preview...the siachen glacier in kashmir has served as a battleground for india and pakistan. more...

ECSP REPORT • ISSUE 11 • 2005

58

Introduction

In 2001, Nelson Mandela said, “I know of nopolitical movement, no philosophy, no ideol-ogy, which does not agree with the peaceparks concept as we see it going into fruitiontoday. It is a concept that can be embraced byall.”1 Parks for peace—transboundary conser-vation areas dedicated to the promotion ofpeace and cooperation—hold great promiseand appeal, but have they lived up to thispromise? Some say yes, others respectfully dis-agree with the former South AfricanPresident’s assertion.

Even the definition of peace parks—some-times called “transboundary natural resourcemanagement” (TBNRM) or “transboundaryconservation” initiatives—is subject to debate.The lack of a consistent and agreed-upon typol-ogy often leads to confusion and hinders inter-national discussions and legal agreements.Other problems have emerged in practice; forexample, the implementation of some TBRNMinitiatives in southern Africa engendered con-flict when the new parks evicted or excludedresidents. Proposals for future parks offer inno-vative approaches to resolving decades-longconflicts, but some doubt the chances that suchenvironmental conservation initiatives can helpcreate peace.

An upcoming ECSP publication—basedon a conference held in September 2005 atthe Wilson Center2—will explore the rhetoric

and reality of peace parks, including theirgoals and the factors that determine their suc-cess or failure. Drawing on future plans andsuccessful projects in southern Africa,Kashmir, and South America, the authorsdebate whether peace parks can protect theenvironment and promote conflict resolution.ECSP Report presents excerpts from five of theconference papers as a preview of the publica-tion forthcoming in 2006; complete versionsare available on ECSP’s website atwww.wilsoncenter.org/ecsp.

While the debate over peace parks and trans-boundary areas will continue for some time,Dorothy Zbicz, an international conservationpolicy consultant who attended the Septemberconference, provided an example of how trans-boundary resource management can lead togrand results. Resting on the Virginia andMaryland sides of the Potomac River, GreatFalls Park is the historic site where two statesbuilt a canal around the region’s impassablewaterfalls and rapids. This early act of Americancooperation is noted on the park’s plaque: “Theagreement that was developed betweenMaryland and Virginia to share the river fortheir common purpose led to further meet-ings—Annapolis 1786 and Philadelphia 1787and to drafting of the United StatesConstitution.” Today, while Great Falls Park isno longer building democracy, it stands as amemorial to the power of managing environ-mental resources for peace.

PREVIEW

Parks for Peace or Peace for Parks?Issues in Practice and Policy A Forthcoming Publication From ECSP

PREVIEW • PARKS FOR PEACE OR PEACE FOR PARKS?

59

International conservation efforts are generallyrelegated to specific government agencies andscientists, and are not linked to issues of region-al cooperation between adversarial states orcommunities. Thus, a “policy frontier” sepa-rates conservation initiatives from foreign poli-cy or intra-state community relations. Whileenvironmental security theorists have tried overthe years to inject the importance of resourcescarcity and quality into defense circles, theempirical focus on conflict causality has led tothe decline of this influence.

Instead of trying to tease out environmentalcausality in conflicts and thereby accentuate theimportance of conservation, we could also lookat how environmental issues play a role in coop-eration—regardless of whether they were partof the original conflict. Scholars have onlyrecently begun to examine the utility of thisapproach, which is termed “environmentalpeacemaking” (Conca & Dabelko, 2002). Themain premise of environmental peacemakingholds that certain key attributes of environmen-tal concerns could lead acrimonious parties toconsider them as a means of cooperation.

Using conservation as a direct means of con-flict resolution challenges conventional assump-tions about the secondary role of environmentalissues in conflict resolution. For example, peaceparks are being actively pursued in Korea andKashmir, two high-conflict areas. Since 1986,the Siachen glacier in Kashmir has served as abattleground for India and Pakistan. More than

100 million people depend on the meltwater ofthe Himalayan glaciers, increasing the humansecurity dimensions of this issue in both adver-sarial countries (Ali, 2005). Anticipating watershortages requires studying the glaciers’ retreatin the face of climatic changes. Given theimportance of this work, the Kashmir parkplanners have focused on using science as apeacebuilding tool.

