• woodrow wilson center
  • ecsp

New Security Beat

Subscribe:
  • rss
  • mail-to
  • Who We Are
  • Topics
    • Population
    • Environment
    • Security
    • Health
    • Development
  • Columns
    • China Environment Forum
    • Choke Point
    • Dot-Mom
    • Friday Podcasts
    • Navigating the Poles
    • Reading Radar
  • Multimedia
    • Water Stories (Podcast Series)
    • Backdraft (Podcast Series)
    • Tracking the Energy Titans (Interactive)
  • Films
    • Water, Conflict, and Peacebuilding (Animated Short)
    • Paving the Way (Ethiopia)
    • Broken Landscape (India)
    • Scaling the Mountain (Nepal)
    • Healthy People, Healthy Environment (Tanzania)
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Contact Us

NewSecurityBeat

The blog of the Wilson Center's Environmental Change and Security Program
  • Guest Contributor

    Missing Peace: Why Transboundary Conservation Areas Are Not Resolving Conflicts

    February 19, 2019 By Elaine (Lan Yin) Hsiao
    Virunga National Park

    Transboundary Conservation Areas, such as Parks for Peace, have been heralded for their potential to simultaneously contribute to biodiversity conservation and peace, but evidence to this effect has been elusive.  In fact, more indications suggest that transboundary conservation areas, including Parks for Peace, rely on pre-existing international peace between countries for formalization and on-going non-violent relations for continuity. Although they are primarily designed for ecological peace (based largely on arguments of ecological connectivity), they are not immune to environmental harms.  Perhaps even more challenging is how “fortress conservation” and “green securitization” compromise social peace.

    In my recent doctoral dissertation, I propose that transboundary conservation areas and Parks for Peace have not remedied the violence of protected areas or facilitated the peace dividends envisioned because they are not appropriately designed for international peace (between states), social peace (between peoples) and ecological peace (between humans and the rest of nature).  Design in this case refers to “the legal and governance framework which stipulates why a transboundary conservation area is being created, how it shall be constituted and governed, as well as who is responsible for what activities within the territory in order to achieve its goals or principles, and any other aspect of its constitution.” 

    The dissertation is based on a legal review of 56 transboundary agreements representing 32 transboundary conservation areas, complemented by online survey responses from 88 practitioners who worked in a total of 80 transboundary conservation areas, and field research in two case studies from Africa’s Great Rift Valley (the Greater Virunga Landscape between Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Rwanda, and Uganda; and Kidepo Landscape between South Sudan and Uganda).

    Missing Peace(s)

    The design of transboundary conservation area agreements should integrate all three categories of peace, as well as conflict-sensitivity, and conflict resilience if they are seeking to contribute measurably to positive peace.  However, most of these agreements do not actually mention peace, conflict, or conflict resolution. When they do, it is often in reference to the name of the transboundary conservation area, an organization, or the concept of parks for peace rather than an objective or process.  Furthermore, when it comes to integrating international, social and ecological peace, transboundary conservation area agreements are mostly focused on ecological peace.  One prevailing assumption is that transboundary conservation areas are designed primarily for biodiversity conservation (ecological peace) and that peace is merely a potential side-benefit of environmental cooperation rather than a meaningful process embedded in cooperative governance. Many survey participants confirmed this position, noting that peace and/or conflict resolution are not relevant objectives for their transboundary conservation area.

    We also need to consider how international, social and ecological peace are addressed in transboundary agreements.  The most commonly incorporated social peace mechanisms are participation and benefit-sharing.  Unfortunately, clauses mentioning the participation of communities are generic statements about including local communities, without defining how or in what. None of the agreements mandate or require a minimum threshold of Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) in decisionmaking, although this is a commonly accepted international legal standard.  Mentions of benefit-sharing are similarly undefined, and in practice can appear as “trickle-down” revenue sharing schemes that rely on ecotourism development and frequently fall short of community expectations. 

    A few transboundary agreements pay respect to a recent history of violent conflict or warfare, but they do not address historical injustices related to conservation-induced human rights abuses, such as the forced displacement of indigenous peoples, or provide any grievance/reconciliation mechanisms for long-standing social conflicts.  Conflict resolution most commonly involves a standard dispute resolution clause referring to disagreements about how the agreement is to be interpreted and not about addressing conflicts throughout the broader land and/or seascape.  In order to truly heal conflicts and build peace, transboundary agreements need to better address these challenges to social peace and integrate social peacebuilding with the goals of international and ecological peace; especially given the mounting social criticism of protected areas and transboundary conservation areas.

