Introduction
Transnational forms of management are often deemed to be more effective with environmental issues than national level management. This is because of the trans-boundary nature of most environmental problems. This statement is elaborated with association of global environmental governance with reference to Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCAs) in Southern Africa. In this area the particular examination is on the politics of the struggle over control of and access to key natural resources and how it impacts the implementation of trans-frontier conservation. Because of the changing role of the state in relation to international actors, the importance of community based natural resource management is necessary.
Essay by Marika Elovaara
Master in Tourism Destination Management student 2008/2009
In the current atmosphere of growing environmental problems there is a pushing need for frontier solutions in environmentally rich areas. These areas are increasingly subjected to international forms of management e.g. international conventions. The global environmental problems attract the attentions of multiple transnational interest groups like Non Governmental Organizations and International Financial Institutions. For example in the Southern African region are existing 15 trans-frontier conservation areas (2004). It is also accurate to realize that with growing environmental problems not only one nation can be responsible of the process or even posses the capital to do so. It has become obvious that there is also a substantial need for the managing of environmental globalization like any commercial field as indicated in the article by Frank Go and Erik van’t Klooster on Managing Globalization.
The importance of conservation policies is to realize how complex the networks of involved actors are in managing environment. The managing of natural resources when involving several actors in different levels is what Transfrontier Conservation Areas (TFCA) projects goes in depth. In the article by Rosaleen Duffy 2005 about TFCA is taken an example of natural parks. They have particular social, political and economic implications. For example, for tour operators they represent an attraction and the basis of their business, for government-run parks agencies the gate fees are often a source of revenue, for global environmental NGOs their involvement in parks may be part of a portfolio used for fundraising, and for local communities it plays a great importance to their livelihoods.
Still TFCA might indicate that there has been failure in community based natural resource management even though community based project where indicated in the article. The shift of power from local to global is inevitably a decrease in areas own governance. The change is as much physical as in the mentality of the locals as they would unavoidably loose exploiting rights to the area. These strategies often involve a magnitude of political change. There will be more monitoring and control over rural communities, because of the investments of international NGOs and states supply of greater authority. The case of TFCAs demonstrates that global conservation schemes are highly political interventions that produce new forms of conflicts about control.
According to the article on TFCA the positive outcomes are involvement in returning to more locally relevant cultural boundaries with re-establishment of historical links and allowing a cultural renaissance. Surprising globalizing effects have in this case triggered old cultures to unify. Tourism is also heavily inter-linked with changing face of Southern African environmental policies. An ideal development strategy would combine economic growth with environmental conservation. Even when accounting the optimistic effects together about TFCA there would be problems associated with illicit networks of traffickers of wildlife products, cars and people. Even striker security policies would have to be implemented alongside with the open board policies with conservation.
Recent Comments