Transboundary Protected Areas:

Legal Framework for the W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

Agnès Michelot* With Boubacar Ouedraogo**

Information concerning the legal instruments discussed in this case study is current as of 20 July 2009.

* Associate professor, Faculty of law, political science and management, University of La Rochelle, France ** In charge of the Technical Assistance Unit of the General Direction for Land Use Planning, Local and Regional Development, within the Economic and Finance Ministry, Burkina Faso This case study draws on work done by the legal team of the ECOPAS programme: Agnès Michelot (coordinator) Boubacar Ouedraogo, Romain Hounkpodote and Saadou Aladoua.

1 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

Abstract

The W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (TBR) is composed of the W Regional Park, straddling the West African countries of Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger, and its peripheral areas. Today the TBR faces numerous pressures, resulting in an imbalance between ecosystem use and capacity. Aware of the need to safeguard natural areas in order to ensure sustainable development in the region, the three countries concerned started common work under the European Union-funded programme, Protected Ecosystems in Sahelian Africa (Ecosystèmes Protégés en Afrique sahélienne, or ECOPAS). This programme, now concluded, aimed to promote the wise management of natural resources for the purposes of local, national and regional development, through the coordination of national policies and the involvement of local populations.

The W TBR was established in 2002, under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere programme. An agreement signed by the three countries in 2008 represents a further step in tripartite institutional cooperation for the concerted management of the TBR. However, this agreement, which provides only for common management bodies, represents a minimal framework and requires financial mechanisms to ensure the management autonomy of the TBR. The agreement is only one step in a process that should be carried forward.

To date, anthropogenic pressures have been checked, participatory management has been put into place in the peripheral areas, and conflicts over exploitation practices and tenure systems have been mitigated around the core area. But the future of the W TBR and the sustainability of conservation and development activities targeting local populations will depend on the capacity of the reserve management bodies to control such pressures. For this purpose, it is important to increase allocations for decentralized local entities and to support autonomous management by participatory bodies. In addition, if results achieved by the TBR are to be maintained, sustainable funding is essential, as progress is still fragile.

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 2 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

Contents

Acronyms and abbreviations...... 5

1 An ecological transboundary complex straddling three countries faces sustainable development challenges...... 6 1.1 W-Arly-Pendjari: a unique transboundary ecological complex in West Africa...... 7 1.2 A well-documented ecological heritage...... 7 1.3 The discovery of a cultural heritage...... 8

2 International recognition...... 8 2.1 Tapoa Ministerial Declaration ...... 8 2.2 Inscription on the World Heritage List ...... 8 2.3 Designation as a Ramsar site ...... 9 2.4 The W TBR: surface area, territorial distribution and component areas ...... 9 2.5 Looking to the future: extension of the W TBR to other areas of ecological interest ...... 12

3 Coordinated management of the TBR: a key requisite to meet sustainable development challenges...... 12 3.1 Social dynamics and human population increase: understanding anthropogenic pressures...... 12 3.2 Cooperation: a key element to tackle anthropogenic pressures ...... 15 3.2.1 Managing pastoralism and transhumance: a difficult challenge ...... 15 3.2.2 Poaching...... 17 3.2.3 Soil degradation and expansion of cotton crops...... 17 3.3 Land-related conflict: traditional practices and tenure security...... 17

4 Towards tripartite management...... 18 4.1 The W TBR ...... 19 4.1.1 The core area and its legal framework...... 19 4.1.2 The buffer zone and its legal framework...... 20 4.1.3 The transition zone and its legal framework...... 20 4.2 Coordinated management...... 20 4.2.1 Agreement on the Concerted Management of the W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (2008): benefits and constraints of institutional cooperation...... 21 4.2.2 The management plan ...... 22 4.2.3 Staff and surveillance in the core area...... 22 4.3 Development of joint activities...... 22 4.3.1 Tourism ...... 22 4.3.2 Environmental education and research...... 22

5 Convergent governance policies...... 23 5.1 Convergent sustainable development policies...... 23 5.2 Natural resource management and decentralization policies: common goals, specific tools...... 23 5.3 Local management bodies ...... 24

3 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

6 Looking ahead: transboundary cooperation challenges...... 25 6.1 Improving concerted management and strengthening regional processes...... 25 6.2 Maintaining past achievements and achieving sustainable development and conservation goals: the challenges...... 25 6.2.1 Funding issues...... 25 6.2.2 Benefits and constraints of participatory management at the local level...... 26 6.3 Harmonization of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development legislation: a realistic goal? ...... 27

7 Conclusion...... 27

Bibliography ...... 28

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 4 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

Acronyms and abbreviations

CFA franc franc of the African Financial Community

ECOPAS Ecosystèmes Protégés en Afrique sahélienne (Protected Ecosystems in Sahelian Africa)

ECOWAS Economic Community of West African States

MAB Man and the Biosphere Programme

TBR transboundary biosphere reserve

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

WAP W-Arly-Pendjari

WAPO WAP + Oti-Mondouri

5 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

1 An ecological transboundary complex straddling three countries faces sustainable development challenges

1 The ‘W’ region takes its name from a double bend in the Niger River where its course takes the shape of a ‘W’. It was for this reason that European explorers called the region ‘W’. Today the W region covers parts of three West African countries: Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger. The area is an exceptional reservoir of biodiversity in West Africa.

2 In the heart of the W region lies the W Regional Park, which straddles the three countries. The area is part of the W-Arly-Pendjari (WAP) ecological complex, an extended regional system of protected areas covering nearly 5 million hectares (see Map 1).

Map 1: The WAP complex

Source: W Transborder Park website.

3 Designated by the French colonial authorities as a wildlife strict reserve in 1952–53, much of the area that today makes up the W Regional Park became a national park shortly thereafter, created by a decree of French West Africa (Afrique Occidentale Française) on 4 August 1954, and covering areas in Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger. Today, each country has its own protected area categories and its own definition of national parks. The policies of the colonial era banned any use of these areas by local populations, not only for economic purposes but also for cultural or heritage purposes. As a result of colonial rule, the traditional links between human populations and natural areas were severed, with illegal activities increasingly endangering the ecological balance. Even after the three states gained independence, natural resource management policies did not change substantially in the case of the W region. Rather, national legislation continued to follow the pattern of colonial regulations, thus endorsing

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 6 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger) them and perpetuating tension and cultural, social and economic conflict over the resources of the area. In the 1980s, aware of the economic and ecological challenges related to nature conservation in the region, the three countries decided to join forces in order to ensure the sustainable management of the area. The first meeting between the three states on the management of contiguous protected areas was held in July 1984 at Cotonou (Benin). The second such meeting was in 1987 at Natitingou (Benin). In 2002, part of the W region was designated as the W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (TBR) under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme.

1.1 W-Arly-Pendjari: a unique transboundary ecological complex in West Africa

The WAP ecological complex consists of a number of areas with differing protection status and regimes 4 at the national level. In addition to the W TBR, the WAP complex covers the Arly National Park in Burkina Faso and the Pendjari National Park in Benin. The WAP complex has also received significant international recognition: it includes two biosphere reserves of the UNESCO MAB network,1 one natural world heritage site,2 and four Ramsar sites. It is representative of the Sudano-Sahelian biogeographic region and hosts unique examples of biological and ecological processes that reflect the interaction between man and nature.

1.2 A well-documented ecological heritage

Several studies conducted during the 1980s and 1990s with a view to the designation of the W Regional 5 Park as a world heritage natural site, nominated by Benin and Niger, led to a precise ecological description of the W Regional Park itself, but not of all the areas that make up the W TBR. The W Regional Park not only hosts unique examples of biological and geological processes, but also includes natural areas that are critically important in terms of biodiversity and natural habitats. The rivers of the W region (the Niger, Alibori and Mekrou) enhance landscape diversity and contribute to maintaining the habitats of threatened species of fauna and flora. The W Park wetland has been recognized as a wetland of international importance and listed as a Ramsar site. The region also provides some species with the vast areas they require for seasonal migration.3 As a whole, however, the population density of large mammals remains low as a result of strong anthropogenic pressure, despite the positive impact of the ECOPAS programme.4 Bird species richness is high. Recorded reptiles and fish are typical of the Niger River region. Alluvial processes following seasonal floods play a key role in environmental restoration.

Four main types of vegetation are found in the W region: riparian forests, woodlands, shrubby savannas 6 and grasslands.5 Plant diversity includes Niger endemic orchid species and species of important economic interest, such as landolphia rubber (Landolphia heudelotii, industrial uses for rubber

1 The Pendjari National Park in Benin was declared a biosphere reserve in 1986. The W National Park in Niger was declared a biosphere reserve in 1996. In 2002, the W National Parks of Benin and Burkina Faso were added to form the W TBR. 2 Niger’s W National Park has been on the UNESCO World Heritage List (natural heritage) since 1996. 3 Mammal species include cheetah, hyena, jackal, leopard and lion. Globally endangered species, with populations under the critical self-renewal threshold, also occur, including addax, eland, elephant, manatee (Niger), giraffe and hippopotamus. Buffalo, roan antelope and warthog are abundant. 4 ECOPAS stands for Ecosystèmes Protégés en Afrique sahélienne (Protected Ecosystems in Sahelian Africa). This programme for the conservation and wise use of contiguous protected areas in Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger and their zones of influence was funded from the 7th European Development Fund. See also ECOPAS, 2008 (July), p. 49. 5 See Koster, 1981.

