![Sample our Law journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5942/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Law.jpg"})
Notes
1 The first conference, the First World Conference on National Parks, had no particular theme, and was held in Seattle in 1962. In 1972, the Second World Conference on National Parks was held in and around Yellowstone National Park, the oldest national park in the world. It coincided with the centennial of the creation of the Park and took as its theme “National Parks: A Heritage for a Better World.” In 1982, the first meeting outside the United States was held in Bali around the theme of “Parks for Development.” The meeting was dubbed the Third World Congress on National Parks and marks the beginning of what has now become an ongoing process of identifying major themes and concerns to be pursued during the ensuing decade. In 1992, expanded interests were signaled by calling the Caracas assembly the Fourth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. The theme was “Parks for Life” and for the first time attendance reached into the thousands. At Bali, there were three hundred and fifty participants, mostly professional people working in park and protected area management. The Caracas Congress attracted two thousand five hundred people, signaling the success of IUCN in bringing park professionals together with the people from non-governmental organizations and policy makers whose support of parks and protected areas is vital to their success. There was agreement on a Caracas Action Plan, in which participants committed themselves to the goal of including ten per cent of each major biome in the world in a system of parks and protected areas by 2002. The Fifth World Parks Congress, organized around the theme of “Benefits beyond Borders,” would normally have been held in 2002. It was delayed to accommodate the holding of the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in September 2002. Attendance at the Durban Congress has been estimated at between 2,700 and 3,000, making this decennial event one of the most important on the international environmental calendar.
2 Robert Boardman, International Organization & the Conservation of Nature (1981).
3 Alfred Runte, National Parks: The American Experience (1979).
4 John Carroll, Environmental Diplomacy: An Examination and a Prospective of Canadian-U.S. Transboundary Environmental Relations (1983); The Peaceful Management of Transboundary Resources (Gerald H. Blake et al., eds., 1995); Biodiversity Conservation in Transboundary Protected Areas (Alicja Breymeyer & Reginald Noble, eds., 1996); Stewardship Across Boundaries (Richard Knight & Peter Landres, eds., 1998); Eyal Benvenisti, Sharing Transboundary Resources: International Law and Optimal Resource Use (2002); William Wolmer, Transboundary Conservation: The Politics of Ecological Integrity in the Great Limpopo Transfrontier Park, 29 J. S. Afr. Stud. 261 (2003); Transboundary Protected Areas: The Viability of Regional Conservation Strategies (Uromi Goodale et al., eds., 2003).
5 John Freemuth, Islands under Seige: National Parks and the Politics of External Threats (1991).
6 There is excellent insight into how demanding and complex this can be in the case of Yellowstone, the site of the Second World Conference on National Parks, in The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem: Redefining America's Wilderness Heritage (Robert Keiter & Mark Boyce, eds., reissue edition, 1994).
7 For a comparative analysis of how American and Canadian park agencies have identified and responded to changing use values in national parks, and the associated changes in agency support, see William R. Lowry, The Capacity for Wonder: Preserving National Parks (1994). The most detailed recent treatment of the shifting use values associated with United States public lands is Jan G. Laitos & Thomas A Carr, The Transformation of Public Lands, 26 Ecology L. Q. 140 (1999).
8 The time-honored framework for striking balances involved multiple-use decision making. There is a strong case to be made that the multiple-use framework has failed and is unlikely to prove helpful, again, given the increasing priority attached to the non-economic value of park resources, including wildlife resources, and the use of parks for non-consumptive or minimally consumptive commercial activities like bioprospecting. See e.g., R. McGreggor Cawley & John Freemuth, A Critique of the Multiple Use Framework in Public Lands Decisionmaking, in Western Public Lands and Environmental Politics 32 (Charles Davis, ed., 1997); Michael C. Blumm, Public Choice Theory and the Public Lands: Why “Multiple Use” Failed, 18 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 405 (1994); Holly Doremus, Nature, Knowledge and Profit: The Yellowstone Bioprospecting Controversy and the Core Purposes of America's National Parks, 26 Ecology L. Q. 401 (1999).
9 The broad range of these considerations are sketched in text book fashion in Graeme Worboys, Michael Lockwood & Terence De Lacy, Protected Area Management: Principles and Practice (2001). See also Natural Connections: Perspectives in Community Based Conservation (David Western & R. Michael Wright, eds., 1994); National Parks and Protected Areas: Their Role in Environmental Protection (R. Gerald Wright, ed., 1996); Conservation Through Cultural Survival: Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas (Stan Stevens, ed., 1997); Parks in Peril: People, Politics and Protected Areas (Katrina Brandon, Kent Redford & Steven Sanderson, eds., 1998); Partnerships for Protection: New Strategies for Planning and Management for Protected Areas (Sue Stolton & Nigel Dudley, eds., 1999); Making Parks Work: Strategies for Preserving Tropical Nature (John Terborgh et al., eds., 2001).
