Literature Summary: Peace Parks and Cooperation

Ostrowski

Literature Summary: Peace Parks and Cooperation

Parks, reserves, and protected areas are common conservation strategies in many countries throughout the world. Yet many of these protected areas exist near the edges of geopolitical units, with similar protected areas or ecosystem types on the other side of the border. The existence of proximate but differentially managed environments—‘dyads’, according to Zbicz (2003)—has prompted the suggestion that the parks should be linked, in order to achieve greater conservation and economic benefits, and to enhance cooperation between the countries or regions in question. In 1932, for example, the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park was established, bridging Glacier National Park in Montana, U.S.A. and the Waterton Lakes National Park in Alberta, Canada, and symbolizing good will between the two nations. Since then, almost 200 such parks have been established globally (Mittermeier et al. 2005).

International protected areas go by many names, including peace parks, transboundary protected areas, and transfrontier conservation areas. While each may have a slightly different focus, they all generally refer to an area that crosses boundaries, that is set aside to preserve biodiversity as well as natural and cultural resources, and that is managed cooperatively (Sandwith et al., 2001), and I use the terms interchangeably. Peace parks thus have many goals which could be complementary or conflicting (O’Neill 2009). Here, I hope to present the various viewpoints surrounding these parks, with the intent of beginning to answer the question of whether cooperation between countries—and between constituents within countries–benefits conservation.

Global cooperation has generally been treated in the literature as a solution to the dual problems of unnatural political boundaries and fragmented habitats that undermine the resiliency of ecosystems (e.g., Fall 2003; O’Neill 2009; Opdam and Wascher 2004; Zbicz 2000). The slogan of the 2003 meeting of the World Parks Congress, “Benefits Beyond Boundaries,” demonstrates the importance of this argument. More specifically, a number of articles explore this relationship by studying the spatial arrangement of biodiversity, endangered organisms, and ecosystems. In particular, Kark et al. (2009) and Rodrigues et al. (2002) look at the distribution of protected areas across geopolitical units—in the Mediterranean basin and southern Africa, respectively—and determine that cooperation would increase the efficiency of conservation. Similarly, Fall (2003) suggests that cooperation can facilitate the formation of international research teams, further increasing efficiency. Other sources go one step further and suggest that cooperation in the management of transboundary parks could enhance peace and conflict resolution between two nations (e.g., Ali 2009; Fall 2003).

Nevertheless, some doubts—both theoretical and practical—remain about their effectiveness. Fall (2003) examines the defining of protected areas from natural and social science backgrounds, and contends that a ‘bioregion’ approach to conservation relies on the mistaken notion that perfectly delineated natural units exist and automatically suggest particular conservation strategies, and references an outdated assumption that natural boundaries should determine political ones. Additionally, many barriers to cooperation between nations exist, such as economic and political inequalities and different approaches to conservation (Fall 2003; Lee 2007; Wakild 2009). For example, relations between the U.S. and Canada are overall peaceable, and numerous parks have been established along their borders. In the case of the U.S. and Mexico, however, interactions are much more tense, especially recently, and multiple attempts to create transboundary conservation areas have failed. Wakild (2009) in particular offers important insights into the lack of a U.S./Mexico border park, using an analysis of correspondence and discussions to reevaluate the reasons for that absence, which was traditionally attributed to Mexican incompetence.

Peace parks, moreover, are still protected areas, and are thus subject to the same limitations. One of the most poignant problems is the tension that exists between traditional conservation strategies and indigenous or local peoples. Many authors (e.g., Christensen 2004; Dowie 2006 and 2009; Wilshusen 2000) highlight the often intentional failure of protected areas to address social interests through various means, including journalistic articles, academic analyses, and critiques of existing literature. Papers from the IUCN (which provides technical evaluations for UNESCO World Heritage sites) more subtly address the disconnect between environmental and social concerns: while they do recognize the need for other goals such as sustainable development and local involvement, these documents nevertheless retain contradictory and problematic language that could jeopardize truly addressing those issues. Transboundary parks make similar claims that remain largely unsubstantiated.

While some have argued that the inability of protected areas to conserve biodiversity means that we should be pursuing more protectionist and exclusionary policies, Wilshusen et al. (2002) deconstruct their arguments in favor of integrated conservation and development, all while recognizing the difficulties of that strategy. Inconsistencies between environmental and social factors are problematic because even international conservation strategies act on and through the local level, in specific contexts, and thus local buy-in—local cooperation—is necessary for effective conservation (Knight & White 2009; Rodriguez et al. 2007; Wilshusen et al. 2002; Zbicz 2003). We therefore see that local and global cooperation are theoretically beneficial for conservation, and practically beneficial by counter-example. Hopefully, evidence on the conservation successes of existing transboundary parks will illustrate more specifically the steps necessary to achieve both levels of cooperation.

