Cartographies of Nature : How Nature Conservation Animates Borders [1 ed.] 9781443861922, 9781443860147

Citation preview

Cartographies of Nature

Cartographies of Nature: How Nature Conservation Animates Borders

Edited by

Maano Ramutsindela

Cartograwphies of Nature: How Nature Conservation Animates Borders, Edited by Maano Ramutsindela 7KLVERRN¿UVWSXEOLVKHG Cambridge Scholars Publishing %DFN&KDSPDQ6WUHHW1HZFDVWOHXSRQ7\QH1(;;8.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

&RS\ULJKW‹E\0DDQR5DPXWVLQGHODDQGFRQWULEXWRUV All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner. ,6%1 ;,6%1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements .................................................................................. vii &KDSWHU .................................................................................................... Ecology, Borders and Society Maano Ramutsindela &KDSWHU .................................................................................................. The Edges of Nature Maano Ramutsindela &KDSWHU .................................................................................................. Natures of Borders: From Historical to Prospective Epistemologies $QQH/DXUH$PLOKDW6]DU\ &KDSWHU .................................................................................................. 55 Spatial and Institutional Boundaries: Access and Appropriation of Natural Resources in Lake Chilwa Floodplain Mafaniso Hara and Friday Njaya Chapter 5 .................................................................................................. %RXQGDU\PDNLQJLQ&RQVHUYDQFLHV7KH1DPLELDQ([SHULHQFH Alfons W. Mosimane and Julie A. Silva &KDSWHU ................................................................................................ Washoroba and the Proliferation of Borders in the Selous–Niassa Wildlife Corridor Christine Noe &KDSWHU ................................................................................................ 6WDWHRI%RUGHULQJLQ8UEDQ1DWXUH 7DQLD.DW]VFKQHU v

vi

Table of Contents

&KDSWHU ................................................................................................ Bordering the Transfrontier: Conservation and Borders LQ7UDQVQDWLRQDO&RQWH[W Innocent Sinthumule and Maano Ramutsindela &KDSWHU ................................................................................................ The New Borders of Participation in Protected Areas, from (WKQLFLVDWLRQWR/RFDO'LV ,QWHJUDWLRQ7KH&DVHRI&KLOH Sylvain Guyot and Bastien Sepúlveda &KDSWHU .............................................................................................. Overlapping Political and Ecological Borders on the Polish Borderlands 0DUHN:LĊFNRZVNL &KDSWHU .............................................................................................. (YHQWV6LWHV%RUGHU5HVHDUFKDQG.QRZOHGJH Maano Ramutsindela List of Abbreviations .............................................................................. Contributors ........................................................................................... ,QGH[ ......................................................................................................

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

6RPHRIWKHFKDSWHUVLQWKLVYROXPHEHQH¿WHGIURPLGHDVRQERUGHUVWKDW ZHUHSUHVHQWHGDWWKH;,WK%25'(55(*,216,175$16,7,21%5,7  FRQIHUHQFHKHOGEHWZHHQ*HQHYDDQG*UHQREOHLQ6HSWHPEHU,DP JUDWHIXOWRWKHFRQIHUHQFHRUJDQLVHUVDQGWR3URIHVVRUV$QQH/DXUH$PLOKDW 6]DU\DQG)UpGpULF*LUDXWIRULQYLWLQJPHWRVKDUHDSDQHOZLWK3URIHVVRU Michel Foucher. Our sincere thanks go to Cambridge Scholars Publishing for responding positively to the book prospectus and for ensuring the publication of this ERRN :H UHFRUG RXU VSHFLDO DSSUHFLDWLRQ WR &DURO .RXOLNRXUGL ZKR KDV EHHQSDUWRIWKHERRNSURMHFWIURPLQFHSWLRQDQGWR-R$QQH)ULHGODQGHU DQG1LQD0DLVWHUIRUWKHOD\RXWSURRIUHDGLQJDQGLQGH[LQJRIWKHYROXPH Thanks to the authors for accepting my invitation to contribute to this volume and for their cooperation throughout the production process. The SXEOLFDWLRQRIWKLVERRNZDVVXSSRUWHGE\*UDQWIURPWKH1DWLRQDO Research Foundation, South Africa. The editor and authors are grateful to the following reviewers for their willingness to review chapters, and for their useful comments which helped to improve the quality of this volume.

List of Reviewers 3URIHVVRU'DQ%URFNLQJWRQ

 QLYHUVLW\RI0DQFKHVWHU8QLWHG 8 .LQJGRP $VVRFLDWH3URIHVVRU-D\-RKQVRQ 8QLYHUVLW\RI.DQVDV8QLWHG6WDWHV 3URIHVVRU-RVHSK0EDLZD 8QLYHUVLW\RI%RWVZDQD%RWVZDQD 3URIHVVRU-DPLH0RQVRQ 0DFDOHVWHU&ROOHJH8QLWHG6WDWHV 3URIHVVRU3DXOLQH3HWHUV +DUYDUG8QLYHUVLW\8QLWHG6WDWHV 3URIHVVRU-RKDQQHV7VKHROD 8QLYHUVLW\RI/LPSRSR6RXWK$IULFD

vii

CHAPTER ONE ECOLOGY, BORDERS AND SOCIETY MAANO RAMUTSINDELA Introduction 2Q'HFHPEHUWKHQDWLRQDOFRQVHUYDWLRQDJHQF\WKHSouth African 1DWLRQDO 3DUNV 6$13DUNV  LVVXHG D SUHVV UHOHDVH RQ D SLORW SURMHFW WR introduce the harvesting of mopani worms in the .UXJHU 1DWLRQDO 3DUN .13  7KUHH \HDUV DIWHU WKH ODXQFKLQJ RI WKLV LQLWLDWLYH LH   WKH 6RXWK $IULFDQ %URDGFDVWLQJ &RUSRUDWLRQ 6$%&  VKRZHG WKH KDUYHVWLQJ live on television, and has also produced video footage which begins with D7VRQJDVSHDNLQJ\HDUROGZLGRZZKRORRNVDIWHUVHYHQFKLOGUHQDQG ZKRVWDQGVWREHQH¿WIURPKDUYHVWLQJWKHZRUPV+HUVWRU\LVIROORZHGE\ the interview with the Park Ranger, Thomas Mbokota, who suggests that other natural resources such as marula would be released for harvesting by ORFDOFRPPXQLWLHVLQWKH.13LQIXWXUH For SANParks this ‘Christmas Gift’ to impoverished local communities OLYLQJ DURXQG WKH .13 LV WHVWDPHQW WR WKH DJHQF\¶V LQWHQWLRQ WR SUHVHUYH natural resources while also contributing “positively towards the wellbeing and livelihoods of those [rural unemployed] families more especially during &KULVWPDVWLPH´6$13DUNV $FFRUGLQJWRPHGLDUHSRUWVWKHSURMHFW IXO¿OV³6$13DUNV&KLHI([HFXWLYH'U'DYLG0DEXQGD¶VYLVLRQRIHQVXULQJ all national parks are part of greater South African society and not enclaves of protection with many denied access” (New Age Online  The initiative has also been publicised as a practical demonstration of the ,QWHUQDWLRQDO8QLRQIRUWKH&RQVHUYDWLRQRI1DWXUH,8&1 ¶VSULQFLSOH of allowing the utilisation of certain natural resources in protected areas 6$13DUNV 7KHKDUYHVWLQJRIPRSDQLZRUPVQRQHWKHOHVVUHTXLUHV WKDW KDUYHVWHUV VKRXOG DW OHDVW IXO¿O WKUHH FRQGLWLRQV )LUVW WKH\ PXVW EH SHRSOH OLYLQJ DGMDFHQW WR WKH .13 ZKHUH KDUYHVWLQJ LV DOORZHG 6HFRQG WKH\PXVWEHORQJWRRQHRIWKHFRPPXQLW\IRUXPVWKDW.13PDQDJHPHQW created as a vehicle for interacting with neighbouring communities. The LQLWLDWLYHZDVODXQFKHGZLWKFRPPXQLW\PHPEHUV5IURPWKH1[DQDWVHQL region lying between Punda Maria and Phalaborwa (South Africa News 



&KDSWHU2QH

Online 7KLUGKDUYHVWHUVDUHUHTXLUHGWRKDYHDSHUPLWWRKDUYHVWIRU consumption. The story of mopani harvesting is instructive in that it challenges the idea and practice of creating borders between people and parks while at the same time introducing borders in society in more subtle ways. There is an abundance of literature on how the creation of nature conservation areas led to the emergence of borders between people and conservation areas, especially national parks and game reserves. It is now common knowledge that fences are erected around national parks as a clear boundary marker between people and parks. Instead of rehearsing this border narrative, the story of mopani harvesting takes us directly to lines separating people. Such lines are drawn on the basis of natural resource use rather than, say, sociological, political and economical variables that are often used as reference points when considering divisions within society. In the mopani harvesting initiative a line is drawn to separate people who qualify to harvest these worms in the .13DQGWKRVHZKRGRQRW7KH.13ZDVQHYHUFUHDWHG to preserve mopani worms yet these worms have become instrumental in GHFLGLQJZKRVKRXOGRUVKRXOGQRWKDUYHVWLQWKH.13 7KH VWRU\ RI PRSDQL ZRUPV LQ WKH .13 JLYHV XV VRPH LQVLJKWV LQWR broader processes of bordering. For our discussion in this chapter and the volume as a whole, bordering refers to various ways and means by which borders are produced, shaped, or erased in pursuit, or as a result of certain SURMHFWVLQVRFLHW\)RU6FRWW ERUGHULQJ³LVDERXWWKHHYHU\GD\ constructions of borders through ideology, discourses, political institutions, DWWLWXGHVDQGDJHQF\´,WLVDPXOWLGLPHQVLRQDOUHterritorialisation process that takes place at multiple levels. This possibility is enhanced by the nature RI WKH ERUGHU DV ³D PL[ RI UHJLPHV ZLWK YDULDEOH FRQWHQWV DQG ORFDWLRQV´ 6DVVHQ ,QGHHGWKHORFDWLRQRIWKHERUGHULVNH\WRFRQWHPSRUDU\ analyses of bordering as evident in discussions on GHERUGHULQJ DQG UH ERUGHULQJ7DNH6DVVHQ¶V REVHUYDWLRQWKDW³HDFKERUGHUFRQWURO intervention can be conceived of as one point in the chain of locations … [and that] the geographic borderline is but one point in the chain.” It is this chain of locations that underlies the idea that borders are wherever controls are conducted, hence the view that the border is everywhere. While technology has emancipated the border from narrow spatial set WLQJV0OOHU FDXWLRQVWKDWHTXDWLQJERUGHUVZLWKFRQWUROVKRXOGQRW undermine the actual border and its location. He argues that the location of WKHERUGHUPDWWHUVEHFDXVHLWGHWHUPLQHVWKHHI¿FLHQF\DQGVXVWDLQDELOLW\RI WKHERUGHU)RUH[DPSOHWKHERUGHURIWKHVWDWH¶VWHUULWRU\LVPRUHHIIHFWLYH than that at the airport because it is where the traveller could be returned



(FRORJ\%RUGHUVDQG6RFLHW\



home or admitted into the country. This calls for the distinction between the border and the functions of the border under scrutiny. There is there fore a need “to develop a concept of the border which does not rely on the VSHFL¿FIXQFWLRQVLWSURYLGHVGXULQJDSDUWLFXODUKLVWRULFDOSHULRG0OOHU   7KH IRUHJRLQJ DUJXPHQWV DQG FRXQWHUDUJXPHQWV DERXW ERUGHUV DQG ORFDWLRQVDUHVWDWHFHQWULFPHDQLQJWKHDVVXPSWLRQVXQGHUSLQQLQJWKHPKDYH very much to do with the state and its behaviour. A deeper understanding RIERUGHUVFDQEHDFKLHYHGE\SD\LQJDWWHQWLRQWRYDULRXVFRQWH[WVLQZKLFK bordering takes place. It is argued in this volume that nature conservation provides an avenue for understanding the ways in which multiple borders DUHUH FRQVWLWXWHGRQDVLQJOHVLWHDQGKRZWKLVSURFHVVXQIROGVLQSURMHFWV involving various aspects of nature. 7KHPXOWLSOHERUGHUVZH¿QGLQsociety are products of various processes, some of which do not have bordering as their principal objective. Take the harvesting of mopani worms referred to above. SANParks did not go all out to demarcate social borders. Instead, it regards the initiative as a practical way of helping poor people. The harvesting project has, however, direct bordering implications for society. Access to mopani worms in the .13 is decided on the basis of location, i.e. adjacent to the park. Thus, location separates people into ‘privileged locals’ versus the ‘unprivileged other’. This formula has been used in other forms of QDWXUHVXFKDV¿VKHULHVDQG forests, where some people are given access while others are denied on the basis of how far they live from the natural resource in question. Of course, WKHZHDOWK\GRQRWKDYHWROLYHLQSUR[LPLW\WRWKHVHUHVRXUFHVLQRUGHUWR access them; they are the ‘privileged global other’. Beyond the rhetoric of supporting the wellbeing of the poor living adjacent to protected areas, giving privileges to people on the borders of national parks can also serve as a way of thickening the border; meaning LQFRUSRUDWLQJORFDOVDVDQH[WHQVLRQRIWKHQDWLRQDOSDUNERUGHU+HUHWKH locals act as a buffer to strengthen the protective functions of the national SDUNIHQFH7KLVNLQGRIDERUGHULVEHFRPLQJPRUHLPSRUWDQWLQWKH.13 where communities adjacent to the park are accused of colluding with rhino poachers who allegedly buy their way into the park through impoverished communities. In fact, local communities have been accused of harbouring poachers, hence the need to reach out to these communities. It would be naïve to assume that this practice is unique to South Africa. The use of local communities as a EXIIHU]RQHLQnature conservation is a worldwide SKHQRPHQRQ,WLVDVHOISROLFLQJH[HUFLVHWKDWDOORZVORFDOFRPPXQLWLHVWR participate in reinforcing park boundaries.



