PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Spatiality and 'borderlessness' in transfrontier conservation areas

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cape Town]On: 23 November 2010Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 916417825]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

South African Geographical JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t915281258

Spatiality and 'borderlessness' in transfrontier conservation areasChristine Noea

a Department of Geography, University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Online publication date: 20 November 2010

To cite this Article Noe, Christine(2010) 'Spatiality and 'borderlessness' in transfrontier conservation areas', South AfricanGeographical Journal, 92: 2, 144 — 159To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/03736245.2010.525079URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2010.525079

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t915281258

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03736245.2010.525079

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Spatiality and ‘borderlessness’ in transfrontier conservation areas

Christine Noe*

Department of Geography, University of Dar es Salaam, P.O. Box 35049, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

This article offers a critique of transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs) by focusing onthe conception of borders in the proposition of these areas. It claims that the conceptionof borders as fences that should be removed masks the actual process of bordering thataccompanies the creation of TFCAs in different socio-economic and ecologicalsettings. Using the local realities in southern Tanzania where the borders of neither thestate nor the protected areas are marked by physical fences, this paper demonstrateshow proponents of TFCAs engender new borders that affect the livelihoods of localresidents. The assumption that TFCAs follow natural borders is problematic, in thatborders are a human creation that are also spatially bounding. This paper draws onconceptual insights from border studies to engage with narratives in transfrontierconservation. Empirically, it uses the experience of the ongoing process of establishingthe Selous–Niassa wildlife corridor, which is a cog in the creation of the Selous–Niassa TFCA across Tanzania–Mozambique border.

Keywords: borders; transfrontier conservation; Selous–Niassa; Tanzania

Introduction

The establishment of the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park (GLTFP) in 2002 records a

memorable event of bringing down the fence that formed a political border between South

Africa and Mozambique (Peace Parks Foundation (PPF) 2002, Hanks 2003, Michler

2003). Central to this event was the need to re-establish an ecological region that had been

disrupted by the fence. Notably, the event culminated with the release of elephants from

South Africa’s Kruger National Park into the Limpopo National Park in Mozambique

(PPF 2002, Spierenburg and Wels 2006, Ramutsindela 2007). The GLTFP’s experience

and, particularly, the idea of bringing down the fence have played a significant role in the

promotion and establishment of transfrontier conservation areas (TFCAs) throughout the

region, even though fences are not ubiquitous. In this article, I critique the conception of

borders as fences that need to be removed to facilitate natural flows across frontiers. In

doing so, I use the border literature through which scholars have interpreted and theorized

the role of borders and territoriality to question the assumption that TFCAs have de facto

divisions and, by implication, unproblematic borders. The first section of this paper

engages with the logic of globalization and evaluates it against the theorization of borders

and regions. The second section reviews the border literature and its relevance to the

analysis of TFCAs, while the third section uses the experience of the Selous–Niassa

TFCA on the Tanzania–Mozambique border to substantiate the claim of this paper that

the TFCA idiom of the removal of borders is part of the process that creates space. Once

ISSN 0373-6245 print/ISSN 2151-2418 online

q 2010 Society of South African Geographers

DOI: 10.1080/03736245.2010.525079

http://www.informaworld.com

*Email: [email protected]

South African Geographical Journal

Vol. 92, No. 2, December 2010, 144–159

Downloaded By: [University of Cape Town] At: 03:13 23 November 2010

the space is created, its borders are no less arbitrary in terms of their functions and

impacts.

Creating regions in the borderless world

Ohmae (1993) argues that the late twentieth century has witnessed the emergence of a

‘borderless world’ in which investments, industry, information flow and individuals move

relatively unimpeded across national borders. The borderless thesis suggests that a nation

state has become an unnatural and dysfunctional unit for organizing human activities. That

is, state borders no longer make a difference in the borderless world. What matters on the

global economic system are the regions whose borders are not imposed by political fiat but

by the global market for goods and services. Borders for these regions follow, rather than

precede, real flows of human activity, making them natural economic zones that may or

may not fall within the geographic limits of a particular nation (Ohmae 1993).

Accordingly, the state has ceased to be an institution capable of exerting influences on the

activities of transnational capital (see Yeung 1998).

Border studies run contrary to much of this globalization discourse, arguing that the

borderless thesis mirrors the ‘representation of space’ but its proponents overlook the

underlying relations in its production (Yeung 1998). It is argued that the homogenization

of space by the internationalization of capital creates an inherent tendency towards greater

spatial differentiation and territoriality such that new forms of spatialities have emerged

along with the world of flow (Parker and Vaughan-Williams 2009). Today, a diverse

mosaic of geographical patterns is observed in different spheres of economic and social

life (Yeung 1998), signalling the simultaneous development of ever more bordered worlds

(Tuathail 1999). Therefore, state borders and border regions are indeed transformed in the

global changing context and the regions that straddle state borders have grown in number

and importance, but territorial borders have not become uniformly less salient in the new

world order (Anderson and O’Dowd 1999, Shen 2004, Newman 2006, Agnew 2008,

Diener and Hagen 2009, Paasi 2009, O’Dowd 2010). This reality remains so because

borders shape and are shaped by what they contain, and what crosses or is prevented

from crossing them (Cunningham 2009). The emphasis on making and maintaining

cross-border regions is, therefore, a reflection of a territorialized image of spatiality

(Agnew 2008).

TFCAs centre on the general view of the borderless world albeit with the focus on

creating stand-alone ecological regions across state borders. Precisely, regions are created

by harmonizing the management of protected areas that are in close proximity and yet

separated by international borders (De Villiers 1999, Hanks 2003). From the ecological

perspective, it is argued that state borders have disrupted the natural ecosystem flow.

