Environmental Conservation Trans-boundary Report

Environmental Conservation Trans-boundary Report

Introduction

Natural resources come as sources of power and wealth to governments, individuals, entities and even regions. This explains the intensity of the competition for ownership and jurisdiction of these resources within the public sector, as well as in relations between the government and the private sector. Needless to say, natural resources are encompassed in numerous conflicts between the stakeholders. This is especially in instances where the resources are shared between different countries, communities, states, regimes and even agencies. In most cases, the governing of natural resources is problematic thanks to the fact that they are subject to different or varying agency or organizational interests, property regimes, as well as local, indigenous, state and national jurisdictions. Four reasons have been cited for the conflicts in instances where there are diverse jurisdictions. First, the different entities or stakeholders come with varying value and ideological perspectives pertaining to the relationship between human beings and nature (Margerum, 2008, pp. 489). Second, there exists data uncertainty pertaining to the resource base considering the deficiency of information on the ecological characteristics and the potential human impacts. Third, as much as scientists see biosphere in a holistic manner, the management of natural resources is characterized by hydra-headed planning, as well as bureaucratic fiefdoms (Diamond, 2005, pp. 38). Lastly, every policy decision will incorporate an element of tradeoff between the stakeholders or even the current and the future generations, which may be quite difficult to reach considering that the political arena is characterized more by short-term expediency than intergenerational equity (Margerum, 2008, pp. 489). Any efforts for conservation of natural resources or the environment would only be feasible in instances where certain preconditions are met. First, it is imperative that there exists an explicit recognition of the varying motivations and values, as well as willingness for discourse pertaining to such matters. In addition, it is imperative that participants are willing to share all necessary information pertaining to the resources, as well as engage in joint fact-finding so that they bargain and come up with strategies that are based on similar facts and information. Lastly, it is imperative that the stakeholders accept mediations through some final arbiter or neutral intermediary (Diamond, 2005, pp. 38). Nevertheless, the challenges posed to the efforts for the conservation of the environment and natural resources vary between the different resources, their geographical locations and the societies within which they are situated. Indeed, conservation efforts are immensely hindered by political, social and physical variations in the stakeholders on whose jurisdictions the natural resources fall. All these, however, relate to the unwillingness of the political stakeholders especially governments to cooperate in the conservation efforts.

Political barriers

Politics is primarily concerned with the distribution of resources. It determines the individuals that get a certain thing or right and the manner in which such a right or item is acquired. This explains why the distribution of responsibilities in the conservation of natural resources becomes problematic. Various political barriers have been standing in the way of acquiring a middle ground in the conservation of natural resources. First, countries that have their natural resources located at the border will almost always have difficulties trusting each other. This is especially considering the fact that every country will be striving to maximize the utility and benefits that it derives from any natural resource (Paulson & Gezon, 2005, pp. 121). It goes without saying that the maximization of benefits for one country would essentially result in a loss for the other country. In most cases, countries will be unwilling to cooperate or even share information pertaining to these natural resources, simply because of this mistrust (Alexander & McGregor, 2000, pp. 615). This is the case that has been happening in South Africa with regard to the Transboundary Natural Resource Management and especially the involvement of Zimbabwe in the flagship that is the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park that spans three countries including Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa (Sandwith & Besancon, 2010, pp. 27). This flagship has been facing numerous competing agendas and points of conflict. Scholars have noted that the project has been immensely hindered by the perception prevalent in Zimbabwe and especially within the government circles that the conservation process is driven by the South African state alongside the top-down external agenda pertaining to foreign donors, as well as international NGOs (Africa Wildlife Foundation, 2000, pp. 45). This is especially disorienting especially considering that the current political climate that is governed by ZANU (PF) sees all things that seem to interfere with its national sovereignty as imperialist and potentially neo-colonial (Katerere et al, 2001, pp. 19). On the same note, technocrats and politicians in the country have been particularly resentful of the manner and the speed at which South Africans hurried in signing the intergovernmental agreement pertaining to TFCA (Alexander & McGregor, 2000, pp. 613). Indeed, the Zimbabweans have been concerned that the economic benefits emanating from the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park would not be equitably distributed and that South Africa would be benefiting more than the other countries (Duffy, 2000, pp. 29). These concerns potentially confound the likelihood of any cooperation and symbiosis between the stakeholders in the conservation of the natural resources as they breed tensions between the stakeholders.