Geologists and hydrologists from India andPakistan, with help from colleagues at theNational Science Foundation in the United Statesand Italy, have appealed to the governments togive them access to this region. Environmentalistsand mountaineers have joined forces to use thisopportunity to establish a conservation zone. TheIndian prime minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh,gave the idea its most significant political supportduring his visit to Siachen in June 2005, duringwhich he publicly remarked that the territorycould become a “peace mountain.” Strategies for

Notes

1. The full text of Nelon Mandela’s October 21,2001, speech is available online at http://www.game-rangers.com/left_frameset/05_nieuws/01_natuur/sub2_frameset_bestanden/natuur.html#speech

2. A summary of the September 12, 2005, confer-ence is available on ECSP’s website athttp://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1413&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=146506

Conservation and Conflict Resolution: Crossing thePolicy FrontierBy Saleem H. Ali

Saleem H. Ali is an assistant professor of

environmental planning at the University

of Vermont’s Rubenstein School of

Natural Resources, and an adjunct facul-

ty member at Brown University’s Watson

Institute for International Studies. He is

also the editor of Peace Parks:

Conservation and Conflict Resolution,

forthcoming from MIT Press.


60

de-escalating the Siachen conflict continue,including a project supported by Sandia NationalLabs in New Mexico involving Pakistani andIndian military officials.

In the Korean case, the demilitarized zone(DMZ) has become a default sanctuary forwildlife since conflict has prevented the area’sdevelopment.1 Several conservation biologistshave suggested using the region’s high biodiver-sity to develop a conflict resolution strategybetween the two countries. An organizationcalled the DMZ Forum, established in theUnited States in 1998, has lobbied for this pro-posal’s inclusion in the six-party talks. Mediamagnate Ted Turner has popularized this effort,most recently during his visit to both Northand South Korea in August 2005.

Recommendations

For proper implementation, the peace parkeffort must first undergo a phase of local reviewand transparency. A clear process is particularlyimportant in conflict settings to avoid thespread of conspiracy theories that can lead tosuspicion and rumor-mongering, which oftenspoil even the most sincere efforts.

In addition, the military should be consid-ered a facilitator rather than a hindrance.Demilitarization might not be the first step, buttransforming the military into a ranger forcecould assuage security and employment con-

cerns while accomplishing conservation tasks. Ifthe conflict has caused environmental damage,the military can certainly play an importantrole in the clean-up effort.

The positive economic impact of peace parkformulation is often quantifiable, based on thepotential for increased tourism as well as thewillingness of donors to invest in such a pro-gram. Integrated planning for peace parks mustinclude a clear assessment of livelihoods andhow those would be made sustainable by thedevelopment of a peace park. The incorpora-tion of conservation provisions and access topeace park areas through visa waivers or on-siteprocessing of visas for the conservation zonescan also be proposed.

As with many complex interactions ofhuman behavior and the environment, we mustnot expect instant solutions. Peace parks consti-tute a new vision for addressing global conflictsand hence will suffer growing pains beforereaching cognitive acceptance and practicalresults. However, there is substantive theoreticalbacking for their efficacy as well as emergingexamples of their success, which we should viewwith optimism.

Note

1. Ke Chung Kim, professor of entomology atPennsylvania State University, discussed the DMZpeace park proposal at the ECSP conference. His pres-entation, “Biodiversity and Barbed Wire: ExploringJoint Conservation in the Korea DMZ,” is available onECSP’s website at http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1413&fuseaction=topics.event_summary&event_id=146506

References

Ali, Saleem H. (2005, February). “Siachen: Ecologicalpeace between India and Pakistan.” SanctuaryMagazine, 76-77. Available online athttp://www.sanctuaryasia.com

Conca, Ken, & Geoffrey D. Dabelko (Eds.). (2002).Environmental peacemaking. Washington, DC &Baltimore, MD: The Woodrow Wilson CenterPress & Johns Hopkins University Press.

