Keywords

9.1 Introduction

In 2011, protected areas (PAs) covered over 24,200,000 km2 of the world’s surface, with the countries of the Southern African Development CommunityFootnote 1 (SADC) having one of the best networks in the world (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2012). Unfortunately these PAs on their own are insufficient to protect the biodiversity they encompass, partly because many are too small to sustain the more mobile species. Moreover, the drastic reduction in national and international budgets for PAs, including for security and monitoring, have reduced some of them to little more than a list of names on a piece of paper, unable to maintain basic infrastructure and facilities at an acceptable level to ensure that their conservation management objectives can be met. A combination of this chronic shortage of funds coupled with poorly motivated and inadequately trained staff has made it increasingly difficult, if not impossible, for PA managers to safeguard the ecological integrity of these areas, or even in some cases to prevent human encroachment (Hanks and Attwell 2003).

Outside PAs, threats to the continent’s biodiversity are dominated by a range of inter-related factors. First, Africa has the highest population growth rate of any major region in the world and the lowest prevalence of contraceptive use. The continent’s population will pass from 1 billion in 2011 to 3.6 billion in 2100. The population has been growing at 2.3 % per year, more than double the rate of Asia’s population (WWF 2012). This high growth rate has resulted in unprecedented human demands for food, fuel, shelter and water, and a level of land transformation by pastoral, agricultural and urban development and by alien plant encroachment that has destroyed or fragmented natural habitats throughout the continent. Forest degradation is expanding in waves from Africa’s major cities, leading to significant forest degradation and loss of forest biodiversity (WWF 2012). The loss of these natural habitats has reduced vegetation cover and exposed soils to wind and water erosion, with an estimated 25 % of the land prone to water erosion and about 22 % to wind erosion (UNEP 2006), in turn accelerating the loss of biodiversity and further impacting on food security.

Further, there is a growing body of literature on the vulnerability of fragmented small habitat islands designated as PAs. In many of these cases, ecosystems have been fragmented by arbitrarily drawn political boundaries (Zbicz 1999; Hanks 2000, 2003), and fences have cut traditional migration routes (Ferguson and Hanks 2010). Even if all the other factors which could impact on mammal populations are brought under control, a combination of genetic and environmental factors may undermine the long-term viability of the isolated populations (Khan et al. 1997; Soulé 1987). Managers responsible for PAs are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of knowledge of the minimum population sizes below which the combined effects of random genetic changes and demographic variation would likely result in extinction (Lacy 1992).

Conservation biologists in South Africa have been aware of these concerns since the early 1990s, and recognized that Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) provide an opportunity to address these challenges. Furthermore, in response to the growing resistance to the ‘fortress’ model, there has been a significant expansion of community-based conservation activities related to PAs to the extent that it is now generally accepted that community participation and ownership in these areas will have to receive much higher attention if PAs are to survive, although there will always be the need for natural resource management structures. Genuine community participation in TFCAs has embraced a shift in thinking about local people’s participation in conservation as something ‘bad’ to something ‘good’ and even necessary (Büscher 2013). But it is not been a simple transition, and as described later in this chapter, it has presented problems for TFCA implementation.

This chapter examines how and when TFCAs evolved from the conservation paradigm of a ‘Peace Park’ and were subsequently developed in SADC, with particular reference to the origin of the Peace Parks Foundation (PPF) and its role in their establishment. It reviews the objectives of TFCA establishment and describes the development and institutional processes followed by SADC in their establishment. The chapter concludes with a discussion on the benefits and challenges of TFCA development that have been encountered within SADC.

9.2 From Peace Parks to TFCAs

The first use of the term ‘Peace Park’ can be traced back to 1932, when the national parks of Waterton Lakes in Canada and Glacier in the United States were jointly declared as the first international Peace Park (Sheppard 1999). In that year, the two federal governments enacted a bill to designate their respective portions of the area as part of an international Peace Park “for the purpose of establishing an enduring monument of nature to the long-existing relationship of peace and goodwill between the people of and Governments of Canada and the United States” (Lieff and Lusk 1990: 44). The term ‘Peace Park’ has since been applied to an increasing number of adjoining protected areas. Unlike the TFCAs in Africa, that emphasise formal agreements and treaties, the Waterton/Glacier Peace Park remained an informal co-operative venture for almost seven decades. It was formalized in 1998 when a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between Parks Canada and the United States Park Service (Tanner et al. 2007). Moreover, the establishment of biospheres in the two parks in the 1970s and their designation as a World Heritage Site in 1995, on the criteria of natural area nominations, bolstered nature conservation in the Peace Park (Ramutsindela 2007).

