The need to create transboundary territories of complete ecological peace

Here is what I am thinking: how reasonable is it to create isolated territories of complete ecological peace within the borders of a single state? After all, they will tear them apart without regard for anything — if not today, then tomorrow. Even if one “ruler” decides to place a large area of wild nature under special protection and create a territory of complete ecological peace, another will come and cancel that decision as “harmful to economic development.”

But.

If such decisions are made at an allied level, a restraining factor will also emerge. In that case, perhaps the best solution would be to create transboundary territories of complete ecological peace, rather than trying to isolate such projects within administrative borders. Especially since mountain ranges, river basins, animal migration routes, forest massifs, and steppe ecosystems, as a rule, extend across several states at once. This is especially true when we are speaking about smaller countries.

Therefore, the creation of transboundary territories of complete ecological peace would make it possible not only to restrain local decisions from attempts to “roll back” nature protection, but also to create a full-fledged protected-area system. It turns out that such an approach is more objective: we are guided not by administrative borders, but by entire biogeographic regions. Within transboundary territories of complete ecological peace, where a unified system of rules, monitoring standards, and agreements on buffer zones will be created, it will be difficult to destroy a territory of complete ecological peace by a unilateral decision. And the model itself is more effective.

The only problem is that if we try to achieve the creation of transboundary territories of complete ecological peace, the task becomes even more difficult. It will not be enough simply to define a huge ideal value — a boundary — on a map. It will require small steps, numerous agreements, the coordination of corridors, the protection of water basins, the adoption of unified rules, and so on.

As a structure, this is more correct and more rigid. As a goal to achieve, it is more difficult than trying to push through the creation of a territory of complete ecological peace in some small state. Here, it is necessary somehow to make states see their own benefit in this. But what benefit?