Peace Parks and global politics Dr Rosaleen Duffy Centre for International Politics Manchester University

Peace parks and globalisation Changes in the global system in 21 st Century International co-operation for transnational environmental problems Key backing from a network of international actors

Global governance Commission on Global Governance 1995 Shift away from state centric system Sum of rules and regulations Liberal project There are examples of global governance in the environment eg Peace Parks

Do Peace Parks work? Scientific rationale provides a technical and politically neutral justification But they are highly political interventions eg land registration for buffer zones

rationale Neoliberal rationale through appeals to making conservation and community development pay its way through tourism development Highly problematic

Partnerships? Local communities identified as participants, partners and stakeholders Such depoliticised language may mask important power dynamics

Global networks Local communities expected to negotiate with networks of external actors Can mean that communities are then ‘partners’ in a top down and market oriented approach – does that fit with their interests?

Conflict resolution? Peace parks justified in terms of environmental co-operation as a pathway to wider conflict resolution But Peace Parks can produce new forms of conflict over access to and control over natural resources (violent and non violent)

Illicit networks Borderlands are often already used by illicit networks: drugs, cars, human trafficking, trade in endangered species An analysis of the importance of these interest groups is often lacking

Conclusion They are not neutral, technical and scientific interventions Peace Parks are inherently political interventions and there is a need to recognise the complex networks of actors involved and the power relations among them if they are to succeed.