7 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

production) and black plum (Vitex doniana, used for food). Furthermore, the W region hosts important baobab (Adansonia digitata) populations in the woodland savannas.

7 The diversity of natural landscapes includes permanent and seasonal bodies of water, cuirasse plateaus, sandstone, lateritic soils, active rain erosion areas, rock outcrops and gorges. Landscape diversity is matched by ecosystem diversity that includes terrestrial and aquatic systems. The landscape has been shaped by interaction with human communities and the traditional use of resources. Since Neolithic times, pastoral activity has shaped a traditional agrarian landscape.6

1.3 The discovery of a cultural heritage

8 From the Lower Palaeolithic (200,000 BC) until recent times, human occupation of the W area has been continuous—an exceptional feature in West Africa. Major archaeological discoveries7 have established the historic interest of the area, in particular the Mekrou Valley.

2 International recognition

9 Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger have ratified key international biodiversity conventions and committed themselves to implementing them. This will help to eliminate the risk, which is real, of delisting a number of areas within the TBR that are under strong anthropogenic pressure. In 2000, the area actually protected within the W Regional Park covered only 15 per cent of the park’s total area.

2.1 Tapoa Ministerial Declaration

10 The Tapoa Ministerial Declaration on the Conservation of the Regional Complex of W Park (12 May 2000) marked the will of the governments concerned to effectively protect the area and to designate it not only as a TBR but also as a Ramsar site and a UNESCO world heritage site. This ‘international’ conservation approach reinforced the inviolability of the protected areas and facilitated the conclusion of a tripartite agreement to formalize institutional cooperation within the TBR.

2.2 Inscription on the World Heritage List

11 Although the W Regional Park as a whole is recognized to possess values and features that are in themselves sufficient to justify its listing as a world heritage site, no joint effort has been undertaken to that effect. To date, Niger is the only country that has obtained a world heritage listing for its portion of the W Regional Park. The ‘W National Park of Niger’ (‘Parc National du W du Niger’) was added to the World Heritage List in 1996.

12 Benin submitted an application for the listing of the ‘W Reserve and the native habitat of north Benin’ (‘Réserve du W et l’habitat vernaculaire du nord Bénin’) on the World Heritage List in 1996, on the grounds of unique biological and ecological processes as well as cultural value. Burkina Faso also submitted an application for its ‘National Park of the W of the Niger and adjacent protected areas’ (‘Parc National du W du Niger et aires protégées adjacentes’) in 2004. But as a result of procedural difficulties, these applications were not successful.

6 Bush fires facilitate the growth of deciduous trees and promote livestock breeding. At the same time, they allow for antelope population growth. See Le Berre and Messan, 1995, p. 22. 7 The ECOPAS scientific mission discovered remains of iron reduction sites.

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 8 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

2.3 Designation as a Ramsar site

Cooperation within the framework of the African Network of MAB (AfriMAB)8 promoted wetland 13 conservation in the W area. In 2007, the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention announced the designation of the W Complex Ramsar Site, spread over 895,480 hectares, and comprising the wetlands of the core zone of the W TBR as well as related protected areas along Benin’s borders with Burkina Faso and Niger. At the time of the listing, obtained by the Environment Agency of Benin (Agence Béninoise pour l’Environnement), it was stated that the W Ramsar Site serves as a reception point for surface water runoff and plays an important role for water infiltration, reconstitution of groundwater, sediment trapping and flood control. More generally, it contributes to improving the quality of water in the area.

2.4 The W TBR: surface area, territorial distribution and component areas

The W TBR includes a number of designated protected areas as well as non-protected areas in each 14 of the three countries (see Map 2).

In Benin, the Benin W National Park (577,236 hectares) falls within the TBR core area, while the Djona 15 (118,947 hectares) and Mekrou (110,530 hectares) hunting zones9 adjacent to the Benin W Park are part of the TBR buffer zone.10

In Burkina Faso, the Burkina Faso W National Park (235,543 hectares) is part of the TBR core area, 16 while the Kourtiagou Partial Reserve (47,454 hectares) and the Tapoa-Djerma hunting zone (28,736 hectares) are included in the TBR buffer zone.

Box 1: W TBR zoning The core area of the TBR is made up of the three W national parks, within the boundaries defined by national legislation and recognized by UNESCO/MAB (see Map 3). The buffer zone includes: • Benin: Djona and Mekrou hunting zones, and a 5 km strip around the core area; • Burkina Faso: Kourtiagou Partial Reserve, Tapoa-Djerma hunting zone, and a 5 km strip around the core area; • Niger: Tamou Strict Reserve up to the Diamangou River, and Dosso Partial Reserve. The transition zone includes: • Benin: the remainder of the territory of the Banikoara, Kandi, Karimama, Kerou and Malanville districts; • Burkina Faso: the remainder of the territory of the Botou, Diapaga and Tansarga districts, and the hunting zones; • Niger: the Banani, Gaya, Quindou, Yelou and Zabori communes in the department of Gaya; along with the departments of Birni-N’Gaoure and Dosso in the region of Dosso, and the departments of Say and Kollo in the region of Tillabery.

In Niger, the Niger W National Park (221,142 hectares) is included in the TBR core area. This Park is also 17 an MAB biosphere reserve. The Tamou Strict Reserve (76,345 hectares), established in 1962, is part

8 AfriMAB is the sub-Saharan network of UNESCO biosphere reserves. The network was created in 1996 and includes 52 biosphere reserves in 24 countries, of which 2 biosphere reserves are transboundary. 9 Technically, Djona is classified as a ‘zone cynégétique’, which is an official designation. Mekrou is a ‘zone de chasse’, which is not an official designation and is generally used to refer to a smaller area. 10 This complex covers 1,357,000 hectares in the northernmost part of the country, in the departments of Atacora and Borgou. It also constitutes the southern part of a larger, sub-regional tract of uninterrupted contiguous protected areas that covers 2,500,000 hectares, extending west into Togo and Burkina Faso, and east into Niger and Nigeria.

9 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

of the TBR buffer zone. Also included in the TBR buffer zone are the Dosso Partial Reserve (538,456 hectares), established in 1962, and a non-protected area known as ‘giraffe area’, 100 km from Niamey, in the Koure and northern Dallol Bosso regions, that hosts the habitat of the last West African giraffes.

Map 2: W TBR components

Source: W Transborder Park website.

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 10 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

Map 3: Zoning of the W TBR

Source: ECOPAS (see note 4).

The core area and buffer zone of the TBR are surrounded by a transition zone, where human activities— 18 mainly agro-pastoral—take place (see Box 1).

11 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

2.5 Looking to the future: extension of the W TBR to other areas of ecological interest

19 Since the 1980s, activities and studies conducted in the WAP complex have emphasized the importance of coordinated management of the area. Considering the funding required, and the diversity of socio- economic and ecological conditions in the region, as well as the diversity of legal regimes, managers and decision makers involved, a gradual approach was favoured, progressively including various areas and protection stages. To begin with, priority was given to the W TBR, with the idea of later extending to the Arly and Pendjari national parks in Burkina Faso and Benin, respectively. Furthermore, the joint management arrangements established by ECOPAS and now included in the 2008 Agreement will allow, in the medium term, the strengthening of cooperation between the three states in order to combat desertification in the broader context of WAPO (WAP + the Oti-Mondouri area in Togo).

3 Coordinated management of the TBR: a key requisite to meet sustainable development challenges

20 A coordinated and joint approach by MAB and ECOPAS led to the establishment of an institutional framework and management bodies for the W TBR, through the Agreement on the Concerted Management of the W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve, signed by the three countries in January and February 2008.11

21 The W TBR was established following an extensive consultation and negotiation process at all levels: local, national and international. Over 400,000 people live in areas surrounding the W Regional Park in the three countries (see Map 4). For local populations, the TBR represents a major hope for sustainable development, since their livelihoods depend solely on the natural resources of the area. While the socio-economic circumstances of the three countries may vary, the land, population and agro-pastoral issues they face are largely similar. The strong anthropogenic pressures on the TBR must be jointly managed in order to ensure sustainable and ecologically wise resource management.

3.1 Social dynamics and human population increase: understanding anthropogenic pressures

22 The W region was sparsely populated until the 18th century, and anthropogenic pressure on the zones that currently constitute the core area of the W TBR was low. As population movement intensified (see Map 5), conflict and conquest followed, accompanied by a significant increase in population density. Currently, most of the activities of populations living in the periphery of the core zone depend, more or less directly, on available and healthy natural resources found within the core zone.