    Learning from the Ground Up

    The Greater Virunga Landscape and Kidepo Landscape are two transboundary conservation areas with an ongoing history of violent conflicts, including rocky politics between states, ethnic conflicts between peoples and human-wildlife conflicts ranging from crop-raiding to large-scale extraction and land conversion.  Of the 56 transboundary agreements reviewed, the Greater Virunga Landscape and Kidepo Landscape are two of only three agreements that specifically mention environmental peacebuilding.  Transboundary agreements in the Greater Virunga Landscape began as Memoranda of Understanding between NGOs, then ascending levels of government (park authorities and ministries), and led to a 2015 treaty between heads of state.  The Kidepo Landscape took the alternative approach of starting as a treaty between states and has progressed little since.

    The experiences of these two transboundary landscapes suggest that where violent conflicts plague conservation borderlands, it may be more effective to operationalize local activities designed for conflict-resilience and conflict-sensitivity by sustaining local presence and cooperation through sustained resources, solidarity and agreements, formal or informal. In these contexts, on-going local cooperation is preferable to initiating a high-level cooperative agreement or treaty with insufficient institutional capacity and resilience on-the-ground, which can lead to “paper parks” that exist only in writing.  In other words, transboundary conservation cannot be imposed from above in violent landscapes or it may not survive tensions.

    Where functioning systems of transboundary conservation do not yet exist, we can look to existing systems of transboundary governance and peacebuilding as alternatives to build upon.  For example, in the Kidepo Landscape there is an important and untapped role for community-based and/or endogenous conflict resolution.  Traditional systems of clan leadership and long-standing practices of inter-tribal peacemaking, as well as “neutral” third-party facilitation, such as cross-border peace dialogues facilitated by the Catholic Diocese, are bringing tribes together across the border for conflict resolution where cross-border conservation has failed.  Building on and collaborating with these systems can bring environmental peacebuilding practices into social peacebuilding processes.

    Designing Transboundary Conservation Area Agreements for Peace

    It is clear that peace must shift from a symbolic aspiration to an active process within transboundary land and seascapes and in this pursuit, my dissertation offers the following suggestions:

    1. Formalize legal agreements that are negotiated at an appropriate level for sustained cooperation.
      1. The level of agreement(s) should reflect feasible levels of cooperation. If agreements are high-level, cooperation may remain political; whereas ground-level agreements may better support operational integration.
      2. Provide clear mandates supporting peace and conflict resolution through multilevel institutional frameworks and ongoing activities.
      3. Binding instruments are preferable to non-binding instruments; however, it is more important for de facto cooperation to be empowered and maintained.
    2. Codify mechanisms that have proven to be effective. Agreements should support what works on the ground.
      1. Recognize functional transboundary institutional and governance arrangements and strengthen their capacity to work across borders for conservation and peace/conflict resolution.
      2. Incorporate alternative and/or traditional peace and conflict resolution practices that are legitimate and effective.
      3. Provide sufficient authority to implementing parties to undertake activities to build peace and resolve or transform conflicts.
    3. Ensure that transboundary conservation is conflict-sensitive in terms of international, social, and ecological peace/conflict.
      1. Undertake conflict mapping and socio-legal analysis in order to determine existing landscape of conflicts (international, social, and ecological) and be sure to address and provide conflict resolution mechanisms for all identified conflicts and stages of conflict in the agreement(s).
      2. Do no harm. Consider historical injustices, long-standing, or broader conflicts and any conflict triggers which may be affected by conservation activities and prevent/repair conflict impacts.
      3. Include safeguards. Develop mechanisms to prevent the mis-use of resources (natural, human, or capital) in conflict activities and ensure protocols are in place for all staff members and partners engaging in transboundary activities.
    4. Ensure that transboundary conservation is conflict-resilient.
      1. In times and/or places of violent conflict, maintain support to local-level operations.
      2. Seek assistance from neutral third parties, possibly in neutral third territories, to facilitate on-going transboundary engagement through meetings, activities, and information-sharing.
      3. Include or engage with all relevant parties, not just traditional conservation actors. This may include security organs, peace disrupters, local communities, corporations, or private enterprises operating in the landscape. If the transboundary institutions are perceived as neutral conveners or mediators, they may be able to bring these stakeholders together or to engage with them separately without losing credibility with other actors. These relationships and engagements must be carefully managed so they do not negatively affect conflict dynamics.

    Transforming conflicts in and around transboundary land and/or seascapes begins with changing transboundary conservation area design, from transboundary governance, to institutions and cross-border agreements. In this way, transboundary conservation areas can transition beyond symbolic aspirations towards operative positive peacebuilding.

    Elaine (Lan Yin) Hsiao is Co-Chair of the Theme on Environment & Peace at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Commission on Environmental, Economic & Social Peace and an Honorary Member of the ICCA Consortium.

    Sources: Biosec, Cornered by Protected Areas, EcoPeace Middle East, Forest Peoples,  Geoforum, IUCN Academy of Environmental Law, Journal of Sustainable Tourism, Politické vedy, The University of British Columbia.