Sandwith et al. (2001: 3) defined ‘Parks for Peace’ as “transboundary protected areas that are formally dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity and of natural and associated cultural resources, and to the promotion of peace and cooperation.” However, the use of the term ‘Peace Park’ does still not have a universally accepted meaning, as even those that cross state borders have been subjected to different interpretations, in part because the original objects for the establishment of each Peace Park are often glossed over, but also because these objectives have not been subjected to rigorous analysis (Ramutsindela 2007).

A Transfrontier Conservation Area is still a relatively new conservation concept, and is defined by the Southern African Development Community’s (SADC) Protocol on Wildlife Conservation and Law Enforcement as “the area or a component of a large ecological region that straddles the boundaries of two or more countries, encompassing one or more protected areas as well as multiple resources use areas” (SADC 1999: 107). The 15 member countries of SADC have taken the lead in the formal designation, establishment and political recognition of TFCAs in Africa. This conservation initiative brings together a complex and diverse mosaic of land uses under one shared or joint management structure, including national parks and game reserves, forest reserves, wildlife and game management areas, communal land and private land.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has recognized the importance of transboundary conservation and has set up a Global Transboundary Conservation Network (GTCN) that was launched at the 5th IUCN World Parks Congress and is facilitated by a Transboundary Conservation Specialist Group of IUCN, the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA). The GTCN offers expertise and guidance on all aspects of transboundary conservation planning, management and governance (GTCN 2012). The network has recognized that terms such as ‘Transfrontier Protected Areas’, ‘Transboundary Natural Resource Management Areas’, ‘Peace Parks’, ‘Parks for Peace’, and ‘Transfrontier Conservation Areas’, have been used interchangeably, leading to often confusing results. Sandwith et al. (2001) preferred the term ‘Transboundary Protected Area’ (TBPA) with a definition similar to the one used for TFCAs. For the purposes of this chapter the term TFCA will be used in line with SADC, although three of the TFCAs (Fig. 9.1) are referred to as ‘Transfrontier Parks’.

9.3 Objectives of TFCA Establishment

The threats to Africa’s biodiversity and network of PAs, outlined in the introduction, present a daunting challenge for national and international conservation agencies. At a generic level, TFCAs have generally embraced a number of objectives, including the conservation of biodiversity and the establishment of wildlife corridors, the socio-economic development of communities, the promotion of peace and regional cooperation, and the promotion of interaction and collaboration of communities and states on environmental issues.

The justifications to conserve biodiversity for human development and survival are well known (Groom et al. 2006; Prescott-Allen and Prescott-Allen 1982). Africa’s PAs have vitally important roles to play in the in situ conservation of viable species in natural ecosystems, but many of them are increasingly being put under threat by human-induced land transformation and illegal harvesting. The well-established theory of island biogeography indicates that when an area loses a large proportion of its original habitat and especially when the remaining habitat is fragmented, it will eventually lose some of its species. It is thus clearly in the interest of species conservation to join together fragmented habitat patches into a continuum, a vitally important objective of TFCA establishment, and to manage large natural systems at the water catchment level rather than fragmented components created by artificial political boundaries. Similarly, the restoration of large mammal migration routes has often been cited as one of the main biological reasons for TFCA establishment, resulting in a certain amount of confusion, as there is no universally accepted definition of the word migration (Aidley 1981; Hoare 2009), although most authors do agree that migration occurs in response to changing seasons and is predictable and repeated each year, with the animals returning to where they came from (Sibley 2001). It is important to separate this from dispersal, where animals move out of an area into a new range for a variety of reasons, but may not necessarily return. If they do return, the movement is not predictable or seasonal (Cumming 2008). Both migration and dispersal will be greatly facilitated through securing these corridors. Another important benefit of connectivity conservation is adapting to the potential threats of climate change by linking landscapes and allowing ecological processes to take place in fragmented ecosystems. Today, the growing trend in connectivity conservation and transboundary conservation initiatives provides a much better context for identifying large-scale naturally interconnected areas as critical strategic and adaptive responses to climate change (Chassot 2011).

