Printer Friendly

International transborder protected areas: experience, benefits, and opportunities.

Introduction

Environmental protection in frontier or border regions has traditionally focussed on two primary issues: air quality and water quality and supply. However, there is a growing recognition that the creation of transborder protected areas can also be an effective method of environmental protection in these regions. A variety of terms have been used to describe these areas including transboundary parks (Kenney, 1990), international peace parks (Carroll, 1979), transfrontier nature reserves (Thorsell and Harrison, 1990), and cross border parks (McNeely, 1993). While the terminology may differ, the concept is the same: parks and protected areas abutting each other at a common political border or single protected areas that cross political boundaries.

The intent of this paper is to provide an overview of the global experience with transborder protected areas located along international borders. It reviews the advantages associated with these areas and examines the two primary benefits of transborder parks: the promotion of peace, and the formation of larger reserves. Experience with and opportunities for cooperative management are analyzed along with the challenges that exist to creating more of these areas. An international designation for transborder protected areas that promotes international cooperation is proposed. Finally, further research is recommended and possible directions for such research are suggested.

International Experience

Waterton Lakes National Park in Alberta, Canada and Glacier National Park in Montana, USA are widely recognized as the first international transborder protected area. Waterton Lakes was created in 1895 and Glacier National Park was established 15 years later. In 1932 the respective federal governments enacted a bill to designate their respective portions of the area as part of an International Peace Park, the first of its kind, "for the purpose of establishing an enduring monument of nature to the long-existing relationship of peace and goodwill between the people of and Governments of Canada and the United States" (as quoted in Lieff and Lusk, 1990).

Following the designation of Waterton-Glacier as an International Peace Park, other transboundary protected areas began to appear on the global map. For example, the signing of the Krakow Protocol between Poland and Czechoslovakia in 1925 provided for the establishment of three protected areas along their shared border between 1948 and 1967 (Thorsell and Harrison, 1990). As would be expected however, the majority of transborder protected areas have been formed in the past 30 years. During this period, the number of parks and protected areas around the world has more than quadrupled (IUCN, 1993).

Thorsell and Harrison (1990) presented the results of the first inventory of international transboundary protected areas. A total of seventy sites were identified involving 65 countries. Figure 1 illustrates the location of these sites with a selection of others that have since been created. Table 1 presents a list of the transborder protected areas mentioned in this paper. Relevant data is presented on the combined area of the reserves, their respective IUCN category of protection, and year of establishment.

In light of this relatively recent growth, the potential to create transborder parks and the benefits associated with them have only recently been collectively recognized by the international community. Three forums on transfrontier protected areas have been held in the last decade, each sponsored by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). These conferences and workshops have promoted the benefits of such areas and have allowed representatives from around the world to share experience with transborder parks and reserves. As a result of the first collaborative meeting held in 1988 (Thorsell, 1990), the IUCN developed a working set of international guidelines to promote the establishment and effective management of transfrontier parks and reserves (CNPPA, 1990). Two subsequent forums held in 1992 and 1996 (McNeely, 1993; Hamilton et al., 1996) identified the need to continue efforts in establishing transborder parks and working towards cooperative management of these areas.

The Formation of Transborder Protected Areas

A review of the experience with transborder parks suggests that these areas can be formed in one of three ways: intentional and simultaneous establishment; intentional but offset formation; or unintentional formation. Intended and simultaneous establishment refers to a transborder protected area planned in advance, where the lands in each country are set aside for this purpose at approximately the same time. The Lanjak Entimau Reserve in Sarawak and Gn. Bentuang dan Karimum Reserve in Kalimantan are examples of this type of establishment. These reserves were planned and established simultaneously for the purpose of creating a transfrontier reserve (MacKinnon et. al., 1986). While relatively few transborder protected areas fit into this category of establishment, it is probable the number will increase as the benefits of cooperation in managing frontier areas gain recognition.