Bibliography

Ali, Saleem H., ed. Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007.

Christensen, Jon. "Win-Win Illusions." Conservation Magazine 5, no. 1 (2004). http://www.conservationmagazine.org/articles/v5n1/win-win-illusions/

Dowie, Mark. Conservation Refugees: The Hundred-Year Conflict between Global Conservation and Native Peoples. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 2009.

Dowie, Mark. “Conservation refugees: When protecting nature means kicking people out.” Seedling (January 2006).

Dudley, Nigel, ed. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN. Gland, Switzerland: 2008. http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/edocs/PAPS-016.pdf

Fall, Juliet J. “Planning Protected Areas Across Boundaries: New Paradigms and Old Ghosts.” In Transboundary Protected Areas: The Viability of Regional Conservation Strategies, edited by Uromi Manage Goodale, Marc. J. Stern, Cheryl Margoluis, Ashley G. Lanfer, and Matthew Fladeland, 81-102. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press, 2003.

“Frequently Asked Questions.” World Database on Protected Areas. http://www.wdpa.org/

Kark, Salit, Noam Levin, Hedley S. Grantham, and Hugh P. Possingham. “Between-countrycollaboration and consideration of costs increase conservation planning efficiency in the Mediterranean Basin.” PNAS 106, no. 36 (September 8, 2009): 15368-15373. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10l1073/pnas.0901001106

Knight, Richard L., and Courtney White, eds. Conservation for a New Generation: Redefining Natural Resources Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2009.

Lee, Choong-Ki, and James W. Mjelde. “Valuation of ecotourism resources using a contingent valuation method: The case of the Korean DMZ.” Ecological Economics 63 (2007): 511-520.

Mittermeier, R.A., C.F. Kormos, C.G. Mittermeier, P. Robles Gil, T. Sandwith, and C. Besançon. Transboundary Conservation: A New Vision for Protected Areas. CEMEZ-Agrupación Sierra Madre-Conservation International, Mexico: 2005.

O'Neill, Kate. The Environment and International Relations. Berkeley:Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Opdam, Paul, and Dirk Wascher. “Climate change meets habitat fragmentation:linking landscape and biogeographical scale levels in research and conservation.” Biological Conservation 117(2004): 285-297.

Peace Parks Foundation. http://www.peaceparks.org

Rodrigues, Ana S.L., and Kevin J. Gaston. “Rarity and Conservation Planning across Geopolitical Units.” Conservation Biology 16, no. 3 (June 2002): 674-682.

Rodriguez, J.P., A.B.Taber, P. Daszak, R. Sukumar, C. Valladares-Padua, S. Padua, L.F. Aguirre, R.A. Medellin, M. Acosta, A.A.Aguirre, C. Bonacic, P. Bordino, J. Bruschini, D. Buchori, S. Gonzalez, T. Mathew, M. Mendez, L.Mugica, L.F.Pacheco, A.P.Dobson, and M. Pearl. “Globalization of Conservation: AView from the South.” Science 317(August 10, 2007): 755-756.

Sandwith, T., C. Shine, L. Hamilton, and D. Sheppard. Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Co-operation. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: 2001.

Wasser, Samuel K., Bill Clark, and Cathy Laurie. “Are There Too Many Elephants?” Scientific American (July 2009): 74.

Wakild, Emily. “Border Chasm: International Boundary Parks and Mexican Conservation, 1935-1945.” Environmental History 14 (July 2009): 453-475.

Wilshusen, Peter R., Steven R. Brechin, Crystal L. Fortwangler, and Patrick C. West. “Reinventing a Square Wheel: Critique of a Resurgent ‘Protection Paradigm’ in International Biodiversity Conservation.” Society and Natural Resources 15 (2002): 17-40.

Wilshusen, Peter R. “Local Participation in Conservation and Development Projects:Ends, Means, and Power Dynamics.” In Foundations of Natural Resources Policy and Management, edited by Tim W. Clark, Andrew R. Willard, and Christina M. Cromley, 288-325. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000.

Zbicz, Dorothy C. “Imposing Transboundary Conservation: Cooperation Between Internationally Adjoining Protected Areas.” In Transboundary Protected Areas: The Viability of Regional Conservation Strategies, edited by Uromi Manage Goodale, Marc. J. Stern, Cheryl Margoluis, Ashley G. Lanfer, and Matthew Fladeland, 21-37. Binghamton, NY: Food Products Press, 2003.

Zbicz, Dorothy C. “Transfrontier Ecosystems and Internationally Adjoining Protected Areas.” United Nations Environment Programme. March 14, 2000.

3