Peace parks constitute a new vision foraddressing global conflicts and hence willsuffer growing pains before reaching cognitiveacceptance and practical results.


61

During the past 50-80 years, the number andcomplexity of formalized transboundary natu-ral resource management arrangements andagreements between countries have increased,particularly for key shared resources such aswater and fisheries.

Such arrangements have also grown whereprotected areas are adjacent and cross aninternational boundary. At least 188 trans-boundary conservation areas, spanning theborders of 122 countries, have followed thedeclaration of the Waterton-GlacierInternational Peace Park in 1932 (Besançon& Savy, 2005). This grand-scale experimentreflects a range of methods of implementa-tion, expression, and objectives. This makes itdifficult to define “transboundary conserva-tion” precisely, and identify how best toundertake it.

We propose the following typology as anorganizing framework for transboundary con-servation and development initiatives.

1. Transboundary protected areas: A trans-boundary protected area is an area of landand/or sea that straddles one or more bordersbetween states, sub-national units such asprovinces and regions, autonomous areas,and/or areas beyond the limit of national sover-eignty or jurisdiction, whose constituent partsare especially dedicated to the protection andmaintenance of biological diversity, and of nat-ural and associated cultural resources, and man-aged cooperatively through legal or other effec-tive means (Sandwith et al., 2001).

Examples: La Ámistad International Parkbetween Costa Rica and Panama; KgalagadiTransfrontier Park between Botswana andSouth Africa; and Neusiedler See/Seewinkel -Fertö Hansag Transfrontier Park betweenAustria and Hungary.

2. Transboundary conservation anddevelopment areas: Transboundary conser-vation (and development) areas are areas of landand/or sea that straddle one or more bordersbetween states, sub-national units such asprovinces and regions, autonomous areas,and/or areas beyond the limit of national sover-eignty or jurisdiction, whose constituent partsform a matrix that contributes to the protectionand maintenance of biological diversity, and ofnatural and associated cultural resources, as wellas the promotion of social and economic develop-ment, and which are managed cooperativelythrough legal or other effective means.

Examples: Maloti-Drakensberg TransfrontierConservation and Development Area (Lesotho-South Africa); the Palatinate Forest NaturePark–Northern Vosges Regional Natural Park(Germany-France); and Sungai Kayan NatureReserve and the proposed Pulong Tau NationalPark (Indonesia-Malaysia).

3. Parks for Peace: Parks for Peace are trans-boundary protected areas that are formally ded-icated to the protection and maintenance of

Trade-offs Among Multiple Goals for TransboundaryConservationBy Trevor Sandwith and Charles Besançon

Trevor Sandwith is coordinator of Cape

Action for People and the Environment

in South Africa, deputy chair of the

World Commission on Protected Areas

(WCPA), and the co-leader of the

IUCN/WCPA Transboundary

Conservation Task Force. Charles

Besançon is the head of the protected

areas program at the UNEP-World

Conservation Monitoring Centre in

Cambridge, UK, and the co-leader of

the IUCN/WCPA Transboundary

Conservation Task Force.


62

biological diversity, and of natural and associat-ed cultural resources, and to the promotion ofpeace and cooperation (Sandwith et al., 2001).

Examples: Si-a-Paz project (CostaRica–Nicaragua); the Cordillera del Cóndorprojects in Ecuador and Peru; and Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park (Canada–USA).

4. Transboundary migratory corridors:Transboundary migratory corridors are areas ofland and/or sea in two or more countries thatare not necessarily contiguous, but are requiredto sustain a biological migratory pathway, andwhere cooperative management has beensecured through legal or other effective means.

Examples: Palearctic Flyway (Siberia toSenegal); European Green Belt; and theMesoamerican Corridor.