The second category of establishment, intentional but offset formation, refers to a transborder park that was intentionally created, but the protected areas comprising the park were established at different times and under different circumstances. An example of this type of formation exists in the European Alps. Gran Paradiso National Park was established in Italy in 1922 to protect the ibex (Capra ibex). However, the ibex's summer range lies across the international border in the French Alps. Recognizing the potential to create a transborder protected area to protect the ibex year-round, France established Vanoise National Park in 1963. In 1972, the parks were formally twinned and their shared border was doubled in length (Thorsell and Harrison, 1990).

Map Park, Nation (Year Established-IUCN Class) Combined Area
No. (km2)


 1 Wrangell- St. Elias, USA (1978-II) and 55,835
 Kluane, Canada (1976-II)
 2 Glacier Bay, USA (1925-II) and 22,723
 Tatchenshini-Alsek, Canada (1993-II)
 3 Glacier, USA (1910-II) and 4,606
 Waterton Lakes, Canada (1895-II)
 4 Arctic, USA (1980-IV) and 92,617
 Ivvavik/Vuntut, Canada (1984/1985-II/II)
 5 Boundary Waters, USA (1978-III) and 7,970
 Quetico, Canada (1950-II)
 6 North Cascades, USA (1968-II) and 2,702
 Manning, Canada (1941-II)
 7 Tatrzanski, Slovakia (1948-II) and 953
 High Tatra, Poland (1955-II)
 8 Pieninski, Slovakia (1967-II) and 45
 Pieniny, Poland (1932-II)
 9 Karkonoski, Poland (1959-II) and 419
 Krkonose, Czech Republic (1963-V)
 10 Vanoise, France (1963-II) and 1,230
 Gran Paradiso, Italy (1922-II)
 11 Haute Fagnes, Eifel, Belgium (1957-IV) 2,251
 and Nordeifel, Germany (1960-V)
 12 Pfalzerwald, Germany (1958-V) and 2,990
 Vosges du Nord, France (1975-V)
 13 Germano-Luxembourg Nature Park, 360
 Germany and Luxembourg (1965-V)
 14 Gn. Bentuang, Kalimantan (1983-I) and 9,688
 Lanjak Entimau, Sarawak (1983-IV)
 15 Serengeti/Maswa, Tanzania (1951/1969-II/IV) 18,473
 and Masai Mara, Kenya (1974-II)
 16 Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe (1952-III) and 86
 Mosi-oa-Tunya, Zambia (1972-II)
 17 La Amistad, Costa Rica (1982-II) and 4,009
 La Amistad, Panama (1988-II)
 18 Los Katios, Columbia (1973-II) and 6,510
 Darien, Panama (1980-II)
 19 Si-a-Paz, Costa Rica (1988-n.a.) and 3,090
 Si-a-Paz, Nicaragua (1988-n.a.)
 20 El Trifinio, 76
 El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala (1988-II)
 21 Rio Chiquibul, Guatemala (n.a.-n.a.) and n.a.
 Chiquibul, Belize (1991-II)
 22 Maya, Guatemala (1990-n.a.) and n.a.
 Rio Bravo, Belize (n.a.-n.a.)
 23 Maya, Guatemala (1990-n.a.) and 8,232
 Calakmul, Mexico (1989-V)

Data Source: IUCN 1993. n.a. - Data not available.


Table 1: Selected List of International Transborder Protected Areas (See Figure 1 for locations)

Finally, transborder protected areas can be formed unintentionally. In this instance, a protected area is established adjacent to an existing protected area in a neighbouring country. However, the formation of a transborder park is not the primary rationale for the establishment of the newer park and is seen as only a secondary benefit. While the unintentional formation of transborder parks could be entirely coincidental, this is not normally the case. Most often, the formation of the transborder protected area results from an attempt by each nation to individually protect or preserve a significant resource or feature that transcends the international boundary.

Most transborder protected areas are formed unintentionally. For example, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was created in Alaska in 1980 to protect a portion of the Porcupine Caribou herd's range. A neighbouring park, Vuntut National Park in the Yukon, was officially designated in 1995 to protect the Old Crow Flats, an internationally significant wetland. While Vuntut protects a portion of the Porcupine Herd's range, the creation of a transborder protected area was not a significant objective in its establishment (Johnson, 1994).