23 In the last four decades, as human population density increased rapidly, ecosystem exploitation intensified. Community interactions changed and developed, and village networks became more complex. Communities are now larger in size and more land is being occupied. Studies of social dynamics in the TBR buffer and transition zones show some instability and structural shortfalls. Interaction between territorial authorities is not easy and adequate structures for this purpose are lacking. Conflict between farmers and livestock breeders in the periphery of W Regional Park, and particularly in areas in Benin to which cattle migrate seasonally, may even escalate to violence.

11 Agreement on the Concerted Management of the W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve, Article 1(f). The Agreement was signed by the three countries in January and February 2008.

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 12 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

Map 4: Population distribution and size of villages in the periphery of the W Regional Park

Source: ECOPAS (see note 4).

Resource scarcity leads to major changes in social dynamics, as residents in the peripheral 24 zones feel that the capacity of the land to accommodate the needs of newcomers has been

13 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

Map 5: Ethnic distribution and population movement in the periphery of the W Regional Park

Source: ECOPAS (see note 4).

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 14 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger) reached. Native populations may then be tempted to claim old fallow lands occupied by newcomers.12 Social cohesion among local communities in the peripheral areas is constantly at risk due to competition for land and resource use.

3.2 Cooperation: a key element to tackle anthropogenic pressures

For many decades, forest authorities in the three countries have implemented repressive policies and 25 adopted measures aimed at excluding local populations. In response, the people have often resorted to illegal behaviour, such as poaching, illegal grazing or the expansion of agricultural areas, in order to access, in one way or another, the resources of W Regional Park. Against a background of social tension, competition for the control of natural resources has developed between authorities, farmers and livestock breeders. The direct consequence of this has been ecosystem degradation in the TBR, particularly in its core area. Within various local areas, conflicts have also arisen between state and traditional authorities, and between use practices that threaten ecologically wise management of the TBR resources and have a negative impact on biodiversity.

The ECOPAS programme attempted to mitigate these conflicts through consultations with all actors. 26 But a key problem, and the main threat for the TBR, is the issue of transhumance.

3.2.1 Managing pastoralism and transhumance: a difficult challenge

The annual migration of some 100,000 cattle into the W TBR is perceived in different ways by various 27 local stakeholders. While transhumance constitutes a major threat to conservation, it is also a key economic activity and represents a way of life linked to community identity, which certain groups do not wish to relinquish. Biodiversity protection in the TBR, as well as in the ecological system of the WAP complex, depends on the capacity of TBR managers to keep herds away from the core area.

Transhumance generally occurs as a result of temporary or seasonal scarcity of fodder and water. The 28 start of the migration is thus linked to climate and fodder resource conditions. Extensive consultation and negotiation with all stakeholders is necessary to manage transhumance, providing adequate and secure routes to minimize the negative impact on biodiversity.

• International measures for transhumance management

Decision A/DEC 5/10/98 (31 October 1998) regulating transhumance between members of the 29 Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS)13 defines transboundary transhumance as “seasonal transboundary movements of cattle, out of their usual routes, in order to make use of waterholes and pastures” (Article 1). “Unwatched animals roaming or grazing” are equated with stray animals. The decision states that “the crossing of terrestrial borders for transhumance purposes is authorized between all ECOWAS Member States, for bovine, goat, camel and donkey species, under the conditions established by this Regulation” (Article 3). The Decision authorizes livestock movement between ECOWAS Member States, subject to an International Transhumance Certificate issued by the country of departure, and controlled on arrival in the host country. Livestock movement must follow a predetermined route, which must conform to transhumance trails defined by each state. Other

12 This was the case in rural areas neighbouring the buffer zone in Benin, in villages adjacent to the Tapoa- Djerma hunting concession in Burkina Faso, and in villages of the river area and Tamou Reserve in Niger. 13 The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), established on 28 May 1975, is a regional group of 15 member countries including Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger.

15 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

international provisions adopted in the framework of the Conseil de l’Entente14 (regional cooperation forum)15 and ECOWAS16 regulate transhumance.

30 Against this background, in February 2004 the ministries in charge in each of the three countries17 validated a number of measures aimed at managing transhumance in the W TBR. This agreement18 is the result of a participatory negotiation process between inter-municipal associations and customary authorities in Benin; the Tapoa livestock breeders’ organization and local authorities in Burkina Faso; and the Pastoral Lands and Infrastructure Management Committee in Niger. This instrument is not an international convention in the usual sense, that is, an agreement concluded between states. Rather, it is a formal commitment by the competent authorities on a package of measures and adjustments that validate a number of technical and spatial planning arrangements, in order to allow pastoralist activities without jeopardizing the conservation goals of the TBR core area. These measures provide, inter alia, for the marking of transhumance corridors and the development of specific grazing or transit areas.19

31 The 2004 Agreement helped to settle a sensitive issue: Benin, severely impacted by the negative effects of transboundary migration, had suspended all transhumance authorizations on its territory since 1995. Benin maintained this position in 1998, after Decision A/DEC 5/10/98 regulating transhumance between ECOWAS Member States. At the time, the government of Benin was of the opinion that the conditions for transhumance set out in the 1998 ECOWAS Decision were not respected by migrants and, consequently, that it was not bound to accept transhumant herds on its territory. Benin’s decision remained in effect until 2004.

32 The 2008 Agreement on the concerted management of the TBR reasserts that pastoralist activities must be compatible with the above-mentioned international regulations.20

• Harmonizing penalties

33 The institutions created under the 2008 Agreement will need to examine the issue of harmonizing penalties for illegal grazing. These vary significantly from one country to

14 The Conseil de l'Entente is a regional cooperation organization, created in 1959 and essentially dedicated to economic development. Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger are founding members, along with the Côte d’Ivoire. 15 Agreement relating to transhumance regulation in the Conseil de l’Entente member countries (2 March 1991). Under this agreement, an international transhumance certificate is required from cattle herders. Through this certificate, transhumance departure is controlled, animal health protection is strengthened (as it testifies that all major vaccinations have been carried out), and host area communities receive timely information. 16 Regulation C/REG.301/03 relating to the implementation of transhumance regulation by ECOWAS Member States (Dakar, 26–28 January 2003). This regulation includes a number of provisions designed to facilitate implementation by ECOWAS Member States of the key principles of transboundary transhumance contained in decision A/DEC 5/10/98, relating to the free movement of goods and people, and to prevention, management and dispute settlement provisions. 17 Lazare Sehoueto, Minister of Agriculture, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries, Republic of Benin; Laurent Sedogo, Minister of Environment, Burkina Faso; Maoudé Koroney, Minister of Animal Resources, Republic of Niger; Jeanne Josette Acacha Akoha, representing the Minister of Environment, Habitat and Town Planning, Republic of Benin; Salissou Gambobo, representing the Minister of Agricultural Development, Republic of Niger; Salifo Tiemtore, representing the Minister of Animal Resources, Burkina Faso; Mahamane Miampo, representing the Minister of Agriculture, Water and Fish Resources, Burkina Faso. 18 This agreement was reached on 26 February 2004, at Cotonou, during the 1st Extraordinary Meeting of the Steering Council of the W Regional Park Programme/ECOPAS, chaired by Chaï bou Mahaman, State Secretary in charge of Environment and Desertification Issues, Niger, and in the presence of Felix Dansou, ECOWAS Commissary for Rural Development and Environment, and Franco Nulli, Head of the European Union Commission Representation in Benin. 19 Transhumance corridors cover 115 km in Niger, 110 km in Benin and 20 km in Burkina Faso. The agreement also covers 49 km of marked areas in Niger, 6 wells in Benin, 2 drill holes, 4 wells and a vaccination area in Burkina Faso. Field implementation is not yet completed. 20 Agreement on the concerted management of the TBR, 2008, Article 17, regarding joint activities.

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 16 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger) another.21 Such disparities may result in unfair treatment, which is a major cause of discontent among herders. In addition, the system of transactions in the three countries also favours inequalities, since penalties are decided though negotiations between the authorized officer and the offender.

3.2.2 Poaching

In the core area of the W TBR, poaching is of the subsistence type, with limited impact on biodiversity 34 conservation because equipment is scarce and arms are often makeshift. An agreement to combat poaching in the W area was signed on 12 July 1984 by Benin and Burkina Faso, and adhered to by Niger on 8 July 1986.22 This agreement provides for cooperation between the relevant departments and, in particular, the establishment of joint patrols (including rangers from the three countries), as well as the development of an awareness programme for local communities, and customary and administrative authorities. Unfortunately, this agreement was never really implemented.