With each TFCA recognizing the importance of biodiversity conservation, an additional objective is the role of well-conserved natural systems in the provision of ecosystem goods and services to southern Africa’s rapidly growing human population. There is now also wide acceptance that TFCA planners and managers should work together with communities from the beginning, incorporating their objectives in transboundary conservation plans and strive to provide security to people in every sense. A particular effort should be made to support actions with healing effects on communities divided by boundaries and to support strengthening of local institutions and cultures (Sandwith et al. 2001). TFCAs undoubtedly have the potential to open up a number of development opportunities. Much of this growth can be associated with nature-based or wildlife-based tourism, including safari hunting. Although South Africa, Botswana and Namibia already have a reasonably well-developed tourist infrastructure, other countries within SADC have great potential for the development of new tourism opportunities, particularly Angola, Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

The sustainable exploitation of plant and animal resources within appropriate areas of the TFCAs is an additional leading source of income. Many people living inside TFCAs have ready access to indigenous fruits, fibers for local crafts and plants for traditional medicines. Using wildlife resources (both plant and animal) to benefit human populations at the same time removes incentives to develop the land for arable purposes or livestock herds, thus benefiting biodiversity conservation. With widespread poverty throughout many parts of Africa, socio-economic development has become one of the primary objectives for the establishment of the TFCA. However, ensuring that tangible benefits flow back to the communities is complicated. The potential for losing pre-existing rights or not seeing any gain remains a real challenge. IUCN’s GTCN has stressed that identifying and balancing sustainable resources, economic benefits to local populations and conservation goals in advance is critical (McCallum et al. 2011).

TFCAs can play a major role in building good relations between partner countries as they strive to cooperate on a range of mutually beneficial activities. With international boundaries all too often being the staging grounds for launching armed conflicts, an active commitment to promote a culture of peace and demilitarization in these sensitive areas has obvious benefits for all partner countries. Colonial boundaries were often designated without due considerations being given to the settlements and distributions of ethnic entities and cultural ties. Where appropriate, TFCA programs should articulate the facilitation of exchanges between ethnic groups separated by these boundaries, and restoration of severed cultural ties.

9.4 The Origin of the Peace Parks Foundation and the Development of Transfrontier Conservation Areas in SADC

Almost all analysts of TFCAs in Africa have referred to the Peace Parks Foundation (PPF), established in 1997, as the catalyst and main facilitator behind the formal establishment of TFCAs in southern Africa. The role of the PPF in promoting TFCAs in this region can neither be denied nor ignored (Ramutsindela 2007), but while PPF has been crucial in pushing this agenda, it is part of a larger coalition of participants, including donors, other NGOs and the governments of the participating countries themselves (Büscher 2013). In the coming paragraphs we sketch the origin of the PPF and its involvement in the development of TFCAs within SADC.

On 7 May 1990, Anton Rupert, the President of the Southern African Nature FoundationFootnote 2 (SANF) 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 PAs 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’, as they were called at that time, was not a new one. The IUCN had long been promoting their establishment because of the many potential benefits (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).Footnote 3 As a result of Rupert’s meeting, SANF was requested to carry out a 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 (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 concept of TFCAs. They were defined at that time as relatively large areas, straddling frontiers between two or more countries and covering large-scale natural systems encompassing one or more protected areas, with both human and mammal populations moving across the political boundaries concerned. The important point was stressed in the report that TFCAs extend far beyond designated PAs as they could incorporate such innovative approaches as biosphere reserves and a wide range of community based natural resource management programs (World Bank 1996). The PPF later adopted this new concept (Hanks 2000).

At the time of the initiation of the GEF funded program in Mozambique, South Africa was still under the old apartheid government, and 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 World Bank funded study. Two years after the election of Nelson Mandela in 1994, 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 have another meeting with President Chissano on 27 May 1996, at which 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 (Hanks 2000).

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 neighboring states. Southern Africa was increasingly being seen as a highly desirable tourist destination, and an integral part of this vision was the development of TFCAs involving all of South Africa’s neighboring countries (De Villiers 1999; 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 PPF was established on 1 February 1997 with an initial grant of USD 260,000 from Anton Rupert to facilitate the establishment of TFCAs in southern Africa.

The PPF was constituted and established in South Africa as an association incorporated under section 21, i.e. a company ‘not for gain’. It had virtually all the powers of a normal company, but had no shareholders, and no profits could be paid to supporting members. Three years after its establishment it had five Honorary Patrons, namely President Nelson Mandela of South Africa, President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique, President Sam Nujoma of Namibia, President Bakili Muluzi of Malawi and His Majesty King Letsie III of Lesotho.Footnote 4 The PPF at that time and subsequently has been criticized for this level of patronage which was incorrectly perceived as leading to a top-down non-consultative process of TFCA implementation.