Benefits of Transborder Protected Areas

The benefits(1) of transborder protected areas extend beyond those associated with insular parks and protected areas. These benefits can be arranged into three broad categories; political, social, and ecological. Figure 2 portrays these benefits and illustrates the relationship between the three categories. Two of the more notable benefits are described below.

Promotion of Peace

Transborder protected areas have been used to promote peace and encourage further cooperation between peaceful nations, to facilitate peace between disputing nations, and to settle border disputes between countries. In many instances, this has actually been the primary function of these areas and the main reason for their establishment (Arias and Nations, 1992; Weed, 1994).

McNeil (1990) defines four political climates under which transborder protected areas can or have been established. The first is along the border of countries normally having excellent relations. Canada and the United States provide a good example of this. The two nations are well known internationally for their amiable relationship and no less than six transborder protected areas exist between them, the newest being only three years old (see Table 1). While these parks remain administratively separate and individually operated, there is open communication and cooperation between them. In cases such as these, the establishment of transborder protected areas acts to further strengthen ties between nations and instills an "understanding of the uniqueness of a particular relationship and friendship amongst citizens of the two countries" (Carroll, 1979).

The second political climate under which transborder protected areas could exist is that in which relationships between neighbouring countries are slightly strained, neutral, or peaceful but with the possibility of improved interaction. The transborder protected area of Masai Mara National Reserve in Kenya and Serengeti National Park and Maswa Game Reserve in Tanzania provides an example of this condition. Political differences have strained relations between the two countries. However, the two areas continue to exist and in the process protect extensive habitat for many of Africa's well known large mammals.

The third condition recognized by McNeil is the creation of border parks following war or where boundary disputes exist. Several transborder parks involving Germany provide examples of this. These areas were established during the post war period primarily as an attempt to improve relations with neighbouring countries. In this instance, parks helped to foster peace by acting as a vehicle for renewed cooperation between nations.

The final condition under which transborder parks may be established occurs where hostility or tension exists between two nations. In these circumstances, the encouragement of peace or peaceful relations is often the primary reason for the establishment of such parks. As noted by McNeil (1990), the creation of transborder parks in hostile regions can "help reduce military presence, reduce the scale of military operations..., demonstrate non-military methods of dispute resolution, lead to the eventual resolution of boundary disputes, and generally lead antagonists to the realization that peace is possible".

An example of the use of parks to promote peace between hostile nations occurred over the past decade in Central America. In fact, the establishment of transborder protected areas has become a centrepiece of the Central American peace process. As Weed (1994) describes, they have acted as "icebreakers: relatively neutral subjects that open up discussion of more controversial issues". At least five transborder parks have been established or proposed since peace was achieved in Central America (Arias and Nations, 1992).

Ecological Benefits

The ecological benefits of creating parks and protected areas are well known, and need not be discussed in detail here. However, the formation of a transborder protected area results in the creation of a large contiguous protected area which can have ecological benefits beyond those associated with the individual parks in isolation.

The advantages of larger protected areas over smaller ones in preserving biodiversity are well documented (e.g. Diamond, 1975). To summarize, a positive relationship exists between the size of an area and the number of species it contains. While factors such as proximity to other sources of species immigration and habitat heterogeneity also play a role in increasing species diversity in a particular area, Theberge (1993) states that "as a rough guide, a tenfold increase in area results in a near doubling in the number of species". The use of transborder reserves to maintain species diversity is particularly relevant in areas where numerous small nations exist and one individual nation is incapable of preserving enough land for the protection of a complete suite of species (Dinerstein and Wikramanayake, 1993).

Large protected areas also have a greater probability of sustaining minimum viable populations (MVP). A viable population is one large enough to avoid inbreeding and withstand losses resulting from chance environmental events. If a population declines below a particular threshold - the MVP - these events can act synergistically and render a population extinct or vulnerable to extinction (Lacy, 1996).