Closely related to this argument is the narrative that political borders, especially in Africa,

were artificially imposed to serve colonial interests. These borders not only interfered with

ecological systems, but also divided African communities and have been the source of

political instability in the region (Griffiths 1986, Green and Paine 1997). The two

narratives render political borders irrational and their removal through transcending them

with ecological systems holds the potential to restore the ecosystem flow while also

fostering economic integration and promoting peace and cooperation through the

encouragement of inter-state collaboration (PPF 1997, De Villiers 1999, Hanks 2003). By

referring to decolonization and development, the notion of removing borders that

underpins TFCAs is widely shared among politicians and pan-Africanists, ecologists,

tourism industry, and border communities (Ramutsindela 2007).

South African Geographical Journal 145


Spatiality and the definition of nature on which TFCAs are founded rest on the

bioregional planning model, which suggests that ecosystem borders should be defined by

nature (life forms, topography and biota) rather than legislature (Brunckhorst 2000). Based

on the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO) Man

and Biosphere Reserves concept of geographical zoning, the model advocates the

re-establishment of ecological corridors to harmonize legally protected core areas, buffer

zones, and cooperation areas (formerly transition zones; World Conservation Union

(IUCN) 1994, UNESCO 1996, Brunckhorst 2000). As far as possible, buffer zones

surround core areas, provide connectivity in the landscape via ecological corridors, and

function as stand-alone polygons (Ajathi and Krumme 2002, Hilty et al. 2006). This

supports bioregions that cut across scales, international borders, and necessitates

collaboration between states, the private sector, and local communities. By definition, a

bioregion includes areas of land or water whose limits are set by the geographical

distribution of ecological systems (IUCN 1982, Brunckhorst 2000). As such, the

bioregional model presents nature as natural and having de facto divisions.

Critiques from border research have questioned the logic of naturality of ecological

regions, arguing that there is nothing at all natural about borders (Newman 2003, Agnew

2007). Nature itself is not natural but is naturalized through the construction and

de-construction of space to conform to the objectives of various bodies and institutions as

part of the perpetual process of reproducing territorial power (Paasi 2009, Fall 2010). In

this process, nature is used conveniently as a non-spatial concept (for example, when

referring to the biological/physical processes) and a spatial concept (when relating to

specific places such as protected areas or cross-border regions). However, the use of

spatiality and non-spatiality of nature depends on the objectives of those who construct

and use it (Schaffter et al. 2010).

Conceptually, TFCAs are not openly promoted as new regions since doing so would

reveal their spatiality. Instead, the non-spatial aspects of connectivity (ecological, social,

and economic) mask processes that establish them. Yet, the bioregional model suggests

that creating bioregions involves comprehensive spatial processes, which consider human

communities as an intrinsic part of nature. This does not only reflect the shift in the

understanding of nature as non-social and unchanging (Fall 2010), but also the

problematic nature of its borders (Agnew 2007). Besides, literature supports that any

activity that creates space is a fundamental part of the process that produces borders

(Fall 2005, Newman 2006, Ramutsindela 2007). Against this background, this paper

considers TFCAs as a spatial process that, rather than removing borders, creates space and

produces new borders that define their governance. The following section supports this

claim by engaging with the literature on social construction of borders, the spatial and

temporal sophistication of borders and bordering practices.

Border narratives and their relevance to the analysis of TFCAs

Bioregional planning organizes space for a specific goal, which, in the context of this

paper, is the creation of TFCAs. Since the planning follows a defined project, it can partly

be interpreted as an act of border definition (Fall 2003). Hence, the link between

bioregional planning and border creation becomes crucial for understanding cross-border

regions. As the literature indicates, various disciplines understand and treat regions and

borders differently. Precisely, the term border has meant different things to different

people, at different times. In the social science perspective, borders are considered social

phenomena linked to the organization of space and as constituting physical and invisible

146 C. Noe


lines of separation between the social, political and economic spaces (Newman and Paasi

1998, Newman 2006). For example, political scientists consider borders as a reflection of

the nature of power relations and the ability of one group to determine, superimpose and

perpetuate lines of separation, or to remove them, and that is contingent upon the political

environment at any given time (Newman 2006). For international lawyers, borders reflect

the changing nature of sovereignty and the right of states to intervene in the affairs of

neighbouring politico-legal entities (Castellino and Allen 2003). Sociologists and

anthropologists consider borders as indicative of the binary distinctions (us/them,

here/there, inside/outside) between groups at a variety of scales, from the national down to

the personal spaces and territories of the individual (Fall 2005, Newman 2006).

Accordingly, the role of borders in social science has closely been connected with the

ideas of space, territory, territoriality and sovereignty (Fall 2005).

The meaning and role of borders as understood in social science suggest a consensus

that all borders are socially constructed, and that the creation of borders is an instrument of

choice for new strategies of domination (Newman and Paasi 1998, Perkmann and Sum

2002). Accordingly, the creation of borders is not simply the drawing of lines on the map

or the erection of fences in the physical landscape but an act of power (Agnew 1994, Fall

2003, Newman 2006). As such, borders constitute institutions and ideological symbols

that enable legitimation, signification and domination, creating a system of order through

which control can be excised (Blatter 2003, Paasi 2009). Attention should, therefore, be

paid to the border-producing processes. That is, the ways in which borders are demarcated

and managed are central to the notion of a border as a process and institution (Paasi 2009).

The knowledge on the management of border regimes matters, as it is the management that

determines the nature of transborder interactions. In other words, the demarcation and

management of borders are closely linked to each other. The former (the process of

demarcation) determines the way in which the latter (the management of borders) is put

into effect (Newman and Paasi 1998, Fall 2003).