Following discussions with South Africa’s National Parks Board and Natal Parks Board and with conservation agencies in neighboring countries, seven potential TFCAs were identified for initial support by PPF,Footnote 5 all of which were on the borders of South Africa (PPF 1999). On 12 May 2000 President Festus Mogae of Botswana and President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa officially opened the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park (KTP) as the world’s first formally designated transfrontier park, an initiative facilitated by the PPF. Following its establishment, there was increasing support for TFCAs within SADC from local communities, governments, conservation and tourism organizations, bilateral and multilateral aid agencies, the private sector and from NGOs. As of 31 May 2013, SADC had 18 existing and potential TFCAs in various stages of development (Fig. 9.1), four with treaties signed by the participating governments, six where a Memorandum of Understanding has been signed for the development of a Treaty, and a further eight at the conceptual stage.

Fig. 9.1
figure 1

Location and state of development of the 18 TFCAs in SADC in May 2013

Full size image

The underlying objective with TFCA development, as envisaged by PPF, and encapsulated in the various Memoranda of Understanding and Treaties formalising the TFCAs, is to jointly manage and develop a single ecological system that extends across an international border in order to improve livelihoods of rural communities that live within or adjacent to these areas and to promote the conservation of biodiversity through sustainable utilisation of the natural resources (Governments of the Republics of Mozambique, South Africa and Zimbabwe 2002; Governments of the Republics of Malawi and Zambia 2004) (Table 9.1).

Table 9.1 Overview of the main events in the development of southern Africa’s TFCAs
Full size table

9.5 The TFCA Development Process Followed by SADC

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.

Table 9.2 Generic milestones for the TFCA process
Full size table

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).

Fig. 9.2
figure 2

Key performance areas

Full size image

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.

Table 9.3 Governance arrangements of TFCAs
Full size table

9.6 Benefits and Challenges

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.

9.6.1 Peace

Peace is an essential prerequisite for human development and effective and sustainable environmental management, both of which are critical if SADC is to achieve national and regional goals, and is also a prerequisite for globally agreed objectives of the Millennium Development Goals (UNDP 2013). PAs on their own have an unfortunate legacy of fuelling tensions between various actors, particularly between PA authorities and adjacent communities, and TFCAs with their expanded reach might even exacerbate these conflicts. The notion of peace linked to the term Peace Parks is vaguely promoted as one of the aims of transfrontier conservation, yet at this stage of development it is perhaps surprising that no single treaty or MOU for TFCAs in SADC has the promotion of peace as one of its objectives. Nevertheless, Hammill and Besançon (2003) have suggested that the Peace and Conflict Impact Assessment (PCIA) tool, which is applied to development and humanitarian interventions, is relevant to assessing and monitoring peace in TFCAs. PCIAs have been used to monitor and evaluate projects so that at the very least they contribute to peace building, an important move toward systematically considering an intervention’s impact on the broader socio-political setting, although the use of this tool structure and use of PCIAs continue to be debated among development practitioners (Hammill and Besançon 2003), and have yet to be used by any of the SADC TFCA practitioners.

9.6.2 Conservation of Biodiversity

It is also too early to fully assess the contribution that TFCAs have made to the conservation of biodiversity, but it is important to start assessing progress with an agreed evaluation approach. The guidelines developed by the IUCN/WCPA Management Effectiveness Task Force for evaluating the effectiveness of PAs would seem a logical start (Hockings et al. 2000). The KAZA TFCA has already started to demonstrate the opportunities and benefits associated with improved access between participating countries. The movement of the African elephant (Loxodonta africana), a species of economic and ecological importance to the region has already started to benefit the region. There are considerable opportunities for some of the 150,000 elephants from Botswana to move north into Zambia and Angola and to reduce to some extent the environmental and social pressures of their over-abundance in Botswana and Caprivi (Chase and Griffin 2011). Angola in particular will benefit from the natural movements back into that country through these corridors of a range of species.