On the same note, there are instances where the countries involved are combating considerable dynamics within their own boundaries, which affect their capacity to enter into such pacts. In the case of the Great Limpopo Park, perhaps the biggest obstacle would be the politically charged and highly volatile land question in Zimbabwe that drew the world’s attention in 2000 (Alexander & McGregor, 2000, pp. 616). The emotive nature of the land question emerged in the run up to the 2000 General Election when varied coalition actors gathered as “war veterans” and steeped up campaigns on the occupation of the commercial firms and state-owned land. Political parties, especially ZANU (PF) quickly capitalized on these deep-seated grievances pertaining to the land issue and campaigned under the slogan of “Land is the Economy and the Economy is Land” (Reid, 2001, pp. 140). Upon winning the elections farm invasions and “land reforms” gained momentum, with the invasions being underlined by a policy focus on the importance of small-scale peasant agriculture over the white-dominated commercial agriculture and, particularly, the wildlife industry. Even more contentious was the idea of having the Save Valley Conservancy and varied other privately-owned game ranches to a bigger transfrontier conservation area, especially considering the political situation (Hughes, 2001, pp. 56). These conservancies have, in fact, been targeted in highly publicized farm invasions followed by widespread poaching, tree-felling, ploughing up land and burning of trees. On the same note, parts of the Gonarezhou National Park have been invaded and formally resettled in the course of signing up or ratification of the Transfrontier Agreement (Paulson & Gezon, 2005, pp. 46). Indeed, Mozambican and South African governments alongside other fundamental donors have been questioning the capacity and willingness of Zimbabwe to honor the agreement considering the prevailing political context. This has forced the two governments to pursue more bilateral agendas.

Social barriers

The importance of the cooperation between the communities surrounding the natural resources or conservation areas cannot be gainsaid as far as the success of the conservation efforts is concerned. Recent times have, in fact, seen an increase in the inclusion and participation of the communities in conservation efforts of varied areas both within and in shared boundaries. However, cooperation between the communities is always hard to come by as was the case for Cross-border protection in Borneo, as these communities would have different social values and interests. As much as the communities that immediately surrounded the protected areas were cooperating in a considerably commendable manner, the communities that were further away did not do the same (Koontz & Johnson, 2004, pp. 198). The increased richness of the parks compared to the surrounding areas in terms of plants and game ignited the problem of poaching. The rapid modification of Borneo has increased the pressure on protected areas leaving them considerably isolated (Rosen, 2013; McNeely, 2003, pp. 39). On the same note, the two countries had have variations in their socio-economic conditions, as well as the laws governing them, in which case practical cooperation has been considerably elusive and impossible.

In addition, there are numerous instances where the communities surrounding the conservation areas are persistently fighting over resources, recognition, territories and even cases of conflicts over the boundaries. This is especially in instances where the communities in question are initially a single community with the national boundaries, which were usually set by the colonial powers, separating them (McNeely, 2003, pp. 39). Such separated or divided communities will always be warring in an effort to regroup, which weighs down on any promises or possibilities of cooperation between the communities. A case in point regarding conflicts between communities would be the Balkan Park Project, which blended historically contentious but ecologically connected territories of Southeastern Montenegro, Northern Albania and Kosovo (Marincic, 2003, pp. 19). The park was primarily aimed at improving regional interactions and increasing dialogue between the conflicting states via concentration on the reversal of the damage done and striving regionally to come up with a sustainable program for the management of the natural resource (Hozic, 2009, pp. 29). However, the Balkans, who are commonly known as Southeastern Europe or even the “Powderkeg of Europe” have been occupying an immense share of international spotlight in the recent times thanks to its being a place of concentrated instability, a region that invokes a unique ambience of perpetual or even inevitable bloodshed and conflict (Marincic, 2003, pp. 19; West et al, 2006, pp. 267). Since the early 90s when Yugoslavia was dissolved and, practically, hundreds of years before the dissolution, the historically but intermittently antagonistic ethnic groups, societies and religions that live in the peninsula started a rapid process for increased entrenchment and division between the distinct entities (Duffy, 2007, pp. 39). Currently, the Balkans are home to varied distinct but politically recognized states that resulted from a notoriously bloody regional war after persistent secessions from what was the Yugoslav entity (Kennard, 2009, pp. 37; Mazower, 2000, pp. 34). These territoriality conflicts and group identities of the past have resulted into increasingly interstate conflicts that are currently experienced in the region today, which have hampered the possibility of coming up with a long-term peaceful solution (Koontz & Johnson, 2004, pp. 198). Indeed, the conflicts have resulted in mistrust and differences in motives for any cooperation, which have essentially worked down any possibility of success in the transboundary conservation efforts pertaining to the Balkan Park Project.

