However, the popularity of TBNRM in management discourse makes it likely that it will be considered beyond protected areas.
Both CBNRM and TBNRM approaches often contain oversimplified assumptions about the structure and behaviour of inhabitants and resources of an area, and these can impact on the success of hybrid CBNRM-TBNRM arrangements.
In the case of TBNRM, similarly problematic assumptions are evident.
TBNRM in Africa seeks to stitch back together ecosystems fractured by the establishment and persistence of colonial-era borders.
In the context of hybrid management, the (tenuous) assumption that TBNRM brings together harmonious communities and analogous institutions may lead to more, rather than less conflict.
The terms of reference for the feasibility study tendered by Peace Parks, outlines some of the envisioned rationales and benefits of TBNRM for the area, including 'harmonizing the policies, strategies, and practices of conserving and managing the resources that the rive countries share through natural movements' (Peace Parks 2006).
While their exclusion may be potentially problematic in terms of understanding fisheries livelihoods and the impact of management interventions on local inhabitants, the research focused on fishers using dugout canoes and nets for three reasons: First, the types of artisanal fishers recorded in our study are those normally targeted by management interventions like TBNRM and CBNRM.
What implications do these results have for emerging hybrid CBNRM and TBNRM efforts in the area?
The asymmetry in settlement patterns has two potential consequences for CBNRM and TBNRM. The number of settlements, high population, and ethnic diversity on the Zambian side of the river will make CBNRM more complex, as there are more stakeholders to consider and more 'communities' to account for.
The significance of potentially higher levels of fishing and smaller mesh sizes to CBNRM and TBNRM is ambiguous.
The ethnic diversity of Zambian settlements makes CBNRM and TBNRM more challenging.
Support of CBNRM legitimizes already existing traditional authority structures; whereas for NGOs, a focus on the local scale makes national boundaries seem ail the less relevant, backing a rationale for TBNRM. Fishers meanwhile may support government management because it has been so limited to date.