An omnipresent theme in the analysis of the implementation of this project is the idea of a lack of thorough and efficient communication between the numerous involved organizations, and this can be tangibly demonstrated by the mapping discrepancies. While supposedly working in tandem with one another, the inability to produce a map with the same boundaries of the protected area is an obvious indicator of a lack of cooperation and points toward a need for more integration and involvement between these partners. As maps are a major part of what people associate with the project, inconsistent maps could result in further discrepancies and disagreements between donors, governments and involved social groups down the line, a possible major point of contention and a risk to the overall success of the program.
Oversimplification
This issue relates to the desire on the part of the donor organizations as well as involved governments to create one coherent and manageable space, which often means disregarding the complex details of the existing geographical and social divisions. The ethnic make up of the existing indigenous peoples in these spaces are often represented in a way that ignores complex details unique to each group, and can sometimes push together (as well as separate) communities due to a lack of interest in truly understanding and working with these complexities.
Misrepresentation
Closely related is the idea of misrepresentation, which often stems from oversimplification. An example of this concept can be found on both maps in the way that the existing biosphere reserves appear to blend smoothly into one another, when in reality in many cases there are miles of space that separate these regions, and smaller individual areas that have been clumped together in the name of convenience. In this way, it becomes difficult to create one uniformly acknowledged map when the interpretations of where these individual regions end and begin is essentially imagined and thus difficult to work within.