Physical Barriers

Transboundary conservation efforts have also had a hard time picking up thanks to the numerous boundaries that have either been erected by the national governments or even ones that come naturally. Natural barriers, in this case would revolve around the immense distances that make it extremely expensive for some countries to even think of undertaking conservation efforts to these natural resources (Dietz et al, 2003, pp. 45; Hammill & Besancon, 2007, pp. 36). However, the key physical barriers that have been hindering transboundary conservation efforts are primarily erected by the governments. There have been instances where countries have been forced to erect fences in an effort to protect their own interests. This has been seen in the case of the United States and Mexico.

The United States and Mexico have, since time immemorial been conflicting, thanks to a number of reasons including border crossing and illegal immigration, as well as illegal trafficking of drugs or even trade (Fox. 1999, pp. 34). Initially, the United States responded by putting in place numerous border patrol officers who would be patrolling a large part of the border (Diener & Hagen, 2010, pp. 19; Ramutsindela, 2007, pp. 75). However, the September 11 attacks revealed the importance of safeguarding the Mexican border especially considering that the terrorists were deemed to have entered the United States illegally through the Mexican border (Diener & Hagen, 2010, pp. 19). This forced the United States to undertake the construction of a steel fence in an effort to curb smuggling and illegal crossing by immigrants (Dietz et al, 2003, pp. 45). This physical barrier has further divided the two countries that have been so closely related in terms of territory and history (Jardin et al, 2003, pp. 67). While this may have been a necessary step in curbing instances of terrorism, it has weighed down heavily on the possibility of ever coming up with a transboundary conservation park that would connect the Big Bend national park in the United States and the Canon de Santa Elena Protection and the Madera Del Carmen areas in Mexico (Lombard et al, 2010 pp. 7; Chester & Sifford, 2007, pp. 210). Indeed, the barriers have only increased the mistrust between the two nations, as well as between the communities at the borders, further hampering efforts at transboundary conservation.

In conclusion, natural resources have formed crucial aspects for different nations in the globe. They come as sources of wealth and power, especially considering the diversity of flora and fauna that they hold. This underlines the increased importance of conservation of these resources. However, a large number of natural resources cut across different states, regions and even communities. This often brings problems with regard to the conflicting jurisdictional mandates of the entities in question. The conservation of these entities often requires the cooperation of the stakeholders. Nevertheless, this cooperation has been hard to come by especially due to social, political and physical barriers. In the political front, there is bound to be mistrust among the stakeholders, as well as conflicting motives and laws, which would impede any transboundary conservation efforts as is the case for Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park. Social issues, on the other hand, would entail varying motives and values that often result in conflict and non-cooperation on the matters of conservation as was the case in the Balkan Park project and Cross-border protection in Borneo. On the same note, physical barriers erected, whether manmade or natural have been standing in the way of such conservation efforts, as is the case for the erection of the steel fence along the Mexican border in the United States. However, all these factors underline the unwillingness of the political players to cooperate thanks to differing interests.

Bibliography

FOX. C. F (1999). The fence and the river : culture and politics at the U.S.-Mexico border. Minneapolis, MN. University of Minnesota Press, 1999.

CHESTER, C. & SIFFORD, B. (2007). “Bridging Conservation across La Frontera: An Unfinished Agenda for Peace Parks along the US-Mexico Divide.” Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution. Ed. Saleem H. Ali. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 205- 225.

PAULSON, S., & L. L. GEZON. 2005. Political ecology across spaces, scales, and social groups. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press

MAZOWER, M. (2000). The Balkans: A Short History. New York: Random House.