Understanding borders as a social construct challenges the impression created by

ecologists that African state borders are physical objects that need to be removed to

support ecosystem flows. As such, this way of thinking questions the lack of

acknowledgement of the non-physical presence of borders – not only for states but also for

protected areas and the institutions those create and manage them. African studies have

documented that state borders are not all marked by fences (Nugent and Asiwaju 1996,

Asiwaju 2003, Ramutsindela 2007). The European partition of Africa splits well-

established lines of social communication into two or more colonies and later independent

successor states whose borders were mostly defined in treaties and delimited on maps but

not demarcated on the ground (Asiwaju 1985, Griffiths 1986, Ramutsindela 1999). Indeed,

Griffiths (1996) suggests that 45% of African borders follow rivers or watersheds and half

of their lengths are straight lines, arcs of circles or related to roads. Most of the rivers and

watersheds are small or seasonal and can easily be crossed on foot. Roads are also readily

crossed. Overall, physical walls and fences are comparatively unusual type of borders in

the modern world (Griffiths 1996, Asiwaju 2003). As elsewhere, African borders are,

therefore, permeable and migratory species of wildlife as well as border communities have

tended to ignore the borders as dividing lines; people cross borders as in days before the

partition. From the viewpoint of border society’s life in many parts of Africa, for example

the partition can hardly be said to have taken place (Asiwaju 1985). The foregoing

literature point to the fact that even if Africa is redrawn based on ecological systems and

social realities, for example new borders would emerge which are no less arbitrary in terms

of both their origin and consequences (Nugent and Asiwaju 1996). Colonial borders are,



therefore, only one aspect of Africa’s inherited political geography (Griffiths 1986). As

Ramutsindela (1999) implies, a narrow view of these borders as physical lines of

separation limits the understanding of how borders are constructed and de-constructed in

the perpetual process of reproducing territorial power.

Overall, border studies support that the re-definition of space and its governance

facilitates the reallocation of rights by restricting access to that space by some actors. As

argued by others, local communities that often lack property rights in Africa are the most

affected (Dowie 2009, Shivji 2009). Nature as defined and valued by its local dependents

continues to undergo transformation to satisfy the preferences of its distant well-meaning

consumers (Ficklin 2008, Dowie 2009). Indeed, the broader political and economic

perspective of TFCAs fosters the neo-liberalization of nature (Spierenburg et al. 2008,

Buscher 2010), which is well known to be inherently unequal (Harvey 2001, Castree

2008). The following section demonstrates how the TFCA process in southern Tanzania

simultaneously results into the creation of new borders that re-define access and use of

land by different actors.

Experience from the Selous–Niassa TFCA

This section provides empirical insights to clarify the TFCA spatial processes using the

Selous–Niassa TFCA across the Tanzania–Mozambique border. The TFCA links the

Selous Game Reserve (SGR) in southern Tanzania and the Niassa Game Reserve (NGR) in

northern Mozambique (see Figure 1). However, the Selous–Niassa TFCA depends

entirely on the establishment of a wildlife corridor (herein the Selous–Niassa wildlife

corridor (SNWC)) across village lands in Tunduru and Namtumbo districts. In this case,

the TFCA activities center upon the corridor creation. It is worth noting that the Tanzania–

Mozambique border is the Ruvuma River and that the SNWC is located entirely on the

Tanzanian side since the river is also the northern border for the NGR. The fieldwork that

supports this article was conducted in 2007 and 2008 in the area of the corridor in Tunduru

and Namtumbo districts, but the analysis of social realities and ecological systems

considers the cross-border interaction.

Twenty-nine villages are located within the area of the corridor but only 12, which

extend southwards to the international border, were selected for this research. The

selection of the villages was based on their level of involvement in the corridor project and

their proximity to the international border (see Figure 2). Details of how the villages are

involved in the project and the implications on land uses are provided later in this paper.

Important to note here is that qualitative interviews constituted the main thrust of data

collection. These interviews captured local border narratives, the process of establishing

the corridor, and its impacts on village land uses. The interviews mainly targeted villagers,

government officials, donors, consultants, and experts who are directly involved in the

establishment of the corridor. Other sources of data included the SNWC project files, maps

as well as the Memorandum of Understanding between Tanzania and Mozambique.

As implied earlier, the SNWC is established across village lands that extends over

8000 km2 from the SGR to the Ruvuma River (Baldus and Hahn 2004, Baldus et al. 2004).

In terms of the biological distinctiveness index of ecoregions, this area is classified as

locally important and globally outstanding, thus making its conservation of global

significance (Burgess et al. 2004). Notwithstanding the biological distinctiveness, the area

is a home to ‘approximately 70,000 people’ (InWent and GTZ 2007, p. 18) whose rate of

dependency on natural resources is acknowledged to be ‘very high’ (InWent and GTZ

2007, Schuerholz and Baldus 2007). Precisely, about 97% of villagers have crop

148 C. Noe


cultivation as their main occupation, while others are involved in petty businesses (mostly

on food grains and charcoal; Noe 2009). Nevertheless, the SNWC project is set to create

the largest TFCA in Africa (after the GLTFP; Schuerholz and Baldus 2007). Before

getting into the details of how the corridor is created, the following subsections will

provide some background on ecological and social interactions in the area, particularly in

relation to the across border movements. The aim is to demonstrate how the idea of

re-establishing connectivity is found on the conception of African state borders as physical

fences and the way this is adopted to support the establishment of TFCAs even where there

are no such fences.