&KDSWHU2QH

The foregoing points to the need to deepen our thinking about borders and conservation, especially the various ways in which conservation areas help create or recreate borders within society. Social borders are QRWFRQ¿QHGWRSURFHVVHVRSHUDWLQJLQVRFLHW\RQO\EXWDOVRH[WHQGWRWKH environmental domain, where environmental matters serve as a platform for various forms of bordering. The main point here is that conservation can aid our understanding of social borders precisely because the design of conservation areas are highly political. Conservation practices produce feedback loops on social reality. In writing about urban SDUNV*DOHQ&UDQ]    ODPHQWHG WKDW GHVSLWH WKH LGHDO RI GHYHORSLQJ XUEDQ SDUNV DV “the pleasure grounds to all [classes] in society … the reality is that the upper and middle class came to dominate the pleasure gardens.” Class ERXQGDULHV LQ XUEDQ SDUNV WDNH YDULRXV IRUPV LQFOXGLQJ WUDQV portation, opening hours, activities allowed or not allowed in the park, dress code, and so on. As the mingling of classes in urban parks did little to erase the actual boundaries between the classes, the transformation of urban parks, especially in the 8QLWHG6WDWHVIRFXVHGSULPDULO\RQZRUNLQJFODVV7KLVOHG WR WKH VLWLQJ RI SDUNV LQ QHLJKERXUKRRGV 7KLV PHDQV WKDW ³WKH H[FOXGHG FODVVRIRQHHUDEHFDPHWKHIRFXVRISDUNSURJUDPPLQJLQWKHQH[W´&UDQ]  &RQWUDU\WRWKHH[SHFWDWLRQVWKDWWKDWLQWHUYHQWLRQZRXOGOHDG to the equality of park service, the new park programme instead led to the development of separate parks or separate areas in parks. Class boundaries are not limited to urban areas but are also a feature of conservation areas in UXUDOVHWWLQJVVHH5DPXWVLQGHOD  In addition to the social borders associated with nature conservation areas, there is a need to understand VSHFLHV¶ERUGHUVWKDWFRQVWLWXWH³DJHR graphical manifestation of a species’ demographic response to a spatially DQG WHPSRUDOO\ YDU\LQJ ZRUOG´ +ROW HW DO    7KHVH ERUGHUV DUH associated with population dynamics and distribution, and also emerge as a result of the availability of habitats, environmental factors, and so on. 6SHFLHV¶ERUGHUVFDQLQKLELWUHGXFHIDFLOLWDWHRUQHXWUDOLVHÀRZVPRYLQJ DFURVVWKHP&DGHQDVVRHWDO  It follows that a proper understanding of bordering processes in nature conservation areas demands analyses that capture the borders of/in nature and borders within society. How these borders are produced and the forms they take have the potential to enrich our conceptualisation of borders. Lack RIDWWHQWLRQWRERUGHULQJLQDQGEHWZHHQHFRORJLFDODQGVRFLHWDOFRQWH[WVKDV UHVXOWHGLQWRWZRGLVWLQFWWKHRUHWLFDOVLJQDWXUHVRIERUGHUVRQHH[FOXVLYHO\ concerned with ecological borders and the other with borders within society. The few attempts that have been made to forge the links between

Ecology, Borders and Society

5

border research and studies of nature have their own limitations. First, such attempts have completely ignored theories of ecological borders that are IXQGDPHQWDOWRXQGHUVWDQGLQJOLIHLQWKHQRQKXPDQZRUOGDQGWKHnature RI ERUGHUV IRXQG WKHUHLQ 6HFRQG WKH SXUSRVH IRU OLQNLQJ UHÀHFWLRQV RQ nature and understanding of borders remains vague beyond concerns with the absence of the theoretical and empirical links between the two. The goal appears to be mounting a critique of ‘natural’ borders through the logic of social FRQVWUXFWLRQLVP VHH )DOO   7KLUG studies on borders and nature tend to rely on limited categories of conservation areas. The result is the failure to acknowledge a typology of borders associated with various types of nature FRQVHUYDWLRQDUHDVDQGWKHFRQWH[WVLQDQGscales at, which such borders emerge, and the effects they have on both society and nature. This third limitation suggests that conservation areas are a useful site in ZKLFKXQGHUVWDQGLQJVRIERUGHUVLQDQGEHWZHHQWKHKXPDQDQGQRQKXPDQ ZRUOGVFRXOGEHH[SORUHG The message of this volume as whole is that nature conservation areas RIIHUSRVVLELOLWLHVIRUH[SORULQJERUGHUVLQDQGEHWZHHQWKHKXPDQDQGQRQ human worlds. At the basic level, borders in/between these two worlds are intended to conserve ‘nature’ and its workings (including the evolution and change of VSHFLHV¶ERUGHUV WKURXJKKXPDQDJHQF\,QWKHSURFHVVRI conserving nature new forms of borders emerge. Conservation areas are crucial for a meaningful analysis of natures’ borders and the discourses and QDUUDWLYHVUHODWHGWRWKHPDQGKRZVXFKGLVFRXUVHVLQÀXHQFHconservation SUDFWLFH %U\DQ    FRQ¿UPV WKDW ³QDWXUH FRQVHUYDWLRQ LQLWLDWLYHV in the form of protected areas provide remarkable insights into attempts to GHYLVHDQGPDQDJHFRQFHSWXDODQGVSDWLDOJHRJUDSKLFERXQGDULHVEHWZHHQ nature and society.”

Theoretical orientation Social science literature on borders and nature is more of a critique on the use of borders in nature conservation than an engagement with species’ ERUGHUV LQ WKHLU RZQ ULJKW 6XFK D FULWLTXH VHHNV WR µGHQDWXUDOLVH¶ QDWXUH DQGWRH[SRVHYDULRXVZD\VLQZKLFKQRWLRQVRIQDWXUHDLGERUGHUSROLWLFV ,Q WKLV FRQWH[W ERUGHU SROLWLFV UHIHUV WR WKH GLVFRYHU\ RI WKH ERUGHU E\ political and social actors as an instrument through which they pursue their interests and objectives in nature conservation. It can be argued that the ascendancy of border studies in the last two decades or so and the burgeoning work on nature and society neither drew attention to ecological



&KDSWHU2QH

theories of borders nor capitalised on nature as a useful avenue through which border research could be advanced. Very little work, if any, has been GRQHWRLQWHJUDWHLQVLJKWVIURPWKHVWXG\RIHFRORJLFDOERUGHUVDQGVRFLR political borders into theories of borders, and the development of such an integrated theoretical framework does not appear to be on the agenda for border studies. This observation also holds for the few studies that have adopted a social approach to the study of borders and nature. This lack of attention is unfortunate given that VSHFLHV¶ERUGHUVH[LVWLQWKHQRQKXPDQ world in their own right and are also interpreted by humans. Moreover, species borders are impacted upon by anthropogenic forces, some of which have a direct bearing on divisions within society. The key questions central to the discussion of this volume are: What sorts of borders are engendered by nature reserves, conservancies, national parks, FURVVERUGHUconservation areas and so on? What border stories does HDFKRIWKHVHFRQVHUYDWLRQDUHDVWHOODQGZKDWLQVLJKWVRQERUGHUV FDQEH JDLQHGIURPWKHVHFRQVHUYDWLRQDUHDVFROOHFWLYHO\"+RZGRFRQVHUYDWLRQ related borders create multiple dividing lines among people? The volume engages these questions with two main objectives in mind. 7KH ¿UVW REMHFWLYH LV WR H[SDQG DQG GHHSHQ WKH OLQNV EHWZHHQ nature FRQVHUYDWLRQDQGERUGHUVWXGLHVE\EULQJLQJVSHFLHV¶ERUGHUVLQWRFRQYHUVD tion with border studies, while at the same time paying attention to diverse conservation areas and conservation practices. This objective is premised on the view that the purpose for integrating nature conservation into border studies should go beyond establishing a relationship between the two. Instead, it should be thought of as an intellectual investment that could yield DPRUHH[SDQGHGNQRZOHGJHRIERUGHUVLQQDWXUHDQGWKHQDWXUHRIERUGHUV The second objective highlights forms of borders associated with various types of conservation areas and the protection of certain types of natural UHVRXUFHV7KHUHLVDQHHGWRVFUXWLQLVHVRFLRSROLWLFDOERUGHUVSURGXFHGE\ conservation policies and practices. Protected areas divide social groups into insiders and outsiders and have huge bordering consequences for VRFLHW\DVDZKROH6OHWWR 

Content and scope of the volume 7KHFKDSWHUVLQWKLVYROXPHGLVFXVVYDULRXVFRQWH[WVLQZKLFKQDWXUHFRQ servation areas act as a platform for bordering and also highlight the nature of borders that emerge from different types of conservation areas. Con servation areas represent a broad category of areas earmarked for nature



(FRORJ\%RUGHUVDQG6RFLHW\



conservation and management. In this volume, they include statutory pro tected areas and less formal areas that are used to advance the cause of nature FRQVHUYDWLRQ)ROORZLQJWKLVLQWURGXFWRU\FKDSWHU&KDSWHU7ZRUHÀHFWVRQ ecological borders and associated theoretical vocabularies. The rationale is WKDWLWZRXOGEHOHVVSURGXFWLYHWRHQJDJHERUGHUVLQWKHFRQWH[WRIQDWXUH conservation without reference to species’ borders as an object of enquiry. Species’ borders have indeed been the subject of discussion in the biological sciences where the focus is on the workings of nature. Ecological theories of borders are a useful starting point for border research in nature conserva tion. The chapter calls for attention to species’ borders and related theories. %RUGHUVKDYHWKHLURZQKLVWRU\ZKLFKLVVLJQL¿FDQWIRUDQGUHOHYDQWWR contemporary border research. Much of that history is associated with the emergence of the modern state and notions of order and chaos, sovereignty, DQG FLWL]HQVKLS $QQH/DXUH $PLOKDW 6]DU\ JLYHV D EULHI UHFRXQW RI WKH KLVWRU\ RI ERUGHUV DQG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI KXPDQV DQG QRQKXPDQV WR borders. She begins Chapter Three by acknowledging that environmental approaches in social sciences have reproduced the thinking of a radical disjunction between nature and society. She brings to the fore three LPSRUWDQW FRQWH[WV LQ ZKLFK bordering in the domain of the environment WDNHVSODFH7KH¿UVWUHODWHVWRWKHXVHRIQDWXUHDVDGLYLGLQJOLQHDIXQFWLRQ that emanates from the evolution of the modern state and the consequent territorialisation. Here nature is seen as endowed with divisive functions WKDWDUHLQWXUQµQDWXUDOLVHG¶E\GHFLVLRQPDNHUV ,Q WKH VHFRQG FRQWH[W QDWXUH SOD\V DQ LQWHJUDWLYH UROH 3ROLF\ PDNHUV and conservation lobby groups invoke ecological theories to promote WKH UHODWLRQVKLSV EHWZHHQ KXPDQV DQG QRQKXPDQV DQG DPRQJ SHRSOH WKHPVHOYHV FI &KDSWHU (LJKW  7KH WKLUG UHODWHV WR WUDQVQDWLRQDO environmental questions, especially the emergence of new threats associated ZLWKHQYLURQPHQWDOFKDQJH$PLOKDW6]DU\VHHVHQYLURQPHQWDOWKUHDWVDVDQ avenue for understanding new bordering possibilities in nature conservation. In her view, the methods and concepts used for the maintenance of nature have much in common with the governance of human populations. The fact that protected areas are remote often makes control of legal and illegal activities GLI¿FXOWEHFDXVHRIWKHORZQXPEHUVRIUDQJHUVHYHQLQULFKFRXQWULHV The bulk of the discussion in this volume is on borders around various types of FRQVHUYDWLRQ DUHDV DQG WKH LPSULQW RI FRQVHUYDWLRQUHODWHG borders on humans. The discussion moves from less formal to more formal conservation areas. In Chapter Four, Mafaniso Hara and Friday Njaya discuss the ways in which the seasonal variations of Lake Chilwa in Malawi act as both a physical barrier and theatre of opportunities for people relying