MCNEELY, J. A. (2003). Conserving Forest Biodiversity in Times of Violent Conflict. Cambridge University Press 37:2:142-152.

HAMMILL, A., & C. BESANCON. (2007). Measuring Peace Park Performance: Definitions and Experiences. In Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution, ed. S. H. Ali, 23–40. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

HOZIC , A. A. (2009). The paradox of sovereignty in the Balkans. In The state of sovereignty : Territories, laws, populations, ed. D. Howland and L. White, 210. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

KENNARD, A. (2009). The Balkans Peace Park Project as a Paradigm for Transboundary Conflict Resolution. Paper presented at: Conflict and Reconciliation Symposium, June 2009, Trondheim, Norway:

MARINCIC, S. (2003). Conservation without Frontiers: Towards a new Image for the Balkans, A Strategic Plan for the IUCN South-Eastern European Programme. IUCN: The World Conservation Union; EURONATUR,

DIENER, A. C., & J. HAGEN. (2010). Borderlines and borderlands : political oddities at the edge of the nation-state. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

REID, H. (2001) ‘Contractual National Parks and the Makuleke Community’, Human Ecology 29(2): 135-155.

SANDWITH, T. & BESANCON, C. (2010). Making Peace: Protected Areas Contributing to Conflict Resolution. In: Stolton, S. and Dudley, N. (Eds.), Arguments for Protection. Multiple benefits for conservation and use. UK and USA: Earthscan.

DUFFY, R. (2007). Peace Parks and Global Politics: The Paradoxes and Challenges of Global Governance. In Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution, ed. S. H. Ali, 55. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

HUGHES, D.M. (2001) ‘Rezoned for business: how eco-tourism unlocked black farmland in Eastern Zimbabwe’, Journal of Agrarian Change 1 (4): 576-599.

LOMBARD, A.T., COWLING, R.M., VLOK, J.H.J. & FABRICIUS, C. (2010). Designing Conservation Corridors in Production Landscapes: Assessment Methods, Implementation Issues, and Lessons Learnt. Ecology & Society 15(3): 7.

KATERERE, Y., HILL, R. & MOYO, S. (2001) ‘A critique of Transboundary Natural Resource Management in Southern Africa’. IUCN-ROSA Transboundary Natural Resources Management Paper 1, IUCN-ROSA, Harare.

DUFFY, R. (2000) Killing for Conservation: Wildlife Policy in Zimbabwe. James Currey, Oxford.

DIAMOND, J.M. (2005). Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. New York: Viking.

DIETZ, T., E. OSTROM & P.C. STERN. (2003). The struggle to govern the commons. Science, 1907-1912.

KOONTZ T. M, & JOHNSON EM. (2004). One size does not fit all: Matching breadth of stakeholder participation to watershed group accomplishments. Policy Sciences 37(2):185–204.

ALEXANDER, J., & MCGREGOR, J. (2000) ‘Wildlife and politics: CAMPFIRE in Zimbabwe’. Development and Change 31 (3): 605-627.

AFRICA WILDLIFE FOUNDATION (2000) ‘Report on the heartlands conservation planning for Limpopo-Lowveld Transfrontier Conservation Area, Malilangwe Traning Centre, Chiredzi, Zimbabwe, 13-15 June 2000’, Africa Wilidlife Foundation, CESVI, SELCC.

MARGERUM RD. (2008). A typology of collaboration efforts in environmental management. Environmental Management 41(4):487–500.

WEST, P., J. IGOE, AND D. BROCKINGTON. 2006. Parks and peoples: The social impact of protected areas. Annual Review of Anthropology 35:251-277

RAMUTSINDELA, M. (2007). Scaling Peace and Peacemakers in Transboundary Parks: Understanding Glocalization. In Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution, ed. S. H. Ali, 69-81. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

PAULSON, S., AND L. L. GEZON. (2005). Political ecology across spaces, scales, and social groups. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

JARDIN, M., FALL, J., AND THIRY, E. (2003). Five Transboundary Biosphere Reserves in Europe. Biosphere Reserves Technical Notes. UNESCO, Paris.

ROSEN, T (2013). Cross-border Protection in Borneo. Web retrieved from HYPERLINK “http://www.tbpa.net/page.php?ndx=60” http://www.tbpa.net/page.php?ndx=60