Local narratives about people and their borders

Historically, the district of Namtumbo (formally part of Songea) was among the first

settlements and an indigenous home for Wandendeule. Between 1840 and 1862, Wangoni

migrated into the area following Shaka’s rise to power and the growth of the Zulu nation in

South Africa (Popplewell and Harcus 1938, Gulliver 1974). The Wangoni fought for

control over the region and its people; thus, some indigenous people were colonized and

Figure 1. Location of the SNWC and the TFCA.



integrated into the newly established Ngoni kingdom, while others fled to the neighbouring

districts of Tunduru, Masasi, and Liwale (Gulliver 1974). Popplewell and Harcus (1938)

suggest also that around 1900s, groups of Wahyao, Wamakonde, Wangindo, and

Wamakua crossed the Ruvuma River from Mozambique and settled in Tunduru district.

Figure 2. Villages in the area of the SNWC. The villages selected for the study were Milonji, Lusewa,Ligunga, Matepwende, Msisima, Amani, Magazini, Lingusenguse, Molandi, Marumba, and Misyaji.

150 C. Noe


Although different ethnic groups had settled permanently across the river by the nineteenth

century, each group had its history of migration. For example, Wahyao bear the title of

Wahyao-Masininga, which is the name of a hill on the borders of Nyasaland (now Malawi)

where they originally migrated. Narratives from elderly people who remain in the area

support this history. Among them is a historian in the regional museum in Songea who

narrates that,

. . .Chief Mtalika and his people crossed the Ruvuma river from Lichinga in Mozambique andsettled in Masasi. Chief Satia led his people from Nampula in the eastern Mozambique andsettled in present day Masasi. These two groups are today Wamakua tribe. Chief Kundenda,Mataka and Mtarika led Wahyao from Lichinga in Mozambique and settled in Tunduru whileWangoni is a group of Zulu people from South Africa who came through Zimbabwe. Thisgroup crossed Limpopo and Zambezi rivers to the northern Mozambique and later crossedRuvuma river and settled in the marshlands now called Songea in Tanzania. (Interview, SwediSanangula 5/9/2007)

This narrative is confirmed further by the personal history of Mohammed Mikonga

. . . a recent history is Mozambique but my ancestors came from Nyasaland where they fled afamily clash . . .They settled in Mozambique for a long time until the Portuguese came andcaused many problems. Due to these problems, Mataka moved with some people and settledin Tunduru. Later my father Kwizombe crossed the river from Mozambique and settled inTanzania in 1933 when I was six years old. (Interview 8/11/2007)

Recently, research established that these cross-border movements continue and communities

maintain good ties by participating in different social and economic activities such as

weddings, initiations, and funerals to mention a few (InWent and GTZ 2007). This study

confirmed the ongoing cross-border movements through interviews conducted in villages

immediately bordering Mozambique. Among others, the interview with the Matepwende

Village Council is summarized as follows:

. . . it depends on the water level we cross the river freely during the dry season because thewater level is low. We have relatives to visit . . .we still speak Kihyao . . . It is only yesterdaythat Mhyao from Mozambique married from this village. We did not need a passport to go andcelebrate the wedding, so the border is not a problem unless one needs to go further in thecountry . . . (Interview 7/11/2007)

Two elements of the above stories have particular relevance to the border discussions of

the area. First, the present southern Tanzania and northern Mozambique functioned as one

unit before colonialism. Literature supports further that even during colonial

administration the movement of people between Niassa hinterlands and Tanzania

continued and it was neither officially approved nor viewed as undesirable, thus making it

a spontaneous international migration zone (Redmond 1975, Alpers 1984). In 1922, for

example a significant number of Wamakua, Wayao, and Wamakonde from Mozambique

were recorded in Tanzania (Alpers 1984). Second, different ethnic groups moved and

settled where they are today, because there were no obstructions to their movements; they

crossed rivers and valleys not as borders but as part of the landscape. When the Portugal

and German colonial administrations signed the declaration to use the course of Ruvuma

River as an international border on 30 December 1886 (Thomas 1951), it meant that local

people who remained in Mozambique were officially Mozambicans and those who had

crossed the river assumed a Tanzanian identity even though they belonged to the same

ethnic group. However, the border status assigned to the river and the new nationalities

that emerged from it did not fundamentally change the perception of the river by the

border communities. For many, the international border remains a natural feature that

predates colonialism and as it was, is seldom an obstacle for people’s movements.



The popular perception that colonial borders divided contemporary African

communities does not conform to the local realities in southern Tanzania and northern

Mozambique. Local narratives challenge the view that borders disrupted social relations. It

is implied that rather than borders per se, colonial policies that continue to influence land

ownership and control are responsible for the present divisions. Mamdani has consistently

used this argument to explain ethnic violence in rural areas in Africa and the recent

conflicts in Darfur (Mamdani 1996, 2009). Yet, TFCAs are far from promoting local land

administrations that could genuinely re-unite border communities. As the following sub-

section suggests, the Selous–Niassa TFCA has created an ecological region and borders

that have potentials to promote further division and displacement of border communities.

Wildlife corridor and the emergence of new borders

Historically, the Germany colonial government established the SGR as a hunting reserve

in 1905 (Baldus 2001). In 1922, the British colonial government that took over the

territory in the aftermath of the First World War upgraded the status of the area to that of a

game reserve. Like elsewhere in the country, both administrations did not erect fences for

wildlife, which allowed for the expansions that gave the SGR its status as the largest

protected area in Tanzania. The reserve covers about 6% of the country’s total landmass

and is said to contain the largest elephant population in Africa (Baldus and Hahn 2004). In

1982, the SGR was designated a World Heritage Site on UNESCO’s criteria IX and X

(representing significant natural habitats for in situ conservation of biological diversity;

IUCN 1982). As it is for the SGR, the NGR of Mozambique is acknowledged for its large

animal concentration and representation of pristine wilderness of Africa (Baldus and Hahn

2004). The reserve was established in 1954, but it was abandoned during the civil wars in

the 1970s and the 1980s, resulting in the areas opening up for the re-establishment of

settlements. After signing the Nkomati Peace Accord in 1992, the Mozambican

government let the public–private partnership to manage the reserve (Graham 2005). As

for the SGR, the NGR administration did not erect fences.