Recommendations

Transboundary conservation initiatives havecaptured the imagination of many. They repre-sent an ideal whereby conservation can deliver

more than simply biodiversity, species, andhabitat protection, but also sustainable devel-opment and the promotion of a culture ofpeace and cooperation. But the questionremains whether this assertion is valid, whetherthe methods currently being employed areoptimal in relation to the investment andtransaction costs of such initiatives, andwhether the enthusiasm for implementationoverlooks the emergent and unforeseen conse-quences. We call for a more deliberate processof reflection and analysis that disaggregatesobjectives, methods, and impacts.

In particular, we draw your attention to theneed to standardize terminology as an aid forcomparative analysis and to apply innovativemethods to measure impacts of differenttypes. While some dismiss this as an unneces-sary exercise in “splitting hairs,” the contin-ued use of a range of terms could engender anuncooperative response to transboundaryconservation. These suggestions from theIUCN/WCPA Transboundary ConservationTask Force are consequently offered as a wayto clarify the issues and circumstances in aneffort to encourage cooperation.

References

Besançon, Charles, & Conrad Savy. (2005). “Globallist of internationally adjoining protected areas andother transboundary conservation initiatives.” InRussell A. Mittermeier, Cyril F. Kormos, CristinaG. Mittermeier, Patricio Robles Gil, TrevorSandwith, & Charles Besançon (Eds.),Transboundary conservation: A new vision for protect-ed areas. Mexico City: CEMEX, Agrupacion SierraMadre, & Conservation International.

Sandwith, Trevor S., Clare Shine, Lawrence Hamilton,& David Sheppard. (2001). Transboundary protect-ed areas for peace and co-operation (Best practiceprotected area guidelines series No. 7). UnitedKingdom: IUCN & World Commission onProtected Areas. Available online athttp://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications/files/tbca_sandwith.pdf

While some dismiss this asan unnecessary exercise in“splitting hairs,” thecontinued use of a range ofterms could engender anuncooperative response totransboundary conservation.


63

For more than 150 years after independencefrom Spanish rule, the border of Perú andEcuador witnessed territorial conflict initiatedby both countries. In 1998, after intensenegotiation and the intervention of othercountries (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and theUnited States), a final agreement—the ActaPresidencial de Brasilia—was signed, finallyresolving the border conflicts between the twocountries. The agreement recognized the needto update and improve existing mechanismsto promote bilateral cooperation and integra-tion between Perú and Ecuador. Likewise, itemphasized that such mechanisms must leadto economic and social development andstrengthen the cultural identity of native pop-ulations, as well as aid the conservation ofbiological biodiversity and the sustainable useof the ecosystems of the common border.

There have been several attempts by the con-servation community to find ways to preserve theexceptional biodiversity of the Cordillera delCóndor, a relatively isolated mountain range thatstraddles the Perú-Ecuador border. The cordilleralies in a highly significant global conservationzone: thanks to an abundance of water through-out the year, the region hosts the world’s mostdiverse plant communities and serves as a key ele-ment in the great hydrological cycle linking theAndes with the Amazon.

However, only the Acta Presidencial deBrasilia brought bilateral cooperation and apeaceful environment for conservation to bothcountries. The Peace Agreement officially estab-lished two protected zones governed by thesame treaty. These new Ecological ProtectionAreas include the 2,540-hectare “El Cóndor” inEcuador. In Perú, in addition to the 5,440-hectare Ecological Protection Area, thePeruvian government established the Santiago-Comaina Reserved Area, with a surface area of1,642,570 hectares.

These actions created a space for coopera-tion between both countries. For the “Peaceand Bi-national Conservation in the Cordilleradel Cóndor, Ecuador-Perú” project, between2002 and 2004, a group of Peruvian andEcuadorian specialists jointly prepared propos-als and designed a planning and implementingprocess. Both countries formulated proposalsfor the establishment of Bordering ProtectedAreas on either side the border. And together,Peruvian and Ecuadorian experts helped iden-tify the threats to conservation on both sides ofthe border. Management plans includedactions necessary to mitigate such threats,emphasizing the continuous, coordinatedmanagement of bordering protected areas;joint investigation proposals; knowledgeexchange among protected area managers; andcoordinated monitoring of the biodiversity inboth countries (Sandwith et al., 2001).

