Peace parks: The paradox of globalisation1

This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, grant reference R000223013. It was initially presented as a conference paper at the International Political Studies Association XVIII World Congress, ‘World Capitalism, Governance and Community: Towards a Corporate Millennium’, Quebec City, 1–5 August 2000. Panel Convenor for Thematic Paper Session on Globalisation and its Effects. Title: ‘Peace Parks: Environmentalism, State Sovereignty and Criminality’. I would like to thank Professor Christopher Clapham at Lancaster University for his comments on previous drafts and thanks to two anonymous reviewers whose suggestions were very helpful. I would also like to thank Dr Richard Hedger at Strathclyde University for his help with preparing this article.

Concern for environmental protection within an increasingly ‘globalised’ international system has led in many parts of the world to plans for transfrontier conservation areas, commonly known as ‘Peace Parks’. These offer the prospect of providing integrated management for bioregions that have been divided by state frontiers, and reopening animal migration routes. They also promise increased tourist revenues since visitors, too, would be free to benefit from the enhanced transnational space that the parks provide. This paper examines plans for such parks in two regions, Southern Africa and Central America. In practice, these plans have been undermined by the existing uses of transnational space for informal (and often criminal) transfers that themselves benefit from the permeability of frontiers in areas that are weakly controlled by state authorities; these include smuggling, poaching, illegal immigration and the trade in narcotics. Such activities, which likewise derive from ‘globalisation’, generate powerful political interests, both among local communities and more widely. Paradoxically, the creation of Peace Parks requires more, and not less, state control of frontier zones, and raises significant issues for the management or control of globalising forces in weakly administered regions of the developing world.

Notes

This research was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, grant reference R000223013. It was initially presented as a conference paper at the International Political Studies Association XVIII World Congress, ‘World Capitalism, Governance and Community: Towards a Corporate Millennium’, Quebec City, 1–5 August 2000. Panel Convenor for Thematic Paper Session on Globalisation and its Effects. Title: ‘Peace Parks: Environmentalism, State Sovereignty and Criminality’. I would like to thank Professor Christopher Clapham at Lancaster University for his comments on previous drafts and thanks to two anonymous reviewers whose suggestions were very helpful. I would also like to thank Dr Richard Hedger at Strathclyde University for his help with preparing this article.