&KDSWHU2QH

on the natural resources of the lake. They highlight two main bordering possibilities arising from the management and use of the lake. First, the VHFWRUEDVHG PDQDJHPHQW UHVSRQVLELOLWLHV DQG VWUXFWXUHV RI DXWKRULW\ OHDG to institutions that are not synchronised with one another. Here institutions are understood as the laws, policies, and organisational arrangements regularised across time and space that users and public regulators devise to permit, forbid, or shape required human behaviour towards utilisation of DUHVRXUFH&UDZIRUGDQG2VWURP0HUUH\HWDO 7KH\LQFOXGH the local everyday life and the associated histories and cultures of user FRPPXQLWLHV0HKWD/HDFKDQG6FRRQHV&OHDYHU  6LQFH WKH\ DUH XVHG WR H[FOXGH RXWVLGHUV IURP D UHVRXUFH DQG IRU regulating the type and level of uses permissible for ‘insider’ appropriators, institutions are tools with which physical, social, economic and political boundaries are formulated and formed in space and time. Second, under these conditions, the borders that matter for ordinary users of the lake are VRFLDOO\ HPEHGGHG H[FOXVLRQDU\ FULWHULD DQG SUDFWLFHV WKDW GH¿QH ZKLFK DUHDVEHORQJWRZKRP8VHUVUHO\RQKLVWRULFDOVHWWOHPHQWSDWWHUQVWUDGLWLRQ and custom to lay their claim. These claims relate to the use of the open, PDUVK\ DQG VZDPS\ DUHDV IRU ¿VKLQJ DQG WKH ODNH EHG IRU GU\ VHDVRQ farming. There is also competition between Indigenous ¿VKHUIDUPHUVDQG LQPLJUDQWV +DUD DQG 1MD\D FDOO IRU WKH UHFRQFHSWXDOLVDWLRQ RI WKH W\SHV and forms of boundaries and the requisite resource management institutions at local, national and international levels. They conclude that since the lake is a variable 6RFLDO(FRORJLFDO6\VWHP6(& LWVVXVWDLQDELOLW\LVGHSHQGHQW RQDGDSWDEOHDQGÀH[LEOHERXQGDULHV The focus of Chapter Five is on communal conservancies that form part of the much celebrated FRPPXQLW\EDVHG natural resource management &%150  SURJUDPPH LQ Namibia. In this chapter Alfons Mosimane DQG -XOLH 6LOYD PRYH DZD\ IURP WKH IDPLOLDU WRSLF RI EHQH¿WV DQG ORVVHV associated with CBNRM studies to situate communal conservancies within both border studies and the broader process of neoliberalising nature. Communal conservancies are one type of conservation space that involve the demarcation of community boundaries on communal territories. Mosimane and Silva show that though communal conservancies rarely involve the fencing of territory, they serve as discursive lines on national maps and in the minds of local residents. /RFDOOHYHO DFWRUV DUH DFWLYHO\ LQYROYHG LQ WKH SURGXFWLRQ RI FRQ servancy borders. The delimitation of conservancies is embedded within WKHVRFLDOHFRQRPLFFXOWXUDODQGKLVWRULFDOFRQWH[WV'UDZLQJRQWKHH[ periences from conservancies in Namibia, the authors argue that borders



(FRORJ\%RUGHUVDQG6RFLHW\



of communal conservancies involve negotiation and agreements on FRQ servancy boundaries, and designating what territory is associated with ZKLFKFRPPXQLW\7KHUHLVWKHUHIRUHDFOHDULGHQWL¿FDWLRQRISHRSOHLQVLGH conservancy boundaries as ‘belonging’ to a particular area from which they DUH HQWLWOHG WR H[WUDFW FHUWDLQ W\SHV RI EHQH¿WV 7KH\ FRQFOXGH WKDW FRP PXQDO FRQVHUYDQFLHV SURYLGH RQH LOOXVWUDWLRQ RI KRZ GHPDUFDWLQJ FRQ servation spaces may advance concerns and values of rural residents, largely independent of ecological or environmental goals. $VDIROORZXSWRWKHGLVFXVVLRQRQFRQVHUYDQFLHV&KULVWLQH1RHSD\V attention to conservation corridors that are increasingly being used to create a network of areas under conservation and to preserve critical habitats and ELRGLYHUVLW\RXWVLGHIRUPDOSURWHFWHGDUHDV+HUGLVFXVVLRQLQ&KDSWHU6L[ LV GHYRWHG WR ERWK WKH VFLHQWL¿F DUJXPHQWV IRU ecological corridors and WKHH[SHULHQFHVUHODWHGWRWKH6HORXV±1LDVVD:LOGOLIH&RUULGRU(FRORJLVWV emphasise spatial heterogeneity, linkages, and interactions between ecological patterns and processes and how they vary with scale (Lindborg DQG(ULNVVRQ7XUQHU 7KH\HQGHDYRXUWRHQVXUHWKHVWUXFWXUDO and functional connectivity through the concept of conservation corridors %RLWDQL HW DO  7KH HVWDEOLVKPHQW RIwildlife corridors is generally accepted as an ideal way for securing the landscapes that give wildlife SRSXODWLRQV D VXUYLYDO FKDQFH %RLWDQL HW DO  3LWWLJOLR HW DO   ,WLVDUJXHGIRUH[DPSOHWKDWclimate change will shift the distribution of species’ habitat, hence some species will persist only if they can colonise DYDLODEOHKDELWDWVRXWVLGH¿[HGSURWHFWHGDUHDV 7KHVHVFLHQWL¿FDUJXPHQWVKDYHFXOPLQDWHGLQWRDbioregional planning model that advocates for the establishment of a network of protected areas DQGOLQNVEHWZHHQWKHPDQGWKHVXUURXQGLQJFXOWXUDOODQGVFDSHV81(6&2 %UXQFNKRUVW  $ZHOOFRQQHFWHG QHWZRUNRISURWHFWHG DUHDV LV considered more viable for populations of species that cannot be supported ZLWKLQ VLQJOH UHVHUYHV +LOW\ /LGLFNHU DQG 0HUHQOHQGHU  0SDQGXML DQG 1JRPHOOR  6DXQGHUV  7KH processes of establishing these corridors have differed from one place to another due to the diversity of land uses, ownership and tenure systems which they traverse (Metcalfe and .HSH*ROGPDQ-RQHV&DURDQG'DYHQSRUW3DXO  Noe shows that village lands formed de facto wildlife migratory routes in 7DQ]DQLD 7KH 7DQ]DQLDQ VWDWH KDV DEVROXWH DXWKRULW\ RYHU ODQG XVH DQG YLOODJHUVXQNQRZLQJO\RUUHOXFWDQWO\SDUWLFLSDWHLQH[FLVLQJWKHLURZQODQG for purposes of the 6HORXV±1LDVVD:LOGOLIH&RUULGRU7KHORQJWHUPJRDOLV WRFRQQHFWSLHFHVRIODQGLQ7DQ]DQLDDVDVWHSSLQJVWRQHWRZDUGVWKHFUHDWLRQ of a FURVVERUGHUconservation area between 0R]DPELTXHDQG7DQ]DQLD



Chapter One

,W ZRXOG EH QDwYH WR GLVUHJDUG WKH LQÀXHQFH WKDW XUEDQLW\ H[HUWV RQ nature conservation. The urban setting impacts on ideas and practices of nature conservation, mainly because cities are sites of intense social, SROLWLFDO DQG HFRQRPLF SURFHVVHV )RU H[DPSOH JOREDO FLWLHV DUH IURQWLHU ]RQHV IRU JOREDO FRUSRUDWH FDSLWDO DQG DUH FKDUDFWHULVHG E\ FURVVERUGHU mobility, which in turn produces “highly protected bordered spaces that FXWDFURVVWKHFRQYHQWLRQDOERUGHU´6DVVHQ 6DVVHQ  concludes that “if there is one sector where we can begin to discern new stabilised bordering capabilities and their geographic and institutional locations it is the corporate economy.” Such an economic perspective offers useful insights into the organisation of urban space and the consequent distribution of power. The urban space matters not least because it is a site of capital circulation and accumulation, which in turn shapes the conditions and circumstances of further capital accumulation at later points in time and VSDFH+DUYH\  Our interest in this volume is limited to the ways in which the urban space is an embodiment of multiple divisions in society, and how those divisions manifest in urban ecologies, especially conservation areas. It is XVHIXOWRLGHQWLI\ERUGHULQJSURFHVVHVLQWKHXUEDQFRQWH[WDVDQHQWU\SRLQW into forms that borders take in urban nature and to understand conservation activities and practices that give rise to all sorts of borders. We could ask ZKHWKHU QDWXUH FRQVHUYDWLRQ LGHDV DQG SUDFWLFHV LQ XUEDQ DUHDV UHÀHFW GLYLVLRQVH[LVWLQJLQVRFLHW\RUIRUPQHZVLWHVIRUUHPDNLQJVRFLHW\:KDW kinds of borders do nature conservation practices in urban areas engender DQGZLWKZKDWHIIHFWV"7DQLD.DW]VFKQHUJUDSSOHVZLWKWKHVHTXHVWLRQVLQ &KDSWHU6HYHQZKHUHVKHH[SORUHVDSSURDFKHVWRXUEDQnature management in Cape Town. The Cape Flats Nature project is used to highlight attempts to resist some of the borders associated with nature conservation while at the same time building a practice that addressed both social and ecological fragmentation. She sees the project as a meaningful way of pushing the boundaries of conventional practice and approaches to the management of urban nature. In her view, the Cape Flats Nature project challenges the dominant understanding that environmental problems are issues that manifest themselves primarily in the environment itself, and that natural scientists alone should research these problems and suggest solutions, aided E\WHFKQRORJ\HFRQRPLFVDQGSROLF\.DW]VFKQHUFRQFOXGHVWKDWUHWDLQLQJ VSDWLDO ]RQHV IRU QDWXUH PRVWO\ LQ nature reserves, is still considered a vital aspect of nature management in the city. Although the environmental movement now seeks to focus on the ‘relational’ or ‘ecological’ there is



(FRORJ\%RUGHUVDQG6RFLHW\



VWLOO D VWURQJ WUDGLWLRQDO UHOLDQFH RQ µ]RQHG¶ QDWXUHV DV PDQLIHVWHG LQ D strong desire to demarcate places of nature from spaces of society, i.e. a SXUL¿FDWLRQRIVSDFH µ=RQHGQDWXUH¶VRPHWLPHVFRH[LVWVZLWKORRVHSDUFHOVRIODQGXQGHUGLI ferent tenure regimes, as is the case in transfrontier conservation areas. The IRFXVLQ&KDSWHU(LJKWLVRQWKHSKHQRPHQRQRIFURVVERUGHUQDWXUHFRQVHU YDWLRQLQDQGWKURXJKZKLFKVWDWXWRU\DQGQRQVWDWXWRU\FRQVHUYDWLRQDUHDV DUH LQWHJUDWHG :KDW KDSSHQV WR VWDWXWRU\ DQG QRQVWDWXWRU\ FRQVHUYDWLRQ DUHDVZKHQWKH\DUHVXEVXPHGXQGHUDFRPPRQFDWHJRU\DWDQH[SDQGHG VFDOH"+RZDUHWKHLUERUGHUVUHF\FOHGRUUHFRQ¿JXUHGRUPDLQWDLQHGDQG with what consequences to groups of people affected by them? Innocent Sinthumule and Maano Ramutsindela engage these questions by drawing RQH[WHQVLYHUHVHDUFKRQWUDQVIURQWLHUFRQVHUYDWLRQLQsouthern Africa. The VFLHQWL¿FEDVHVIRUWKLVW\SHRIFRQVHUYDWLRQLQFOXGHWKHQHHGWRH[SDQGSUR WHFWHGDUHDVLQRUGHUWRUHWDLQWKHPD[LPDOspecies richness or to preserve all native species’ characteristics (Hilty, Lidicker, and Merenlender  DQG to reconnect hitherto fragmented habitats across state borders with the aim of recreating ELRUHJLRQVDQGUHVWRULQJHFRV\VWHPIXQFWLRQV&KHWNLHZLF]6W &ODLUDQG%R\FH  These objectives are realised through the establishment of ecological corridors. It is for this reason that transfrontier conservation areas 7)&$V  DUH GLUHFWO\ DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK bioregional planning. Sinthumule DQG 5DPXWVLQGHOD XVH ¿HOGZRUN PDWHULDO IURP WKH Greater Mapungubwe to take the discussion on borders and QDWXUHEH\RQGVWDWHFHQWULFDQDO\VHV RIERUGHUV7KH\DUJXHWKDW7)&$VDVFURVVERUGHUUHJLRQDOVSDFHV¿UPXS UDWKHUWKDQFKDQJHWKHKLVWRULFDOGLYLGHEHWZHHQKXPDQVDQGQRQKXPDQV and that they are far from realising the ideals of bioregionalism. They UHGH¿QH ERUGHUV DQG LQ WKH SURFHVV JHQHUDWH RWKHU NLQGV RI ERUGHUV WKDW have negative implications for local communities. Furthermore, scholarship on TFCAs is also bordered, i.e. research on TFCAs tends to observe the VXSSRVHGO\QRQH[LVWHQWERUGHULQ7)&$ERWKHPSLULFDOO\DQGDQDO\WLFDOO\ ,Q&KDSWHU1LQH6\OYDLQ*X\RWDQG%DVWLHQ6HS~OYHGDH[SORUHSDUWLFLSD tory management of protected areas in Chile. Their point of departure is that the Chilean/Bolivian/Peruvian and the Chilean/Argentinean borders were all associated with border FRQÀLFWVDQGDUHHYLGHQFHRIWKHXVHRIQDWXUHDVD defensive tool for territorialisation. The $OWR%tR%tRDQG9LOODUULFD1DWLRQDO Reserves located in the Araucania region, Chile, illustrate this reality. By establishing these parks along international borders, state representatives not only sought to control strategic environmental resources such as for ests and rivers but also used these protected areas to secure and strengthen