The peace agreement and the conservationefforts to date have helped create an environmentfor long-lasting peace in the region. The agree-ment has helped reestablish centuries-old rela-tionships among the indigenous populations liv-ing in the zone, and improved relationshipsbetween the states and between the professionalsfrom both countries who work together to con-serve this exceptional biological richness.

The protected areas—those already estab-lished and those yet to be created—on both sidesof the Peruvian-Ecuadorian border help conservethe ecosystems shared by the countries. The

Peace Parks in the Cordillera del Cóndor MountainRange and Biodiversity Conservation CorridorBy Martín Alcalde, Carlos F. Ponce, and Yanitza Curonisy

Martín Alcalde is the Cóndor region

director for Conservación Internacional

(CI) Perú; Carlos F. Ponce is CI’s senior

regional advisor on protected areas,

CBC – Andes; and Yanitza Curonisy pro-

vided editorial assistance to the authors.


64

successful coordination and cooperation thattakes place beyond the frontiers highlight howborder protected areas act as real “links” connect-ing peace and conservation.

Recommendations

These efforts have set the stage for progress inthe development of the Cóndor-KutukúConservation Corridor (part of a Conservation

International initiative to link protected areas inthe Tropical Andes hotspot). For this to be suc-cessful, we believe it is necessary to:

• Strengthen the planning processes and con-solidate a bi-national vision;

• Promote a bi-national information net-work between protected areas within theCóndor-Kutukú Conservation Corridor;

• Generate social, economic, and biodiversitydata to help prioritize conservation actionsand sustainable development; and

• Encourage a participatory process for theCóndor-Kutukú Conservation Corridor, tospread the concept of conservation corridorsand promote the development of a planningprocess for a bi-national strategy.

References

Sandwith, Trevor S., Clare Shine, Lawrence Hamilton,& David Sheppard. (2001). Transboundary protect-ed areas for peace and co-operation (Best practiceprotected area guidelines series No. 7). UnitedKingdom: IUCN & World Commission onProtected Areas. Available online athttp://www.iucn.org/themes/fcp/publications/files/tbca_sandwith.pdf

Source: Conservación Internacional, CI - Perú 2005.

Protected Areas and Ecological Protection Zones in the Cordillera del Cóndor Region

Ecuador

Protected Areas (proposed):Ecological Reserve: "El Quimi" (9,266 hectares)Wildlife Shelter: “El Zarza” (3,743 hectares)

Ecological Protection Zone: “Parque El Cóndor” (approx. 2,540 hectares)

Peru

Protected Areas (proposed):National Park Ichigkat Muja: Cordillera delCóndor (approx. 150,000 hectares)

Ecological Protection Zone: (approx. 5,440 hectares)


65

Transboundary Natural Resource Management(TBNRM) initiatives, such as “peace parks,”abound throughout southern and eastern Africa.Although a good idea in theory, TBNRM ingeneral—and peace parks in particular—mustreflexively consider their motives, methods, andhypothesized outcomes to be successful. Failureto do so will result in limited buy-in at all levelsof stakeholder involvement.

Issues to Consider

1. Peace parks must be set within localpolitical ecology: At a theoretical level, peaceparks are an indisputably good idea. But at thelevel of implementation, one must be willingto adapt a generic model to highly specificlocal and regional political ecologies—perhapseven to recognize that the peace parkapproach will not work. As physical symbolsof land alienation and exclusion, nationalparks have long been an object of derision bythe majority of Africa’s rural people (Grove,1997; Koch, 1998). Linking them together byobtaining more land will surely result in polit-ical difficulties; land claims lodged by SouthAfrican communities forcibly removed fromKruger and Richtersveld National Parks arethe examples cited most often (Fig, 1991;Swatuk, 2005a; Umhlaba Wethu, 2005;Wolmer, 2003).