The proposed TFCAs therefore directly address the vulnerability of fragmented and isolated habitat islands, particularly when they bring together protected areas that are separated by communal lands or commercial farmland. PAs should also benefit from TFCA establishment. Many are poorly managed at present, which is a result of a drastic reduction in budgets and a lack of suitably qualified and motivated staff. Without adequate financial resources, a national protected area network is little more than a list on a piece of paper (James et al. 1999, 2001). Cross-border cooperation should also ensure better control of problems such as fire, pests, invasive aliens, poaching and smuggling, all of which can impact on biodiversity conservation (Sandwith et al. 2001). What is encouraging is to have initiatives such as the Animal and Human Health for the Environment and Development (AHEAD). While addressing the threats of transmission of veterinary diseases between wildlife and domestic animals in the SADC TFCAs, it also recognizes the important role of TFCAs in a range of broader issues embracing conservation, health and concomitant development challenges (AHEAD 2013), which are increasingly gaining recognition and support from the donor community. Furthermore, the sharing of equipment, managerial and research staff across international boundaries has the potential to reduce national budgets for conservation activities and make funds available for other more urgent social expenditures.

However, a major contribution of TFCA development in SADC, which has been overlooked, is the extraordinary mobilization in the past two decades of financial resources, estimated to have exceeded USD 306 million by May 2013.Footnote 6 The majority of these resources have been used to support conservation initiatives such as the training of conservation managers, translocation of wildlife and provision of infrastructure and equipment to support the protected areas. Additionally, funds have also been used to support community-based programs in the area surrounding the TFCAs. Furthermore, as a result of TFCA development, at least 12 million hectares of previously unprotected land has been designated for conservation. These two contributions have a significant impact on biodiversity conservation within SADC.

9.6.3 Socio-economic Development

The socio-economic development objective for TFCAs is probably the most difficult to quantify and evaluate, especially the extent to which local communities have benefitted or have been disadvantaged from the development of TFCAs. The development of a verifiable evaluation methodology to assess the economic and social benefits of TFCAs for resident communities needs urgent attention.

The surrounding communities, from a diverse range of nations and cultures, have to be provided with opportunities to co-operate regularly in economic activities that can provide benefits associated with the daily operations of the TFCAs. These include aspects such as alternative livelihoods linked to conservation agriculture, aquaculture, improved animal husbandry, enterprise development, entrepreneurship programs, agricultural co-operatives, ecotourism and safari hunting. The Simalaha Community Conservancy in the Zambian Component of the KAZA TFCA provides an example of where conservation agriculture projects, rural energy provision, aquaculture development and social programs, such as the provision of housing for school teachers to attract and retain good education staff to a rural environment, all form part of a conservation initiative aimed at securing a wildlife dispersal area for wildlife moving between Chobe National Park, through the floodplains of the eastern Zambezi Region in Namibia, and the Simalaha floodplains in Zambia, to Kafue National Park, Zambia. By reducing habitat fragmentation that impacts on the ecological connectivity between these areas, the broader conservation objectives of the KAZA TFCA can be met in an equitable and socially acceptable manner (Simalaha Community Conservancy PSC 2013). Numerous conservancies in Namibia, such as Salambala, Kasika, Impalila and Sikunga follow a similar model, as do the Muduma North and South Complexes along the Kwando River (NACSO 2011). The Chemucane Eco-Lodge development in the Maputo Special Reserve in Mozambique, a Community-Public-Private-Partnership aimed at establishing an upmarket tourism facility, serves as another example of where this has been done within the context of a TFCA. Several new lodges also have been established in the Kgalagadi Transfrontier Park, both on the Botswana and South African sides, such as Rooiputs, Polentswa and Xaus Lodges (PPF 2006).

TFCAs have the potential to earn considerably greater revenue from increased tourism than if each of the protected areas continued to operate in isolation. Revenue increases within the KTP for the two partner countries as a result of easier tourist access, and a reduction in restrictions regarding movement can be used as an example (Institute for Tourism and Leisure Studies North-West University 2008). The construction of new lodges in the Botswana component was based on increased visitor numbers to the KTP generally, where access is mainly from South Africa due to improved road access. Besides the investments being made in infrastructure, there is also a growing interest in cross-border tourism activities and events, such as the popular Tour de Tuli mountain-bike (MTB) Tour in the GMTFCA, and the Desert Knights MTB Tour in the ARTP. Similar events are being developed in the GLTP, inclusive of MTB trails, wilderness trails that incorporate cultural exchanges, and traditional wilderness trails focusing on wildlife experiences in remote portions of the park (PPF 2010).

The Matchia Chili Project, adjacent to the Maputo Special Reserve, Mozambique, is an example of a project that has linked the agricultural producer, in this case a community directly affected by the establishment and presence of a protected area, to the buyer, reducing the risks associated with agricultural production (MITUR 2010). Similarly, the agricultural support program in the Limpopo National Park component of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, has shown successes in improving yields and ensuring food security (MITUR 2012). In addition, TFCAs can symbolically reconnect communities and re-establish cultural ties that have been divided by imposed international political boundaries (Singh 2000).