Studies on wildlife have also verified the sustained migration between the Selous and

Niassa reserves through village lands in Tanzania (Baldus and Hahn 2004, Mpanduji

and Ngomello 2007). In fact, these studies justified the SNWC project. Ideally, Tanzania

represents a case where, until recently, communal lands formed de facto wildlife corridors.

Put differently, there have not been borders demarcated for wildlife corridors prior to

1990s (United Republic of Tanzania (URT) 1998). Wildlife migration took place in village

lands and the country’s land ownership system gave Village Councils the power to oversee

and manage natural resources in their jurisdictions. In the wake of the debates about the

role of ecological corridors in landscape connectivity coupled with their promotion as

natural and necessary (Goldman 2009), village lands where wildlife migration occurred

became essential for supporting the objectives of different conservation projects. Policy

reforms that followed in mid-1990s adopted community-based conservation (CBC) as a

strategy for protecting wildlife in village lands. Specific bioregional projects such as

TFCAs have since then used CBC to design and establish wildlife corridors in village

lands throughout the country.

As an initial support for the SNWC, the German Technical Agency (GTZ), German

Development Bank (KfW), and the Global Environmental Facility/United Nations

Development Programme (GEF/UNDP) mobilized funding for the creation and protection

of an officially recognized wildlife corridor in the early 2000. Using CBC, donors

facilitated Village Councils to plan their land uses in a way that could create wildlife

152 C. Noe


conservation areas. Wildlife areas of one or more villages form a Wildlife Management

Area (WMA), which is entrusted to the community-based organization (URT 2003). The

analysis of the process that establishes WMAs and their governance is beyond the scope of

this paper. What I provide here is the analysis of how, once established, WMAs create the

SNWC and its borders. Figure 3 indicates that five WMAs (namely Mbarang’andu, Nalika,

Chingoli, Kisungule and Kimbanda) are established across the village lands in Selous–

Niassa area. Until 2008, these WMAs had formed a wildlife zone, which is essentially the

SNWC.

Conceptually, the process of merging WMAs represents a scenario where particular

types of borders are removed, while others are erected. Figure 3 illustrates how once

Figure 3. WMAs that form the SNWC across village lands.Source: Modified from Schuerholz and Bossen (2005, p. 2).



WMAs are merged to create a single unit, village borders that transcend them cease to

function and new borders re-define the new space. As such, WMAs are merged precisely

on the border between the Namtumbo and Tunduru districts, thereby forming the corridor

that transcends the district border. This way, the district border is silenced to allow for the

re-definition of borders that transcend the district jurisdictions. In this case, local land uses

and administrative borders are removed, while the drawing of the SNWC borders follows

immediately thereafter. The corridor represents a supra-district space whose borders and

governance are no longer influenced by those of villages or district councils.

Apparently, Village Councils consented to set aside WMAs in anticipation of the

control of wildlife in village lands as stipulated in the country’s wildlife policy of 1998.

Recently, however, the government accorded WMAs a legal protection making them a new

category of protected areas (URT 2004, 2007). Notably, the WMAs and, in this case, the

wildlife corridor have become a ‘restricted zone’ for villagers since they no longer fall

under the control of Village Councils but under the Ministry of Natural Resources and

Tourism. Evidently, a letter of 29 June 2006 from the SNWC project technical advisor,

Mr Rudolf Hahn, directed the government to denounce settlements in the core areas of the

SNWC saying, ‘the government should facilitate the realization of the SNWC by relocating

settlements and farms in the core areas of the project’ (Hahn 2006). By 23 July 2008, the

District Councils had instructed villages to keep the core area free from human activities

(including crop cultivation and the collection of forest resource; Mali 2008). My visit to

three settlements within the said core wildlife area, namely Mwembenyani, Bwawa la Jiwe,

and Semeni confirmed that they were in different stages of relocation. These relocations –

whether voluntarily or forcefully – is a reflection of border redefinition, which is mundane

to the space creation processes. As Abasi Matomola implies, these processes have changed

powers, have control over village lands, and have displaced people and their traditional

practices than the state border.

. . . Selous has come to our backyards. Wildlife feeds on our gardens and granaries. We can donothing to elephants eating in our farms and granaries nor a lion taking a child from the house.Our roles as village men are reduced to shouting . . .Does shouting scare an elephant enjoyingthe cassava meal or a lion that is about to feast? (Interview 7/11/2007)

This study confirms the emergence of new borders as demonstrated by new maps that

describe the extent of wildlife land uses in areas that had not had such land uses before.