As a general rule, the larger a protected area is, the larger its wildlife populations will be. Unfortunately, many protected areas are not large enough to sustain MVPs of large predators or keystone species. However, by joining parks to create larger reserves, transborder protected areas may become large enough to sustain an MVP and prevent or reduce the potential for population extinctions. For example, Burkey (1995) demonstrates that the adjoinment of Serengeti National Park and Masai Mara National Reserve in Tanzania and Kenya improves the ability of these areas to maintain populations of large African mammals.

International boundaries are often arbitrary and transect ecosystem boundaries. As such, the greatest ecological benefit to transborder protected areas is that they have a greater chance of protecting entire ecosystems and, thus, the key geological, hydrological, ecological, biological, and evolutionary functions and processes that occur across the landscape (Kavanagh et al., 1995). The protection of large areas may also result in the protection of entire watersheds, the benefits of which include the preservation of water quality and the regulation of flow. For example, the upper reaches of the Tatshenshini-Alsek watershed in the St. Elias Mountains of North America are protected in Canada's Kluane National Park while the lower portions are protected in Glacier Bay National Park in Alaska. Until 1993 however, the middle - and largest - portion of the watershed in British Columbia was not protected. A large copper mine was proposed for these middle reaches, and apart from affecting the wilderness quality of the area, it was expected to have an impact on downstream water quality (Newcott, 1994). The establishment of the Tatshenshini-Alsek wilderness park in 1993 by the province of British Columbia prevented the mine's development and resulted in the protection of nearly the entire watershed.

In many cases, the territory of a species or the range of an entire population is dissected by an international border. While the animal may be protected in a park or preserve on one side of the border, it or its habitat may not be protected on the other side. Transborder protected areas can prevent this inconsistency by incorporating a greater portion of a population's range. For example, while it may not be entirely protected, a large part of the Porcupine Caribou Herd's range is held in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Vuntut and Ivvavik National Parks in the Yukon.

Opportunities And Challenges

Establishment

Whether establishment is intentional or not, the benefits of creating transborder protected areas are readily apparent. Fortunately, there is a potential to create more of these areas in many parts of the world. For example, the governments of South Africa and Mozambique have discussed the possibility of expanding Kruger National Park across the border and integrating it with smaller parks in Mozambique (Ellis, 1994). Similar opportunities exist wherever unpaired border parks exist. Moreover, border regions are ideal locations for the establishment of parks and protected areas given their tendency to be low in population and economic activity.

However, several challenges face the creation of new transborder protected areas. One of these is the reluctance of local citizens and communities to accept these areas. For example, several attempts at pairing Big Bend National Park with a Mexican National Park in the Sierra Del Carmen have been abandoned due to resistance from Mexican citizens. Parent (1990) notes that "Mexicans are wary of any attempt to dictate their affairs because of past American interference in Mexico. In addition, many Mexicans feel that they need to develop the area for timber, grazing, and mining, rather than preserve it". Similar sentiments have been expressed by communities in several other locations where the potential for cross border parks has been discussed (Arias and Nations, 1992).

A second challenge to creating transborder parks relates to the difficulty of arranging cooperation and communications in circumstances where hostility or border disputes exist. In these instances, simply arranging a meeting between two nations to discuss the opportunity for a transborder protected area can be an immense task; let alone actually establishing one.

A small number of conservationists have expressed apprehension to creating more transborder parks - particularly in developing nations. In South Africa, they have argued that what is needed is not new or larger reserves, but better reserves, especially in light of the "costs of conservation and the land hunger foreseen in some parts of Africa" (Ellis, 1994).

Cooperation in Planning and Management

Transborder parks and protected areas are subject to the same internal and external threats as insular protected areas and face the same operational challenges as these other areas. Yet, the integrated management of transfrontier protected areas is a worthwhile task that can only augment their benefits.