Chapter One

the international border with Argentina. In the process, Indigenous popula tions were dispossessed of their land, especially in Mapuche territory where &KLORp1DWLRQDO3DUNZDVHVWDEOLVKHGLQ7KLVDFFRXQWVIRUWHUULWRULDO overlaps between Indigenous traditional territories and protected areas. The FRQVHTXHQWKLVWRULFDOFODLPVWRWKHVHWHUULWRULHVKDYHSURIRXQGO\LQÀXHQFHG QRWLRQVRISDUWLFLSDWLRQDQGFRPDQDJHPHQWLQChile’s ‘Southern Cone.’ Guyot and Sepúlveda argue that participation is not only designed to bridge the borders between a protected ‘natural area’ and its immediate surrounding by allowing the two sides to better communicate and HYHQWXDOO\QHJRWLDWHFRPDQDJHPHQWRIVKDUHGSURMHFWVEXWDOVROHJLWLPLVHV borders while weakening the gaps between parks and people. It leads and FRQWULEXWHVWROHJLWLPLVLQJVSHFL¿FORFDODUUDQJHPHQWVDQGSURGXFHVDQHZ VHWRIVRPHWLPHVROGERUGHUVEHWZHHQWKHORFDOSHRSOHDQGWKHLUUHODWLRQ ship to protected areas. In their view, participation remakes new or old ethnic borders irrespective of whether these borders are integrative or GLVSXWHG7KH\ FRQFOXGH WKDW LQ WKH &KLOHDQ FRQWH[W WKH HWKQLFLVDWLRQ RI participation in protected areas produces an inclusive territory in one case DQGDQH[FOXVLYHRQHLQWKHRWKHU In addition to the impact of conservation areas on society, political changes can have huge impacts on nature. In other words, the fortunes and functions of protected areas are closely related to, and affected by, political FKDQJHV ,Q &KDSWHU7HQ 0DUHN:LĊFNRZVNL XVHV WKH QRWLRQ RI WKH HFR frontier to discuss changes in the borderlands of Poland. He shows that protected areas at the edges of the Polish state were affected differently by the era of communism and under conditions of the European integration. 8QGHUFRPPXQLVPWKH3ROLVKERUGHUVZHUHWLJKWO\FORVHGDQGERUGHUODQGV were insulated from economic development. The results were that wildlife and vegetation were kept closer to their natural conditions, especially in the Eastern Carpathians. Evidence of the impact of the communist era on protected areas is found on the Polish–Slovakian borderland which is DQ H[FHSWLRQDO DUHD IURP WKH HFRORJLFDO SRLQW RI YLHZ ,W LV GRWWHG ZLWK numerous protected areas of national and international importance, and the border between the two countries has the longest stretch of protected areas in its vicinity. The Polish–Slovakian borderland under communism shows that hardened national borders can have positive results for biodiversity. This observation contrasts sharply with the condemnation of political borders by conservationists when promoting transboundary conservation projects. 8QGHU WKH (XURSHDQ 8QLRQ WKH 3ROLVK QDWLRQDO ERUGHU LV QR ORQJHU UHVWULFWHG WR IRUPDO FURVVLQJ SRLQWV DQG WKH ERUGHU DV D EDUULHU KDV GLV appeared gradually, allowing nearly entirely free movement of people



(FRORJ\%RUGHUVDQG6RFLHW\



and goods. The control of people has been moved to national parks that DUHOHJDOO\UHTXLUHGWRFRQWUROWUDI¿FDWWKHLUERUGHUVXQGHUODZVRIQDWXUH protection. The national border can only be crossed along tourist routes. This means that the boundaries of national parks have become the lines by which the movement of people is controlled. Recent transboundary projects and the WRXULVP GHYHORSPHQW DVVRFLDWHG ZLWK WKHP KDYH VLJQL¿FDQWO\ transformed Poland’s borderlands and their natural qualities. Chapter Eleven returns to the main question that cuts across all chapters in this volume: how the historical links between nature and borders should be rethought in light of various types of conservation areas and insights from ERUGHUVWXGLHV",WEULHÀ\UHÀHFWVRQHYHQWVWKDWXQGHUOLQHWKHPHVLQERUGHU research. It also pays attention to sites from which we draw our knowledge of ERUGHUVLQRUGHUWRKLJKOLJKWVRXUFHVIURPZKLFKZHKDYHJDLQHGRXUNQRZO edge and conceptualisation of borders. Research sites in border studies are useful for understanding how and why we think about borders the way we do. The goal of this chapter is not to draw a comprehensive list of those sources as such an undertaking might prove impossible and even less intellectually productive. The main aim of the chapter is, instead, to bring to the fore some commonly used sites and sources in border studies in order to formalise nature conservation as a credible site for border research, and to tease out KRZQDWXUHFRQVHUYDWLRQPLJKWH[SDQGRXUVRXUFHVRINQRZOHGJHRIERUGHUV The possibilities for nature conservation to add value to border studies are enhanced by its location in and between the biophysical and social domains.

Notes  ,Q WKH GRPLQDQW $IULFDQ ODQJXDJHV VSRNHQ LQ Limpopo, mopani worms are variously called mašotša LQ 6HSHGL  mashonzha 7VKLYHQGD  DQG maxonje ;LWVRQJD 7KH\KDYHORQJEHHQXVHGDVDSURWHLQULFKUHOLVKDQGDVRXUFHRI income in Limpopo Province where the pilot project was initiated. They are also widely used elsewhere in the region such as in Botswana.  ZZZ\RXWXEHFRPZDWFK"Y OM/U'Q12¿$FFHVVHG)HEUXDU\  0DUXODDUHXVHGWREUHZWUDGLWLRQDOEHHUNQRZQORFDOO\DVmorulaLQ6HSHGL  mukumbi 7VKLYHQGD DQGvukanyi;LWVRQJD   7KHSUDFWLFHRIKDUYHVWLQJIURPSURWHFWHGDUHDVLVQRWOLPLWHGWRWKH.13RQO\ ,W H[WHQGV WR RWKHU QDWLRQDO SDUNV ZKHUH VHOHFWHG QDWXUDO UHVRXUFHV ZRXOG EH harvested by locals.  7KHVHZHUHGLYLGHGLQWRVL[JURXSVRIWHQPHPEHUVDQGHDFKWHQPHPEHUJURXS was accompanied by an armed ranger who escorted and guided harvesters.



Chapter One

References %RLWDQL /$ )DOFXFFL / 0DLRUDQR DQG & 5RQGLQLQL  ³(FRORJLFDO 1HW works as Conceptual Frameworks or Operational Tools in Conservation.” Conservation Biology ± %UXQFNKRUVW'Bioregionalism Planning: Resource Management Beyond the New Millennium. London: Routledge. %U\DQ6&RQWHVWHGERXQGDULHVFRQWHVWHGSODFHVWKH1DWXUDQHWZRUNLQ Ireland. Journal of Rural Studies ± &DGHQDVVR0/3LFNHWW67$:HDWKHUV.&DQG-RQHV&*$IUDPHZRUN for a theory of ecological boundaries. Bioscience ± &KHWNLHZLF]&%&&6W&ODLUDQG06%R\FH³&RUULGRUVIRU&RQVHUYD tion: Integrating Pattern and Process.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics± &OHDYHU )  Development Through Bricolage: Rethinking Institutions for Natural Resource Management, Earthscan, London. &UDQ]*The Politics of Park Design: A History of Urban Parks in America. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. &UDZIRUG 6(6 DQG ( 2VWURP  ³$ *UDPPDU RI ,QVWLWXWLRQV´ American Political Science Review± )DOO-Drawing the Line: Nature, Hybridity and Politics in Transboundary Spaces. Aldershot: Ashgate. *ROGPDQ0³&RQVWUXFWLQJ&RQQHFWLYLW\&RQVHUYDWLRQ&RUULGRUVDQG&RQ servation Politics in East African Rangelands.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers ± +DUYH\'A Brief History of Neoliberalism2[IRUG2[IRUG8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV +LOW\-:/LGLFNHUDQG$0HUHQOHQGHUCorridors Ecology: The Science and Practice of Linking Landscapes for Biodiversity Conservation. London: Island Press. +ROW5'7+.HLWW0$/HZLV%$0DXUHUDQG0/7DSHU³7KHRUHWLFDO Models of Species’ Borders: Single Species Approaches.” Oikos  ± -RQHV77&DURDQG7'DYHQSRUWWildlife Corridors in Tanzania. Arusha: 7DQ]DQLD:LOGOLIH5HVHDUFK,QVWLWXWH /LQGERUJ 5 DQG 2 (ULNVVRQ  ³+LVWRULFDO /DQGVFDSH &RQQHFWLYLW\ DIIHFWV Present Plant Species Diversity.” Ecology  ± 0HKWD / 0 /HDFK DQG , 6FRRQHV  ³(QYLURQPHQWDO *RYHUQDQFH LQ DQ 8QFHUWDLQ:RUOG´IDS Bulletin ± 0HUUH\ '- 5 0HLQ]HQ'LFN 3 0ROOLQJD DQG ( .DUDU  ³3ROLF\ DQG Institutional Reform: The Art of the Possible.” In Water for Food, Water for



(FRORJ\%RUGHUVDQG6RFLHW\



Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture, edited E\0ROGHQ'±/RQGRQ(DUWKVFDQ 0HWFDOIH 6 DQG 7 .HSH  ³µDQGJHRSROLWLFDO@LGHDVDUHZRUU\LQJO\UH DSSHDULQJLQFRQVHUYDWLRQ literature in a new guise, linked to determining a scale for environmental planning around natural criteria.” Others have sought to demonstrate the link between bounded con servation spaces and identity formation and ERXQGDULHV 6OHWWR  VHH *X\RW DQG 6HS~OYHGD LQ WKLV YROXPH  1DWXUH FRQVHUYDWLRQ DUHDV HVSH cially national parks, have long been associated with nationalist impulses DQG VWDWHEXLOGLQJ SURMHFWV 3DSDGDNLV  %HLQDUW DQG &RDWHV  &DUUXWKHUV   &RQVHUYDWLRQ SURMHFWV DUH DOVR XQGHUVWRRG DV ]RQHV RI HQFRXQWHUDQGFRQWDFWLQZKLFK³VXEMHFWSRVLWLRQVDQGFDWHJRULHVRIKXPDQ ODQG UHODWLRQV FRPH LQWR EHLQJ´ 6XQGEHUJ    7KLV HPERGLHG DQDO\VLVKLJKOLJKWVWKDWLWLVVKRUWVLJKWHGWRDVVLJQSDUWLFXODULGHQWLWLHVDQG characteristics to individuals and collectives in a deterministic way. Social and environmental relations between and among people are shaped by their encounters and interactions with conservation projects. While this nascent body of work provides a useful avenue for linking nature to understandings of borders it is evident that the theoretical standpoints and the empirical studies on politics and nature are far removed IURPWKHGLVFXVVLRQRQDQGWKHRULHVRIWKHHYROXWLRQRIERUGHUVLQWKHQRQ human world. The literature remains limited in a number of ways. Work on the social approach to borders and conservation planning, as manifested in FURVVERUGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQ WHQGV WR WDNH VWDWH ERUGHUV DV D SRLQW RI GHSDUWXUH7KLVLVXQGHUVWDQGDEOHJLYHQWKDWFURVVERUGHUconservation areas span state borders, and it is claimed that they are a tool for decolonising $IULFD¶VERUGHUV7XUQEXOO 7DNHIRUH[DPSOHWKHFODLPWKDW³FRORQLDO powers drew political boundaries throughout Africa … communities bound by common languages and cultures are split across two or more nations … Likewise, ecosystems and animal populations were also divided” (Johan 5XSHUWFLWHGE\%RUFKHUW &URVVERUGHUnature conservation areas DUHSURPRWHGDVDSDQDFHDIRUWKHVHGLYLVLRQV5DPXWVLQGHOD $IXOO discussion on these areas is presented by Sinthumule and Ramutsindela in this volume. For the moment, we emphasise that the impulse for researching borders in FURVVERUGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQ E\ VRFLDO VFLHQWLVWV LV GHULYHG IURP attempts to contest the notion of borders in nature conservation and to H[SRVHWKHP\WKRIERXQGOHVVQDWXUHLHQDWXUHZLWKRXWERUGHUV In the VRXWKHUQ$IULFDQ FRQWH[W WKH FRQFHSW RI ERXQGOHVV QDWXUH KDV been criticised as a form of representation of nature and branding for private VHFWRU LQYHVWPHQW DQG SROLWLFDO RSSRUWXQLVP %VFKHU   :LWKLQ WKH OLWHUDWXUHRQERUGHUVDQGQDWXUHWKHFRQFHSWLVVHHQDVDSUHHPSWLYHGHYLFH



