Parks for peace....riddled with violence? What's going on?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10701982
Just the other day, I posted news on the death of 3 rangers and 5 soldiers in Virungas NP, part of the Central Albertine Rift TFPA Network. Today, it's football players getting gunned down in a small peace park in Juarez.
One of the things about peace parks is that it's still an evolving term. Some people equate peace parks to transboundary protected areas. This is, at least in part, based on the assumption that collaborative conservation across borders inevitably nurtures peace. It's is one of the key theoretical underpinnings of environmental peacebuilding, one of the main arguments for peace parks, so I believe that they're right, there is peace-building inherently occurring in transboundary collaboration, but what's wrong with being explicit about peace? About demanding it outright, conservation AND peace. Maybe, that's what we need, to just state it loud and clear and to accept no less.
The Central Albertine Rift TFPA Network is a transboundary protected area, but not officially recognized as a peace park. When I asked whether or not there was any movement in the direction of declaring it as such, the answer that I got is "no." It seems park people are afraid to ask for too much. Proponents of transboundary conservation in the Central Albertine Rift are currently working on a trilateral agreement between the three governments to formally recognize their efforts and to allow for more cooperative arrangements (park authorities are now limited in their joint activities because of legal constraints). If they can move the draft treaty forward and get governmental support for cross-border conservation activities to protect the wildlife, they're happy. Asking for peace on top of that, would just complicate things.
I've even been told that including a peace objective in the treaty may confuse the most important issue - biodiversity conservation. Some have advised me that I shouldn't push the issue either, let my idealisms hinder practicalisms. But, I can't help but ask.....when insecurity in the DRC, for example, is leading to the deaths of over 160 rangers (not to mention civilians, combatants, etc.), a horrifying amount of illegal poaching, logging, natural resources and arms trafficking, etc.....how is conflict not directly related to biodiversity protection? Is positive peace not a critical factor to effective conservation? Don't we need peace?
I could be wrong, but I think that people are afraid to demand peace. It's like talking about peace is for "hippies" only or something.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10701982
Just the other day, I posted news on the death of 3 rangers and 5 soldiers in Virungas NP, part of the Central Albertine Rift TFPA Network. Today, it's football players getting gunned down in a small peace park in Juarez.
One of the things about peace parks is that it's still an evolving term. Some people equate peace parks to transboundary protected areas. This is, at least in part, based on the assumption that collaborative conservation across borders inevitably nurtures peace. It's is one of the key theoretical underpinnings of environmental peacebuilding, one of the main arguments for peace parks, so I believe that they're right, there is peace-building inherently occurring in transboundary collaboration, but what's wrong with being explicit about peace? About demanding it outright, conservation AND peace. Maybe, that's what we need, to just state it loud and clear and to accept no less.
The Central Albertine Rift TFPA Network is a transboundary protected area, but not officially recognized as a peace park. When I asked whether or not there was any movement in the direction of declaring it as such, the answer that I got is "no." It seems park people are afraid to ask for too much. Proponents of transboundary conservation in the Central Albertine Rift are currently working on a trilateral agreement between the three governments to formally recognize their efforts and to allow for more cooperative arrangements (park authorities are now limited in their joint activities because of legal constraints). If they can move the draft treaty forward and get governmental support for cross-border conservation activities to protect the wildlife, they're happy. Asking for peace on top of that, would just complicate things.
I've even been told that including a peace objective in the treaty may confuse the most important issue - biodiversity conservation. Some have advised me that I shouldn't push the issue either, let my idealisms hinder practicalisms. But, I can't help but ask.....when insecurity in the DRC, for example, is leading to the deaths of over 160 rangers (not to mention civilians, combatants, etc.), a horrifying amount of illegal poaching, logging, natural resources and arms trafficking, etc.....how is conflict not directly related to biodiversity protection? Is positive peace not a critical factor to effective conservation? Don't we need peace?
I could be wrong, but I think that people are afraid to demand peace. It's like talking about peace is for "hippies" only or something.
No comments:
Post a Comment