The extent of transfrontier cooperation on any issue varies dramatically throughout the world. Most often it is a function of the relationship between the two nations, the seriousness of the problem(s) at hand, and the political will to resolve the problem(s). Von Malchus (1982) states that cooperation in frontier regions "may range from the exchange of information and the general harmonization of programs or individual schemes to joint problem analysis and the preparation of common policies for the development of certain frontier areas, including practical and financial measures for the implementation of such policies". Cooperation in the planning and management of transfrontier protected areas is no different. As noted by Hamilton et al. (1996), cooperation can range from simple informal agreements involving only the staff of the individual parks, to complex formal agreements involving numerous agencies and organizations, governmental and otherwise. For the most part however, initiatives are more often of the less formal type.

Cooperation in the management of transborder protected areas can be conceptualized as occurring at two levels. The first is within-park cooperation. The second involves cooperation in matters beyond park boundaries to assist in reducing external threats.

i. Within Park Borders

Few cross border protected areas have achieved or even been planned to achieve complete integration of management activities; primarily because the majority of them have been created unintentionally. Nevertheless, most transborder protected areas do coordinate their activities to some extent. Where cooperation has occurred beyond simply communicating regularly, it has assisted in controlling poaching and wildfires, provided for the sharing of information and technology between the two parks, provided a forum for joint staff training and staff exchanges, improved the protection and maintenance of wildlife, coordinated research efforts and tourism strategies, and encouraged sustainable development of border regions within national planning systems (Hamilton et al., 1996; McNeely, 1993).

One of the better known examples of cooperative management occurs between Parks Canada and the U.S. National Parks Service at the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park. While the two parks are administratively separate, they share such responsibilities as search and rescue operations, law enforcement, and interpretive publications and hikes. The two parks also exchange staff regularly, conduct joint meetings, and "generally coordinate their work towards common, long-term goals and objectives" (Lieff and Lusk, 1990). Attempts at further coordinating park management are focussing on establishing a single visitor's fee, developing common research programs and databases, and lobbying the International Boundary Commission to cease clearing the six-metre wide swath along the border between the parks (Lieff and Lusk, 1990).

ii. Beyond Park Borders

There is a growing realization that the ecological and cultural integrity of protected areas is intrinsically linked to the health and character of surrounding areas. As such, there is a need to move away from the traditional approach of managing protected areas as conservation islands. A trend towards regional integration of these areas and the use of an ecosystem approach is required. As Rowe (1990) observed "...sustainability has to be a regional concept, an extended land and water concept involving ecosystem planning...Even large national parks have to be maintained as parts of the larger regions that surround them". Considering that most international borders do not conform to ecosystem boundaries, cooperation in the planning and management of lands surrounding transborder protected areas is an important task.

There is however, significantly little experience in this type of cooperative planning and management. Nevertheless, Zambia and Zimbabwe have taken strides towards such an approach. Victoria Falls, a World Heritage Site, falls on the border between the two nations. Recognizing the increasing pressure from tourism development around the falls, the governments of each country recently developed a bi-national team to carry out a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) of these developments and create a management plan for a 30 km radius around the falls. Based on the results of this process, both Zimbabwe and Zambia have agreed to reduce development around the World Heritage Site (Nalumino and Meynell, 1996). Other efforts towards this type of management have occurred at Waterton-Glacier where coordination of Biosphere Reserve activities and ecosystem-based management strategies has taken place (Hamilton et al., 1996).

Challenges to Cooperative Management

While cooperation in planning and managing transborder protected areas may be advantageous, there are several significant challenges to doing so. For example, the reinforcement of national sovereignty is often cited as a benefit of establishing a transborder protected area. However, local communities and even governments have often perceived the integrated management of these areas as a threat to national sovereignty. A recent proposal to integrate management of North Cascades National Park in Washington State with Manning Provincial Park in British Columbia and develop an ecosystem approach to managing surrounding lands, was met with firm resistance from local communities in the U.S. who believed the plan to be an intrusion of the international community on the liberty of American citizens (Voorhees, 1996). Similarly, political leaders in Central America have expressed hesitancy at promoting binational parks "for fear that they are somehow relinquishing control of national territory" (Arias and Nations, 1992).