Chapter Two

that seeks to disempower analyses of borders through a symbolic erasure of VXFKERUGHUV5DPXWVLQGHOD 7RUHWXUQWRWKHSRLQWWKHVHFULWLTXHVDQG the attempts by conservationists and their sponsors to underplay political forces at work in the creation of conservation areas serve as a motivation for social scientists’ engagement with borders in nature conservation. 7KH\ KDUGO\ UHÀHFW WKH TXHVW IRU XQGHUVWDQGLQJ borders in nature. While clearly demonstrating that conservationists construct bounded entities by deploying a combination of social and ecological arguments, the critique UHPDLQVKLJKO\VWDWHFHQWULF Taking state borders as a point of departure is problematic in that it forces social science research to engage with borders and nature from the conceptual parameters set by conservationists. To be sure, conservationists prefer to pronounce on the notion of political borders when planning for FURVVERUGHU FRQVHUYDWLRQ DUHDV EXW WHQG WR EH VLOHQW DERXW WKHVH ERUGHUV when creating other types of conservation areas, especially at the national DQGVXEQDWLRQDOOHYHOV&RQVLGHULQJWKHERUGHULQFURVVERUGHUFRQVHUYDWLRQ as an empirical referent skews our attention towards conservation narratives, and also limits our focus to certain categories of borders associated with nature conservation. This book seeks to transcend these limitations by EULQJLQJ GLYHUVH QDWXUHUHODWHG FRQVHUYDWLRQ ERUGHUV LQWR GLVFXVVLRQ ZLWK the scholarship on borders. This line of inquiry augurs well for the study of borders in general.

Conclusion This chapter has sought to pave the way for moving towards a richer connectivity between social approaches to nature and border studies. It highlights that an inquiry into nature and borders seems to do what borders DUHNQRZQIRUH[FOXGLQJDQGLQFOXGLQJGLYLGLQJDQGXQLI\LQJFUHDWLQJDQG resolving FRQÀLFWDQGSURYLGLQJFURVVLQJSRLQWV7KHVHFKDUDFWHULVWLFVRI ERUGHUVDUHDPSOL¿HGZKHQnature is understood for its own sake (ecological SHUVSHFWLYH DQGDVDPLUURURIKXPDQYDOXHVDQGLQWHUHVWVVRFLDODSSURDFK  For biologists, species borders not only mark limits in the spatial distribution of species but are, more importantly, considered crucial for understanding WKHVSDWLDOVWUXFWXUHRIVSHFLHVLQWHUDFWLRQVSDWWHUQVRIJHQHÀRZDQGWKH UHVSRQVHV RI VSHFLHV WR HQYLURQPHQWDO FKDQJH 2ZLQJ WR WKH ÀXLGLW\ RI species’ borders, analyses of these borders should “consider the dynamics of entire metacommunities [understood as] sets of local communities linked E\WKHGLVSHUVDORIWKHLUFRQVWLWXHQWVSHFLHV´+ROWDQG.HLWW 



7KH(GJHVRI1DWXUH



Social scientists are concerned that conservation areas are not only ODERUDWRULHVLQZKLFKWKHEHKDYLRXURIQRQKXPDQVPD\EHXQGHUVWRRGEXWDUH immersed in the politics of GHWHUULWRULDOLVDWLRQ)DOO &RQVHUYDWLRQLVWV deploy the language of the border in order to fundamentally change the social organisation of, mainly, marginal groups by subjecting their territorial units to larger conservation space. Social research responds to this process by unmasking new forms of bordering in conservation and also contesting border narratives used in the service of nature. This chapter, and the book as whole, argues that a deeper understanding of borders and nature can be achieved by engaging borders in various types of nature conservation areas DQGWKURXJKDFORVHUUHDGLQJRIERUGHUVLQWKHQRQKXPDQZRUOG7KHFKDSWHUV WKDWIROORZHQJDJHTXHVWLRQVRIERUGHUVDQGQDWXUHLQYDULRXVFRQWH[WV

References %HLQDUW:DQG3&RDWHVEnvironment and History: The Taming of Nature in the USA and South Africa. London: Routledge. %RUFKHUW3³/LYLQJWKH'UHDP´Africa Geographic ± %UHZHU -)  ³'RQ¶W )HQFH 0H ,Q %RXQGDULHV 3ROLF\ DQG 'HOLEHUDWLRQ LQ Maine’s Lobster Commons.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers  ± %URFNLQJWRQ'DQG5'XII\³&DSLWDOLVPDQG&RQVHUYDWLRQ7KH3URGXFWLRQ and Reproduction of Biodiversity Conservation.” Antipode ± %UXQFNKRUVW'-Bioregional Planning. London: Routledge. %U\DQ6³&RQWHVWHG%RXQGDULHV&RQWHVWHG3ODFHV7KH1DWXUD1HWZRUN in Ireland.” Journal of Rural Studies± %VFKHU%³'HULYDWLYH1DWXUH,QWHUURJDWLQJWKH9DOXHRI&RQVHUYDWLRQLQ ‘Boundless Southern Africa’.” Third World Quarterly ± %VFKHU %  Transforming the Frontier. Peace Parks and the Politics of Neoliberal Conservation in Southern Africa'XUKDP'XNH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV &DGHQDVVR0/67$3LFNHWW.&:HDWKHUVDQG&*-RQHV³$)UDPH work for a Theory of Ecological Boundaries.” Bioscience ± &DUUXWKHUV -  The Kruger National Park: A Social and Political History. 3LHWHUPDULW]EXUJ8QLYHUVLW\RI1DWDO3UHVV &DVH7-5'+ROW0$0F3HHNDQG7+.HLWW³7KH&RPPXQLW\&RQWH[W of Species’ Borders: Ecological and Evolutionary Perspectives.” Oikos  ± &DVWUHH1DQG%%UDXQHGVSocial Nature: Theory, Practice and Politics. 2[IRUG%ODFNZHOO



Chapter Two

&RDWHV3Nature2[IRUG%ODFNZHOO 'HPHULWW'³:KDWLVWKHµ6RFLDO&RQVWUXFWLRQRI1DWXUH¶"$7\SRORJ\DQG Sympathetic Critique.” Progress in Human Geography ± )DLUKHDG-DQG0/HDFKMisreading the African Landscape. Cambridge 0$&DPEULGJH8QLYHUVLW\3UHVV )DOO-Drawing the Line: Nature, Hybridity and Politics in Transboundary Spaces. Aldershot: Ashgate. )DOO-³1DWXUDO5HVRXUFHVDQG7UDQVQDWLRQDO*RYHUQDQFH´,QThe Ashgate Research Companion to Border StudiesHGLWHGE\:DVWO:DOWHU'± Aldershot: Ashgate. *ULQQHOO -  ³)LHOG 7HVWV RI 7KHRULHV &RQFHUQLQJ 'LVWULEXWLRQDO &RQWURO´ American Naturalist± *ULQQHOO-³*HRJUDSK\DQG(YROXWLRQ´Ecology  *X\RW6“7KH(FR)URQWLHU3DUDGLJP5HWKLQNLQJWKH/LQNVEHWZHHQ6SDFH Nature and Politics.” Geopolitics ± +H\QHQ1-0F&DUWK\63UXGKDPDQG35REELQVHGVNeoliberal Environments: False Promises and Unnatural Consequences. London: Routledge. +ROW5'DQG7+.HLWW³6SHFLHV¶%RUGHUV$8QLI\LQJ7KHPHLQ(FRORJ\´ Oikos ± +ROW5'7+.HLWW0$/HZLV%$0DXUHUDQG0/7DSHU³7KHRUHWLFDO Models of Species’ Borders: Single Species Approaches.” Oikos ± -RKQVRQ&-5HHFH$3DDVL/$PRRUH$0RXQW]06DOWHUDQG&5XPIRUG  ³,QWHUYHQWLRQV RI 5HWKLQNLQJ µWKH %RUGHU¶ LQ %RUGHU 6WXGLHV´ Political Geography ± -RKQVWRQ &  ³%H\RQG WKH &OHDULQJ7RZDUGV D 'ZHOW$QLPDO *HRJUDSK\´ Progress in Human Geography  .RYHO -  The Enemy of Nature: The End of Capitalism or the End of the World? London: Zed Books. 0F$IHH.6HOOLQJQDWXUHWRVDYHLW"%LRGLYHUVLW\DQGJUHHQGHYHORSPHQWDOLVP Environment and Planning D – Society & Space ± 0F&DQQ-&Green Land, Brown Land: An Environmental History of Africa, 1800–1990.2[IRUG-DPHV&XUUH\ 1HZPDQ '  ³7KH /LQHV WKDW &RQWLQXH WR 6HSDUDWH 8V %RUGHUV LQ RXU ‘Borderless World’. Progress in Human Geography ± 3DDVL$³*HQHUDWLRQVDQGWKHµ'HYHORSPHQW¶RI%RUGHU6WXGLHV´Geopolitics   3DDVL$³7KH5HVXUJHQFHRIWKHµ5HJLRQ¶DQGµ5HJLRQDO,GHQWLW\¶7KHRUHWLFDO Perspectives and Empirical Observations on Regional Dynamics in Europe.” Review of International Studies±



7KH(GJHVRI1DWXUH



3DSDGDNLV(Politics and the Environment: The Australian Experience. St /HRQDUGV$OOHQ 8QZLQ 3DUPHVDQ&6*DLQHV/*RQ]DOH]'0.DXIPDQ-.LQJVROYHU$73HWHUVRQ DQG56DJDULQ³(PSLULFDO3HUVSHFWLYHVRQ6SHFLHV%RUGHUV)URP7UDGL tional Biogeography to Global Change.” Oikos ± 3KLOR&DQG-:ROFK³7KURXJKWKH*HRJUDSKLFDO/RRNLQJ*ODVV6SDFH 3ODFHDQG6RFLHW\DQLPDO5HODWLRQV´Society and Animals ± 5DPXWVLQGHOD0Transfrontier Conservation in Africa: At the ConÀuence of Capital, Politics and Nature. Wallingford: Cabi. 6DOH.Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision. San Francisco CA.: Sierra Club Books. 6OHWWR %  ³&RQVHUYDWLRQ 3ODQQLQJ %RXQGDU\PDNLQJ DQG %RUGHU 7HUUDLQV 7KH 'HVLUH IRU )RUHVW DQG 2UGHU LQ WKH *UDQ 6DEDQD 9HQH]XHOD´ Geoforum  ± 6XQGEHUJ -  ³&RQVHUYDWLRQ (QFRXQWHUV 7UDQVFXOWXUDWLRQ LQ WKH &RQWH[W RI Zones of Empire.” Cultural Geographies ± 7XUQEXOO0³%UHDNLQJ%RXQGDULHV´Africa Environment & Wildlife 0D\  ± =RJDULV6$1(FRQRPRXDQG3'LPRSRXORV³(FRUHJLRQVLQWKH6RXWKHUQ Balkans: Should their Boundaries be Revised?” Environmental Management  ±