2. Peace parks cannot be consideredseparately from other conservationactivities and their results: Various INGOshave undertaken the responsibility of preserv-ing biodiversity and empowering communitiesthrough the establishment of Community-Based Natural Resources Management(CBNRM) projects (Fabricius & Koch, 2005).Many have deliberately attempted to begin atthe village level and only involve the state whennecessary and/or unavoidable. However, where

projects involve state-owned resources such aswildlife, challenge existing forms of landtenure, or could truly empower local people(such that they are no longer dependent on cen-tral government for survival), the state invari-ably gets involved, often in an obstructive way(Swatuk, 2005a). Simply because it is easier todeal with educated elites at a high level of gov-ernment does not mean that the outcome—peace park establishment—will be any lessfraught with conflict and failure than otherattempts at linking conservation to rural devel-opment. Thus, one (TBNRM) is not a substi-tute for the other (CBNRM).

3. Peace parks cannot be de-linked fromnational/regional development strate-gies/priorities: Those interested in biodiver-sity preservation must recognize that southernAfrican leaders’ support for TBNRM initiativesmay have different roots and goals, such asachieving economies of scale and global advan-tage in megafauna-based tourism to generaterevenue and economic development. Thesegoals may only tangentially relate to perceivedglobal environmental goods.

Recommendations

Five suggestions may help lead the way over thehurdles facing peace parks:

1. Assess what has been achieved thusfar. An accurate assessment will only emergewhere we dispense with naïve or arrogantapproaches to conservation and biodiversitypreservation. However, as Chapin (2004)

Peace Parks in Southern Africaby Larry A. Swatuk

Larry A. Swatuk is an associate professor

at the Harry Oppenheimer Okavango

Research Centre at the University of

Botswana, Maun.


66

suggests, humility is in short supply amongthe global purveyors of “conservation.”

2. Put people first: Following Child (2004),the goals of TBNRM must be set and alignedwith those of national parks, game reserves, andother forms of protected area in southernAfrica. This means putting people first andmaking social/economic benefits the primarymotivating factor in TBNRM processes andestablishment—and putting conservation sec-ond. This, too, may be a pill too bitter for con-servationists to swallow.

3. Get local level buy-in: TBNRM by defi-nition privileges the central state and itsmachinery in the negotiation and managementprocess. While it may be easier to deal with cen-tralized agencies, supporters of TBNRM mustpress for subsidiarity. Without local level buy-in, TBNRM will fail.

4. Monitor and benchmark: As highlightedby Murphree (2004), the potential benefitsfrom parks are numerous, and cut acrosseconomic, ecological, political, and socio-cul-tural lines. But there has been little systematicinformation gathered on the performance ofprotected areas of all kinds. If stakeholdersacross the spectrum are expected to buy into it,TBNRM must build in mechanisms formonitoring (e.g., biodiversity preservation,economic development, and gender empower-ment) and benchmarking (e.g., “by this pointwe will have created X number of jobs”), as

well as the financial means to do so. Claims of“numerous” benefits are not enough.

5. Do not exaggerate achievements.Many claims regarding the achievements ofTBNRM projects in southern Africa are nottrue. States are very good at signing, and evenratifying into law, a wide variety of docu-ments; implementation, however, is anothermatter altogether. Evidence from river basincommittee development in southern Africasuggests that where states have rushed aheadwith donors’ good ideas, little has beenachieved; but where communities have beeninvolved from the start, where governmenthas been brought in as a key stakeholder, andwhere timelines are medium-term, new, sus-tainable, and meaningful institutions mayemerge (Swatuk, 2005b; Manning & Seely,2005). This is an appropriate lesson for sup-porters of peace parks—a good idea whosetime may yet still come.

References

Chapin, Mac. (2004, November). “A challenge to con-servationists.” WorldWatch,17-31.

Child, Brian. (2004). “Parks in transition: Biodiversity,development and the bottom line.” In Brian Child(Ed.), Parks in transition: Biodiversity, rural develop-ment, and the bottom line (pgs 233-256). Sterling,VA: Earthscan.