A second challenge to implementing cooperative management is the complexity of coordinating the governmental agencies involved and the various institutional arrangements that apply to them. This task is often difficult to achieve within a single nation, let alone between two separate nations. This difficulty is compounded when an ecosystem approach is proposed and additional government agencies and private landowners are involved.

Several authors have suggested that one of the largest stumbling blocks to achieving effective transfrontier cooperation is the lack of effective agreements between nations (e.g. McNeely, 1993; Von Malchus, 1982). For example, McNeely (1993) states that "To work well, transborder protected areas must have the appropriate institutional structures and, above all, legally-binding regulations and compatible legislation between the border countries". However, several transborder protected areas have simple, informal agreements and experience with cooperation in these areas has been very positive (Hamilton et al., 1996). This suggests that formal, binding agreements may not always be necessary. Instead, agreements should be tailored to the needs and desires of the parks, agencies, and governments involved.

Use of International Designations

Anchoring transborder protected areas into international designations can be an effective means of promoting cooperation and providing an institutional framework for joint management. Furthermore, there is a significant benefit to having transborder parks recognized as World Heritage Sites, Biosphere Reserves, RAMSAR sites, and the like. Fay (1992), notes that the joint World Heritage status between Kluane National Park in the Yukon and Wrangell-St. Elias National Park in Alaska has provided a form of joint management and could act as "a catalyst for comprehensive ecosystem management of an international border area". Slocombe (1992) has suggested the designation of this area as an International Biosphere Reserve not only as a method of promoting sustainability throughout the region, but also as a way of reducing external threats to these protected areas and further promoting transborder cooperation in the management of the region's protected areas.

International agreements, such as the Krakow Protocol between Poland and Czechoslovakia, have also worked well in creating transborder protected areas (Thorsell and Harrison, 1990). Furthermore, such conventions can provide the agreements necessary for fostering integrated planning and management of these areas and reinforce the commitment of each nation to maintain their respective protected area.

However, to truly promote the establishment and integrated management of transborder protected areas, an International Peace Park designation should be formally adopted by the international community. This designation could work in a fashion similar to the World Heritage Convention. Transborder protected areas would be jointly nominated for inclusion on a worldwide list of International Peace Parks by the home nations. However, designation would not be automatic. Instead, it must be demonstrated that some level of cooperative management for the area has been developed and that this is being undertaken. Further, the nations involved must be at peace with each other or attempting to attain peace with each other. Responsibility for designating such areas could be assigned to an international conservation organization such as the IUCN or UNESCO.

Desirable Research Directions

It is apparent that the benefits of transborder protected areas extend beyond those of insular parks and protected areas. Whether they are established intentionally or not, it is apparent that the ecological, social, and political benefits of transborder protected areas extend beyond those of insular parks and protected areas. The promotion of peace and international cooperation as well as the creation of contiguous reserves that reduce the fragmentation associated with arbitrarily drawn boundaries appear to be the two most significant benefits. Coordination of management activities can only serve to enhance these benefits and can assist in reducing both internal and external threats.

Literature in the field of transborder parks and protected areas is, however, relatively sparse. Most literature is descriptive in nature and, with the exception of the three forums mentioned above (Hamilton et al., 1996; McNeely, 1993; Thorsell, 1990), transborder parks and protected areas are frequently described independently and not as a collective lot. Few comprehensive analyses have been undertaken, and studies by academics are virtually absent. It is readily apparent that additional research in the form of independent, objective analyses is necessary if successful and equitable planning, establishment, and/or cooperative management of these areas is to occur.

While there are numerous benefits and opportunities associated with transborder parks and protected areas, they may also have drawbacks. It is important to determine what these potential drawbacks may be, their significance, how they can be averted or mitigated, and whether or not they are offset by the benefits of transborder parks and protected areas. For example, the imposition of parks and protected areas on local populations has received considerable attention, particularly as it relates to indigenous cultures. While it has been suggested that the establishment of transborder parks and protected areas can improve intercultural relations and maintain cultural integrity in frontier regions (e.g. McNeil, 1990), it is entirely possible that adverse effects may also occur; particularly where strict nature preserves are established and/or traditional lifestyles are prohibited or disrupted.