CHAPTER THREE NATURES OF BORDERS: FROM HISTORICAL TO PROSPECTIVE EPISTEMOLOGIES ANNE-LAURE AMILHAT SZARY Introduction The purpose of this chapter is to build up arguments for linking nature and borders outside the binary mode, which traditionally characterised both conservation and border studies, in order to set the basis for rethinking conservation practices. In a very simplistic way, the relation of borders with nature should not even have to be questioned since the conventional international boundaries seem to have little to do with the diversity of life as embedded in all forms of natural beings. The ‘nature of nature’ is FRQVWLWXWLYH RI FRPSOH[ LQWHUUHODWLRQV ZKLFK DUH GLI¿FXOW WR XQUDYHO ,Q his seminal book, La méthode, 1. La Nature de la Nature, 0RULQ   tried to set the basis for understanding order within a system marked by the possibility of chaos, but his dynamic proposal gave little space to boundaries or any bordering principle. This view of a systemic environment is quite recent: the preoccupation has long been to characterise the many ways in which human beings have dealt with nature, both materially and VSLULWXDOO\LQDWD[RQRPLFSHUVSHFWLYH+DGRW $OWHUQDWLYHO\UHO\LQJ upon visions of benevolent or dangerous natures, environmental approaches in social sciences have reproduced the thinking of a “radical disjunction EHWZHHQQDWXUHDQGVRFLHW\´/XVVDXOW  (YHQ ZKHQ VWXG\LQJ QRQZHVWHUQ FRVPRORJLHV LW ZDV GLI¿FXOW IRU occidental scholars to distance themselves from this human mediation of QDWXUDOLQWHUDFWLRQV%HUTXH XQOHVVWDNLQJDQDQWKURSRORJLFDOVWDQFH OHDGLQJWRWKHSRVVLELOLW\RIQHJDWLQJWKLVGLYLGH'HVFROD>(QJOLVK WUDQVODWLRQ@ $FFRUGLQJWR/DWRXUWKLVSUHOLPLQDU\FODVVL¿FDWLRQUHPDLQVYHU\ strong because it functioned as one of the postulates on which our modern VRFLRWHFKQLFDOHQYLURQPHQWKDVEHHQEXLOW7KHUHLVKRZHYHUWKHQHHGIRU DOOVFLHQFHVWRTXHVWLRQKXPDQQRQKXPDQUHODWLRQVDQGWKHZD\WKH\LPSRVH WRUHIRUPXODWHDQGUHQHZUHVHDUFKTXHVWLRQV/DWRXU>@ +RZHYHU 



Chapter Three

the same starting point has to be reiterated: “in the literature, the link between QDWXUHDQGVSDFHLVDOZD\VVRPHZKDWGXDOLVWLFDQGSDUDGR[LFDOFRQWLQXLQJ the intrinsic and contradictory divide between nature and culture. A dualism GRHVH[LVWEHWZHHQJHRJUDSKLFDOgeopolitical notions of spatialising nature” *X\RW   7KH SXUSRVH RI WKLV YROXPH PD\ LQGHHG EH WR VHW WKH EDVLVIRUDSRVWELQDU\TXHVWLRQLQJRIERWKQDWXUHDQGERUGHU7KLVYHU\SRVW modern stance (going beyond the traditional oppositions, such as nature/ FXOWXUHFLYLOLVHGVDYDJHFI+DUYH\/\RWDUG LVPDGHSRVVLEOH by changing frameworks so as to allow for thinking of social relations within environmental settings in a more holistic ecological perspective on the one KDQGDQGE\WKHH[SDQVLRQDQGFRQVROLGDWLRQRIborder studies which have QRZ VHWWOHG WKH FRPSOH[LW\ RI GHERUGHULQJ DQG UHERUGHULQJ SURFHVVHV DW work on and around any ERXQGDU\RQWKHRWKHUKDQG3RSHVFX:DVWO :DOWHU:LOVRQDQG'RQQDQ  5HFHQW ERUGHU UHVHDUFK LQGHHG XQGHUOLQHV ERWK WKH QHFHVVLW\ RI FRQ structive approaches and the ongoing importance of the material artefacts ZKLFK H[SUHVV WKH GLIIHUHQWLDWLRQ SURFHVVHV VHW XS E\ ERUGHUV $PLOKDW 6]DU\D :KDWZHFDQDJUHHRQLVWKDWDERUGHULVDFRQYHQWLRQ endowed with linear materiality, meaning that it has become a useful tool to establish the basis of modern territorialised sovereignty, which closely accompanies the process of state building. With challenges of state power from above and below, the meaning of those lines has tumbled since they have become more and more multilevel and reticular devices, and their IXQFWLRQ RI ¿OWHULQJ ÀRZV RI DOO NLQGV ZLWKLQ globalisation has become essential. What they have always been, and remain is however more than a line: borderlands are kinds of space where otherness and relationship to RWKHUQHVVLVGH¿QHG Nature is not only about the ‘natural imaginings’ (Singh and Ganster  RILWKHQFHLWLVSURGXFWLYHWRDQDO\VHWKH³ZD\LQZKLFKQDWXUHLV PRELOLVHG WR PDNH XS VRFLDO UHSUHVHQWDWLRQV «  >DQG WKHQ KRZ@ WKRVH representations are used for biased means in electorally directed political narratives bases on ‘us vs.WKHP¶´*LUDXW*X\RWDQG+RXVVD\+RO]VFKXFK >SHUVRQDOWUDQVODWLRQ@ :HDOVRQHHGWRFRQVLGHULWVSUHVHQFHLQ and constraints on the capacity of the agency. Through its performative IXQFWLRQDUWSURGXFWLRQPD\EHDQLQWHUHVWLQJZD\WRUHYHDOWKHµPRUHWKDQ UHSUHVHQWDWLRQDO¶ ZD\ RI FRQYH\LQJ WKH SRZHU RI QDWXUH /RUULPHU  0DFSKHUVRQ 7KLVFKDSWHUVHHNVWRH[SDQGRQSRVVLEOHKHXULVWLFVIRU understanding the links between conservation, borders and social relations %DUWUDP  &KDWHDX 3DUUHW DQG 6DODEHUW  /DXVVRQ   7KH case of FRQVHUYDWLRQSROLFLHVFDQEHYHU\LOOXVWUDWLYHLQDVPXFKDVLWGH¿QHV



%RUGHUVIURP+LVWRULFDOWR3URVSHFWLYH(SLVWHPRORJLHV



WKUHVKROGVEHWZHHQKXPDQLQWHUYHQWLRQRUQRQLQWHUYHQWLRQLQWRecosystems, according to the perception of threats made to the latter’s durability. It is quite striking that the methods and concepts used for the maintenance of nature share so much in common with the governability of human SRSXODWLRQV QDPHO\ PDQDJLQJ ÀRZV KDYH IRU D ORQJ WLPH EHHQ OLPLWHG WRWU\LQJWRFRQWDLQYROXPHVZLWKLQWZRGLPHQVLRQDOH[WHUQDOboundaries. ³7KH VRFDOOHG µSURWHFWLRQ DQG PDLQWHQDQFH RI biological diversity’ is ELDVHGZLWKWKHERXQGLQJRIHFRV\VWHPVLQVPDOO VL]HGUHVHUYHVDQGWKH historically agricultural use of the ecosystems is often replaced by tourism and recreation, negating the timeless dimension of such environments.” *X\RW    7KH SROLWLFV RI nature has largely relied on ‘drawing WKHOLQH¶)DOO LHDSSO\LQJ]RQLQJSROLFLHVWRDQVZHUHQYLURQPHQWDO questions. Criticism of this kind of approach should not mistakenly be levelled against planners and politicians alike, blaming their incapacity to make proper decisions. %RXQGDU\PDNLQJOLHVZLWKLQYHU\VWURQJSDUD GLJPV RI FODVVL¿FDWLRQ LQ ELRORJLFDO VFLHQFHV ZKLFK KDYH IRU H[DPSOH formalised ecosystems as a set of interactions within conceptually enclosed settings. These measures of protection may have suited the needs to protect certain VSHFLHV RI ÀRUD RU IDXQD DW WKH WLPH WKH\ ZHUH WDNHQ +RZHYHUD mobile bordering perspective is needed to confront more contemporary environmental issues, and not only by switches in the shape of conservation areas, i.e., passing from parks to corridors. ,QGHHG ZKHQ WKH FRQFHUQ LV QR ORQJHU WR FRQ¿QH EXW WR ¿JKW DJDLQVW an invading factor, any bordering process may reveal a very inappropriate response; the idea that pollution knows no border has been denounced for years, and there is increasing awareness of, and engagement with recent narratives about species invasion and biosecurity that multiply (Dodson, %DUNHU DQG 7D\ORU   ³&OLPDWH DV D geopolitical space, therefore, is constantly moving in and out RISK\VLFDOPDWHULDOJHRJUDSK\´'R\OHDQG &KDWXUYHGL  The challenge is to confront the recent major climatic changes ZKLFK WKUHDWHQ WKH LQWHUQDWLRQDO RUGHU 'DOE\    7KRVH JOREDO environmental issues strongly affect the relationships between borders and conservation. Global warming may induce the migration of species out of WKH SHULPHWHUV ZKLFK KDG EHHQ WUDFHG WR SURWHFW WKHP IRU H[DPSOH /HVV EHQHYROHQW LQ WKH LQWHUQDWLRQDO QHZV LV ,QGLD¶V MXVWL¿FDWLRQ IRU IHQFLQJ RI LWV ERUGHU ZLWK %DQJODGHVK RQ WKH EDVLV RI WKH IHDU RI LQYDVLRQ E\ QRQ PDQDJHDEOHÀRZVRIFOLPDWLFUHIXJHHV7KLVPD\OHDGWRGHYLVLQJDV\VWHP that allows bears through the fence but not uncontrolled human interaction, as LQWKH(8H[WHUQDOERUGHUVLQWKH%DONDQV*DUGLQ 



Chapter Three

These developments lead us to formulate the need for a relational approach to conservation issues that is not common in specialised literature. The role of nature in spatialising processes is undergoing an important HYROXWLRQ7KLVFKDSWHUZLOO¿UVWUHYLVLWWKHGLYLVLYHUROHFRQIHUUHGRQQDWXUH in the modern period (dividing QDWXUH ,WZLOOWKHQGLVFXVVDUJXPHQWVDQG rationales for cooperation which totally renewed our thinking of the link between QDWXUHDQGERUGHUVLQWKHVFRRSHUDWLQJQDWXUH /DVWO\WKH chapter will try to draw prospective lines of analysis of what may become RIWKHSROLWLFVRIQDWXUHLQFRQWH[WVLQZKLFKenvironmental panicking gives ZD\WRVHFXULW\SROLFLHVZKRVHFRPSDWLELOLW\ZLWKFRQVHUYDWLRQDUHQRWVHOI evident (panicking QDWXUH 

Dividing nature 1DWXUH PD\ LQGHHG NQRZ PRUH ERUGHUV WKDQ RQH ZRXOG H[SHFW SUREDEO\ because it is the product of a located history. The initial time and space of nature is that of the modern western world, which has been the cradle for a FODVVL¿FDWLRQRIEHLQJVLQWRWZRH[FOXVLYHRUGHUV³DFFRUGLQJWRWKHLUIDOOLQJ XQGHU WKH ODZV RI WKH PDWWHU RU WR WKH KD]DUGV RI FRQYHQWLRQV´ (Descola  >@  7KLV FRQGLWLRQ JDYH ULVH WR µQDWXUDOLVP¶ DQ XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI RXU HQYLURQPHQW WKDW DFFRUGLQJ WR 'HVFROD ³OLQNV XV WR QRQKXPDQV through material continuities and separates us from them by cultural aptitudes.” These settings coincide with the building up of the modern state in Europe that has been of ultimate consequence in our instrumentalisation of nature to justify territorial divides. It is generally accepted that the ‘invention’ of modern borders dates back WRWKHVLJQLQJRIWKH:HVWSKDOLDQWUHDWLHVWKDWSXWDQHQGWRWKH7KLUW\@ 7KH¿UVWOHJDODUUDQJHPHQWRYHU ZDWHUZDVFDOOHGIRULQOHDGLQJWRDSURYLVLRQDODJUHHPHQWLQ $QRWKHUGLYLVLRQRIVXUIDFHZDWHUZDVFRQFOXGHGE\WUHDW\LQ$IWHU this date, FRQÀLFWUHVXUIDFHGDVWKHXVHRIWKHresource increased with the GHYHORSPHQW RI LQWHQVLYH DJULFXOWXUH LQLWLDOO\ RQ WKH 86 VLGH 7KH ODFN of water is ascribed to the poor quality of the rivers, most notably due to badly controlled urban sewage, making the Río Nuevo/New River the most polluted of all. As a result, the Salton Sea ecosystem has been endangered rapidly. These issues cannot be separated from the deterioration of air quality ZLWK WKH JURZWK RI FURVVERUGHU DJJORPHUDWLRQV RU IURP WKH TXHVWLRQ RI industrial waste which has grown with the maquila industry, in spite of LQFUHDVLQJ HIIRUWV WR LPSRVH HQYLURQPHQWDOIULHQGO\ PDQDJHPHQWV\VWHPV on the border plants. A number of endeavours have been made to create regulatory LQVWLWXWLRQVVXFKDVDGYLVRU\DQGH[HFXWLYHERDUGV)RUH[DPSOH WKH 86 ,QWHUQDWLRQDO %RXQGDU\ DQG :DWHU &RPPLVVLRQ ,%:&  DQG WKH 0H[LFDQ&RPLVLyQGH/LPLWHV\$JXD&,/$ ZHUHERWKFUHDWHGLQ DQGHQGRZHGZLWKUHVSRQVLELOLWLHVDQGDXWKRULW\RYHUZDWHUVLQFHWKH treaty. It is interesting to see how the environment was pushed forward by presidents George W. Bush and Carlos Salinas de Gortari to open the JURXQGIRUWKH1RUWK$PHULFDQ)UHH7UDGH$JUHHPHQW1$)7$ WKURXJK the signing of an ,QWHJUDWHG%RUGHU(QYLURQPHQWDO3ODQ,%(3±  which was not too well received by border communities. It was criticised for not including the necessary budgets to implement its agenda. Its successors, %RUGHU ;;, 3URJUDP ±  DQG %RUGHU  ±  ZHUH more open to multiple agency projects.



