Collaboratively plan and manage PAs and natural resources

Natural systems are not restricted to national boundaries and should be the foundation for regional development across borders, providing opportunities for political, technical and cultural collaboration leading to mutual economic gains. The partnership in the lower Mekong region united four member states, and expanded to embrace upper Mekong countries, and it provided the framework for focused conservation agreements between the countries.

 

Member states began by conducting national reviews of resources and policies, involving cross-sectoral working groups of PA agencies, economic planning and finance bodies, development sectors, and conservation organizations. National reviews directed a regional action plan to determine how much and which parts of the region should be kept in its natural state for the best development outcomes. Member states collaborated in reviewing issues requiring shared management, and adopted the same goals and objectives to facilitate comparative analysis and regional collaboration. The national reviews laid the foundation of information and directions the governments of the region wish to take, and the results will be integrated into the policies, programs and practice of each country and of their international partners.

 

Collaborators should have common goals and objectives, and all members should benefit equally from agreements reached. Additionally, agreements should be formed in a way that allows them to be updated to account for the rapidly changing state of the environment and human development.

Lessons learned to overcome different development priorities:

  • The four countries do not have similar development progress, objectives and priorities. Thailand, for example, is more developed and conservation focused in comparison to Cambodia, where economic development is a priority. These differences have to be recognised to ensure that national development goals and priorities align with shared goals and objectives to collaboratively plan and manage PAs.  This required intensive consultation, discussion and negotiation.

Lessons learned to overcome differences in PA management authority and capacity in developing collaborative plans:

  • Lessons in resolving potential contradictions between developing (or difficulties in implementing) a national government level collaborative PA management plan and national processes of decentralization in PA management? Or perhaps differences in who decides and who is involved in PA management.