Under the 2008 Agreement on the concerted management of the TBR, the three countries commit to 35 update the anti-poaching agreement.23

Despite efforts undertaken by ECOPAS to harmonize anti-poaching policies in the three countries, 36 implementation conditions differ significantly. Common management systems are thus difficult to put in place, particularly since poaching cases are handled differently by the authorities, and without regional consultation.

3.2.3 Soil degradation and expansion of cotton crops

Along with transhumance, the cotton cultivation sector poses a major challenge for the W TBR. The 37 development of cotton crops, ‘supported’ by chemical fertilizers, in the buffer zone of the TBR has resulted in significant pressure on the core area owing to soil depletion and the resulting needto expand cultivation to land within protected areas.

Conversion of land for the expansion of cotton cultivation also results in the gradual disappearance 38 of grazing areas and increases pressure on transhumance trails. In addition, fallow systems to protect soils for food crops are gradually phased out, as land is diverted to cotton crops.

In this connection, a concerted approach involving the three countries is difficult, as land tenure legal 39 systems vary and agricultural policies and priorities also differ. Projects should be developed to improve farmers’ awareness about the negative impact of chemicals on soil quality and, more generally, on all natural resources. Information campaigns on the risks of genetically modified (GM) cotton should also be launched, as GM cotton is often proposed to producers as an alternative to chemical inputs.

3.3 Land-related conflict: traditional practices and tenure security

Tenure security is an issue that is frequently raised in West Africa. It is considered to be a potential 40 solution to conflict related to land access and use. In the buffer and transition zones of the W TBR, drivers of conflict are numerous. For rural populations, land is increasingly scarce or depleted. High population growth exacerbates pressure on agricultural land.

21 As an example, in Benin (under Article 97 and 98 of the Law on Forests) fines range from 50,000 to 500,000 CFA francs; in Burkina Faso (under Article 260 and 261 of the Forest Code), fines range from 20,000 to 200,000 CFA francs. 22 Niger acceded to the Agreement through Letter No. 08856 (8 July 1986). 23 Agreement on the concerted management of the TBR, 2008, Article 17.1, relating to joint activities.

17 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

41 Pressure on land for agricultural use generates conflict among farmers, between farmers and livestock breeders, and among breeders themselves. Livestock breeders are increasingly excluded from agricultural land and resent restrictions on their seasonal mobility. Under such circumstances, protected areas such as the W Regional Park provide shelter zones and represent ideal grazing areas.

42 Pastoral practices are deeply rooted in Niger, and coexistence between farmers and breeders is increasingly problematic. Conflict, sometimes escalating to violence, is linked to the agricultural conversion of migration trails, grazing areas and areas surrounding watering holes, or to crop damage related to transhumance. Farmers’ disputes may concern plot boundaries, customary leasing or mortgage arrangements,24 land loans, or succession issues.

43 The control of watering holes and grazing areas is a source of conflict between breeders.25 Competition for fodder resources is stiff, particularly under pressure from agriculture, soil depletion and drought.

44 From the legal point of view, the issues at stake in these conflicts are related to the plural systems that coexist in community-based societies. Social links are based on the community, and preference is given to use value over exchange value, the latter being well known but not realized. This has led to the establishment of various tenure security systems. Three types of regulation are found: at the internal level, land use systems; at the internal–external level, land product flow and distribution systems; and at the external level, land distribution systems.26 However, the diversity of tenure security arrangements resulting from customary law are not easily integrated or recognized in ‘modern’ law, which prevails. To achieve this integration, the concepts of private and state-owned property should be broadened so that customary tenure arrangements are supported by modern statutory law. In Niger, for instance, and to a certain degree in Benin, the implementation of customary rules is not completely prohibited on state- owned land. Pursuant to Articles 4 and 5 of Ordinance 93-015 (2 March 1993) on the guiding principles of the Niger Rural Code, “natural resources are part of national heritage” and “rights applicable to natural resources, whether they result from customary or written law, benefit from the same degree of protection”. The same dual approach to land law applies in Benin. Burkina Faso has established a legal regime for state-owned land, but its Law No. 14/96 ADP on Land Reorganization (23 May 1996) does not include any provisions concerning land under de facto customary management. Such areas find themselves in a legal vacuum, with no clear prospect of legal recognition in the near future.

4 Towards tripartite management

45 The idea of concerted action to manage protected areas in the W region emerged in the early 1980s. Between 2000 and 2008, the ECOPAS programme provided funds for a project focusing on the area that in 2002 was designated as the W TBR. An Agreement was concluded in 2008 for the concerted management of the TBR. The background to this concerted action process is shown in Table 1.

24 In Niger, under customary law, a landowner may entrust land exploitation to a third party, in exchange for a sum of money or a good, until such sum or good is repaid or returned (gage coutumier). These transactions may outlive the individuals involved, and it may prove difficult to ascertain their existence and scope. 25 Conflict related to grazing areas is frequent between rival ethnic groups: for example, between Tuareg and Fulbe, or between Bororo Fulbe and Gougabe Fulbe. 26 See Le Roy et al., 1996, p. 65.

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 18 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

Table 1: Key steps in the tripartite management process

1987 Regional Planning Programme for National Parks and Related Reserves, launched with technical and financial support from the European Community

1989 and 1993 Updating of the Regional Planning Programme for National Parks and Reserves

March 1992 Regional workshop in Niamey, jointly organized under the auspices of the World Heritage Committee and the MAB Programme. Recommendations adopted on the sustainable use of natural heritage and resources, with the active participation of local communities

October 1996 Updating of data related to the Regional Planning Programme for National Parks and Related Reserves

6 February 1997 Ministerial consultation meeting on the relaunching of the Programme, organized by the West African Economic and Monetary Union (Union Economique Monétaire Ouest Africaine, or UEMOA), held at Kompienga (Burkina Faso). A final statement describes the Programme structure, its goals and the role of various stakeholders

January 1998 A new funding proposal draft for the Programme submitted to the European Commission by Burkina Faso. It proposed a funding commitment of 20 million euros for a five-year period, in the framework of non-refundable assistance

September 1999 Regional project submitted to the UNESCO/AfriMAB workshop in Dakar

24 March 2000 Consultation meeting on the launching of the ‘Project on the conservation and wise use of contiguous protected areas in Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger and their zones of influence’ (W Regional Park), held at Ouagadougou (Burkina Faso)

11–12 May 2000 Ministerial meeting on the ‘Project for the conservation and wise use of contiguous protected areas in Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger and their zones of influence’ (W Regional Park), held at Tapoa (Niger). Tapoa Ministerial Declaration on the conservation of the W Park Regional Complex (12 May 2000)

2002 Establishment of the W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve, MAB Committee, UNESCO, Paris

February 2004 Tripartite Agreement on Transhumance Management in the W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (signed at Cotonou, Benin)

January–February 2008 Signature of an Agreement on the Concerted Management of the W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve

2008 End of phase 1 of the ECOPAS programme

June 2009 Meeting of representatives of the three countries on the establishment of a trust fund and the Foundation for West African Savannas (Fondation des Savanes Ouest Africaines, or FSOA)

4.1 The W TBR

The W TBR is remarkable for several reasons, inter alia because the TBR was established before the 46 conclusion of a tripartite agreement, and also because the agreement is based on zoning and zone functions defined in the nomination file submitted to UNESCO. The legal framework established at the national level is thus consistent with the integration of the area in the UNESCO World Network of Biosphere Reserves.

4.1.1 The core area and its legal framework

The core area of the W TBR is based on the W Regional Park, which is composed of three ‘W National 47 Parks’, one in each of the three countries. Under Article 6 of the 2008 Agreement, the core area is dedicated to long-term protection, and the applicable legal framework is that which applies to national

19 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

parks as defined by legislation and regulations in force in each country. Consequently, thelegal framework for the core area is not the same in each of the three countries. Disparities may occur with respect to banning or permitting certain activities. Such matters have not led to harmonization between the three countries of the legal status of national parks.

48 Fishing may be mentioned as an example. In Burkina Faso, fishing in national parks is not explicitly prohibited by law, but may be authorized under specific provisions. In Benin, fishing is banned in national parks. In Niger, there are no specific provisions banning fishing. While most other use rights are excluded within national parks in all three countries, Burkina Faso legislation envisages, in the legal instrument creating each national park, the possibility of providing compensation for the local communities concerned.

4.1.2 The buffer zone and its legal framework

49 In the W TBR buffer zone, activities compatible with ecologically sound practice are allowed. The buffer zone surrounds the core area or is contiguous to it. The Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves and Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves27 states that the buffer zone must be “clearly identified”. In the case of a TBR, the buffer zone may be made up of various categories of protected areas with differing legal regimes. This is the case with the W TBR buffer zone: in Benin, it includes hunting zones (Djona and Mekrou); in Burkina Faso, a partial reserve (Kourtiagou) and a hunting zone (Tapoa-Djerma);28 and in Niger, a strict reserve (Tamou) and a partial reserve (Dosso).