The compatibility, equity, and economics of transborder parks and protected areas also require further investigation. For example, conflicts may arise when adjacent areas provide very different levels of protection. Similarly, issues may arise when one nation provides significantly more resources in the establishment and/or cooperative management of a transborder park than another. Finally, analysis of the current and potential role of international funding for transborder parks and protected areas is required. As Weed (1994) noted, international sources of funding are of particular importance, "because levels of popular support and government spending vary from country to country...and the challenges of joint management demand a unique institutional framework not easily covered by existing government departments or ministries." Experience has already been gained in this area. Organizations such as the World Bank, European Community, MacArthur Foundation, and various international conservation organizations and aid agencies have provided capital assistance for transfrontier Biosphere Reserves in Europe and Central America (McNeely, 1994; Weed, 1994).

Many of these issues are, of course, equally related to insular parks and protected areas. However, the question remains as to the relative extent to which the benefits associated with establishment and/or cooperative management of transborder protected areas provide an added value over these other areas. Comparative analyses of transborder protected areas from varying political, institutional, economic, cultural, and ecological environs may be an appropriate method for answering such questions and would prove beneficial in evaluating differences and commonalities across the globe. Moreover, such studies may shed light on the relative importance different countries, international agencies, and nongovernmental organizations place on the various benefits and functions associated with these areas. It should be noted however, that while it may be desirable to search for universal generalizations, the complexity associated with transborder protected areas may make this a near impossible task. As such, detailed studies of individual transborder protected areas continue to be equally desirable.

Acknowledgements

The author gratefully acknowledges the thoughtful review and comments provided by Dr. Gordon Nelson, Dr. Gordon Young, and two anonymous reviewers. Additional thanks are extended to Dr. Scott Slocombe for his input and guidance on subjects related to parks and protected areas.

References

Arias, O. and J.D. Nations. 1992. "A Call for Central American Peace Parks". In; A. Sheldon and A.M. Byers (eds.), Poverty, Natural Resources, and Public Policy in Central America. pp. 43-58. Washington, D.C.: Overseas Development Council.

Burkey, T.V. 1995. "Faunal Collapse in East African Game Reserves Revisited". Biological Conservation, 71(1): 107-110.

Carroll, J.E. 1979. "International Peace Parks: A Concept and a Proposal". In; J.G. Nelson, R.D. Needham, S.H. Nelson, and R.C. Scale (eds.), The Canadian National Parks: Today and Tomorrow (Conference No. 2). pp. 725-730. Waterloo, Ontario: Heritage Resources Centre, University of Waterloo.

CNPPA (Commission on National Parks and Protected Areas). 1990. "Promoting Effective Management of Transfrontier Parks and Reserves: Guidelines". In; J.W. Thorsell (ed.), Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Conservation. pp. 95-98. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Diamond, J.M. 1975. "The Island Dilemma: Lessons of Modern Biogeographic Studies for the Design of Nature Reserves". Biological Conservation, 7: 129-146.

Dinerstein, E. and E.D. Wikramanayake. 1993. "Beyond Hotspots: How to Prioritize Investments to Conserve Biodiversity in the Indo-Pacific Region". Conservation Biology, 7(1): 53-65.

Ellis, S. 1994. "Of Elephants and Men: Politics and Nature Conservation in South Africa". Journal of Southern African Studies, 20(1): 53-69.

Fay, M. 1992. "Kluane and Wrangell-St. Elias National Parks: Joint Management of North America's Largest Wilderness". In; World Heritage Twenty Years Later, pp. 59-64. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Grumbine, R.E. 1992. Ghost Bears: Exploring the Biodiversity Crisis. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Hamilton, L.S., J.C. Mackay, G.L. Worboys, R.A. Jones, G.B. Manson. 1996. Transborder Protected Area Cooperation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Herzog, L.A. 1991. "International Boundary Cities: The Debate on Transfrontier Planning in Two Border Regions". Natural Resources Journal, 31(3): 587-608.