    Photo Credit: Mountains in Virunga National Park, which sits on the boarder between Rwanda, Uganda, and The Democratic Republic of Congo, September 2009, courtesy of Garrett Ziegler.

    Topics: conservation, Democratic Republic of Congo, environment, environmental peacemaking, featured, Guest Contributor, protected areas, Rwanda, security, Uganda
    • Larry Swatuk

      Dr. Hsiao’s overview of Parks for Peace is, in my view, quite accurate. In Bram Buscher’s terms, transboundary conservation is always ‘future positive’, somehow pushing to one side the complex, present and local to make space for the (national/regional/global) dream of a well managed future for people and nature. Of course, it is not fair to paint all peace parks with the same broad brush. Some work quite well. Those of us interested in environmental peacebuilding should look carefully and comparatively at the reasons behind peace park success and failure. While I do not disagree with Dr. Hsiao’s recommendations, I see these as second order sorts of puzzles. These challenges cannot be successfully met until there is a very frank assessment of the political economy and political ecology of land use in the areas under consideration for transboundary conservation. Studies such as Rachel DeMotts’s The Park Came After Us and Jens Andersson’s et al.’s edited collection Transfrontier Conservation Areas provide insights not to be found in the overly confident mainstream such as The Peace Parks Foundation’s website. In my view, the time is ripe for a new conversation about these initiatives. Perhaps Dr. Hsiao’s PhD thesis will provide that impetus.

    • Djana BEJKO

      Congratulation to the author!
      Peace for the protected areas is a big word…! Nowadays it is strongly connected to the law enforcement, management human capacities and integrated policies in the national level.

    • Emmanuel Mmassy

      Congratulations for good work and suggestions. Normally scientists work enlight authorities with the real situation on biodiversity processes and its future. Political willing from those states sharing the biodiversity boundary is very important for the conservation success. Thus information sharing with political bodies may bring big impact on the biodiversity perpetuation across political boundaries.

    • Maja Vasilijevic

      Overall I find this to be an interesting research, but perhaps with a bit strict definition of three categories of peace in relation to the objectives of transboundary conservation areas. Transboundary conservation is primarily associated with nature conservation goals, as the author indicates. It assumes cooperation between parties across international boundary/ies and if the cooperation is functional and successful, whether at high level (e.g., easing the border controls) or at local level (enabling joint monitoring of species), by my opinion, there is enough evidence that some categories of peace have been accomplished (at least to a certain extent). I don’t think it is important that the word ‘peace’ is included in transboundary agreements, but rather explore whether these agreements would actually lead, potentially and if relevant, to the process of conflict resolution or reconciliation. There is a very good article of Tobias Ide (Does environmental peacemaking between states work? Insights on cooperative environmental agreements and reconciliation in international rivalries) showing on several cases that transboundary agreements (which includes also a significant process of trust building prior to signing of agreements – again, accomplishment of social peace) can in fact lead to reconciliation, sometimes being part of wider political approaches and initiatives. I wouldn’t give up on transboundary conservation approaches as they have an immense role at both local levels and higher political levels.

Join the Conversation

  • RSS
  • subscribe
  • facebook
  • G+
  • twitter
  • iTunes
  • podomatic
  • youtube
Tweets by NewSecurityBeat

Trending Stories

  • unfccclogo1
  • Pop at COP: Population and Family Planning at the UN Climate Negotiations

Featured Media

Backdraft Podcast

play Backdraft
Podcasts

More »

What You're Saying

  • In the Philippines, High Birth Rates, Pervasive Poverty Are Linked
    Dean Knight: What the fuck is a "Hermophitate"???
  • rio favela1 Climate Change Adaptation and Population Dynamics in Latin America and the Caribbean (Report)
    Elliot Soukup: Bruh this is not fake
  • Reading Radar caregiving photo A Dangerous Dichotomy: Women’s Paid and Unpaid Work During COVID-19
    PeacePromoter: This site censors comments, deletes disagreements. Another reason Democrats performed so poorly...

Related Stories

  • UN Environment AssemblyFrom Resolution to Solution: UNEA’s Unique Opportunity to Tackle Environmental Dimensions of Armed Conflicts
  • OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERAWhen Climate Change Meets Positive Peace
  • woodrow
  • ecsp
  • RSS Feed
  • YouTube
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Home
  • Who We Are
  • Publications
  • Events
  • Wilson Center
  • Contact Us
  • Print Friendly Page

© Copyright 2007-2021. Environmental Change and Security Program.

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. All rights reserved.

Developed by Vico Rock Media

Environmental Change and Security Program

Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center

  • One Woodrow Wilson Plaza
  • 1300 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
  • Washington, DC 20004-3027

T 202-691-4000