50 This diversity of legal frameworks, associated with the differing categorization of protected areas in the three countries, does not prevent the establishment of a TBR, as long as the countries concerned have a common understanding of the characteristics of each of the zones.29 Article 7 of the 2008 Agreement stipulates that “activities conducted in the buffer zone shall be compatible with conservation goals” and that such activities are to be regulated by national legislation pursuant to the relevant status and applicable legal regime. In the case of the W TBR, the differences between legal frameworks and activities in the three countries, and also at the community level within each country, are, however, quite significant.

4.1.3 The transition zone and its legal framework

51 According to UNESCO/MAB, the transition zone is an outer transition area where sustainable use practices may be promoted and developed. Article 8 of the 2008 Agreement reflects this and states that activities in this zone “shall conform to sustainable use practices”.

4.2 Coordinated management

52 The joint tripartite management of a shared ecosystem, with the associated social, ecological, economic and cultural issues involved, requires not only adequate structures and coordination, but also a shared policy vision for the actions and strategies to be jointly implemented. It goes without saying that it is essential to define the most effective ways and means to achieve sustainable development goals in the region.

27 UNESCO, 1995. 28 Hunting concessions in Burkina Faso are regulated under contractual specifications. 29 The Recommendations for the Establishment and Functioning of TBR, Seville +5, advocate, however, the establishment of “similar management measures” for each zone.

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 20 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

4.2.1 Agreement on the Concerted Management of the W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve (2008): benefits and constraints of institutional cooperation

The 2008 Agreement represents a key step in the development of sustainable institutional management 53 of the TBR. It is also a landmark: the first African TBR to gain formal legal status through an international agreement signed by the three ministers in charge of protected areas.

Article 9 of the Agreement provides for the establishment of the following joint management bodies: 54 • steering committee • technical committee • scientific committee • management body.

This framework, because it replicates institutional arrangements previously established under ECOPAS, had been tested for several years.

The steering committee establishes guidelines to harmonize sectoral policies for biodiversity protection 55 and use in the three countries. It is a high-level body, comprising the ministers in charge of protected areas. The President of the West African Economic and Monetary Union (Union Economique Monétaire Ouest Africaine, or UEMOA) and the IUCN Regional Director have observer status. A rotating chairmanship has been established among the ministers of the three countries, but the term of office is not specified. The technical committee implements steering committee guidelines and defines scientific guidelines with the scientific committee. The technical committee plays a key role in the administration of the TBR, carrying out preparatory work for steering committee meetings and working closely with the TBR manager (conservateur). The technical committee monitors implementation of the management plan and develops scientific guidelines for biodiversity protection, as well as economic, social and archaeological guidelines. It works with the relevant ministries, government departments, community representatives and private operators conducting activities within the TBR. The management body is in charge of operations, in partnership with all local entities concerned. It is also responsible for the implementation of annual action plans pursuant to the management plan approved by the steering committee.

There are significant gaps in the Agreement. For instance, financial mechanisms and matters related 56 to membership of the scientific committee are not settled. A number of key issues, such as “practical means for implementing coordinated action” (Article 6) in the core area, and “working and decision- making procedures of the management body” (Article 12), are to be settled in Rules of Procedure to be framed in the future.

The designation of the TBR manager illustrates the difficulties involved in joint management. The 57 TBR manager is one of the three national park managers, appointed by the technical committee for a two-year term on a rotating basis (Article 12). There are no provisions concerning the powers and duties of the TBR manager or reporting lines vis-à-vis park managers at the national level. While the appointment of a TBR manager conveys a strong message in favour of joint management, the message is significantly weakened by the unclear status of their role, and the fact that the appointment is made on the basis of nationality and position held. The TBR manager is not entirely devoted to the collective task of managing the TBR, since they retain their position as manager of the W Park at the national level. This arrangement is no guarantee for independence or objectivity.

21 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

4.2.2 The management plan

58 The management plan provides a strategic framework for the operational planning of activities to be conducted by the authorities concerned throughout the TBR, pursuant to Article 5 of the 2008 Agreement. It consequently represents a key tool for the coordination and organization of activities within the TBR. It must allow all issues related to TBR management to be taken into consideration and link them to sectoral policies developed at the country level (infrastructure, transport, environment, agriculture, husbandry) in order to achieve sustainable development. It guides the work of the management body, and establishes a framework for scientific activities and financial matters.

4.2.3 Staff and surveillance in the core area

59 Although the 2008 Agreement could have facilitated the development of a harmonized statutory framework for all W Regional Park staff, it only states that governments are bound to provide management plan-related staff, and that supplementary staff may be recruited on a contractual basis (Article 15). Consequently, no harmonization of the staff salary system has been envisaged. The institutional status of the TBR allows regional patrols to be set up, with rangers from all three countries.

4.3 Development of joint activities 4.3.1 Tourism

60 In recent years, efforts have been made to develop activities enabling the use of natural resources, particularly sightseeing tourism in the core area of the TBR and hunting tourism in the buffer zone.

61 One of the challenges of coordinated management is to organize a common visa, entrance ticket and fee for the three W national parks that constitute the core area of the TBR. Recent arrangements, developed under ECOPAS, enable comfortable access to the core area, which is particularly attractive because of its transboundary nature. A tourism strategy is currently under discussion, to promote tourism as a regional product on the basis of common wildlife, landscape and cultural heritage. This should include a uniform entrance fee for visitors, as well as fees for tour and tourism operators.30 In order to ensure free movement throughout the core area, which is an important element, authorized guides should be allowed to accompany visitors through the three countries.

4.3.2 Environmental education and research

62 Environmental education and research are fields of joint action provided for in Article 17 of the 2008 Agreement. Such activities are also entirely consistent with biosphere reserve functions, as defined by the UNESCO MAB programme. Children and adults have participated in environmental education activities. A ‘regional school village’ has been developed at Point Triple, where the three countries meet,31 with the purpose of welcoming children from the three countries.

63 Research programmes, supported by ECOPAS, have given priority to TBR management issues, in particular ecological monitoring. The establishment of a scientific committee in charge of research promotion, planning and assessment provides important guidance for the research component in

30 Average entrance fees to African parks range from 15,000 to 20,000 CFA francs. A daily fee of 8,000 CFA francs has been envisaged, with a reduced rate for subsequent days. 31 Point Triple is the geographic point where the borders of the three countries meet. It is located in the centre of the core area. Shared facilities are located at this point.

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 22 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger) the operation of the TBR. This committee will also be charged with the establishment of scientific partnerships and ensuring the promotion of scientific activities.

5 Convergent governance policies

The three countries are currently engaged in implementing policies aimed at alleviating poverty and 64 promoting sustainable development, based on the wise management of natural resources. Decentralized rural development follows similar principles in Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger, particularly regarding the empowerment of local communities. This involves mechanisms for coordination between public policy stakeholders, as well as flexible management structures and tools enabling adaptation to local needs.

5.1 Convergent sustainable development policies

The three countries have recognized the need to integrate the concept of sustainable development in 65 environment and development policies in order to achieve a satisfactory level of social and economic development, as well as human and cultural fulfilment. Since the Rio Summit, the three states have developed many strategies to comply with their commitments.32

Policies in the three countries are similar, including the development of national biodiversity conservation 66 strategies, the implementation of action plans based on participatory management and the achievement of decentralization goals related to land planning. Similarities in their respective natural resource management policies include: • empowerment of local communities; • equitable access to natural resources, enhancing security of rights for rural producers; and • promotion of sustainable and decentralized management of natural resources.

5.2 Natural resource management and decentralization policies: common goals, specific tools

The three countries are committed to promoting decentralization as a driver of development. 67 Decentralization has become an institutional requirement, leading to reform in the organization of territorial administration. Powers are devolved to decentralized territorial authorities in various sectors, including environmental protection and the management of natural resources.

Pursuant to legislation in force in the three countries, decentralized territorial entities are legal persons 68 and have financial autonomy.33 Having established the decentralization framework, the state must devolve powers and resources, ensuring at the same time some degree of national solidarity. These transfers do not take place at the same pace or under the same conditions, but local authorities of the

32 Benin: Environmental Action Plan, a tool for environmental planning and management; Declaration regard- ing rural development policies; Strategic Operational Plan; sub-sectoral strategies. Burkina Faso: National Environmental Action Plan. Niger: Guidelines for rural development policies; issuing of Ordinance 93-015 establishing guidelines for the Rural Code. 33 Benin: Article 1 of Law 97-029 of 15 January 1999; Burkina Faso: Article 2 of Law No. 040/98/AN regarding decentralization organization; Niger: Law 96-05 of 6 February 1996 amended in March 2002, on the establishment of territorial entities and administrative districts.

23 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

three countries must establish operational frameworks for the participation of local communities in the management of local natural resources. The example of Burkina Faso is interesting, as it shows that it is sometimes difficult to define the respective responsibilities and competences, particularly between the village and municipality levels. Until 2007, village wildlife management committees (VWMCs) were in charge of wildlife management at the local level. A decree issued in January 2007 established village development committees to which all the assets and property of the village territorial management committees were to be transferred. In this context, the VWMCs are afraid of losing management autonomy vis-à-vis the municipality.