The creation of the corridor has made borders between people and wildlife as well as those

between the management institutions mandatory. Moreover, the completion of the SNWC,

which is scheduled for 2011, will be a major step toward the creation of the link between

the corridor borders and those of the two game reserves to define the Selous–Niassa TFCA

(GTZ-IS 2007, KfW 2007). This underpins the argument of this paper that the ‘cutting

off the fence’ reifies state borders and attempts to naturalize TFCAs but that does not

render them borderless. Haywarda and Kerley (2009) support this further when arguing

that once an area is set aside for biodiversity, fences are useful for achieving conservation

objectives. Fences for conservation, as in other settings, are not necessarily physical

structures; they can be non-physical including sound, smoke, or even smell but perform

the same function as borders (Haywarda and Kerley 2009). Borders are considered

important in defining conservation units for managers and separate biodiversity from

threatening processes including human persecution. To return to the main point, the TFCA

fence idiom has supported the re-organization and removal of what is perceived as

obstacles to the creation of the required space, which happens to be people and their

livelihood activities. Although new borders remain only on maps and wild animals

154 C. Noe


continue to cross them into the remaining village lands, they support the objectives of

establishing the TFCA. On the villager’s side, as the clip below suggests, the new borders

are politics that seek to create barriers for ‘some’ while giving ‘others’ and wildlife

freedom of use

. . . borders are politics and politics are not for animals but people. Since my childhood, therehave not been borders to stop elephants from moving from one forest to another when theyneeded to it doesn’t matter for them if they were Mozambicans or Tanzanians. Animals aremany in the farms as we speak. Did they not leave the so-called ‘corridor’? Who punishesthem for trespassing? . . . these borders are for us . . . to restrict us from going there . . .(Interview, Abraham Cosmas 5/8/2008)

Untouched borders in TFCAs

The creation of new space makes borders far more than just an issue of a geographic

borderline (Sassen 2005) to include institutions, which create a system of order through

which control is excised (Blatter 2003). As Spierenburg and Wels (2006) argue, space is

power, and space is created through the exercise of power. This makes legible, the fact,

that the transformation of space is neither neutral nor innocent with respect to practices of

domination and control (Harvey 1996). Yet, the discussion about institutional borders in

TFCAs is so far unpopular in the literature. This research ascertains that borders exist even

within TFCA institutions. For example, the GTZ, GEF/UNDP, and KfW’s support for the

Selous–Niassa TFCA do not extend beyond the Tanzania–Mozambique border. Rather,

the Fauna and Flora International facilitates activities on the Mozambican side albeit with

the same goal of establishing the Selous–Niassa TFCA (GEF/UNDP 2004). At the

regional level, the PPF that pioneered TFCAs in southern Africa has not so far facilitated

any in east Africa. In admitting the existence of this border, the Selous–Niassa TFCA

expert explains that

. . . the SNWC project is not related to PPF . . . the SNWC and what PPF does are completelydifferent things . . . (Interview, Rudolf Hahn 12/9/2007)

Perhaps the position of the Selous–Niassa TFCA should offer a different perspective

on borders in TFCA research. That is, the Ruvuma River is not only the colonial border

between Tanzania and Mozambique, but also a regional border between southern and

eastern Africa. The regional border was set in the 1960s when the Southern African

Development Community and the East African Community were formed. Even though

TFCAs advocate for regional integration, its proponents do not temper with Tanzania–

Mozambique as a regional border. Instead, they keep this border uninterrupted, because

they do not advocate for conservation areas that are transregional. In my view, however,

the current use of this border by the proponents of TFCAs echoes the colonial history and

it serves the same purpose as borders that divided Africa among different colonial powers,

namely the territorialization.

Conclusion

The Selous–Niassa TFCA serves as a useful example for demonstrating the TFCA spatial

processes and the ways they change the importance of state borders even where the actual

geographic lines that demarcate states cannot be altered. More importantly, this paper

confirms how the TFCA process re-organizes space and creates new types of borders,

which continue to control access and use of land by local actors. Although new borders are

mundane to the space creation processes, they have generally remained unpopular in the

TFCA discussions. To ignore these new borders is, however, to ignore the emerging



meanings attached to the evolving cross-border spaces and institutions (Ramutsindela

1998). The Selous–Niassa TFCA has produced two border outcomes: the removal of sub-

national borders and the creation of new borders for the TFCA. Conceptually, the

suggestion that state borders should be removed while ignoring the emergence of new

borders points to the need for understanding how borders are continuously naturalized and

denaturalized to conform with the objectives of those who construct them (Shen 2004, Fall

2010, Jones 2010). Therefore, as Fall (2010) observes, the focus on the removal of borders

rather than the logics of enclosures that ecologists seek to perpetuate will limit the analysis

of how cross-border regions produce new borders and what their implications are.

Acknowledgements

Research for this paper was conducted with financial support from the University Science,Humanities, Law and Engineering Partnership in Africa (USHEPiA). Without this support thecompletion of this paper would have been difficult. An earlier version of this paper was presented atthe conference of the Association of American Geographers, 2010. Thanks to all who made thecomments and to the anonymous reviewers for helpful suggestions on reworking this paper.

References

Agnew, J., 1994. The territorial trap: the geographical assumptions of international relations theory.Review of International Political Economy, 1, 53–80.

Agnew, J., 2007. No borders, no nations: making Greece in Macedonia. Annals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers, 97, 398–422.

Agnew, J., 2008. Borders on the mind: re-framing border thinking. Ethics and Global Politics, 1,175–191.

Ajathi, H. and Krumme, K., 2002. Ecosystem-based conservation strategies for protected areas inSavanna: with special reference to East Africa. Essen: University of Essen.

Alpers, E., 1984. “To seek a better life:” the implications of migration from Mozambique toTanganyika for class formation and political behavior. Canadian Journal of African Studies, 18,367–388.

Anderson, J. and O’Dowd, L., 1999. Borders, border regions and territoriality: contradictorymeanings, changing significance. Regional Studies, 33, 593–604.

Asiwaju, A., ed., 1985. Partitioned Africans: ethnic relations across Africa’s internationalboundaries 1884–1984. London: Hurst & Co.

Asiwaju, A., 2003. Boundaries and African integration: essays in comparative history and policyanalysis. Lagos: Panaf Publishing, Inc.

Baldus, D., 2001. Wildlife conservation in Tanganyika under German colonial rule. Munich:Internationales Afrikaforum.

