Exchange programmes - IUCN

� language(s) spoken;
� geographical location; and
� social and cultural similarities and differences.
The amount of time that can be spent on the planning process (identified in Stage 1)
will also help determine who might be appropriate partners. For example, if limited time,
funding and personnel are available, it might be best to stick to local or regional partners,
as distance often has a relationship to the amount of time and energy required to establish
and maintain a partnership. However, communication advances such as e-mail and fax
machines, have lessened the tyranny of distance for park managers – but only if they
have access to these technologies.
Two additional variables appear to be critical when selecting potential partners. First,
a mutual respect for each other’s culture, language, expertise and contribution to the
partnership is essential. Second, it must be clear that each partner will benefit from the
exchange. It may therefore be useful to include a statement within the MOU or other
documentation (Stage 6) of exactly how each partner will benefit from the exchange
activities.
Stage 4. Identify type(s) of exchange(s)
Recommendations for protected area exchanges in East Asia
Section 1.4 of this report identified a variety of possible types of exchange programmes:
individual exchanges and partnering, twinning or sistering, training seminars, group
visits and international collaboration. In general, these types of programme are listed in
increasing order of effort and funding required. Thus individual visits are normally the
easiest and cheapest to arrange, while international collaboration with agencies such as
IUCN or the World Bank are the most time-consuming and expensive to establish and
maintain. However, it is also true that this list generally reflects increased levels of
benefits: the greater the effort required and the greater the number of people involved in
the project, the greater the impact it will have.
Each type of exchange programme has its distinct characteristics, and its own strengths
and limitations. The particular issue or problem faced by the protected area, and the
objectives of the exchange will have a significant effect on the type of exchange that
should be chosen – though the choice is also likely to be determined by the funds and
staff time available.
It might be best for individual parks or park managers to begin with the most basic
kind of exchange. The results from this initial partnership may or may not lead to more
complex relationships, depending on the outcome of the initial partnership, the ease with
which communications are maintained between the partners, the funding available and
the institutional support for further exchanges. Of course, if, during Stage 3, a large
number of willing partners from a variety of regions and nations are identified, then a
large-scale proposal may be in order. Similarly, protected area system administrators at
the national level will probably benefit most from utilising the greater amount of
resources and contacts they have available, especially at the international level (e.g.
through programmes supported by IUCN, WWF and the World Bank).
51