Johnson, J. 1994. "A Parks Canada Perspective on Vuntut National Park". In; J. Peepre and B. Jickling (eds.), Northern Protected Areas and Wilderness. pp. 137-141. Whitehorse, Yukon: Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society-Yukon.

Kavanagh, K., R. Noss, and T. lacobelli. 1995. "Building the Ark". In; M. Hummel (ed.), Protecting Canada's Endangered Spaces: An Owner's Manual. pp. 2-8. Toronto, Ontario: Key Porter Books.

Kenney, J. 1990. "Planet at the Crossroads". National Parks, 64(3-4): 24-28, 42-43.

Lacy, R. 1996. "Fighting Extinction with Population Viability Analysis". World Conservation 27(1): 18-19.

Lieff, B. and G. Lusk. 1990. "Transfrontier Cooperation Between Canada and the US". In; J.W. Thorsell (ed.), Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Conservation. pp. 39-49. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

MacKinnon, J., K. MacKinnon, G. Child, and J. Thorsell. 1986. Managing Protected Areas in the Tropics. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

McNeely, J.A. 1993. Parks for Life: Report of the IVth World Congress on National Parks and Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

McNeely, J.A., J. Harrison, and P. Dingwall (eds.). 1994. Protecting Nature: Regional Reviews of Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

McNeil, R.J. 1990. "International Parks for Peace". In; J.W. Thorsell (ed.), Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Conservation. pp. 23-38. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Nalumino, N. and P.J. Meynell. 1996. Working Towards Cross Border Management of a World Heritage Site: The Strategic Environmental Assessment of Developments around Victoria Falls, Zambia/Zimbabwe. Paper presented at the IUCN World Conservation Congress, October 13-23, 1996, Montreal, Canada.

Newcott, W.R. 1994. "Rivers of Conflict: Tatshenshini-Alsek Wilderness Park". National Geographic, 185 (2): 122-134.

Parent, L. 1990. "Tex-Mex Park". National Parks, 64: 30-36.

Rowe, S. 1990. Implementing Sustainable Development. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan: Department of Crop Science and Plant Ecology, University of Saskatchewan.

Slocombe, D.S. 1992. "The Kluane/Wrangell-St. Elias National Parks, Yukon and Alaska: Seeking Sustainability Through Biosphere Reserves". Mountain Research and Development, 12(1): 87-96.

Theberge, J.B. 1993. "Ecology, Conservation, and Protected Areas in Canada". In; P. Dearden and R. Rollins (eds.), Parks and Protected Areas in Canada. pp. 135-153. Toronto, Ontario: Oxford University Press.

Thorsell, J.W. (ed.). 1990. Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Conservation. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Thorsell, J.W. and J. Harrison. 1990. "Parks that Promote Peace: A Global Inventory of Transfrontier Nature Reserves". In; J.W. Thorsell (ed.), Parks on the Borderline: Experience in Transfrontier Conservation. pp. 3-21. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Von Malchus, V.F. 1982. "Frontier Regions". Ekistics, 294: 214-216.

Voorhees, P. 1996. Nature has no Borders: North Cascades International Park Proposal. Paper presented at the IUCN World Conservation Congress, October 13-23, 1996, Montreal, Canada.

Weed, T. 1994. "Central America's Peace Parks and Regional Conflict Resolution". International Environmental Affairs, 6(2): 175-190.

World Conservation Union (IUCN). 1993. 1993 United Nations List of National Parks and Protected Areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN

(1) The term "function" has also been used in the literature to describe benefits (e.g. McNeil, 1990). However, the use of this word suggests that all transborder protected areas are created intentionally. As illustrated here, this is rarely the case.
COPYRIGHT 1997 Wilfrid Laurier University
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 1997 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Danby, Ryan K.
Publication:Environments
Date:Jan 1, 1997
Words:5787
Previous Article:People and resources in the far north.
Next Article:Assessment of farm plans and countryside planning in Ontario.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters