ENST-70
Fall 2009
Samantha 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
Ostrowski
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
2
Ostrowski
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.
3
Ostrowski
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. “Betweencountry collaboration 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
4
Ostrowski
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: A View from the South.” Science 317 (August 10, 2007): 755756.
Sandwith, T., C. Shine, L. Hamilton, and D. Sheppard. Transboundary Protected Areas for Peace and Cooperation. 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, 19351945.” 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.
5