Chapter Three

A side agreement of NAFTA created the Border Environment &RRSHUDWLRQ&RPPLVVLRQ%(&& ZRUNLQJFORVHO\ZLWKWKHNorth American 'HYHORSPHQW%DQN1$'% 7KHGood Neighbour Environmental Board *1(% RIDLPHGDWJDWKHULQJPRUHFLYLOVRFLHW\UHSUHVHQWDWLYHV7KHVH forums went hand in hand with the promotion of research on environmental projects, resulting in the creation of the 6RXWKZHVW&RQVRUWLXPIRU(QYLURQ PHQWDO5HVHDUFKDQG3ROLF\6&(53 ZKLFKRSHUDWHGIURPXQWLOWKHLU UHFHQWFXWRIIXQGLQJDWWKHHQGRI$SDUWIURPWKLVRYHUDOOIUDPHZRUNDQ enormous number of local and regional initiatives have been deployed over the years, and their role in the economic integration process is noticeable. Some measures taken include a joint protection of the Tijuana Estuary and the realisation of common urban sewage plants. Additional major projects in the pipeline include the creation of common watershed basin regulation authorities for the big border rivers and shared authorities for protected DUHDV VXFK DV WKH 86 %LJ %HQ 1DWLRQDO 3DUN 7H[DV DQG QHLJKERXULQJ Sierras del Carmen preserve, 0H[LFR Some analysts underline the fact that the multiplication of environmental cooperation projects, when there are no VSLQRIIVFDQDOVREHDZD\RIQRWSXVKLQJFURVVERUGHULQWHJUDWLRQWRRIDU LQ RUGHU WR DYRLG PRUH SROLWLFDOO\ SUREOHPDWLF LVVXHV +RJHQERRP$O¿H &RKHQDQG$QWDO  Cooperation through nature is an even more powerful narrative when the public sector is dominant in terms of project leadership, as is notably the case with European regional funds in general and INTERREG projects in particular. A thorough analysis of the INTERREG II projects involving )UHQFK SDUWQHUV )RXUQ\   UHYHDOV WKDW PRUH WKDQ  RI WKHP contain a nature conservation component. However, they are underlined by two types of understandings of the role of nature in border building. ,QWKH¿UVWFDVHWKHDUJXPHQWIRUFRRSHUDWLRQLVEDVHGRQWKHVKDULQJRID common ecosystem whose conservation becomes an issue for both parties: nature is at stake because it is threatened. In so doing, nature is somehow ³REMHFWL¿HG´)RXUQ\ WRMXVWLI\WKHH[LVWHQFHRI³VSDWLDOREMHFWV which are continuous but endowed with a restricted surface, protected or JUHHQ DUHDV´$ JRRG H[DPSOH RI WKLV UHYHUVDO RI V\PEROLF YDOXHV FDQ EH found in the history of the straits that have separated Corsica from Sardinia over the past centuries. The traditional crossings were interrupted due to efforts to incorporate WKHLVODQGVLQWRWKHQDWLRQDOWHUULWRULHVRI)UDQFHDQG,WDO\GXULQJWKHWK DQGWKFHQWXULHVUHVSHFWLYHO\,QUHFHQW\HDUVIURPWKHVHVSHFLDOO\  cooperation between the two conservation areas in both countries has led to an international partnership giving birth to two linked maritime protected



%RUGHUVIURP+LVWRULFDOWR3URVSHFWLYH(SLVWHPRORJLHV



areas, the Italian ‘Maddalena Archipelago’ Park and the French ‘Bouches de Bonifacio’ Natural Reserve, in lieu of a international marine park which ZDVQRWSRVVLEOHDWWKHWLPH3LFRXHW 7KHPDULWLPHORFDWLRQRIWKLV H[DPSOHPDNHVLWHYHQPRUHLQWHUHVWLQJWRUHÀHFWXSRQWKHLQWURGXFWLRQRI borders according to their symbolic importance, given the fact that a linear boundary makes even less sense on the high seas than over a mountain ULGJH$V)RXUQ\ QRWHG³QDWXUDOREMHFWVWKHUHIRUHPD\DSSHDU DVRSHUDWRUVLQUHVHPDQWLVLQJWKHOLPLWLWVHOI´,QWKHVHFRQGFDWHJRU\WKH VWDUWLQJSRLQWIRUFURVVERXQGDU\FRRSHUDWLRQLVQRWVRPXFKWKHSK\VLFDO PRUSKRORJ\RIWKHPRXQWDLQWKHVWUDLWVWKHULYHU EXWWKHFXOWXUDOXVHRI ODQGVFDSH7KHSURMHFWLVWKHUHIRUHDLPHGDWUHGH¿QLQJDWUDGLWLRQDOUHJLRQ GH¿QHG E\ D VRPHZKDW DWHPSRUDO OLIHVW\OH WKDW WUDGLWLRQDOO\ UHVSHFWHG nature, notably through a predominantly rural use of it. The case of the ‘peace SDUNV¶WDNHVWKH¿UVWRIWKRVHWZR,17(55(* categories further, since they are not concerned merely with cooperation but also the swing from war to peace by the forging of FRQÀLFWUHVROXWLRQ3HDFH SDUNV RU PRUH JHQHUDOO\ VSHDNLQJ ZKDW WKH 81(3 FDOOV transboundary SURWHFWHGDUHDV7%3$ KDYHEHHQUDSLGO\VSUHDGLQJDFURVVWKHSODQHW,Q DGGLWLRQWRSHDFHSDUNVLGHQWL¿HGLQZHUHLQGLYLGXDOSUR WHFWHGDUHDVRULQWHUQDWLRQDOO\GHVLJQDWHGVLWHVFRYHULQJVRPHPLOOLRQ KHFWDUHV 4XLQQ %UREHUJ DQG )UHLPXQG   7KH DXWKRUV IXUWKHU QRWH that this generic term for transboundary protected areas refers to realities ZKLFK JR IURP QRQFRQWLJXRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQRULHQWHG 7UDQVERXQGDU\ Migratory Corridors which “are required to sustain a biological migratory SDWKZD\ DQG ZKHUH FRRSHUDWLYH PDQDJHPHQW KDV EHHQ VHFXUHG WKURXJK OHJDO RU RWKHU HIIHFWLYH PHDQV´ WR PRUH RU OHVV IRUPDOLVHG ³PDWUL[HV WKDW contribute to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity. $OWKRXJKLQLWLDWHGLQWKHVWKHLUSURPLVHVPHHWWKHH[SHFWDWLRQVRI SRVWCold War geopolitics, since they have provided a useful tool for healing wounds (see the southern African and central American cases documented LQ'XII\ $OL DQG5DPXWVLQGHOD 7KHRI¿FLDOYHUVLRQ suggests that “the proliferation of TBPAs is a clear indicator that historical and geopolitical constraints imposed on ecosystems, species, and communities DUH DEDWLQJ 0RUHRYHU WKH H[SHULHQFH JDUQHUHG E\ 7%3$ SUDFWLWLRQHUV LQ D P\ULDG RI HFRORJLFDO DQG VRFLRSROLWLFDO FRQWH[WV RIIHUV WKH RSSRUWXQLW\ to develop new models and approaches for effective management” (Quinn, %UREHUJDQG)UHLPXQG 7KHQDUUDWLYHKHUHLVDVPXFKDERXWµEHQH¿WV EH\RQG ERXQGDULHV¶ %XVKHOO DQG (DJOHV   DV DERXW FURVVERUGHU political construction. One can certainly qualify this viewpoint by claiming that the success of these initiatives lies in their capacity to mobilise at all



Chapter Three

levels, from the local to the supranational, both politically and economically, since, on the ground, their success is linked more to international tourism DQGWRXULVPÀRZVWKDQWRHIIHFWLYHSROLWLFDOFKDQJHV5DPXWVLQGHOD  7KHLQWHUYHQWLRQRILQWHUQDWLRQDO1*2VRULQWHUQDWLRQDO¿QDQFLDOinstitutions VXFKDVWKH:RUOG%DQNKDVDOVREHHQVHHQDVDQLOOXVWUDWLRQRI³E\SDVVLQJ RI FHQWUDO LQVWLWXWLRQV´ 'XII\    LQ WKH SURFHVV RI GH¿QLQJ nature WKURXJKDFRPSOH[V\PEROLVDWLRQRIWKHVWDWHERUGHUDOLQHWKDWVKRXOGEH HUDVHGRQO\WRWKHSRLQWWKDWLWGRHVQRWGLVDSSHDUDVDUHVRXUFH  The striking conclusion of twenty years of active cooperation over nature and borders is that there is no clear political outcome of cooperating natures. Changes in the legitimacy of territorial divides seem to have occurred, but these are not more inclusive than under the dividing nature’s paradigm. If more actors have been allowed into the negotiation chamber, some only bear paper rights. Much of the literature denounces the fact WKDW LQ WKH FURVVERUGHU DUHDV GHGLFDWHG WR WKRURXJK FRQVHUYDWLRQ ORFDO SHRSOHZKRRIWHQFRLQFLGHZLWKKLVWRULFDOO\H[FOXGHGPLQRULWLHVKDYHQRW really been included in management schemes. Especially in cases where WKH\KDYHH[SHULHQFHGSUHYLRXVH[SXOVLRQVWRDOORZIRUWKHHVWDEOLVKPHQW of the protected perimeters, the recognition of their rights has appeared HYHQPRUHGLI¿FXOW&XQGLOOHWDO +RZHYHUPRVWRIWKHVHZULWLQJV tend to stress the fact that “the moves towards transfrontier conservation areas can also be viewed as part of a process of shifting responsibility for FRQVHUYDWLRQRXWRIVWDWHKDQGVDQGLQWRWKHKDQGVRIVXSUDVWDWHHQWLWLHV´ 'XII\ $FORVHUUHDGLQJRIVRPHFDVHVUHYHDOVTXLWHWKHRSSRVLWH environmental cooperation can serve to reinforce national objectives and strengthen state actors, who remain in charge of powerful regulatory tools in this GRPDLQ1RUPDQ 2SHUDWLQJLQDYHU\OLEHUDOFRQWH[WFURVV border nature building meets a very traditional conception of ecological UHJLRQDOLVP 5DPXWVLQGHOD   7KLV PD\ EH ZK\ DOWKRXJK QXPHURXV projects continue to communicate and function under this paradigm, a good QXPEHU HVFDSH WKLV FDWHJRULVDWLRQ DQG WKHLU UHODWLRQ WR ERUGHUV UHÀHFWV D form of panicking nature.

