{"title":"Protected Areas Managers, Local Authorities, and Transboundary Conservation: The French Experience","authors":"S. Jolivet","doi":"10.1080/13880292.2019.1602952","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article deals with the French experience in transboundary nature conservation and is based on some of the main outcomes of a book the author published in 2016. Transboundary conservation is one of the main challenges of contemporary international wildlife law, because, although wildlife knows no boundaries, public law is focused on boundaries. France is not necessarily an example to be followed in this respect, but its experience may be instructive on how transboundary conservation could develop (or not) in a country with the following attributes: a Western European country; a member state of the European Union; a unitary state; and a country (as far as metropolitan France is concerned) with eight terrestrial boundaries (with Andorra, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Spain, and Switzerland). In South America, the French department of Guyana also shares two terrestrial boundaries with Brazil and Suriname. As a consequence, about ten French protected areas are already adjacent to a foreign protected area across the border. The article will try to answer several questions: Why should (or must) France carry out transboundary conservation? Why should (if not must) France allow protected areas managers and local authorities to cooperate beyond boundaries? How to overcome barriers to transboundary cooperation between protected areas managers and/or local authorities? What are the new challenges to be faced by transboundary conservation at an infrastate level?","PeriodicalId":52446,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13880292.2019.1602952","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article deals with the French experience in transboundary nature conservation and is based on some of the main outcomes of a book the author published in 2016. Transboundary conservation is one of the main challenges of contemporary international wildlife law, because, although wildlife knows no boundaries, public law is focused on boundaries. France is not necessarily an example to be followed in this respect, but its experience may be instructive on how transboundary conservation could develop (or not) in a country with the following attributes: a Western European country; a member state of the European Union; a unitary state; and a country (as far as metropolitan France is concerned) with eight terrestrial boundaries (with Andorra, Belgium, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Monaco, Spain, and Switzerland). In South America, the French department of Guyana also shares two terrestrial boundaries with Brazil and Suriname. As a consequence, about ten French protected areas are already adjacent to a foreign protected area across the border. The article will try to answer several questions: Why should (or must) France carry out transboundary conservation? Why should (if not must) France allow protected areas managers and local authorities to cooperate beyond boundaries? How to overcome barriers to transboundary cooperation between protected areas managers and/or local authorities? What are the new challenges to be faced by transboundary conservation at an infrastate level?
期刊介绍:
Drawing upon the findings from island biogeography studies, Norman Myers estimates that we are losing between 50-200 species per day, a rate 120,000 times greater than the background rate during prehistoric times. Worse still, the rate is accelerating rapidly. By the year 2000, we may have lost over one million species, counting back from three centuries ago when this trend began. By the middle of the next century, as many as one half of all species may face extinction. Moreover, our rapid destruction of critical ecosystems, such as tropical coral reefs, wetlands, estuaries, and rainforests may seriously impair species" regeneration, a process that has taken several million years after mass extinctions in the past.