Baldus, R. and Hahn, R., 2004. Connecting the world’s largest elephant ranges. AfricanConservation Papers. Available from: www.africanconservation.org [Accessed 12 July 2007].

Baldus, R., Kaggi, D. and Ngoti, P., 2004. Community-based conservation: where are we now, whereare we going? Dar es Salaam: Miombo-Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania.

Blatter, J., 2003. Beyond hierarchies and networks: institutional logics and change in trans-boundarypolitical spaces during the 20th century. Governance – an International Journal of Policy andAdministration, 16, 503–526.

Brunckhorst, D., 2000. Bioregionalism planning: resource management beyond the NewMillennium. London: Routledge.

Burgess, N., et al., 2004. Terrestrial ecoregions of Africa and Madagasca: a conservationassessment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Buscher, B., 2010. Seeking ‘telos’ in the ‘transfrontier’? Neoliberalism and the transcending ofcommunity conservation in Southern Africa. Environment and Planning A, 42, 644–660.

Castellino, J. and Allen, S., 2003. Title to territory in international law: a temporal analysis. LeidenJournal of International Law, 17, 211–216.

Castree, N., 2008. Neoliberalising nature: processes, effects, and evaluations. Environment andPlanning A, 40, 153–173.

156 C. Noe


Cunningham, H., 2009. Mobilities and enclosures after Seattle: politicizing borders in a ‘borderless’world. Dialectical Anthropology, 33, 143–156.

De Villiers, B., 1999. Peace parks. The way ahead. Pretoria: Human Sciences Research Council.Diener, A. and Hagen, J., 2009. Theorizing borders in a ‘borderless world’: globalization, territory

and identity. Geography Compass, 3, 1196–1216.Dowie, M., 2009. Conservation refugees: the hundred-year conflict between global conservation

and native people. Cambridge: MIT Press.Fall, J., 2003. Planning protected areas across boundaries: new paradigms and old ghosts. Journal of

Sustainable Forestry, 17, 81–102.Fall, J., 2005. Drawing the line; nature, hybridity and politics in transboundary spaces. Burlington,

VT: Ashgate.Fall, J., 2010. Artificial states? On the enduring geographical myth of natural borders. Political

Geography, 29, 127–186.Ficklin, L., 2008. Ecotourism, NGOs and development: a critical analysis. Progress in Human

Geography, 32, 584–586.GEF/UNDP, 2004. The development and management of the Selous–Niassa wildlife corridor in

Tanzania. Memo on the Draft Medium-Sided Project brief of 13 November 2003, Washington,DC.

Goldman, M., 2009. Constructing connectivity: conservation corridors and conservation politics inEast African rangelands. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99, 335–359.

Graham, S., 2005. Pre-feasibility and environmental baseline study for the Ruvuma interface. Dar esSalaam: GTZ-Community Wildlife Management and Mtwara Development CorridorSecretariat.

Green, M. and Paine, J., 1997. State of the world’s protected areas at the end of the twentieth century.Paper presented at the symposium on protected areas in the 21st century: from islands tonetworks, 24–29 November. Albany: World Conservation Union (IUCN) Commission onProtected Areas.

Griffiths, I., 1986. The scramble for Africa: inherited political boundaries. Geographical Journal,152, 204–216.

Griffiths, I., 1996. Permiable boundaries in Africa. In: P. Nugent and A. Asiwaju, eds. Africanboundaries: barriers, conduits and opportunities. London: Pinter, 68–83.

GTZ-IS, 2007. Training on new land acts and their implications on land/water management andconservation efforts in Selous–Niassa wildlife corridor in Namtumbo and Tunduru districts. Dares Salaam: GTZ-IS.

Gulliver, P., 1974. Political evolution in the Songea Ngoni chiefdoms, 1850–1905. Bulletin of theSchool of Oriental and African Studies, 37, 82–97.

Hahn, R., 2006. Unplanned settlements in the core area of the Selous–Niassa wildlife corridor inNamtumbo district. Letter to the District Executive Director, Ref. SNWC/02, 29 June,Namtumbo.

Hanks, J., 2003. Transfrontier conservation areas in southern Africa: their role in conservingbiodiversity, socio-economic development and promoting a culture of peace. Journal ofSustainable Forestry, 17, 127–148.

Harvey, D., 1996. Justice, nature and the geography of difference. Oxford: Blackwell.Harvey, D., 2001. Spaces of capital: towards a critical geography. New York: Routledge.Haywarda, M. and Kerley, G., 2009. Fencing for conservation: restriction of evolutionary potential

or a riposte to threatening processes? Biological Conservation, 142, 1–13.Hilty, J., Lidicker, W. and Merenlender, A., 2006. Corridors ecology: the science and practice of

linking landscapes for biodiversity conservation. London: Island Press.InWent & GTZ, 2007. Tanzania and Mozambique cross-border dialogue. Report on the Second

Multsakeholder Workshop of Environment and Conservation Working Group, 20 January,Mtwara.

Jones, R., 2010. The spatiality of boundaries. Progress in Human Geography, 34, 263–267.KfW, 2007. Mission report on German-Tanzania financial cooperation: Selous–Niassa protection

corridor and game protection and buffer zone development in Katavi Rukwa. Dar es Salaam:KfW.

Maliasili–Tunduru, 2008. Uzuiaji wa shughuli za kilimo na makazi kwenye eneo la ushoroba. Letterfrom the District Natural Resources Office to the Huria Village Council, Tunduru. Ref.GD/W/21, 23 July, Tunduru.



Mamdani, M., 1996. Citizens and subjects: contemporary Africa and the legacy of Late Colonialism.Kampala: Fountain Publishers.