10 In the case of central Africa, see e.g., Kai Schmidt-Soltau, Conservation-related Resettlement in Central Africa: Environmental and Social Risks, 34 Development and Change 525 (2003).
11 One estimate by region of the size of the shortfall between what is needed to manage protected areas properly and what governments actually provide appears as Table 8 in Michael J.B. Green & James Paine, State of the World's Protected Areas at the End of the Twentieth Century. Paper presented at the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Symposium on “Protected Areas in the 21st Century: From Islands to Networks,” Albany, Australia, 24–29th November 1997, at 25, and available online at http://www.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/albany.pdf All web pages and web sites cited in this article, in this note and those following, were accessed in May, 2004.
12 For an anecdotal portrait of the difficulties and competing considerations that arise in developing countries in protecting biodiversity, see Conserving Biodiversity, Sustaining Livelihoods: Experiences from GEF-UNDP Biodiversity Projects (UNDP, New York, 2002). Available at http://www.undp.org/gef/new/BiodiversityBrochure.pdf
13 The World Wildlife Fund International (WWF), for example, clearly sees the World Parks Congress as a major opportunity to raise issues, develop support, and forge linkages with others. See generally www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/policy/policy_and_events/world_parks_congress.cfm At the Durban Congress, WWF presented position papers explaining why it has understood protected areas to be central to its own work for forty years and what specifically it expected from Durban (http://www.panda.org/downloads/protectedareaspositionpaperwpc2003_svvl.pdf) and urging the creation of a system of protected freshwater ecosystems (http://www.panda.org/downloads/freshwater/wpcfreshwaterpolicygoals.pdf). A full color, twenty-two page brochure was produced to describe WWF's role in creating partnerships to advance protected area goals (http://www.panda.org/downloads/wpcbrochure.pdf). And the WWF International Director General, Claude Martin, made three presentations at Durban, one on climate change and protected areas, one on the future of protected areas in Africa, and a third describing WWF's Gifts to the Earth scheme.
14 There is an excellent introduction to the interplay between these issues and the work of the Durban Congress on the ELDIS biodiversity page, http://www.eldis.org/biodiversity/WPC.htm
15 Available online at http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/programme/intro.htm
16 The details are at http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/programme/workshops.htm
20 The outputs are visible from http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/outputs/intro.htm
25 See http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meeting.aspx?lg=0&wg=COP-07 The overall report of CBD COP-7 can be seen at http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/cop/cop-07/official/cop-07-21-part1-en.pdf The specific COP-7 discussion related to future cooperation and collaboration between the CBD and, among other entities, the World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) of IUCN is summarized at http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/cop/cop-07/official/cop-07-15-en.pdf
26 These other outputs include a United Nations List and Assessment of the State of the World's Parks, a Protected Areas User Manual, an identification of ten target areas needing attention to strengthen the management of protected areas in the next decade, a report on the outcomes of the Durban Congress specific to Africa, a description of a proposed network pulling together best practices for protected areas management (PALNet), a discussion of tourism and protected areas, a discussion of transboundary initiatives, a protected areas category review (aimed at developing a widely shared descriptive terminology for protected areas), an analysis of the relationship between protected areas management and extractive industries, a report on the spiritual values of protected areas, and a special look at protected areas in mountain regions. The relevant hyper-links are at http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wpc2003/english/outputs/intro.htm#others
27 “In the past,” writes Kenton Miller, the Chair of WCPA, “like all such widely based networks, WCPA has struggled to communicate with and between its members. Exchanging information, conveying best practice and just keeping in touch were slow, expensive and inefficient. But the new information technology—and above all access to the Internet—makes possible rapid, inexpensive and efficient communication. No longer need WCPA rely on periodic, often erratic and somewhat ‘top down’ mail-outs from its Swiss headquarters: it can now become a genuinely interactive network, in which its various regions, themes and task forces can keep constantly in touch. The new, hugely improved WCPA web site is the means by which this will now be done. On show here is all of the WCPA's rich network of expertise. Whether you are interested in it as a WCPA member, a policy maker, a protected area manager, a researcher or just an interested member of the public, you are welcome to browse through the Web site and find what we are up to.” See http://www.iucn.org/themes/wcpa/wcpa/wcpaindex.htm#work These remarks underscore the extent to which IUCN and all of the other leading organizations, non-governmental and intergovernmental, active in global environmental politics have come to rely on web technology to accomplish their goals. In the case of peak associations, like IUCN and WWF, the use of technology shows great sophistication and, from a scholar's point of view, makes available an unprecedented wealth of both primary and secondary materials.