69 In Niger, the National Land Planning Policy has been slow to take off as far as natural resources are concerned. In Benin, an environmental action plan resulted in a National Protected Area Management Strategy that led to the establishment of the National Centre for Wildlife Reserve Management (Centre National de Gestion des Réserves de Faune, or CENAGREF) in 1996. This Centre, placed under the authority of the Ministry of Agriculture, Husbandry and Fisheries, enjoys administrative and financial autonomy. It has created Village Associations for Wildlife Reserve Management (Associations villageoises de gestion de réserves de faune, or AVIGREF), which provide support for surveillance tasks and redistribute income generated by protected areas. In the future, these institutional structures could carry out their activities on the basis of a delegation of powers from municipal authorities, so that the elected municipal authorities carry out their share of responsibilities and control in management and benefit sharing.

5.3 Local management bodies

70 Local communities must be involved at every level of resource management. Each country has implemented development projects and programmes aimed at ensuring the participation of rural populations in land and natural resource management. In addition, the decentralization process will gradually modify the roles of local management bodies, as powers are increasingly devolved to the local level. In this respect, village committees may work differently or their role may change as a consequence of the devolution of competences to the municipalities. Generally speaking, local commissions or committees vary significantly, both in terms of their duties and legal status.34 In Burkina Faso, for example, the management of local sanctuaries (protected areas designated by decentralized territorial entities and allocated by them for wildlife use) leads to the establishment of specific local management bodies, with membership defined by regulations. Authorized activities are defined by the decentralized territorial entities, assisted by local wildlife technical services. Also in Burkina Faso, the village zones of hunting interest (zone villageoise d’intérêt cynégétique, or ZOVIC)35 are managed by local organizations or villagers’ groups. They are entitled to enter into contracts with hunting professionals (for example, hunting guides). Royalties or fees collected are then shared between the government and local organizations.

34 For example, in Niger: waterhole management committees, rural communities established through the Natural Resource Management Plan, village and cantonal committees of the Programme for the Support of Local Development, autonomous land areas. In Benin: rural communities are involved in project implementation through village or farmers’ organizations, village local development committees established by the Programme for Land and Natural Resource Management. Village Associations for Wildlife Reserve Management (Associations villageoises de gestion de réserves de faune, or AVIGREF) are involved in animal wildlife management. 35 A ZOVIC is a part of a municipal territory, designated by the relevant municipality for the exploitation of hunting resources. Its creation is proposed by a meeting of the competent local body. It is confirmed by a decree of the competent authority.

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 24 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

6 Looking ahead: transboundary cooperation challenges

The 2008 Agreement on the concerted management of the TBR has three key targets: the protection and 71 sustainable use of the natural, archaeological and cultural heritage; the harmonization of development and management policies; and decentralized promotion and management, with equitable benefit sharing for all stakeholders of the W TBR. In order to achieve these goals, increased cooperation in the field, requiring collective regional action, must be supported by the three countries.

6.1 Improving concerted management and strengthening regional processes

Negotiations between Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger have shown that there is some reluctance to 72 develop joint management bodies, even though such cooperation cannot be avoided, considering the ecological features and geographical situation of the W Regional Park, which constitutes the core area of the TBR shared by the three countries. Several options were proposed, and negotiations led to a very limited cooperation agreement between the states. The 2008 Agreement establishes joint institutional structures, based on the principle of balanced representation of the three countries within decision- making bodies. This arrangement does not facilitate decision making to promote and implement a regional vision for the W TBR as a whole. Furthermore, the Agreement focuses on concerted management of the core area and remains noncommittal on the key issues requiring regional cooperation.

In the future, TBR management bodies will need to take into consideration the entire WAP complex, 73 and even WAPO. If Togo wants to participate in WAP management, the scope of the TBR will need to be expanded.

The 2008 Agreement sets in motion a regional cooperation process that is meant to be strengthened and 74 extended in the future. In that sense, it is only a first step. It is now necessary to move to the next stage, with a broader regional scope capable of achieving conservation and sustainable development goals.

6.2 Maintaining past achievements and achieving sustainable development and conservation goals: the challenges 6.2.1 Funding issues

With the conclusion of the ECOPAS programme and the associated European Union funding, a 75 paradigm shift will be needed in the thinking of national authorities, to focus on long-term sustainable funding rather than single-project funding. Funds required for TBR operations during the period 2009– 11 are estimated at 3.81 million euros. Costs will increase year after year, inter alia for the replacement of equipment.36 Income from the TBR (mainly from tourism activities such as park entrance fees and hotel royalties) and state budget allocations, generally accounting for park staff salaries, currently cover only 25 per cent of the TBR budget.

• Income from tourism

Tourism is a key factor in the sustainability of the W Regional Park. Currently, income from tourism 76 covers less than 20 per cent of the annual management and maintenance costs of the core area. Tourism is nevertheless a vital component of funding, and a symbol that the TBR has value for development, which states wish to enhance.

36 See ECOPAS, 2008 (March), p 78.

25 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

77 Pursuant to Article 17 of the 2008 Agreement on the concerted management of the TBR, the three countries have committed to adopt a common strategy for the promotion of sightseeing and hunting tourism. This strategy is under discussion. It will be based, inter alia, on the principle of benefit sharing between administrative authorities in charge of the park, decentralized authorities and local populations. The current draft includes provisions for uniform entrance fees and the taxation of hotel concessions. An estimate of potential income provides figures for hotels and safaris separately, and considers their impact on the development of tourism in the three countries.

78 Annual operating costs for the W Regional Park are estimated at 220 million CFA francs. Of this amount, 65 per cent could be covered by international funding, 12 per cent by national funding and the remainder by income from tourism.

• A fund to ensure TBR sustainability

79 New funding for the TBR could be available from the European Development Fund (EDF). But the development of an independent financial mechanism is the only long-term funding solution. Article 14 of the 2008 Agreement envisages “a financial tool enabling independent management of the W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve”. A consultation meeting held on 11 June 2009 in Cotonou considered the establishment of a regional fund for protected areas of the WAP ecological complex. For its part, Benin has aimed to achieve financial sustainability through the creation of an international trust fund for biodiversity conservation in that country. To that end, Benin established an inter-ministerial steering committee for the fund in 2003, and contributed 500 million CFA francs to the fund. Benin now wishes to upgrade the initiative to the sub-regional level and has proposed to the other two countries the establishment of a Foundation for West African Savannas, to promote conservation, ecologically sustainable management and eco-development of the WAP complex. Donors have already been identified: the Government of Benin, Global Environment Facility, European Union, French Development Agency (Agence française de développement), and French Fund for Global Environment (Fond français pour l’environnement mondial). For some donors, the sub-regional dimension is a necessary condition for funding. However, Niger and Burkina Faso, while congratulating Benin for its initiative, consider their participation to be premature.

6.2.2 Benefits and constraints of participatory management at the local level

80 The TBR management team’s efforts to strengthen participatory management were expected to lead to a positive social and economic impact on the communities concerned. And, indeed, redistribution of tourism income and community involvement in TBR management were concrete and effective.37

81 Recently, benefit-sharing arrangements resulting from biodiversity use have started to raise issues related to governance. The identification of beneficiaries, fund allocation and management accountability create problems for local organizations which are often unprepared to tackle such matters, and lack capacity and training. Fund allocation is not always transparent, and financial and decision-making autonomy is not always easy to acquire. Local authorities in charge should adopt concrete measures to assist or supervise participatory management groups, with a view to enhancing accountability and social control over these funds.

37 In Benin, 30 per cent of operating income is distributed to AVIGREFs; in Niger, 50 per cent is distributed to municipalities. In Burkina Faso, however, local communities are less involved in TBR operations and receive practically no share in benefits. See ECOPAS, July 2008.

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 26 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

On the whole, however, benefit sharing has not significantly improved the standard of living of local 82 populations. The TBR still has a major role to play in order to ensure and enhance the economic sustainability of the TBR for the benefit of local populations.

6.3 Harmonization of biodiversity conservation and sustainable development legislation: a realistic goal?

First and foremost, it should be noted that it is extremely difficult to establish coordinated management 83 in an area shared by three countries. Such an undertaking requires not only adequate knowledge of the relevant legal instruments in force in each country but also an assessment of their enforceability. The harmonization of legal frameworks may be envisaged in cases where they are incompatible, or to ensure the adequate operation of coordination mechanisms. In a situation of environmental crisis, however, when there are social conflicts resulting from resource scarcity, the legal dimension may in some cases create conflict and may even be a driver of environmental crisis.38 While every society has various customary and traditional norms, in post-colonial African societies this plurality is amplified by the diversity of previous colonial legal systems and the subsequent addition of post-colonial administrative and political legal systems. Legislative activities have also increased recently in all three countries in response to the necessities, sometimes even emergencies, of sustainable development. In this context, regional harmonization initiatives that risk jeopardizing fledgling national initiatives would not be welcome.

