are immense (Büscher 2013). Two key words for the processes involved are time and flexibility.

Although there are no formal guidelines or standard formats for establishing and developing TFCAs in the SADC Region, Table 9.2 shows generic milestones used by PPF as key steps in the TFCA process.

In all TFCAs, the ultimate objective is to develop a functional management regime to co-ordinate effectively the management of ecosystems spanning international boundaries whilst at the same time using these structures to improve movement of people, goods and services within the landscape, i.e. to become a functional and operational TFCA. In order to achieve the highest level of functionality eight generic key performance areas (KPAs) and their respective indicators have been developed by TFCA practitioners throughout southern Africa’s TFCA initiatives (Fig. 9.2). The implementation of these KPAs need not follow a specific chronological order as each are stand-alone components making up a ‘working’ TFCA. However with all eight KPAs addressed, the likeliness of a sustainable and functional TFCA is greatest (PPF 2013).

Being transboundary in nature, TFCAs are governed by multiple institutions at multiple levels. The challenges of streamlining decision making and other governance functions between these actors at different levels is addressed by an array of institutional arrangements as set out in Table 9.3.

The development of TFCAs has generated a great deal of media attention and a high level of interest in academic publications, with reviews questioning in particular the contributions made to the conservation of biodiversity and to the reduction of poverty in those communities living in or adjacent to the TFCAs (Ramutsindela 2007; Quinn et al. 2012; Andersson et al. 2013; Büscher 2013). Such legitimate questions were initially clouded by Ellis (1994) who argued strongly that the new environmental discourse and the development of a cross-border park on the Mozambique – South Africa – Zimbabwe border were linked up with the broad military strategy of the apartheid state. His view that TFCAs were actively promoted by a South African-based NGO with hidden motives in mind, lacks credibility today, particularly as TFCAs are accepted and supported as a continental initiative rather than a regional one, with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) and its environmental program recognizing the importance of combating poverty and contributing to socio-economic development in the region (NEPAD 2010). This NEPAD linkage is significant, as individual African states are more likely to adopt TFCAs as a way of implementing NEPAD. Furthermore, linking NEPAD with TFCAs removes the ‘South African factor’ from the TFCAs, thereby promoting TFCAs as a continental rather than a South Africa-driven initiative (Ramutsindela 2007). TFCAs in SADC have made considerable progress since the start of the work of PPF in 1997 (Ramutsindela 2007), and as of May 2013 covered an area of 1,006,170 km² with well-established government and institutional support at the highest level. This section discusses some of the benefits and challenges of TFCA-development.