Fabricius, Christo, & Eddie Koch (Eds.). (2005).Rights, resources and rural development. London:Earthscan.

Fig, David. (1991). “Flowers in the desert: Communitystruggles in Namaqualand.” In Jacklyn Cock &Eddie Koch (Eds.), Going green: People, politics andthe environment in South Africa (pages 112-128).Cape Town: Oxford University Press.

Grove, Richard. (1997). Ecology, climate and empire:Colonialism and global environmental history, 1400-1940. Cambridge: White Horse.

Koch, Eddie. (1998). “Nature has the power to healold wounds: War, peace and changing patterns ofconservation in southern Africa.” In David Simon(Ed.), South Africa in southern Africa: Reconfiguringthe region (pages 54-72). London: James Currey.

Manning, Nadia, & Mary Seely. (2005). “Forum forintegrated resource management (FIRM) inephemeral basins: Putting communities at the centreof the basin management process.” Physics and

An accurate assessment will only emerge wherewe dispense with naïve or arrogant approachesto conservation and biodiversity preservation.


67

Nowhere is the need for transnational forms ofmanagement more apparent than in the realmof the environment. Natural resources—suchas marine life, wildlife, the atmosphere, andthe ozone layer—are not bounded by nationalborders, and thus, effective conservationrequires international cooperation. The grow-ing interest in peace parks reflects this need.Briefly defined, peace parks are conservationareas that cross one or more international bor-ders and use common management practicesto conserve a single transnational ecosystem.Peace parks are not simply neutral, technicalpolicies, however. They have not developed ina social, political, and economic vacuum;instead, they reflect wider changes in the glob-al system since the end of the Cold War.Increasing levels of globalization have led togrowing global regulation, which is oftenreferred to as “global governance.”

I suggest that peace parks, like global gover-nance, do not represent a radical new depar-ture for conservation; instead, peace parksoperate within the existing framework ofpolitical and economic liberalization, and, assuch, they do not challenge it. Furthermore, ifwe regard the expansion of neoliberalism ascausing or contributing to global environmen-tal degradation, then peace parks cannot

“save” the environment. Instead, peace parkscan only hope to achieve small successes in therealm of environmental conservation andpeacebuilding that impose costs for some andbring benefits for others.

Ecosystems have often been separated by“artificial” national political boundaries, andpeace parks seek to restore ecosystem connec-tions through common management policies.However, Neumann (2000) argues that suchscientific justifications for global conservationstrategies tend to gloss over the magnitude ofpolitical change involved, and instead investinternational conservation groups and stateswith increased authority over resources and,often, over local communities. The failure torecognize the level of political change requiredand to anticipate community responses to newforms of control over natural resources by exter-nal agencies (e.g., NGOs, IFIs, transnationalmanagement authorities) can affect the long-term implementation of peace parks.

Peace park supporters have consistentlyargued that they have a neoliberal, market-

Chemistry of the Earth, Parts A/B/C 30, 886-893.Murphree, Marshall W. (2004). “Who and what are

parks for in transitional societies?” In Brian Child(Ed.), Parks in transition: Biodiversity, rural develop-ment, and the bottom line (pages 217-232). Sterling,VA: Earthscan.

Swatuk, Larry A. (2005a). “Environmental security.” InMichele Betsill, Kathryn Hochstetler, & DimitrisStevis (Eds.), Palgrave advances in the study of inter-national environmental politics. New York: Palgrave.

Swatuk, Larry A. (2005b). “Political challenges to inte-grated water resources management in southern

Africa.” Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, PartsA/B/C, 30, 872-880.

Umhlaba Wethu (A quarterly bulletin tracking landreform in South Africa). (2005, June). Bellville,South Africa: Programme for Land and AgrarianStudies. Available online athttp://www.uwc.ac.za/plaas/publications/Umhlaba%20Wethu%2003.pdf

Wolmer, William. (2003, March). “Transboundaryconservation: The politics of ecological integrity inthe Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park.” Journal ofSouthern African Studies 29(1), 261-278.

Global Politics and Peace Parksby Rosaleen Duffy

Rosaleen Duffy is a senior lecturer in the

Centre for International Politics at

Manchester University.


68

oriented economic rationale in the form oftourism (especially ecotourism). However, thepromotion of tourism as a way to financiallysustain conservation is a misplaced effort(Duffy, 2005). For example, local communitiesthat subsist on the resources held within thenew peace parks may be asked to relinquishsuch user rights in return for promises thattourism will bring more revenue. Yet, newtourism ventures often take a number of yearsto become financially viable, and this is simplytoo long for many poor communities to wait.In addition, the revenues, profits, and employ-ment opportunities from such ventures are notalways clearly earmarked for local communityuse, but instead often end up in the hands ofexternal (and wealthy) tour operators (seeMowforth & Munt, 1998).

Supporters of peace parks see communitiesas vitally important actors in ensuring that theschemes are socially as well as environmentallysustainable (see Hulme & Murphree, 2001).However, local participation is far from politi-cally neutral and has often helped the dominanteconomic, political, and social groups withincommunities further their interests at theexpense of others. Furthermore, presentingcommunities as single units with common

interests that support peace parks is a clear over-simplification.

As part of peace park proposals, local com-munities are expected to enter into complexrelations with external agencies, such as localand global NGOs, donors, and IFIs (e.g., theWorld Bank). Peace parks have attractedenthusiastic financial backing from suchorganizations. On one hand, the bargainingpower of communities can be significantlyenhanced through their relationships withinternational NGOs. On the other hand, theneeds and political power of communities canbe severely undermined through their partici-pation in transboundary conservationschemes that incorporate a number of global-ly powerful actors.

Supporters of peace parks have used argu-ments about national security, environmentalsecurity, and conflict resolution to justifythese schemes. The World Bank and the PeaceParks Foundation argue that transfrontierconservation encourages regional integrationand fosters peaceful cooperation betweencountries that have been—or may be—engaged in conflict with one another. Peaceparks are promoted as a way to reduce oreliminate conflict over natural resources andto cooperatively encourage sustainable eco-nomic development. The assumption thatpeace parks reduce competition over scarceresources, however, needs more refined analy-sis of peace parks in practice.

Furthermore, peace parks are already“transnationalized” by illicit networks. Peaceparks are often proposed for areas that providekey resources for those illegally harvesting floraand fauna for local use or international trade. Itis clear that networks utilize weakly enforcedborders to traffic arms, drugs, stolen cars, andpeople, as well as to illegally trade endangeredspecies of plants and animals, such as ivory,rhino horn, rare orchids, furs, and tiger bone.These border regions are often where environ-mental NGOs, state governments, and localcommunities look to establish peace parks(Duffy, 2005, in press).

The needs and politicalpower of communities canbe severely underminedthrough their participationin transboundary conser-vation schemes that incor-porate a number ofglobally powerful actors.


69

References

Duffy, Rosaleen. (2005). “The politics of global envi-ronmental governance: The powers and limitationsof transfrontier conservation areas in CentralAmerica.” Review of International Studies 31(1),307-323.

Duffy, Rosaleen. (in press). “Global governance andenvironmental management: The politics of trans-frontier conservation areas in southern Africa.”Political Geography.

Hulme, David, & Marshall Murphree. (2001). Africanwildlife and livelihoods: The promise and performanceof community conservation. Oxford: James Currey.

Mowforth, Martin, & Ian Munt. (1998). Tourism andsustainability: New tourism in the Third World.London: Routledge.

Neumann, Roderick P. (2000). “Primitive ideas:Protected area buffer zones and the politics of landin Africa.” In Vigdis Broch-Due & Richard A.Schroeder (Eds.), Producing nature and poverty inAfrica (pages 220-242). Uppsala: NordiskaAfrikainstitutet.

preview...the siachen glacier in kashmir has served as a battleground for india and pakistan. more...

Documents