The links between tourism and TFCAs in the region also have institutional support in the form of SADC and the Regional Tourism Organisation of Southern Africa (RETOSA), with the latter working to introduce a Tourist Visa (UNIVISA) to facilitate movement between the member countries within each TFCA (RETOSA 2012). Against this backdrop, African states, donors and environmental NGOs will be able to promote TFCAs on the entire African continent, and not just within SADC as a NEPAD project. In early 2013, the World Bank allocated USD 900,000 to create a single visa for the five SADC member of the KAZA TFCA, and as a start Zambia and Zimbabwe have commissioned a pilot project for a single visa entry for tourists between the two member states (Zambia Daily Mail 2013).

Finally, in 1998, the Secretary-General of the United Nations called attention to the importance of focusing attention on multi-country infrastructure projects for the development of shared natural resources (United Nations 1998). TFCAs not only meet this requirement, but can also open up new opportunities for private-public partnerships and help to restore investor confidence in a continent increasingly perceived as lacking in transparency and accountability and trapped in a syndrome of dependency. The various conservancies in Namibia, such as those in the Zambezi Region, along the Zambezi, Chobe and Kwando rivers are examples of where such opportunities have been established, involving not just public and private role-players, but also communities (NACSO 2011). Within the Lubombo TFCA the Chemucane Eco-Lodge, also a Community Public Private Partnership exists, as do various lodges within the broader TFCA landscape, including new lodge development within Mosi-oa-Tunya National Park, Zambia and in the Zambezi National Park in Zimbabwe (MITUR 2010).

9.6.4 Community Participation

The issue of community participation in TFCA management remains a highly contentious issue, a topic that is reviewed in some detail by Büscher (2013). The promotion of the alleviation of poverty through the creation of jobs in and around the TFCAs has the potential to slow or even halt habitat loss, but this will not happen overnight and like all community-based initiatives it must be recognized and accepted that this is a long-term process and commitment. The pioneering work of one of Namibia’s NGOs – Integrated Rural Development and Nature Conservation (IRDNC) – has led to one of the most progressive policy environments for community-based natural resource management (CBNRM) in southern Africa, with local communities getting significant benefits from the use of wildlife resources (see Chaps. 2 and 3, this volume). In general, very poor people, struggling at the edge of subsistence levels of consumption and preoccupied with day-to-day survival, have limited scope to plan ahead, and often have little choice but to degrade or over-exploit any available natural resources (Mink 1993).

With the benefit of hindsight it is perhaps not surprising that the initial rather simplistic interventionist approach that characterized CBNRM efforts in TFCAs have not lived up to expectations, and as a result stimulated criticism of TFCAs in the SADC region (Büscher 2013). CBNRM falls within the broader world view of sustainable development and in reality it is one of the very few viable options, if not the only option in some areas, for effective human stewardship of the land concerned. The challenge that must be addressed is to ensure that CBNRM has greater influence in promoting social justice, equity and wise use of resources (Breen 2013).

One option for assessments related to the success of socio-economic development activities is to use participatory approaches to establish ways of engaging local communities within a TFCA towards achieving the goals of integrated agricultural production and biodiversity conservation at a landscape level, also known as eco-agriculture (Chitakira et al. 2012), but much more needs to be done to elevate these approaches to be part of a standard tool kit for TFCA practitioners (Table 9.4).

Table 9.4 Main features of TFCAs
Full size table

9.7 Conclusion

In conclusion, the SADC TFCAs have responded well to the challenge of realizing the potential of conservation-based initiatives to promote peace and prosperity in the region through the exchange of information and transfer of skills and by building partnerships between government, NGOs, communities, and the private sector (Mabunda et al. 2012). What needs to be stressed however is that the realization of benefits and the final establishment of each TFCA following the steps outlined in Sect. 9.5 of this chapter will not happen overnight. Dealing with such complex social and ecological systems requires the responsible agencies and their managers to develop frameworks to assist them in understanding these systems. More time will be required to shift thinking and mind-sets on many of the innovative approaches required, most of which are outside the boundaries of present levels of training and past experiences and all are time-consuming. However, with a genuine commitment by all parties to develop, implement and manage each TFCA according to its specific needs and geographical, economic and political constraints, the future looks encouraging.