When tackling such issues, the appropriate level of regional involvement or degree of harmonization 84 should be carefully assessed. Legal reform should be undertaken only if it is necessary to achieve common conservation and sustainable development goals.

7 Conclusion

The W TBR is a unique example of transboundary cooperation between three countries in the field 85 of conservation. It is nevertheless paradoxical to observe, on the one hand, the efforts of the states involved to implement international biodiversity conventions and, on the other hand, their more limited engagement towards constructive and effective regional cooperation. The recognition in recent years of the value of the W region’s protected areas, at the ecological and social levels, as well as politically and economically, is noteworthy. But tripartite cooperation should be extended to the entire WAP complex.

Although the TBR has only partially achieved its goal of improving the standard of living of local 86 communities, pressures on the core area have decreased and farmer–breeder conflicts have been mitigated. The future of the TBR and the sustainability of conservation and development actions targeting local populations will depend on the capacity of TBR management authorities to control these pressures. To that end, it is also important to increase benefit sharing and support the management autonomy of participatory entities.

Protected areas across the world find it difficult if not impossible to become financially autonomous. 87 In the case of the W TBR, as well, sustainable funding will have to be found. If past achievements, still fragile, are to be maintained, long-term financial sustainability will play a key role.

38 See Michelot, 2006, pp. 117–130.

27 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

Bibliography

BADO Laurent, La crise de la démocratie occidentale en Afrique noire, Revue Juridique et politique, Indépendance et Coopération, 53e année, janvier-avril 1999, pp. 28-49.

BEER-GABEL Josette, LABAT Bernard, La protection internationale de la faune et de la flore sauvages, Ed. Bruylant, Ed. de l’Université de Bruxelles, 1999.

BIERSCHENK Thomas, LE MEUR Pierre-Yves (sous la dir.), Trajectoires peules au Bénin, Karthala, 1997.

BRETON Jean-Marie, La sensibilisation des communautés locales à la gestion du patrimoine environ- nemental, Problématique des projets de conservation - valorisation des aires protégées dans les pays de l’Afrique noire francophone, PENANT, 109e année, janv-avril 1999, pp. 198-226.

BURINI Federica, GHISALBERTI Alessandra, sous la direction de CASTI Emanuela, Deuxième rapport sur la recherche de terrain et sur la récolte de données concernant les aspects socio- territoriaux dans les zones périphériques du parc W, mars 2003, 209 p.

CAMARA Laye, Du conflit à la participation : les aires protégées, un enjeu pour la conservation et le développement local, le cas de la réserve de Biosphère Transfrontalière du W, pp. 53-58.

CENAGREF, Direction du Parc National Pendjari, PCGPN, Projet Pendjari, GTZ/KfW/AFD/CBDD/GEF, Bureau de liaison de Natitingou, Rapport 1er semestre 2000.

CENAGREF, Direction du Parc National Pendjari, PCGPN, Projet Pendjari, Suivi trimestriel des activités du plan de travail annuel.

CENAGREF, Manuel des Procédures du PCGPN, Programme de Conservation et de Gestion des Parcs Nationaux au Bénin) version janvier 2000.

DE HAAN Leo J., Agriculteurs et éleveurs au nord-Bénin – Ecologie et genres de vie, Karthala, 1997.

DELAVEAU B., MONGNET C., SALIFOU A., Décolonisation et problèmes de l’Afrique indépendante, Edicef, Paris,1991.

DIOP Cheikh Anta, L’Afrique noire pré-coloniale : Etude comparée des systèmes politiques et sociaux de l’Europe et de l’Afrique noire, de l’Antiquité à la formation des Etats modernes, Présence Africaine, Paris, 1987.

Direction de la Faune de la Pêche et de la Pisciculture (en partenariat avec), Organisation Néerlandaise de Développement, Organisation Nigérienne de Volontaires pour la Préservation de l’Environnement (ONVPE), Subvention au secteur du Développement agricole (SDSA2), Proposition d’un programme d’appui à la zone de transition de Koure et du Dallol Bosso nord, avril 2000.

ECOPAS, Mission d’appui à l’analyse et à la capitalisation du Programme régional Parc W/ECOPAS, Iere partie : analyse et capitalisation, mars 2008.

ECOPAS, Evaluation finale et prospective du programme Parc régional Parc W/ECOPAS, contrat n° 2008/156647, rapport provisoire version 1, juillet 2008.

ECOPAS, Fiche de présentation du programme, Mai 2003, 42 p.

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 28 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

GARANE Amidou, Le cadre juridique de la protection de l‘environnement au Burkina Faso, Annuaire africain de droit international, vol. 4, 1996, pp. 153-193.

GARANE Amidou, Le code de l‘environnement : quelle contribution au droit de l‘environnement au Burkina Faso, in Annales de l‘Université de Ouagadougou, série A, vol. XII, 2000, pp. 15-58.

GIANOLA Elizabeth C., La sécurisation foncière, le développement socio-économique et la force du droit, L’Harmattan, 2000.

GONIDEC Pierre-François, Droit international et droit interne en Afrique, PENANT, 1999, pp. 241-257.

GUEDEGBE Bonaventure, Evaluation du cadre institutionnel et législatif de gestion des Réserves de biosphère de la zone ouest africaine francophone, UNESCO/MAB, Nairobi Office, octobre 2008.

JARDIN Mireille, La diversité biologique et la Convention de l’UNESCO concernant la protection du patrimoine culturel et naturel, in Colloque International en hommage à Cyrille De Klemm : « La diversité biologique et le droit de l’environnement- Paris 30-31 mars 2000, Rencontres Environnement n°48, Council of Europe Publishing, avril 2001, pp. 41-47.

JARDIN Mireille, Les réserves de biosphère se dotent d’un statut international : enjeux et perspectives, Revue Juridique de l’Environnement, 1996-4, pp. 375-385.

KERDOUN Azzouz, Régionalisme et intégration en Afrique. Vers un nouveau groupement des pays sahélo-sahariens, Revue Juridique et Politique, indépendance et coopération, 52e année, n°1, janv-avril 1998, p. 48-66.

KOSTER S., A survey of the vegetation and ungulates populations in Park W Niger, M. Sc. Thesis. Michigan University, East Lansing, 1981.

KOUSSIGNAN, Guy- Adjété, L’homme et la terre : droits fonciers coutumiers et le droit de propriété en Afrique occidentale, Editions Berger – Levrault,1966.

LAVIGNE DELVILLE Philippe, TOULMIN Camille, TRAORE Samba (sous la dir.), Gérer le foncier rural en Afrique de l’ouest – Dynamiques foncières et interventions publiques, Karthala – URED, Paris, Saint- Louis (Sénégal), 2000.

LE BERRE Michel, MESSAN Lambert, La région du W du Niger, Nature et Ressources, vol.31, n°2, 1995, pp. 18-29.

LE BRICE E., LE ROY E., L’appropriation de la terre en Afrique noire, Manuel d’analyse de décision et de gestion forestière, Karthala, Paris, 1991.

LE GRAND Yves, HOCHET Anne-Marie, Tradition pastorale et modernisation des systèmes de produc- tion au Sahel, L’Harmattan, 1998.

LE ROY E., KARSENTY A., BERTRAND A., La sécurisation foncière en Afrique. Pour une gestion viab- les des ressources renouvelables, Karthala, Paris, 1996, p. 65.

LOMBARD Jacques, Autorités traditionnelles et pouvoirs européens en Afrique noire : le déclin d’une aristocratie dans le régime colonial, A Colin,1987.

MICHELOT Agnès, L’harmonisation des systèmes juridiques entre le Bénin, le Burkina Faso et le Niger, Programme régional de conservation et utilisation rationnelle des aires protégées contiguës

29 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

du Bénin, du Burkina Faso et du Niger (ECOPAS), Union Européenne (7e FED), mars 2004, vol. 1, 153 p.

MICHELOT Agnès, « Les Réserves de Biosphère : une nouvelle approche pour la gestion des crises environnementales ? – Le cas du complexe du W» in Beck C., Luginbühl Y., Muxart T. (éditeurs scientifiques), Temps et espaces de crises de l’environnement, éditions Quae, 2006, pp. 117-130.

MICHELOT Agnès, Etude des législations applicables en matière d’environnement en Afrique Francophone (Bénin, Burkina Faso, Cameroun, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Gabon, Guinée (Brazzaville), Mali, Niger, Sénégal. Etude menée pour l’UNESCO/MAB dans le cadre de la mise en place du Réseau africain des réserves de biosphère, avril 2000, 15 p.

