The proposed 'Four-Corners Trans-Frontier Conservation Area' is complex (Martin 2002a).To develop institutions involving not only the national governments of five countries (Angola, Botswana, Naimbia, Zambia and Zimbabwe) but also the other primary stakeholders is a task made more complicated by the different legal systems and institutional approaches which have already evolved in each country. The larger vision of a trans-frontier area, whilst being recognised as an ultimate goal, should be preceded by the building of a number of incremental initiatives aimed at collaboration between Namibia and its neighbours.

• Agreement on management measures which are beneficial to buffalo, will pave the way for consideration of other shared species populations and broader ecological issues.
• A primary objective for Namibia is the avoidance of fragmented buffalo populations either through veterinary control measures or through the spread of unplanned settlement in the Caprivi. A secondary objective is the increase of buffalo numbers for both economic and conservation reasons.
  

• Figure 12: Present regional distribution of buffalo

  A key issue is the scale at which buffalo management needs to be addressed. At this stage, insufficient data exists to delineate any discrete buffalo subpopulation within the 4-corners TBNRM area and therefore, buffalo need to be considered over a regional range extending from the Caprivi into Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana (Figure 12).
  
• Such a large range extends well beyond the State protected area system in all countries and demands the involvement of local communities. Progress towards the empowerment of local communities to manage wildlife on their own lands in both Botswana and Namibia is well advanced but institutional developments are required to address ecological issues which transcend the scale of local community institutions (Murphree 2000).

• Figure 18: Institution for Botswana-Namibia wildlife management

  The issue is not limited to local community institutions but should include the other primary stakeholders. Governments and communities in both countries need to create the appropriate national level forums to take the issue forward to an international level (Figure 18).

A Notional Transboundary Institution

Following the completion of the background study on buffalo (Martin 2002b), the Ministry of the Environment, the Namibia Nature Foundation, the WWF LIFE Programme and the Botswana Department of Wildlife and National Parks initiated the first step towards collaboration by holding a workshop in Kasane, Botswana, at the end of November 2002 to discuss specific areas of co-operation with regard to buffalo and to consider further wildlife species which merited joint management. A second workshop was held in the last week of September 2003 to discuss the management plan for roan, sable and tsessebe.

A notional institution for collaboration between Botswana and Namibia was presented at the the first workshop for discussion purposes (Figure 18). The design of the institution was specifically aimed at the matching of ecological, functional and jurisdictional scales as outlined by Murphree (2000):

1. The entire institutional edifice needs a sound foundation of strongly empowered local community jurisdictions;
2. Each community institution must delegate some of its powers to a higher level institution which embraces representatives from all of the separate institutions in the bottom tier (Murphree's principle of "delegated aggregation");
3. The higher level institution is directly accountable to the constituency which empowered it (Murphree's principle of "constituent accountability");
4. Thirdly, the resulting institutions should be no larger than needed to address a particular problem (Murphree's principle of "jurisdictional parsimony").

The initial focus of the institution was on the Caprivi but it was agreed to take into account stakeholders on either side of the north-south international border in the region of Khaudum and Nyae Nyae Conservancy. A key question is whether at the international level (i.e. between Botswana and Namibia) representation will be confined to government representatives or whether other primary stakeholders will participate, i.e. local community representatives from both countries. The proposal in Figure 18 is that local communities should be represented but, ultimately, the decision on this issue lies between the two governments.

It could be argued that many more parties should participate in the final bilateral forum including more senior government representatives. In line with both governments' efforts to decentralise, it seems more logical that this forum be treated as a technical and advisory panel which reports back to the relevant ministries on matters which may require high level decisions. If the principles of delegation upwards and accountability downwards are adhered to, there is no reason why all of the representatives at the national level cannot report back their particular constituencies rather than overload the international forum with unnecessary numbers. Finally, if it is agreed between the two delegations, there is no reason why any observers who may contribute to the discussion are not invited to the forum.