Panicking nature In recent years, the links between border and nature issues have been H[SUHVVHGWKURXJKWKHtransnationalisation of environmental questions. This apparent loss of precise location not only complicates the politics of scale, it also deeply questions the notion of conservation itself, and its traditional



%RUGHUVIURP+LVWRULFDOWR3URVSHFWLYH(SLVWHPRORJLHV



reference to ELRUHJLRQDOLVP9LULOLR WHOOVXVWKDWEHFDXVHWKHGLVWDQFH embedded by the border grid is removed, fear can arise quickly, even panic. If ‘elsewhere begins here’ we are faced with the need to reformulate our relationship with a nature that is no longer ‘out there’, on the peripheries of our cities or of the national territory, but which hurts us at heart. More integration is required in the formulation of all the relationships that accommodate dimensions of our environment into an ecology that includes XVWKURXJKKXPDQDVZHOODVQXPHURXVQRQKXPDQLQWHUDFWLRQV,QVRPXFK as this ‘Latourian’ view may be useful to reformulate any analysis of the link between nature and conservation, it may even lead us to negate the SRVVLELOLW\RIH[LVWHQFHRIQDWXUHDVDKXPDQZHVWHUQUHSUHVHQWDWLRQ RU HYHQ RI ERUGHUV DV GLYLGHV ZKLFK GR QRW H[LVW ZKHQ DOO FDWHJRULHV KDYH PRELOHSHULPHWHUV  It may appear that the analysis of Virilio is wrong as much as it is ULJKW(YHQLIWKUHDWHQHGE\WLPHFRPSUHVVLRQGLVWDQFHVWLOOH[LVWV+DUYH\  0DVVH\  $QG VR GR QDWXUDO HOHPHQWV RU VSHFL¿F ecosystems, representing material constraints which may be used as the ground for FRQVHUYDWLRQ SHULPHWHUV )RU H[DPSOH WKH FDVH RI PRXQWDLQV LV TXLWH illustrative because “the constraints that they represent oblige the observer to take into account the multiple dimensions of what is generally referred WRDIWHU%UXQR/DWRXUDVWKHµQRQKXPDQ¶/DWRXU >«@,WDSSHDUVWKDW the border is no longer seen as the periphery of a territory, but as a founding HOHPHQWRIFRPSOH[WHUULWRULDOLWLHV,QWKLVUHVSHFWWKHERUGHUKDVQRWRQO\ a controlling and limiting function but also plays the role of operator or agent in processes. The approach via borders leads us to question, however, the political dimension of a relational thought: like it or not, one has to DGPLWWKDWµWKHZRUOGFDQQRWEHÀDW¶´$PLOKDW6]DU\ 7KXVWKHYHU\ important issue that comes to the forefront when tackling panicking natures is the need to acknowledge materialities without leaving aside their social DQGGLDOHFWLFDOFRPSRQHQW6PLWKDQG2¶.HHIH  7KH ¿UVW VSDWLDO HOHPHQW RI WKLV QHZ FRQ¿JXUDWLRQ RI ERUGHUV LV WKH fact that the components to be analysed are all transnational. The most evident of them is the paradigm of global change which links all ecological transformations and provides a common framework to interpret them. It DOVRLQFOXGHVWKHLPSDFWRILQWHQVL¿FDWLRQRIKXPDQDFWLRQVRQELRV\VWHPV LHWKHIDFWWKDWZHKDYHHQWHUHGWKHµDQWKURSRFHQH¶&UXW]HQDQG6WRHUPHU  6WHIIHQ HW DO   RQ ZKLFK WKH MRXUQDOLVW &RRNVRQ   QRWHG that the “human impact on the global environment now rivals that of nature – and climate change is only one of the results.” This impact induces an apparent global disorder, which may not be maintained under a b/



Chapter Three

ordering WHUULWRULDOLVDWLRQ 9DQ +RXWXP .UDPVFK DQG =LHIKRIHU   Global change obliges us to consider what there is to preserve from/for nature? How do we adapt conservation policies to moving boundaries, whether political or technical? It forces us out of the binary thinking which we have seen is dominant in the two other types of relations between nature and borders. 7KH¿UVWHOHPHQWRISURRIXVXDOO\PRELOLVHGWRVXVWDLQWKLVDQDO\VLVLVWKH fact that environmental problems are transnational, and as such, challenge the power of the state as a major environmental regulator. In this sense, not RQO\KDYHVSHFL¿FLQVWLWXWLRQVHPHUJHGZLWKLQH[LVWLQJJOREDOLQVWLWXWLRQV such as the World Bank, through its *OREDO(QYLURQPHQW)DFLOLW\*() RU GHGLFDWHGDWVSHFL¿FUHJLRQVRUWKHPHVVXFKDVWKH7ULODWHUDO&RPPLVVLRQ for Environmental Cooperation for 1RUWK$PHULFD&(& EXWHQYLURQPHQWDO conservation has become a competence of all components of society, from FLYLODFWLYLVWVWRJOREDO¿UPVZKRKDYHOHDUQWWRPDQDJHHQYLURQPHQWDOLVVXHV LQ RUGHU WR PDNH WKHLU ZD\ WKURXJK WKH H[SORLWDWLRQ RI natural resources ZKLFKVNLUWWKHERUGHU$PLOKDW6]DU\ +RZHYHULQWKH¿HOGWKRVH actors which threaten or back up the state regulatory power have more GLUHFWUHVXOWVLQIRFXVHG¿JKWVWKDQWKURXJKJHQHUDODZDUHQHVVFDPSDLJQV The case of Metales y Derivados, a lead smelter in Tijuana, which was VKXWGRZQDQGOHIWXQFOHDQHGLQE\LWV0H[LFDQRZQHUDVXEVLGLDU\ RID0H[LFDQFRPSDQ\FDQEHFRQVLGHUHGVLJQL¿FDQW*DQVWHUDQG/RUH\  5HVRUWLQJWRWKH&(&DQGKDYLQJWKHPSURYLGHDQDGYHUVDULDOUHSRUW enforced the cleaning up of the site, which had been largely completed by WKHFRPSDQ\E\7KH86SDUNQHWZRUNV\VWHPLVDQRWKHUH[DPSOHRI this process. The network is portrayed as an urban metro map, indicating the IDFWWKDWDOOSURWHFWHGDUHDVDUHOLQNHGHYHQLIQRWFRQWLQXRXV)LJXUH  However, the national borders are still quite visible: they transform Alaska into an island but silence all other continental parks. The message that the LOOXVWUDWLRQGHOLYHUVLVSUREDEO\WKHRSSRVLWHRIZKDWZDVLQWHQGHG 7KHPXOWLVFDOLQJRIFRQVHUYDWLRQDFWLRQVLPSOLHVPRUHWKDQDQ\WKLQJ the growing possibility of environmental FRQÀLFWV RQ WKH EDVLV RI ULYDO OHJLWLPDFLHVH[HUWHGRYHUQDWXUH*X\RW 7KLVFDQUHVXOWLQUHFXUUHQW violence in conservation areas, but also in all of the locations which lend themselves to less intensive nature policies, either because the claims over the use of resources differ (claiming environmental justice is not always EHQHYROHQW  RU EHFDXVH WKH DEXQGDQFH RI WKRVH YHU\ UHVRXUFHV RSHQV WKH way for both protection and depredation. The fact that protected areas are UHPRWHPDNHVWKHFRQWURORIOHJDODQGLOOHJDODFWLYLWLHVGLI¿FXOWEHFDXVHRI WKHORZGHQVLWLHVRIUDQJHUVHYHQLQULFKFRXQWULHV0RXPDQHL[ 7KH



%RUGHUVIURP+LVWRULFDOWR3URVSHFWLYH(SLVWHPRORJLHV



Figure 3-1:$ERUGHUHGQHWZRUNRI86SURWHFWHGDUHDV VRXUFHKWWSFRQWHQWVLHUUDFOXERUJ0@The U.S.-Mexican Border into the TwentyFirst Century. /DQKDP0'5RZPDQ /LWWOH¿HOG *DUGLQ-³*HVWLRQGHOD*UDQGH)DXQH9HUVXQ6DXYDJHeTXLSp"/HFDVG¶RXUV Grecs”. In Le Monde en Pièces. Pour une Critique de la Gestion (Volume 1: Quanti¿er)HGLWHGE\2EORPRII*SS±3DULV(GLWLRQVGHOD/HQWHXU *LUDXW)6*X\RWDQG0+RXVVD\+RO]VFKXFK³/D1DWXUHOHV7HUULWRLUHV et le Politique en Afrique du Sud.” Annales Histoire, Sciences Sociales ±  *X\RW6³7KH(FR)URQWLHU3DUDGLJP5HWKLQNLQJWKH/LQNVEHWZHHQ6SDFH Nature and Politics.” Geopolitics ± +DGRW 3  Le voile d’Isis. Essai sur l’Histoire de l’Idée de Nature. Paris: Gallimard. +DUYH\'The Condition of Postmodernity. 2[IRUG%DVLO%ODFNZHOO +DUYH\ '  ³%HWZHHQ 6SDFH DQG 7LPH 5HÀHFWLRQV RQ WKH *HRJUDSKLFDO Imagination.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers± +RFNLQJ%Localizing Foreign Policy: Non-central Governments and Multilayered Diplomacy. London: MacMillan. +RJHQERRP%0$O¿H&RKHQDQG($QWDOHGVCross-border Activism and its Limits: Mexican Environmental Organizations and the United States. 0H[LFR&HQWUHIRU/DWLQ$PHULFDQ5HVHDUFKDQG'RFXPHQWDWLRQ&('/$  .HDWLQJ0³5HJLRQVDQG,QWHUQDWLRQDO$IIDLUV0RWLYHV2SSRUWXQLWLHVDQG Strategies.” In Paradiplomacy in Action, edited by $OGHFRD)DQG0.HDWLQJ ±/RQGRQ)UDQN&DVV /DWRXU%>@Nous n’avons Jamais été Modernes: Essai d’Anthropologie Symétrique 3DULV/D'pFRXYHUWH /DXVVRQ$  ³/¶HQMHX eFRORJLTXH GDQV OH 7UDYDLO GHV /DQG HW 5HFODPDWLRQ Artists.” Cybergeo: European Journal of Geography – Aménagement, Urbanisme. \EHUJHRUHYXHVRUJLQGH[KWPO /RUULPHU +  ³&XOWXUDO *HRJUDSK\ WKH %XV\QHVV RI %HLQJ µ0RUHWKDQ representational’.” Progress in Human Geography  ± /XVVDXOW0³1DWXUH´,QDictionnaire de la Géographie et de l’Espace des Sociétés qPH pGLWLRQ  HGLWHG E\ /pY\ - DQG 0 /XVVDXOW ±3DULV Belin. /\RWDUG-)La Condition Postmoderne: Rapport sur le Savoir. Paris: Minuit.



Chapter Three

0DFSKHUVRQ +  ³1RQ5HSUHVHQWDWLRQDO $SSURDFKHV WR %RG\ /DQGVFDSH Relations.” Geography Compass ± 0DUJOHV 6: 5% 3HWHUVRQ - (UYLQ DQG %$ .DSOLQ  ³&RQVHUYDWLRQ Without Borders: Building Communication and Action Across Disciplinary Boundaries for Effective Conservation.” Environmental Management ± 0DUWLQ (:  ³$FWRUQHWZRUNV DQG LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ H[DPSOHV IURP FRQ servation GIS in Ecuador.” International Journal of Geographical Information Science (IJGIS)± 0DVVH\'³3ROLWLFVDQG6SDFH7LPH´New Left Review $SULO ± 0RULQ(La méthode, 1. La Nature de la Nature. Paris: Seuil. 0RXPDQHL[ &  ³&RRSpUDWLRQ HW &RQWUHEDQGH GH 'URJXH GDQV OHV 3DUFV &RIURQWDOLHUV GX 1RUGRXHVW $PpULFDLQ 0DVVLI GHV &DVFDGHV ´ L’espace Politique. KWWSHVSDFHSROLWLTXHUHYXHVRUJ 1RUGPDQ'Frontières de France. Paris: Gallimard. 1RUPDQ (6  Transboundary Water Governance: Canada, the U.S. and Indigenous Communities. London: Routledge. 3LFRXHW 3  ³/HV %RXFKHV GH %RQLIDFLRQ 'H OD )URQWLqUH 0DULWLPH DX Renouveau du lien Maritime.” In Regards Géopolitiques sur les Frontières, HGLWHGE\%RXTXHW&DQG+9pODVFR*UDFLHW±3DULV/¶+DUPDWWDQ 3RSHVFX*Bordering and Ordering the Twenty-First Century: Understanding Borders/DQKDP0'5RZPDQ /LWWOH¿HOG 4XLQQ06/%UREHUJDQG:)UHLPXQGHGVParks, Peace, and Partnership: Global Initiatives in Transboundary Conservation&DOJDU\8QLYHUVLW\RI Calgary Press. 5DPXWVLQGHOD0Parks and People in Postcolonial Societies: Experiences in Southern Africa.'RUGUHFKW.OXZHU6SULQJHU 5DPXWVLQGHOD0Transfrontier Conservation in Africa. At the ConÀuence of Capital, Politics and Nature. Boston M.A.: CABI. 5DPXWVLQGHOD0³7UDQVIURQWLHU&RQVHUYDWLRQDQGWKH6SDFHVRI5HJLRQDO isms.” In The Ashgate Research Companion to Regionalism, edited by Shaw, A., $*UDQWDQG&6FDUOHWW±)DUQKDP$VKJDWH 5DQFLqUH-Le Spectateur Émancipé. Paris: La Fabrique. 5DQFLqUH-Dissensus: On Politics and Aesthetics1HZ