MICHELOT Agnès (sous la dir.), L’harmonisation des systèmes juridiques entre le Bénin, le Burkina Faso et le Niger, Programme régional de conservation et utilisation rationnelle des aires protégées contiguës du Bénin, du Burkina Faso et du Niger (ECOPAS), Union Européenne (7e FED), novembre 2003, vol. 2, 78 p.

MICHELOT Agnès, Projet de proposition de réserve de biosphère transfrontière dans la région du W du Niger (Bénin, Burkina, Niger), Rapport UNESCO/MAB, février 2001, 90 p.

Ministère de l’Environnement, Parc National du « W » (Niger), Proposition pour un projet d’aménagement du parc national et de sa zone périphérique, ENGREF Montpellier avec l’appui du Fonds du Patrimoine Mondial et de la Commission des Communautés Européennes (DG XII), mars 1992.

Ministère de plan et de la privatisation, Département de Dosso et de Tillabery, Fonds français pour l’Environnement Mondial, Rapport final Opération écotourisme girafe (septembre 97 à mars 2000) – Projet utilisation des ressources naturelles de Koure et du Dallol Bosso nord, Association française des Volontaires du progrès – délégation du Niger, Francis Gay, avril 2000.

Ministère du Développement Rural, Centre national de Gestion des Réserves de faune (CENAGREF), Direction Technique, Rapport de saison cynégétique et touristique, saison 1999-2000, juillet 2000.

Ministère du Développement Rural, Centre national de Gestion des Réserves de faune (CENAGREF), Direction du Parc National du W du fleuve Niger, Rapport sur le tourisme de vision et la chasse dans le complexe du W fleuve Niger (saison 1998-1999), août 1999.

Ministère du développement Rural, Direction des Forêts et des ressources naturelles, Projet de gestion des ressources naturelles, Mise en application du programme de cogestion des réserves de faune – Finalisation et mise en forme du projet de cahier des charges régissant la collaboration entre guide de chasse - populations riveraines - administration forestière, Cotonou, le 23 septembre 1996.

Ministère du Développement Rural, Direction des Forêts et des Ressources Naturelles, Préparation d’une stratégie de conservation et de gestion des aires protégées, composante socio- économique, mars 1995, (avec l’assistance technique de l’UICN).

Ministère du développement Rural, Direction des Forêts et des ressources naturelles, Préparation d’une stratégie de conservation et de gestion des aires protégées, analyses économiques, avec l’assistance technique de l’UICN, mars 1995.

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 30 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

Ministère du développement Rural, Direction des Forêts et des ressources naturelles, Projet de gestion des ressources naturelles, Mise en application du programme de cogestion des réserves de faune – Finalisation et mise en forme du projet de cahier des charges régissant la collaboration entre guide de chasse - populations riveraines - administration forestière, Cotonou, le 23 septembre 1996.

Ministère du Développement Rural, Direction des Forêts et des Ressources Naturelles, Préparation d’une stratégie de conservation et de gestion des aires protégées, composante socio- économique, Cotonou, mars 1995, (avec l’assistance technique de l’UICN).

PELLET A., La formation du droit international dans le cadre des Nations Unies, Journal Européen de Droit International, 1995, pp. 401-405.

SEYDOU S., Rapport d’activité 1993 du Parc National du W du Niger, Direction Faune Pêche et Pisciculture (DFPP), Niamey, 1993.

SEYDOU S., Organisation Néerlandaise de Développement (SNV), Projet utilisation des ressources Naturelles de la Région de Kouré et du Dallol Bosso Nord (PURNKO), Rapport final de consultation – Interactions : Homme-Girafe-Habitat dans la zone de transition de la réserve de biosphère du W, mai 2000

STAMM V., Structures et politiques en Afrique de l’ouest, L’Harmattan, Paris, Montréal, 1998.

TCHEUWA J-C., La 34e Conférence des chefs d’Etat et de gouvernement de l’OUA ou le réveil de « la grande muette » -une analyse prospective du système de l’OUA, Revue Juridique et Politique, indépendance et coopération, 93e année, sept-déc. 1999, pp. 269-290.

UICN, Mohammadou Issaka Magha, Gestion communautaire des écosystèmes et conservation de la biodiversité – Cas des roneraies de Gaya (Niger), octobre 1998.

UICN, Programme d’appui aux initiatives de gestion locale des Roneraies du Dallol Maouri et du fleuve Niger, UICN, 1996/1997/1998.

UICN, Programme d’appui à la gestion des ressources naturelles dans l’Aïr et le Tenere, PAGRNAT, Rapport du 1er semestre 2000 (Bilan 99/2000), septembre 2000.

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). 1995. “Seville Strategy for Biosphere Reserves and Statutory Framework of the World Network of Biosphere Reserves.” http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0010/001038/103849eb.pdf.

W Transborder Park. (No date). Downloads of maps [website], http://www.parc-w.net/img/telechargement/cartes/images.html.

31 IUCN-EPLP No. 81 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

Legal instruments

Most legal instruments discussed in this case study are available online. Readers may view the full text on the ECOLEX web site using the hyperlinks below, or at the URL provided.

Laws

Benin

Loi n°93-009 du 2 juillet 1999 portant régime fes forêts en République du LEX-FAOC002003 Bénin (Law No. 93-009 of 2 July 1999 on forests in Benin)

Loi n°97-029 du 15 janvier 1999 portant organisation des communes en République du Bénin (Law No. 97-029 of 15 January 1999 on the organization of municipalities in the Republic of Benin)

Burkina Faso

Loi n°14/96 ADP du 23 mai 1996 portant réorganisation agraire et foncière LEX-FAOC015009 au Burkina Faso (Law No. 14/96 ADP of 23 May 1996 on agrarian and land reform in Burkina Faso)

Loi n°006/97/ADP du 31 janvier 1997 portant code forestier au Burkina Faso LEX-FAOC011545 (Law No. 006/97/ADP of 31 January 1997 on the forest code in Burkina Faso)

Loi n°040/98/AN 3 août 1998 portant orientation de la décentralisation au Burkina Faso (Law No. 040/98/AN of 3 August 1998 on decentralization in Burkina Faso) http://www.matd.gov.bf/SiteMatd/decentral/loi4098an.pdf

Niger

Ordonnance n°93-015 du 2 mars 1993 fixant les principes d’orientation du LEX-FAOC004660 code rural (Ordinance No. 93-015 of 2 March 1993 establishing guiding principles of the rural code in Niger)

Loi n°96-05 du 6 février 1996 portant création des collectivités territoriales et des circonscriptions administratives modifiée en mars 2002 (Law No. 96-05 of 6 February 1996 on the establishment of local authorities and administrative districts, amended in March 2002)

Decrees (French West Africa)

Décret du 4 août 1954 portant transformation en parcs nationaux de LEX-FAOC004251 trois réserves totales de faune existant en Afrique Occidentale Française, promulgué par arrêté général nº 6009 du 19 août 1954 (Decree of 4 August 1954 on transforming three strict reserves for fauna protection into three national parks in French West Africa, promulgated by General Order No. 6009 of 19 August 1954)

IUCN-EPLP No. 81 32 TBPAs (W Biosphere Reserve, Benin, Burkina Faso, Niger)

ECOWAS decisions and regulations

Décision A/DEC.5/10/98 relative à la réglementation de la transhumance entre les Etats membres de la CEDEAO du 31 octobre 1998 (Decision A/ DEC 5/10/98 on the regulation of transhumance between member states of ECOWAS of 31 October 1998)

Règlement C/REG.301/03 relatif à la mise en œuvre de la règlementation concernant la transhumance par les Etats membres de la CEDEAO (Dakar, 26-28 janvier 2003) (Regulation C/REG.301/03 on implementation of transhumance regulations by ECOWAS member states (Dakar, 26–28 January 2003)

Agreements

Accord de lutte contre le braconnage entre la République populaire du Benin TRE-151785 et la République de Haute-Volta, 1984 (Agreement to combat poaching between Bénin and Burkina Faso, 12 July 1984)

Accord relatif à la réglementation des transhumances des pays membres du Conseil de l’Entente du 2 mars 1991 (Agreement on the regulation of transhumance in member countries of the Conseil de l’Entente, 2 March 1991)

Accord de Cotonou du 26 février 2004, dans le cadre de la première réunion extraordinaire du Conseil d’Orientation du Programme Régional Parc W / ECOPAS gestion de la transhumance (Agreement of Cotonou 26 February 2004, during the first Extraordinary Meeting of the Steering Council of the W Regional Park Programme / ECOPAS)

Accord relatif à la gestion concertée de la Réserve de Biosphère Transfortalière TRE-154733 du W du 28 janvier 2008 (Agreement on the Concerted Management of the W Transboundary Biosphere Reserve, 28 January 2008)

Declarations

Déclaration ministérielle de la Tapoa sur la conservation du complexe régional du parc W du 12 mai 2000 (Tapoa Ministerial Declaration on the Conservation of the Regional Complex of W Park, 12 May 2000)

33 IUCN-EPLP No. 81