Mamdani, M., 2009. Saviours and survivors. Darfur, politics and the war on terror. Pretoria: HumanSciences Research Council.

Michler, I., 2003. Bring down the fences. Africa Geographic, 80, 79–84.Mpanduji, D. and Ngomello, K., 2007. Elephant movements and home range determinations using

GPS/ARGOS satellites and GIS programme: implication to conservation in southern Tanzania.Paper presented at the 6th TAWIRI Annual Scientific Conference, (3–6 December), Arusha.

Newman, D., 2003. On borders and power: a theoretical framework. Journal of Borderlands Studies,18, 13–25.

Newman, D., 2006. The lines that continue to separate us: borders in our ‘borderless’ world.Progress in Human Geography, 30, 143–161.

Newman, D. and Paasi, A., 1998. Fences and neighbors in the post-modern world: boundarynarratives in political geography. Progress in Human Geography, 22, 186–207.

Noe, C., 2009. Bioregional planning in southeastern Tanzania: the Selous–Niassa corridor as aprism for transfrontier conservation areas. Unpublished PhD thesis. Cape Town, University ofCape Town.

Nugent, P. and Asiwaju, A., eds, 1996. African boundaries: barriers, conduits and opportunities.London: Pinter.

O’Dowd, L., 2010. From a ‘borderless world’ to a ‘world of borders’: ‘bringing history back in’.Environment and Planning D: Society and Space Advance Online Publication, doi:10.1068/d2009.

Ohmae, K., 1993. The rise of the region state. Foreign Affairs, 72, 78–87.Paasi, A., 2009. Bounded spaces in a ‘borderless world’: border studies, power and the anatomy of

territory. Journal of Power, 2, 213–234.Parker, N. and Vaughan-Williams, N., 2009. Lines in the sand? Towards an agenda for critical

border studies. Geopolitics, 14, 582–587.Peace Parks Foundation (PPF), 1997. Annual report. Stellenbosch.Peace Parks Foundation (PPF), 2002. Annual report. Stellenbosch.Perkmann, M. and Sum, N., 2002. Globalization, regionalization and cross-border regions: scales,

discourses and governance. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Popplewell, G. and Harcus, T., 1938. Notes on the geography of the Tunduru district of Tanganyika

territory. Geographical Journal, 91, 31–43.Ramutsindela, M., 1998. The changing meanings of South Africa’s internal boundaries. Area, 30,

291–299.Ramutsindela, M., 1999. African boundaries and their interpreters. Geopolitics, 4, 180–198.Ramutsindela, M., 2007. Transfrontier conservation areas. At the confluence of capital, politics and

nature. Wallingford: CABI.Redmond, P., 1975. Maji Maji in Ungoni: a reappraisal of existing historiography. The International

Journal of African Historical Studies, 8, 407–424.Sassen, S., 2005. When national territory is home to the global: old borders to novel borderings. New

Political Economy, 10, 523–541.Schaffter, M., Fall, J. and Debarbieux, B., 2010. Unbounded boundary studies and collapsed

categories: rethinking spatial objects. Progress in Human Geography, 34, 254–262.Schuerholz, G. and Bossen, B., 2005. Feasibility study for Selous–Niassa ecological corridor.

Natumbo: German Technical Agency (GTZ)/SNWC.Schuerholz, G. and Baldus, R., 2007. Community based wildlife management in support of

transfrontier conservation: the Selous–Niassa and Kawango Upper Zambezi challenges. Paperpresented at Parks, Peace and Partnership Conference, 9–12 September, Alberta.

Shen, J., 2004. Review on: globalization, regionalization and cross-border regions. In: MarkusPerkmann and Ngai-ling Sum, eds. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, 266 pp. PoliticalGeography, 23, 637–639.

Shivji, I., 2009. Where is uhuru? Reflections on the struggle for democracy in Africa. Cape Town:Pambazuka Press.

Spierenburg, M. and Wels, H., 2006. Securing space. Mapping and fencing in transfrontierconservation in southern Africa. Space and Culture, 9, 294–312.

158 C. Noe


Spierenburg, M., Steenkamp, C. and Wels, H., 2008. Enclosing the local for the global commons:community land rights in the Great Limpopo transfrontier conservation area. Conservation andSociety, 6, 87–97.

Thomas, H., 1951. The Kionga triangle. Tanganyika Notes and Records, 31, 47–50.Tuathail, G., 1999. Borderless worlds? Problematising discourses of deterritorialisation. Geopolitics,

4, 139–154.United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO), 1996. Biosphere

reserves: the seville strategy and the statutory framework of the world network. Paris: UNESCO.United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 1998. National wildlife policy. Dar es Salaam: Ministry of

Natural Resources and Tourism.United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 2003. Reference manual for implementing guidelines for the

designation and management of wildlife management areas (WMAs) in Tanzania. Dar esSalaam: Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.

United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 2004. Wildlife Act 2004. Final draft. Dar es Salaam: Ministry ofNatural Resources and Tourism-Wildlife Division.

United Republic of Tanzania (URT), 2007. The wildlife policy of Tanzania. Revised. Dar es Salaam:Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism.

World Conservation Union (IUCN), 1982. World heritage nomination number 199: Selous gamereserve in Tanzania. Technical Review. Gland: IUCN.

World Conservation Union (IUCN), 1994. Guidelines for protected area management categories.Gland: IUCN.

Yeung, H., 1998. Capital, state and space: contesting the borderless world. Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers, 23, 291–309.



PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Spatiality and 'borderlessness' in transfrontier conservation areas

Documents

Transcript of PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Spatiality and 'borderlessness' in transfrontier conservation areas